It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Is the statute of limitations already up? Notice the story does say the first Sunday in July. We haven't crossed this date in 2008 yet.

Subject: Sticky: Re: This is an example of Will The Real OLA SHALOM Please stand Up?
Name: Mikola Shafoulksom
Date Posted: Jul 4, 08 - 2:44 PM
Message: Subject: Will The Real OLA SHALOM Please stand Up?
Name: Jody W.
Date Posted: Jun 29, 08 - 12:45 PM
Message: OLA may refer to:

Places - Panama: Olá, a town - Hola iz a hawain name-for shut up yawtta it iz ola

- Russia: Ola, Russia, an urban-type settlement in Magadan Oblast, Russia; Ola River, a river in Magadan Oblast, Russia

United States: Ola, Arkansas, a city; Ola, Georgia, a census-designated place within the postal limits of McDonough, Georgia; Ola High School, a high school in McDonough, Georgia; Ola, Idaho, an unincorporated town

People: Ola Jordan, Polish dancer; Ola, a popular prefix in Yoruba names; Ola, a male or female first name of Norse origin; Ola, a female first name of Slavic origin; Ola, a spelling variation of Aulakh—a clan or gotra of Jats in India; Ola, a female first name of Arabic origin, it means most high and success

Other uses: Ola, another word for hello, hi, hey; Ola, palm leaf with ancient religious text; Ola, a Portuguese, Dutch and Belgian ice cream brand owned by Unilever; Ola, a commercial mark used by Colombian PCS operator Colombia Móvil

Shalom:

Shalom (שָׁלוֹם) is a Hebrew word meaning peace, Nothing missing, Nothing broken, wellbeing, and complete, and used to mean hello, and goodbye. As it does in English, it can refer to either peace between two entities (especially between man and God or between two countries), or to the well-being, welfare or safety of an individual or a group of individuals. It is also used as a greeting to either say hello or farewell, and is found in many other expressions and names. Its equivalent cognate in Arabic is salaam, Shlomo (ܫܠܡܐ) in Syriac-Assyrian and sälam in Ethiopian Semitic languages from the Hebrew root shin-lamed-mem (ש.ל.ם).

In expressions:

The Word "shalom" can be used for all parts of speech; as a noun, adjective, verb, and as an adverb. It categorizes all shaloms. The word shalom is used in a variety of expressions and contexts in Hebrew speech and writing:

Shalom aleichem (שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם; "well-being be upon you" or "may you be well"), this expression is used to greet others and is a Hebrew equivalent of "hello". The appropriate response to such a greeting is "upon you be well-being" ( עֲלֵיכֶם שָׁלוֹם, aleichem shalom). This is a cognate of the Arabic Assalamu alaikum. On Erev Shabbat (Sabbath eve), Jewish people have a custom of singing a song which is called Shalom aleichem, before the Kiddush over wine of the Shabbat dinner is recited.
In the Gospels, Jesus often uses the greeting "Peace be unto you," a translation of shalom aleichem.
Shalom by itself is a very common abbreviation, and is used in Modern Israeli Hebrew to both greet and farewell. In this it is similar to the Hawaiian aloha, the (rather old-fashioned) English good evening and the Indian namaste. Also in Israel, especially among secular people, "b'ye" (English) and "yallah b'ye" (a mixture of Arabic and English) is popular. Shalom is also used by Jewish people around the world, and even by many non-Jewish people.

Shabbat shalom (שַׁבָּת שָׁלוֹם) is a common greeting used on Shabbat (the Jewish Sabbath). This is most prominent in areas with Mizrahi, Sephardi, or modern Israeli influence. Many Ashkenazi communities in the Jewish diaspora use Yiddish Gut shabbes in preference or interchangeably.

Ma sh'lom'cha (מַה שְׁלוֹמְךָ; "what is your well-being/peace?") is a Hebrew equivalent of the English "how are you?". This is the form addressed to a single male. The form for addressing a single female is Ma sh'lomech? For addressing several females, Ma sh'lomchen? For a group of males or a mixed-gender group, Ma sh'lomchem?

Alav hashalom (עַלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם; "upon him is peace") is a phrase used in some Jewish communities, especially Ashkenazi ones, after mentioning the name of a deceased respected individual.

Oseh shalom is the part of a passage commonly found as a concluding sentence in much Jewish liturgy (including the birkat hamazon, kaddish and personal amidah prayers). The full sentence is עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו, הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ, וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן (Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleynu, ve'al kol Yisrael ve'imru amen), which translates to English as "He who makes peace in His heights may He make peace upon us and upon all Israel; and say, Amen."

The word Shalom is widely used in popular Israeli songs such as "In Our Garden," "Ratziti Sheteda," and "Shalom Chaverim."

U.S. President Bill Clinton ended his eulogy for Yitzhak Rabin with the words Shalom, chaver (Goodbye, friend).

The word 'Lom (and occasionally Sh'lom) have been used (especially by Jewish teenagers) as the contracted forms of Shalom in street slang.


Shalom as a name for people:

Shalom is also common in modern Hebrew in Israel, as a given name or a surname. It is usually used by men as a given name but there are women named Shalom as well.

Notable people named Shalom include:

Sholom Schwartzbard Poet, assassin of Symon Petliura; Silvan Shalom (Israeli politician), and his wife Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes; Sholem Aleichem (Yiddish author); Sholem Asch (Yiddish author); Shalom Auslander (American author); Shalom Harlow (model and actress); Shalom Carmy (rabbi); Shalom Shachna (rabbi); Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (rabbi); Shalom Hanoch (Israeli rock musician)

Related male names include Shlomi (Hebrew name) ("my well-being") and Solomon (Hebrew Shlomo).

Related female names include Shulamit, Shulamith, Shlomtsion or Shlomzion and Salome and Shlomith.

Shalom as a name for organizations:

The name of the following organizations and places refer to "peace" between Israel and its Arab neighbors: Brit Tzedek v'Shalom; Brit Shalom; Gush Shalom; Hevel Shalom; Neve Shalom; Shalom Sesame

Shalom as name for synagogues or structures

Beth Sholom Synagogue; Shalom BC, Jewish Information and Referrals in Vancouver, Canada; Shalom Park in Charlotte, North Carolina and Denver, Colorado; Shalom Meir Tower in Tel Aviv, Israel; Shalom Christian Academy in Marion, Pennsylvania; Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, California

Shalom as the name for events

The 1982 Lebanon War is known in Hebrew as Milhemeth Shlom Hagalil (Hebrew: מלחמת שלום הגליל), which means in English, "The War for the Shalom (or Well-Being) of the Galilee".

Other uses as/in names

SS Shalom, an ocean liner operated by Zim Lines, Israel 1964-1967

OLA SHALOM:

Agbo-Ola Shalom is a Realtor/IT in the Greater Chicago Area; Agbo-ola Shalom Century 21 Universal Phone: (773) 465-0300

From the First Place Winner Poetry WInner- Elizabeth Robinson:

“People”

Martin Luther King said
“I have a dream.”
Carrie Strug won Olympics
from flipping over a beam.
Activist Jesse Jackson
Championed L.A. ebonics.
Pop singer Madonna
Birthed family harmonics.
NFTA agreement
signed more Mexican trade.
Troops sent to Bosnia
peace plans to be laid.
World gone hi-tech
Madeline Albright on deck.
As bipartisan we join
before there’s a wreck.
Twenty-first century
coming soon.
Could my neighborhood
be on the moon?
Multiculturally we eat
pizza, fajitas, taco.
Global we become
Ola, Shalom, for hello.

------

Servus! See me and email me at:
http://www.homesbyola.com/Contact_Me/page_1574766.html

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Is the statute of limitations already up? Notice the story does say the first Sunday in July. We haven't crossed this date in 2008 yet.

THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME TO FILE A CLAIM

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Is the statute of limitations already up? Notice the story does say the first Sunday in July. We haven't crossed this date in 2008 yet.

what happened in June

your ears grew longer

you forgot how easy it is to see through your hee-hawing

you need to take your own advice donkey boy

-gr-

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Is the statute of limitations already up? Notice the story does say the first Sunday in July. We haven't crossed this date in 2008 yet.

Generally, the statute of limitations is THREE YEARS for filing a petition for benefits in the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission. Sometimes it can be longer.

A driver has to file a claim under the Crime Victims Compensation Act within I think a year after the crime takes place. I am not sure, but it is done at the office of the Attorney General in the State of Illinois Building - the Thompson Center - at Randolph + La Salle. There is an application to fill out. An attorney can do this for someone, but he cannot charge a fee for it.

Wasn't too far off as to the time limit. I have my copy of the Dispatcher and it clearly states first Sunday of July and does not specify a year. Sorry to say, I no longer trust George L. and co. Actually George and his reporter of misinformation Jonathan seem to be a two man band. At least that's more than the CC-0

Mr. Nathan,

You previously have made this general claim about all sorts of situations where one is allegedly committing a felony here or there.

You have been proven to be wrong on many occassions.

Could you please cite a reference to a rule which disallows a non-lawyer from helping someone apply for Workmen's Comp?

For example, you don't have to be a lawyer to help someone with an Adminstrative Hearing at 400 W. Superior.

For the record, John Doe is as real as Ola Shalom, and others who I am aware of and have helped, and all are aware of both Workmen's Comp and Crime Victim Compensation.

Too bad you choose to commisserate with morons who find these facts so hard to believe.

I would ask that you cease referring to "cabdriver organization presidents" and what you believe my legal limitations to be, unless you want to risk suffering from full application of my legal and extralegal maximums.

Your partisanship is so pathetically obtuse and it clouds whatever value you may provide to others. Grow up and start acting like what you claim to be.

Mr. Doe will likely benefit from some guidance and I will continue to help him get whatever assistance he needs.

You can sell your "I'm-a-lawyer-and-you're-not" bull**** to the less sophisicated.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John Doe has a way to get his bills paid and to even make a serious recovery. He doesn't have to hire a lawyer to do it. My series of articles in the UTCC Voice should help him. They deal with the Crime Victims Compensation Act and the Workers Compensation Act.

Under the CVCA, as long as Doe cooperates with the police and, if possible, prosecutors, the State of Illinois will pay his hospital and doctor bills. The State will pay wages he can PROVE he lost (like if he filed tax returns that show income loss).

Under Workers Compensation, medical bills get paid, temporary disability payments get paid and, if there is permanent disability for loss of vision or whatever, an award is made for partial permanent loss. Most people find a lawsyer helps, but it is NOT required. A layman cannot act as a lawyer here. No cabdriver organization president can represent a cabdriver at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission without committing a felony doing it.

Doe should be able to make a recovery of compensation without any help from anyone.


Donald Nathan

Was it in June or in July?

Any sign of future publication soon?

Could you please cite a reference to a rule which disallows a non-lawyer from helping someone apply for Workmen's Comp?

--- IT IS THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW TO FILE AN APPEARANCE FOR SOMEONE AT THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPRESENT THEM BEFORE ANY OF THE ARBITRATORS UNLESS ONE IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. IT IS "UPOL" TO ARBITRATE A CASE FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN ONESELF WITHOUT A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW.

"UPOL" IS A FELONY.

A NON-LAWYER CAN ASSIST ANYONE ANYTIME IN PREPARING A PETITION FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT. OF COURSE, A LAYPERSON MIGHT HAVE THE BACKGROUND TO ASSIST A CABDRIVER EFFECTIVELY, AND HE MIGHT NOT. HE CERTAINLY HAS NO MALPRACTICE COVERAGE IF HE SCREWS UP, AND THE NON-LAWYER IS TOTALLY UNREGULATED BY ANY STATE AGENCY.

AND THE NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY ANY CODE OF ETHICS. HE CAN REVEAL YOUR SECRETS TO ANYONE ANYTIME. HE CAN BETRAY YOU TO ANYONE AND GET AWAY WITH IT. YOU HAVE TO HOPE HE'LL BE HONEST.

For example, you don't have to be a lawyer to help someone with an Adminstrative Hearing at 400 W. Superior.

WHAT'S "HELP"? IF YOU REPRESENT SOMEONE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, I SUBMIT YOU ARE PROBABLY GUILTY OF "UPOL". I'LL WRITE TO MR. LARKIN OVER AT THE A.R.D.C. AND GET HIS OPINION IF YOU LIKE.

IF YOU JUST GIVE SOMEONE ADVICE AND THEN THEY GO PRO SE, YOU'VE NOT COMMITTED "UPOL" AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THEM, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

THE LINE IS A FINE ONE, I'M SURE. I'M NOT AN ETHICS EXPERT. BUT I SURE AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE A NON-LAWYER PRACTICING LAW ANY MORE THAN A REAL ESTATE LAWYER TOLERATES A BROKER HANDLING CLOSINGS OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.

For the record, John Doe is as real as Ola Shalom, and others who I am aware of and have helped, and all are aware of both Workmen's Comp and Crime Victim Compensation.

IF YOU'VE HELPED THESE PEOPLE INFORMALLY WITHOUT REPRESENTING THEM, YOU'VE DONE NOTHING IMPROPER. IF YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THEM IN FORMAL COURT PROCEDINGS, YOU'VE GONE OVER THE LINE. WHICH IS IT, SIR?

Too bad you choose to commisserate with morons who find these facts so hard to believe.

WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE? WHAT ARE YOU GURGLING ABOUT HERE? WHAT LANGUAGE ARE YOU BABBLING IN HERE?


Mr. Doe will likely benefit from some guidance and I will continue to help him get whatever assistance he needs.

YOU GIVE HIM WHATEVER GUIDANCE HE SEEKS. I COULD CARE LESS. IF THE GUY WANTS A NON-LAWYER'S SUCCOR, HE MAKES HIS CHOICE POORLY. BUT SO BE IT. THE NON-LAWYER HAS NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IF HE SCREWS UP. THE NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY ANY CODE OF ETHICS. THE NON-LAWYER CAN REVEAL ALL OF THE SECRETS AND CONFIDENCES OF JOHN DOE OR ANYONE HE ASSISTS.

A LAWYER MIGHT BE A BETTER CHOICE - ANY LAWYER.

You can sell your "I'm-a-lawyer-and-you're-not" bull**** to the less sophisicated.

ADD UP THE ADVANTAGES, MR. NON-LAWYER. YOU FIGURE OUT WHO IS BETTER QUALIFIED. IS IT THE GUY WHO HAS A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND NOT A DAY IN FRONT OF THE BAR? IS IT THE GUY WHO NEVER ARGUED A CASE TO THE JURY? IS IT THE GUY WHO NEVER ARGUED A MOTION - EVER?

THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF SOPHISTICATION. ONLY A MORON WOULD CHOOSE A NON-PROFESSIONAL OVER A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL.

IT'S LIKE CHOOSING A WITCH DOCTOR TO CURE A HEART ATTACK OVER A BOARD CERTIFIED CARDIOLOGIST. WHICH WOULD ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN PICK IN THE 21ST CENTURY?

NO NEED TO ANSWER.

Mr. Nathan,

You keep harping about "Unauthorized Practice of Law", as if anyone has done that.

Nobody to my knowledge has committed such an offense, nor is anyone likely to do so.

You seem to just want to minimize the potential help that any non-lawyer could give a cabdriver in trouble and maximize attention to the fact that you are a lawyer.

Well, Mr. Nathan, your law license hasn't helped any cabdriver I'm aware of to date. In fact, we cabdrivers have had more success at Administrative Hearings at 400 W. Superior and elsewhere without you.

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need Workmen's Comp now and in the future?

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need assistance in Administrative Hearings?

I didn't think so.

You don't scare me, Mr. Nathan. You don't scare the City of Chicago, either.

Quit trying to scare Chicago cabdrivers with your nonsense.

You have yet to give a verifiable citation to anything regarding the "Unauthorized Practice of Law".

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Could you please cite a reference to a rule which disallows a non-lawyer from helping someone apply for Workmen's Comp?

--- IT IS THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW TO FILE AN APPEARANCE FOR SOMEONE AT THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND REPRESENT THEM BEFORE ANY OF THE ARBITRATORS UNLESS ONE IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. IT IS "UPOL" TO ARBITRATE A CASE FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN ONESELF WITHOUT A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW.

"UPOL" IS A FELONY.

