with and and ending at that particular sentence in line 23. it's a -- it will be admitted. online 24, the last part of that beginning with the word because, i don't believe there is a foundation for that. that's speculation. mr. keith? >> our response would be that this explains her mental state and motivation and why she's so emotional about this. we're not offering it for weather the child actually understood what is being said. but rather from ms. lopez's reason for her concern. chairperson hur: i'm inclined to allow the -- that -- that. any oks? >> no. >> and then the last sentence on page five beginning online 26 with the word "ass," all the way until the end of the sentence. we think there's no foundation and speculative and prejudicial. >> it pro ports to be a court. so when you say no foundation it's what she's saying this is what iliana said to her. whether it's true or not it's another question. but it's not being offered for that purpose at all. it's been offered saying this is what she said when she spoke to her. i was a little unclear as to the reason why it's being offered. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any hundreding view -- any more questions from the commission? >> paragraph 12? >> again, we have the standing hearsay objection. as to the sentence number two online to beginning with the words from her description. that's speculation. jerry: -- >> mr. keith? >> ms. madison is stating her interpretation of what ms. madison said. sometimes we have a conversation and we get an impression. she's repeating her impression. obviously, she wasn't there. but she is certainly able to get her interpretation of what somebody else said and the gist of what was being conveyed. i mean that was -- that's standard conversation and communication. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? >> no. >> mr. kopp? >> yes. then online seven to line eight, the sentence beginning with i and finishing with the word am more prejudicial than probative, irrelevant. >> well, i actually don't have a problem with striking the last block of the sentence. three minutes over? the micro phone. the part whether and i still am. that's not relevant. but what i do believe is relevant, i is it explains why ms. madison took the action that she did, the concern that she had and that prompted her to take the actions that she took. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. the last part of line seven through the sentence that ends with am online e -- on line e. any decenting views from the commission? ok. >> just to clarify was the ruling the whole sentence goes? >> the whole sentence. so it begins with i at the end of line seven and ends with am in the middle of line eight. >> and nothing additional on that paragraph. >> paragraph 13, mr. kopp? >> yes. again, heresay to the whole thing. but lines 18 through 20, the sentence -- sentences that begin i asked and the next sentence begins she said. relevance no foundation, it's speculation. prejudicial. >> mr. keith? >> i think that -- i think that -- i actually don't agree with most of the objection but it's probably -- it's probably not relevant within the stream of what's being conveyed. so i think that we wouldn't oppose that. >> ok. so that is -- the objection is sustained by stipulation as to the sentence that begins "i asked" online 18 and ends with the word "career" online 20. do i have that correct? >> yep. >> thank you. >> paragraph 14. >> heresay as to the whole thing. and then the very last line which is online seven, lines two to three, the very last sentence in that beginning with the word "my" finishing with the word "do," there's no foundation. i'm sorry. was i going too fast? chairperson hur: no. >> no foundation for that and speculation. chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> this is actually relevant to show ms. lopez's state of mind and to show her hesitancey to call the police and this of course part of the conversation. again, we're trying to ascertain why and how this investigation started. so it's relevant for that purpose. are we talki and three on page even? >> yes. >> oh, that's not miss -- that's as i understand it ms. madison speculating as to why she -- she says it's my impression. how is her impression -- how is that a factual evidence? >> i -- i think it's her interpretation of what ms. lopez was saying. she may be shearing her gloss on that. it's not clear from the declaration. so i think in light of the fact we can't ask her for clarification on this point, i'm not sure how to proceed on that. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. any decenting view from the commission? hearing none, paragraph 15. >> yes, again heresay sazz to the entire paragraph onlines 10 through 13. the entire sentence beginning with "she" and ending with "argument," that's irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. chairperson hur: line 10 begins with "she" and ending with "argument." ok. mr. keith? >> just a moment. chairperson hur: sure. so this is relevant for this reason -- sheriff has claimed in his public statements that she's refered to the custody laws as being powerful that he never called himself a very powerful man. the fact that this exchange happened and that ms. lopez was communicating that she had asked with her husband how this is a problem in the past that he had made the statement that he was a powerfulman and could use that to get custody with theo. the fact that there has been a previous discussion of this issue and her understanding of what he said tends to defeat the sheriff's claim that there was some kind