 This conference will now be recorded. I'll move to approve the June 8th and June 15th minutes. Second. Any discussion? I mean, not all in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Item number six. The best of my knowledge, I know we discussed that the hiring pool would be a year. Right. I'm currently had asked me if that's what we indeed had done. So at least from Carly's perspective, she doesn't have it that it was for a year. Okay. So I put on the agenda simply for the purposes of establishing the higher, the hiring pool for one year. I'll move to, that we go to a hiring, one year hiring pool for those individuals selected for the fire department. Is there a second? Can I just? We'll have a discussion. Sure. Second. Second. Okay. Mike, discussion. Just if you're going to make it one year, can we just make it one year? Yes. Okay. Just so it's in there. So I know exactly. We won't go that long. We won't ask for a friendly amendment. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. All in favor. Hi. Okay. Very good. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I was going to say for the last couple of days, we're good to go. Okay. Modes. I want to ask for a motion on number seven. No. No. Eight. No, you don't need to go into close. Oh, not close. I see the motion for the hearing. I'm sorry. And you don't have to. I just give her motion at this point. You just conduct. Okay. Thank you. We shall do so. Unless there's any objections. Okay. So it's up to you as a commission handle hearing. Obviously there are numerous motions and some of them, if you decide them may make others mood, although there may be some benefit to deciding all or most of the motions regardless of whether they become moot. So the order is really up to you. I've sort of, as I look at them, I think there's primarily, I think Mr. Daniels' motions are primarily procedural and deal a lot with the procedure at the hearing. Mr. Westbrook's motions are primarily substantive and really relate to whether the motions can even go ahead. But again, it's up to you how you want to take those in order. There's not necessarily a legal requirement that you take them in any particular order. Commissioners, any thoughts? Well normally the, normally I could be wrong on this and chuckle, correct me. The person who made the first motions to dismiss or things like that go first, I think then Justin Daniels' motions get heard also. And we can decide this after we've discussed this and heard oral arguments. Normally that's the normal way things are done. So can I ask a question of the board? Would you, so I filed two motions to dismiss the complaint entirely? And obviously a ruling in the chief's favor on either of those two motions would render the rest. Would you meet in between or is your plan to hear all of them and then meet at the end? Hear them all. I think we hear them all and we need to end. We're not going to shortcut this. Yeah. I think that's probably one. Yep. Hear them all and make determinations even if your decision is out there or turns out to make a move and that's the right decision. All right. With that understood, which party is going to be the motion? So likely then you would, you would have the motions to dismiss. It dealt with first. And it's up to you whether you want to do them in any order or if you just want to leave it up to Mr. Westbrook to present his particular motions in the order he chooses. Let me ask this question. Since we got several motions, are we going to do alternating on each motion so Mr. Daniels can also speak to each motion or all at the end? No, I think we should do it with each motion. I think so. How each party to speak to. That's fine. I can agree with that. Do you have a preference as to which motion to take first or? I think we can leave that up to Attorney Westbrook. All right. I will just start then. What's the first one in your answer? I have lack of standing. Okay. So I'm happy to go into additional detail what I provided here. Can we just verify what page that is? I'm sorry. Page what? 30. I'm going off the stuff that we got the other day. Yep. Because that's my marked up stuff. Nope. I got it. Yep. Thank you. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. I appreciate it. Yep. Thank you. So as indicated in the motion, Wisconsin statute 62.13 sub five sub B requires that charges against police officers be brought by a whole list of personnel. And then also it says by an aggrieved person. The statute doesn't further define what an aggrieved person is. So that is left up to interpretation of courts and boards. The reason behind this as discussed in numerous court decisions is that oftentimes the best person to bring a charge is the person who actually experienced it and has the most information relating to what happened. It's common practice and recognized by numerous courts and other cities here in Wisconsin that have policies that in order for a third party to file a complaint or charge themselves, they would need to show reason why the person who actually has the standing can't file that charge themselves or is unable to file that charge. We ask questions while he's presenting this argument. I think you let's let him finish and then we'll ask questions specifically. So in this case, Mr. Daniels, regardless of his assertions is filing this on behalf of Abigail Hernandez. And in my opinion, it is clear that that is the case. She's the only named victim in this document. All of the charges stem from the interactions that the police department had with her. All of the alleged mistreatment is surrounding her. And he admits in his response to this motion that he is aggrieved because, quote, he had to miss several days of work and more of his personal time to make sure that Officer Hernandez was okay, the amount of mental and emotional turmoil that they put her through directly affected him. End quote. That admission says that these charges are entirely related to the treatment of Abby. The one area where he would have standing that he discusses in his response is the delay in receiving the open records request from the Chief. However, that is not one of the charges that he has brought forward in this complaint. So the fact that he would have standing to bring that he did not bring that challenge here. Mr. Daniels then attempts to argue that he would have standing because he is a, quote, highly decorated police officer, end quote, for over 15 years. And that he's aggrieved because the behavior that happened at the Shacoygan Police Department is unacceptable in the profession as a whole. I think the problem with this is that implies that a police officer anywhere could file a charge in any jurisdiction for the behavior of another police officer because it demeans the profession. That's not only impractical, but it would be illogical for the statute to allow that type of a charge. Mr. Daniels states that the city of Shaboygan officers are afraid to come forward and they're quietly supporting this process and want you all to hear the truth. All of those officers that he names but doesn't actually name would have standing to bring a charge. Mr. Daniels does not. In order for Mr. Daniels to bring these charges instead of Abby, he would need to provide some compelling reason as to why she herself is unable to bring the charges and he has not provided any reason. If the commission allows these charges to move forward, it will set the stage to allow third party complainants to file charges on behalf of others for any reason. In his response, he says that he has firsthand knowledge because he talked to a bunch of people. That is not what firsthand knowledge is. That is hearsay. He has no firsthand knowledge or connection to any of these charges. So I would ask that this entire complaint be dismissed for lack of standing. Thank you. Karana, do you have a question? Yeah. Under what situations would a third party be able to act as on behalf of the party that was agreed? I know if you have a disabled child you might get a GAL or something like that, but under what situations can a third party, let me ask this question. Let me give you a reminder. If Justin was married to police officer Hernandez, do you think he would then be in a great party if this happened? I think the facts probably would be more supportive, but I still would say probably not unless there was a reason that Ms. Hernandez could not. The court in Casanada versus Welch, which I cited in my brief, that's the Milwaukee case where they invalidated some of Milwaukee's policies and they said it's because it was too broad, because Milwaukee said no third party can bring a charge and the court said, well, that's not okay because there are some reasons where a third party might be the best person, whether that's because someone is a minor, because someone has a disability, someone is unable to physically be present to write, to speak any of those reasons. However, as noted, the city of Oshkosh's language, which I included in there, sorry in my brief, it is common that department's policies or commission's policies put restrictions on who can file so that no third party can just say, oh yeah, I read about this in the paper or my friend experienced this thing, so I'm going to file a charge on behalf of them, particularly when that party is available and able to to file the charge. As you know, in civil and criminal court, civil court, because criminal court, they don't get to file charges, in civil court it is an issue of standing. You have to show that you personally were affected, impacted or involved in the situation in order to have standing. You can't just know through hearsay and third party information something and file a case and that is what I believe is happening here. Okay, so it isn't the fact that Justin Daniels lives in Plymouth that he's not an agreed party, it's the fact that the other relationship. So I think it's a whole host of things. So for example, a citizen of Sheboygan would have more grounds to bring standing of general police misconduct than someone outside of Sheboygan. Now I think they would have to argue not these specific facts because these are specifically related to one individual person. But for example, let's say a citizen of Sheboygan thought that the police were racially profiling individuals and they experienced it and other people did. Just them as a citizen, I think it's more standing than someone outside of the city of Sheboygan. However, I don't think just because you're a citizen, you have standing. I just think there are numerous things that you should look at to determine whether or not someone has standing. And the fact that he's not a resident of the city nor has he worked here, nor has he done business here since the time of this are even more factors to show he does not have standing. I don't think it is a one or the other. It's not about four tests. So I just want to go back to our police and fire commission handbook that we follow that talks about any free person in here just because I want to make sure we're all clear because so a day that talk about the league has opinion that the term agreed person is construed broadly to include any agreed individual partnership association or body public or corporation a commissioner rule to define defines in a great person to narrowly maybe challenge for an example a commission rule defining a great person is someone who directly affected by the alleged misconduct or the parent or legal guardian of a minor who is directly affected by the alleged misconduct was found to be duly restrictive. So that's the Milwaukee case that that that I brought up. Just want to make sure that we I just want to make sure we all know see and know that. Okay. Are there any other questions? Sure. Thank you. Yeah. So I get what all that verbiage is. I read the motions as you guys did. Obviously, obviously disagree that I'm not an agreed person. Had I not been dating also Hernandez at the time who knows what you guys would have had to deal with. I don't know. But there was a dark time where she was at work in a police car without getting into any details where I was the one to come and pull her in and say you need to go to the PD and drop your gun off. It's not worth it. It's time to go home. So for me having to deal with that and say I'm not agreed in some ways just in my opinion ridiculous. So then obviously I was a police officer at the time. This is all going on. I am the reason why she stayed at this point in PD as long as she did. Even though there's continuous arguments that I allegedly forced her to leave. I in fact said these are police officers are going to do the right thing. We have the investigation out. So she did. And she had to leave because she was out of paid time off and miraculously the investigation completes less than 14 days later. So throughout that process as you can imagine it was very challenging at home when she was off of work struggling. Brian praised continuously being praised on Facebook, getting awards, having newspaper articles done about him. And so what does that leave me? So I just said at home and this is just not supposed to affect me even though every single day of my life I'm dealing with officer Hernandez crying feeling like she's not being taken seriously. Furthermore, I have filed an open records request with the city. They delayed the response by nine months. I am the one who brought Brian praise lying forward to the district attorney about the chief. That was me. I brought that forward in February of 2022. I told the DA Brian pray lied. He's committed a crime. You need to see the internal the chief for whatever reason stalled the release of those records to the DA for nine months. And I had to hire an attorney to send a letter to the city and the chief to say, Hey, you need to release those records. You can't keep those under wraps. So now I'm aggrieved because I've had to spend money to get the city to follow policy and law to release records to me. And again, the not living in the city of Sheboygan. I was a police officer. I had a guy from Indianapolis file a complaint against me. That's just not an argument. If somebody is in your city and they think your police are doing wrong, they can file a complaint. But again, you know, while most of my arguments stem around officer Hernandez, it's because I know the most about that aspect of this investigation. So don't be confused by this. This investigation is 300 pages long. It involves several victims. It involves several policy violations. I just know the most about this one, which is why I'm focusing on this aspect of the case. So I know it keeps being said that I'm going to present hearsay. I'm not going to call witnesses. They're going to come in and testify to what I'm alleging in my complaint. That's that's how this goes. So I think I clearly have a standing in this. I'm not filing this on behalf of officer Hernandez. Maybe in spirit. She hasn't asked me to do this. I haven't asked her if I can do this. This is just me looking for some justice for something a police chief did somebody an employee. I've been proven correct how many times already with regards to this Brian pray has a pretty letter, right? I said that two years ago and people thought I was nuts. Brian pray lied in this investigation. No, he didn't think released a report. The report gets released. He gets a pretty letter. He gets fired. I'm not lying to you guys. This is all real. I've been proven correct on this several times already. Chief has covered this up. It affected me personally with having to go through it with Abby. And now we're here. So I hope you will consider listening to this that the emotional trauma if you will that I guess the emotional turmoil that I've gone through throughout this process as well. Part of the reason I left policing was because of this and how these police officers behaved. So I will touch a little bit more in the complaints on other aspects of this investigation. But again, I know most about Abby scenario, which is why I focus on it. Thank you. You said that this happened while you were dating police officer Hernandez. Are you still dating police officer Hernandez? Did you have to seek any treatment or anything like that because of having to support her in the way you mentioned or anything like that? Any therapy where it affected you that way or emotionally beyond what it already was? I don't wish to discuss. Okay, that's fair. That's fair. I'm just trying to address the standing issue just you understand. Do you think further? Sure. So next I'll address the statute of limitations, which should be the next one in your packet, I would believe. This is another motion to dismiss the complaint entirely. So Mr. Daniels both here today and in all of his complaints continues to state that he is a law enforcement professional, that he understands how to interpret laws, how to interpret policies, understand statutes and policies. Mr. Daniels met with chair hop at the time to understand the process. He posted on social media numerous times that he thought the process was stupid that you had to file something with the chief first before bringing it to the PFC. In Mr. Daniels response, he states that the reason for the delay was because of how quote in depth his complaint is and that he quote needed time to prepare his complaint for the PFC. So it was as accurate as possible and quote. This is an admission by Mr. Daniels that the complaint that he filed with the department was an entirely different complaint than the complaint he filed with you. The complaint he filed with the department lacked the significant information, which he says would assist in the investigation. The purpose of this commission's 10 day rule is because the complaint that the PFC receives should be substantially similar to the complaint that the department receives. This is an appeal of the chief's decision for all intents and purposes. It's a logical to appeal a decision of a complaint by submitting an entirely new complaint. In criminal and civil law, an appeal is almost always based solely on the original complaint with additional briefing, but never based on new facts or new information. When Mr. in civil court, when the plaintiff attempts to argue or add facts that were not originally reviewed or in that original complaint, it gets thrown out. That is what Mr. Daniels is attempting to do here. Mr. Daniels filed the complaint with the police department per your policy. The complaint provided no facts or support. It had the article from the Shiborigen Press attached to it and that was the only evidence that he submitted, the only information he submitted besides the initial few page complaint and it was dismissed. Rather than appeal that decision and give you the same complaint that he gave to the police department, Mr. Daniels felt permitted to spend an additional 50 days drafting an entirely new complaint alleging facts that were never originally provided to the chief and in the original complaint. This goes against the plain purpose of your rule that you have 10 days and it's not allowed under PFC rules. In Mr. Daniels' response, he lists four things that the ABA talks about in determining when you should allow a statute of limitations to not be a bar to moving forward. All of those things that the ABA mentions go against Mr. Daniels. The first one, Mr. Daniels, the delay was entirely in the control of Mr. Daniels. Had he followed the policy, he would have been able to file the complaint which he filed with the police department the same day that he got the denial but definitely within the 10 days allowed under your rules. He chose to delay by more than 50 days with no reason as to why. There was nothing out of his control, no act of God, nothing that happened that impacted his ability to file that appeal within the allowable time limits. Point number two that he makes, while the 50 day delay does not directly impact these proceedings other than the fact that there is now a new commission member and had he filed it in 10 days, the original commission that was there would have heard it, that's neither here or there but that is a difference. The delay caused by Mr. Daniels adds significant amounts of evidence to his complaint which was never allowed to be reviewed by the police department in step one of the complaint process. This has a significant impact on the proceedings because again the complaint he filed didn't have any of the facts and evidence that he has provided to you which doesn't allow the process to work as it was intended by your policy. Number three, as stated before, the filing of this complaint, a completely new complaint with the PFC, strongly prejudices the process as a whole. It doesn't prejudice the chief, it prejudices the process because now people can file a one-page document I complain about X, it's dismissed for lack of evidence, lack of foundation and then they can appeal a brand new complaint to the PFC that's never even gone through step one of your process. And finally, acting in good faith, Mr. Daniels has not acted in good faith in this entire process. He interfered with the original investigation when it happened. He's resorted to name calling and slander on social media and now has chosen to do anything he can to pretend he is a victim of some conspiracy theory by the city of Shevoid. Mr. Daniels wants to be an expert at interpreting criminal law and policies but also wants to be excused for not reading and understanding your policy. He wants to be a champion against discrimination and harassment but also feels entitled to denigrate and harass city staff including myself who are simply doing their job. Good faith means operating with honest or sincerity of intention. That's not how Mr. Daniels has been operating at any point during this entire proceeding. For those reasons I would ask that you dismiss the complaint in its entirety for his failure to meet the statute of limitations for 10 days to file an appeal. Thank you. Mr. Daniels, any questions? Yeah, I think Mr. Daniels raises an excusable neglect and that he claims it was an oversight on his part. I mean, he's a layperson so I don't know if he's an expert and I understand he may know a previous procedure and things like that but I mean normally even courts give leeway to a layperson. Well you would agree with that. I do agree. Okay. Why is it that he doesn't get any leeway? So for two reasons. One, he met with Chair Hop to go over the proceedings. There are emails that he has with Chair Hop where he asks about the proceeding. He has acknowledged in his social media posts that he read and understood the proceedings and thinks that they're stupid that you have to file something with the chief of police first. So he has acknowledged that he had the opportunity to ask questions and know the process. So that he tracks from this idea that he didn't understand or didn't have