"I'm sure you could get guest contributors like Melissa C. or Ted B. or Mike F. (whoever these people might be)"

Mr. Nathan,
What exactly do you mean by this?

Melissa

Melissa

I know perfectly well who the fair and decent people are who read the postings on this web site. You and Ted are among them. You two have a keen sense of justice and know what the truth is about. I sincerely believe that once past his ego problems, so too Mike Foulks has a sense of justice. I wouldn't engage him at all if I didn't think that. I would just ignore him altogether.

My take is that Mr. Lutfallah is wrong to quash the criticisms of ANYONE who posts on his forum, He's set up a public soapbox. He should be letting anyone who wants to stand on it rant and rave as he likes under the circumstances. That includes Wolfgang Weiss. It includes you. It includes "Concerned Cabbie" and a bunch of others. Me too.

I know full and well you would never take pot shots at Wolf in a column. Nor would Ted. Mike Foulks might, but I kind of doubt it. When it's all said and done, Foulks rather respects Weiss for being "a gadfly" if nothing else. That's why I called upon the three of you to weigh in on the subject. I'm so glad you did. Thank you sincerely for letting us know you are concerned.

It was out of my profound and sincere respect for you that I put that posting on the board. Perhaps now you can understand where I am coming from with it. I hope you'll follow up with your feelings.

Wolf Weiss is an important part of the Lutfallah "Discussion Forum". George needs to lift the banishment, the exile, make an informal and off the record amend to Weiss and allow the repartee to go on as it was. The community of cabdrivers in the Chicago Metro area and NATIONALLY will benefit from it. Anything short of that can only hurt our community and ultimately destroy George Lutfallah's effort to build a successful trade rag for the taxi industry in this metro area.

Respectfully,


Don Nathan

Don,

Admit here and now that I allow all ideas to fly on this site. I challenge you to do that.

Say it here and now, unequivocally that you know I allow all *ideas* to be posted on this site.

Solicitations get deleted, as do senseless and unconstructive postings under the cover of anonymity, designed to bury the ideas of others and to tear people up.

Contempt for this site or my policies will get you banned.

You know all of this to be true. Admit that.

You wrote, "My take is that Mr. Lutfallah is wrong to quash the criticisms of ANYONE who posts on his forum"

Now Don, does that mean that I should allow 1,000 postings in a row calling a cabdriver "long eared father of fools?"

Your logic says I should. I have a responsibility to ALL people who come to this site. Not just to Wolf Weiss. Nobody has the right to bury other people's ideas with senseless anonymous postings and attacks. As I've said, I don't mind people posting using pseudonyms, but that gives nobody the right to abuse that policy and I have the right to stop people who are squashing others' ideas. If you think I have a responsibility to allow people to do that, you're sorely mistaken.

I have been very responsible with the administration of this site. Admit that, unequivocally.

If Wolf wants to admit to his wrongdoings, acknowledge my professionalism in my administration of this site and promises to behave professionally, the ban gets lifted immediately.

The continued contempt for my policies by you and Wolf only prolongs the ban.

George

George -

It's about time you took out the trash!

Admit here and now that I allow all ideas to fly on this site. I challenge you to do that.

YOU HAVE ALLOWED ME TO EXPRESS MY IDEAS ON YOUR SITE. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. YOU AND I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN A MUTUAL RESPECTFUL DISRESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER THAT SEEMS TO WORK. MOREOVER, I HAVE NOT BEEN A THORN IN YOUR SIDE WHICH IS LIKELY WHY YOU HAVE ALLOWED ME TO CONTINUE TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS.

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ALLOWED ALMOST ALL OTHERS TO DO SO WITHOUT RESERVE AS WELL. YOU TEND TO ALLOW OPINION TO BE EXPRESSED EVEN WHEN IT CHALLENGES YOU: I.E. AHMED R HAS GOTTEN PRETTY TESTY AT TIMES. BUT EVEN HE HAS REMAINED MARGINALLY RESPECTFUL AS HAVE YOU OF HIM.

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE QUASHED THE IDEAS OF WOLFGANG WEISS BECAUSE HE GOT YOUR GOAT. EVEN IF YOU FEEL WEISS CROSSED A LINE, I THINK THAT TO HAVE BEEN A BAD JUDGMENT ON YOUR PART. IT LOWERS YOU IN THE ESTEEM OF ALL WHO YOU WOULD WANT TO RESPECT YOU.

WEISS IS A NATIONAL FIGURE, NOT JUST A LOCAL YOKEL. GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT.

Say it here and now, unequivocally that you know I allow all *ideas* to be posted on this site.

GEORGE, YOU HAVE ALLOWED ALL OF MY IDEAS TO BE POSTED ON YOUR SITE, AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. YOU HAVE ALLOWED ALL OF WEISS' IDEAS TO BE POSTED UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. IT WAS BAD JUDGMENT TO CUT HIM OFF, AND I DO HOPE YOU WILL THINK BETTER OF IT IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.

Solicitations get deleted, as do senseless and unconstructive postings under the cover of anonymity, designed to bury the ideas of others and to tear people up.

YOU HAVE ALWAYS RUN THE FORUM UNDER THIS POLICY. ALL RESPECT THIS.

Contempt for this site or my policies will get you banned.

YOUR DEFINITION OF "CONTEMPT" NEEDS EXAMINATION VIS A VIS WOLF WEISS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

You know all of this to be true. Admit that.

SEE ABOVE.

You wrote, "My take is that Mr. Lutfallah is wrong to quash the criticisms of ANYONE who posts on his forum"

AGAIN, SEE ABOVE.

Now Don, does that mean that I should allow 1,000 postings in a row calling a cabdriver "long eared father of fools?"

ARE YOU PRESUMING WEISS MADE THOSE POSTINGS? I DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT, ALTHOUGH I DO ADMIT I GOT A COUPLE OF CHUCKLES OUT OF THEM. THEY WERE RATHER BABYISH, AND I WOULDN'T EXPECT TRIPE LIKE THAT TO HAVE DRIPPED FROM WEISS' PEN. BUT IF YOU HAVE PROOF POSITIVE, LET US ALL KNOW HOW YOU DEVELOPED THE INTELLIGENCE.

YOU ARE PRESUMING WEISS IS GUILTY OF MAKING A NUMBER OF INAPPROPRIATE POSTINGS. THE PRESUMPTION IS BASED ON A FALLACY AS I SEE IT. ALL THE DONKEY IMAGERY MAY HAVE COME FROM EAST ASIAN HUMOR. IT MAY HAVE COME FROM SOUTH ASIAN HUMOR. THE CABDRIVER WHO INSPIRED A LOT OF THOSE POSTINGS HAS A LOT OF ENEMIES; THAT IS, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO HATE HIS GUTS AND ARE SCARED TO POST USING REAL NAMES.

Your logic says I should. I have a responsibility to ALL people who come to this site. Not just to Wolf Weiss. Nobody has the right to bury other people's ideas with senseless anonymous postings and attacks. As I've said, I don't mind people posting using pseudonyms, but that gives nobody the right to abuse that policy and I have the right to stop people who are squashing others' ideas. If you think I have a responsibility to allow people to do that, you're sorely mistaken.

IN THEORY, I AGREE WITH YOU, GEORGE. BUT YOUR PRESUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON FALLACIES THAT DON'T FLY.

I have been very responsible with the administration of this site. Admit that, unequivocally.

UNEQUIVOCALLY, I ADMIT YOU HAVE - WITH ME, AT LEAST. AND SO TOO WITH MOST OTHERS.

If Wolf wants to admit to his wrongdoings, acknowledge my professionalism in my administration of this site and promises to behave professionally, the ban gets lifted immediately.

THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND WEISS. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, YOU SHOULD JUST LIFT YOUR BAN AND BE A BIGGER MAN FOR IT.

The continued contempt for my policies by you aWnd Wolf only prolongs the ban.

I HAVE NO CONTEMPT FOR YOUR POLICIES AND NEVER HAVE. ADMIT IT, GEORGE.


Donald Nathan

mr. nathan,

why don't you just tell your client to show respect for george's policies? it's not that hard. stop being a lawyer for a minute and just think like a human being. george is fair. wolf is a jerk. you are wolf's lawyer so you have to defend him like lawyers defend clients they know are guilty of heinous acts. just tell wolf to stop being a jerk so we can all move forward. you are furthering the distraction from the issues.

Try reading the posts below.

At least Wolf Weiss isn't a convicted felon. In fact, I'm not sure anyone can prove even by the probabilities he is guilty of anything at all, much less can it be shown by all reasonable doubt.

Ahmed, we have a tradition among Christians not to cast the first stone. I know all children of Abraham to have the same tradition. You may well be Christian too, but even if you aren't, hold your stone before casting it. Get some proof together before you make your accusations.

I'm not just defending a client. Wolf Weiss didn't hire me for this. He's just a friend. And I know he is no more likely to have called anyone a donkey boy on this web site than you did.

I say the ban should be lifted, and we should get back down to business. We have issues to discuss and deal with that affect all of us in the cab industry. And Weiss is a man who is articulate and able to express opinions that need to be heard in places like this forum.


Donald Nathan

Ola!

Please pass this on to GL:

GL says: "If Wolf wants to admit to his wrongdoings, acknowledge my professionalism in my administration of this site and promises to behave professionally, the ban gets lifted immediately.

Wolf says: THE ONLY THINGS I HAVE DONE WRONG ARE:

1) POST ON THIS FORUM;
2) BELIEVE THAT GL IS A PROFESSIONAL;
3) CONFUSE GL'S DICTATORSHIP OF THIS SITE WITH WHATEVER IT IS THAT HE CALLS ADMINISTRATION;
4) believe that gl is doing it all in the interests of drivers.

If GL wants to admit to his wrongdoings, acknowledge his lies and twisting of facts to suit his agenda and support his lies and promises to stop supporting imposters and professional con artists, MY BOYCOTT gets lifted immediately.

AT LEAST i DON'T CALL gl ON THE PHONE AND DEMAND $125,000 & THREATEN TO KILL HIM OF HE DOESN'T PAY UP!

I know, how can I post and boycott at the same time?

It's easy if you use "George-think" the ability to hold two opposing ideas to be true at he same time.

Example 1: "Lies are true and truth is a lie."

NO comment, except get some help or a brain or drugs that will simulate human thought if the above example makes sense to you.

Example 2: Wolf was blocked because of his donkey references to Mike.

YES Comment: "Wolf was blocked because he threatened George by exposing some his advertisers who have a bad records and suggesting that George is aiding and abetting the screwing over that drivers are getting from the City, the Big Fleets and some his more sordid advertisers - the people that George supports and who support him.

Shalom!


POST SCRIPT: Banishment from this site by George is far better than being recognized by him as valid and credible contributor!

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

Replying to:

mr. nathan,

why don't you just tell your client to show respect for george's policies? it's not that hard. stop being a lawyer for a minute and just think like a human being. george is fair. wolf is a jerk. you are wolf's lawyer so you have to defend him like lawyers defend clients they know are guilty of heinous acts. just tell wolf to stop being a jerk so we can all move forward. you are furthering the distraction from the issues.

AGAIN: SHOW RESPECT?