A NON-LAWYER CAN ASSIST ANYONE ANYTIME IN PREPARING A PETITION FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT. OF COURSE, A LAYPERSON MIGHT HAVE THE BACKGROUND TO ASSIST A CABDRIVER EFFECTIVELY, AND HE MIGHT NOT. HE CERTAINLY HAS NO MALPRACTICE COVERAGE IF HE SCREWS UP, AND THE NON-LAWYER IS TOTALLY UNREGULATED BY ANY STATE AGENCY.

AND THE NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY ANY CODE OF ETHICS. HE CAN REVEAL YOUR SECRETS TO ANYONE ANYTIME. HE CAN BETRAY YOU TO ANYONE AND GET AWAY WITH IT. YOU HAVE TO HOPE HE'LL BE HONEST.

For example, you don't have to be a lawyer to help someone with an Adminstrative Hearing at 400 W. Superior.

WHAT'S "HELP"? IF YOU REPRESENT SOMEONE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, I SUBMIT YOU ARE PROBABLY GUILTY OF "UPOL". I'LL WRITE TO MR. LARKIN OVER AT THE A.R.D.C. AND GET HIS OPINION IF YOU LIKE.

IF YOU JUST GIVE SOMEONE ADVICE AND THEN THEY GO PRO SE, YOU'VE NOT COMMITTED "UPOL" AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THEM, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

THE LINE IS A FINE ONE, I'M SURE. I'M NOT AN ETHICS EXPERT. BUT I SURE AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE A NON-LAWYER PRACTICING LAW ANY MORE THAN A REAL ESTATE LAWYER TOLERATES A BROKER HANDLING CLOSINGS OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.

For the record, John Doe is as real as Ola Shalom, and others who I am aware of and have helped, and all are aware of both Workmen's Comp and Crime Victim Compensation.

IF YOU'VE HELPED THESE PEOPLE INFORMALLY WITHOUT REPRESENTING THEM, YOU'VE DONE NOTHING IMPROPER. IF YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THEM IN FORMAL COURT PROCEDINGS, YOU'VE GONE OVER THE LINE. WHICH IS IT, SIR?

Too bad you choose to commisserate with morons who find these facts so hard to believe.

WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE? WHAT ARE YOU GURGLING ABOUT HERE? WHAT LANGUAGE ARE YOU BABBLING IN HERE?


Mr. Doe will likely benefit from some guidance and I will continue to help him get whatever assistance he needs.

YOU GIVE HIM WHATEVER GUIDANCE HE SEEKS. I COULD CARE LESS. IF THE GUY WANTS A NON-LAWYER'S SUCCOR, HE MAKES HIS CHOICE POORLY. BUT SO BE IT. THE NON-LAWYER HAS NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IF HE SCREWS UP. THE NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY ANY CODE OF ETHICS. THE NON-LAWYER CAN REVEAL ALL OF THE SECRETS AND CONFIDENCES OF JOHN DOE OR ANYONE HE ASSISTS.

A LAWYER MIGHT BE A BETTER CHOICE - ANY LAWYER.

You can sell your "I'm-a-lawyer-and-you're-not" bull**** to the less sophisicated.

ADD UP THE ADVANTAGES, MR. NON-LAWYER. YOU FIGURE OUT WHO IS BETTER QUALIFIED. IS IT THE GUY WHO HAS A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND NOT A DAY IN FRONT OF THE BAR? IS IT THE GUY WHO NEVER ARGUED A CASE TO THE JURY? IS IT THE GUY WHO NEVER ARGUED A MOTION - EVER?

THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF SOPHISTICATION. ONLY A MORON WOULD CHOOSE A NON-PROFESSIONAL OVER A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL.

IT'S LIKE CHOOSING A WITCH DOCTOR TO CURE A HEART ATTACK OVER A BOARD CERTIFIED CARDIOLOGIST. WHICH WOULD ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN PICK IN THE 21ST CENTURY?

NO NEED TO ANSWER.

You keep harping about "Unauthorized Practice of Law", as if anyone has done that. Nobody to my knowledge has committed such an offense, nor is anyone likely to do so.

I REPEAT --- USING YOU AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION OR ANYWHERE IS LIKE HAVING A WITCH DOCTOR TRY TO CURE A HEART ATTACK. A SENSIBLE PERSON WOULD FIND A BOARD-CERTIFIED CARDIOLOGIST AND TAKE A PASS ON THE WITCH DOCTOR.

ONLY A MORON WOULD PICK YOU FOR ASSISTANCE OVER A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL.

YOU HAVE NO MALPRACTICE COVERAGE IF YOU SCREW UP.

YOU HAVE NO CODE OF ETHICS TO FOLLOW.

YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS.

YOU HAVE NO LAW DEGREE, NO COLLEGE DEGREE, NO EXPERIENCE BEFORE A JURY. YOU'VE NEVER PRESENTED A CASE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS ARBITRATORS THAT I KNOW OF, THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR ANY COURT IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THAT YOU'VE EVER CITED ON BEHALF OF ANYONE OTHER THAN, PERHAPS, YOURSELF.

You seem to just want to minimize the potential help that any non-lawyer could give a cabdriver in trouble and maximize attention to the fact that you are a lawyer.

I'M NOT A WITCH DOCTOR LIKE YOU.

ANY LAWYER IS BETTER THAN A NON-LAWYER. THE FACT THAT I'VE HAD OVER 12,000 CASES COMPARED TO YOUR NONE MIGHT MAKE ME A BIT MORE QUALIFED, BUT ANY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WHO HAD TRIED A JURY CASE WOULD BE BETTER THAN A COLLEGE DROP-OUT.

Well, Mr. Nathan, your law license hasn't helped any cabdriver I'm aware of to date. In fact, we cabdrivers have had more success at Administrative Hearings at 400 W. Superior and elsewhere without you.

I GUESS YOU DON'T KEEP UP WITH MY CLIENTS. BUT I DON'T BRAG ABOUT MY CLIENTS, AND I DON'T REVEAL THEIR SECRETS LIKE YOU REVEAL YOUR CLIENTS' SECRETS. I KEEP THEIR CONFIDENCES LIKE A LAWYER HAS TO KEEP THEM. I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT --- UNLIKE YOU.

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need Workmen's Comp now and in the future?

IS THERE A REASON WHY I SHOULD?

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need assistance in Administrative Hearings?

IS THERE A REASON WHY I SHOULD?

You don't scare me, Mr. Nathan. You don't scare the City of Chicago, either.

ROUGH TOUGH MIKE - YOU STAND UP THERE WITH RITCHIE RICH, MIKE. THAT MAKES YOU A TOUGH GUY. I'LL BETCHA YOU'LL BE THE NEXT COMMISSIONER AT THE RATE YOU'RE GOING. I'M SURE YOU'RE APPRECIATED FOR ALL THE GOOD WILL YOU'RE BUILDING WITH YOUR BUDDIES AT CITY HALL.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU - OR THE CITY FOR THAT MATTER. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING SCARED. THIS HAS TO DO WITH GIVING CABDRIVERS A DECENT LIFE IN TOUGH TIMES AND WITH THEIR SAFETY.

I THINK IT'S GETTING MORE AND MORE OBVIOUS WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND IS BLOWING.

Many posting here wanted to be the greatest. 10 is a great number. I just wish the women that ride with me would associate me with this number as well.

Don Nathan-"THIS HAS TO DO WITH GIVING CABDRIVERS A DECENT LIFE IN TOUGH TIMES AND WITH THEIR SAFETY"


All I can say is a big Thank You for giving back to the industry. Not many know this job was your stepping stone to becoming an attorney. 99.999 percent never give back when they leave. You are truly a nice guy.

Don't ruin your weekend with this Foulks non sense. You'll never be able to put sense into this guys head. In the future Foulks will just be the source of more negatives for us. The best thing all of us can do would be to just ignore him. We are truly above him and shouldn't dip down into the gutter anymore. I hate to think this way and would like to say all are equal, but I make an exception for a guy with a flea bitten brain. Take my advice here and PUNT!

The Long-Eared Father of Fools strikes again!

what a f*****g idiot.

Mr. Nathan,

So I am a "witch doctor"? Is that your professional opinion?

Mr. Nathan, you are becoming ridiculous, as usual.

I have no intention of "practicing law" or "heart surgery".

I am simply going to continue helping cabdrivers get the justice they deserve.

By the way, a bad lawyer (like you) who puts his interests ahead of his clients is worse than a non-lawyer.

I don't have "clients", Mr. Nathan, except for the ones I chauffeur in my taxicab.

Thank you for being honest: You admit you aren't going to help Chicago cabdrivers in Administrative Hearings or with Workmen's Comp.

Nice to know we can't count on you for legal assistance. I wouldn't recommend you, anyhow. You have already proven yourself to be, essentially, a useless distraction.

For the record, I wouldn't accept any offer of employment by the City of Chicago. Who, pray tell, do you think my "buddies" at City Hall are? You have a peculiar imagination, Mr. Nathan.

I would find you more amusing, Mr. Nathan, if you weren't such a waste of of my time. You'll get no more attention from me, or Chicago cabdrivers, once your ill-fated "lawsuit" is finally tossed, I'm sure.

Perhaps a partial victory will provide you enough buzz to twist or exaggggerrrrate as it pleases you or your handful of misguided fans.

You can try to belittle my real results until you are blue in the face; the Chicago cabdrivers I've helped know exactly whose "side" I am on.

When you finally retire or die, Mr. Nathan, who can replace you? Anyone at all?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You keep harping about "Unauthorized Practice of Law", as if anyone has done that. Nobody to my knowledge has committed such an offense, nor is anyone likely to do so.

I REPEAT --- USING YOU AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION OR ANYWHERE IS LIKE HAVING A WITCH DOCTOR TRY TO CURE A HEART ATTACK. A SENSIBLE PERSON WOULD FIND A BOARD-CERTIFIED CARDIOLOGIST AND TAKE A PASS ON THE WITCH DOCTOR.

ONLY A MORON WOULD PICK YOU FOR ASSISTANCE OVER A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL.

YOU HAVE NO MALPRACTICE COVERAGE IF YOU SCREW UP.

YOU HAVE NO CODE OF ETHICS TO FOLLOW.

YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS.

YOU HAVE NO LAW DEGREE, NO COLLEGE DEGREE, NO EXPERIENCE BEFORE A JURY. YOU'VE NEVER PRESENTED A CASE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS ARBITRATORS THAT I KNOW OF, THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR ANY COURT IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THAT YOU'VE EVER CITED ON BEHALF OF ANYONE OTHER THAN, PERHAPS, YOURSELF.

You seem to just want to minimize the potential help that any non-lawyer could give a cabdriver in trouble and maximize attention to the fact that you are a lawyer.

I'M NOT A WITCH DOCTOR LIKE YOU.

ANY LAWYER IS BETTER THAN A NON-LAWYER. THE FACT THAT I'VE HAD OVER 12,000 CASES COMPARED TO YOUR NONE MIGHT MAKE ME A BIT MORE QUALIFED, BUT ANY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WHO HAD TRIED A JURY CASE WOULD BE BETTER THAN A COLLEGE DROP-OUT.

Well, Mr. Nathan, your law license hasn't helped any cabdriver I'm aware of to date. In fact, we cabdrivers have had more success at Administrative Hearings at 400 W. Superior and elsewhere without you.

I GUESS YOU DON'T KEEP UP WITH MY CLIENTS. BUT I DON'T BRAG ABOUT MY CLIENTS, AND I DON'T REVEAL THEIR SECRETS LIKE YOU REVEAL YOUR CLIENTS' SECRETS. I KEEP THEIR CONFIDENCES LIKE A LAWYER HAS TO KEEP THEM. I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT --- UNLIKE YOU.

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need Workmen's Comp now and in the future?

IS THERE A REASON WHY I SHOULD?

Are you going to represent free of charge all Chicago cabdrivers who need assistance in Administrative Hearings?

IS THERE A REASON WHY I SHOULD?

You don't scare me, Mr. Nathan. You don't scare the City of Chicago, either.

ROUGH TOUGH MIKE - YOU STAND UP THERE WITH RITCHIE RICH, MIKE. THAT MAKES YOU A TOUGH GUY. I'LL BETCHA YOU'LL BE THE NEXT COMMISSIONER AT THE RATE YOU'RE GOING. I'M SURE YOU'RE APPRECIATED FOR ALL THE GOOD WILL YOU'RE BUILDING WITH YOUR BUDDIES AT CITY HALL.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU - OR THE CITY FOR THAT MATTER. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING SCARED. THIS HAS TO DO WITH GIVING CABDRIVERS A DECENT LIFE IN TOUGH TIMES AND WITH THEIR SAFETY.

I THINK IT'S GETTING MORE AND MORE OBVIOUS WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND IS BLOWING.

"You can try to belittle my real results until you are blue in the face; the Chicago cabdrivers I've helped know exactly whose "side" I am on."- Mike Foulks


Trouble with these drivers is that they're stuck in Mike's head along with Ola. I have heard of split personalities before but this takes the cake! All Long Ears has left to offer is splinters! Ouch!

So I am a "witch doctor"? Is that your professional opinion?

IT IS NOT MY "PROFESSIONAL OPINION". I SUGGEST THAT A PERSON WITH A LEGAL PROBLEM WHO CHOOSES YOU TO GO TO OVER A LAWYER - ANY LAWYER AT ALL - IS A MORON.

YOU HAVE NO TRAINING. YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE. YOU ARE GOVERNED BY NO ETHICS. YOU DON'T NEED TO PRESERVE CONFIDENCES OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO YOU. YOU HAVE NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IF YOU SCREW UP AND CAUSE SOMEONE DAMAGE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU ARE AN INCOMPETENT WITH A LEGAL PROBLEM JUST LIKE A WITCH DOCTOR WOULD BE AN INCOMPETENT TO DO BRAIN SURGERY. WHO WOULD GO TO A WITCH DOCTOR OVER A NEUROSURGEON WITH A BRAIN TUMOR?

ANY LAWYER PRACTICING IN THE CHICAGO AREA IS BETTER THAN YOU. ANYBODY. I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS. ANYBODY.

Mr. Nathan,

You, as a lawyer, aren't so competent or helpful.

You say that a cabdriver would be a moron to come to me instead of a lawyer.

I agree with that for some cases, but I wouldn't use those terms, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend that a cabdriver get a lawyer when beneficial or necessary.

However, it would be a waste of time and money to hire a lawyer for each and every Administrative Hearing, especially those simply involving an "obstruction of traffic" parking ticket.

I find your behavior hilarious, Mr. Nathan. It's as if I'm helping someone paint their house or cut their grass and you accuse me of being an unlicensed architect or building without a permit!

I'm changing oil or filling tires with air and you suggest I'm running a chop shop!

I have ten years' experience of being a licensed Chicago cabdriver and dealing with "the system", as well as thousands upon thousands of more years' worth from my network of fellow cabdrivers.

There are plenty of bad lawyers in the "Chicago area", Mr. Nathan; count yourself among them.

Your bias against me is showing...I won't pretend it has to do with anything other than the fact that I am only interested in organizing cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and that I have already concluded that you sincerely wish for otherwise.

I want nothing to do with you, sir. God bless you for your desire to help us, however one may characterize it. Whatever your results, you get a point for trying.

Perhaps you should focus your attention on your upcoming arguments in the Wolfgang J. Weiss v. City of Chicago and quit worrying about the intelligence and intentions of those of us who find success without you and despite your displeasurable rantings.

I won't make a good scapegoat for anyone's failures, Mr. Nathan, especially yours. I am far from an innocent lamb lost in the woods.

Good Luck and Happy Hunting!

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So I am a "witch doctor"? Is that your professional opinion?

IT IS NOT MY "PROFESSIONAL OPINION". I SUGGEST THAT A PERSON WITH A LEGAL PROBLEM WHO CHOOSES YOU TO GO TO OVER A LAWYER - ANY LAWYER AT ALL - IS A MORON.

YOU HAVE NO TRAINING. YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE. YOU ARE GOVERNED BY NO ETHICS. YOU DON'T NEED TO PRESERVE CONFIDENCES OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO YOU. YOU HAVE NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IF YOU SCREW UP AND CAUSE SOMEONE DAMAGE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU ARE AN INCOMPETENT WITH A LEGAL PROBLEM JUST LIKE A WITCH DOCTOR WOULD BE AN INCOMPETENT TO DO BRAIN SURGERY. WHO WOULD GO TO A WITCH DOCTOR OVER A NEUROSURGEON WITH A BRAIN TUMOR?