the opportunity to know what rules he was expected to follow. And then the second thing I would tell you, reason for Mr. Daniels specifically, is because if we want to proceed in this hearing with the understanding that he is a layperson and doesn't know how to, doesn't have the same level of ability to interpret policies and laws and statutes, I am fine proceeding that way. However, Mr. Daniels repeatedly makes the argument that he is advanced at understanding criminal law, at understanding policies. So someone who themselves as a self-professed expert at understanding policies and laws and understanding the intricacies, they have less leeway than a layperson in my opinion. Let me ask this question. You said that when the person does their initial complaint, they can't then go and add on to it. You're not getting thrown out. I think you said to this. I said that the 10-day rule, the purpose in my understanding is that it's 10 days because the complaint should be substantially the same complaint that was filed originally. Okay. But in the process of civil law, you know we can amend complaints. I've answered the seventh amendment complaint in one of my cases. Not after appeal? No, not after appeal. I'm talking before the issue is joined or even after issue is joined. Absolutely. Okay. Would he have that ability to amend his complaint to add additional facts after the appeal? I would say the way your process is set up, this acts more like an appeal than an original complaint hearing. So had he filed his complaint with the police department and then wanted to amend that complaint to add additional facts, additional details, absolutely a complainant would have the right to do that. But to file a one and a half page complaint with just the Shaborgan Press article is proof and say here's my complaint and then take 50 days and draft an entirely new complaint with 300 plus documents attached to it for you to review is an issue of process. The stage one, the original complaint was not the complaint that you have before you today. Yes, it was a complaint that the chief of police was negligent in his duty and covered something up, but it was all his own pros and it was no additional facts, no additional, this person will say this, this is the person you should talk to about this. There was no way to do an investigation because it was the Shaborgan Press article as his evidence, which obviously I have read the Shaborgan Press article. None of the information that you were provided was provided in stage one of the hearing, which in my mind is the original complaint, which you can amend. Yeah. Anything else, Matt? No, that's for right now. Attorney Westbrook, my hearing may be... Yeah. Can you just, toward the end of your answer to Mr. Serrano, you indicated a response about negligence. Did I hear that or something? Attorney Serrano asked, he said that he's, Mr. Daniels, is claiming that I didn't, I don't think I said anything about negligence. Yes, you mentioned negligence, making a claim against the chief from negligence. Oh, that the claim, like on a 5,000-foot level was the same. It's about the chief and how he handled Abbie Hernandez's case. Thank you. We could have played back the recording. Yeah, thank you. So obviously a lot to unpack here. I guess first I'll address the character assassination. I don't believe I ever used the word I'm an expert in any of my complaints. I have said I'm a decorated police officer, which is true. I have many letters of commendation, et cetera, et cetera. I don't claim I'm an expert on anything. I just have common sense to say I didn't act in good faith throughout this process. It's kind of laughable. I'm not the one that covered up a felony crime. I'm not the one that covered for a police officer that lied in an internal investigation until the truth. I didn't do that. The chief did. So to say that I'm the one acting in that faith is quite comical. So furthermore, trying to think everything he addressed here. So with the excusable neglect. So yeah, I did that research myself. I looked on the American Bar Association and found that standard for civil for civil procedures. I don't think the chief has been affected by the by this delay at all. It was a simple oversight. I know he says I met with Andy Hop. That's not true. I never met with Andy Hop. I did exchange emails with Andy Hop and I was provided the guidelines. However, again, I have nothing else to say other than I didn't see the 10 day or I over read it. I don't I'm not going to make an excuse. Just it was an oversight. So when it comes to the original complaint, again, I guess his common sense would tell me when somebody files a complaint isn't usually the response of the person taking the complaint to reach out to the complainant. So not once did HR Westbrook reach out to me to ask me, Hey, do you have any further information on this? Who should I talk to? Where should I look? I said, I want you to look into the mishandling of sexual harassment. The sexual harassment investigation and I want and that the chief had covered up a lie and probably a crime matter. I don't recall specifically what my initial complaint was, but I attached the newspaper article to show what I was talking about and no time did he call me. In fact, three days went by and I already got that we're not looking into this. Okay, so you don't call me to follow up on any details. You just say you didn't provide details. I'm not taking your complaint. That's not how it works where I come from. And again, I'm not claiming to be an expert. But as a police officer, if somebody calls me and said, my husband abused me. Sorry, you didn't provide me any details. I'm not going to come take your complaint. I would call that person and say, Hey, so what happened? Explain to me who I should talk to who witnessed this who saw this. And again, you can choose to believe me if you'd like, you can choose not to believe me. It doesn't really bother me either way. But there are still current police officers that work in his department that have plenty of information. Where do you think I get most of my information from? But they're not going to come forward. They're just not going to come forward in this matter. They can't. They know that the chief retaliates. And again, I'll show you that in the hearing. But anyway, sorry, I'm getting off base here. So then, so he wants to stick to this. Well, I delayed this 52 days. Okay, it's an oversight. It hasn't prejudiced the chief in any way. You guys weren't even aware of the complaints. So you got the complaint. So there's no way you guys could gain any prejudice against the chief. Furthermore, if my 52 day delay was so prejudicial, why when it was turned over to attorney Adams, did it get delayed from you guys for over another 30 days? So if timing is of the essence in this process, how does the city attorney unilaterally have the ability to withhold the complaint from the police fire commission? I've spoken to previous PFC president who's sitting right behind me, Bob LaTrie. Bob, did you ever receive a complaint to the PFC where the city attorney didn't allow the PFC to see it? The answer was no. What's different in this case? They don't want you to see this. That's what's different. They don't want you to see this. They don't want everybody to see what happened. So again, okay, I had an oversight on the days. I get it as to the complaints. Yeah, I thought he was going to call me. How am I supposed to know you file a complaint? You don't even call the person to follow up on it. Again, I've been involved in investigations where I worked in Plymouth where somebody files a citizen complaint. We call them. Hey, you filed a complaint. What's going on? It seems like pretty standard procedure to me. But instead, within two or three days, I get the letter. Yeah, thank you for submitting your complaint. We're not looking into this. Okay, so now when I read your policies and I saw they had 30 days to respond, I'm expecting 30 days to be able to put my stuff together. And I get a response within three days. So again, it's not an excuse because I thought the 10 days was an oversight. However, I thought I had more time to put something together. And then, yeah, I acted in good faith. I've not acted in bad faith. He brings up social media. I'll address social media right now. When I was quiet about this, nothing happened. Nothing. I tried to go through the appropriate channels, talk to the DA, talk to anybody and everybody at possibly good. Nothing works. The corruption at the top is a hard one to get after. Okay. So I started posting stuff on social media, getting people's attention towards this. Look what happens. Articles come out. It starts getting exposed in the media. I finally get the complaint. The DA finally gets the complaint. Brian pretty gets a Brady letter. So yeah, am I shall I say unprofessional on social media sometimes? Yeah, maybe. But you know what? It got something done. So I don't regret it one bit. And again, so I know in, I think it was in this motion, he addresses, you know, I think it was a different one. So I'll save that for later. But yeah, so I am confident in my abilities. I don't consider myself to be an expert. I have attorneys that I talk to regarding some of these things who wish not to be named. Again, you can choose to believe me or not believe me. That's indifferent to that. I don't care. But the bottom line is a simple oversight and nothing in your policy says that if it's 10 days or later, it has to be dismissed. So I respectfully ask you to still hear this complaint. You understand the meaning of a statute of limitations, Mr. Daniels? Yes. Can you explain it to me in your own words? A statute of limitations would be the amount of time you have to hear a complaint into a criminal allegation, or I would assume a civil allegation. I am admittedly not as familiar with civil law as I am criminal law. But that would be my understanding of a statute of limitations. There are statute of limitations in criminal law, obviously, except for murder. There is no statute of limitations for murder, right? Right. Okay. Okay. What happens if you blow a statute of limitations on, let's say, a rape case? If you blow it in, then you don't make a arrest. Yeah. If the prosecutor does not file charges against the alleged perpetrator, what happens if the cruel time goes by and it's over? You wouldn't be arrested? Yeah. You couldn't be arrested. You couldn't be charged. Did you understand that in this situation when you were going through the complaint process? Again, it was an oversight. When I read his motion, I saw it, and I was confused as I was shocked, so I looked back at the guidelines, and then I did see it. So obviously, that was my mistake. I'm not making an excuse. Just over, over. I wish you were making an excuse because it's called excusable neglect. So I wish, I'm giving you that opportunity here. Right. Well, then that's what I listed in my written complaints, obviously, is excusable neglect. So I think I've touched on four elements. I don't think this was prejudicial at all to achieve. I was acting in good faith. It's not like I was delaying this on purpose. I had nothing to gain by delaying this an extra 42 days or whatever it would have been. And then, I'll have to pull up the other two on my phone. I'm sorry. While you're looking, take a look, take a peek at Wisconsin statute 8607. And the reason why I say that is that's where we have our new excusable neglect statute. And that's to normally for a relief from a judgment or an order. And that's how it's used. It's actually 806071 aim stake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Yes. And then there's a tons of case law on it, on your own. And you gotta, it's a pretty hard requirement. I can tell you that. Having had to deal with it on both sides. Is there anything you can add to what you've said to, you know, as to what happened, as to why you didn't understand that process, I guess. I'm going to give you every opportunity here. I guess, again, it's not that I didn't understand the process. It's an oversight. I guess I didn't see it. I don't know. Again, and I think my biggest arguments here are going to the four excusable neglect things that must be considered by a judge, obviously held in front of a judge. And it's one of the delay in filing was within reasonable control of the movement, the movement, which obviously it was in mind control because like, like he appropriately stated, it's not like anyone was preventing me from providing it to you guys the length of the delay, which okay, so I had a 42 delay. Attorney Adams had a 30 plus day delay. So I don't think the day delay is really of importance here. The danger of prejudice to the non moving party. Again, I don't believe the chief has been prejudiced in any way. It's not like he was waiting to have a hearing on this. Then I filed it or it's not as if you guys got any further information by the stalling the release of my complaint. And whether I acted in good faith. So I guess that's up to you guys to determine clearly the city believes I'm just some maniac out here getting crazy. I'm not again, I've been proven right in this scenario more than once already, which is why they're trying very hard to bury this without me speaking to you. So so again, I believe that excusable neglect would apply here. And then I didn't know it in here to the two case laws where the general rule from the American Bar Association is that these types of cases be decided on the merits not on technicalities as a general principle. So based on that as well, again, I would ask that you guys hear the case. I don't see anywhere in your policies procedures where it orders you to dismiss it if it's over 10 days late. It's really all I have on that one. I just want to address a couple things that Mr. Daniels stated. First, with regard to how the investigation, the original complaint was handled just so all of you know, your policy says you must file a complaint with the chief police. Obviously, the chief police is the named person in this complaint. So that was forwarded to my office. So I did the initial review of this complaint and responded in I think it was two days after he originally submitted saying you did not provide any evidence anything for me to do investigation on therefore your complaint is being dismissed. It is not and it's in your it's in policy. I don't have a policy in front of me. It is not the job of the police department or the city for that matter to draft the complaint for the person filing the complaint. That is not the requirement of the city to draft the complaint for the person. Additionally, I do want to say that had Mr. Daniels filed the complaint that he filed with you originally, there would have been things that I would have looked into to do an investigation because there were things in the complaint that he has provided to you that were not that I didn't know about and that were not in the original complaint. However, because he did not do that, there is prejudice in the in the process that the process is not able to be followed not able to be done correctly because Mr. Daniels chose not to include all of the details in his original complaint. So that's the first thing. He also talks a lot about attorney Adams delay. As I stated, I think in our hearing last time, the process that the PFC uses to get information is not the realm or concern of anyone here. That is something that you all need to decide. However, attorney Adams delay or attorney Adams holding of the complaint until the hearing is not what's being questioned here. It is the delay in the time of filing the complaint, not in the delay in the time of you receiving the complaint, the delay in the time between when the complaint was dismissed from the police department and filed here. That is the only time period. Not how long it took to come to a hearing. And then lastly, he talks about being proud of all of the things he's put on social media and he wouldn't take it back and and all of that's how things got done. And that's true. And as an attorney and I'm the other two in the room probably know I'm used to being called names. But a week after I got hired, Mr. Daniels said that I was unintelligent. He said that I was immature. Recently he's called me the chief's boy. He's never met me. This was before he filed anything. So I think him trying to say he's acted in good faith and this is all a noble mission, his little misleading, given his behavior. Those are the only things I want to address. Is there a response? Can I ask a question? And then I want to hear from you too, definitely. Is there a prejudice requirement when someone misses an S.O.L.? No, I'm asking that question. I'm asking that question. I think that's one of the factors that would weigh into whether or not a court should permit something after a statute of limitations reached to move forward. Obviously the more prejudicial it is to the non, to the party who didn't miss the deadline, the more reason there is to not allow it. But it's not, again, it's not the only factor. In fact, the ABA guidelines that he cites are not law or not policy. It is guidance from the American Bar Association for judges and attorneys to look at. I was just responding because he put it in his motion. And that's why I addressed it. Would it be more proper to look at 806.07 as I indicated? I definitely, 806 is more proper than the ABA guidelines. But even that, I don't know is persuasive here. I mean, it is persuasive. It is not holding because this is not is a quasi-judicial hearing, right? Well, those are directed. 806.07 is usually directed to default judgements when someone fails to answer. So it's not an S.O.L. situation and that's why I'm wondering about this excusable neglect argument as opposed to it isn't like we have a judgment. You're using an S.O.L. as opposed to a default that he did. That's what I'm trying to get a hold of here. In my mind, this is less, this is more of what happens when a judge rules against you. You have a certain amount of time to appeal to the court of appeals. And I understand that attorneys are different than laypeople, but if you miss your deadline to appeal, I don't even know if the court of appeals has ever done it, but they're not, they're going to say, sorry, you missed your deadline. This is the deadline. You missed it. Better luck next time. And again, this is not a judicial hearing. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, but those time limits are put in place for specific reasons more than just expediency, right? That's some of the reason, but it's also to ensure the process is handled correctly. And in this case, the delay and the changing of the complaint goes against the process that was set up by this board. This board made the decision that complaints need to come to the police department first to be investigated at the police department first. And then if after being investigated, they don't like the outcome, they can say, hey, commission, I filed this and I don't agree with the determination. What happened here is he filed something with the police department that had no information. The response was you have not provided any information, so your complaint is denied. And then he drafted a new complaint and filed it here saying, hey, here's a new complaint for you to look at that I never filed with the police department. 52 days later. Let me ask this question. If he had asked you or called you or sent another letter saying, hey, can you give me an extension? Would you have granted him an extension? For the PFC? No, not for the PFC for him to file the complaint. I would, with the 10 days, had he said, after he got the letter, had he said, hey, why didn't you talk to me? I would have said, you didn't provide any information. I've read the Sheboygan Press article. I am very familiar with the Abigail Hernandez situation and everything that happened with that. I have read all of the files, all of the reports. I'm very familiar with it. You've provided nothing for me to investigate that hasn't already been investigated. And then had he said any of the information, I would have said, okay, yeah, refile that complaint. He absolutely could have refiled a new complaint with the police department. He didn't do that. Instead, he filed a new complaint with the police and fire commission. And that is, according to him, the reason for the delay was it took him that long to draft this new complaint. Commissioner, is there anything else? Or not anything else before I want Mr. Daniels? No, I'm good. Yeah, thank you. I'll try to make it quick. So what I assume was going to happen is happening. So this is turning into all about me now, right? So this is character assassination on Justin Daniels for posting on Facebook. So reminder, what we're here about is how this situation was handled, not my Facebook posts. If we want to talk about my Facebook posts, I happily give you my Facebook address if you guys want to go look at it. So when it comes to, again, the issues at hand, so I think you kind of answered the question. So the 10 day thing, the 10 day deadline, is not so severe that it can't be extended. So had I simply seen the 10 days and thought, oh no, I can't get it done in 10 days. So had I asked for an extension that would have been granted. So the 10 days, in all the words, has no effect on this process other than it just doesn't happen as expediently as you guys would like it to. So again, it's an oversight. He just admitted that it really bears no relevance other than me meeting a deadline. I'm sorry, I have a full-time job. I'm a person as well. Sometimes I have oversights as everyone else in this room. So again, I have no excuses. I didn't see it. I've presented excusable neglect. You guys are the attorneys. If 8.06.07 works better, I mean, I can certainly look at that. I just read the first one, obviously the mistake, inadvertent surprise, or excusable neglect. Again, I'm just simply here asking if this can be heard on the merits of what is happening rather than dismissed on some technicality. So my complaint with the city again, he says, well, I could have done this. I could have done this. He could have made a phone call as well. Bones worked both ways. He could have called me and said, hey, Mr. Daniels, what's going on with this? The thing that I was entertained by right after he started is he thinks he knows Abby's life, right? He thinks he knows everything that happened to Abby. He doesn't know anything. I know what happened to Abby. He does not. So when he puts out this little video with the mayor about we stand against sexual harassment, yeah, I thought it was pretty entertaining because he wasn't here. He doesn't know what happened. And it gives the appearance that, well, now I'm here to clean up shop. Well, I'm aware of another sexual harassment complaint filed by a city of