R E S P E C T is something one must E A R N.

I will show repsect when George and Mike EARN it.

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

Replying to:

mr. nathan,

why don't you just tell your client to show respect for george's policies? it's not that hard. stop being a lawyer for a minute and just think like a human being. george is fair. wolf is a jerk. you are wolf's lawyer so you have to defend him like lawyers defend clients they know are guilty of heinous acts. just tell wolf to stop being a jerk so we can all move forward. you are furthering the distraction from the issues.

"It's made national news in the taxi industry already based on the e-mails I've received over the course of the last 24 hours."

That is a huge honor. Thank you for that admission.

George

George -

George:

That's not the kind of national publicity you would want, sir. It isn't likely to gain you readership in the long term. "Krystalnacht" caught the attention of the whole world, but Germany was left in ashes less than 10 years later. Take a lesson from history, young man.

In the heat of anger, we all make bad judgments. I too have made my share, and I've come back to ask for forgiveness from those I've wronged. When I have, most have welcomed me and given me open arms understanding that I have had my weak moments as all men do - we are all a little lower than the angels.

I'm not a priest, a pastor. I'm just an old lawyer who's seen a bunch more and made a lot more mistakes in life than you've had a chance to make yet, sir. I hope you can hear my words, and that you'll take them to heart. You're not too old to learn any more so than I am.

Donald Nathan

donald nathan you defend wjw who posts donkey boy and long ears over and over again. if george does anything to preserving the integrity of this site you go bananas. your are wrong. i read this site daily but i have hated wasting my time here because of donkey boy long eared father of fools. i cringe ever time i see that. i hope george kicks them all out. i know why you do this. you have to because you are his lawyer and not because it is the right thing to do. you should be more of a coucilor and tell wjw to stop acting like a baby.

I am glad that Wolf Weiss (with all of his aliases) has finally been prevented from continuing his sabotage of this website.

I suggest that "Clueless", who I believe to be Yi Tang, be warned that his similar conduct could also warrant a ban.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Postings will be deleted if they are not relevant to the thread.

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that Weiss made postings that suggested you were a donkey boy, which he probably didn't, it's not as bad as Phone Stalking. After all, he's not a criminal. Come on, Mike - it's about casting the first stone and all that nonsense. You sure have no right to do it, Mr. holier than thou.

Mr. Nathan,

"Donkey boy" isn't the issue here. Nonsense designed to sabotage discussion is.

Posting "donkey boy" without any relevance to the previous post a gazillion times is the issue.

Posting anything without any relevance to the topic of the thread a gazillion times is the issue.

Someone, who I believe to be Mr. Weiss, left a message on my voicemail consisting entirely of "hee-haws". Additionally, I received what I consider to be "hate mail". I am not alone as a target for this person's disturbing acts of malice.

Mr. Nathan, I don't consider the phrase "Let he without sin cast the first stone" to be "nonsense". This attitude of yours speaks volumes about you.

I have "no right" to do what? Sabotage this discussion forum? I am not trying to sabotage this discussion forum the way Wolf Weiss has by posting a bunch of crap under too many aliases to keep track of.

Who said anything about criminality? Wolf Weiss isn't being charged with a crime; he's been banned because of the disruptive and unproductive nature of his posts.

What does "Phone Stalking" have to do with it? I may not be a lawyer, Mr. Nathan, but "Phone Stalking" has nothing to do with what has been going on with this website.

Criticizing Wolf Weiss for his behavior here and supporting the decision to ban him doesn't make me "holier than thou".

If you can't recognize your own client's fingerprints all over this nonsense, then you are either an idiot, not paying enough attention to detail, or you are deliberately obscuring what you know to be the truth.

Which is it?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that Weiss made postings that suggested you were a donkey boy, which he probably didn't, it's not as bad as Phone Stalking. After all, he's not a criminal. Come on, Mike - it's about casting the first stone and all that nonsense. You sure have no right to do it, Mr. holier than thou.

then why haven't you been banned mister family terrorist?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

"Donkey boy" isn't the issue here. Nonsense designed to sabotage discussion is.

Posting "donkey boy" without any relevance to the previous post a gazillion times is the issue.

Posting anything without any relevance to the topic of the thread a gazillion times is the issue.

Someone, who I believe to be Mr. Weiss, left a message on my voicemail consisting entirely of "hee-haws". Additionally, I received what I consider to be "hate mail". I am not alone as a target for this person's disturbing acts of malice.

Mr. Nathan, I don't consider the phrase "Let he without sin cast the first stone" to be "nonsense". This attitude of yours speaks volumes about you.

I have "no right" to do what? Sabotage this discussion forum? I am not trying to sabotage this discussion forum the way Wolf Weiss has by posting a bunch of crap under too many aliases to keep track of.

Who said anything about criminality? Wolf Weiss isn't being charged with a crime; he's been banned because of the disruptive and unproductive nature of his posts.

What does "Phone Stalking" have to do with it? I may not be a lawyer, Mr. Nathan, but "Phone Stalking" has nothing to do with what has been going on with this website.

Criticizing Wolf Weiss for his behavior here and supporting the decision to ban him doesn't make me "holier than thou".

If you can't recognize your own client's fingerprints all over this nonsense, then you are either an idiot, not paying enough attention to detail, or you are deliberately obscuring what you know to be the truth.

Which is it?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that Weiss made postings that suggested you were a donkey boy, which he probably didn't, it's not as bad as Phone Stalking. After all, he's not a criminal. Come on, Mike - it's about casting the first stone and all that nonsense. You sure have no right to do it, Mr. holier than thou.

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

"Clueless", or likely, Mr. Yi Tang,

The four "lucky numbers" are 1163.

I was indeed "wrongfully" convicted of a felony on 9-29-2005.

It was a bad day for me in a bad system.

It's true, Mr. Tang: I, who served the sentence, know best.

"Who is lying"? Not me.

I am still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago because I've met all the requirements necessary to have, hold, and renew my chauffeur's license.

Good lawyers accept that. Bad lawyers distort the facts and the law. (Or, they simply don't know what they're talking about.)

Mr. Tang, how much money did you pay lawyer Donald Statland? How much have you paid lawyer Donald Nathan?

Just two questions. Can one answer both?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

Yi Tang has never paid me ONE PENNY for any professional services.

Mr. Nathan,

You say that Yi Tang has never paid you a dime.

But Yi Tang and Wolf Weiss ARE your clients, right, Mr. Nathan?

Who else? I'm really not interested in numbers, Mr. Nathan.

Please give us all the names of your current and recent clients, if you can. Do you have them written down, so you can remember?

In case you are still wondering...it's "Akhtar".

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Yi Tang has never paid me ONE PENNY for any professional services.

You have no concept of ethical considerations. In fact, you have no scruples at all. I could be more specific about the likes of you, but the point has already been made quite adequately.

Under no circumstance am I ever going to list for you any of my clients. It's none of your blessed business, and it is likely a violation of the Canons of Ethics for me to list them anyway.

As a matter of public record, Wolfgang Weiss is the lead plaintiff in the matter of "The Magnificent Seven" v. the City of Chicago. He is a client of sorts. I have never had the occasion to have represented him in any other matter.

I have never represented Yi Tang in any matter.

Other than that, I keep the names and the business of all of my clients completely confidential. You get nothing from me - ever.


Donald Nathan, Esq.

THE TRUTH WINNOWS OUT:

"You get nothing from me - ever." -Donald Nathan, Esq.

"You get nothing from me - ever." -Donald Nathan, Esq.

"You get nothing from me - ever." -Donald Nathan, Esq.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

You have no concept of ethical considerations. In fact, you have no scruples at all. I could be more specific about the likes of you, but the point has already been made quite adequately.

Under no circumstance am I ever going to list for you any of my clients. It's none of your blessed business, and it is likely a violation of the Canons of Ethics for me to list them anyway.

As a matter of public record, Wolfgang Weiss is the lead plaintiff in the matter of "The Magnificent Seven" v. the City of Chicago. He is a client of sorts. I have never had the occasion to have represented him in any other matter.

I have never represented Yi Tang in any matter.

Other than that, I keep the names and the business of all of my clients completely confidential. You get nothing from me - ever.


Donald Nathan, Esq.

I don't have the facts here, so I'll just ask you what they were. You're in a better position to say.

Didn't you appeal from your guilty plea? If you did appeal, wasn't your appeal denied? I don't have those details as yet. My legal researcher hasn't poured through the public records yet, but I'm sure you can save him the time and just come forth with the details.

Was that charge in fact a felony?

What was the sentence? Did it run 24 months? Was it a felony probation?

What was the factual basis for the charge?

Did you plead guilty voluntarily? Was it involuntary? Were you under duress?

I don't want you to think the issues are being muddied or that anybody is trying to sidestep anything here. So come out with it, Mr. Foulks. The last four digits of the drivers license doesn't matter now, does it?

Mr. Nathan,

I'm glad you admit that you don't have the facts.

My appeal of my wrongful conviction wasn't denied.

Many of the records of this case won't be accessible to your legal researcher.

The charge was in fact a felony.

I served 15 of 30 days in Cook County Jail, and was released from probation earlier than the 24 months originally imposed, suddenly.

There was, in fact, no factual basis for the charge.

My guilty plea was improperly made and a motion to withdraw was timely filed.

I don't see how the last four digits of anyone's drivers license ever mattered, Mr. Nathan, except to show that you have trouble getting your facts straight.

If you want to know more about this case, perhaps you should ask my fellow cabdrivers...a lot of them who knew me back in 2005 are aware of it.

Sorry to ruin your "scandal".

Maybe you are guilty of crimes you haven't been arrested or charged with, Mr. Nathan.

Maybe you are liable for civil torts yet to be determined by a judge or jury.

I couldn't care less. I already know that you have plenty of character deficiencies and that you have no value to me or Chicago cabdrivers as a whole.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

I don't have the facts here, so I'll just ask you what they were. You're in a better position to say.

Didn't you appeal from your guilty plea? If you did appeal, wasn't your appeal denied? I don't have those details as yet. My legal researcher hasn't poured through the public records yet, but I'm sure you can save him the time and just come forth with the details.

Was that charge in fact a felony?

What was the sentence? Did it run 24 months? Was it a felony probation?

What was the factual basis for the charge?

Did you plead guilty voluntarily? Was it involuntary? Were you under duress?

I don't want you to think the issues are being muddied or that anybody is trying to sidestep anything here. So come out with it, Mr. Foulks. The last four digits of the drivers license doesn't matter now, does it?

So the truth winnows out.

You were convicted of a felony. You served hard time, albeit only 15 days. Evidently you had a felony probation of two years from which you were released - you claim - early. You claim there was no factual basis for the charge, but you entered a plea of guilty under Supreme Court Rule 402. That rule required a judge to get the factual basis for your plea and to make a determination that there WAS a factual basis for your plea.

You say your motion to withdraw your plea of guilty was timely filed, but you don't give us facts as to what the disposition of the motion may have been.

There's no implication of a scandal here. There's nothing scandalous about being convicted of a felony. People are convicted of felonies routinely. Even presidents of the cabdriver organizations who command great respect are convicted felons. Who ever said anything about a scandal other than you?