ANY LAWYER PRACTICING IN THE CHICAGO AREA IS BETTER THAN YOU. ANYBODY. I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS. ANYBODY.

Your bias against me is showing...

I HAVE NO BIAS AGAINST YOU. MY FEELING IS THAT ANYONE WHO WOULD USE A NON-LAWYER FOR LEGAL ADVICE IS A FOOL. A NON-LAWYER IS INCOMPETENT. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE WHEN HE SCREWS UP A CASE. A NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY A CODE OF ETHICS. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP SECRETS AND CONFIDENCES. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO EDUCATION, NO EXPERIENCE BEFORE COURTS, AND HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVIL HE IS DOING HALF THE TIME.

ANYONE WHO WOULD RELY ON YOU FOR LEGAL WORK IS AN IDIOT. THE WORST LAWYER IN CHICAGO AT LEAST HAS A COLLEGE DEGREE, A LEGAL EDUCATION AND HAS SHOWN ENOUGH COMPETENCY TO PASS THE BAR EXAM. MAYBE THAT LAWYER HAS TRIED A CASE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE. MAYBE THAT LAWYER HAS TRIED ONE IN FRONT OF A JURY. YOU HAVE TRIED NOTHING IN FRONT OF ANYBODY.

YOU CAN THROW PAINT AT A HOUSE LIKE ANYBODY. IT'LL STICK. YOU MIGHT KNOW HOW TO PRIME IT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PAINTING A HOUSE, SIR. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONAL WORK. THIS IS MORE THAN WHAT A TRADESMAN DOES. THIS IS MORE THAN WHAT A WITCH DOCTOR DOES.

ONLY A MORON WOULD USE YOU AS HIS LEGAL ADVISOR.

I won't pretend it has to do with anything other than the fact that I am only interested in organizing cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and that I have already concluded that you sincerely wish for otherwise.

I WISH YOU SHOULD ORGANIZE CABDRIVERS LICENSED BY ANY POLITICAL ENTITY. YOU'RE PERFECTLY CAPBABLE OF DOING THAT EFFECTIVELY. THERE'S NO REASON YOU SHOULD BE INEFFECTIVE IN HELPING OTHER CABDRIVERS. I'M NEVER GOING TO BERATE YOU IN YOUR EFFORTS - I NEVER HAVE.

I want nothing to do with you, sir. God bless you for your desire to help us, however one may characterize it. Whatever your results, you get a point for trying.

I'LL DO MY BEST - IF I GO DOWN, AT LEAST I WILL HAVE TRIED. AND I HAD THE TRAINING TO GIVE IT A GOOD SHOT.

Perhaps you should focus your attention on your upcoming arguments in the Wolfgang J. Weiss v. City of Chicago and quit worrying about the intelligence and intentions of those of us who find success without you and despite your displeasurable rantings.

I'M DOING THAT. THE OPENING SALVO IS SET FOR JULY 24. I HAVE A HUNCH WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH IN THE MATTER AND THAT IT WON'T BE RESOLVED IN A SINGLE HEARING.

I won't make a good scapegoat for anyone's failures, Mr. Nathan, especially yours.

STOP BEING A PARANOID. I'M NOT TRYING TO SCAPEGOAT YOU. AND I HAVEN'T FAILED AT ANYTHING THAT NECESSITATES I LOOK FOR A SCAPEGOAT.

I am far from an innocent lamb lost in the woods.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT BEING AN INNOCENT LAMB, SIR. YOU'RE JUST AN INCOMPETENT - A WITCH DOCTOR CLAIMING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CURE LEGAL ILLS.

I JUST WANT CABDRIVERS TO KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVIL YOU ARE DOING IN COURTS, AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION. THEY SHOULD BE RELYING ON TRAINED PROFESSIONALS - ANY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS - TO GET THEM OUT OF TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD NOT BE RELYING ON UNEDUCATED, UNLICENSED INCOMPETENTS LIKE YOU FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND LAY ASSISTANCE. THEY SHOULD REALIZE THEY CAN GET THEMSELVES INTO MAJOR TROUBLE RELYING ON UNLICENSED, UNINSURED, UNTRAINED, UNSCRUPLED INCOMPETENTS.

THAT'S ALL IT IS. THEY JUST NEED TO BE WARNED.

OLA SHALOM TO YOU, BUSTER. CAPICHE?

Mr. Nathan,

Quit making silly claims, Mr. Nathan.

I am not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be. Nobody is relying on me for "legal work".

Your belief that I am "incompetent" to advise fellow cabdrivers or assist them in certain situations is simply wrong.

In fact, you are the "incompetent" in many of these situations because you don't seem to have the ability to understand us cabdrivers or the patience to learn the particulars.

The "system" is quite different from what I imagine it to be when you were driving in the late 1960s/early 1970s. In policy AND practice.

So are the cabdrivers. You are no longer "one of us", Mr. Nathan.

Also, I am not going to organize anyone other than cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago. We have unique interests which necessitates a body distinct from limo drivers, suburban cabdrivers, trolley drivers, etc.

We are clearly talking about different things, Mr. Nathan...

I'm actually helping cabdrivers in need and you are tilting at windmills.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your bias against me is showing...

I HAVE NO BIAS AGAINST YOU. MY FEELING IS THAT ANYONE WHO WOULD USE A NON-LAWYER FOR LEGAL ADVICE IS A FOOL. A NON-LAWYER IS INCOMPETENT. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO MALPRACTICE INSURANCE WHEN HE SCREWS UP A CASE. A NON-LAWYER IS NOT BOUND BY A CODE OF ETHICS. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP SECRETS AND CONFIDENCES. A NON-LAWYER HAS NO EDUCATION, NO EXPERIENCE BEFORE COURTS, AND HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVIL HE IS DOING HALF THE TIME.

ANYONE WHO WOULD RELY ON YOU FOR LEGAL WORK IS AN IDIOT. THE WORST LAWYER IN CHICAGO AT LEAST HAS A COLLEGE DEGREE, A LEGAL EDUCATION AND HAS SHOWN ENOUGH COMPETENCY TO PASS THE BAR EXAM. MAYBE THAT LAWYER HAS TRIED A CASE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE. MAYBE THAT LAWYER HAS TRIED ONE IN FRONT OF A JURY. YOU HAVE TRIED NOTHING IN FRONT OF ANYBODY.

YOU CAN THROW PAINT AT A HOUSE LIKE ANYBODY. IT'LL STICK. YOU MIGHT KNOW HOW TO PRIME IT. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PAINTING A HOUSE, SIR. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONAL WORK. THIS IS MORE THAN WHAT A TRADESMAN DOES. THIS IS MORE THAN WHAT A WITCH DOCTOR DOES.

ONLY A MORON WOULD USE YOU AS HIS LEGAL ADVISOR.

I won't pretend it has to do with anything other than the fact that I am only interested in organizing cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and that I have already concluded that you sincerely wish for otherwise.

I WISH YOU SHOULD ORGANIZE CABDRIVERS LICENSED BY ANY POLITICAL ENTITY. YOU'RE PERFECTLY CAPBABLE OF DOING THAT EFFECTIVELY. THERE'S NO REASON YOU SHOULD BE INEFFECTIVE IN HELPING OTHER CABDRIVERS. I'M NEVER GOING TO BERATE YOU IN YOUR EFFORTS - I NEVER HAVE.

I want nothing to do with you, sir. God bless you for your desire to help us, however one may characterize it. Whatever your results, you get a point for trying.

I'LL DO MY BEST - IF I GO DOWN, AT LEAST I WILL HAVE TRIED. AND I HAD THE TRAINING TO GIVE IT A GOOD SHOT.

Perhaps you should focus your attention on your upcoming arguments in the Wolfgang J. Weiss v. City of Chicago and quit worrying about the intelligence and intentions of those of us who find success without you and despite your displeasurable rantings.

I'M DOING THAT. THE OPENING SALVO IS SET FOR JULY 24. I HAVE A HUNCH WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH IN THE MATTER AND THAT IT WON'T BE RESOLVED IN A SINGLE HEARING.

I won't make a good scapegoat for anyone's failures, Mr. Nathan, especially yours.

STOP BEING A PARANOID. I'M NOT TRYING TO SCAPEGOAT YOU. AND I HAVEN'T FAILED AT ANYTHING THAT NECESSITATES I LOOK FOR A SCAPEGOAT.

I am far from an innocent lamb lost in the woods.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT BEING AN INNOCENT LAMB, SIR. YOU'RE JUST AN INCOMPETENT - A WITCH DOCTOR CLAIMING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CURE LEGAL ILLS.

I JUST WANT CABDRIVERS TO KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVIL YOU ARE DOING IN COURTS, AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION. THEY SHOULD BE RELYING ON TRAINED PROFESSIONALS - ANY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS - TO GET THEM OUT OF TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD NOT BE RELYING ON UNEDUCATED, UNLICENSED INCOMPETENTS LIKE YOU FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND LAY ASSISTANCE. THEY SHOULD REALIZE THEY CAN GET THEMSELVES INTO MAJOR TROUBLE RELYING ON UNLICENSED, UNINSURED, UNTRAINED, UNSCRUPLED INCOMPETENTS.

THAT'S ALL IT IS. THEY JUST NEED TO BE WARNED.

OLA SHALOM TO YOU, BUSTER. CAPICHE?

You, sir, have been purportedly dispensing legal advice to people like "Ola Shalom" and "John Doe".

You have been doing this without any legal training, without a stitch of experience in a courtroom, without malpractice insurance if you screw up, without the obligation to preserve their confidences and without any code of ethics to regulate you,

You are a quack, and you have the pluck to call a licensed professional with close to 33 years experience incompetent?

As I suggested, a cabdriver who would rely on you for assistance in any legal matter is an idiot.

You are a quack in any legal setting. That's not silly. That's dangerous. Cabdrivers can go to to ANY lawyer they like. ANYONE licensed to practice is better than a quack. I'm not looking to solicit business. I'm just trying to keep cabdrivers out of your unlicensed, uneducated and obviously incompetent hands.

Only a moron would use your "services".


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

How and when have I "dispensed legal advice"?

I have plenty of personal experience in many different courtrooms.

You have proven to be incompetent in some of your legal work so far involving cabdrivers.

Nobody who has come to me for help is an "idiot", Mr. Nathan. The only one who complained was Cherie Green...who I referred to you, Mr. Nathan. Her complaint was about your conduct, Mr. Nathan, not mine.

I don't provide "services". I am not a lawyer. You are the only one who doesn't seem to understand this.

Your "confusion" and "concern" is transparently left-handed and pathetic, Mr. Nathan. Or are you really as moronic as you appear?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You, sir, have been purportedly dispensing legal advice to people like "Ola Shalom" and "John Doe".

You have been doing this without any legal training, without a stitch of experience in a courtroom, without malpractice insurance if you screw up, without the obligation to preserve their confidences and without any code of ethics to regulate you,

You are a quack, and you have the pluck to call a licensed professional with close to 33 years experience incompetent?

As I suggested, a cabdriver who would rely on you for assistance in any legal matter is an idiot.

You are a quack in any legal setting. That's not silly. That's dangerous. Cabdrivers can go to to ANY lawyer they like. ANYONE licensed to practice is better than a quack. I'm not looking to solicit business. I'm just trying to keep cabdrivers out of your unlicensed, uneducated and obviously incompetent hands.

Only a moron would use your "services".


Donald Nathan

"Plenty of experience in many different courtrooms?"

Say it in print, smarty pants. Let us know about how you have appeared for cabdrivers in courtroom settings. Give us chapter and verse. We all want the details. What courts were you in? Did you represent yourself? Or did you represent others? Did you step up for a cabdriver ever? What forum was it in? If you represented yourself, I'm sure we're all going to be so impressed.

Since it's public record, I can discuss the matter of Cheri Green who I represented without charge at 400 W. Superior at your request. Ms. Green was up for license revocation on a number of charges after having had about a dozen prior findings of guilty on various minor beefs. The charge she was facing was a nonsense one, but if found guilty she would be doing something other than driving a taxi these days.

Voluntarily and without duress, Ms. Green chose to enter a guilty plea to the nonsense charge in exchange for a relatively small fine. She returned to work as a cabdriver immediately. I expect she was not thrilled about having to pay a small fine after the fact, but weighed against the possibility of having to find another way to make a living, the choice she made was probably a good one. I know you were unhappy about it. But I was not out to make you happy - my job was to represent Ms. Green properly and to preserve her public passenger vehicle chauffeur license, not yours.

I am not at liberty to discuss the conversation I had with her and the advice I gave her that convinced her to enter that plea, but all can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps a non-lawyer advising her would have recommended she go to the mat. Perhaps going to the mat she would have won. But perhaps she would have lost.

If Green lost, she'd have no recourse against the non-lawyer for his lousy advice that cost her a job, She couldn't sue him for malpractice because he would just say he's an unlicensed non-professional who was a "volunteer" doing the best he could. She would be just "S. O. L," as they say on the street. She would be just on the street and on her a s s and out the door.

Like I said,l only a moron would seek your representation in a courtroom - you are nothing but a witch doctor treating people with potions.

As for the same day in 400 West Superior, talk with Abdul Sheikh who you also referred to me. He walked away a victor as do most of the people I represent - including the ones I represent for free.

Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's when I was cutting my teeth at the Bar, I represented a lot of cabdrivers at 54 W. Hubbard and then Peshtigo Court. I NEVER represented them for free. I ALWAYS charged SOMETHING. Usually it was $10. I did that so drivers could preserve their dignity. It gave them a sense of being able to feel they were getting something for something. I didn't want to make anything in particular. It paid my cabfare over from my office which was then at 221 N. La Salle. Maybe it bought a cup of coffee too.

Now I don't give a hang about the money at all. If I choose to represent a cabdriver, it's because he or she deserves it, and there's been an injustice done - or at least it's been attempted. It sure as shoot won't be on a reference from you again.

You represent them yourself, buster. See how well you do. Stuart Alpern may be little better than a garden toad, but he's apt to make pig meat out of the likes of you if you represent someone at 400 W. Superior. And the A.R.D.C. ought to know about it too. Tell us what you've done, sir. Lay it out.


Donald Nathan

May be Mr. Foulks will indeed have enough influence to the State Attorney's Office, and he will show up this time in Court to support brother Mohamed and brother Sultan to have their attackers' charges upgraded to felony.

Mr. Foulks will have to give up some of his sleep on July 15 for cameras.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Plenty of experience in many different courtrooms?"

Say it in print, smarty pants. Let us know about how you have appeared for cabdrivers in courtroom settings. Give us chapter and verse. We all want the details. What courts were you in? Did you represent yourself? Or did you represent others? Did you step up for a cabdriver ever? What forum was it in? If you represented yourself, I'm sure we're all going to be so impressed.

Since it's public record, I can discuss the matter of Cheri Green who I represented without charge at 400 W. Superior at your request. Ms. Green was up for license revocation on a number of charges after having had about a dozen prior findings of guilty on various minor beefs. The charge she was facing was a nonsense one, but if found guilty she would be doing something other than driving a taxi these days.

Voluntarily and without duress, Ms. Green chose to enter a guilty plea to the nonsense charge in exchange for a relatively small fine. She returned to work as a cabdriver immediately. I expect she was not thrilled about having to pay a small fine after the fact, but weighed against the possibility of having to find another way to make a living, the choice she made was probably a good one. I know you were unhappy about it. But I was not out to make you happy - my job was to represent Ms. Green properly and to preserve her public passenger vehicle chauffeur license, not yours.

I am not at liberty to discuss the conversation I had with her and the advice I gave her that convinced her to enter that plea, but all can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps a non-lawyer advising her would have recommended she go to the mat. Perhaps going to the mat she would have won. But perhaps she would have lost.

If Green lost, she'd have no recourse against the non-lawyer for his lousy advice that cost her a job, She couldn't sue him for malpractice because he would just say he's an unlicensed non-professional who was a "volunteer" doing the best he could. She would be just "S. O. L," as they say on the street. She would be just on the street and on her a s s and out the door.

Like I said,l only a moron would seek your representation in a courtroom - you are nothing but a witch doctor treating people with potions.