Sheboygan employee and something he said to her, which I won't relay because it's her business, not mine, that he probably would be pretty embarrassed about. But again, it's not about him. It's about this issue. By the way, that female, that file, that complaint, she no longer works for the city of Sheboygan police department. And it was also into Brian Prey. So again, I'm trying to stick to the complaint. But if my character is going to be assassinated, you know, there's no reason for it other than to try to get you guys not to believe me. Again, I will continue to point out this entire time. This is my last point that as crazy as maybe I have sounded throughout this entire process and as much as he says, he knows everything that happened. I'm the reason Brian Prey isn't here anymore. I'm the reason these reports got exposed. I'm the reason the DA did this. What's going to happen if Brian Prey gets criminally charged? Then everything I've said for the last two years about this chief covering up a felony crime is true. And then what? I firmly believe that this John Doe investigation is going to turn into criminal charges for Brian Prey. That could be wrong. I firmly believe it. I have no inside information, but he's committed a crime. I'll lay it out for you. It's in my complaint. That's all I have to say. Any conditioners, anything else? I just need to correct the record on one thing. Quick, please. Yep. His question was if I would allow an extension if he asked for one. My response was not, yes, I would allow an extension to the PFC. That is not what I said. I said, had he called, I would have said, you can submit a new complaint with the police department with new data, not extend the 10-day deadline. All right. Thank you. Next motion, please. So the next motions are all individual charges based. So I will go in order. Motion one that you have is to dismiss the charge that the chief violated the administrative leave policy. The administrative policy, as you know, is a discretionary policy. It gives the chief the authority to decide if and when to put an employee on paid administrative leave or to decide to keep that employee on shift. Based on the totality of the circumstances and the issues presented here in this case, the chief made the decision to keep officer prey on duty and took other measures to address the investigation. This cannot possibly be a violation of the policy when the policy says the chief gets to decide they're not to place someone on leave. Mr. Daniels argues that that in turn means that no one can ever violate a discretionary policy. That's not true. Just in order for someone to be disciplined for abuse of discretion with a discretionary policy, the abuse needs to be so unreasonable that no reasonable person would do the same thing. That's not the case here. The chief knows the totality of the circumstances, which you all don't know. No one in the public knows. I'm assuming Mr. Daniels knows since Mr. Hernandez is a part of them, but the chief looked at the totality of the circumstances and things that were presented and made the decision to not put Brian prey on administrative leave, which the policy says he can do. So even assuming everything is true with Mr. Daniels in his complaint, it can't possibly be grounds for discipline because he followed the policy. Any questions? Thank you. So this one, I'll make it pretty brief. So yeah, I agree. I have never disagreed that this is a discretionary policy. The word may is in it. So I agree. It's discretionary. However, I think everybody also agrees that a police officer believes chief and body of public service can abuse their discretion. So my argument is simple. I will show you through testimony, through what are written reports, through other written documents exactly what Westbrook said is that essentially no other reasonable person, other than this police chief, would think that a guy who is alleged to have committed a felony violation and sexual harassment after that. So while the investigation is ongoing, he retaliates. He lies. He violates a gang order. He violates a no contact order. And he's never put on administrative leave. What person in any workplace in America thinks that somebody can be alleged to have committed a crime and after that investigation starts, commits four more violations and the victim in their own words, the victim of sexual harassment, can no longer be at work because of a hostile work environment and the perpetrator still stays. The perpetrator has never put on leave. So yeah, I agree. If that's the standard that I have to prove that no reasonable person would say that Brian Prey shouldn't have been on administrative leave, I'll easily make that argument. So for those reasons, I ask that that one stays and let me make the arguments. If you guys disagree with me, then disagree with me, but I believe I can show you that he very obviously should have been on administrative leave. Therefore, the chief abused his discretion there and many other places, which again, I'll show you as we go. Mr. President, any questions for Mr. Daniels? Are you saying that no reasonable person would not have used their discretion to put officer Prey on leave? I just want to make sure. There's a weird way. I'm trying to figure it out. Let's do it the easy way. Every reasonable person that I know would have placed Brian Prey on leave given all the infractions. So the chief not putting him on leave is a clear violation of his discretion under your guys policies. All right. Let me ask you this question. Are you saying that every reasonable person in our universe of persons would have put him on leave? That's my opinion. Yes. Do you know there's a five-fourth Supreme Court decision where they disagree on what a reasonable person may be? I guess that would be for you guys to determine. It's crazy, but I'm just letting you know that, Mr. Field, Mr. Daniels. Well, I guess when when held to the police officer standard of a reasonable person that goes towards a reasonable police officer. So now obviously he's not taking a criminal action or choosing whether to write a ticket, you know, so we can't assess that reasonable person's standard to him. So my opinion would be you guys as his civilian oversight, you would take a civilian definition of reasonable person and apply it to whether or not what he did was appropriate. That's my opinion. Commissioner, is there any questions? Otherwise, attorney. So the next motion is the second motion is against asking to dismiss Mr. Daniels charge of the criminal investigation policy. And there's kind of twofold to this. The first is a failure to say to claim again the policy states that when an employee is accused of committing a criminal violation, the chief must hire an outside must. It's a must hire an outside agency to conduct that investigation. Mr. Daniels likes to argue that a criminal violation was alleged even if Abigail Hernandez, who is a police officer at the time, didn't know that a crime had been committed. It still was a crime. But that's not what happened here. Abigail Hernandez came forward with a sexual harassment allegation and in fact in her original complaint, both that she filed with the police department and the Department of Workforce Development, the crime that Mr. Daniels is saying is a crime was briefly mentioned if at all. It was much more focused on the sexual harassment that was occurring, alleged sexual harassment that was occurring in the police department. It was not the focus of her complaint by any means. So to say that the chief violated the policy because someone filed a sexual harassment complaint and he didn't bring in an outside organization to do a sexual harassment investigation, which is how this started is again nonsensical to me because sexual harassment while awful is not a criminal violation. And then it's not something that we would bring in a third party police agency to come in and investigate. The second reason that I think this needs to be dismissed is because this board lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Mr. Daniels is saying that you all need to determine whether a crime was alleged and whether a crime was committed. But what that means is you're going to have to analyze the elements of the crime as given injury instructions which Mr. Daniels has through his John Doe complaint. And then you will have to analyze whether or not what happened at the hotel meets the, there are I think four elements in the crime he's alleging, meets the four elements of that crime, which is not the jurisdiction of this board nor do you have the expertise or training to make those decisions. So for those reasons, well, somebody might, for those reasons, I would ask that you dismiss this complaint. It was going to be children. Well, let me ask this question. You say that sexual harassment is not a crime. If someone touches someone without their permission, is that a crime? So let me rephrase. Sexual harassment does not necessarily mean it's a crime. Okay. How about the situation I just spoke to? That is a crime, isn't it? Yes. It would be battery went to or assault, depending on or assault. Yeah. Do we have that here? No. Okay. Well, it's no, no, we don't. It's just the showing and then taking the photo. So and then sending a photo. Yeah. And more than that, from what I understand, the photo was never sent. So what you have here, that's a legend is a crime. Is that Mr. Daniels? Sorry, not Mr. Daniels. I apologize. That officer prey took a picture of Abby Hernandez exposed breasts in the hallway of a hotel, technically a vestibule of a hotel, and then showed that picture, had it on his phone and showed that picture to other officers. That is what he is alleging. The crime is that happened here. There are additional things that he alleges. And that was investigated in terms of the sexual harassment allegation. Mr. Hernandez is original complaint. That was not Mrs. That was not Mr. Hernandez's original complaint. Her original complaint was that Brian pray is sexually harassing her and has been for a long time was her original complaint. And she went through many things that she alleged were sexual harassment. And the incident at the hotel was not even a 20th of what her original complaint was. So it's worse than just no, no, I'm saying she didn't think I can say what she thought. Okay. She didn't, she didn't make that the focus of her original complaint. Her original complaint was about things that happened at trainings, about comments that were made about other things, other than that incident, which he's alleging is a crime, which again, as the police chief gets this complaint, it's a complaint of sexual harassment, nothing indicating that anything, no one wanted touching no sexual assault, nothing like that happened. No reason to, for again, the chief who's been in law enforcement for over 25 years to think we need to bring in a third party agency because this is a crime. Okay. What a question. Is sharing intimate images a crime? It is not. So I, for one, think that the state legislature needs to amend the laws regarding sending naked pictures of one, of other people. Showing nude pictures of other people is not a crime, even if it's without their consent. The law says that it has to be transmitted. That's not the real word, but the law says it has to be exchanged. I don't have a statute in front of me, but just showing someone a nude picture is not enough under the current crime. I think it should be, but it is not. Wait, but that's not, go ahead. I'm going to wait for everyone else to go. That's not the, that's not why I believe that this is not criminal. Just, but again, I don't think that that conversation of whether or not it is criminal or not criminal is the jurisdiction of this committee. Well, I just want to, just want to ask, and then I'll turn it over to Kristen. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Daniels. I appreciate it. Yeah, I'm just making notes. No, I'm sure you're not. Do you want to come? I know you can't trust everything. You can't trust everything you see on the Internet. Okay. But I just, I just asked, I looked up, sharing a sexually explicit picture without person's consent. Is that a crime? And what it came back is, and this is from legal voice, which I don't know if it's anything to it or not. Go ahead, Mr. Correct. What do you want to add? Go ahead. I just simply, this says that it does indicate that sharing or publicizing intimate images without consent is both civil and criminal law. Now, I'm not going to go any further, but I, again, I don't know if that's accurate or not. So I would tell you two things. One, it's a state's charge, right? It's not. So every state could be different, and there might be some states that are more strict. Here in Wisconsin, representations, representations depicting nudity, it is a crime to capture a picture of someone without their consent. That is, that is criminal, right? Like, so people who put cameras in locker rooms, right? That is a crime regardless of if they share that with someone or not. It is also a crime to share, it went into law a while, it's called like the, it was for when people break up, to share like a consensual set, let's say two people shared consensual pictures with each other, to then transmit those pictures to other people. However, the law under the current definition says that it has to be transmitted, it has to be sent showing like, hey, look at this picture, is not enough under the current law to meet the definition of a crime in Wisconsin. Thank you. Kristen, did you have something to ask? Yeah, I guess, and I get that this is, this is about the criminal investigation of it, but what is our city policy regarding when this becomes criminal as it will, like, I mean, I don't know what, what is our city policy regarding sexual harassment in this definition? So sexual harassment for any department, whether it's police fire or non rep department, all allegations of sexual harassment, harassment or discrimination have to come to my office, have to be reported to the human resources office. My understanding is that the policy was similar before I got hired and that policy was followed for this investigation too. With regard to what are, there were showing nude pictures of yourself or anyone else on duty is, is a policy violation. So we have policies that address what you can do with a personal phone, what you can see with a personal phone, in addition to, you know, sexual harassment policies. It just, I, just so I understand, I understand that it has nothing truly to do with this, but I just want to, and again, I just want to point out that this motion is not about the criminal charges. That's a later motion. This is about the fact that Mr. Daniels is alleging that the chief violated the policy, which says we must hire a third party when a crime is alleged because no crime was alleged. When he did this investigation, it was a sexual harassment investigation with no reason to believe that a crime had been committed from Abbey's original. Did the previous HR department then do an investigation? No. Well, not at the time. Director Schneider did an investigation several months later, but not, not originally when Director Schneider was made aware she did not do an investigation. Okay. Come on, Mr. Daniels, to be able to respond. Is there any other questions, please? Mr. Daniels, please. Sorry, I don't mean to get long winded on you guys. Okay. So a few things. So he had made some comment that part of the initial complaint, 120th or whatever you said was about the photo. The reason the complaint was filed was because the photo and in fact, in her first interview with Lieutenant Tennyson, she brought up the photograph incident. So I don't know how we're saying it wasn't a part of the complaint. In fact, Lieutenant Tennyson found in his conclusionary report that the photograph was taken of Abbey without her consent. So the standard in the Sheboygan police department policy is potential criminal conduct, potential criminal conduct. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not probable cause. You have to have a potential criminal conduct to order an outside investigation. Okay. So then he says you guys don't have the ability to make this decision. Like anyone else, you can read a statute and decide if there's potential criminal conduct. You guys don't need jury instructions to decide potential criminal conduct. Jury instructions are given when you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not what you guys are tasked to do here. You guys are tasked to say, this is what Officer Hernandez's complaint was. Is this potentially criminal conduct? The police department literally found that it was potential criminal conduct when Tennyson found that the photo was taken of her without her consent. The crime is not sharing the photo. It's not showing. I agree that it probably should be a crime, but it's not currently. The crime was capturing the representation of Officer Hernandez without her consent and then keeping the photo. Furthermore, there's a witness the following morning that says, Prey came in the room said, hey, look what I have showed Officer Hernandez the photo and she said, I'll quote the report. What the hell? You need to delete that. The clear implication there is she has no idea the photo exists. So how does somebody give consent to something and then not know it exists? The evidence lends credibility to her story that this photo is taken without her consent. So again, the bar you have to meet here is potential criminal conduct. I believe it's clearly met. The argument that while she came in alleging sexual harassment, she didn't say a crime was committed against her. Well, apparently the Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations, Lieutenant Tennyson, the Chief of Police, and Sergeant Alex Yeager, they all didn't know it was a crime either because they never had it investigated. So to say that well, Officer Hernandez should have known a crime was committed against her. Is that really how a police department operate? Well, you should have known that was a crime. People come in, they file a complaint, the police department investigates it. That's how this process works. So if you come in and you file a complaint and say, um, my husband was yelling at me and she has a black eye. So you can't ask about the black eye and say, well, what about your black eye? Well, no, she only said there was a verbal argument. So only ask her about the verbal argument. So I just think their arguments in this are pretty, pretty crazy and shouldn't be considered. And then furthermore, so then as you'll see, if we get to the hearing, I'll show you that all of the investigators that actually investigated the complaint come to the same conclusion until it gets to Captain Beezer who finds something completely contrary to what his other investigators found. And the Chief of Police goes with Beezer's findings, despite the actual investigators finding something completely different. Um, so I don't know if the cover up starts at Beezer. I don't know if the Chief orders Beezer to do something. I don't know those answers. I'm not here professing that I do know those answers, but somewhere it changed without any evidence. It changed and no further evidence was gathered. Um, and then the only other thing I was gonna say is we keep saying alleged harassment. Let's just get it on a table. She was sexually harassed. They found it in their own paperwork. So she was a victim of sexual harassment. And in fact, there was, um, an allegation of kissing without consent. So when he said there was no allegation, that's not correct. She did allege in her complaint, which you can read it. It's in the internal that at a defense and arrest tactics training, Brian Prey kissed her on her neck when he was on top of her. It was unfounded because, of course, there was no witnesses, but there was the allegation is all I'm saying. Um, and then my argument is that this for this specific one for the crime, it's, it's, it's literally corroborated in the story. His own investigators find that a potential crime happened. So the fact that there was no investigation, he clearly violated the policy. It seemed to get beginning to some of the stuff substance substantive facts that may be proper for the evidentiary hearing. But since we're there, I might as well ask a question. It's my understanding this photo that was taken was in the hallway of a hotel. Is that correct? So she describes it in her interview with Lieutenant Tennyson that it was in like off to the side by like the stairwell, if you can imagine where a stairwell is in a hotel and like an ice machine. So they portray it, they meaning she wouldn't PD portrays it as being like the front entryway to the hotel and all these people are standing around. She herself describes it as off to the side. She's seeking privacy to make a phone call. She's by the staircase and an ice machine. So again, you guys have all been in a hotel vision, that at least I have a vision of where that would be. Would hotel guests have had the ability to access that area while this was happening? Yes. Would this be considered a public place then in your eyes? Yes. So can I respond? Yeah, definitely. I want you to. So I think I know what you're getting at. I don't want to assume, but I'll just address it. So this has been brought up by HR Westbrook a few times with me as well and that she doesn't have this reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel. So when you specifically look at this statute 940 209, I think it's sub one sub eight, the one about taking the photograph without consent. So it addresses reasonable expectation of privacy. That is one of the elements of the events to convict somebody of this crime. So furthermore, when you look into case law for this specific incident, it's state Bianchi. I've provided it in my written motion responses. State Bianchi specifically addresses reasonable expectation of privacy for this specific statute. So this specific statute, your reasonable expectation of privacy is that somebody does not photograph you while in the nude. The purpose of the statute is so that it can control who can see you, when they can see you, how they can see you. It has nothing to do with your physical location. The reading of state Bianchi further states that in certain cases, because this case law is very fact specific, it further states that a stripper in a strip club could potentially be protected under this statute of somebody came into a strip club where they're taking their clothes off for work. If somebody photographs them, they could still potentially be protected under the statute. Given that reading by the Wisconsin appellate court, I don't understand how any person can reasonably see that an intoxicated female being egged on by somebody to show her breasts in a hotel is not protected by that case law. So that's my argument about the reasonable expectation of privacy, which again I argue that's really irrelevant in this because our standard is potential criminal conduct. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And then one last thing, I'm sorry. So as we've briefly touched on, there is a John Doe proceeding into this. I did not file anything against the chief of police regardless of what they say. It's my initial filing had both of them. I was asked for clarification on it. I provided clarification specifically to Brian Prey and they are investigating specifically Brian Prey. That's the most up to date knowledge I have of it. And you can bring out paperwork all you want because there's been more since that. So my understanding is it's specifically into Brian Prey. A judge has found that this needs to be looked into, even though the police chief couldn't find that. And it's not being looked into criminally. So that's all I have for you. Yeah, so a few things. We'll go in reverse order. The John Doe investigation is against the chief of police, the district attorney in the county of Sheboygan, and Brian Prey, which is why it got removed to Calumet County because the court here said we can't hear it here because the A. R. Mansky is the subject. All of these records are public records. So Mr. Daniels said that I couldn't have possibly seen it, but it's a public record. You just walk over to the courthouse and you can look at all of the documents in his John Doe investigation. So that's the first thing. The John Doe investigation is looking into the chief, the DA, and Brian Prey. And Mr. Daniels expressly in communications with the court, they asked him if those are the people and he indicates those are the people who should be looked at, which is why, again, it was removed to Calumet County. It's not even in Sheboygan County because it can't be because the DA is a named person. So that's the John Doe. Second, his case law. His case law is about a case where a couple was engaged in sex in their bedroom in a bedroom and one of the people was being filmed unknowingly. And so the court talks about how the reasonable expectation was that she didn't expect to be filmed even though she was in a bedroom, which is private. She didn't expect that she was going to be filmed there. There are several other cases in Wisconsin that talk about the expectation is not about where it's located. It's about whether or not it's reasonable to expect that you aren't going to be filmed in that place. So for example, there's a case where a woman is in a grocery store. This is an upskirting case. A gentleman has a camera in his shoe and is attempting to take a picture of her skirt in a grocery store. And what the court says is that the grocery store itself is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone were to take their top off in a grocery store, it would be unreasonable to expect that no one's going to see her that a picture is not going to be taken of them. However, she did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her undergarments. She was wearing the court specifically said she had a reasonable expectation in her undergarments in that grocery store. So the strip club case talks about how if a strip club had a policy that didn't allow cameras to be in the strip club, it is reasonable for a stripper to think that they are not going to be photographed in the nude, even though they are in the nude there. However, if a strip club had a policy that allowed people to have cameras, it would be unreasonable for that person no matter what they thought to think that. In the case here, she was in a public hallway. In fact, a hotel worker comes out because she overhears the two of them being drunk in the hallway together and says go back to your rooms, knock this off. So it's public enough that a hotel worker could hear them and came and told them to go back to their rooms. So the argument is not that she consented to the photo. Although again, I struggle to imagine how someone would get a cell phone out, take a picture, put the cell phone back in the amount of time it takes someone to flash. Although admittedly, I do not have much experience with how long it takes to flash someone. But that just confuses me. The argument is that you are in a public hallway exposing your breasts. And if it's by an ice machine, every hotel I have been in that is not a motel six has security cameras in their hallways and in those public areas where people can cause property damage. So this idea that there was an expectation of privacy when she herself exposed her breasts is the part to me that doesn't meet the elements of the crime. And again, I agree with you that we are getting into substantive issues that shouldn't necessarily be discussed here, but they were brought up. As for sexual harassment, I agree that Abby Hernandez was the victim of sexual harassment. The reason I said alleged sexual harassment is because sexual harassment is unwanted and unsolicited sexual comments, sexual advances, sexual touching. There is a mountain of evidence that there were instances that she alleged that through the investigation do not meet the definition of sexual harassment. What happened with the photograph? That is sexual harassment. There's no question. And as I said in my original response, that is abhorrent, that is awful. What Brian Prey did is sad and disgusting and shameful, right? It is not criminal. And that doesn't mean that all of the other things she alleged were factual, accurate or sexual harassment. Any other questions? To make a quick response. Quick. Okay. So quick response to this about the case law. So this was Wisconsin appellate court case law. It specifically says the appellate court of Wisconsin found that the statute does not criminalize the viewing of a nude person, which he keeps arguing that viewing, viewing, viewing anyone could have seen her correct of not arguing that point. And then it says, regardless of circumstances, it further says, rather the prohibited act is capturing a representation of the person by placing limits on the ability of others to record the statute protects a person's interest. Sir Hernandez's interest in limiting as the time, place and persons the viewing of his or her body. That's the case law. So again, I'm not arguing that other people could potentially have seen it. The statute addresses, you can't take a picture without her consent. Can I get the site on it? Yes. Citation number for the case. Is it possible we could take a quick five minute potty break? Sure. Go ahead. Go ahead. I have 2007 AP 2130-CR. I know that's probably not the actual attorney citation, but if you search, I'll be able to find it. It's close enough. Thank you. We're going to take a five minute break. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Okay. Do you want it? Well, I was going to just keep it going. Probably shouldn't be talking about it during the break anyway. I know they said there was a refuel. Did they find? About 1600 feet from the bow of the Titanic. On the ground? At the bottom of the ocean? Ground, right? There we go. So here's the thing. Did you see some of the before this happened? The guy was like, oh, you know, at some point, if you're concerned about safety, just stay in bed. And like people on his team had brought concerns to him about the material that it was built out of. And he was like, oh, no, it's not a big deal. Wait a minute. There was a billionaire on that. I said, we're five. It's a little bit more. I know there's like someone who's going to be very wealthy. A father's son, the guy who owns it. Where did they pull that? Where did they take off? That I don't know. But I did read on NPR that last night that taxpayers have to pay for All the rescue efforts. The rescue efforts, which is going to be millions of dollars. Which taxpayers? Us. Because it was the hard coast guard. Well, I mean, that's a small price to pay to bring human deans back. I mean, dead human beings nonetheless. Here's my question though. When does it become our responsibility to rescue people who shouldn't know better? But we do it so often. These people will heighten and they go up into avalanche land. All that crazy stuff. No, I get what you're saying. There's a category five hurricane coming. Don't stay. But now we got to go rescue. No, I get it. I don't get that. And it's done after the fact. Okay, we rescue you for this. You're going to have to pay this much extra for the next seven years. Here's the bill. Yeah, we should. We should. I agree. I mean, that would be fair. I want it. I just don't understand. I agree on it for some reason. But then again, you know. My brother said during rescue between us. He pointed to me and said, My mother didn't read the media. I'm leaving. That's right. Trying to color code things. And then it just doesn't work. Yeah. I was going to try to color code with my bullshit notes, but they didn't make enough colors. Can't get enough three M loves people. I just, I says, look, they're only giving me six colors. The more sticky the better. Yeah. Just so you guys know when I was looking at my phone, I'm looking at statutes. Thanks everybody for giving the ladies a bathroom break. I mean me. You're good. So, well, only that the last sentence that Mr. Daniels left out says by placing limits on the ability of others to record the statute protects a person's interest in limiting as to time, place and persons, the viewing of his or her body. It follows that the pertinent privacy element question is whether the person depicted nude had a reasonable expectation under the circumstances that he or she would not be recorded in the nude. Again, this case is talking about a couple who was engaged in a sexual act in the in the red room, which she believed to be a private place, not about being in a public hallway in a hotel. So Mr. Daniels understanding is accurate. And as he said, he's not an expert. Yeah. Sorry. The next one is supervisors responsibility. This is motion number three. So I'm asking that his charge of the chief violating the supervisor's responsibility be dismissed. His motion is based on the idea that because sexual harassment was occurring in the police department, the chief violated the department's policy of being, quote, aware of the performance of his subordinates. This argument is nonsensical as it presupposes that supervisors are required to omnisciently be aware of the behaviors of their subordinates in the department before it's brought to their attention. In this case, as soon as the chief was made aware of what was happening, he immediately took action. Mr. Daniels is upset that officers, including officer Hernandez, were engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior and communications with other officers and that the chief didn't know that these officers were engaged in such communications. I am upset that these officers were engaged in those communications and the chief didn't know about it as well. However, it is not a policy violation that the chief didn't know that these things were happening when there is no way for him to know that these things are happening until he's made aware that these things are happening. He also responds that there were other things in the original complaints that happened. For example, an officer prey and several officers were found to violated other policies, like using time records inappropriately, the computer system records inappropriately, and that the chief should have known that. That again presupposes that the chief is going through all officers' computer entries to know what they're searching and then investigating whether or not a license plate that they run or an individual that they run was done for the appropriate purpose, which again is nonsensical. We cannot possibly expect or believe that command staff would be able to look up all of the keystrokes of our officers when they're on duty to ensure that they are doing what they're supposed to be doing. When we find out about it, we address it. And I think, again, presuppose that the chief or supervisors just need to be, they need to know that this is happening before it's brought to their attention is illogical. The policy talks about making sure that your officers are performing, making sure that the performance of your officers, that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. And I think that is done and is looked at by, are they writing citations? Are they documenting correctly? Are they making their contacts are supposed to? It's not about them committing policy violations and supposed to know that these policy violations are happening without being informed. So for those reasons, I would ask that you dismiss that charge. Thank you. Any commissioners, any questions? I mean, for something like sexual harassment, is there a proactive measure that can be taken? Is there like signs? Is there like semi annual classes of two hours just to make sure people are aware that this is a serious thing and not something to be laughed at? Absolutely. So there is training that all police officers had to do and have to do. Mr. Daniels alleges that's retaliation, but all police officers had to take sexual harassment training. Supervisors have specific parts of training that are dedicated just to them. This happened before I got here and it's happened since I have been here. Those trainings go to all employees, not just police personnel. I think, again, the biggest thing that we can proactively do, this is not pertinent to this, but just so you are all aware, is encouraging non-supervisors to report bad behavior. In police and fire, there is this culture that they don't want to be the right snitches get stitches. That's what I learned in Milwaukee. They don't want to be the one that talks about the bad things that their partners are doing, which is, I mean, in this case, this is a perfect example. Abby Hernandez's complaint goes back since a week after she was hired, actually in training. So that's years of alleged bad behavior that was never reported by anyone, including Ms. Hernandez. And again, it's a cultural thing. Not just this police department, every police department everywhere has the same thing. So I think proactively what we can do and what I have tried to do since I've gotten here is to encourage people and inform them of the resources and ways that they can report things to make them feel more comfortable that, hey, when something bad happens, let us know so that we can correct it. Because if you don't let us know, there's absolutely nothing we can do. And whether that means going above the chief, right, coming directly to HR, if you don't feel comfortable going to your supervisor, great, come to HR, come to the attorney's office, report it to the anonymous hotline. Those are the things we are trying to do proactively to encourage officers to report things. But this existed in Nina, it existed in Milwaukee, it exists here. It's just kind of a cultural thing. I guess that's my question here though. Let me put it this way. Was it a culture fostered by silence? And when you said snitches or stitches? Snitches get stitches. Yeah. Well, being born in Italy, I know something about that. But I mean, that's what I'm saying is how about a culture that fosters openness and people reporting actively and feeling protected if they report. I agree. And I love that. But again, in my experience, both in Milwaukee, both as a city attorney and Nina here and in talking with colleagues, this is a very common thing, particularly amongst police and fire, just because of the brotherhood. And I know that I don't know if we use that word anymore, but because of the closeness, like they truly have to rely on their coworkers to potentially have to save their lives, right? Unlike here in City Hall, where I just have interactions with you, I'm never going to need my HR generalist to save my life, hopefully. In police and fire, it really is the case that these coworkers who are doing bad behavior, they have to rely on it. And there's this environment, this is my opinion, right? There's this environment that they would rather just deal with it and not upset the status quo than address it, right? Mr. Daniel said, there are so many officers who are afraid to come forward because of the chief for whatever, like that's a culture that I'm trying to change, but it's not unique to Sheboygan. It's just not. That culture is not unique to Sheboygan. Thank you. Just though, when you mentioned that all of our, in this case, police, employees receive this type of training, is that, is that including the captains? Every chief. Everyone. And the chief. Non-rep and rep. And the front desk staff, the court staff, everyone that works at the police department received sexual harassment training. Thank you. The fire department did as well, just so you know. And you said that was since you've arrived. That since I've arrived, they also, there's a, yeah, there's normally annual or biannual harassment trainings that happen. Those are all tracked. Mr. Daniels. Yeah, thank you. So just real quick, I appreciate you reading the last sentence of that case law, improving my point even further. So once you guys read that later, please take note of the sentence he said. And then I guess if and when praying gets charged, I'll expect the apology, you know. So I guess my points on this one is more so, more so like an overall picture. So we've got 30 plus people involved in this investigation. So that's roughly half, maybe just under half of the chief's staff are involved in this investigation. So this isn't a one time one person said one thing to one person. Now somebody got upset. This is a deeply festering wound inside of his police department that all of these people are behaving like this. I think there was something like 10 possibly more people punished as a part of this internal investigation. So what is he doing when he's at work? Does he not talk to people? Does he not talk to his officers? I mean, I know he likes to ignore officers. I've seen that myself personally before. And then I like that Mr. Westbrook has never been in law enforcement, but he apparently is now a self-professed expert on law enforcement. In Plymouth where I worked, we were not afraid to come forward to our bosses. If we saw something bad happen, we came forward. It's about who's at the top. So the reason Abby didn't come forward for three years is because she knew that pray was light and she knew that this was going to be the outcome and look what happened. So a way to encourage people to come forward is to not keep people that are engaged in sexual harassment. It's to not keep people employed who are engaged in sharing photos of females without their consent. As I stated earlier, Abby is one of the females. Brian Prey shared photos of three females without their consent. Albeit he received those photos consensually so those don't rise to the level of a crime. The one with Abby does. So he's sharing photos of three female officers without their consent. He gets slapped on the wrist. He lies about it. He violates gang orders. He does all these things and he's still employed. What message does that send to the women at your police department? Yeah, I come forward. We'll take this serious for sure. We'll deal with it right away by keeping the guy here, not taking your plane seriously. So again, going back to this argument, I'll be honest. This isn't really an important one to me and I understand the arguments of the chief doesn't know everything that's going on without something being reported to him. But at the same time, if you have 30 people involved in this type of behavior and 10 or more are punished, that's bad. Nothing in my 15 years of law enforcement experience in Plymouth will lead me to believe that we had Chief Talchak the entire time I was there. Chief Talchak, if something happened, you could walk in there and tell him, hey chief, this guy messed up. I wasn't afraid of whoever I was going in there about. I wasn't afraid that the chief was going to retaliate against me. I just went in there and I told him. So to say that that's everywhere and this is all encompassing thing that cops are just silence. Those are media talking points. That's not real life everywhere. That's not real life in Plymouth. I wish it wasn't real life in Sheboygan Sheriff's Office. I know have a lot of friends there. It's not like that there. I think it starts at the top. It starts with who your leadership is. That's the issue. So like I said, and maybe he won't want to talk about this, but the one sexual harassment complaint that I'm aware of after this all happened, she no longer works there. I asked her to come to this hearing. Hopefully she will. I don't think she will. But she says that basically she filed a complaint and then the PD found a reason to fire her. And it was also into Brian Prey. Veronica, something I don't remember her last name, Angelica. So again, so now we have this whole scenario plus her. But hey, we're fostering a great environment for people to come forward to us with these complaints. So if you want to dismiss this one, like I said, this is not an important one to me, but I still can make my argument that how do you not help 30 plus people have your apartment as a case in this type of behavior? I was a supervisor for two years before I quit. I was in charge of my shift. If my shift was engaged in this type of behavior, I would have known about it because I pay attention. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Daniels, anything else? I'll just add before we move on, I appreciate the underlying comments. I know this is an emotional energy of very passionate about feelings, but some of the comments I'm turning westward, I think could be with help moving forward. Likewise, if there are any comments directly about the individuals, let's just try and reframe for them. Keep this moving. Thank you. So if I can just clarify a couple things briefly. One, 30 people were involved in the investigation. That does not mean 30 people were in the conduct. It means 30 people were interviewed or were involved in the investigation. So there's a difference between those two things. Two, if any of you have ever worked in any professional business anywhere, you know that bad behavior, when a supervisor goes out and talks to their employees and says, hey, how's it going? They don't say, oh, yeah, we're trading nudes today. That's not what happens. So whether or not Chief Domogolski speaks, talks to officers or engage with officers does not mean that if he's talking to them, they're going to tell them all the bad behavior they're doing. Three, sexual harassment is unwanted, unsolicited, sexual advances, favors, requests. As Mr. Daniels noted, there were other females who Mr. Prey showed pictures of, whom all were engaged in consensually sending each other pictures, right? So the inappropriate behavior there, sorry, the sexual harassing behavior there is not sending each other nudes because that is being done consensually. The inappropriate behavior there was the showing of the picture to other people. So I just want to make sure that you understand that there were many people, less than 10, many people engaged in inappropriate behavior, which would be sexual harassment but for the fact that it was consensual, including Abby Hernandez. You're saying that other individuals may have been involved in observing this photo. You're not indicating that in the Hernandez case that she gave permission for other. No, I don't think anyone gave, well, I'm pretty certain no one gave permission for officer Brian to show the pictures. I'm saying that there was a lot of inappropriate conduct happening that does not meet the definition of sexual harassment. Thank you for that clarification. Something very quick, Mr. Daniels, or? Okay, next motion. Yeah, this one I think is probably the easiest one, retaliation. So retaliation is an action taken against an employee who engages in a protected act, right? I agree. Abby submitting a complaint is a protected act, right? So if anything happened to her as a result of her reporting that complaint, it could possibly be retaliation. All of the things that Mr. Daniels is saying is retaliation is not retaliation. Officer Prey being on Facebook is not retaliation. Officer Prey getting an award is not retaliation. She, her need to take FMLA is not retaliation. They did tell Officer Prey, hey, don't, you can't have contact with her. And then he did, right, that's not retaliation. The chief, the police department didn't do anything, didn't take any action against Abby for filing this complaint. So there was no retaliation. So for those reasons, I asked that you dismiss that charge. Questions? Were there any adverse actions, any downgrading assignments, any takeaway from pay or anything like that? There was nothing. Okay, I just want to make sure. Mr. Daniels. Okay, so I'll go brief on this one as well. So I think all of these actions that I bring up ultimately lead to the the ultimate retaliation of basically a, I don't forget the word, like a constructive firing. So, hey, so yeah, they put this no contact on Prey. He violates it. He lies. He violates gang orders. He retaliates against Abby. She's not being protected. She has to take FMLA to be protected. She's in a hostile work environment. That's the definition of a hostile work environment. The PD is doing nothing to protect her from the person she filed the complaint against. Then when she goes on FMLA, she's at home. A supervisor probably reached out to her once a week. I heard all the conversations on speakerphone. She was made aware very early on that Prey lied. She was made very early on that that people had seen her nude. So while she's at home, trying to figure out what's going on with this thing, Mike Stelter is telling her, he's a lieutenant. He's telling her this will be done next week. Next week comes. She calls. What's the status? It's not done yet. This is like March, early March already that she's being told like it's almost done, almost done, almost done, almost done, almost done. So she is on FMLA. She burns through all of her paid time off and she gets to the point where she has to go unpaid to stay as an employee in the city of Sheboygan. And she says, I can't. I have a house. I need paid for things. I can't go unpaid. So she goes in and they say, oh, yeah, it's not, it's not done. She quits. 10 days later, it's over. 10 days. So for the last four months, you guys were investigating this for three months, you've been telling her it's almost over. It's almost over. It's almost over. It's almost over. You basically are forced to quit because you have no more paid time. You don't feel safe coming back to work. And within 10 days, the investigation is over. And within that time, you're putting the perpetrator on Facebook and celebrating him. You're allowing him to take place in a news article saying how amazing he is. And then you're also giving him awards while this while this woman is out of work and losing all of her paid time off and ultimately being forced constructively fired. What other option did she have? No woman's going to come back to work in that situation. Nothing had improved. He continuously violated policies as she was on leave. So if he continues to violate policies as she's on leave and the chief's not taking it serious and still not putting him on leave, the investigation is not completing, what is she supposed to do? In my opinion, that's retaliation. If you're not finishing a complaint that you filed and you run out of all your stuff and you're essentially constructively fired from your job, is that not the definition of retaliation? Sure, the chief didn't say you're fired, but I think the message was pretty loud and clear that she wasn't wanted back. There was not going to be anything done for her. And then again, lo and behold, she quits and is fired whatever and 10 days later, it's over. 10 day suspension, take the next 10 Fridays off and then just come on back. No big deal. So that's what happened. That's retaliation. From what it sounds and from what I read, she had to take FMOA because of the stress and the environment at the police department. Is that accurate? I can speak to what I observed. I can't speak to that. She was very emotionally distraught and she had to take FMOA and do too. So there's things that I don't want to get into because it's embarrassing for her, but just other than other than saying it was a very difficult time. And had she not left, I fear something horrible would have happened when she was on duty. Thank you. Westbrook. Yeah. So this last one is the criminal violations. And again, there would be two reasons lack of jurisdiction and the fact that this is a pending criminal matter. The John Doe investigation, all of the facts are identical to what he is alleging here. It's all based on the photograph that Officer Prey took and how it was shared. Because Mr. Daniels has elected to file that as a John Doe investigation, this board should allow that process to play out. What normally happens in any case I have seen is charges are filed with the PFC after a criminal matter. If there's a criminal investigation until that is closed, you don't file something with the PFC. Because if there is a criminal investigation, any testimony taken here would be contrary or could be contrary to that investigation. So because there's a pending criminal matter that was filed by Mr. Daniels, and that I'm happy to provide to this board, you should dismiss that claim. Additionally, you are not a criminal court. You don't have the ability to determine whether or not crimes were committed. After a criminal proceeding, should a criminal proceeding happen and find that the chief violated criminal policies at that point, it would be proper to bring it forward and say, hey, look, the chief violated this criminal policy. And then you wouldn't be doing the fact finding to determine whether or not a crime had been committed. You would be evaluating the fact that he committed a crime, but that's not the case. He's filed a criminal action. That criminal action should play out before you hear any claim of criminal wrongdoing. If there's a determination of criminal wrongdoing, then do we have to come back and hear it? I would tell you that if there was a, in my opinion, a new charge would have, like a different charge would have to be filed. I don't think this stays open practically. I don't think this stays open for that. I guess you could hold it open. I don't know why you would want to do that. But yes, if there was a criminal charge, and let's say it was one that didn't naturally make him have to resign, right? I think it would absolutely be appropriate to hear a charge that the police chief violated or committed some criminal conduct. Tony Adams, if I may ask a question, please. Will you dismiss something with prejudice? Does that mean you can come back or is it without prejudice? Without prejudice. Without prejudice. Okay. So then attorney Adams, are you suggesting through your argument? Attorney Adams. It's not because my first name's Adams. I'm sorry. That's okay. Anyway, are you suggesting then, with your last argument about waiting until the criminal agenda was done, that we dismiss all of your things without prejudice then? So I'm requesting that you dismiss it with prejudice. That your argument is captured. So the reason I'm requesting it with prejudice is because of the entire nature of how this complaint has been filed and the fact that this complainant, again, is allegedly a decorated law enforcement officer who understands how criminal law works, knows this practice and knows this policy. And so this is just, in my opinion, to try to see how many noodles he can throw at a wall and get to stick. I would say in a normal circumstance, after a criminal proceeding is over, then a charge like this would be appropriate, because at that point you would know, right? If a criminal, if no criminal charges are brought or criminal charges are brought and either found not guilty or guilty, you would have an answer. So it would be less of a a complaint at that point as much as just here's the information. Well, this would be a comment, not a question. So let me show. I may be able to shed a lot of light onto this for you guys. Yeah, go for it, Chance. Okay. So what attorney was because there is my initial complaint. So in my initial complaint, I did wrap all of it into one, the DA, the chief, and pray. Um, there's been several filings since that, which maybe if you walk over to the clerk or courts, they can hand it to you. So I was, I was given a copy of the, the jury instructions for all the crimes that I had alleged in that report. So keeping in mind, I filed this report back in December of last year. So a lot of time has passed. I learned a lot of information as we've gone. Um, so I was, I was asked specifically to file another similar document like that, where I attached the police reports and everything else that I've provided to you guys. Um, and in that one, I was given advice by law enforcement and attorneys to take what I thought was the quote, slam dunk, um, to not bother the judge with all of it, bother the judge, you know, people in the law enforcement community, you know what I'm saying. Um, so I took what I consider to be the slam dunk, which is pray because the obvious crime is he took the photo of her without a consent. So when I filed my paperwork after that, I said specifically just look into Brian pray. So that's what this has changed into is it's now just focusing on Brian pray. The chief is not involved in that right now. Um, the DA is not involved in that right now. Now again, that's not to say that once, um, the special prosecutor starts looking into it, that it won't water fly out into something bigger. I don't know. I'm not the investigator in this case. Um, I don't even know if that's allowable in a John Dole proceeding. I've never been a part of a John Dole proceeding. So I don't know if their scope is narrowly to what the complaint is, which is the complaint of what Brian pray did. Um, but again, I still think this is entirely different. This is a civil proceeding versus a criminal proceeding. You guys are the chief's oversight board. So if you guys feel that the chief has potentially committed this crime by a preponderance of evidence, or if he's engaged in behavior, so egregious that he should not be employed anymore, you guys should hear that. I think it's a scapegoat argument to say, well, this is also ongoing. So I shouldn't have to talk to you. You guys shouldn't get to hear evidence on this. Um, and then furthermore, again, I'll add. Um, so like I said before, the judge has reviewed all the documents and decided to assign a special prosecutor to this. So the judge has already given at least some credibility to my complaints by assigning a special prosecutor. He has the ability to dismiss my complaints with prejudice. So that way it just goes away. Nobody can ever bring this forward again. Um, as far as where we are in the process, I don't know. I don't have any insight knowledge into the John Dole proceeding. I don't know when people are going to start getting interviewed. I don't have any of that information, but, um, to say that I'm just throwing noodles at the wall, like that that implication is that like this isn't serious. I take this very seriously. Like I'm not embarrassed by anything. And let's get that on the table too. Cause I feel like I need to say this. I'm not embarrassed by anything that Abby did. She was intoxicated. She made a mistake. It doesn't allow a felony to occur to her. That doesn't allow for somebody to share her picture without her consent. That doesn't allow for people to share to spread rumors about her. That doesn't make her deserve to lose her career that she thought she was going to be working in for the next 28 years. None of that matters. I keep hearing, well, Abby did more than you're aware of. I've not been told anything. I've been waiting two years for this bombshell information. I haven't gotten it. Nobody has it. She allegedly asked Brian for a picture one day. Okay, great. I know I'm getting out of tangent here, but anyways, um, but again, that'll come up at some point that was off through to yours consensual. It wasn't fully investigated. Um, but anyways, so yeah, as far as, as far as we go on this, um, I just, I just think it's a scapegoat argument. You guys here is oversight committee. You should hear this. Thank you. Uh, any questions? I just like to point out two things. I went today to the courthouse to print this off. Um, there's a hearing scheduled relatively soon. Um, the special prosecutor is assigned almost by standard operating procedure. In this case, the special prosecutor was assigned almost immediately after it being transferred over to Calumet County. One, two, I just want to point out that earlier in this hearing, Mr. Daniel said, I never included the chief or the DA in this complaint. And now he just said that, well, in my original complaint, it was the DA, the chief and prey. But now after getting advice from law enforcement, I've removed the DA and the chief. So I, I think that if we are going to, um, I would request that if we were going to continue to allow testimonial type of evidence, that anyone who's providing testimonial evidence be sworn in because statements are being made that are just not true. Um, and I think it's important that people be held to the same standard as we would expect witnesses. I believe that that is a requirement of the hearing procedure in our Wisconsin PFC manual for witnesses. I'm asking that if, if the complainant is going to be allowed to provide narrative testimony that, and I mean, I'm happy to be sworn into that would be very unusual, but I'm happy to do it. Um, just because there is not factual things being said. I'm happy to be sworn in. Um, I never said I never included them. I said, as of right now, the chief and the DA are not involved in the process. That's a factual statement. I could provide you the documents. If I had to, I'm not under any type of gang order or anything. I'd be happy to share them with the PFC on exactly what I've sent to the judge. The special prosecutor was not in fact assigned immediately after I was actually told by the judge at a previous hearing, I will review all the documents and if appropriate, I will assign a special prosecutor. So apparently the judge has found appropriate to assign a special prosecutor. That's the facts. I'd be happy to go under oath. Thank you. Um, anything further? Otherwise, we'll, uh, attorney Westbrook, I believe that's the end of my motions. Sorry. We could just take mine in order to remember as lengthy. Sorry, I wasn't going to try to print these today, but of course the printer. Oh, yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. It's, uh, I believe you're started on page 67. I want it back though. All right. All right. So, I'm sorry. No, the floor is yours. I think it's too paid. Oh, paid for that. That's his responsibility. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Oh, maybe more. Sorry. I apologize. I'm on 50, 58, right? His motion started on page 67. That's what I have too. Mr. Daniel's motion is not my response. Oh, that's your response. Okay. No, I get it. It starts on, sorry. It starts on page 60. My apology. The, no, it doesn't. It starts on page 30 something that looks like 35. That's 35. That looks right. I'm like, it was, I got your responses. That's really my problem. All right. I should have looked at my pages because I got more. 35. Yep. Sorry. Thank you. It's my color corrugated. Okay. You want to start? Please. Okay. So, my first motion to just allow any victims, if called, I don't plan on calling any victims, but if called to testify via Zoom, even if not in closed session, because I know Attorney Westbrook know that we should hear both of those separately. So I think Zoom is important. I know this is, this is utilized in several different ways. I've testified via Zoom before in criminal matters. Obviously, the purpose of that is to protect victims. The police department itself has found that Abby is a victim of sexual harassment. So the fact that the police department agrees, she's a victim, she is a victim. If the city chooses to call her, really the only reason to not allow her to testify via Zoom is just to, again, publicly humiliate and embarrass, cause her more emotional turmoil. I get as arguments, well, body language, and you have to see if somebody can lie. You guys will be able to tell if she's lying and visiting. It's not that difficult. She can zoom out the camera to do whatever you guys want to do if she's called. And then I guess the only other victim specifically I would mention would be Vicki Schneider. She's a former HR director. The city actually has a probable cause finding against them for retaliating against her for the feeling from the entire situation. So she clearly is also a victim in this. The state agrees with probable cause. So I would request if the city calls Abby, she'd be allowed to testify via Zoom and Vicki be allowed to testify via Zoom. A closed session after reading the statute, I understand probable happens since it does sit as the public. So I won't make an argument on that. You know why it's got to be public? Say again, do you know why they have it, that it's got to be public? I would assume so the public can hear any complaints against their police officers. So that the Fire and Police Commission doesn't become a start chamber. You know what that is? No, start chambers started in England back in the I believe the late 14, 1500s where you'd get these people together that were judges and they decide things in secret. And then they'd send out the sheriff to get the person they did it to. We don't want that here. That's why we do it in public. So anybody can see that we are being fair and can criticize this. And I'm okay with that. That's my afternoon with statute. I understand that part of it. Fair enough. Yeah, so I would tell you that as a law enforcement officer, I would expect that Mr. Daniels understands the importance of having witnesses victims in person. Receiving testimony, particularly from victims and witnesses is as an ADA in Milwaukee, right? It's crucial that they are in person because body language, emotion, how they are acting the way they respond is critical to assessing their credibility, assessing the veracity of their statements. So that's the first thing. Secondly, I went after reading Mr. Daniels argument. I walked over and talked to the clerk, of course, and she pointed out, hey, are you guys doing criminal trials on Zoom? And they said, we have never done a criminal trial via Zoom. We've never done a civil trial via Zoom. Zoom during the pandemic was used a lot for mundane, not mundane, pre-trial hearings, things that aren't the actual finding or determination. It is still occasionally used for those matters, for those pre-trial things. Attorneys oftentimes will zoom in if they are somewhere else. I am not opposed to allowing someone to testify via Zoom if there is a rational practical reason. So for example, if Mr. Daniels plans on calling a witness who lives in Denver, Colorado, I think it would be unreasonable for me to say, nope, they need to come in in person because as an expert, they're not really going to be providing testimony that is based on their credibility, based on tenacity, right? They're providing their expertise, an opinion on something, and it would be impractical to request them to come here. However, when we're talking about people who have witnessed things or who are victims of things, barring some extraordinary thing, it's important that they're in person. And in this case, Abby lives with the complainant here. So distance isn't an issue. Transportation isn't an issue. There have been no allegations that there are any medical or other impending reasons why she would not be able to attend in person. And the same thing would go with, this is not just specifically to Abby. If he also was implying Vicky Schneider, I would say my same analysis applies. I am not sure where Vicky works right now. If she still lives in this area, I would have the same arguments that no, she needs to be here in person. If Vicky Schneider has moved to North Carolina, I don't think, I mean, while my argument of it still is important, there becomes a balancing test of what is the reasonableness of requesting someone to fly in an airplane for a quasi-judicial hearing, particularly when Vicky's information would not be as probative. So that's, no, no, no, that's, that's why I would tell you that Zoom is not appropriate barring exceptional circumstances or stipulated people. I know there were some witnesses, expert witnesses that Mr. Daniel had discussed possibly bringing. Again, for those like expert witnesses who aren't providing factual things, which is providing, I would be willing to have that discussion about, about Zoom, but not for, I don't think it's appropriate for witnesses who are providing testimony about the matter asserted. