Judge McIlwrath:

I just read a quote by you in an article appearing in this morning's edition of "The Record", by Linda Hughes-Kirchubel entitled Questions still loom over Proposition 36.

In the article, there is a discussion of a woman arrested prior to July 1. You are quoted as follows:

"There's an issue that has arisen, and that is because the statute (reads) 'date of conviction,'"
"Does that mean that the crime was committed after July 1, or … the arrest has occurred after July 1? That has not been agreed upon by the public defender's office or the district attorney's office."

What a bunch of B.S.! I do not see the ambiguity here. An arrest is not a conviction. Conviction means conviction - nothing else. What in the world public defenders or district attorneys have to do with judicial interpretation of legislation is beyond me. I thought that was your job as a judge.

The voters voted for 'date of conviction.' Let's not muck around with what was voted for and passed because of matters of convenience, politics, or other unfounded reasons. And please let attorneys do their jobs (and no more) and you do yours. If I were you, I'd start with the dictionary. Here's a link to save you time:

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=conviction

Our constitution discusses innocence until proof of guilt. That proof can only be made in a Court of Law. Thus, the statute in question refers to the date of such proof - which could not accurately be interpreted as a date of arrest.

It is hearing and reading statements like yours that lead me to distrust the institution of which you are part. Thus be assured that I will be watching you. Happy Independence Day!

Cc: Judge Terrence Van Oss