As for the same day in 400 West Superior, talk with Abdul Sheikh who you also referred to me. He walked away a victor as do most of the people I represent - including the ones I represent for free.

Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's when I was cutting my teeth at the Bar, I represented a lot of cabdrivers at 54 W. Hubbard and then Peshtigo Court. I NEVER represented them for free. I ALWAYS charged SOMETHING. Usually it was $10. I did that so drivers could preserve their dignity. It gave them a sense of being able to feel they were getting something for something. I didn't want to make anything in particular. It paid my cabfare over from my office which was then at 221 N. La Salle. Maybe it bought a cup of coffee too.

Now I don't give a hang about the money at all. If I choose to represent a cabdriver, it's because he or she deserves it, and there's been an injustice done - or at least it's been attempted. It sure as shoot won't be on a reference from you again.

You represent them yourself, buster. See how well you do. Stuart Alpern may be little better than a garden toad, but he's apt to make pig meat out of the likes of you if you represent someone at 400 W. Superior. And the A.R.D.C. ought to know about it too. Tell us what you've done, sir. Lay it out.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

You are confusing the issue again, Mr. Nathan. Nice try.

I'm going to cut right through your blabbering:

I have had plenty of experiences in many different courtrooms. You claimed that I had none. I have never "appeared for cabdrivers in courtroom settings". That wasn't part of your false statement.

I have represented myself and I have had representation.

I was not happy with your conduct concerning Ms. Green based on her report to me that she was not happy with it. You confirmed (by e-mail) much of what she told me.

Again with this "witch doctor" nonsense, Mr. Nathan?

I stopped considering you as someone to refer cabdrivers in trouble to based on your conduct. You really aren't that interested in helping cabdrivers at 400 W. Superior. You admitted to that in an e-mail.

Don't pretend that you are rejecting me, Mr. Nathan. I rejected you a long time ago, and for good reason. You aren't a lawyer that Chicago cabdrivers can count on for help.

The rest of your blabbering is irrelevant; I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. You are objecting to something that has never taken place.

Nonetheless, I will continue to help my fellow Chicago cabdrivers who find themselves in trouble or facing injustice.

You can ask the A.R.D.C. to investigate me all you want. I am acting fully within the bounds of the law.

This would only provide more proof to the fact that you really are an idiot of a lawyer.

You can't even keep the names of your clients straight.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Plenty of experience in many different courtrooms?"

Say it in print, smarty pants. Let us know about how you have appeared for cabdrivers in courtroom settings. Give us chapter and verse. We all want the details. What courts were you in? Did you represent yourself? Or did you represent others? Did you step up for a cabdriver ever? What forum was it in? If you represented yourself, I'm sure we're all going to be so impressed.

Since it's public record, I can discuss the matter of Cheri Green who I represented without charge at 400 W. Superior at your request. Ms. Green was up for license revocation on a number of charges after having had about a dozen prior findings of guilty on various minor beefs. The charge she was facing was a nonsense one, but if found guilty she would be doing something other than driving a taxi these days.

Voluntarily and without duress, Ms. Green chose to enter a guilty plea to the nonsense charge in exchange for a relatively small fine. She returned to work as a cabdriver immediately. I expect she was not thrilled about having to pay a small fine after the fact, but weighed against the possibility of having to find another way to make a living, the choice she made was probably a good one. I know you were unhappy about it. But I was not out to make you happy - my job was to represent Ms. Green properly and to preserve her public passenger vehicle chauffeur license, not yours.

I am not at liberty to discuss the conversation I had with her and the advice I gave her that convinced her to enter that plea, but all can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps a non-lawyer advising her would have recommended she go to the mat. Perhaps going to the mat she would have won. But perhaps she would have lost.

If Green lost, she'd have no recourse against the non-lawyer for his lousy advice that cost her a job, She couldn't sue him for malpractice because he would just say he's an unlicensed non-professional who was a "volunteer" doing the best he could. She would be just "S. O. L," as they say on the street. She would be just on the street and on her a s s and out the door.

Like I said,l only a moron would seek your representation in a courtroom - you are nothing but a witch doctor treating people with potions.

As for the same day in 400 West Superior, talk with Abdul Sheikh who you also referred to me. He walked away a victor as do most of the people I represent - including the ones I represent for free.

Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's when I was cutting my teeth at the Bar, I represented a lot of cabdrivers at 54 W. Hubbard and then Peshtigo Court. I NEVER represented them for free. I ALWAYS charged SOMETHING. Usually it was $10. I did that so drivers could preserve their dignity. It gave them a sense of being able to feel they were getting something for something. I didn't want to make anything in particular. It paid my cabfare over from my office which was then at 221 N. La Salle. Maybe it bought a cup of coffee too.

Now I don't give a hang about the money at all. If I choose to represent a cabdriver, it's because he or she deserves it, and there's been an injustice done - or at least it's been attempted. It sure as shoot won't be on a reference from you again.

You represent them yourself, buster. See how well you do. Stuart Alpern may be little better than a garden toad, but he's apt to make pig meat out of the likes of you if you represent someone at 400 W. Superior. And the A.R.D.C. ought to know about it too. Tell us what you've done, sir. Lay it out.


Donald Nathan

"I have had plenty of experiences in many different courtrooms."

Tell us all about your plenty of experiences, Mike. Tell us about those many different courtooms, Mr. Witch Doctor. Where have you cast your spells?
Who are your "clients" besides "Ola Shalom" - s****** - and "John Doe"?

Assuming both Shalom and Doe exist arguendo, what was the courtroom experience you had with either of these men? WHERE HAVE YOU HAD COURTROOM EXPERIENCE? What was your experience that you had plenty of it?

There's nothing confusing about your bunk, Mike. I'm not confusing issues here. You are a fluff artist, and you're being exposed for being the witch doctor you are. You are an unlicensed incompetent who has no education, no malpractice coverage, no code of ethics, no command of legal knowledge or experience, no requirement to keep confidences - you ain't got nothin' buddy.

You don't got doodly squat. It's just that simple, pimple. I don't know a cabdriver with an IQ of more than 60 who doesn't understand it at this point.

Mr. Nathan,

Chicago cabdrivers get a variety of tickets or complaints which they can choose to have a hearing to provide a defense or other proceedings.

Some of these are parking tickets. Some are fly tickets. Some are Department of Consumer Service tickets. Some are traffic tickets. Some are even civil or criminal situations.

In my ten years of driving a cab, I've encountered almost all of these, and my experience has taught me how to defend myself against or resolve most of these. Sometimes, the professional representation of a lawyer is preferable. A lot of times, this is an unnecessary waste of time and money.

Again, Mr. Nathan, I have no "clients". Your use of this term clearly underscores how you are (intentionally, I believe) misunderstanding what I have done for Ola Shalom, "John Doe", and others, who are all real cabdrivers.

If you want to know the extent of my interaction with Mr. Shalom, you can visit cco1.bravehost.com and enter the Discussion Forum and read the postings.

"John Doe" has not entered a courtroom. His attackers remain at large, though possible suspects have been observed at the site afterwards.

I have plenty of legal knowledge. One of my political mentors was the widow of a well-known Assistant U.S. Attorney. Her son was a Harvard man. I have observed many more trials than the average person. I have read many more legal briefs than the average person.

What everybody understands, apparently except you, Mr. Nathan, is that I am not a lawyer, and I am not practicing law, authorized or otherwise. Perhaps you should take an I.Q. test.

I am the twice-elected President of a small group of cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and currently driving. As such, I have been recognized by many cabdrivers and others as person interested in helping with some of the problems we face.

What I have is the honor and trust of far more cabdrivers than you, Mr. Nathan.

I also have an education. I have no need for "malpractice coverage". I have a code of ethics, which respects the Truth more than most of your associates' "codes". Part of my code demands that I keep some confidences, but not all.

Your comments and conduct continue to disturb most of us who are serious about succeeding in making positive changes for Chicago cabdrivers.

You seem to only care about "trying" and that clearly reflects the fact that your personal failure to accomplish anything won't bother you at all.

This is your "charitable hobby", Mr. Nathan.

To Chicago cabdrivers, this is affecting our livelihood.

If you continue to **** around or fart in my general direction, Mr. Nathan, you might find yourself "trying" to convince a police officer to arrest me.

You will probably realize at that point how little the "law" will protect a lawyer like you. You just got fair warning. Proceed with caution.

-Mike Foulks, who knows exactly who Melissa C. and Ted B. are why they are important people to be respected for what they have done. Get a clue, Mr. Nathan...or get lost.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I have had plenty of experiences in many different courtrooms."

Tell us all about your plenty of experiences, Mike. Tell us about those many different courtooms, Mr. Witch Doctor. Where have you cast your spells?
Who are your "clients" besides "Ola Shalom" - s****** - and "John Doe"?

Assuming both Shalom and Doe exist arguendo, what was the courtroom experience you had with either of these men? WHERE HAVE YOU HAD COURTROOM EXPERIENCE? What was your experience that you had plenty of it?

There's nothing confusing about your bunk, Mike. I'm not confusing issues here. You are a fluff artist, and you're being exposed for being the witch doctor you are. You are an unlicensed incompetent who has no education, no malpractice coverage, no code of ethics, no command of legal knowledge or experience, no requirement to keep confidences - you ain't got nothin' buddy.

You don't got doodly squat. It's just that simple, pimple. I don't know a cabdriver with an IQ of more than 60 who doesn't understand it at this point.

Chicago cabdrivers get a variety of tickets or complaints which they can choose to have a hearing to provide a defense or other proceedings. Some of these are parking tickets. Some are fly tickets. Some are Department of Consumer Service tickets. Some are traffic tickets. Some are even civil or criminal situations.

THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS THAT INVOLVE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CHARGES REQUIRE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL AND NOT A WITCH DOCTOR. A PARKING TICKET OR FLY TICKET CAN BE DEFENDED BY A MORON. A DCS TICKET CAN END UP IN LICENSE REVOCATION, AND OFTEN INVOLVEMENT BY SOMEONE LIKE YOU CAN SPELL A DISASTER FOR A DRIVER.

THAT DRIVER HAS NO WAY TO SUE YOU FOR YOUR MALPRACTICE IF YOU S C R E W UP A CASE FOR HIM AT 400 W. SUPERIOR AND ENDS UP LOSING A LICENSE.

In my ten years of driving a cab, I've encountered almost all of these, and my experience has taught me how to defend myself against or resolve most of these. Sometimes, the professional representation of a lawyer is preferable. A lot of times, this is an unnecessary waste of time and money.

NO CRIMINAL CASE CAN BE DEFENDED SENSIBLY WITHOUT THE HELP OF A LICENSED ATTORNEY. LIBERTY IS AT STAKE. YOU ARE DOING A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE TO CABDRIVERS TO SUGGEST THAT YOU CAN HELP THEM WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES. I DO NOT DO THIS KIND OF WORK AT ALL, BUT THERE ARE GREAT LAWYERS WHO DO. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SHOULD A CABDRIVER USE A WITCH DOCTOR LIKE YOU AGAINST A STATE'S ATTORNEY. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST IT?

IN A CIVIL COURT, A DRIVER CAN DO FINE OVER AT THE PRO SE COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER. READ MY ARTICLE IN THE UTCC VOICE FOR THIS MONTH. ANYONE WHO WANTS ADVICE OR HELP, I AM HAPPY TO GIVE IT FOR FREE OVER THE PHONE. I DON'T WANT LITTLE CASES ANYWAY. NO LAWYER DOES. AND A NON-LAWYER WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING LIKE YOU, MIKE, CAN ONLY S C R E W UP A PRO SE CASE. THE CABDRIVER CAN'T SUE YOU FOR YOUR MALPRACTICE WHEN YOU LOSE FOR HIM WITH YOUR INCOMPETENT ADVICE.

Again, Mr. Nathan, I have no "clients". Your use of this term clearly underscores how you are (intentionally, I believe) misunderstanding what I have done for Ola Shalom, "John Doe", and others, who are all real cabdrivers.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR THEY DON'T. I ONLY ASKED YOU TO LAY OUT WHAT 'PLENTY OF COURTROOM EXPERIENCE" YOU HAVE. HAVING LISTED NOTHING, I PRESUME YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LIST.

If you want to know the extent of my interaction with Mr. Shalom, you can visit cco1.bravehost.com and enter the Discussion Forum and read the postings.

IT IS NOTED THAT SINCE YOUR "Discussion Forum" WENT ONLINE ON JUNE 21, THERE HAVE BEEN 22 POSTINGS, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE BY YOU AND "OLA SHALOM". YOUR "INTERACTION" LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A BASIS FOR SEVERAL TO WONDER OUT LOUD ON THIS FORUM WHETHER SHALOM EXISTS.

BUT THAT ASIDE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT YOUR "Forum" HAS BEEN LESS THAN A STELLAR OFFERING. IT HAS GENERATED ABOUT AS MUCH INTEREST AS YOUR MARCH ON CITY HALL TO COMPETE WITH THE UTCC - THE MARCH OF THE ARMY OF ONE.

"John Doe" has not entered a courtroom. His attackers remain at large, though possible suspects have been observed at the site afterwards.

ARE YOU PLANNING TO HELP HIM AT THE COURT OF CLAIMS? KEEP IN MIND THAT HE HAS A STRICT TIME LIMIT UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT. DON'T BLOW IT, MR. NON-LAWYER. HE CAN'T SUE YOU FOR BLOWING IT.

I have plenty of legal knowledge.

IS THAT SO? ARE YOU READY TO SIT FOR THE BAR EXAM?

One of my political mentors was the widow of a well-known Assistant U.S. Attorney.

DID SHE PREPARE YOU FOR THE BAR EXAM? OR DID SHE JUST GIVE YOU OTHER LESSONS? WHAT WAS SHE QUALIFIED TO TEACH YOU? MY FIRST WIFE WAS A COLLEGE GRADUATE, BUT HER DEGREE WAS IN ART HISTORY. MY SECOND WIFE IS A LAWYER, BUT SHE COULDN'T TEACH YOU DOODLY-SQUAT BECAUSE SHE DOES WORKERS COMPENSATION DEFENSE. SHE'D ADMIT IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

Her son was a Harvard man.

SO WHAT? DID HER SON TAKE YOU TO HARVARD WITH HIM? DID THAT MAKE HER A BETTER TEACHER? DID IT EVEN MAKE HER A TEACHER?

I have observed many more trials than the average person.

HA HA. TELL US ABOUT ANY OF THEM. THE AVERAGE PERSON SEES NONE AT ALL.

I have read many more legal briefs than the average person.

THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD NEVER READ A BRIEF IN TEN LIFETIMES. THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULDN'T USE A LEGAL BRIEF FOR TOILET PAPER.

TELL US ABOUT WHAT THE ISSUES WERE IN ANY OF THE ONES YOU CLAIM TO HAVE READ. WHAT WAS THE OCCASION FOR YOU TO HAVE READ A LEGAL BRIEF, MR. MIKE?

What everybody understands, apparently except you, Mr. Nathan, is that I am not a lawyer, and I am not practicing law, authorized or otherwise.

I TOO UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU ARE JUST A WITCH DOCTOR.

Perhaps you should take an I.Q. test.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO TAKE AN IQ TEST. THE ONES I TOOK GOT ME INTO COLLEGE, LAW SCHOOL, PAST THE BAR IN TWO STATES, LICENSED BEFORE THE U.S.DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, THE 7TH AND 9TH CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

IN WHAT COURTS ARE YOU LICENSED? FROM WHAT LAW SCHOOL DID YOU GRADUATE? FROM WHAT COLLEGE DID YOU GRADUATE?

I am the twice-elected President of a small group of cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and currently driving. As such, I have been recognized by many cabdrivers and others as person interested in helping with some of the problems we face. What I have is the honor and trust of far more cabdrivers than you, Mr. Nathan.

DON'T BE SO SURE OF THAT, MR. MIKE. I'VE REPRESENTED OVER 5000 CHICAGO CABDRIVERS OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, AND THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN MORE THAN SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTS THEY GOT IN COURT AND OUT OF COURT. I HAVEN'T ALWAYS WON, BUT THE DRIVERS ALWAYS KNEW I'D GIVE THE BEST FIGHT I COULD FOR THEM EVEN IF I LOST, AND THAT I'D KEEP THEIR CONFIDENCES FOLLOWING THE CODE OF ETHICS.