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Daniels, did you indicate that you were okay? Did you sort of change your position about we didn't need a have Zoom? I changed my position on closed session. So I understand it has to be open session. So if, if she were allowed, again, this is assuming they call her because I'm not, but if called, if she were allowed to testify via Zoom, it would still be open session. Yes, for sure. If she was allowed to do that. Can I just add two points to his argument? Sorry, just real quick. So I will add that as part of her FMLA when she was off from the police department, she's still to this day has a doctor's note to not testify in court. She's, it's, it's been allowed at the district attorney's office. She's provided her doctors excuse to them multiple times and been allowed to not come and testify. So I guess going along the lines of what he's saying, I would assume that that would be a exigent type of circumstance that would prevent her from testifying. I'm sure again, if they called her, she could provide that to you guys. And then, I forgot what my other point was going to be. So I guess I'll just leave it at that. Does she, does she have any doctors note to not speak in public or just not testify in court? I think it's testify in court. I have to review it. I don't recall. And the reason, the reason why I'm asking, I'm not trying to be facetious here, but if she can speak in public, I'm wondering why she, what, what, what, I mean is, well, she hasn't, I don't want to ask the medical condition. I don't want to delve into that. Mr. Daniels. So when you say speak in public, are you referring to what this would be? Yeah. Well, let's say she, you know, she goes and speaks in three or four in front of three or four people for, I don't know, whatever reason. I mean, is it just a court type setting? Or I guess that's what I'm trying to distinguish here. Yes. It's just court. It's for court. So if I can just respond to that. Of course. First of all, FMLA does not apply because FMLA is regarding employment. She's not an employee of the city of Chicago. So a medical note is different, but FMLA doesn't apply to this situation. To not testifying in court, barring, right. So if it is that she can't testify in court to the building, that would be confusing to me. I would imagine that the medical note is more, she can't testify about matters that would be, I'm assuming because again, the building doesn't make sense. And this isn't a court. So we wouldn't have to worry about that. But if it's more of like the idea of testifying, that would be a completely different topic that we would have to discuss because to assert that the main person in this entire complaint that he's alleging is unable to be provided as a witness would bring up many, many different objections and challenges. If there's, it's now being asserted that Ms. Hernandez can't speak about this, which again would be counteracted by the fact that she filed the Department of Workforce Development Complaint, which is very much a public hearing where she would have to go through and testify had the city not settled. So that contradicts her doctors know if that exists. So I would need more. But my statement is still the same that I think particularly Abigail Hernandez and she is the subject of this complaint, not the subject. You know what I mean? She's the main person in this complaint. It needs to be in person. Okay. That's jazz, I think. I'm just just one thing. I know there was a Department of Workforce Development Complaint. Was there a cross claim in federal too? You don't see? I don't know. Because that would require court action too, where the one DWD is ALJ. And I'm just figuring, trying to figure that out. This is difficult. I have to get the note. If anyone wants to come to it, because I honestly don't know. I don't know for certain. The file is absurd. I'm pretty confident they were filed. They usually are. That's how I used to do it in Chicago, in the clinic, the law school clinic. All right. Motion number two. So motion number two, I guess this goes along the same lines as my last argument. So I won't make it long. So obviously, if forced to testify, she, you know, I guess maybe it's important to add that she is still seeking counseling regarding all of this. So if she is forced by the city to come testify against her NDA that they made her sign, you know, I guess I would suggest that she be allowed to be called officer aid, which is what she's called in the internal investigation. I understand she's in public documents. However, you know, I guess the thought is that more people may be inclined to tune into the hearing documents. And again, identifying her by name. You guys know who she is. I don't know who she is. He knows who she is. So again, in my opinion, the only purpose of naming her is again for public humiliation or to I guess to try to get me to back down or or else. So that's my argument on that as well. I have a question. Yeah. She's named through all these papers we have in front of us. And we're doing this in open session. It's being recorded and we mentioned her name at least 20 times that I can think of. So I'm having difficulty with this one. Can you give me can you elaborate? Because, you know, I understand what you're saying, but I'm just trying to figure out a legal basis or more than a legal basis, I guess, to grant your request here. Well, again, I guess people I'd have to dig into victim statutes, I guess, which would be a my fault. I haven't up until today. Again, I also work. I don't get to do this at work. So my point would be, again, I know this is open session. We've mentioned her name today. I understand that. However, the hearing is obviously what most people would be interested in, I guess would be my argument and having her come in and identify her and have her go through this process. I mean, her, her statements are well known based on the police reports and the DWB complaint. That's what I'm going to rely my testimony and my questioning of witnesses on. So again, I just think we're not we're not doing anyone any favors. You guys will know who she is and all of us will know who she is if she's identified as Officer 8. I guess other than that, I don't really have much. Okay, thank you. Yes, I'll try to be quick. So a couple things. One, Mr. Daniels could have kept Officer 8 anonymous in this complaint, like he did the other female officers in this complaint who he did not name. But he didn't. He chose to name Abby numerous times in this complaint. He chose to name Abby numerous times in these hearings as as have I. So in addition to the fact that this idea of anonymity has already been removed by Mr. Daniels and his complaint, additionally, practically speaking, it is it would be difficult to question again, a witness and not refer to them in a proper name, whether that's Ms. Hernandez or Officer Hernandez or Abby or whatever that name is to talk about Officer 8, particularly when we're speaking with other people. So tell us what Officer 8 did. They're going to say who's Officer 8. How I don't understand practically how that that would work given that she's already been named. I also want to make a very important clarification. The NDA was not forced to be signed by the city of Sheboygan. That is blatantly false. It is a lie. And that's not true. That's not what happened. And so to sit here and say that the city forced her to sign an NDA is just a gross mischaracterization of what happened and factually untrue. She does have an NDA, but not because of the city. Can I just ask a technical question? Yeah. If she signed an NDA for the city, is she allowed to testify then? So I mean, like, I just don't know. I'm sorry. I just this is like, you know, I'm not I'm not as as cool as I am and as much as I know, I do not know that. So if the city was the one requesting her to speak on something, she couldn't be found to have violated an NDA at the request of the person who submitted the NDA. Now, if she has disclosed things to other people outside of this without the city asking, that is a violation of the NDA. Okay, I get. So if she was, if the city said, hey, we come here or she was painted here, that I appreciate that. I just didn't I again, not not understand if I am not a cool attorney. Be happy about that. Motion number three. So number three is pretty simple. So there was obviously some journalism on this entire event. One of the journalists spoke to the head director of the largest police union in the state of Wisconsin, WPPA. And he made statements in that article to the press about best practices for administrative leave. I'm just asking to allow, and again, you guys can give them any way you want, if you want to get with no weight, that's fine. But I just asked to allow his statements to come in through the article. He said that he is not allowed to testify in these types of hearings. I get to email him. I have a question. Yeah. I get to ask him questions during the adventure here. How do I ask a piece of paper with this quote on it a question? How do I do that? How does he cross examine because we got to do fairness? Because you get to you get to do examinations. He gets to cross examine your witnesses. You get to cross examine his witnesses. We get to ask some questions too during the adventure. How do we do that with a quote to see the veracity of the quote to see what's how it informed how he came about? Was it certain expertise? Was it certain knowledge strain or education or, you know, his background, things like that? How are we able to do that? No, it's a question. It's a pointed question. It's a hard one, but it's it's one of those legitimate questions. Do you see what I'm trying to say, Justin? I do. I mean, I guess it goes along the lines of hearsay. So I guess we haven't addressed hearsay at one single time period today. So I guess maybe we should address that before we address this. Certain papers can come into evidence as long as, you know, certain reports and things like that. And you can check the evidence rules on this. But but when you're going to use a quote, like it's testimony, that court can never be cross examined. We can't find out if that court is even credible because it's on a piece of paper. It's like if I write something and say, go go say this to them. And they don't have I could be lying in what I wrote, see what I'm saying or what I stated. You see, and that's something that's important for not only the commissioners, but more important for you. If he if he tries to pull the same stunt on you, and I'm not saying you're doing this as a stunt because you're a late person, you don't know the rules of evidence. But for both of you to be able to cross examine the people that say things that are going to come into evidence, you see what I'm trying to say. So as was illustrated by that question, I have no objection to allowing newspaper articles to come in to show that the Sheboygan press ran an article in October, because that is not speaking to what we call the truth of the matter asserted, right? So I have no problem with things coming in like that. However, if there's going to be fact checked media outlets, and that's going to be used to speak to best practices as Mr. Daniels indicated, or the specifics of this case, I would object to that on the grounds of hearsay, because if it's going to the truth of the matter asserted, we need the ability to cross examine and ask questions, again, barring some things. Additionally, I would say I don't know who fact checks these media outlets. So the blatant like the the broad fact check media outlets also concerns me, because I know his info waters fact checked, I don't I don't know, but who determines what is fact checked when he submits it. And also I just want to make sure that I'm clear. At our original hearing, it was discussed and stated very clearly that unless there was a motion to amend the rules of hearsay, we would be following the civil rules of hearsay. So I did not file an emotion and I did not file an answer, because Mr. Daniels did not file an emotion to allow hearsay evidence. So Mr. Daniels said we haven't talked about it yet, which is true because there has been no motion made to allow hearsay evidence. Okay, I just wanted to be clear about that. Motion before Mr. Daniels, we've already talked about here today, but I guess I want you to have more of a heavy opportunity because we want to be very misokayed. Okay, so okay, so I guess, yeah, maybe I should have said allow us to make an opening statement, us being myself and Attorney Westbrook, I guess that'd be more appropriate. So obviously, an opening statement is something used a lot of times to kind of set the stage and lay out your case to, I guess you guys at this point would be the judge or the jury or both. So I'd like to lay out my case to you, go over some of the things we'll be talking about, some of the witnesses I'll be calling and what their, I guess what their involvement is. I would like to talk about myself a little bit because I've been attacked multiple times again here today. I by no means am an expert, but I have plenty of paperwork I can bring in and show just to again not to brag or pretend it better than anyone else, but I think it is important for you to know that, you know, again, I am, you know, I'm not just some crazy person with an anti cop agenda here. I actually have legitimate concerns about this, and I feel I should be allowed to speak to you and the public about who I am prior to getting into this, into this information. I know he addresses that I don't have any first hand knowledge of any of this information. While it is true, I have no first hand knowledge of the photograph being taken again. That's what witnesses are called for. I do have first hand information of the chief stalling the release of the reports to the DA. I've done open records requests with the DA. So I do have first hand information regarding that. So I think it is important for you guys to after this hearing get a better scope of who I am and why I'm filing this complaint. No, my question was because the motion has been slightly meant to include both parties, do we need to reassess what we're looking at? Because he's tempted to include both him and me. So I had no objection to half of the motion. Half he changed, I have no objection to. Okay, I just want to make sure we're all clear. So you don't have an objection to open? I have, if you want to ask Ken your questions first, I will. Well, I just want to. Yeah, because he's asking for them both to be allowed to make an opening statement. That's all we're clarifying here, which sounds like both are fine, but you have some issues with regard to what is presented in the opening statement separately. But I think we want to clarify that they would both be allowed to make an opening statement. That's all I'm going to say. Here we go. Let me ask this question. If he gets up and in his opening statement, and this is not so much a question, but an observation, and you say, I will present evidence that will show Officer Aid or Abby suffered this because you're going to have her testify. I don't see a problem with that because that's what we do in court all the time. I mean, you know, but you can't testify as to what that person felt you got to have them testify to that. I mean, in your opening statement, just so just so this is clear. And you guys both have an open statement. That makes total sense to me so that way you can give us this case. And if you look at what our hearing should be, it is the second thing, the reading of the charges by the president, president, and then opening statements by the parties. Do you like, oh, this is my life. Here we go. Thank you. All right. So I have no objection to opening statements. Again, opening statements are meant to tell you what we are going to show you throughout the trial. They're not meant to be an argument about why you should side with us. It's I will show you this, I will tell you this, you will hear from this person, right? That is an opening statement. I have no objection to both of us making open statements at all. That is very common. I do, however, object to Mr. Daniels being able to get on a stage and talk about his accolades and his accomplishments without that being done under oath and with the opportunity to cross examine. It would be his credit, his credentials don't matter if he has no first hand knowledge and is only going to be asking witnesses, much like my credentials don't matter if I'm just asking witnesses. You don't need to know my backstory and all the great things I've done in my life because I'm not providing any substantive information. I'm only asking questions. If Mr. Daniels would like to let the commission and the public know about his background and his accommodations, I am fine with that if he's sworn in as a witness and has the ability to be cross-examined. I think who I am is entirely important to this, especially to the public who hasn't heard from me at all yet, bringing this case forward as a former police officer. I wasn't asked from the profession. I left in good standing. I'm not out here to get somebody. I watched a police chief, in my opinion, commit a crime and cover up a crime and that's why I'm here to file my complaints. I think my background is relevant even if I'm just asking questions because people may wonder how do you know that information? How does this guy know any of this? How does he know how to get this information? How does he provide the information? So those are my thoughts on that. I'm here. Can I just make a point here? Yes, go ahead. You have the room for 27 more minutes. Okay, let me cut the Gordians not here if I can. Let me be Alexander. I'll never be that great. How about we get an affidavit with a CV from you or a resume so that we can check it out? So again, my objection, I go ahead, is that if I could come in and say yes, I won the Nobel Prize in Literature and I'm an astrophysicist and I've never been disciplined for misconduct and without the ability to be cross-examined or have those statements be verified. That's a document that's going to be placed in it because you think we need to cross the standard about it. I think I could. But only if he goes under oath. Okay, that's fine. That's my point. I'm fine. I've already agreed to be under oath. Then I have no objection to this motion at all. I'm trying to simplify this so we can now move on to our 26 minutes. All right. Do we have any other motions that we need to Yes, sir. There are nine total. These are pretty easy. So number, so motion five, I think we basically discussed this several times already. So I don't think we have to touch on that one again. Again, there's no objection to you understanding the burden that you need to be. Number six, PowerPoint presentation. No objection. Seven. We don't have to do it today, but I don't know if I mis-typed there or what. But at some point before the hearing, if we can have preponderance and evidence clearly written and everyone agrees on the So there's a jury. Okay. It's a jury instruction. It's called Ordering 30. It's 200. It's under Wisconsin, J.I. and jury instruction. And that's what we're going to be using most likely. Excellent. Again, that's good. No objection to you knowing the rules that you need to know. Yeah, we're going to like work with these rules. Can we have it sent to everybody including Yeah, I think typically the way you would do it is with with jury instructions is parties work them out. Yep. So we would do it. I would suggest you the same thing, even though we're not a jury. Yeah. Right. Question. Chair. Yes, Chair. And we can be totally out of work. My court request would be because of the interest of time. Should we skip to number nine just so we can see if we agree on that one? Yeah, nine is also nine. It's no objection. Okay. Subject to the rules of hearsay and all the other things for the fact that evidence is digital. I don't have the one thing. The one thing I'll mention it, but you can handle this as it comes is there may be some issues with depending on what the digital evidence is, what you are required to do this and open and record the hearing. If there's a clash in system between recording the hearing and the digital evidence, but that can be worked. That's not you wouldn't be preventing it. It's just making sure that it's worked out. They can marry up. Okay. Great. That brings us back to number eight. Now we're at number eight. Okay. So number eight, I know I brought this up last time. I didn't seem to make much ground, but I'll just bring up some more, some more information that I didn't get on last time. So I have several concerns with attorney Adams, the counsel to the PFC. I think first and foremost, he's been involved in the process with this internal investigation for the last few years. So he's already got deep seated thoughts and beliefs on whether or not this was handled appropriately and what he believed should happen with this. So then I go to obviously the city's also made a determination, evidently, which attorney Westbrook has related to Schwoigen Press that apparently the police chief has acted appropriately. So the fact that the city has already made a decision to stand by them without hearing this complaint or investigating it and the fact that attorney Adams and attorney Westbrook work in the same building and have the ability at any time to discuss this matter certainly gives me the impression of a potential conflict of interest. I'll be presenting multiple witnesses, some that will testify to attorney Adams' knowledge of the initial outside investigation that began and then for unknown reasons was called off. I'll be presenting to you witnesses that'll say that attorney Adams was more interested in varying this issue than dealing with it appropriately. That I think I just have here to explore these, I may call attorney Adams, but after reviewing everything I have, I'm not going to call him anymore, but I still think he should be removed based on all the other issues. And then here I was trying to figure out my next page here. So one final example about his conflict with this. So as was brought up earlier in this hearing, I submitted this complaint to you guys and he would know that from you for more than 30 days or almost 30 days. His stated intention was to prevent you guys from reading the complaint and forming an opinion or bias, which I disagree with. And obviously that is your job as the PFC to read a complaint. When I asked attorney Adams to provide me anything showing that you was allowed to do so, he has still not responded to me or told me any law policy or procedure that allows him to withhold complaints unilaterally from the PFC. Sorry to talk fast, but in the effort of time. I'm just the secretary. We're good. Attorney Westbrook. So as I said in my thing, it doesn't necessarily matter to me who the commission or board's attorney is, because again, the attorney of the board does not have any say in the termination you make. They are exclusively there to help answer those legal questions. However, I would say two things related to the removal of attorney Adams. One, I don't think it is proper or appropriate. His examples of why attorney Adams and I both, yes, work in this family, both our attorneys and both have oaths and ethics that we are required to follow. And I can assure you that attorney Adams and I have never spoken to each other about this matter. Other than the initial conversation of, hey, are we going to be able to put up a, it was called to Chinese while I don't actually know what the appropriate term is now, but put up a wall between us. Yep, we can. Great. That was the only conversation and it was before any substantive things even happened. Otherwise, all of our communication has been via email and has CC the appropriate party. So that's the first thing. The second thing, even if attorney Adams has been, had been involved in the underlying complaints for the past two years, again, his job, his role with all of you is only to answer your questions about legal process. What does this mean? The fact that you have an additional attorney on your panel, I also think negates the need to remove him because if attorney Adams had a bias and was giving you bad information in an attempt to cover this up again, there is an expert on your board who could be like, I don't know if that's right. There's a crucial role in having an attorney advise the board from a city standpoint to ensure that laws are being followed and it's not just the wild west out there. And I don't think attorney Adams has shown any bias or indicated anything. I would also say that Mr. Daniels says he's going to bring people in to testify about all these things that attorney Adams has done. The appropriate time for that information would have been before this hearing. I don't know how you can possibly make a decision to remove him before you've heard evidence. If Mr. Daniels has evidence that he is unethical and biased, I agree, he should be removed. But without hearing that evidence, I don't think it's proper for you just to take the, I'm going to tell you that someone's going to come and tell you this and move on that. The last thing would be the additional cost. Cost is not important, right? I mean, it is important, but because Mr. Attorney Adams hasn't indicated any bias and hasn't shown any reason that he should be removed, if you were to make that determination, I would ask that the cost be assessed to Mr. Daniels who's making that request because it's not necessary in the interest of justice or to have this commission properly proceed. Thank you, Attorney Westbrook. Attorney Adams, how much time do we have? We have 18 minutes. 