Don't worry about me, Mike. I'm not casting stones. We all have people accuse us of nonsense, but at least I've never had anyone claim I committed a felony - because I haven't. It's easy to know where the line is and not to cross it.

Mr. Nathan,

Putting aside what "hard time" actually means, legally, popularly, or otherwise...

All this "guessing" makes you an unsincere, uninformed coward.

You are "outraged" that a cabdriver must appear at 400 W. Superior to respond to a erroneous complaint, but you seem disappointed that your "legal research" hasn't discovered anything that my associates weren't already aware of or relevant to the regulation of my livelihood to the degree that you could use it to manipulate me or others.

You go on to reveal your tendency to "blame the victim".

Imperfections in the legal system, human and otherwise, are what keep many employed in the business of law.

If the "legal lines" were as clear as you suggest, Mr. Nathan, we'd have even less of a need for lawyers.

Your assertion that nobody has claimed you to be "out of bounds" simply tells me that you are a coward who is afraid to use the entire field to anyone's advantage.

You are like the sneaky quarterback who tries to run upfield with the ball, only to slide feet first at the first sign of a tackler.

Chicago cabdrivers need a Super-Bowl quarterback, like "Jim McMahon", who will leap for the end zone, even if means being flipped head over heals by a defender as he scores.

You risk nothing in your legal adventures in your former profession.

Mr. Geoghegan puts his reputation as a Harvard-educated LABOR LAWYER on the line.

I'm certain that he's smart enough to avoid the likes of you.

And by the way, plenty of people have taken issue with your conduct. You should be ashamed. You are either not paying enough attention to detail or you are lying again, to yourself or others, I "guess".

The only thing that "winnows out" of you is weasel-sweat and nonsense.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

So the truth winnows out.

You were convicted of a felony. You served hard time, albeit only 15 days. Evidently you had a felony probation of two years from which you were released - you claim - early. You claim there was no factual basis for the charge, but you entered a plea of guilty under Supreme Court Rule 402. That rule required a judge to get the factual basis for your plea and to make a determination that there WAS a factual basis for your plea.

You say your motion to withdraw your plea of guilty was timely filed, but you don't give us facts as to what the disposition of the motion may have been.

There's no implication of a scandal here. There's nothing scandalous about being convicted of a felony. People are convicted of felonies routinely. Even presidents of the cabdriver organizations who command great respect are convicted felons. Who ever said anything about a scandal other than you?

Don't worry about me, Mike. I'm not casting stones. We all have people accuse us of nonsense, but at least I've never had anyone claim I committed a felony - because I haven't. It's easy to know where the line is and not to cross it.

What is Good Time?

There are four types of good time, however not all inmates are eligible for each type.

Statutory Good Time refers to the percentage of time an inmate must spend incarcerated. Some inmates convicted of non-violent crimes must spend 50% of their sentences incarcerated. Others who are convicted of violent crimes must spend 85% of their sentences incarcerated under "truth in sentencing" laws, or 100% if convicted of murder. The inmate's release date is based on the custody date of the crime which is set by the sentencing court.

Meritorious Good Time refers to the discretionary 90-days the director may grant to any inmate based on their behavior while incarcerated. Please note that the award of meritorious good time is not automatic, it is at the discretion of the director.

Supplemental Meritorious Good Time refers to a second block of 90-days that the director may award to nonviolent offenders. Again, it is not automatic and inmates convicted of violent crimes and Class X crimes are not eligible. Meritorious good time must be earned before supplemental meritorious good time will be considered.

Earned Good Conduct Credit refers to time earned by an inmate for participation in education, drug treatment or Illinois Correctional Industries programs. Again, not all inmates are eligible; inmates convicted of violent and Class X crimes are not eligible. Inmates earn one-half day off their sentence for each day of participation in such programs if they successfully complete the programs (Example: if an eligible inmate completes a drug treatment program that is 30-days in duration, he may be awarded 15-days off his sentence).

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

Putting aside what "hard time" actually means, legally, popularly, or otherwise...

All this "guessing" makes you an unsincere, uninformed coward.

You are "outraged" that a cabdriver must appear at 400 W. Superior to respond to a erroneous complaint, but you seem disappointed that your "legal research" hasn't discovered anything that my associates weren't already aware of or relevant to the regulation of my livelihood to the degree that you could use it to manipulate me or others.

You go on to reveal your tendency to "blame the victim".

Imperfections in the legal system, human and otherwise, are what keep many employed in the business of law.

If the "legal lines" were as clear as you suggest, Mr. Nathan, we'd have even less of a need for lawyers.

Your assertion that nobody has claimed you to be "out of bounds" simply tells me that you are a coward who is afraid to use the entire field to anyone's advantage.

You are like the sneaky quarterback who tries to run upfield with the ball, only to slide feet first at the first sign of a tackler.

Chicago cabdrivers need a Super-Bowl quarterback, like "Jim McMahon", who will leap for the end zone, even if means being flipped head over heals by a defender as he scores.

You risk nothing in your legal adventures in your former profession.

Mr. Geoghegan puts his reputation as a Harvard-educated LABOR LAWYER on the line.

I'm certain that he's smart enough to avoid the likes of you.

And by the way, plenty of people have taken issue with your conduct. You should be ashamed. You are either not paying enough attention to detail or you are lying again, to yourself or others, I "guess".

The only thing that "winnows out" of you is weasel-sweat and nonsense.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

So the truth winnows out.

You were convicted of a felony. You served hard time, albeit only 15 days. Evidently you had a felony probation of two years from which you were released - you claim - early. You claim there was no factual basis for the charge, but you entered a plea of guilty under Supreme Court Rule 402. That rule required a judge to get the factual basis for your plea and to make a determination that there WAS a factual basis for your plea.

You say your motion to withdraw your plea of guilty was timely filed, but you don't give us facts as to what the disposition of the motion may have been.

There's no implication of a scandal here. There's nothing scandalous about being convicted of a felony. People are convicted of felonies routinely. Even presidents of the cabdriver organizations who command great respect are convicted felons. Who ever said anything about a scandal other than you?

Don't worry about me, Mike. I'm not casting stones. We all have people accuse us of nonsense, but at least I've never had anyone claim I committed a felony - because I haven't. It's easy to know where the line is and not to cross it.

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

You have quite an imagination. You tell great stories, I'm sure.

It seems you see me as a "junkyard dog" with a "bloody throat" and "some sort of convicted felon".

Well, sir, when I look in the mirror, I don't see a canine. Sure, sometimes I nick myself while shaving, but not recently. I also don't see a guilty man.

Are you taking medication? You seem to hallucinate. Simple sets of numbers seem to re-arrange themselves or mutate before your eyes.

"Hundreds of fellow cabdrivers"? Mr. Nathan, you don't know nor could you communicate with fifty cabdrivers, forget about "hundreds".

Most cabdrivers who have conlcuded that I am a "low-life" have only done so by taking your word for it. Too bad your word isn't worth anything.

I'm sure there are a few who share your opinion with or without a reasonable basis beyond your saying so.

Most of the cabdrivers who know me know that I am not a "low-life" and yes, most of them are more familiar with the unfortunate abuse of the legal system I experienced than you are.

What is clearest about your comments is that you judge people or things based on their relationship to you or others, not independently.

For example, you don't want to judgment to be passed on Mr. Geoghegan until you hear from the man himself, but you're all for letting cabdrivers think I'm a "low-life" without hearing what I have to say, just because I happen to think you are the "low-life".

You then go on to insist that you hear Mr. Geoghegan's strategy firsthand, so that you can inform cabdrivers as to what he said and how they should react.

Why can't cabdrivers tell you what Mr. Geoghegan's strategy is (if they care to) and then ask you for advice (if they care to)?

Frankly, Mr. Nathan, I don't think that you will be part of any potential strategy of Mr. Geoghegan's, nor will you ever be acting in the interests of CHICAGO cabdrivers.

We can't even trust you to tell us the names of your current or recent clients!

Mr. Geoghegan doesn't need to be a genius to know enough to steer clear of the likes of you, Mr. Nathan.

All he's got to do is read your "record" right here in this Discussion Forum.

I am not "suspicious" of Mr. Geoghegan. I am "skeptical", but open-minded. I haven't passed judgment.

"Rushes to judgments" or "quick conclusions" can be ill-fated.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

I cannot imagine anyone standing for wrongful convictions. Even a parking ticket. I cannot imagine anyone spouting off who has been convicted by a jury of his peers or a plea deal. Which was yours? And what would be your legal reason for overturning your conviction or plea deal?

While Mr. Nathan continues to be a member of the bar, without question, his credibility could very well be at stake if he released his client list and his license yanked. At least he adhereing to the law!

And to become a member of the bar he had to have his credit bureau records checked. Can we lay yours bare to the world and compare them to his?

Can you place on the record any reason that this attorney should not be hailed as a benefactor of his services? Tell me what other former driver now an attorney has come forward to help the brothers? Can you place a docket number here in this record of his having a case that could place him in jeopardy of loosing his bar card.

He may have a case of libel here but, what does a junkyard dog possess besides fleas? Most do not even have a collar.

Why not elaborate on your convictions sir? What were they for? Fraud? Theft? Or maybe another type of moral turpitude? Come clean and tell us since I am sure the licensing agencies are looking at this one and if they are not then they need to explain.

I think it very wrong for you or anyone else to condemn Mr. Nathan, myself, and others who donate our professional services for the welfare of our former brothers. Mr. Nathan is very generous of his time. I get $100 per hour for my time and do not charge taxi drivers anything if I am doing Pro Bono work.

I have done a lot of work for attorneys who are representing drivers and their familys. It is an invaluable service that these attorneys provide for our brothers and sisters none of us need the jail house preaching of those who have been convicted.

Now, it time to give Mr. Nathan three cheers and all the help he needs to help your brothers.

I was going to volunteer to do a legal brief under his control and direction but, due to health concerns I had to withdraw. I do not know what my schedule is going to be for the next few critical weeks due to cancer of the Thyroid testing.

So, now besides shooting off and spouting what have you done to help the brothers?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You have quite an imagination. You tell great stories, I'm sure.

It seems you see me as a "junkyard dog" with a "bloody throat" and "some sort of convicted felon".

Well, sir, when I look in the mirror, I don't see a canine. Sure, sometimes I nick myself while shaving, but not recently. I also don't see a guilty man.

Are you taking medication? You seem to hallucinate. Simple sets of numbers seem to re-arrange themselves or mutate before your eyes.

"Hundreds of fellow cabdrivers"? Mr. Nathan, you don't know nor could you communicate with fifty cabdrivers, forget about "hundreds".

Most cabdrivers who have conlcuded that I am a "low-life" have only done so by taking your word for it. Too bad your word isn't worth anything.

I'm sure there are a few who share your opinion with or without a reasonable basis beyond your saying so.

Most of the cabdrivers who know me know that I am not a "low-life" and yes, most of them are more familiar with the unfortunate abuse of the legal system I experienced than you are.

What is clearest about your comments is that you judge people or things based on their relationship to you or others, not independently.

For example, you don't want to judgment to be passed on Mr. Geoghegan until you hear from the man himself, but you're all for letting cabdrivers think I'm a "low-life" without hearing what I have to say, just because I happen to think you are the "low-life".