of a misunderstanding that he was refering to the custody laws. if there were that misunderstanding would have been cured by that conversation. so the facthat she's saying we talked about -- this prompted a conversation before and she still had the same impression that he was threatening to use his power to use theo's shows that there wasn't a statement that the sheriff made that the custody laws were powerful. questions for mr. keith. comments from the commissioners? you know, this paragraph to me starts to get to statements that occurred on january 1st but we're reflecting -- it's getting closer to heresay, clear heresay to me. >> we're not offering what he said or what she said in that conversation. we're offer it for the fact that there was a conversation about these comments in the past. if there was a conversation about these comments in the past then it's likely that any misunderstanding about what the sheriff meant would have been clarified that point. so again it's not about what was said in these past conversations it's that a conversation happened that is relevant. >> i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> i mean, i would agree that i think we're getting a little farther feel from the utter rans exception that you've been relying on mr. keith to -- >> well, the excited utterance exception would be if this would be admitted for truth of what was said in the truth of these conversations that happened in the past. if we wanted to admit it for that purpose. but we don't. we only want to show that this issue about what he meant or what he said he was a very powerful man or the fact that he had said it had come up in the past. and that is a nonheresay purpose just to show that there was a conversation because if there was a conversation, the reason that this is relevant -- if there was a conversation that would have carried any misunderstanding. i mean, the claim here was that there was an accident or a misunderstanding of what the sheriff said. chairperson hur: right. so -- i would understand the -- that it's not for the truth if we were trying to evaluate whether or not he was a power. man who could take theo away -- who could take the child away. but the statement itself whether or not it was made is relevant to our inquirey as to whether it relates to official misconduct. so i do think it's still a heresay purpose. >> this is about prior discussions where -- that were prompted by similar statements and the argument is well if she misunderstood him certainly those prior discussions would have clarified it. i would -- i would be inclined to overrule the objection on paragraph 15. you know, and -- i would caution both parties again that when it comes to heresay we're going to need nonheresay evidence but heresay might be used to bowlsster but if the evidence is only heresay i think you know the commission is going to weigh it less. is there any objection to the overruling of the objection on paragraph 15? >> no. 16? >> actually -- i -- i'm sorry i wasn't quite through. >> you had more objections to paragraph 16? >> i wish i had less. >> 15, i'm sorry. >> the last sentence in paragraph 15 beginning online 14 and concluding online 16 starting with the word "she," i believe that's speculation and there's no foundation. it looks to me like this is ms. madison giving her impression again as to the reason why ms. lopez brought this issue up during this conversation. >> mr. keith? >> i agree. chairperson hur: ok. that is stricken. the sentence beginning with she and ending with threat online 16 -- on line 16, paragraph 16? >> yes. the -- let's see. it's the fourth sentence beginning online 14 ending online 21 beginning with "i" ending with the word "that." the minute miening of this sentence -- the meaning of the sentence isn't clear to me so i guess the proper objection is unintelligible. maybe it's dense but i can't tell what that sentence says or means. chairperson hur: ok. mr. keith? >> well, the sentence -- what i think it means is that she didn't ask and she didn't know why ms. lopez kept saying in 2011. i mean, i think that's the meaning of the sentence. it could have been conveyed in fewer words but she's honestly reporting, i didn't ask about this but she kept saying in 2011. i think as cryptic as this is, the meaning is clear that she didn't know why she kept saying 2011, it wasn't clear. >> i'd be inclined to strike the sentence that begins "i" online 21. i think that's speculation. any objection? any decenting view from the commission? mr. kopp anything else on paragraph 16? >> yes. the next sentence now sounds like another level of heresay that is what this person venezuela said to ms. lopez and again it's not rem vant. and then the very next sentence beginning online 23 i don't believe there's any foundation that looks like speculation and it's not relevant. this is offered to show ms. lopez's state of mind and, you know, perhaps indicate why -- what spurred her to action here. we're certainly not offering it for the truth for the conversation she had with somebody in venleds. it's -- in venezuela. it was to explain the way she was feeling and why she was feeling the way she's feeling. i think a person can interpret a look that they're given like that didn't work so well and that explains ms. lopez's state of mind and explains why she chose toe do what she did which is to confide in a friend and make a video. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection to the sentence beginning she and ending withed a -- with advice. two sentences. is there a decenting view among the commissioners? ok. paragraph 17. >> yes, this entire paragraph is irrelevant and -- i don't know how this could be more prejudicial than probative. i mean, the probative value in here in my opinion is nil. the prejudicial value is extreme. >> mr. keith? >> one moment. this is the reason why i felt ms. lopez felt she had to make the video. we're not offering this for the truth of the matter. it explains her motivation for making the video, her conditions for making the video and her state of mind and why she chose to make it. again, we're not offering this for the truth of what's said. again, it's to show why somebody did what they did which is a proper nonheresay purpose. >> i would sustain the objection on paragraph 17 and its entirety. i think it's irrelevant and to me it constitutes 352. is there a desening view among the commissioners? >> i agree. chairperson hur: paragraph 18? >> easier if you just pull it out. >> oh, ok. the first sentence on paragraph 18, the second clause, but as she new, comma, there's no foundation and it's speculation. i don't have any objection to the remainder of the sentence. just my second objection is kind of along those lines. the very next sentence online 12 to line 13 beginning with the word "since" and ending with attorney". it's speculation. there's no foundation. do you want to take that up first and then i can continue or should i just lay them all out? mr. keith any objection to those two? >> yeah, i think that ms. madison certainly has foundation to discuss what a friend knows about her because she has a relationship with that friend and has given her friend that information in the course of her relationship. and certainly a person is capable of saying that somebody who they know for a long type, oh, they know that i am this and that i'm not this, it comes with knowing somebody. it is something that's within ms. madison's personal knowledge. >> that very well may be through but i don't see anything that establishes that foundation. had she said, i had told her we had discussed it, but there's no foundation for why -- why she knew. you can tell me where is that foundation. >> ok. let me check for a moment. there is some foundation to that. in addition to the fact ha the earlier paragraph established the existence of their relationship on page 21, lines six through eight there are references that sort of pass details of what she had told her friend. ok. i would -- i would sustain the objections, the two oks. i think if those statements on page 21 come in, if there are -- if we could find those come in separately, if we get to them but i would sustain the objections and strike the phrase "but" ending with attorney on line 12 beginning on 12 and ending with attorney on 13. any decenting views from the commissioners? >> point of certification. i felt the first objection was to the clause "but as she knew" as opposed to -- >> ah. >> that actually would be -- yes, my mistake -- ms. madison is probably able to say -- >> "as she knew" probably should be taken out. chairperson hur: thank you for the clarification. on the second one, was that -- did i get that right? let's get through paragraph 18 and then i think i'm going have to propose a different mechanism for resolving these objections. any further objections to 18? >> yes. irrelevant as to the rest of it. and more this is to the point i made earlier ant the fact that none of this was a spontaneous statement because it was made in the anticipation of litigation specifically child custody and or divorce. but in any evpbd -- event, the rest of the paragraph is not relevant. chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> i agree, it may not be relevant. >> so, can you give me the line numbers again? mr. ko prving p, i didn't mark it. >> it would be lines 13 to the end of that paragraph which is on line 22. chairperson hur: so beginning with "i" online 13. >> and ending with "ok." chairperson hur: ok that objection is sustained. ok. i mean -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to keep the last sentence just as it says. it's the course of the communication. i think i spoke to -- i spoke quicker than i should have. no problem. >> you're talking about the sentence -- >> i asked her to let me know. it just described the course of what happened next in the conversation. any objection to that, mr. kopp? >> yes. i don't think it's irrelevant. chairperson hur: i'd be incline to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? ok. , we'll literally be here all night if we do this and we have other declarations. so, i welcome views from the parties on how to handle this and from my fellow commissioners -- >> i would propose that we do written oks and back and forth. and there may be very well be many that we agree on and don't contest and that could speed things along, and plus, we won't have to do this on our feet and we'll be able to go much more quickly. chairperson hur: mr. kopp, what do you think of that? >> we're willing to do that. our objections would probably be similar to what we've done already, which is to state the legal objection and not really expand upon that. if you are going to want us to speak further on it, i'm not sure that it will speed things up, but we can certainly try it. chairperson hur: commissioners views on handling this? hoip i would just go back -- chairperson hayon: i would go back to what commissioner renne propose and we could go back to this second declaration that we haven't gone through yet. chairperson hur: i think we should discuss that proposal. and think relevant to that should discuss that proposal. and think relevant to that