THEY KNEW I WASN'T JUST IN IT FOR THE SAKE OF MY EGO.

I also have an education.

TELL US ALL ABOUT IT. WHERE IS YOUR COLLEGE DEGREE FROM? DID YOU GRADUATE *** LAUDE? WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR? WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL? WAS IT AN A.B.A. ACCREDITED INSTITUTION? WHEN DID YOU PASS THE ILLINOIS BAR EXAM?

IF YOU HAVE NO LEGAL TRAINING, WHERE IS YOUR MASTER'S DEGREE FROM? IF YOU HAVE NO GRADUATE SCHOOL TRAINING OR NO COLLEGE DEGREE, DO YOU HAVE AN ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE? OR DO YOU HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE? OR DID YOU GO TO A TRADE SCHOOL OF SOME SORT?

HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO SHINE, MIKE. WHAT'S YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?

I have no need for "malpractice coverage". I have a code of ethics, which respects the Truth more than most of your associates' "codes". Part of my code demands that I keep some confidences, but not all.

NO NEED FOR MALPRACTICE COVERAGE? I'LL BET NOT. THE GARBAGE YOU ARE SHOVELING IS UNLIKELY TO CAUSE THAT MUCH DAMAGE. YOU CAN PAY FOR IT OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET IF A CABDRIVER IS HURT BY YOU, AND HE SUES YOU OVER IT. BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER FOR THAT DRIVER NOT TO HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION FOR YOU TO DAMAGE HIM? RATHER HE SHOULD GO TO A REAL LAWYER RATHER THAN YOU, THE WITCH DOCTOR, WITH HIS LEGAL PROBLEMS.

If you continue to **** around or fart in my general direction, Mr. Nathan, you might find yourself "trying" to convince a police officer to arrest me.

WHAT SORT OF THREAT IS THIS, SON? I WON'T BE CONVINCING A POLICE OFFICER TO DO ANYTHING. IF YOU ATTACK ME PHYSICALLY, YOU'LL BE COMMITTING A FELONY, BUT I GUARANTY I WILL USE THE TRAINING GIVEN ME 44 YEARS AGO AT PARIS ISLAND ON YOU. DON'T EXPECT TO COME OUT WITHOUT A SCRATCH EVEN IF YOU WIN. YOU'LL END UP MAIMED IF YOU ATTACK ME.

You will probably realize at that point how little the "law" will protect a lawyer like you. You just got fair warning. Proceed with caution.

I AM OVER 60 YEARS OF AGE. IT IS A FELONY IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO STRIKE SOMEONE OVER THE AGE OF 60 HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF HIS AGE.

-Mike Foulks, who knows exactly who Melissa C. and Ted B. are why they are important people to be respected for what they have done. Get a clue, Mr. Nathan...or get lost.

I KNOW EXACTLY WHO THEY ARE. I RESPECT THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE AND FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND FOR WHAT I KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

GROW UP, MIKE.

Mr. Nathan,

The only "chords" you strike, Mr. Nathan, are off-key.

Can you name a single instance where "involvement by someone like me" has "spelled disaster for a driver"?

It is impossible for me to "screw up a case for a driver" who would "lose their license".

I have never suggested that criminal cases be defended pro se. What kind of drugs are you taking?

Sorry, Mr. Nathan, but the only possible outcome of a cabdriver approaching me for help isn't "a screw-up". Could you please show us where I given someone "incompetent advice"?

Your presumption that I have "no courtroom experience" or that cabdrivers such as Ola Shalom don't exist is ridiculous. Mr. Shalom provided his phone number; why don't you call him?

The cco1.bravehost.com website is known to only a handful of people. It has not been widely promoted. It is simply a prototype of a better website to come.

You again distort the facts. There was no "March of the Army of One". There is no "competition" with UTCC.

I am not representing Mr. Doe, or anyone else, as a lawyer would, at the Court of Claims or in any other court. How many times must this be explained to you before you get it?

Do you need a more personal explanation, Mr. Nathan?

I have no intention to go to law school or sit for the bar exam.

Ms. Arnold was well-qualified to teach me about politics, from a local to a national level. The fact that she and her husband raised a boy to become a Harvard man speaks volumes about their ability to teach.

Why do you respond with "HA HA" when I state that I have observed many more trials than the average person? I don't see what's so funny.

Perhaps you've heard of the Michael L. Jackson murder trial?

In a different case, I read an appellate brief which concerned a motion to withdraw a guilty plea which was ultimately denied. The basis for the motion was that the defendant's guilty plea was made under duress, as he was being subject to anal rape at Cook County Jail. (This was several decades ago). The courtroom transcript recorded these claims in a lengthy and confusing exchange of words between the defendant and the judge as he finally accepted the plea.

I still think that you are starting to suffer from the loss of intellect than many experience as they enter their old age. I'm serious, Mr. Nathan. You might have Old-Timer's.

I'll wager that my I.Q. is at least ten points higher than yours. Wouldn't surprise me if it's twenty.

Again, Mr. Nathan, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not licensed by any court. I didn't attend law school. I am not a college graduate.

You claim to have represented over 5000 Chicago cabdrivers. Could you give us the names and contact information of 50 of them so we could ask them about you? How about fifteen? Five?

Mr. Nathan, it is you who is sufferring from an "ego problem". I am motivated to make positive changes for Chicago cabdrivers...because I am a Chicago cabdriver myself. I hope to be a Chicago cabdriver for a very long time.

I have a G.E.D. from the State of Wyoming. I was double-promoted through grade school and in the "Talented and Gifted" program, but I didn't receive my high school diploma because I failed to make up gym class. I planned to not attend college long before.

Ironically, I would have been recognized at graduation with the Physical Education Award, which would have complemented my junior high graduation award for Computer Excellence quite nicely.

I was heavily recruited by the Marines due to my fitness and background in the Russian language, who wanted me for Embassy Duty. I never went to "Paris Island".

Mr. Nathan, you'll never maim me with your bare hands. One of my hobbies was hand-to-hand combat with some of the Air Force guards at the nuke base in Cheyenne.

I'm 37 years old, sir. I'm as "grown up" as I'll ever be, I'm sure. My advice to you is to start following your own advice.

Keep annoying me at your own peril.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Chicago cabdrivers get a variety of tickets or complaints which they can choose to have a hearing to provide a defense or other proceedings. Some of these are parking tickets. Some are fly tickets. Some are Department of Consumer Service tickets. Some are traffic tickets. Some are even civil or criminal situations.

THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS THAT INVOLVE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CHARGES REQUIRE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL AND NOT A WITCH DOCTOR. A PARKING TICKET OR FLY TICKET CAN BE DEFENDED BY A MORON. A DCS TICKET CAN END UP IN LICENSE REVOCATION, AND OFTEN INVOLVEMENT BY SOMEONE LIKE YOU CAN SPELL A DISASTER FOR A DRIVER.

THAT DRIVER HAS NO WAY TO SUE YOU FOR YOUR MALPRACTICE IF YOU S C R E W UP A CASE FOR HIM AT 400 W. SUPERIOR AND ENDS UP LOSING A LICENSE.

In my ten years of driving a cab, I've encountered almost all of these, and my experience has taught me how to defend myself against or resolve most of these. Sometimes, the professional representation of a lawyer is preferable. A lot of times, this is an unnecessary waste of time and money.

NO CRIMINAL CASE CAN BE DEFENDED SENSIBLY WITHOUT THE HELP OF A LICENSED ATTORNEY. LIBERTY IS AT STAKE. YOU ARE DOING A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE TO CABDRIVERS TO SUGGEST THAT YOU CAN HELP THEM WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES. I DO NOT DO THIS KIND OF WORK AT ALL, BUT THERE ARE GREAT LAWYERS WHO DO. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SHOULD A CABDRIVER USE A WITCH DOCTOR LIKE YOU AGAINST A STATE'S ATTORNEY. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST IT?

IN A CIVIL COURT, A DRIVER CAN DO FINE OVER AT THE PRO SE COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER. READ MY ARTICLE IN THE UTCC VOICE FOR THIS MONTH. ANYONE WHO WANTS ADVICE OR HELP, I AM HAPPY TO GIVE IT FOR FREE OVER THE PHONE. I DON'T WANT LITTLE CASES ANYWAY. NO LAWYER DOES. AND A NON-LAWYER WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING LIKE YOU, MIKE, CAN ONLY S C R E W UP A PRO SE CASE. THE CABDRIVER CAN'T SUE YOU FOR YOUR MALPRACTICE WHEN YOU LOSE FOR HIM WITH YOUR INCOMPETENT ADVICE.

Again, Mr. Nathan, I have no "clients". Your use of this term clearly underscores how you are (intentionally, I believe) misunderstanding what I have done for Ola Shalom, "John Doe", and others, who are all real cabdrivers.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR THEY DON'T. I ONLY ASKED YOU TO LAY OUT WHAT 'PLENTY OF COURTROOM EXPERIENCE" YOU HAVE. HAVING LISTED NOTHING, I PRESUME YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LIST.

If you want to know the extent of my interaction with Mr. Shalom, you can visit cco1.bravehost.com and enter the Discussion Forum and read the postings.

IT IS NOTED THAT SINCE YOUR "Discussion Forum" WENT ONLINE ON JUNE 21, THERE HAVE BEEN 22 POSTINGS, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE BY YOU AND "OLA SHALOM". YOUR "INTERACTION" LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A BASIS FOR SEVERAL TO WONDER OUT LOUD ON THIS FORUM WHETHER SHALOM EXISTS.

BUT THAT ASIDE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT YOUR "Forum" HAS BEEN LESS THAN A STELLAR OFFERING. IT HAS GENERATED ABOUT AS MUCH INTEREST AS YOUR MARCH ON CITY HALL TO COMPETE WITH THE UTCC - THE MARCH OF THE ARMY OF ONE.

"John Doe" has not entered a courtroom. His attackers remain at large, though possible suspects have been observed at the site afterwards.

ARE YOU PLANNING TO HELP HIM AT THE COURT OF CLAIMS? KEEP IN MIND THAT HE HAS A STRICT TIME LIMIT UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT. DON'T BLOW IT, MR. NON-LAWYER. HE CAN'T SUE YOU FOR BLOWING IT.

I have plenty of legal knowledge.

IS THAT SO? ARE YOU READY TO SIT FOR THE BAR EXAM?

One of my political mentors was the widow of a well-known Assistant U.S. Attorney.

DID SHE PREPARE YOU FOR THE BAR EXAM? OR DID SHE JUST GIVE YOU OTHER LESSONS? WHAT WAS SHE QUALIFIED TO TEACH YOU? MY FIRST WIFE WAS A COLLEGE GRADUATE, BUT HER DEGREE WAS IN ART HISTORY. MY SECOND WIFE IS A LAWYER, BUT SHE COULDN'T TEACH YOU DOODLY-SQUAT BECAUSE SHE DOES WORKERS COMPENSATION DEFENSE. SHE'D ADMIT IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

Her son was a Harvard man.

SO WHAT? DID HER SON TAKE YOU TO HARVARD WITH HIM? DID THAT MAKE HER A BETTER TEACHER? DID IT EVEN MAKE HER A TEACHER?

I have observed many more trials than the average person.

HA HA. TELL US ABOUT ANY OF THEM. THE AVERAGE PERSON SEES NONE AT ALL.

I have read many more legal briefs than the average person.

THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD NEVER READ A BRIEF IN TEN LIFETIMES. THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULDN'T USE A LEGAL BRIEF FOR TOILET PAPER.

TELL US ABOUT WHAT THE ISSUES WERE IN ANY OF THE ONES YOU CLAIM TO HAVE READ. WHAT WAS THE OCCASION FOR YOU TO HAVE READ A LEGAL BRIEF, MR. MIKE?

What everybody understands, apparently except you, Mr. Nathan, is that I am not a lawyer, and I am not practicing law, authorized or otherwise.

I TOO UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU ARE JUST A WITCH DOCTOR.

Perhaps you should take an I.Q. test.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO TAKE AN IQ TEST. THE ONES I TOOK GOT ME INTO COLLEGE, LAW SCHOOL, PAST THE BAR IN TWO STATES, LICENSED BEFORE THE U.S.DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, THE 7TH AND 9TH CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

IN WHAT COURTS ARE YOU LICENSED? FROM WHAT LAW SCHOOL DID YOU GRADUATE? FROM WHAT COLLEGE DID YOU GRADUATE?

I am the twice-elected President of a small group of cabdrivers licensed by the City of Chicago and currently driving. As such, I have been recognized by many cabdrivers and others as person interested in helping with some of the problems we face. What I have is the honor and trust of far more cabdrivers than you, Mr. Nathan.

DON'T BE SO SURE OF THAT, MR. MIKE. I'VE REPRESENTED OVER 5000 CHICAGO CABDRIVERS OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, AND THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN MORE THAN SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTS THEY GOT IN COURT AND OUT OF COURT. I HAVEN'T ALWAYS WON, BUT THE DRIVERS ALWAYS KNEW I'D GIVE THE BEST FIGHT I COULD FOR THEM EVEN IF I LOST, AND THAT I'D KEEP THEIR CONFIDENCES FOLLOWING THE CODE OF ETHICS.

THEY KNEW I WASN'T JUST IN IT FOR THE SAKE OF MY EGO.

I also have an education.

TELL US ALL ABOUT IT. WHERE IS YOUR COLLEGE DEGREE FROM? DID YOU GRADUATE *** LAUDE? WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR? WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL? WAS IT AN A.B.A. ACCREDITED INSTITUTION? WHEN DID YOU PASS THE ILLINOIS BAR EXAM?

IF YOU HAVE NO LEGAL TRAINING, WHERE IS YOUR MASTER'S DEGREE FROM? IF YOU HAVE NO GRADUATE SCHOOL TRAINING OR NO COLLEGE DEGREE, DO YOU HAVE AN ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE? OR DO YOU HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE? OR DID YOU GO TO A TRADE SCHOOL OF SOME SORT?

HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO SHINE, MIKE. WHAT'S YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?

I have no need for "malpractice coverage". I have a code of ethics, which respects the Truth more than most of your associates' "codes". Part of my code demands that I keep some confidences, but not all.

NO NEED FOR MALPRACTICE COVERAGE? I'LL BET NOT. THE GARBAGE YOU ARE SHOVELING IS UNLIKELY TO CAUSE THAT MUCH DAMAGE. YOU CAN PAY FOR IT OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET IF A CABDRIVER IS HURT BY YOU, AND HE SUES YOU OVER IT. BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER FOR THAT DRIVER NOT TO HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION FOR YOU TO DAMAGE HIM? RATHER HE SHOULD GO TO A REAL LAWYER RATHER THAN YOU, THE WITCH DOCTOR, WITH HIS LEGAL PROBLEMS.

If you continue to **** around or fart in my general direction, Mr. Nathan, you might find yourself "trying" to convince a police officer to arrest me.

WHAT SORT OF THREAT IS THIS, SON? I WON'T BE CONVINCING A POLICE OFFICER TO DO ANYTHING. IF YOU ATTACK ME PHYSICALLY, YOU'LL BE COMMITTING A FELONY, BUT I GUARANTY I WILL USE THE TRAINING GIVEN ME 44 YEARS AGO AT PARIS ISLAND ON YOU. DON'T EXPECT TO COME OUT WITHOUT A SCRATCH EVEN IF YOU WIN. YOU'LL END UP MAIMED IF YOU ATTACK ME.

You will probably realize at that point how little the "law" will protect a lawyer like you. You just got fair warning. Proceed with caution.

I AM OVER 60 YEARS OF AGE. IT IS A FELONY IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO STRIKE SOMEONE OVER THE AGE OF 60 HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF HIS AGE.

-Mike Foulks, who knows exactly who Melissa C. and Ted B. are why they are important people to be respected for what they have done. Get a clue, Mr. Nathan...or get lost.

I KNOW EXACTLY WHO THEY ARE. I RESPECT THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE AND FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND FOR WHAT I KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

GROW UP, MIKE.

It's time to help cabdrivers and to stop with your drivvel. Go pound on your chest in a corner, son. No one is going to hear it.