You then go on to insist that you hear Mr. Geoghegan's strategy firsthand, so that you can inform cabdrivers as to what he said and how they should react.

Why can't cabdrivers tell you what Mr. Geoghegan's strategy is (if they care to) and then ask you for advice (if they care to)?

Frankly, Mr. Nathan, I don't think that you will be part of any potential strategy of Mr. Geoghegan's, nor will you ever be acting in the interests of CHICAGO cabdrivers.

We can't even trust you to tell us the names of your current or recent clients!

Mr. Geoghegan doesn't need to be a genius to know enough to steer clear of the likes of you, Mr. Nathan.

All he's got to do is read your "record" right here in this Discussion Forum.

I am not "suspicious" of Mr. Geoghegan. I am "skeptical", but open-minded. I haven't passed judgment.

"Rushes to judgments" or "quick conclusions" can be ill-fated.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

Jon,

I can't figure out who you know less about, me or Mr. Nathan.

People are wrongfully convicted for parking tickets and Class X offenses, sometimes facing the penalty of death. People are wronguflly convicted for greater and lesser offenses as well.

I don't know who is "standing for wrongful convictions"? I'm not.

I CAN imagine lots of people "spouting off" about every sort of conviction. I've seen it.

I've been convicted by both jury and judge. I've been found liable by hearing officers as well. I've also been found innocent and not liable on other occasions.

Which conviction are you referring to?

I'm glad you point out that Mr. Nathan could easily have "secret clients". He can't be trusted.

Tell me the law he's "adhering to".

I would love to compare my credit bureau records with Mr. Nathan's.

I have placed many reasons "on the record" why Mr. Nathan shouldn't be "hailed as a benefactor of his services". For one, he has yet to answer a single question I put to him regarding the e-mails I published which reveal his duplicitious and manipulative nature.

There's an attorney on Taxi-List@yahoogroups.com who was a former cabdriver who has come forward to "help the brothers", for one. There are others in that and others forums, as well.

No, I can't place a docket number of a case that could jeopardize his "bar card". I have already noted comments and conduct which the ARDC might find actionable.

He has no case of libel whatsoever. Make one if you think otherwise.

Not all junkyard dogs have fleas, nor just fleas. Nearly all have a bark and a bite.

I've never been convicted of fraud or theft or moral turpitude. No license agency is "looking at this one". The only explanation needed is exactly what you are referring to.

I have condemned Mr. Nathan for his conduct. The fact that he used to drive a cab 40 years ago doesn't excuse him.

I have no idea who you are. How have I condemned you?

I made $100 an hour playing poker last night. I sometimes make close to that driving my customers.

I don't charge cabdrivers a dime, either.

Who's "jailhouse preaching" and how?

Mr. Nathan needs OUR HELP? I thought he was here to help cabdrivers, not the other way around.

I am sorry to hear about your cancer. However, I don't think you would have helped Mr. Nathan all that much.

Looks like you are the one who is "only doing" the "shooting off" and "spouting", then.

One of the most important things I have done was to ensure the integrity and timely submission of the petition for a fare increase hearing last summer.

My willingness to do what was in the best interest of myself and others and risk going to jail again trumps just about the entire body of "legal work" that Mr. Nathan has ever "donated" to my fellow cabdrivers.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

I cannot imagine anyone standing for wrongful convictions. Even a parking ticket. I cannot imagine anyone spouting off who has been convicted by a jury of his peers or a plea deal. Which was yours? And what would be your legal reason for overturning your conviction or plea deal?

While Mr. Nathan continues to be a member of the bar, without question, his credibility could very well be at stake if he released his client list and his license yanked. At least he adhereing to the law!

And to become a member of the bar he had to have his credit bureau records checked. Can we lay yours bare to the world and compare them to his?

Can you place on the record any reason that this attorney should not be hailed as a benefactor of his services? Tell me what other former driver now an attorney has come forward to help the brothers? Can you place a docket number here in this record of his having a case that could place him in jeopardy of loosing his bar card.

He may have a case of libel here but, what does a junkyard dog possess besides fleas? Most do not even have a collar.

Why not elaborate on your convictions sir? What were they for? Fraud? Theft? Or maybe another type of moral turpitude? Come clean and tell us since I am sure the licensing agencies are looking at this one and if they are not then they need to explain.

I think it very wrong for you or anyone else to condemn Mr. Nathan, myself, and others who donate our professional services for the welfare of our former brothers. Mr. Nathan is very generous of his time. I get $100 per hour for my time and do not charge taxi drivers anything if I am doing Pro Bono work.

I have done a lot of work for attorneys who are representing drivers and their familys. It is an invaluable service that these attorneys provide for our brothers and sisters none of us need the jail house preaching of those who have been convicted.

Now, it time to give Mr. Nathan three cheers and all the help he needs to help your brothers.

I was going to volunteer to do a legal brief under his control and direction but, due to health concerns I had to withdraw. I do not know what my schedule is going to be for the next few critical weeks due to cancer of the Thyroid testing.

So, now besides shooting off and spouting what have you done to help the brothers?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You have quite an imagination. You tell great stories, I'm sure.

It seems you see me as a "junkyard dog" with a "bloody throat" and "some sort of convicted felon".

Well, sir, when I look in the mirror, I don't see a canine. Sure, sometimes I nick myself while shaving, but not recently. I also don't see a guilty man.

Are you taking medication? You seem to hallucinate. Simple sets of numbers seem to re-arrange themselves or mutate before your eyes.

"Hundreds of fellow cabdrivers"? Mr. Nathan, you don't know nor could you communicate with fifty cabdrivers, forget about "hundreds".

Most cabdrivers who have conlcuded that I am a "low-life" have only done so by taking your word for it. Too bad your word isn't worth anything.

I'm sure there are a few who share your opinion with or without a reasonable basis beyond your saying so.

Most of the cabdrivers who know me know that I am not a "low-life" and yes, most of them are more familiar with the unfortunate abuse of the legal system I experienced than you are.

What is clearest about your comments is that you judge people or things based on their relationship to you or others, not independently.

For example, you don't want to judgment to be passed on Mr. Geoghegan until you hear from the man himself, but you're all for letting cabdrivers think I'm a "low-life" without hearing what I have to say, just because I happen to think you are the "low-life".

You then go on to insist that you hear Mr. Geoghegan's strategy firsthand, so that you can inform cabdrivers as to what he said and how they should react.

Why can't cabdrivers tell you what Mr. Geoghegan's strategy is (if they care to) and then ask you for advice (if they care to)?

Frankly, Mr. Nathan, I don't think that you will be part of any potential strategy of Mr. Geoghegan's, nor will you ever be acting in the interests of CHICAGO cabdrivers.

We can't even trust you to tell us the names of your current or recent clients!

Mr. Geoghegan doesn't need to be a genius to know enough to steer clear of the likes of you, Mr. Nathan.

All he's got to do is read your "record" right here in this Discussion Forum.

I am not "suspicious" of Mr. Geoghegan. I am "skeptical", but open-minded. I haven't passed judgment.

"Rushes to judgments" or "quick conclusions" can be ill-fated.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

You are a convicted felon. Never mind junkyard dogs.

You are a convicted felon. Never mind bloody throats.

Who among cabdrivers takes the word of a convicted felon?

Is the word of a convicted felon the Gospel?

You are a convicted felon. Never mind low lives.

You entered a guilty plea.

There must have been a basis for it because the judge in Rolling Meadows had to find out what it was under Supreme Court Rule 402. The judge had to ask you if your plea was a voluntary one. The judge had to find out if any promises were made to you - if anyone was twisting your arm.

What happened when you tried to back out of your guilty plea? Did you get 15 days of "good time"? Was your probation a felony probation for two years?

Every cabdriver needs to know about you - not just your associates. Let the truth ring out. You who hates lies. Let it ring out loud.

As a famous six-time Socialist candidate for President Eugene V. Debs once said:

While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

i actually find it a mark of distinction in this oh-so-corrupt government and nation that someone would be arrested and do time. it does not lower a person's esteem in my eyes not one whit. the jails are FULL of wrongly convicted people, or people convicted for victimless crimes.

i do not put ANY faith or trust in the criminal justice system in this country as we know it. or our publicly elected government officials and the system we live under. i know i'm not alone, as i talk to bankers, lawyers, industriallists, businessmen and people from all walks of life on a daily basis, and i'm finding more and more agreement among the general populace that our system is failing us. "we need a second american revolution"--this was a quote from an international banker from pennsylvania i spoke with tuesday.

mike foulks, i recommend publicly to you that you not respond to any mentions of whatever case happened or not to you whenever or whatever it did or dint' happen. it's nobody's business.

and to all you others who seem to have found some area of sensitivity you hope to attack--i publicly ask you not to stoop to such levels. it is demeaning to all of us. as one of you mentioned "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". that applies to all of us. we may have our differences with mr. foulks, but he is a human being deserving of respect as are we all.

thank you, peter enger citizen of the world

ps: further quotes from debs:

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world.
Eugene V. Debs

I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.
Eugene V. Debs


The most heroic word in all languages is revolution.
Eugene V. Debs

Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.
Eugene V. Debs

Get real, Peter. I'm reminded of the words of Lloyd Bentsen speaking Dan Quayle. "You're no Jack Kennedy".

I don't think of Mike Foulks as someone who was wronged. He is just a common felon. Oops. It slipped out again. Sorry. I just can't help it. I'm calling it as it is. You provoked it.

You want to slip into bed with a common felon? Jump for it. I'll bet he'd shudder at the thought. And you should too, sir. How dare you support such scum? How can you lend credibility to a felon? I impeach felons regularly on the witness stand. Who would knowingly get into a cab with a convicted felon?

Not me.

Not any kind of felony. Forcible or otherwise.

Mr. Nathan,

The judge acted improperly. You are presuming that Rule 402 was followed correctly.

I do hate lies. My experience with this case only magnifies my distaste for those who tell them, as well those who deliberately mislead with half-truths.

I can't fully explain all of the events before or after my plea withdrawal, as some of it is the subject of investigation, and much of it isn't a matter of public record.

I did, in fact, receive "15 days of good time". My probation was initially 24 months.

I can't or won't be able to answer all of your questions, Mr. Nathan.

However, it is your credibility which continues to become questionable, not mine.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

You are a convicted felon. Never mind junkyard dogs.

You are a convicted felon. Never mind bloody throats.

Who among cabdrivers takes the word of a convicted felon?

Is the word of a convicted felon the Gospel?

You are a convicted felon. Never mind low lives.

You entered a guilty plea.

There must have been a basis for it because the judge in Rolling Meadows had to find out what it was under Supreme Court Rule 402. The judge had to ask you if your plea was a voluntary one. The judge had to find out if any promises were made to you - if anyone was twisting your arm.

What happened when you tried to back out of your guilty plea? Did you get 15 days of "good time"? Was your probation a felony probation for two years?

Every cabdriver needs to know about you - not just your associates. Let the truth ring out. You who hates lies. Let it ring out loud.

You are the felon. I won't call you "sir" any the more. Felons don't have that right to be addressed with the word "sir".

