The Law Offices of Kathleen Colton, Ltd.
Criminal Defense / P.O. Box 1364 / St. Charles, IL 60174
The Kane County Chronicle
Opinion Section
1000 Randall Road
Geneva, IL 60134
Re: Opinion, May 15, 2007
“Judge Jim Doyle deserves praise for work on the drug court”
An Open Letter to Chris Lauzen
In regards to your May 15th column, it is painfully obvious that you cannot let the old drug court program go, as it has become a continual source of publicity in your apparent run for Congress. I wanted you to know that I am growing rather weary of seeing your face in the local papers, purportedly for the purpose of righting a great wrong. I am growing weary of the thinly veiled insults you keep hurling in my direction and the direction of others who dared to address a problem that others ignored.
You write about your childhood on the playgrounds of Aurora, but as an adult you must have gone to the political school which teaches the mantra that if a politician keeps repeating factual inaccuracies long enough, the public will begin to think that what he is saying is the truth. I think it’s important for you to do some soul-searching of your own and to examine your motives and actions. I suggest that you start with your recent quote: “When the time is appropriate, I hope to be considered.” This was in response to a question as to whether you will be seeking Congressman Hastert’s seat, should he retire. You went on to say: “My guess is that soon I will fill out the paperwork and form an exploratory committee, but it depends on what (Hastert) wants to do.” Do you seek to keep the departed leader of the first drug court program matter alive because you think it will benefit you in a run for Congress?
I attended your “town hall meeting” on April 11, 2007, based on your April 5th news release that represented that the community needed to talk about the Judicial Inquiry Board’s “continued stonewalling of information pertaining to the Kane County Drug Court.” You began that bizarre meeting by whining that you had been denied the opportunity to spend just six minutes before the state senate Appropriations Committee, and then to my surprise, hardly mentioned the Judicial Inquiry Board for the rest of the
meeting. Instead, you presented graphs and charts full of misinformation, and then personally attacked me and all defense attorneys when I challenged your numbers. You presented speeches and testimonials as a lovefest to the departed former leader, and two alleged psychologists who gave a presentation about a drug court program that they had started in Romania. I still don’t know what that was about.
I waited until the lovefest was about over to ask you, respectfully, why you had failed to inform the small crowd about the workings of the Judicial Inquiry Board. All you could think to say was that I and other defense attorneys were “money-motivated,” and then you went on to make the ludicrous remark that each of us “lost” five thousand dollars for every person who now can’t get into drug court. Do you make this stuff up, or do you just blindly believe others who lie to you? Did you do this so that the members of your audience would try to shout me down? Why were the police called to the meeting? Were you afraid of the truth? Is that why you wouldn’t answer my final question: “Don’t you want judges to be monitored?” Many of the former leader’s drug court participants either didn’t live in Kane County, were on warrant status, were statutorily ineligible for admission in the first place, or were dead. That’s why I believe the numbers are down; the rules are now being followed.
Mr. Lauzen, the internet is a wonderful thing. You have youtube, and the Judicial Inquiry Board has its own website! There, you and the public can learn all about the Judicial Inquiry Board, its members and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Why, you can even read the nearly five hundred paragraph complaint filed with the Courts Commission of the State of Illinois against the departed leader. You might want to read the Code of
Judicial Conduct first, and then compare it to the complaint. The only way for a judge to fight a complaint of this nature is to proceed to trial, or to strike a deal. Quitting renders the complaint “moot.” I know that you are not a lawyer, and that’s a legal term. It means kaput! By the way, some of those bullies you met on the playground as a child probably became politicians. Keep smiling, and best of luck to you in your run for Congress.
Sincerely yours,
The Law Offices of Kathleen Colton, Ltd.
Kathleen Colton, Attorney at Law