Mr. Nathan,

We've heard this promise before. Too bad you're not a man of your word.

"Pounding my chest"? "In a corner, son"? "No one is going to hear it"?

I say, "Whatever!", Mr. Nathan.

Go ask one of your "sons" or daughters what I am trying to express if you're still unsure of my disposition.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It's time to help cabdrivers and to stop with your drivvel. Go pound on your chest in a corner, son. No one is going to hear it.

....and then, one July, no, June morning, no, February morning, no, pick a day, a month, a year, morning sometime ago, or maybe next week...

ola shalom and john doe are real drivers from my garage

nobody knows them because they sneak in and out all the time and never say as much as "ola" or "shalom"

they have been caught on video but no one can recognize them so the can't be found guilty even if they are captured

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You, sir, have been purportedly dispensing legal advice to people like "Ola Shalom" and "John Doe".

You have been doing this without any legal training, without a stitch of experience in a courtroom, without malpractice insurance if you screw up, without the obligation to preserve their confidences and without any code of ethics to regulate you,

You are a quack, and you have the pluck to call a licensed professional with close to 33 years experience incompetent?

As I suggested, a cabdriver who would rely on you for assistance in any legal matter is an idiot.

You are a quack in any legal setting. That's not silly. That's dangerous. Cabdrivers can go to to ANY lawyer they like. ANYONE licensed to practice is better than a quack. I'm not looking to solicit business. I'm just trying to keep cabdrivers out of your unlicensed, uneducated and obviously incompetent hands.

Only a moron would use your "services".


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

So I am a "witch doctor"? THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, SIR.

I have no intention of "practicing law" or "heart surgery". SURE SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S YOUR INTENT FROM ALL THE PUFFING YOU'VE BEEN DOING LATELY ON THAT FANCY WEB PAGE OF YOURS. OLA SHALOM THINKS YOU WALK ON WATER. I GUESS LIKE MOST WITCH DOCTORS, YOU MUST.

I am simply going to continue helping cabdrivers get the justice they deserve. JUST LIKE WITCH DOCTORS CURE ILLNESSES AND HOLD UP THE PATIENTS THEY "CURE" FOR ALL TO SEE.

By the way, a bad lawyer (like you) who puts his interests ahead of his clients is worse than a non-lawyer.

RIGHT-OH. CRITITCIZE THE PROFESSIONAL. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TECHNIQUE OF THE WITCH DOCTOR. IF A MEDICAL DOCTOR'S PATIENT SHOULD DIE, TELL EVERYONE THE PHYSICIAN IS A BAD DOCTOR. ONLY THE WITCH DOCTOR KNOWS HOW TO CURE ILLNESS.

I'M SURE ALL CABDRIVERS ARE GOING TO BUY INTO THAT TRIPE --- IF THEY ARE MORONS.

I don't have "clients", Mr. Nathan, except for the ones I chauffeur in my taxicab. BUT YOU SURE DO HAVE SOME MORONS FOR FOLLOWERS.

Thank you for being honest: You admit you aren't going to help Chicago cabdrivers in Administrative Hearings or with Workmen's Comp.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT? YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID THAT. I'M HAPPY TO HELP CHICAGO CABDRIVERS WITH LEGAL PROBLEMS. I MIGHT NOT VOLUNTEER MY TIME, BUT THEN I DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE, LAW SCHOOL, PASS THE BAR, PAY FOR MALPRACTICE INSURANCE, MAINTAIN AN OFFICE AND DO EVERYTHING TO RUN A PRACTICE SO AS TO DONATE 168 HOURS A WEEK TO MY CLIENTELE.

IF I FEEL A CASE IS DESERVING OF FREE REPRESENTATION, I WILL DONATE MY TIME. THE STANLEY SHEN CASE IS BEING HANDLED FOR FREE AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THROUGH THE CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT AT THE COURT OF CLAIMS. OTHER CASES MIGHT ALSO BE HANDLED ON THE SAME BASIS DEPENDING ON THE FACTS.

IF I FEEL A CASE IS NOT DESERVING OF FREE REPRESENTATION, I WILL CHARGE FOR MY TIME A FEE OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A FAIR RATE. I MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

ALTHOUGH IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, IN AN AVERAGE YEAR, I DONATE ABOUT 150 OF THE 2400 BILLABLE HOURS I WORK. MOST OF THAT DONATED TIME GOES TO CABDRIVERS. ALMOST ALL OF THE CABDRIVER TIME GOES TO CHICAGO CABDRIVERS. THAT FIGURE IS REPORTED TO THE A.R.D.C. WHICH KEEPS TABS OF THE TIME SPENT BY LAWYERS ON PRO BONO PUBLICO WORK.

Nice to know we can't count on you for legal assistance. I wouldn't recommend you, anyhow. You have already proven yourself to be, essentially, a useless distraction. For the record, I wouldn't accept any offer of employment by the City of Chicago. Who, pray tell, do you think my "buddies" at City Hall are? You have a peculiar imagination, Mr. Nathan. I would find you more amusing, Mr. Nathan, if you weren't such a waste of of my time. You'll get no more attention from me, or Chicago cabdrivers, once your ill-fated "lawsuit" is finally tossed, I'm sure. Perhaps a partial victory will provide you enough buzz to twist or exaggggerrrrate as it pleases you or your handful of misguided fans. You can try to belittle my real results until you are blue in the face; the Chicago cabdrivers I've helped know exactly whose "side" I am on.

I GUESS WE CAN RECOGNIZE FROM YOUR POINTLESS VITRIOL HOW USELESS YOUR VIEWPOINT REALLY IS.

When you finally retire or die, Mr. Nathan, who can replace you? Anyone at all? - Mike Foulks

PROBABLY NO ONE. AND I'LL NEVER RETIRE. I HAVE WAY TOO MANY CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO SO.

DONALD NATHAN

Mr. Nathan,

I am not a "witch doctor".

You are not a professional lawyer.

I don't criticize all lawyers, Mr. Nathan. Just ones like you who can't understand how they are inferior to lawyers who behave professionally.

The only "tripe" here is coming from you. Please stop it or simply go away.

I don't have "followers", Mr. Nathan. The most "moronic" individual lately has been you.

I referred a few cabdrivers to you, Mr. Nathan. You ultimately mistreated Ms. Green and indicated to me in an e-mail that you weren't really that interested in helping Chicago cabdrivers at 400 W. Superior with any degree of regularity.

You have obvious ulterior motives, Mr. Nathan. You want to ingratiate yourself with those who are trying to organize Chicago cabdrivers so that your vision of a "Chicago Metro" "union" will exist.

Sorry, Mr. Nathan. Many of us don't want to have anything to do with Yi Tang or any other suburban cab/limo drivers, for good reason.

I ask myself, what benefit do I or Chicago cabdrivers have from associating with Donald Nathan? So far, not much at all.

In fact, you cause more trouble than you are worth. You can't even keep yourself informed enough to do otherwise.

I will celebrate either the day you pass away or when you decide to leave us alone, whichever comes first.

You are not helping.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

So I am a "witch doctor"? THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, SIR.

I have no intention of "practicing law" or "heart surgery". SURE SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S YOUR INTENT FROM ALL THE PUFFING YOU'VE BEEN DOING LATELY ON THAT FANCY WEB PAGE OF YOURS. OLA SHALOM THINKS YOU WALK ON WATER. I GUESS LIKE MOST WITCH DOCTORS, YOU MUST.

I am simply going to continue helping cabdrivers get the justice they deserve. JUST LIKE WITCH DOCTORS CURE ILLNESSES AND HOLD UP THE PATIENTS THEY "CURE" FOR ALL TO SEE.

By the way, a bad lawyer (like you) who puts his interests ahead of his clients is worse than a non-lawyer.

RIGHT-OH. CRITITCIZE THE PROFESSIONAL. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TECHNIQUE OF THE WITCH DOCTOR. IF A MEDICAL DOCTOR'S PATIENT SHOULD DIE, TELL EVERYONE THE PHYSICIAN IS A BAD DOCTOR. ONLY THE WITCH DOCTOR KNOWS HOW TO CURE ILLNESS.

I'M SURE ALL CABDRIVERS ARE GOING TO BUY INTO THAT TRIPE --- IF THEY ARE MORONS.

I don't have "clients", Mr. Nathan, except for the ones I chauffeur in my taxicab. BUT YOU SURE DO HAVE SOME MORONS FOR FOLLOWERS.

Thank you for being honest: You admit you aren't going to help Chicago cabdrivers in Administrative Hearings or with Workmen's Comp.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT? YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID THAT. I'M HAPPY TO HELP CHICAGO CABDRIVERS WITH LEGAL PROBLEMS. I MIGHT NOT VOLUNTEER MY TIME, BUT THEN I DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE, LAW SCHOOL, PASS THE BAR, PAY FOR MALPRACTICE INSURANCE, MAINTAIN AN OFFICE AND DO EVERYTHING TO RUN A PRACTICE SO AS TO DONATE 168 HOURS A WEEK TO MY CLIENTELE.

IF I FEEL A CASE IS DESERVING OF FREE REPRESENTATION, I WILL DONATE MY TIME. THE STANLEY SHEN CASE IS BEING HANDLED FOR FREE AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND THROUGH THE CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT AT THE COURT OF CLAIMS. OTHER CASES MIGHT ALSO BE HANDLED ON THE SAME BASIS DEPENDING ON THE FACTS.

IF I FEEL A CASE IS NOT DESERVING OF FREE REPRESENTATION, I WILL CHARGE FOR MY TIME A FEE OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A FAIR RATE. I MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

ALTHOUGH IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, IN AN AVERAGE YEAR, I DONATE ABOUT 150 OF THE 2400 BILLABLE HOURS I WORK. MOST OF THAT DONATED TIME GOES TO CABDRIVERS. ALMOST ALL OF THE CABDRIVER TIME GOES TO CHICAGO CABDRIVERS. THAT FIGURE IS REPORTED TO THE A.R.D.C. WHICH KEEPS TABS OF THE TIME SPENT BY LAWYERS ON PRO BONO PUBLICO WORK.

Nice to know we can't count on you for legal assistance. I wouldn't recommend you, anyhow. You have already proven yourself to be, essentially, a useless distraction. For the record, I wouldn't accept any offer of employment by the City of Chicago. Who, pray tell, do you think my "buddies" at City Hall are? You have a peculiar imagination, Mr. Nathan. I would find you more amusing, Mr. Nathan, if you weren't such a waste of of my time. You'll get no more attention from me, or Chicago cabdrivers, once your ill-fated "lawsuit" is finally tossed, I'm sure. Perhaps a partial victory will provide you enough buzz to twist or exaggggerrrrate as it pleases you or your handful of misguided fans. You can try to belittle my real results until you are blue in the face; the Chicago cabdrivers I've helped know exactly whose "side" I am on.

I GUESS WE CAN RECOGNIZE FROM YOUR POINTLESS VITRIOL HOW USELESS YOUR VIEWPOINT REALLY IS.

When you finally retire or die, Mr. Nathan, who can replace you? Anyone at all? - Mike Foulks

PROBABLY NO ONE. AND I'LL NEVER RETIRE. I HAVE WAY TOO MANY CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO SO.

DONALD NATHAN

As a licensed professional, I am the one who can say he knows what he is doing. You, on the other hand, are a bust out. Calling you a witch doctor would be generous.

It had become obvious to me after you referred to me the matters of Ahmed Sheikh, Cheri Green and Saleem Qureshi that you were hoping to use me for your own ends and for your self-aggrandisement. Recognizing it, I chose not to be used by you.

Let me ask you. Does Arthur Ropp let you use him? Does Jennifer Davenport let you use her? Does any lawyer do your bidding for free for your followers? Do any of them represent people for free at the Workers Compensation Commission? What about at 400 West Superior - or anywhere for that matter? Does any lawyer who advertises in the Dispatcher do work for you for free? My mouth would drop open if one did.

Let's call it for what it is - you're just a poser, a charlatan. You're a user of professionals, and you resented that I saw it early on.

I'm done responding to your drivvel. Talk to yourself. It's like phone stalking. You know what that is, no?

Mr. Nathan,

I am not a charlatan and you act very unprofessionally.

You can say you know what you are doing all you want; you're already proven to say things that aren't quite true.

You've made numerous errors in your claims to date.

I am neither a "witch doctor" or a "bust out", whatever that means.

I am spitting up grapefruit juice because you haven't gotten Sheikh's name right...for the second time. Same for Ms. Green's. I won't comment on Saleem's as he himself uses many different spellings.

First you say Abdul, then you say Ahmed. Try again. It's a good thing you don't guard or represent guys stuck down at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba...the guilty might go free and the innocent might hang!!!

I was "hoping to use you for my own ends"? How exactly, Mr. Nathan? I used you to help cabdrivers who were in need of legal help. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Nathan, the point is that Mr. Ropp and Ms. Davenport haven't been wandering around telling everyone who might listen that they want to give cabdrivers "free legal help". I took you up on your offer, but we see now that you weren't being sincere.

You have ulterior motives. Should I post your e-mail on this topic to refresh your memory?

I resented how you insult and manipulate people, such as you did to George Lutfallah last fall to score points with those already predisposed against him.

Still, for the sake of the cabdrivers who approached me with legal problems, I referred them to you until Ms. Green came back with a negative report about you which you pretty much confirmed and stated your reluctance to regularly represent cabdrivers at 400 W. Superior.

Mr. Nathan, if you haven't noticed, I've been trying to ignore you for months now. I am the one responding to your dribble mentioning my name or spreading misinformation.

If you would simply find the nearest exit, those of us who have more at stake here would appreciate it.

Mr. Nathan, do I owe Mr. Weiss an apology? Are you the one who left a message on my phone consisting entirely of "hee-haws"? Did you send the "hate mail" on Father's Day? Just so you know, I haven't bothered to open it.

Do I need to ask the State Police to investigate this matter and ask you for your phone records, fingerprints, and a handwriting sample?

Whether it was you or Mr. Weiss "phone stalking" me or sending "hate mail" makes no difference. I don't answer unexpected calls from blocked phone numbers and I don't bother to open obvious "hate mail". Whatever written threats you or he might have made are hollow.

I actually enjoyed listening to, saving, and sharing the "hee-haws" with others. It makes me laugh every time I think about or hear it.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As a licensed professional, I am the one who can say he knows what he is doing. You, on the other hand, are a bust out. Calling you a witch doctor would be generous.

It had become obvious to me after you referred to me the matters of Ahmed Sheikh, Cheri Green and Saleem Qureshi that you were hoping to use me for your own ends and for your self-aggrandisement. Recognizing it, I chose not to be used by you.

Let me ask you. Does Arthur Ropp let you use him? Does Jennifer Davenport let you use her? Does any lawyer do your bidding for free for your followers? Do any of them represent people for free at the Workers Compensation Commission? What about at 400 West Superior - or anywhere for that matter? Does any lawyer who advertises in the Dispatcher do work for you for free? My mouth would drop open if one did.

Let's call it for what it is - you're just a poser, a charlatan. You're a user of professionals, and you resented that I saw it early on.

I'm done responding to your drivvel. Talk to yourself. It's like phone stalking. You know what that is, no?

The last thing I would ever do is commit phone stalking. But there is a certain Michael D. Foulks who served hard time for having done so following an indictment in Rolling Meadows. No doubt that was someone other than you, Mike. It's now under investigation, but we'll see who it involved shortly enough.

On the other hand, I have never been arrested for ANYTHING - EVER. It was for that reason that I was licensed to practice law in two states and could pass moral character muster in any other.

So don't be criticizing cabdrivers like Weiss without proof, Foulks. I don't have proof that you were convicted of phone stalking - yet. So I don't point a finger at you and call you a convicted felon. You don't have proof that Weiss sent you a letter on Father's Day or made a phoney phone call. So keep your yap shut - don't cast the first stone.

As for me, I am a member of the Bar of two states with an unblemished record. Your accusation from the mud in the gutter is taken by anyone who reads it for just what it is. We all just spit on trash like you and sweep you into the sewer.

Mr. Nathan,

I've never been convicted of "Phone Stalking", nor have I ever done "hard time".

If you want to me stop to criticizng cabdrivers like Weiss, you are going to be disappointed, despite whatever borderline blackmail you suddenly choose to babble about.

You are the one who should be most concerned about getting your facts straight...