You say your judge acted improperly? You don't even tell us who the judge was. It only magnifies the gravity of your evil nature. There's no half-truth about your admission of guilt. You were the one who stood in front of the Bar and said something like "Yes, your Honor. I am guilty" as charged. You say it's "under investigation", but what's the investigation? Is it before the Judicial Review Board?

I don't have the transcript of the proceedings, but maybe you'll share it with the cabdriver community. You probably had counsel at your side when you knowingly entered that guilty plea to a felony charge. If you didn't, then maybe you have a 6th Amendment basis for withdrawing your guilty plea. But I kind of doubt a judge in Rolling Meadows would have accepted your guilty plea without you having had the benefit of counsel.

I am out in Rolling Meadows court regularly. The felony court judges out there are pretty good: I went to law school with Sam Amirante - he defended John Wayne Gacy on appeal; Thomas Roti - he represented Dominick's Finer Foods for years. Neither of these men would have treated you improperly. I know it, and so does every cabdriver in the City of Chicago. They know the judges aren't liars. They know you can call everybody a liar, but it just doesn't cut, buster.

What were the facts? Why not come out with them? Your felony probation is over and done. It's all history now. You were cut loose in November, 2007 from your felony probation. Why not come forth with the facts?

You're still a convicted felon.

Let's keep perspective. How dare you criticize a member of the Bar and suggest that the judge who took your felony guilty plea was doing something improper in having done so? My credibilty has NEVER been at issue. I am not a convicted felon like you are.

By your admission, you are a convicted felon. You should turn in your hard card to the Commissioner and start slinging hash for cabdrivers at Zaiqa.

Keep up tossing mud at me and I'll keep up reminding cabdrivers that you are a convicted felon.

You are a convicted felon - a common criminal driving a cab.

Mr. Nathan,

You are so sure "my judge" acted properly? You don't even tell us who the judge was.

I don't think it's fair to Mr. Amirante, Mr. Roti, or even Mr. Gacy to associate them with this case or a third-class lawyer like you, Mr. Nathan.

Every cabdriver knows the "judges aren't liars"? Who said anything about lying judges anyways?

There's no point in trying to explain the facts to you, Mr. Nathan. You won't keep them straight, either deliberately or as a result of your advanced age.

You lost your credibility a while ago, Mr. Nathan. Probably in the early nineties.

Ironically, you actually regain some credibility when you remind cabdrivers of my wrongful conviction.

But, when you insist that your speculation and presumption is factual, be prepared to "eat crow".

The only "panic" I've had recently is when I misplaced my keys temporarily.

Why should I turn in my "hard card"? I don't have a "hard card", anyways. Medallion owners have "hard cards".

Further proof you really don't know what you are talking about.

-Mike Foulks

P.S. They don't serve "hash" at Zaiqa. Are you having a flashback to 1975?

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

Replying to:

You are the felon. I won't call you "sir" any the more. Felons don't have that right to be addressed with the word "sir".

You say your judge acted improperly? You don't even tell us who the judge was. It only magnifies the gravity of your evil nature. There's no half-truth about your admission of guilt. You were the one who stood in front of the Bar and said something like "Yes, your Honor. I am guilty" as charged. You say it's "under investigation", but what's the investigation? Is it before the Judicial Review Board?

I don't have the transcript of the proceedings, but maybe you'll share it with the cabdriver community. You probably had counsel at your side when you knowingly entered that guilty plea to a felony charge. If you didn't, then maybe you have a 6th Amendment basis for withdrawing your guilty plea. But I kind of doubt a judge in Rolling Meadows would have accepted your guilty plea without you having had the benefit of counsel.

I am out in Rolling Meadows court regularly. The felony court judges out there are pretty good: I went to law school with Sam Amirante - he defended John Wayne Gacy on appeal; Thomas Roti - he represented Dominick's Finer Foods for years. Neither of these men would have treated you improperly. I know it, and so does every cabdriver in the City of Chicago. They know the judges aren't liars. They know you can call everybody a liar, but it just doesn't cut, buster.

What were the facts? Why not come out with them? Your felony probation is over and done. It's all history now. You were cut loose in November, 2007 from your felony probation. Why not come forth with the facts?

You're still a convicted felon.

Let's keep perspective. How dare you criticize a member of the Bar and suggest that the judge who took your felony guilty plea was doing something improper in having done so? My credibilty has NEVER been at issue. I am not a convicted felon like you are.

By your admission, you are a convicted felon. You should turn in your hard card to the Commissioner and start slinging hash for cabdrivers at Zaiqa.

Keep up tossing mud at me and I'll keep up reminding cabdrivers that you are a convicted felon.

You are a convicted felon - a common criminal driving a cab.

Forgot how she allowed you for the "good time".

Remember who was the one bailed you out for $40,000?

I know for sure that Thomas Gniadek's mom bailed him out on a $50,000 D-Bond.

Remember your first case in 2003? Have you learned anything?

Sorry that I don't remember the name of the judge. But I do know you had only 1 yr supervision, but you blew it. Was it a warrant issued of $10,000 for your arrest?

Mom should be around all the time when needed.

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You are so sure "my judge" acted properly? You don't even tell us who the judge was.

I don't think it's fair to Mr. Amirante, Mr. Roti, or even Mr. Gacy to associate them with this case or a third-class lawyer like you, Mr. Nathan.

Every cabdriver knows the "judges aren't liars"? Who said anything about lying judges anyways?

There's no point in trying to explain the facts to you, Mr. Nathan. You won't keep them straight, either deliberately or as a result of your advanced age.

You lost your credibility a while ago, Mr. Nathan. Probably in the early nineties.

Ironically, you actually regain some credibility when you remind cabdrivers of my wrongful conviction.

But, when you insist that your speculation and presumption is factual, be prepared to "eat crow".

The only "panic" I've had recently is when I misplaced my keys temporarily.

Why should I turn in my "hard card"? I don't have a "hard card", anyways. Medallion owners have "hard cards".

Further proof you really don't know what you are talking about.

-Mike Foulks

P.S. They don't serve "hash" at Zaiqa. Are you having a flashback to 1975?

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

Replying to:

You are the felon. I won't call you "sir" any the more. Felons don't have that right to be addressed with the word "sir".

You say your judge acted improperly? You don't even tell us who the judge was. It only magnifies the gravity of your evil nature. There's no half-truth about your admission of guilt. You were the one who stood in front of the Bar and said something like "Yes, your Honor. I am guilty" as charged. You say it's "under investigation", but what's the investigation? Is it before the Judicial Review Board?

I don't have the transcript of the proceedings, but maybe you'll share it with the cabdriver community. You probably had counsel at your side when you knowingly entered that guilty plea to a felony charge. If you didn't, then maybe you have a 6th Amendment basis for withdrawing your guilty plea. But I kind of doubt a judge in Rolling Meadows would have accepted your guilty plea without you having had the benefit of counsel.

I am out in Rolling Meadows court regularly. The felony court judges out there are pretty good: I went to law school with Sam Amirante - he defended John Wayne Gacy on appeal; Thomas Roti - he represented Dominick's Finer Foods for years. Neither of these men would have treated you improperly. I know it, and so does every cabdriver in the City of Chicago. They know the judges aren't liars. They know you can call everybody a liar, but it just doesn't cut, buster.

What were the facts? Why not come out with them? Your felony probation is over and done. It's all history now. You were cut loose in November, 2007 from your felony probation. Why not come forth with the facts?

You're still a convicted felon.

Let's keep perspective. How dare you criticize a member of the Bar and suggest that the judge who took your felony guilty plea was doing something improper in having done so? My credibilty has NEVER been at issue. I am not a convicted felon like you are.

By your admission, you are a convicted felon. You should turn in your hard card to the Commissioner and start slinging hash for cabdrivers at Zaiqa.

Keep up tossing mud at me and I'll keep up reminding cabdrivers that you are a convicted felon.

You are a convicted felon - a common criminal driving a cab.

"Clueless", (Yi Tang?),

I never violated supervision. Try learning how to comprehend what you are reading.

If you are relying on Donald Nathan's "free legal help", no wonder you are obviously misinformed.

Maybe he could better explain to you how I never violated supervision.

I doubt it, based on the fact that he is a PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER and neither a CRIMINAL LAWYER or a LABOR LAWYER for that matter.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Forgot how she allowed you for the "good time".

Remember who was the one bailed you out for $40,000?

I know for sure that Thomas Gniadek's mom bailed him out on a $50,000 D-Bond.

Remember your first case in 2003? Have you learned anything?

Sorry that I don't remember the name of the judge. But I do know you had only 1 yr supervision, but you blew it. Was it a warrant issued of $10,000 for your arrest?

Mom should be around all the time when needed.

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You are so sure "my judge" acted properly? You don't even tell us who the judge was.

I don't think it's fair to Mr. Amirante, Mr. Roti, or even Mr. Gacy to associate them with this case or a third-class lawyer like you, Mr. Nathan.

Every cabdriver knows the "judges aren't liars"? Who said anything about lying judges anyways?

There's no point in trying to explain the facts to you, Mr. Nathan. You won't keep them straight, either deliberately or as a result of your advanced age.

You lost your credibility a while ago, Mr. Nathan. Probably in the early nineties.

Ironically, you actually regain some credibility when you remind cabdrivers of my wrongful conviction.

But, when you insist that your speculation and presumption is factual, be prepared to "eat crow".

The only "panic" I've had recently is when I misplaced my keys temporarily.

Why should I turn in my "hard card"? I don't have a "hard card", anyways. Medallion owners have "hard cards".

Further proof you really don't know what you are talking about.

-Mike Foulks

P.S. They don't serve "hash" at Zaiqa. Are you having a flashback to 1975?

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

Replying to:

You are the felon. I won't call you "sir" any the more. Felons don't have that right to be addressed with the word "sir".

You say your judge acted improperly? You don't even tell us who the judge was. It only magnifies the gravity of your evil nature. There's no half-truth about your admission of guilt. You were the one who stood in front of the Bar and said something like "Yes, your Honor. I am guilty" as charged. You say it's "under investigation", but what's the investigation? Is it before the Judicial Review Board?

I don't have the transcript of the proceedings, but maybe you'll share it with the cabdriver community. You probably had counsel at your side when you knowingly entered that guilty plea to a felony charge. If you didn't, then maybe you have a 6th Amendment basis for withdrawing your guilty plea. But I kind of doubt a judge in Rolling Meadows would have accepted your guilty plea without you having had the benefit of counsel.

I am out in Rolling Meadows court regularly. The felony court judges out there are pretty good: I went to law school with Sam Amirante - he defended John Wayne Gacy on appeal; Thomas Roti - he represented Dominick's Finer Foods for years. Neither of these men would have treated you improperly. I know it, and so does every cabdriver in the City of Chicago. They know the judges aren't liars. They know you can call everybody a liar, but it just doesn't cut, buster.

What were the facts? Why not come out with them? Your felony probation is over and done. It's all history now. You were cut loose in November, 2007 from your felony probation. Why not come forth with the facts?

You're still a convicted felon.

Let's keep perspective. How dare you criticize a member of the Bar and suggest that the judge who took your felony guilty plea was doing something improper in having done so? My credibilty has NEVER been at issue. I am not a convicted felon like you are.