18 minutes. All right. I would like to give each one of, do you have anything else? Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, I have a clarifying question too. Of Attorney Westbrook? Right. So, so can, and maybe it's of you, Chuck, what I want to understand is I believe that Attorney Adams would not be present when we do deliberate. Is that correct? You would not be like, because like, right now we'll go into closed session, we're going to have to make a decision of all these motions. So, he can answer, but it normally, in my experience, both as city attorney and in my current role, the attorney representing the commission is, is not participating, right? They're only there if you say, hold on, what statute? I just want you to understand, like what, just so you get an idea, an idea of what the role is. Okay, right. He's not in your, he just cannot, he's not participating in making the decisions around this. It's a clarification. And in fact, he shouldn't, he shouldn't properly even become it. And he shouldn't say, oh yeah, I agree with this, or I disagree with that. Right. It's really answering your legal question. Right. Okay. That was, that does answer it. I just, I wanted to make sure I understood. The last time, the first time I was here, and that's the first time I think I met you, I tried to be helpful in informing you what kind of evidence you would need to present to disqualify attorney Adams. Do you remember that? I do recall asking if I had audio or video of the questions, but I obviously have no idea. Or, or, or statements that you would get after David's on, you could have presented those with your motion and we could have determined that. But now you're, I guess the problem I'm having here, Justin, is you're saying you need more time to get these guys to come forward. The whole point of doing a motion, and this is like a, a motion to disqualify. It's a pretrial or a, in this case, you hear an emotion. That's why I asked for that back then, was to help you know what you had to do. I, maybe you, maybe you thought I was adversarial. I wasn't trying to be adversarial. No, I didn't think that. I appreciated what she said. I guess, two quick things, and then we could even let this drop. So I will concede, I do feel better that there's another attorney on the board. So if there is any bad legal advice given, obviously it'll be caught. And secondly, knowing that he's not involved, I guess, in the process at the end, does help a little bit. I still feel he should be removed, but if he's not, I understand. Okay, fair enough. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Daniels and Attorney Westbrook, how about like one or two minute closing statement or argument, please. And that will entertain a motion to go into closed session. Is there room for us to go into closed session outside of here? Yeah. We'll see. We have many comments. The only issue will be going back into open session. That has to be on video. And this room will be. And this room will not be available. Unless can you do a written order? So this is going to be my suggestion. First of all, you have the closed session on the agenda. Yes. And you can choose to go into closed session. We had some discussion with the president about exactly what language needed to be in the closed session because you're not deliberating today. That's correct. You're not deliberating on any facts. You're making legal decisions. So in my opinion, you cannot go into closed session to deliberate. You can, if you choose, go into closed session to confer with me if you have questions for me where my advice to you needs to be in closed session because it needs to be outside the presence of the parties. I'm not convinced that that's necessary, although you can, you can choose to do that. My thought would be don't go into closed session. Finish this in open session. What I, the comment was, would there need to be some kind of a written order? I think that would be entirely appropriate here. But what we would need to have is your determination on these matters so that I can draft something up. I'm going to, I'm going to suggest, given both the timeframe and the need for a written order, I don't know whether you have an opportunity to meet again. No, we don't. I'm sorry. Absolutely not. So, so, so, because you really have two options when it comes to a written order. One is to authorize me basically to draft something based on sort of your general general ideas. The other is for me to draft something based on your general ideas and then have you approve it. Because of the nature of some of the allegations against me, I would prefer to have you approve it, not have me just unilaterally draft it based on my understanding of what you're saying. But you, I think it's also important to remember that you act as a commission, not as individuals. And so to just simply say, oh, I appreciate, I want this, I want this, I want this, that's not appropriate. That'd be a violation of public meeting laws. So you only act as a commission as a, as an entity, not as individuals. And Mike, I appreciate the clarification. My issue is in 12 minutes, you're asking us an open session to deliver 18 different. Right. I think you need to have, you can't do it. Yeah, I think you have to have another meeting. I can't, and clearly before July 11th, that is not going to happen. I'm gone for one full week. This can move into a different, you, you can, you can reschedule, yeah. The July 11th date isn't it still on? So we can reschedule. And why can't, why, is there a problem with this meeting continuing in a different location in City Hall if it's properly posted? Like if it just says this has moved to room you're really getting in there. We're getting to open meetings once we posted 106, I mean, it's pretty, yeah, pretty much half of the year. And that has also been, I understand that there are some communities where the practice has been put a sign up saying we've moved to other places. My consistent advice over the years has been, can't do that. And the city has never done that. I just, especially in a high profile case, like I don't want to do something stupid. The last thing we need is to, you know, all of a sudden for the PFC to be made to look like idiots. Who has the room after that? Can we not add a button to it? And let's just see. Well, it's a public meeting. Let's just see if we can ask them. Yeah, and now they have a public meeting. If they did, it would be difficult for them. See, I had, I had, I had the schedule all the way to five. So did I, which is, well, but we couldn't get, we couldn't get any room, although it is now saying till eight. So I wonder if they canceled the previous meeting. That would be good. Because Carly informed me that she could only, she could not get a single room anywhere in the city past four o'clock, just because of all the other meetings. But it does now, it does now say on there till eight o'clock. So it may be darn bureaucrats. It doesn't, it says we're here till eight. So I'm wondering whether another meeting got canceled. So far, nobody else is here. I'm trying to pull up the, it's taking, it'll take time. Because realistically, just so we're out there, this is going to take 10 minutes. We're going to be here. No, no. I think we should all understand that if it's not working, it's not working. We have to go over the different solution. I don't want to run through this just to get it done. It looks like the meeting that was scheduled here is canceled. So you've got the room. Let's go. Let's move. Nice. Let's go. All right. I was offering to let it close the state. Sure. So I've presented you seven motions, two of them asking for the entire complaint to be dismissed and five on the individual charges. I think the two motions for the entire complaint are probably the most important because they set precedence that you will need to follow moving forward for any other claims that come to you. So I'm going to focus on those because I think the other five are very facts specific to this case. So first, that Mr. Daniels is not an agreed person to this hearing. Again, everything in this hearing is related to Abigail Hernandez and the mistreatment, alleged mistreatment of her. And I think the fact that Mr. Daniels has now indicated that he doesn't even plan on calling her as a witness makes even more confusing how he can possibly provide testimony as an agreed person when all of the information is related to that. I hear his arguments that it's the profession of law enforcement. So that's how he has a right. I hear the arguments that he had to support Abigail through the full process and he was there and saw her every day. But Abigail is the person who should be bringing the charges forward that are alleged here in this complaint. He doesn't allege the open records violation in this complaint that he had to wait six months or I don't even remember what he said. That's not alleged in this complaint. So that him having standing there is not pertinent to the facts. So I would strongly encourage the board to dismiss on the fact that he does not have standing. In addition to that, I think time limits are put in place for reasons. More than just, oopsie, I didn't see it. In this case especially given the fact that Mr. Daniels filed a completely different complaint, the process set up by this commission was not followed. The police department did not have the ability to review the complaint by Mr. Daniels because he did not file the complaint that he has filed here with the PFC. The reason that the complaint came 52 days later is because he needed that time to compile all the evidence. Well, all of that evidence should have been compiled when he filed the original complaint. That is how you have set up this process. 10 days is the window that people are allowed to appeal the decision of the chief or their designee in this case myself. 10 days is what they have to appeal it to the police and fire commission. Not 52 days, not 10 days unless you want to add more information to it. That is not how the policy is set up. Both of those decisions, how you rule on both of those decisions will be presidential for any other complaint that you have. I think it is important that you remember that if that is the case, then great, I would suggest you change your policy and get rid of any time limits and get rid of any standing requirement, even though the statute is the thing that requires that you can define a grieved person in a better way. The decision you make on those two will affect every other complaint that comes to the PS. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so a grieved person, I feel I've made an argument here. I know, again, as we've talked, much of the testimony and much of the evidence brought in by what decisions can be revolved around Abby, but we need to remember this complaint is not about Abby. It's about the actions of the chief. It's not about Abby. It's not what Brian Prey did to her. It's about the chief and his decisions he made as the head of this police department and not putting somebody on leave violating all these policies. He kept the guy employed. There were further issues. The chief lied to the district attorney about whether or not Brian Prey lied. He stalled the release of the reports. These are all things that come in, and then to say I'm not a grieved person because I didn't bring up the release of the reports, that goes into the criminal charge that I'm alleging of misconduct in public office. So misconduct in public office, if you're abusing your discretion, not releasing reports, not releasing reports to the DA, that all ties into that. So I am a grieved person, in my opinion, in multiple ways. Number one, I had to deal with the turmoil and the aftermath of all this with my girlfriend. Secondly, you know, again, I had to go through this process hire an attorney. I don't need to rehash all of this. I think I've touched on it. So I'll just move on real quick. So timeframe, again, we've discussed this at length as well. I think I've made my points. And I just hope that you guys will see the excusable neglect or the 80607 statute and realize I did not do this in bad faith. Nothing, nothing I did helped me in any way. So there was no reason for me to intentionally delay sending in this complaint. And I will surmise to you that the complaint has changed. And I apologize if I didn't have a lot of faith submitting a complaint to the chief of himself when I watched this entire thing get covered up. And I can confidently say it was covered up because Brian Bray has been issued a Brady letter since I said this was covered up. So I've already got that going for me. That's corroborative evidence going towards what my complaint says. So the timeframe again, in my opinion, it was an oversight. I didn't do it intentionally. I'll again, quickly argue that even after I supplied the complaint, the attorney for the city kept it for 30 more days, I understand that it goes by once filed. And then I guess lastly, I just really hope I get a chance to present these witnesses to you. And you guys actually get to hear what happened here. I think it's important. Number one for the city to know what their police chief is up to. Number two, if and when Brian Bray is criminally charged, it's just going to prove even more that this man covered up a felony crime and lied about the fact that he had lied about it. And I just, you know, I think it's really important. I think Abby's story is it's in official police documents. It's in DWD official documents. And you'll see if this is allowed to go on that the police department investigators even agree with her that this was taken without her consent and therefore violated criminal statute. So I just ask you to hear this complaint and not dismiss on a technicality. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to have to take a five minute break. That's fine. And then we'll come back in and we're going to discuss whether or not we're going at the close. Yeah. Sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir. Sorry, one thing I was asked to bring in my list of witnesses at today's hearing. So I shot, I wrote on it. So I don't know if I can just tell you names. Okay. So my witness list depends on the motions that you, depends on how you decide on the motion. I would depends on his witness list. I would suggest that you don't demand the witness list until you've made your determinations. Correct. Okay. And then what you said is that it has to be filed with the commission. So and that would be you can file, you can give a paper copy, but make sure that you do file an email copy as well. But you can do that today. So, so I just want to be clear. Do you want me to email you and attorney Westbrook, my witness list today then? Or do you want me to wait until after the motions? It would be okay, but not until after the motions have been decided. So, so it would be unfair to you to ask you, because the motions may go different ways and that made it determine who your witness is. Right. And, and once the president is back, we're going to decide if we're in a closed session or if we're staying in open session, but all the motions will be set in open session just so you're aware. So even if we have to deliberate for some clarification or whatever, legal, whatever, we will come back in the open session and make those go through each motion. Okay. So somebody will contact me then and let me know if I have to leave. So if they go into close, if they go into closed session will, there'll be a motion to go into closed session, they'll vote, they'll call vote, meaning one at a time. You'll be able to sit outside somewhere, that room is in use, and they'll come get you when they go back into open session. Don't leave, don't leave the building. Don't leave the building. Got it? Got it? That's what I was going to say. You're going to be invited back in. He can leave. You can. There's no more testimony that we are. Right. No, but if you want to hear what our motions are, you will be able to hear them in live set in open session. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yeah. It's super confusing to me. I don't know. Surprise, surprise, right? Like, okay, it was so great right now, right? Yeah. Okay. What was the unit? I always asked, I was in F and N, but I didn't know what it was. I was there doing that, all that, a lot of stuff, the, all the suits I brought up. It was a 19-year-old, 30-year-old. I was in the West Army over the tanker. We're not its first capo. Yeah. Well, I was private. I went into Floyd Benny. Sure. George. And then I was up in North Carolina for a crack. Okay. Sure. Yeah. That's where the 18th door was. Yeah. Yep. Doesn't really like that. Oh, hey, great. It's hot in here. I want to be at the pool, Jerry. Adam is complaining it's hot. He's talking about pool. You want to be at the pool? Well, wouldn't you rather be at the pool? Well, yesterday I was in a house inspection. It was 89 degrees out. We're all standing and this is like a six and a half hour inspection. We're outside most of the day. It was like uncomfortable. So, Chuck, your opinion is that deciding on these motions is not, does not meet the definition of deliberations for a Yeah. I've never, I did a little bit of digging into the case law after a title, Larry. So, I'm just going to sit and stare all you down. They can go into closed session to confer with me. Their discussion has to be like, oh, I think one is yes, one is no. I mean, and we can't fill a buster, can we? Because there's I mean, I guess, I guess is so, but if we're, we're probably while we're, we're on open session. Let's, let's wait, let's wait. Come back. You're calling me an expert. Like actually I didn't call you an expert and then I clarified to make sure you didn't take a fence. See, that's the thing about being a lawyer. Your colleague who's also your adversary telling you you're wrong every day. There's another lawyer telling me I'm wrong and how I'm reading the law, my interpretation, my reading of the case law, my argument. That's all right. We need to stenographer when we got you. Yeah, you can't read my notes. It's not because I know what you are. Another question that we should probably talk about once everyone's back is the process for the hearing. Like, are we going to be a stenographer? Will it just be video recorded? Those types of things. That's what my, my, that's what my request will be. Yeah. Are you cold? No. I'm tired. It is a little chilly. I just turned it down. It was 73. 