I wouldn't describe you as "judgment proof".

By the way, if you ever "spit on trash like me"...you will be the one finding yourself swept into the sewer.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The last thing I would ever do is commit phone stalking. But there is a certain Michael D. Foulks who served hard time for having done so following an indictment in Rolling Meadows. No doubt that was someone other than you, Mike. It's now under investigation, but we'll see who it involved shortly enough.

On the other hand, I have never been arrested for ANYTHING - EVER. It was for that reason that I was licensed to practice law in two states and could pass moral character muster in any other.

So don't be criticizing cabdrivers like Weiss without proof, Foulks. I don't have proof that you were convicted of phone stalking - yet. So I don't point a finger at you and call you a convicted felon. You don't have proof that Weiss sent you a letter on Father's Day or made a phoney phone call. So keep your yap shut - don't cast the first stone.

As for me, I am a member of the Bar of two states with an unblemished record. Your accusation from the mud in the gutter is taken by anyone who reads it for just what it is. We all just spit on trash like you and sweep you into the sewer.

You don't have to twist the words as usual to pretend to be the only "truth".

Any "hard time" served on that?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

I've never been convicted of "Phone Stalking", nor have I ever done "hard time".

If you want to me stop to criticizng cabdrivers like Weiss, you are going to be disappointed, despite whatever borderline blackmail you suddenly choose to babble about.

You are the one who should be most concerned about getting your facts straight...

I wouldn't describe you as "judgment proof".

By the way, if you ever "spit on trash like me"...you will be the one finding yourself swept into the sewer.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The last thing I would ever do is commit phone stalking. But there is a certain Michael D. Foulks who served hard time for having done so following an indictment in Rolling Meadows. No doubt that was someone other than you, Mike. It's now under investigation, but we'll see who it involved shortly enough.

On the other hand, I have never been arrested for ANYTHING - EVER. It was for that reason that I was licensed to practice law in two states and could pass moral character muster in any other.

So don't be criticizing cabdrivers like Weiss without proof, Foulks. I don't have proof that you were convicted of phone stalking - yet. So I don't point a finger at you and call you a convicted felon. You don't have proof that Weiss sent you a letter on Father's Day or made a phoney phone call. So keep your yap shut - don't cast the first stone.

As for me, I am a member of the Bar of two states with an unblemished record. Your accusation from the mud in the gutter is taken by anyone who reads it for just what it is. We all just spit on trash like you and sweep you into the sewer.

"Clueless", or are you really Mr. Yi Tang?...

You are still wrong.

I've never served "hard time" for "Phone Harassment".

I don't twist words, nor am I "pretending to be the only 'truth'".

I'm not sure I even know what your twisted words and phrases mean.

Can one never answer questions and expect answers?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You don't have to twist the words as usual to pretend to be the only "truth".

Any "hard time" served on that?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

I've never been convicted of "Phone Stalking", nor have I ever done "hard time".

If you want to me stop to criticizng cabdrivers like Weiss, you are going to be disappointed, despite whatever borderline blackmail you suddenly choose to babble about.

You are the one who should be most concerned about getting your facts straight...

I wouldn't describe you as "judgment proof".

By the way, if you ever "spit on trash like me"...you will be the one finding yourself swept into the sewer.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The last thing I would ever do is commit phone stalking. But there is a certain Michael D. Foulks who served hard time for having done so following an indictment in Rolling Meadows. No doubt that was someone other than you, Mike. It's now under investigation, but we'll see who it involved shortly enough.

On the other hand, I have never been arrested for ANYTHING - EVER. It was for that reason that I was licensed to practice law in two states and could pass moral character muster in any other.

So don't be criticizing cabdrivers like Weiss without proof, Foulks. I don't have proof that you were convicted of phone stalking - yet. So I don't point a finger at you and call you a convicted felon. You don't have proof that Weiss sent you a letter on Father's Day or made a phoney phone call. So keep your yap shut - don't cast the first stone.

As for me, I am a member of the Bar of two states with an unblemished record. Your accusation from the mud in the gutter is taken by anyone who reads it for just what it is. We all just spit on trash like you and sweep you into the sewer.

"'Clueless', or are you really Mr. Yi Tang?...

You are still wrong!

There is no "Hard Time" here needed.


I don't twist words, nor am I "pretending to be the only 'truth'".

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Clueless", or are you really Mr. Yi Tang?...

You are still wrong.

I've never served "hard time" for "Phone Harassment".

I don't twist words, nor am I "pretending to be the only 'truth'".

I'm not sure I even know what your twisted words and phrases mean.

Can one never answer questions and expect answers?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You don't have to twist the words as usual to pretend to be the only "truth".

Any "hard time" served on that?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

I've never been convicted of "Phone Stalking", nor have I ever done "hard time".

If you want to me stop to criticizng cabdrivers like Weiss, you are going to be disappointed, despite whatever borderline blackmail you suddenly choose to babble about.

You are the one who should be most concerned about getting your facts straight...

I wouldn't describe you as "judgment proof".

By the way, if you ever "spit on trash like me"...you will be the one finding yourself swept into the sewer.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The last thing I would ever do is commit phone stalking. But there is a certain Michael D. Foulks who served hard time for having done so following an indictment in Rolling Meadows. No doubt that was someone other than you, Mike. It's now under investigation, but we'll see who it involved shortly enough.

On the other hand, I have never been arrested for ANYTHING - EVER. It was for that reason that I was licensed to practice law in two states and could pass moral character muster in any other.

So don't be criticizing cabdrivers like Weiss without proof, Foulks. I don't have proof that you were convicted of phone stalking - yet. So I don't point a finger at you and call you a convicted felon. You don't have proof that Weiss sent you a letter on Father's Day or made a phoney phone call. So keep your yap shut - don't cast the first stone.

As for me, I am a member of the Bar of two states with an unblemished record. Your accusation from the mud in the gutter is taken by anyone who reads it for just what it is. We all just spit on trash like you and sweep you into the sewer.

The bottom line is straightforward, Mike. You don't know what you are doing in the courts, and the people you claim to be serving are being misled if they think you are doing them a favor.

You are like a witch doctor treating a guy who just suffered a heart attack. Only a cardiologist should be attending such a person. It's like a medicine man trying to take a brain tumor out of someone rather than a board certified neurosurgeon in a sterile operating theater with anesthesia.

Only a lunatic would have you lay hands on him for this kind of treatment.

You have no training. You are not bound by any code of ethics. You have no malpractice insurance if you should screw up and damage someone. No one regulates what you do. Your "clients" are at your mercy.

You can freely reveal the secrets of anyone who comes to you - nothing people say to you stays confidential unless you decide to keep it that way. If you want to beat on your chest and reveal their secrets, too bad for them.

You have never tried a case before any tribunal. You have never presented evidence before any judge, any arbitrator in the workers compensation commission, the Court of Claims where the Crime Victims Compensation Act is administered, and you've never represented anyone in any court of law anywhere in any state anywhere ever - or have you?

The bottom line is that you don't know what the devil you are doing. You have no legal education. I don't believe you are even a college graduate to be able to get into a law school. For that matter, I don't know if you finished high school. You certainly are an articulate man - enough so as to insult people on the Internet. But that doesn't make you competent to advise people in legal proceedings.

You are no better than a witch doctor or a faith healer.

The cabdrivers who go to your web page need to know that.

I don't give a flying you know what who cabdrivers go to for legal advice or help as long as they go to professionals to seek help - not to incompetents who claim to have superhuman powers who know nothing.

Don Nathan, The good thing about this fellows claim to be helping others is that it is just that. The only "people" taking advantage of this so called help are the other personalities residing in Mike's cranium.

Be careful when you speak to Mike. He might say this makes you a member of his imaginary sect. The CCO website is only being used by Mike and other fragments of his imagination. The so called "three man march" made by Mike was actually Mike and two innocent bystanders.

I am just glad that this guys mask was lifted off sooner rather than later. How would you like to have this guy on your team? There must have been bad chemicals in the tap water 20 years ago in Des Plaines. Two guys warped the same way from the same hometown. Maybe they both drank from the river......

You're not supposed to drink out of DPR?
Oh.....

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Don Nathan, The good thing about this fellows claim to be helping others is that it is just that. The only "people" taking advantage of this so called help are the other personalities residing in Mike's cranium.

Be careful when you speak to Mike. He might say this makes you a member of his imaginary sect. The CCO website is only being used by Mike and other fragments of his imagination. The so called "three man march" made by Mike was actually Mike and two innocent bystanders.

I am just glad that this guys mask was lifted off sooner rather than later. How would you like to have this guy on your team? There must have been bad chemicals in the tap water 20 years ago in Des Plaines. Two guys warped the same way from the same hometown. Maybe they both drank from the river......

There's a sucker born every minute.

those who follows the donkey boy will get what is deserved: donkey droppings

straight-up: hee-haw boy has no training diaper on his bottom

he may be suffering from an overdose Des Plaines River water: donkey urine

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The bottom line is straightforward, Mike. You don't know what you are doing in the courts, and the people you claim to be serving are being misled if they think you are doing them a favor.

You are like a witch doctor treating a guy who just suffered a heart attack. Only a cardiologist should be attending such a person. It's like a medicine man trying to take a brain tumor out of someone rather than a board certified neurosurgeon in a sterile operating theater with anesthesia.

Only a lunatic would have you lay hands on him for this kind of treatment.

You have no training. You are not bound by any code of ethics. You have no malpractice insurance if you should screw up and damage someone. No one regulates what you do. Your "clients" are at your mercy.

You can freely reveal the secrets of anyone who comes to you - nothing people say to you stays confidential unless you decide to keep it that way. If you want to beat on your chest and reveal their secrets, too bad for them.

You have never tried a case before any tribunal. You have never presented evidence before any judge, any arbitrator in the workers compensation commission, the Court of Claims where the Crime Victims Compensation Act is administered, and you've never represented anyone in any court of law anywhere in any state anywhere ever - or have you?

The bottom line is that you don't know what the devil you are doing. You have no legal education. I don't believe you are even a college graduate to be able to get into a law school. For that matter, I don't know if you finished high school. You certainly are an articulate man - enough so as to insult people on the Internet. But that doesn't make you competent to advise people in legal proceedings.

You are no better than a witch doctor or a faith healer.

The cabdrivers who go to your web page need to know that.

I don't give a flying you know what who cabdrivers go to for legal advice or help as long as they go to professionals to seek help - not to incompetents who claim to have superhuman powers who know nothing.

Mr. Nathan,

The "bottom line", whether you want to believe it our not, is simply that I have helped many of my fellow Chicago cabdrivers in many different situations.

They have thanked me for it.

Nothing you do or say can change this fact or prevent me from continuing to do so in the future.

"Superhuman powers", Mr. Nathan? What the hell are you babbling about?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The bottom line is straightforward, Mike. You don't know what you are doing in the courts, and the people you claim to be serving are being misled if they think you are doing them a favor.

You are like a witch doctor treating a guy who just suffered a heart attack. Only a cardiologist should be attending such a person. It's like a medicine man trying to take a brain tumor out of someone rather than a board certified neurosurgeon in a sterile operating theater with anesthesia.

Only a lunatic would have you lay hands on him for this kind of treatment.

You have no training. You are not bound by any code of ethics. You have no malpractice insurance if you should screw up and damage someone. No one regulates what you do. Your "clients" are at your mercy.

You can freely reveal the secrets of anyone who comes to you - nothing people say to you stays confidential unless you decide to keep it that way. If you want to beat on your chest and reveal their secrets, too bad for them.

You have never tried a case before any tribunal. You have never presented evidence before any judge, any arbitrator in the workers compensation commission, the Court of Claims where the Crime Victims Compensation Act is administered, and you've never represented anyone in any court of law anywhere in any state anywhere ever - or have you?

The bottom line is that you don't know what the devil you are doing. You have no legal education. I don't believe you are even a college graduate to be able to get into a law school. For that matter, I don't know if you finished high school. You certainly are an articulate man - enough so as to insult people on the Internet. But that doesn't make you competent to advise people in legal proceedings.

You are no better than a witch doctor or a faith healer.

The cabdrivers who go to your web page need to know that.

I don't give a flying you know what who cabdrivers go to for legal advice or help as long as they go to professionals to seek help - not to incompetents who claim to have superhuman powers who know nothing.

The bottom line is that Nathan is an attorney licensed in two states making in excess of 250k a year. Foulks is living in a fleabag driving nights for the worst company in the city. They take anyone that has a pulse. Foulks' income would be around 25k max. Nathan has luxury homes here and on the West coast. He also has several real offspring. Mike only has what's between his own ears, much of which is defective. The bottom line is that Mike is the real bottom dweller here, not Nathan. While Mike is able to drive a cab, he might not make the grade at McDonalds.

Don Nathan, you are a real gentleman for putting up with this dog doo. I know that you are really trying to help. However, you do not owe anything to these two brain damaged people. Perhaps these two had a few "bad trips together" back in the day. I'm starting to wonder about George after seeing his latest posts. Perhaps he's starting to "crack!"

I would love to see Mr. Nathan's state and federal tax filings for the last 40 years so exactly how much and how Mr. Nathan makes his money isn't based simply on his word. Care to share, Mr. Nathan?

The Chinatown Hotel isn't a "flophouse" or a "fleabag". It is very clean and I'm one of the few long-term residents. I have a special arrangement with the owner. Many cabdrivers couldn't afford the rent here, nor would they be able to negotiate the terms which I have to my advantage. For a point of reference, it regularly costs more than $100 per night, often nearly $200, to stay here as a guest. It is a great location for a single guy like me.

I don't "work for Carriage". I lease a particular cab from them. The overall conditions of their other cabs, lessees, or affiliates doesn't trump the value I place on the proximity of their garage and the flexibility of my current day driver.

For the record, I was netting close to $10 per hour in the 1980's when other teenagers were making minimum wage at McDonalds. (Less than $4 back then.)

I've been hired and promoted at almost every job I've sought and suceeded at. Perhaps this makes me an "underachiever" but I've never valued material success over enjoying what I do. Too many equate wealth with superiority and hurt themselves by chasing after it exclusively and endlessly.

Also, I was fortunate enough to experience enough public recognition for my talents in childhood and adolescence so as see fame as a hollow pursuit.

Please refrain from using "Don Nathan" and "real gentleman" in the same sentence until further notice. Milk almost came flying out of my nose!

There is no "back in the day" for George Lutfallah and me. I had never met George Lutfallah until a few years ago.

I don't know about George Lutfallah, but I have taken my share of psychedelic drugs in my youth. I had a few "interesting moments", but nothing I would describe as a "bad trip". Luckily, I've never been addicted to anything other than cigarettes, which I finally quit smoking a few years ago.

By the way, to whoever was wondering if there was "something in the water in Des Plaines": Des Plaines, as most suburbs in the area, has water piped in from Lake Michigan. As you grow up in Chicagoland, learning and being mindful of little details like this can prevent you from making uninformed statements.

Grow up, people. Watch, listen, and learn.

Don Nathan could very well be making ten or 110 times the money I make...what's the point?

Please note that he has only donated a lousy $50 to any cabdrivers' causes, to his own client's legal fund, no less.

Mr. Nathan is slippery, but he isn't slick enough to hide the odor of a rotten, no-good lawyer which eminates whenever he decides to show up to "help".

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The bottom line is that Nathan is an attorney licensed in two states making in excess of 250k a year. Foulks is living in a fleabag driving nights for the worst company in the city. They take anyone that has a pulse. Foulks' income would be around 25k max. Nathan has luxury homes here and on the West coast. He also has several real offspring. Mike only has what's between his own ears, much of which is defective. The bottom line is that Mike is the real bottom dweller here, not Nathan. While Mike is able to drive a cab, he might not make the grade at McDonalds.

Don Nathan, you are a real gentleman for putting up with this dog doo. I know that you are really trying to help. However, you do not owe anything to these two brain damaged people. Perhaps these two had a few "bad trips together" back in the day. I'm starting to wonder about George after seeing his latest posts. Perhaps he's starting to "crack!"

I would love to see Mr. Nathan's state and federal tax filings for the last 40 years so exactly how much and how Mr. Nathan makes his money isn't based simply on his word. Care to share, Mr. Nathan?