By your admission, you are a convicted felon. You should turn in your hard card to the Commissioner and start slinging hash for cabdrivers at Zaiqa.

Keep up tossing mud at me and I'll keep up reminding cabdrivers that you are a convicted felon.

You are a convicted felon - a common criminal driving a cab.

It's Judge Roti. It's Judge Amiranti. You are felon Foulks. You are a step up from serial killer Gacy. Not a long step up, to be sure. Judge Amiranti represented Gacy once upon a time.

You are a lousy felon just the same. You can say whatever you like. You have the credibility of any convicted felon - admitted felon. You are a felon

You are a felon. Your comments about the taxi industry are colored by your felony background.

You are a stinking lousy felon

Mr. Nathan,

If you want to respect the Judges, try getting their names right.

Maybe you could get the names of cabdrivers right, too.

Maybe you could get your facts straight, on a lot of issues, relevant or otherwise.

John Gacy went to the death chamber. I wouldn't call that a great performance by his lawyer. Maybe by your standards.

I can criticize any Judge I please, as well as any officer of the court. Surely though, I'd rather be a wrongfully-convicted felon instead of a dead felon.

I made a mistake when I called you a third-class lawyer. I meant to say you are a fourth-class lawyer.

I am sorry I called you a second-grade schoolgirl.

You really act like a first-grader who has been held back a few years.

You've got problems with understanding what you read.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

It's Judge Roti. It's Judge Amiranti. You are felon Foulks. You are a step up from serial killer Gacy. Not a long step up, to be sure. Judge Amiranti represented Gacy once upon a time.

You are a lousy felon just the same. You can say whatever you like. You have the credibility of any convicted felon - admitted felon. You are a felon

You are a felon. Your comments about the taxi industry are colored by your felony background.

You are a stinking lousy felon

You are a convicted and admitted felon. You have no right to criticize anyone let alone distinguished judges and members of a noble profession. Offhand, it's quite possible your civil rights were taken from you when you were found guilty of a felony. If that was the case, were they restored after you were cut loose from your felony probation?

Why do you claim your felony sentence was inappropriate? My sources tell me that your appeal of the denial of the motion to withdraw your plea of guilty was turned down. Was that on a Supreme Court Rule 23 order?

What are you hiding? Could it be the truth.

Finally, and most importantly, why are you so hep on an outsider, this Boston educated guy who never drove a cab in his life: Geoghagen? I thought you felt outsiders were to be mistrusted. Why now do you kiss his Ivy League ring? What's his "strategy"?

Come on, felon. Give us some answers.

Mr. Nathan,

You don't have much of anything "right". Maybe you need better "sources".

I have every right to criticize you and any other officer of the court as I please, especially when such criticism reflects my wrongful conviction.

For you to think otherwise speaks volumes about your character and nature.

When did I "claim my felony sentence was inappropriate" as you suggest, Mr. Nathan?

You really have an incomplete understanding of this case. You won't ever have it. You are a personal-injury lawyer. Someone like you usually needs a full-color photograph to make a "case".

I can't wait until you muddle through the bog only to get to the swamp...never finding dry land to firmly set your feet upon.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

You are a convicted and admitted felon. You have no right to criticize anyone let alone distinguished judges and members of a noble profession. Offhand, it's quite possible your civil rights were taken from you when you were found guilty of a felony. If that was the case, were they restored after you were cut loose from your felony probation?

Why do you claim your felony sentence was inappropriate? My sources tell me that your appeal of the denial of the motion to withdraw your plea of guilty was turned down. Was that on a Supreme Court Rule 23 order?

What are you hiding? Could it be the truth.

Finally, and most importantly, why are you so hep on an outsider, this Boston educated guy who never drove a cab in his life: Geoghagen? I thought you felt outsiders were to be mistrusted. Why now do you kiss his Ivy League ring? What's his "strategy"?

Come on, felon. Give us some answers.

Let us also remember that George recommended we go to the Teamsters for organizing help.

So it reasonable to question any recommendation George might make.

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

Replying to:

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

Wolf,

All who recommend the Teamsters should be questioned.

The Teamsters, in my expert opinion and firsthand knowledge, are a bunch of crooks.

While you had your press pass to ask the President a question, I was down the street in the basement of the Teamsters DC HQ.

The Teamsters have enough troubles of their own; they don't need us or ours to muck it up any further.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let us also remember that George recommended we go to the Teamsters for organizing help.

So it reasonable to question any recommendation George might make.

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

Replying to:

So here's the story cabdrivers ---

The junkyard dog got mauled. His throat got bloodied. When hundreds of his fellow cabdrivers who didn't know he was a convicted felon found out he entered a guilty plea to some sort of phone stalking or phone harassment felony charge they came to understand what level of low-life he really is.

Of course, the only way an attacked animal responds is to go on the attack out of instinct. So it doesn't surprise me that he would call me a coward and say that George Lutfallah's chosen and annointed lawyer should be a man whose ring should be kissed.

Mike, your praise for the man may well be justified. I don't know. But I do know that the judgment of a convicted felon is not judgment I would want to accept. Most decent cabdrivers wouldn't want to respect the judgment of a convicted felon either. Not many cabdrivers are convicted felons. In fact, there are blessed well few. In fact, I don't know of any at all. Just you.

I'll listen to Mr. Geoghegan if allowed, and I'll make my own call about his "strategy". If I'm impressed, I'll stand behind him and help him if invited to do so. If I see him as a management stooge, I'll let cabdrivers know my impression and explain exactly why. I sincerely hope I am blown away by the man.

Knowing that he's being offered up by the former general manager of Wolley Cab, a guy who survives on the income that comes from all the major fleets who advertise in his trade rag, I'm suspicious. Knowing that he was educated at an elitist institution, I tend to be even the more suspicious of him. Knowing that a convicted felon thinks he's a genius, I'm even the more suspicious. But I'd be happy to hear his ideas - not expressed by someone hawking them like George Lutfallah or the likes of a convicted felon, but rather by him.

Let's hear what there is to hear. Then let's pass judgment.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Weiss, I am a driver that has been following George L. and the Dispatcher for years. As time went on I realized that the real mission of the Dispatcher was to sell advertising. George also rattles the "pot" slightly once in awhile to make us think he's on our side. Make no mistakes about it, George is in it for George only.

I predict this latest complaint about a physical exam before the renewal of his license will never be mentioned again by George. If you remember his last tirade about being abused by the 400 W. Superior crew you might also remember he went mute for a long time afterwards. In fact there was never an official follow up to the story of George telling the city to take his license away.

George throws a very small branch on the fire once in awhile to demonstrate he's one of us. The truth is that he's really a player with the other 30 or so advertisers previously listed on this site. The only difference is that he also "poses" as a driver. Don't be fooled by him. He's in it for number 1, himself.

Not even Cook County Jail House wanted him after just 15 days!

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

I'm glad you admit that you don't have the facts.

My appeal of my wrongful conviction wasn't denied.

Many of the records of this case won't be accessible to your legal researcher.

The charge was in fact a felony.

I served 15 of 30 days in Cook County Jail, and was released from probation earlier than the 24 months originally imposed, suddenly.

There was, in fact, no factual basis for the charge.

My guilty plea was improperly made and a motion to withdraw was timely filed.

I don't see how the last four digits of anyone's drivers license ever mattered, Mr. Nathan, except to show that you have trouble getting your facts straight.

If you want to know more about this case, perhaps you should ask my fellow cabdrivers...a lot of them who knew me back in 2005 are aware of it.

Sorry to ruin your "scandal".

Maybe you are guilty of crimes you haven't been arrested or charged with, Mr. Nathan.

Maybe you are liable for civil torts yet to be determined by a judge or jury.

I couldn't care less. I already know that you have plenty of character deficiencies and that you have no value to me or Chicago cabdrivers as a whole.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

I don't have the facts here, so I'll just ask you what they were. You're in a better position to say.

Didn't you appeal from your guilty plea? If you did appeal, wasn't your appeal denied? I don't have those details as yet. My legal researcher hasn't poured through the public records yet, but I'm sure you can save him the time and just come forth with the details.

Was that charge in fact a felony?

What was the sentence? Did it run 24 months? Was it a felony probation?

What was the factual basis for the charge?

Did you plead guilty voluntarily? Was it involuntary? Were you under duress?

I don't want you to think the issues are being muddied or that anybody is trying to sidestep anything here. So come out with it, Mr. Foulks. The last four digits of the drivers license doesn't matter now, does it?

Mr. D. Foulks,

If a CL is issued to a convicted felon, is it mandatory that his/her license be revoked or suspended upon discovery of this conviction by DCS?

Has Mr. Yi Tang had anything to do with your felony conviction, or your "exoneration" of such?

Who gives YOU the "permission" to continue to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago, and who is lying?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", or likely, Mr. Yi Tang,

The four "lucky numbers" are 1163.

I was indeed "wrongfully" convicted of a felony on 9-29-2005.

It was a bad day for me in a bad system.

It's true, Mr. Tang: I, who served the sentence, know best.

"Who is lying"? Not me.

I am still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago because I've met all the requirements necessary to have, hold, and renew my chauffeur's license.

Good lawyers accept that. Bad lawyers distort the facts and the law. (Or, they simply don't know what they're talking about.)

Mr. Tang, how much money did you pay lawyer Donald Statland? How much have you paid lawyer Donald Nathan?

Just two questions. Can one answer both?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

"Clueless", who is likely Mr. Yi Tang,

To answer your questions:

No.

No.

The City of Chicago.

Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger, often.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Mr. D. Foulks,

If a CL is issued to a convicted felon, is it mandatory that his/her license be revoked or suspended upon discovery of this conviction by DCS?

Has Mr. Yi Tang had anything to do with your felony conviction, or your "exoneration" of such?

Who gives YOU the "permission" to continue to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago, and who is lying?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", or likely, Mr. Yi Tang,

The four "lucky numbers" are 1163.

I was indeed "wrongfully" convicted of a felony on 9-29-2005.

It was a bad day for me in a bad system.

It's true, Mr. Tang: I, who served the sentence, know best.

"Who is lying"? Not me.

I am still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago because I've met all the requirements necessary to have, hold, and renew my chauffeur's license.

Good lawyers accept that. Bad lawyers distort the facts and the law. (Or, they simply don't know what they're talking about.)

Mr. Tang, how much money did you pay lawyer Donald Statland? How much have you paid lawyer Donald Nathan?

Just two questions. Can one answer both?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

Have you got more undisclosed E-Mails left, so we can all read?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", who is likely Mr. Yi Tang,

To answer your questions:

No.

No.

The City of Chicago.

Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger, often.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Mr. D. Foulks,

If a CL is issued to a convicted felon, is it mandatory that his/her license be revoked or suspended upon discovery of this conviction by DCS?

Has Mr. Yi Tang had anything to do with your felony conviction, or your "exoneration" of such?

Who gives YOU the "permission" to continue to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago, and who is lying?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", or likely, Mr. Yi Tang,

The four "lucky numbers" are 1163.

I was indeed "wrongfully" convicted of a felony on 9-29-2005.

It was a bad day for me in a bad system.

