Mr. Foulks:
Rest assured, I have never been guilty of "...misattributing..." anything to you. At no point did I suggest you had "...[disagreed] with the Justices..." in Davila v. Yellow Cab in any material respect. That court opinion just stands for the principle that cabdrivers are typically employees and driver Williams was just closer to the edge of what it is to be defined as an employee in the fact setting of the case. To the extent you feel that Cabdrivers are independent contractors rather than employees, I suggest it works against the interest of the cabdrivers when faced with potential liabilities.
And you sure don't have to read squat to have opinions. I don't care if you ever read anything, Mr. Foulks. You can harbor your opinions without reading cases. The only reason to give you citations was to give you the opportunity to do so - as well as others who have interest enough to do so. Certainly you needn't have any rational basis for ANY opinion you express as far as I am concerned. I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't.
in fact, you exhibit symptoms of serious pathology of some sort - it's way beyond my ken. I have no training in psychiatry beyond lay experience. Your venom goes way beyond personal animus; it rises to a level that I see as demented. I see no reason to respond to any further comments from you. From here on in, you are fighting with yourself, not me. You are not a mope. You're what I see as a lunatic - a bright one. So go flail at somebody else.
You can go teach yourself lessons, Mr. Foulks. There is a fringe in every society. You can go appeal to yours. We don't need you for that.
Don Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
You have consistently misattributed opinions to me which I do not hold, either based on your careless reading of my postings, your presumption that I must hold incorrect opinions due to the difficult subject matters at hand, your paranoid delusion you share with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Tang (and with others, I'm sure) that some kind of conspiracy exists between Mr. Lutfallah and myself (necessitating some undocumented commonness in our opinions) or a combination of the three!
You suggest that I harbor opinions without reading cases. I have read many cases in my lifetime, Mr. Nathan. I am quite familiar with the law libraries scattered around the world. One of my God-given talents is the ability to speed-read and retain a high level of information and understanding.
Please quit making statements like 'I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't' without ACTUALLY SPECIFYING WHICH 'OPINION' YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT if you can't stomach my most appropriate insult as a reply.
You are no 'wise man'. You don't have any credibility to bank on here. I don't trust you and I don't believe that many others do either.
Your return to the mental health arena actually reflects a mental weakness on your part, Mr. Nathan. (Don't listen to Mike...he's 'crazy'! How many times does that work in a court of law?)
I appeal to more than the 'fringe', Mr. Nathan. Or must you use your tortured logic to describe the hundreds of associates who I personally know to stand by and respect me even when we might disagree on the details as fellow 'lunatics'? Or are they just 'mopes'?
Here's some friendly advice...stay out of our business. You're not a part of it any more. We have a serious need to organize ourselves. 'WE DON'T NEED YOU FOR THAT'.
It seems to me that you have some strange interest here. Before you diagnose me as being paranoid, could you do us all a favor and just explain EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST HERE, MR. NATHAN? Will we die before we get a straight answer?
Do us a better favor and stay in California. I haven't really got a pressing need to read anything you've done in the last 40 years.
I haven't judged you on your knowledge of or experience in the law. I have judged you on your actions and inactions. I'm not going anywhere, Mr. Nathan, so I hope your 'bye-bye' means that you are, finally, leaving.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks:
Rest assured, I have never been guilty of "...misattributing..." anything to you. At no point did I suggest you had "...[disagreed] with the Justices..." in Davila v. Yellow Cab in any material respect. That court opinion just stands for the principle that cabdrivers are typically employees and driver Williams was just closer to the edge of what it is to be defined as an employee in the fact setting of the case. To the extent you feel that Cabdrivers are independent contractors rather than employees, I suggest it works against the interest of the cabdrivers when faced with potential liabilities.
And you sure don't have to read squat to have opinions. I don't care if you ever read anything, Mr. Foulks. You can harbor your opinions without reading cases. The only reason to give you citations was to give you the opportunity to do so - as well as others who have interest enough to do so. Certainly you needn't have any rational basis for ANY opinion you express as far as I am concerned. I observe that there are times you seem to have no rational basis for your opinions whether you read or you don't.
in fact, you exhibit symptoms of serious pathology of some sort - it's way beyond my ken. I have no training in psychiatry beyond lay experience. Your venom goes way beyond personal animus; it rises to a level that I see as demented. I see no reason to respond to any further comments from you. From here on in, you are fighting with yourself, not me. You are not a mope. You're what I see as a lunatic - a bright one. So go flail at somebody else.
You can go teach yourself lessons, Mr. Foulks. There is a fringe in every society. You can go appeal to yours. We don't need you for that.
Don Nathan