WHO ARE YOU TO ME? WHY WOULD I SHARE PERSONAL DETAILS OF MY FINANCES WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE? I'M NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING. TRY HOLDING YOUR NOSE AT 1313 EAST BELMONT FOR HALF AN HOUR.

The Chinatown Hotel isn't a "flophouse" or a "fleabag". It is very clean and I'm one of the few long-term residents. I have a special arrangement with the owner. Many cabdrivers couldn't afford the rent here, nor would they be able to negotiate the terms which I have to my advantage. For a point of reference, it regularly costs more than $100 per night, often nearly $200, to stay here as a guest. It is a great location for a single guy like me.

WHO CARES ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVE? I SURE DON'T. YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A GUTTER? I COULD CARE LESS. YOU CAN PAY $100 A NIGHT TO LIVE IN A SEWER FOR ALL I CARE. I PREFER TO LIVE IN MORE COMFORTABLE DIGS, BUT I'VE WORKED FOR IT OVER THE YEARS. I'M AN OLD MAN, AND I THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEND WHAT I'VE EARNED TO LIVE IN COMFORT. IF I DON'T, MY MANY KIDS ARE GOING TO DO IT FOR ME.

I don't "work for Carriage". I lease a particular cab from them. The overall conditions of their other cabs, lessees, or affiliates doesn't trump the value I place on the proximity of their garage and the flexibility of my current day driver.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE OUTFIT FOR WHICH YOU ARE AN AGENT? YOU'RE AN AGENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL YOURSELF. CARRIAGE IS YOUR PRINCIPAL.

IF YOU GET HURT ON THE JOB, WATCH HOW FAST YOU'LL CALL YOURSELF AN AGENT AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION. AND I'LL BET YOU HIRE ONE OF MY COMPETITORS TO REPRESENT YOU BECAUSE YOU'LL KNOW QUICK ENOUGH HOW INCOMPETENT YOU ARE TO DEAL WITH INSURANCE COMPANY ATTORNEYS.

YOU'LL PAY MY COMPETITOR 20% AND SAY THANK YOU WHEN A GOOD RESULT IS OBTAINED. OR MAYBE YOU'LL REPRESENT YOURSELF AND GET SCREWED AND KICK YOURSELF IN THE BEHIND FOR BEING TOO CHEAP TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL AND GET A PROPER RESULT.

For the record, I was netting close to $10 per hour in the 1980's when other teenagers were making minimum wage at McDonalds. (Less than $4 back then.)

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, SIR. IN 1986, I SCORED IN MURRAY v. LINCOLNSHIRE GROUP FOR $2,025,000. YOU CAN READ THE APPEAL OVER THE FEE IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION END OF THE CASE WHICH ALONE WAS OVER $88,000. I THINK IT'S AT 121 ILLINOIS DECISIONS. MY PAYCHECK IN THAT CASE WAS $375,000.

I'VE HAD SEVERAL OTHER SEVEN FIGURE RESULTS OVER THE YEARS, I'VE TRIED 126 CIVIL CASES TO A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS AND SUPERVISED ANOTHER 1000 OR SO. BETTER THAN 70% OF THEM WERE WON. THE AVERAGE FOR LAWYERS IS 50% BUT WHO CARES? THAT DOESN'T DEFINE ME AS A LAWYER. IT JUST MADE IT POSSIBLE NOT TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHERE THE NEXT BUCK IS GOING TO COME FROM WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN A CASE.

I've been hired and promoted at almost every job I've sought and suceeded at. Perhaps this makes me an "underachiever" but I've never valued material success over enjoying what I do. Too many equate wealth with superiority and hurt themselves by chasing after it exclusively and endlessly. Also, I was fortunate enough to experience enough public recognition for my talents in childhood and adolescence so as see fame as a hollow pursuit.

I'M SURE YOU'RE A GREAT MAN, MIKE. AND SERIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN DO SOME GOOD FOR YOUR FELLOW CABDRIVERS, YOU HAVE MY RESPECT. DON'T ATTACK ME FOR THE EFFORTS I MAKE, AND I'LL CUT YOU A WIDE PATH.

I'M NOT SEEKING FAME. IF I WERE SEEKING FAME, I'D HAVE HIRED A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM, AND I'D HAVE BEEN BUYING ADVERTISING SPACE FROM PEOPLE LIKE LUTFALLAH.

Please refrain from using "Don Nathan" and "real gentleman" in the same sentence until further notice. Milk almost came flying out of my nose!

WHAT'S THE MATTER - DOING NETTI POTS WITH MILK?

There is no "back in the day" for George Lutfallah and me. I had never met George Lutfallah until a few years ago. I don't know about George Lutfallah, but I have taken my share of psychedelic drugs in my youth. I had a few "interesting moments", but nothing I would describe as a "bad trip". Luckily, I've never been addicted to anything other than cigarettes, which I finally quit smoking a few years ago.

I WOULDN'T BE BRAGGING ABOUT SUCH THINGS. THE ONLY THING I EVER HAD TO GIVE UP WAS CIGARETTES, AND I DID THAT 32 YEARS AGO WHEN MY OLDEST CHILD WAS IN UTERO. SMARTEST THING I EVER DID.

By the way, to whoever was wondering if there was "something in the water in Des Plaines": Des Plaines, as most suburbs in the area, has water piped in from Lake Michigan. As you grow up in Chicagoland, learning and being mindful of little details like this can prevent you from making uninformed statements.

LOTS OF PEOPLE DIDN'T GROW UP IN CHICAGOLAND. AND THE WATER IN LAKE MICHIGAN HAS BEEN POISONED WITH MERCURY SINCE THE '60'S - AMONG OTHER TOXINS.

Grow up, people. Watch, listen, and learn.

Don Nathan could very well be making ten or 110 times the money I make...what's the point?

THERE IS NONE.

Please note that he has only donated a lousy $50 to any cabdrivers' causes, to his own client's legal fund, no less.

DEAD WRONG, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. NOR IS IT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. I'M NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING.

Mr. Nathan is slippery, but he isn't slick enough to hide the odor of a rotten, no-good lawyer which eminates whenever he decides to show up to "help".

YOU'RE PLAYING ON PREJUDICE AGAINST LAWYERS. BUT MOST PEOPLE KNOW THAT LAWYERS ARE FROM A NOBLE PROFESSION. WE STUDY PAST HIGH SCHOOL, PAST COLLEGE, PAST LAW SCHOOL, PAST THE BAR EXAM. WE GO ON FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION THROUGHOUT OUR CAREERS AND DEDICATE OUR LIVES TO LEARNING AND OUR CLIENTS.

WE ARE NOT JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE NEXT LOAD - ESPECIALLY SO AFTER WE'VE ACHIEVED EVERYTHING WE NEED TO ACHIEVE.

Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

You see and hear things that aren't real.

Your response here obviously shows how you don't understand how this technology works; I was simply responding to a previous post by a different person.

You also show just little you pay attention when you criticize me for answering questions that other people brought up.

We are way beyond the end of the road, Mr. Nathan. You can keep thrashing about in the weeds here if you like.

I'm moving on to greener pastures.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I would love to see Mr. Nathan's state and federal tax filings for the last 40 years so exactly how much and how Mr. Nathan makes his money isn't based simply on his word. Care to share, Mr. Nathan?

WHO ARE YOU TO ME? WHY WOULD I SHARE PERSONAL DETAILS OF MY FINANCES WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE? I'M NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING. TRY HOLDING YOUR NOSE AT 1313 EAST BELMONT FOR HALF AN HOUR.

The Chinatown Hotel isn't a "flophouse" or a "fleabag". It is very clean and I'm one of the few long-term residents. I have a special arrangement with the owner. Many cabdrivers couldn't afford the rent here, nor would they be able to negotiate the terms which I have to my advantage. For a point of reference, it regularly costs more than $100 per night, often nearly $200, to stay here as a guest. It is a great location for a single guy like me.

WHO CARES ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVE? I SURE DON'T. YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A GUTTER? I COULD CARE LESS. YOU CAN PAY $100 A NIGHT TO LIVE IN A SEWER FOR ALL I CARE. I PREFER TO LIVE IN MORE COMFORTABLE DIGS, BUT I'VE WORKED FOR IT OVER THE YEARS. I'M AN OLD MAN, AND I THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEND WHAT I'VE EARNED TO LIVE IN COMFORT. IF I DON'T, MY MANY KIDS ARE GOING TO DO IT FOR ME.

I don't "work for Carriage". I lease a particular cab from them. The overall conditions of their other cabs, lessees, or affiliates doesn't trump the value I place on the proximity of their garage and the flexibility of my current day driver.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE OUTFIT FOR WHICH YOU ARE AN AGENT? YOU'RE AN AGENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL YOURSELF. CARRIAGE IS YOUR PRINCIPAL.

IF YOU GET HURT ON THE JOB, WATCH HOW FAST YOU'LL CALL YOURSELF AN AGENT AT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION. AND I'LL BET YOU HIRE ONE OF MY COMPETITORS TO REPRESENT YOU BECAUSE YOU'LL KNOW QUICK ENOUGH HOW INCOMPETENT YOU ARE TO DEAL WITH INSURANCE COMPANY ATTORNEYS.

YOU'LL PAY MY COMPETITOR 20% AND SAY THANK YOU WHEN A GOOD RESULT IS OBTAINED. OR MAYBE YOU'LL REPRESENT YOURSELF AND GET SCREWED AND KICK YOURSELF IN THE BEHIND FOR BEING TOO CHEAP TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL AND GET A PROPER RESULT.

For the record, I was netting close to $10 per hour in the 1980's when other teenagers were making minimum wage at McDonalds. (Less than $4 back then.)

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, SIR. IN 1986, I SCORED IN MURRAY v. LINCOLNSHIRE GROUP FOR $2,025,000. YOU CAN READ THE APPEAL OVER THE FEE IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION END OF THE CASE WHICH ALONE WAS OVER $88,000. I THINK IT'S AT 121 ILLINOIS DECISIONS. MY PAYCHECK IN THAT CASE WAS $375,000.

I'VE HAD SEVERAL OTHER SEVEN FIGURE RESULTS OVER THE YEARS, I'VE TRIED 126 CIVIL CASES TO A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS AND SUPERVISED ANOTHER 1000 OR SO. BETTER THAN 70% OF THEM WERE WON. THE AVERAGE FOR LAWYERS IS 50% BUT WHO CARES? THAT DOESN'T DEFINE ME AS A LAWYER. IT JUST MADE IT POSSIBLE NOT TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHERE THE NEXT BUCK IS GOING TO COME FROM WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN A CASE.

I've been hired and promoted at almost every job I've sought and suceeded at. Perhaps this makes me an "underachiever" but I've never valued material success over enjoying what I do. Too many equate wealth with superiority and hurt themselves by chasing after it exclusively and endlessly. Also, I was fortunate enough to experience enough public recognition for my talents in childhood and adolescence so as see fame as a hollow pursuit.

I'M SURE YOU'RE A GREAT MAN, MIKE. AND SERIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN DO SOME GOOD FOR YOUR FELLOW CABDRIVERS, YOU HAVE MY RESPECT. DON'T ATTACK ME FOR THE EFFORTS I MAKE, AND I'LL CUT YOU A WIDE PATH.

I'M NOT SEEKING FAME. IF I WERE SEEKING FAME, I'D HAVE HIRED A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM, AND I'D HAVE BEEN BUYING ADVERTISING SPACE FROM PEOPLE LIKE LUTFALLAH.

Please refrain from using "Don Nathan" and "real gentleman" in the same sentence until further notice. Milk almost came flying out of my nose!

WHAT'S THE MATTER - DOING NETTI POTS WITH MILK?

There is no "back in the day" for George Lutfallah and me. I had never met George Lutfallah until a few years ago. I don't know about George Lutfallah, but I have taken my share of psychedelic drugs in my youth. I had a few "interesting moments", but nothing I would describe as a "bad trip". Luckily, I've never been addicted to anything other than cigarettes, which I finally quit smoking a few years ago.

I WOULDN'T BE BRAGGING ABOUT SUCH THINGS. THE ONLY THING I EVER HAD TO GIVE UP WAS CIGARETTES, AND I DID THAT 32 YEARS AGO WHEN MY OLDEST CHILD WAS IN UTERO. SMARTEST THING I EVER DID.

By the way, to whoever was wondering if there was "something in the water in Des Plaines": Des Plaines, as most suburbs in the area, has water piped in from Lake Michigan. As you grow up in Chicagoland, learning and being mindful of little details like this can prevent you from making uninformed statements.

LOTS OF PEOPLE DIDN'T GROW UP IN CHICAGOLAND. AND THE WATER IN LAKE MICHIGAN HAS BEEN POISONED WITH MERCURY SINCE THE '60'S - AMONG OTHER TOXINS.

Grow up, people. Watch, listen, and learn.

Don Nathan could very well be making ten or 110 times the money I make...what's the point?

THERE IS NONE.

Please note that he has only donated a lousy $50 to any cabdrivers' causes, to his own client's legal fund, no less.

DEAD WRONG, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. NOR IS IT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. I'M NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING.

Mr. Nathan is slippery, but he isn't slick enough to hide the odor of a rotten, no-good lawyer which eminates whenever he decides to show up to "help".

YOU'RE PLAYING ON PREJUDICE AGAINST LAWYERS. BUT MOST PEOPLE KNOW THAT LAWYERS ARE FROM A NOBLE PROFESSION. WE STUDY PAST HIGH SCHOOL, PAST COLLEGE, PAST LAW SCHOOL, PAST THE BAR EXAM. WE GO ON FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION THROUGHOUT OUR CAREERS AND DEDICATE OUR LIVES TO LEARNING AND OUR CLIENTS.

WE ARE NOT JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE NEXT LOAD - ESPECIALLY SO AFTER WE'VE ACHIEVED EVERYTHING WE NEED TO ACHIEVE.

Donald Nathan

Try just to help cabdrivers Mike. Don't keep going off like a phone stalker. There's no advantage to derive from it.

I'll tell you what. I'll try to stick to being a professional serving the interests of cabdrivers. You try to be a cabdriver and an organizer. Maybe we can both do some good. I'll avoid you. You avoid me.

How about it?

Mr. Nathan,

In a span of about 48-72 hours, you've called me a "witch doctor", a "bust out", and now, a "phone stalker".

What's next?

I think you need to get in touch with reality. None of the insulting terms you use to describe me make any sense.

Are you going to send me a picture of you sticking out your tongue or giving me the finger?

I almost want to come to watch the lawsuit proceedings for sheer entertainment value.

I'm still mad that I missed your "expert witness" in Saleem's case a 400 W. Superior refuse to the take the oath to tell the truth. Thank God for tape recorded hearing transcripts.

Tell you what, I'll contribute $50 to the charity of Mr. Shen's choice if you tell Judge Epstein that Ms. Reyes "keeps going off like a phone stalker trying to help cabdrivers...there's no advantage to derive from it!"

If I happen to be there and fail to suppress my laughter, I'll contribute another $50 to the charity of your choice.

Bonus: $5 to the charity of my choice every time you call Mayor Daley "Richie Rich". (MAX: $50)

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Try just to help cabdrivers Mike. Don't keep going off like a phone stalker. There's no advantage to derive from it.

I'll tell you what. I'll try to stick to being a professional serving the interests of cabdrivers. You try to be a cabdriver and an organizer. Maybe we can both do some good. I'll avoid you. You avoid me.

How about it?

Refer to above postings.

Are you Michael "D" Foulks?

Does the Commissioner know about the Rolling Meadows events? Do they involve you or is it someone else?

I don't want to cast the first stone - not without a solid basis. That's why I am asking you straight up. A cabdriver has a reputation and a license to protect, especially so when he is an important one: the President of the C.C.O. elected by 26 lunchtime buddies.

I am sorry to here on what happend to you. This is crap needs to stop now. I know Daley, And, Reyes. Don't give a crap.

I am sorry that the reporter can not explain what a legal robbery is.

Today is the Sunday. Watch out for robbers on Wacko!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am sorry to here on what happend to you. This is crap needs to stop now. I know Daley, And, Reyes. Don't give a crap.

Legal robbery: The time stolen from us while reading the tons of advertising crap in the Dispatcher.

and diddling around on this forum just to entertain a donkey and his crap-slinging teamsters

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Legal robbery: The time stolen from us while reading the tons of advertising crap in the Dispatcher.