It's true, Mr. Tang: I, who served the sentence, know best.

"Who is lying"? Not me.

I am still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago because I've met all the requirements necessary to have, hold, and renew my chauffeur's license.

Good lawyers accept that. Bad lawyers distort the facts and the law. (Or, they simply don't know what they're talking about.)

Mr. Tang, how much money did you pay lawyer Donald Statland? How much have you paid lawyer Donald Nathan?

Just two questions. Can one answer both?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

YES!

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Have you got more undisclosed E-Mails left, so we can all read?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", who is likely Mr. Yi Tang,

To answer your questions:

No.

No.

The City of Chicago.

Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger, often.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Mr. D. Foulks,

If a CL is issued to a convicted felon, is it mandatory that his/her license be revoked or suspended upon discovery of this conviction by DCS?

Has Mr. Yi Tang had anything to do with your felony conviction, or your "exoneration" of such?

Who gives YOU the "permission" to continue to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago, and who is lying?

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

Replying to:

"Clueless", or likely, Mr. Yi Tang,

The four "lucky numbers" are 1163.

I was indeed "wrongfully" convicted of a felony on 9-29-2005.

It was a bad day for me in a bad system.

It's true, Mr. Tang: I, who served the sentence, know best.

"Who is lying"? Not me.

I am still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago because I've met all the requirements necessary to have, hold, and renew my chauffeur's license.

Good lawyers accept that. Bad lawyers distort the facts and the law. (Or, they simply don't know what they're talking about.)

Mr. Tang, how much money did you pay lawyer Donald Statland? How much have you paid lawyer Donald Nathan?

Just two questions. Can one answer both?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Let me try to guess:

The 4 lucky numbers are 1163.

If I remember correctly, Michael D. Foulks might be "wrongfully" convicted a felony on 9-29-2005.

Was it a bad day or a bad system?

I guess that who served the sentence, who knows the best.

Who is lying, and why how this person is still permitted to drive a taxi in the City of Chicago?

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

Replying to:

Mr. Nathan,

You can investigate public records as you wish, Mr. Nathan. I'll answer what questions I should. Keep in my mind that there are many records about this matter and others concerning me that aren't available to the public.

My middle initial is "D".

My birthdate is June 8, 1971.

The "last three numbers" of anyone's drivers license can't be "7316"...those are four numbers.

Learn how to count, "Investigator".

I am familiar with that case number and others in Rolling Meadows. Almost all of the "hearings" on that case were conducted in violation of the law.

Many more public officials, fellow cabdrivers, and others are familiar with this case than you seem to imagine. Perhaps you should ask them directly and quit "wondering" about it in a semi-public forum.

A careful review of this and other recent posts could show how they come dangerously close to violating blackmail statutes, especially when considering the "instructions" about how I should behave.

Nonetheless, I welcome you or anyone else's honest investigation into these matters. Too bad honesty isn't your strong suit.

I am not a "fake" Christian. I am simply a Christian. I have never claimed to be "holier than thou". You are the one making that claim.

"He who cast the first stone better be whistle clean?" I am not an expert on Scripture, but I don't think that this is a proper translation of the text, nor do I believe you truly understand the meaning of the sentiment.

Your "logic" is a joke, Mr. Nathan...your suspicions about someone else's criminal record should prevent George Lutfallah from banning any more posts from the same computer which sent the disruptive "donkey boy" messages among numerous others only meant to sabotage a discussion of the issues?

I hope you have more than an "ad hominem" argument when you go to court this month, or at least one that is relevant.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Is your middle initial "D"?

Were you born on June 8, 1971?

Are the last three numbers of your driver's license 7316?

Do you recognize case number Case #05-C3-30483-01? The matter was heard in Rolling Meadows.

He who casts the first stone better be whistle clean. I am looking into that matter. I don't think the Commissioner knows about it. Nor do I think Ola Shalom knows about it. Maybe no one knows about it because probably it doesn't involve you.

Likewise, you have no proof positive that Wolfgang Weiss posted anything about donkey ears about you under pseudonyms. So don't you be casting the first stone, you fake Christian.

Even if you can quote Scripture better than me, you have no right to claim to be holier than thou if you are the Michael D. Foulks who goes with the matter referenced above.

We shall see --- shortly enough.

Forceable felonies, DUI and drug charges are examples of things that can make one ineligible to hold a chauffeurs license. If I were to say be found guilty, serve half of a 30 day sentence, and get a years probation, I would be ineligible for 6 years and 1 month from holding a city license.

One would have to believe that the system isn't perfect.This applies to all. Perhaps this isn't a felony that would disqualify,or perhaps the city has in complete records......

Mr. "Fatlu Hall",

Now the "irrelevancy" is made clear. I have no felony conviction which would disqualify me from holding a chauffeur's license, temporary, wrongful, or otherwise.

Now, if you could explain it to the dirt-digging, mud-slinging, borderline-blackmailer, scumbag/lawyer Donald S. Nathan, I would be amazed.

He doesn't like to let the facts get in the way of what he thinks is an awesome accusation.

Let's hope he does better with his "magnificent" lawsuit against the City in front of Judge Epstein than I had with others in Cook County.

That is, if a victory for him would really be a victory for me and my fellow cabdrivers.

Neither he or Wolf Weiss has convinced "the masses" they are supposedly "fighting for".

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Forceable felonies, DUI and drug charges are examples of things that can make one ineligible to hold a chauffeurs license. If I were to say be found guilty, serve half of a 30 day sentence, and get a years probation, I would be ineligible for 6 years and 1 month from holding a city license.

One would have to believe that the system isn't perfect.This applies to all. Perhaps this isn't a felony that would disqualify,or perhaps the city has in complete records......

If there were an explanation of the facts from felon Foulks, we might be able to conclude whether his felony conviction was relevant to anything having to do with his licensure as a cabdriver. Unfortunately, felon Foulks has failed to follow up with facts to diffuse suspicions we have.

It's a bit like Elliot Spitzer and the Mayflower Hotel incident. If it's serious, a felon should supplicate himself, and we'd just accept it. We'd just go on to the next thing understanding that all men have their foibles. If it's a nothing, it should be explained, and we'd dismiss it out of hand.

Personally, I'd rather think felon Foulks had been wronged. I'd rather he had some credible explanation for whatever did happen to him in Rolling Meadows because there are so few articulate cabdriver organizers. It's a pity to have to think of him as a lousy convicted felon. It damages his credibility in everything he does to have a criminal background whether it's a forcible felony or not. Whether it's a crime of dishonesty or not, it's still a felony, and it damages his credibility if he doesn't come up with an explanation of what came down - of what really did happen.

Maybe he will. Maybe he'll stop trying to attack the credibility of the judge who convicted him and of the unblemished lawyer who criticizes him. After all, he's the felon.

Mr. Nathan,

I'm glad you admit that you don't have the facts.

You won't ever get an explanation because of the legal issues in this case which aren't a matter of public record.

There are serious matters involving the trust, privacy, and/or unlawful acts of others which prevent me from even considering to give you or generally anyone else a complete explanation.

To be as clear as possible, nothing prevents me from having, holding, or renewing a chauffeur's license or continuing to be an organizer of Chicago cabdrivers, no matter how many times you label me a felon or how much anyone would wish otherwise.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

If there were an explanation of the facts from felon Foulks, we might be able to conclude whether his felony conviction was relevant to anything having to do with his licensure as a cabdriver. Unfortunately, felon Foulks has failed to follow up with facts to diffuse suspicions we have.

It's a bit like Elliot Spitzer and the Mayflower Hotel incident. If it's serious, a felon should supplicate himself, and we'd just accept it. We'd just go on to the next thing understanding that all men have their foibles. If it's a nothing, it should be explained, and we'd dismiss it out of hand.

Personally, I'd rather think felon Foulks had been wronged. I'd rather he had some credible explanation for whatever did happen to him in Rolling Meadows because there are so few articulate cabdriver organizers. It's a pity to have to think of him as a lousy convicted felon. It damages his credibility in everything he does to have a criminal background whether it's a forcible felony or not. Whether it's a crime of dishonesty or not, it's still a felony, and it damages his credibility if he doesn't come up with an explanation of what came down - of what really did happen.

Maybe he will. Maybe he'll stop trying to attack the credibility of the judge who convicted him and of the unblemished lawyer who criticizes him. After all, he's the felon.

Felon Foulks won't give cabdrivers the truth because he's afraid that if it comes out, he'll be exposed to the light of day - he'll melt like the Wicked Witch of the West - or is it the East?

Whatever.

Suffice it to say, felon Foulks has placed his trust in a Boston outsider who never drove a Chicago cab as far as I understand it. Although he used to tell us about how he distrusted all "outsiders", he bends down to kiss the derriere of his dear friend of felons from the Ivy League who has some sort of strategy that no one seems to want to share.

It keeps getting more and more cute.

Why should felon Foulks tell anyone the truth? I guess there isn't any explanation - none he can come up with anyway.

There have been indeed "more" e-mails uncovered, besides the election result for his so called CC-0.

Who care what they are, the "truth" or half the "truth".

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

Replying to:

Felon Foulks won't give cabdrivers the truth because he's afraid that if it comes out, he'll be exposed to the light of day - he'll melt like the Wicked Witch of the West - or is it the East?

Whatever.

Suffice it to say, felon Foulks has placed his trust in a Boston outsider who never drove a Chicago cab as far as I understand it. Although he used to tell us about how he distrusted all "outsiders", he bends down to kiss the derriere of his dear friend of felons from the Ivy League who has some sort of strategy that no one seems to want to share.

It keeps getting more and more cute.

Why should felon Foulks tell anyone the truth? I guess there isn't any explanation - none he can come up with anyway.

Repost of what I said: "One would have to believe that the system isn't perfect.This applies to all. Perhaps this isn't a felony that would disqualify,or perhaps the city has in complete records......"

I do know of a driver that was able to renew a few times before the city caught up with him. I found about this when I saw him driving a suburban cab. It took some time for the city to "catch" up with him.

Since Mike F. won't come completely clean about his past, we really have no way of knowing if his comviction was the kind that would disqualify him without knowing the exact nature of the crime.

Strictly a guess here: Smetimes a crime is committed that is serious. One that would make someone ineligible to hold a license with the city. The perp. makes a deal with the court to plead guilty to a lessor crime that wouldn't disqualify to make things go easy for him.Might even have a great defense but doesn't risk going for a trial due to the possibility of getting the "max". The prosecutor goes along with this so he/she can go to lunch early. I would also guess there wasn't anyone victim/police really pushing the case here. Again, just a guess, nothing more.

Now for another real issue. Isn't part of the current lawsuit to stop the hold on someones license in the advent of an arrest before even a trial is held? Why would someone with a felony on his record be against the lawsuit guys when it seems like under the new rules he would have at least been placed on hold in 2005? Nathan and Co. are fighting for drivers to be found guilty before having to surrender their chauffeurs licenses. How would you have likedto have the law of 2008 in 2005 Mike? Don't be so quick to throw spears at a guy like Nathan that is trying to help guys that get arrested get a day in court before losing their licenses.

Was the court in Rolling Meadows aware that you have a city license? Did you make sure to plead guilty to something that wouldn't disqualify you? what advice can you give to others that get arrested and get felony charges?