73 is fine. Oh, maybe it's a jacket. Are you taking another trip, Kristen? What? Are you taking another trip? Yeah, I'm going to California. Where, where to go for you? Right. So my husband leaves on Sunday to Anaheim for work. We're not going to Disneyland. And we have his side of the family lives up in Roseville, near Sacramento. So we're, I'm flat. So he's there for a week. I'm going to fly into Sacramento and meet him. And then we're spending the week before the July at, I call him the Greek month. It's his Greek family, the Greek mafia at their, at their cabin in Tahoe. Oh, so it's definitely a cabin then. Yeah. It's five bedroom. Do you like the Greek? I know you come from the Italian side. Wow. That is racial profiling just because he's Italian. I did not say that. I said, I thought you'd appreciate it. Yeah. So, so we have a lot of like small little, so this is a week I'm gone with him. But then I come back, I come back in the week of the hearing, the hearing schedule, the end of the week, I have a residency for my doctorate the last two days. And then the next, then, then I'm back. Then I think of a free that next week. And then we had to Texas for four days to see the kids and the grandkids. And then I'm here for the month of August. However, my sister from England is coming in with her three kids and family. It's my dad's 80th birthday at the end of August. And so we're doing. Yeah. So all my, all my PTO will be used up except for a week between Christmas and New Year's. That's what I usually take most of my paid time on. Yeah. So I do Christmas New Year's. We go down to see the kids and grandkids. But yeah, I mean, um, you know, I didn't take in fairly, I mean, like, yeah, like for the, for all of COVID, I didn't take a dang vacation. If it's like, I just, I couldn't. So it's nice to be able to do this. Except Australia, I got back from Australia. I mean, I flew in with COVID. And I'm still like this little cloth is driving me nuts. Yeah. I can't, I can't seem to, you know, I can't seem to just to shake it. So yeah, do you guys have something like you don't do anything in store? You don't go anywhere? I used to do it, but my girlfriend is somewhat disabled. So we were talking mafia. Yeah. That is two real mafia guys. Or B, that's my brother-in-law and Tom Lollacotta. I think it's B. Do you love that? I think it's easy. I want to know who's at the pool, Jerry. Why I'm not there with them. Oh, she's there with 14 kids. I hope he never mind my life. I don't want to be there. Yeah, if you're where you go, I'm gonna give you justice about that. I think he was a little less stable. I'm close. Should I call him? Yeah. Yeah. With the bear? Yeah. Where's that? Oh my god. I don't want to go anywhere where a bear is. Well, they're fine as long as you don't mess with them. Black bear though, right? This is, yeah. That's a big one. IQ attack. Brown you lay down. White take flight? Yeah, bears. I was just gonna say, what are you talking about? Those are the rules. If it's a black bear, you attack. He said, no, here's what he said. He said, black, you attack. Brown, nothing. Brown, nothing. Ignore it. White, brown. Right now, they're dead. What? Thank you. That's a good life lesson, guys. That's a good 6,700 pounds. I guess the left side of the room gets to sit back and commissioners, this is time for us to have a discussion whether we need to go into close session. Correct. So, either to retain a motion right away and then move to discussion. I'll ask for a motion to go into closed session. As stated on our agenda, which Mr. I actually have to read it out. You did? Yeah. Motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in the Wisconsin State Statutes 19.85, Perron 1, Perron G, we're conferring with legal counsel for the PFC who is rendering moral advice concerning potential strategy to be adopted by the PFC with respect to litigation in which it is involved to wit the matter of the complaint of Justin Daniels versus Chief Christopher Dalagowski. I make a motion to go into closed session. I second. All right, it's now for discussion. Okay. Is there anyone on the commission who's opposed to going into open closed session? You do have to take a roll call. I understand that, but I'm just trying to. We don't have to take a long time to discuss. So, hearing none, I would have a roll call vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I'm going to close it. We'll see you guys later. Yeah. Don't leave. Are you second? I don't, I guess I'm not sure. Somewhere in between. A couple of questions getting through. We are handling a whole bunch more. I'm hoping on my behalf less than 20. My office. We'll make time. And you can always just. We'll hang out until you guys get back. Yeah, I'll stop it. Once everybody just call her text. If you sounds good. Thank you. All right. So let me. This conference will now be recorded. Okay. I'm making sure that the screen so you're going to go. Motion to go. Sure, I can do that. So I think. I think the way that would be the best. I do this. Would be to go. Motion by motion. Have somebody make a motion on each of them. So let's start with. The timeliness. Motion. Made. In which. The motion to dismiss the entire complaint. Due to lack of. The argument has been made that. The complaint that was filed. In this matter was not timely. According to our policy was supposed to be top. It was supposed to be filed within 10 days. After the initial. Report. It was filed 52 days afterwards. There has been an argument that there was excusable neglect. Made by one party and argument that excusable neglect. Is not applicable here. This is a difficult case. Let me put that for here right now. None of the. Facts that were alleged in the complaint are comfortable to deal with. But at the same time. We are constrained by the law. And by our policy. And the statute of limitations on this matter. In deciding. This matter. But let me say what happened to Abby Hoffman was horrible. Let me say that right now. That was wrong. I mean. Hernandez I apologize. I'm somewhat emotional at this time. So. And. In many ways. I can understand. Mr. Daniels position here. But. This is. Statue of limitations are shall. They are not. Discretionary. And based on that. We. At least I. Find the. That I grant the motion. That was. Of chief chief. And I would. Grant that motion on this issue. Your second. Second. All in favor. You have to do it real color. Well, and you probably should see if there's discussion. Okay. Yeah, let's discuss. Now. We'll call out. Right. I since I've said what I said. Okay. But. If anybody wants to discuss this, that's fine. I didn't hear any discussion. I. I. Hi. Hi. Next is the. Motion on lack of standing filed. By. Attorney Westbrook. I'll take lead on this one. The issue is whether or not. Justin Daniels. Is an agreed party. This is difficult. Again. Mr. Daniels is the boyfriend. Of. Officer Abbey Hernandez. And. He's indicated what he suffered as a result. Having to take time off work. And having to, you know. Deal with. How this is affected his girlfriend. Abbey. And. Reading from the handbook on. Wisconsin police and fire commissioners. It says here an agreed person. Is included. Is construed broadly to include any agreed individual. Partnership. Association. Or body politic or corporate. Or. An agreed person to narrowly may be challenged. And this comes from the case. That was earlier cited the Kostanda case. By attorney Westbrook. I may be in a minority here, but I do believe that Justin Daniels. Is an agreed party here. And I would vote that he is an agreed party. Is there a second. Any discussion. So to be clear, then that would be a motion to deny. That is correct. That is correct. All right. Any discussion. Okay. I'm going to do a roll call about. I. Next would be the motion. We're going to take these one at a time. The motion to dismiss. The specific charge on. We're leading to administrative. We're leading to administrative. I was trying to find my things. Now I'm like super sorry. I thought that was. Right. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. So the special limitations. Dismissal was granted. With or without prejudice. And then I would ask the same question of any future ones that are decided. In either of our favors. So I think at the end of this. So emotion. To grant or deny emotion. Is it done. But at the end. We will. There will have to be an action taken on the motion. And that would be to thank you. Like just like. I was, but I don't have it in front of me. So I'm sorry. I'm like trying to. All right. No, I was going to take the next one. Sorry. Sorry. That's right. If you want, I'll go. I don't think we talked about this. I'm there. Thank you. The charges that. That's PD policy. 1010.18. Administrative move was violated by chief. Tom. And not temporarily assigning an accused employee to administrative. The problem we have here is this is a discretionary. Chief. Has discretion whether or not. To reassign or put on administrative leave any of his employees. And that discretion. Is granted not only through the policies, but also. There are state statutes that relate to this. Also. Because he exercised discretion. That does not. In a way that someone disagrees with. Or finds that even a quirk. That does not mean that he abused his discretion. Accordingly. In my opinion. The motion to dismiss for failure state claim. For which relief can be granted should be. And in my opinion, what is. Granted. Second. Okay. I. Hi. Hi. Next is. The specific charge related. To. Criminal investigation. Yeah. So I'm happy to take this one. Now I'm now I'm back to where I should be. Sorry about that. And so this is the. Related to the. Related to the SPD policy. 1010. Criminal investigation. So. So we believe that at the. Initial point in time. That. That. That nobody within the department. Believe there was a. There was a criminal conduct. However. We would. Like to. Give me the language. Yeah, the language that you talked about was this that while. Thank you. There it does. Does not appear that at the. At the initiation of the complaint. There was an allegation. Of a criminal violation. Right. That you found that there was. Sufficient. Reason to. Continue the hearing. The factual hearing on whether. There may have been. Fine. As a result of the investigation. There may have been. The need to. Conduct further criminal investigation. And so I move. To. I move this to. I can't. That's the other issue you can. You can either. Deny the most. If you can deny the motion and then the next step would be. I move to deny the motion. And place it. In. So then what you talked about is deny the motion, but hold the matter. In a band. And not, not deal with it until such time as the. John Doe proceeding. Thank you. Thank you. For that. I second the motion. Any discussion. In the practical reason here, once again, there's no recent middle required. Correct. Right. Right. You're not for it. You're not dismissing without prejudice. And then forcing him to come back. Because then there's questions about the process there. So you're basically. Denying the motion and then holding it until it comes back. If it ever does. Yeah. Thank you. Any other discussion. I. Hi. Hi. The next charge has to do. With a specific count related to. Supervisory. Responsibility. Yeah, so I. I. Move. To dismiss. The charge. About. The motion sorry. To dismiss. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to provide a basis for that? Yeah, I think, you know. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a. As a leader. Oftentimes. Knowing what's going on. It doesn't happen until things come forward. And it's the expectation that. The chief. Wouldn't. Wouldn't. Be aware of situations until they arise. The level of. Of. Of when a. When the chief is informed. Second. Thank you. We have a discussion please. Alright. All call vote. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. Next is the specific church. The motion to dismiss the specific church. Related to retaliation. Um. Do you want to take someone. Do you want me too? If you want to, you can have it. So. It I'm going to need your help again check. So. And I'm going to need your help again, Chuck. So we, that we, I believe that there is a case that one part of this charge should be, should be moved forward. And that has to do with the, the, I don't know how it is called, because I don't have information. Yeah, what you talked about was, was granting the motion or so sorry denying the motion as it relates to the issue of whether there is a factual base basis to find that constructive termination was retaliation. And then, and to dismiss the remainder of the allegations in the complaint. So to limit that issue to solely the issue around constructive termination and whether or not there's a factual basis to find that that was retaliation. I move for that. Thank you. Second. Any discussion? Sorry. Oh, go ahead. No, I'm not going to say anything. That was just. Are you roll call? Yes. Hi. Very. Hi. Gene. Hi. Next is the motion related to this, the motion to dismiss the counts related to the criminal violations. Are you minding it? Well, let me take this. Okay. There is an allegation as to criminal violations. Against Chief Domagalski. Currently, there is a matter in circuit court. And there is also a John. There is an allegation against the chief. At this point. Because there is a John dole investigation going in because this commission does not have the authority at this time to review an ongoing criminal investigation or John dole investigation at least. We can neither grant nor deny. This but hold this in abeyance. Until after the John dole investigation is concluded. There's a second. Any discussion? Please. We'll have a roll call. Hi. Jerry. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. So we'll get back to sort of what all this means that let's go through emotions made by Mr. Daniels. So the first one is. I think we determined that the motion related to zoom in closed session that Mr. Daniels has abandoned the closed session portion of that. And so all that you need to actually consider is his motion to allow testimony by sue. I move. I'm going to say this wrong again to allow testimony by zoom on a case by case basis. Second. Second. I think what you had talked about is basically you're not granting or denying the motion but you're agreeing to consider the motion on a case by case basis at the time. You're okay with the second. Yes. Thank you for clarifying that. I'll just keep that in mind. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to call the official release. Alright. I redacted identifiers is the next motion that Mr Gaines made. So I came up with the solution. Thank you. the identities or have a victims be able to testify anonymously without having their name mentioned, was suggested by me that we use the initials of the person that was at issue of having her name identified, although her name has been identified in the various records. Therefore, I move that we use the initials A-H to refer to the person we are speaking of from here on and for the purpose to protect her identity. And I think to direct the parties to do the same. Correct. Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Can we learn a little bit? I'll start with Jane. Hi. Hi. Hi. I don't know. Say we're the best for last time. Hi. How about I? Next was the motion regarding media or hearsay. So we're not going to allow or deny this, but look at media evidence on a case by case basis. And I think you said using the rules of hearsay. Using the rules of hearsay. Correct. Thank you. Second. Good discussion. You mean none? All in favor? Aye. Jane, did you have this question? No, no. I threw you out of the way. Yes. No, I just, I think we're doing roll call for all of them. Yes, we are. Yes. So Corrado is an aye. Jerry? Yes, aye. Aye. Christa? Aye. Aye. I vote aye. Next was the motion regarding open statements. It's been modified at the time of the hearing. I think you accepted that by Mr. Daniels that it's to allow the parties to make opening statements. I think what you had talked about was- Oh, I'll take- You want to do it and Corrado's got it. Yeah, I'll take this. Opening statements will be made by both parties. However, if there is any testimony from one of the parties, they must be sworn under oath before talking about their credentials, their backgrounds or things of that nature. But opening statements will be able to be made by both parties, with that exception. Second. Any discussion? I mean, not Corrado, roll call. Aye. There is a question here, it looks like. Does that mean with the possibility for cross-examination of that testimony? So what they talked about doing is that opening statements will be opening statements, not under oath. If things are wanting to be talked about that are evidentiary in matter, they'll have to be done through the evidentiary process. So Mr. Daniels can call himself as a witness. Mr. Daniels can call himself for a witness. He can talk about his background, his expertise that he has in you or anything else. And you can cross-examine on that under oath. To clarify. I think we need a roll call. We had a first and a second, correct? Roll call. Aye. Hearing? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Then there was a motion related to sort of the probability of the facts. And that one again, there seemed to be not a lot of disagreement between the parties on it, just sort of the request, I think was made by Mr. Westbrook that however that's done, that the rules of procedure just need to be followed and the rules of hearsay need to be followed. I think what you talked about is basically granting the motion with conditions that Mr. Westbrook requested. Right, so I moved to grant that motion with the utilizing the rules of procedure as well as hearsay. Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. PowerPoint, there was no objection, but you should probably just grant it. Motion to approve. Make a motion to grant the approval of the PowerPoint presentation request. Second. Any discussion? None. All in favor, excuse me, roll call. Aye. Hearing? Aye. Aye. Next was the motion to remove me as counsel for the police and fire commission. No, I see number seven was the, Oh, Mr. Sevevonette. Yep. Oh yeah, you're right, I missed that one. So to list, to have the parties, what you came up with was to have the parties agree on what the, to use a jury instruction to define the preponderance of evidence and then the agreed upon statement will be read by the chair at the beginning of the hearing. Yeah. So moved. It's jury, several jury instruction number 200, and there is a proof if there has to be, any other jury instructions beyond that to give to the commission. I want, we would want the parties to agree to exchange proposed jury instructions that are to be given to the commission that we know exactly what we're looking at and that we're going to read back at the time of the hearing. Second. Second, I move. I move. You move. Okay. Second. Okay, it's clear to everyone what that motion is. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, Corrado. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Now the one to remove me as counsel for the PFC. There's been motion by Mr. Daniels to remove Chuck Adams for being biased and have him places our attorney. It was explained to Mr. Daniels during the motion hearing that he could bring evidence in the form of the affidavit, videos, recordings, none were provided. There's no evidence that we could see that was presented along with the motion to support any reason to remove Chuck Adams as counsel to the police and fire commission. So I move that that motion be denied. Second. Any discussion? Aye. Fury? Aye. Aye. Kristen? Aye. Aye. Last one is to permit digital evidence and that one appears there was an agreement by the party so long as you would consider matters on a case by case basis as far as the rules of evidence and the facilities. Move to allow that request. Second. Discussion? Okay. Roll call vote. Aye. Fury? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Now, I think there's two other things that you need to deal with. So first of all, there is the fact that you've made decisions on all of these motions. That said, your decision on the timeliness motion and your decision on those individual charges does lead you to dismiss the charge. What I would suggest that you do is that because the timeliness is sort of the broadest one and the result of your granting the motion is requires the matter to be dismissed. And because it's not one of those things like we talked about with some of the issues being held in advance, it's not something that could be brought back. Now would be the time, I think, to make a motion to dismiss the matter with prejudice based on the timeliness issues. And then the way that that will happen then is there's the potential for appeals, but at least now you do need to make that final decision to allow for an appeal. So that would be the suggestion based on your decisions here. I have two clarifying questions about the individual motions that you made. So with testimony via Zoom, you said case by case at the time of the hearing. I assume that means prior to the day of the hearing, but like once a witness list is established. Is that correct? Correct. We're gonna get the witness list. We're gonna get the witness list and it identifies which ones have to be done by Zoom and we have to approve it. Okay. And then secondly, we'd act that identifies referring to AH as AH. How would we let other witnesses who are testifying know who AH is? It would be your duty, each of your duties to inform those persons that you are calling as witnesses that they are to refer to her as AH. Outside of the year. Okay. Thank you. So now would be your motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the results of the decision to grant the motion on time in this. I make a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the time witness issue. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All right, roll call vote. Aye. Three. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. So interesting. One last issue that you have to deal with which is you've dismissed it with prejudice. There is always the possibility that this is going to come back if a court would disagree with that if there is an appeal. I think it would be sort of unfair to both parties to require them to provide that witness list today. Given that we don't even know what's going to happen. So my suggestion would be is that you lift the requirement to provide the witness list today and to indicate that should you need to revisit that at some later date, you will do so. You can do it. Yeah. I've talked too much today. I move that we delay the provision of witness list until later date. Should we need to do so? I second. Okay. Any discussion? We'll call the committal. Aye. Hear me? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, one last thing just so I will be creating a written document that has these things on there. I will send it out to the members of the commission. Probably my paralegal will let you know when it's ready because we'll have a single one with everybody's on there. It's probably not going to be until next week. I know you said, Christian, you're going to be gone. I'll be, but that's 30th. 30th? I'll make a note of that. Yeah, next Friday. Yeah, so we've got time. So I'll have that done in advance of that. I'm out tomorrow. That's one reason. But I will get that all to you for your signatures and for you to look at and make sure that it matches what you said. And then we'll get that out to the parties. Sounds good. All right, any comments before we adjourn? Make a comment? Yes, definitely. Well, obviously I'm pretty disappointed. I kind of thought from the beginning this was going to be heard on technicalities and not the merits because the merits are what they've been hiding from this entire time. So I guess we'll just wait and see how the John Doe plays out. And then maybe I can have, and I told you so moments like this, I don't know. So if this is the type of guy you want as your police chief, I wish you luck. I wish you luck in future lawsuits with Vicky and everyone else that was affected by this matter and good luck. I just want to inform you, you can appeal our decision. Okay. Sounds good, thank you. Thank you Mr. Daniel. And I think, thank you all for your time and careful consideration. I know you all, most of you also have jobs outside of this. So I appreciate the time that you've spent reading the documents and your thoughtful consideration. You have a job to do, but we have certain parameters that we have to operate. Okay, we can adjourn. The agenda has been exhausted. I'm sorry? The agenda has been exhausted. The agenda has been exhausted for adjourn. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you. Thanks Larry. Thank you. You're welcome.