"Fatlu Hall",

Keep guessing. Courts rely on facts.

You are confusing the facts of the new pre-conviction authority of the Commissioner. She isn't required to suspend a chauffeur's license of all those who are charged with a felony, she simply has the discretion to do so.

The motivation for this expanded authority purportedly came from a case where a cabdriver slashed somebody's face with a knife, but the Commissioner couldn't suspend or revoke until a conviction occurred.

The problem with a guy like Donald Nathan is that he makes it seem like I am "throwing spears" at his entire lawsuit or position when I am not.

I agree that many of the authorities of the Commissioner could and should be limited. However, I don't think that such a provision regarding forcible felony accusations should be entirely eliminated.

The Commissioner should retain the right to act before a conviction on cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming, always, of course, subject to an appeal to the Court.

The problem with some of the activists involved in these issues is that they misread the rules or law or presume that certain things would occur in circumstances which they would not.

Worse is that they ignore circumstances where suspension by the Commissioner before a conviction is warranted.

For example, Michael L. Jackson ran over cabdriver Haroon Paryani with his own cab THREE TIMES. If Michael L. Jackson were also a cabdriver, he could have continued to drive a cab while out on bond awaiting his murder trial.

I think it's quite possible that the Court will order a clearer qualification as to what circumstances would allow the Commissioner to retain this pre-conviction suspension authority.

As far as a fare increase goes, I don't think any Cook County judge is going to grant us much relief on that subject, no matter what Donald Nathan thinks of him or her.

I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

And by the way, I've been very patient with everyone involved with cabdriver issues. Don't be so quick to think I haven't been patient or forgiving with people who haven proven to be useless or harmful.

Anyone who is arrested on felony charges should exercise their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and be represented by a lawyer, no matter if they are innocent or guilty.

I have never been found guilty of anything that would disqualify me from having, holding, or renewing a chauffeur's license.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Repost of what I said: "One would have to believe that the system isn't perfect.This applies to all. Perhaps this isn't a felony that would disqualify,or perhaps the city has in complete records......"

I do know of a driver that was able to renew a few times before the city caught up with him. I found about this when I saw him driving a suburban cab. It took some time for the city to "catch" up with him.

Since Mike F. won't come completely clean about his past, we really have no way of knowing if his comviction was the kind that would disqualify him without knowing the exact nature of the crime.

Strictly a guess here: Smetimes a crime is committed that is serious. One that would make someone ineligible to hold a license with the city. The perp. makes a deal with the court to plead guilty to a lessor crime that wouldn't disqualify to make things go easy for him.Might even have a great defense but doesn't risk going for a trial due to the possibility of getting the "max". The prosecutor goes along with this so he/she can go to lunch early. I would also guess there wasn't anyone victim/police really pushing the case here. Again, just a guess, nothing more.

Now for another real issue. Isn't part of the current lawsuit to stop the hold on someones license in the advent of an arrest before even a trial is held? Why would someone with a felony on his record be against the lawsuit guys when it seems like under the new rules he would have at least been placed on hold in 2005? Nathan and Co. are fighting for drivers to be found guilty before having to surrender their chauffeurs licenses. How would you have likedto have the law of 2008 in 2005 Mike? Don't be so quick to throw spears at a guy like Nathan that is trying to help guys that get arrested get a day in court before losing their licenses.

Was the court in Rolling Meadows aware that you have a city license? Did you make sure to plead guilty to something that wouldn't disqualify you? what advice can you give to others that get arrested and get felony charges?

Your theory is much of convincing yet.

Any more E-Mails should be disclosed?

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

Replying to:

"Fatlu Hall",

Keep guessing. Courts rely on facts.

You are confusing the facts of the new pre-conviction authority of the Commissioner. She isn't required to suspend a chauffeur's license of all those who are charged with a felony, she simply has the discretion to do so.

The motivation for this expanded authority purportedly came from a case where a cabdriver slashed somebody's face with a knife, but the Commissioner couldn't suspend or revoke until a conviction occurred.

The problem with a guy like Donald Nathan is that he makes it seem like I am "throwing spears" at his entire lawsuit or position when I am not.

I agree that many of the authorities of the Commissioner could and should be limited. However, I don't think that such a provision regarding forcible felony accusations should be entirely eliminated.

The Commissioner should retain the right to act before a conviction on cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming, always, of course, subject to an appeal to the Court.

The problem with some of the activists involved in these issues is that they misread the rules or law or presume that certain things would occur in circumstances which they would not.

Worse is that they ignore circumstances where suspension by the Commissioner before a conviction is warranted.

For example, Michael L. Jackson ran over cabdriver Haroon Paryani with his own cab THREE TIMES. If Michael L. Jackson were also a cabdriver, he could have continued to drive a cab while out on bond awaiting his murder trial.

I think it's quite possible that the Court will order a clearer qualification as to what circumstances would allow the Commissioner to retain this pre-conviction suspension authority.

As far as a fare increase goes, I don't think any Cook County judge is going to grant us much relief on that subject, no matter what Donald Nathan thinks of him or her.

I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

And by the way, I've been very patient with everyone involved with cabdriver issues. Don't be so quick to think I haven't been patient or forgiving with people who haven proven to be useless or harmful.

Anyone who is arrested on felony charges should exercise their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and be represented by a lawyer, no matter if they are innocent or guilty.

I have never been found guilty of anything that would disqualify me from having, holding, or renewing a chauffeur's license.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Repost of what I said: "One would have to believe that the system isn't perfect.This applies to all. Perhaps this isn't a felony that would disqualify,or perhaps the city has in complete records......"

I do know of a driver that was able to renew a few times before the city caught up with him. I found about this when I saw him driving a suburban cab. It took some time for the city to "catch" up with him.

Since Mike F. won't come completely clean about his past, we really have no way of knowing if his comviction was the kind that would disqualify him without knowing the exact nature of the crime.

Strictly a guess here: Smetimes a crime is committed that is serious. One that would make someone ineligible to hold a license with the city. The perp. makes a deal with the court to plead guilty to a lessor crime that wouldn't disqualify to make things go easy for him.Might even have a great defense but doesn't risk going for a trial due to the possibility of getting the "max". The prosecutor goes along with this so he/she can go to lunch early. I would also guess there wasn't anyone victim/police really pushing the case here. Again, just a guess, nothing more.

Now for another real issue. Isn't part of the current lawsuit to stop the hold on someones license in the advent of an arrest before even a trial is held? Why would someone with a felony on his record be against the lawsuit guys when it seems like under the new rules he would have at least been placed on hold in 2005? Nathan and Co. are fighting for drivers to be found guilty before having to surrender their chauffeurs licenses. How would you have likedto have the law of 2008 in 2005 Mike? Don't be so quick to throw spears at a guy like Nathan that is trying to help guys that get arrested get a day in court before losing their licenses.

Was the court in Rolling Meadows aware that you have a city license? Did you make sure to plead guilty to something that wouldn't disqualify you? what advice can you give to others that get arrested and get felony charges?

Exactly what truth has been deliberately obscured, smart mouth? Details, details, nothing but details.

Not your horse manure. Facts.

"I believe" it is you have obscured the truth with your lies and stubbornness and foolishness.

I must say you are consistent Mikey boy. You don't listen to reason. You can't recognize the truth when it kicks you in the face. You refuse to accept logical arguments and conclusions. You ignore the issues in favor of personal destruction.

No, "donkey boy" imagery is correct and appropriate. I didn't come up with Donkey Boy or Long Ears, but you insist on believing that it was me.

I did come up with Father of Fools, from a tarot card reading on "Who is Mike Foulks." In tarot, the "joker" is the "King of Fools" a very bad card. THat was the first card to come up. Well, one thing led to another and the rest is donkey history.

The only thing I have "sabotaged" is your foolishness and your stubborn refusal to accept reality.

Because you lack understanding and refuse to accept simple rhetorical and communications conventions, you cannot fathom the use of pseudonyms or "pen names" and find such use suspicious and you disrespect and denounce people who use a pseudonym. A non issue that you have brought up numerous times when someone points out one of your fallacies, fantasies, lies, false accusations and/or delusions.

You need professional help to sabotage your mental illness, which prevents you from having any sense of common courtesy, much less common sense and decency.

Your personal attacks are not "disruptive and unproductive". Mike’s (and George's) baseless and false accusations are not sabotage?

And you still have not offered on stitch of proof of any of your bull crap suppositions - just a bunch of donkey noise is all you ever produce.

I post about meter increases, which goes unnoticed and ignored for the most part.

You would rather attack Don or Yi or me.

And this leads to the conclusion that I disrupt and sabotage. Very funny. You are so screwed up, it is unbelievable.

I don't know what cracker barrel you crawled out of, but do the world a favor, crawl back in.

Unproductive posts? By whose standards? Yours? Total joke. In order to have standards you have to have morals and ethics.

You criticize me? You have no standing, authority or credibility to do so -- you squandered those a long time ago.

Maybe George is right -- I should be banned. Because I just don't fit in here, in this virtual nut house.

ww

ps: You can rest easy because the very real persons who have used Big Fat Mouth, Brain Dmamage and Robot Cab have emailed me to to stop including their comments and ideas. They have abandoned all hope of ever rehabbing you or George and given you up, left you for dead as lost causes. They had your number, boys. But it is I who scares good people away, right!

I am glad Mike is gonna get what he's got comming.

People post donkey boy and and Long Ears trash to trash the trash that Donkey Boy puts ouit.

You should be ashmaed of yourselves for even allowing this scam artist con-man to post here.

bfm

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

Replying to:

I am glad that Wolf Weiss (with all of his aliases) has finally been prevented from continuing his sabotage of this website.

I suggest that "Clueless", who I believe to be Yi Tang, be warned that his similar conduct could also warrant a ban.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Postings will be deleted if they are not relevant to the thread.

When the Commissioner was caught, she still gets her pay-check.

What an exclusive story for the Chicago Dispatcher, a "Truth" one this time!

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

Replying to:

I am glad Mike is gonna get what he's got comming.

People post donkey boy and and Long Ears trash to trash the trash that Donkey Boy puts ouit.

You should be ashmaed of yourselves for even allowing this scam artist con-man to post here.

bfm

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

Replying to:

I am glad that Wolf Weiss (with all of his aliases) has finally been prevented from continuing his sabotage of this website.

I suggest that "Clueless", who I believe to be Yi Tang, be warned that his similar conduct could also warrant a ban.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Postings will be deleted if they are not relevant to the thread.

There are lies and their are d****d lies!

I am glad Mike "Long Ears" Foulks (with his criminal past) as a criminal bully and con-artist-would-be-extortionist have been exposed!

I suggest that Long Eared Father of Fools, who I believe to be Mike Foulks, be warned that his conduct could also warrant a proper mouth-washing with a bar of Yardley (TM) of his favorite brand of soap.

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

Replying to:

I am glad that Wolf Weiss (with all of his aliases) has finally been prevented from continuing his sabotage of this website.

I suggest that "Clueless", who I believe to be Yi Tang, be warned that his similar conduct could also warrant a ban.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Postings will be deleted if they are not relevant to the thread.