Prove it if you are capable of doing anything?
May be you should write another letter to your key contact in the Devine's Office, or march to his office to protest for your "injustice" again.
Frankly, it was not your mom's fault who needed her "bail" money back.
The prosecutor chooses to "upgrade" the charge or "downgrade" the charge all the time.
What can you do? Begging and blaming the system with your big mouth?
A grown up man should be able to take care of his own problem first, IMO.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or are you Yi Tang?,
You wrote: "Bottom line is that everyone else is "wrong" but not "I""
That is your opinion. I don't share it.
I am aware of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or the "right to remain silent" as you put it. This right was one of many issues in this case.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Bottom line is that everyone else is "wrong" but not "I"
You do have the right to remain silent, don't you know?
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
You wrote: "Prove it if you are capable of doing anything?"
Prove what?
I have never written a letter or marched to protest my personal injustice.
You wrote: "Frankly, it was not your mom's fault who needed her "bail" money back."
Who said it was? This statement of yours is confusing.
I don't blame "the system" as much as I blame the judges' and other officials' ignorance of the law and proper procedure.
You wrote: "A grown up man should be able to take care of his own problem first, IMO."
Who and what are you talking about?
"Clueless", I really don't understand what your arguments are here. What is the point?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Prove it if you are capable of doing anything?
May be you should write another letter to your key contact in the Devine's Office, or march to his office to protest for your "injustice" again.
Frankly, it was not your mom's fault who needed her "bail" money back.
The prosecutor chooses to "upgrade" the charge or "downgrade" the charge all the time.
What can you do? Begging and blaming the system with your big mouth?
A grown up man should be able to take care of his own problem first, IMO.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or are you Yi Tang?,
You wrote: "Bottom line is that everyone else is "wrong" but not "I""
That is your opinion. I don't share it.
I am aware of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or the "right to remain silent" as you put it. This right was one of many issues in this case.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Bottom line is that everyone else is "wrong" but not "I"
You do have the right to remain silent, don't you know?
Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks? We all would have left it alone if you hadn't started up with it. We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings trying to make excuses for your felony background. Nobody cared anymore. The thread had passed. It was history until you woke it up again.
Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record.
There was a motion filed by Assistant Public Defender Larry Kugler to withdraw your plea of guilty, Foulks, to telephone harassment, a class 4 felony. You entered a plea of guilty to that charge before Judge Tobin. You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now? The motion was denied. Allegedly, an appeal was taken from that denial, but we haven't been able to locate anything concerning it as yet other than a few Bates stamped pages of the record all of which are out or order.
By the by, what was the "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude which would be of interest to the cabdriver community. Lots of us have children, you know. Lots of children.
One way or another, I'm sure glad I'm not Evan Winer. I'd say you might be a bit disappointed in his effort to meet the standard of care for criminal defense attorneys in the community in which he practices, although I express no opinion as to whether his representation caused you any damage. After all, if you were guilty (and your motion to withdraw the guilty plea WAS denied), what damage was done by entering into Rule 402 negotiations? This is doubly so the case if any appeal from the denial of the motion was abandoned or withdrawn.
Was it?
There are so many unanswered questions about you, Foulks. And the reason these questions become of interest is because you are such an important man in the community of cabdrivers. After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest.
The reason I brought up the fact that I had never even been arrested on felony charges is that had I been, I would have never been licensed to practice law in all likelihood. If I were convicted of a felony, I would almost certainly be disbarred - and rightfully so. Lawyers have to be clean as a whistle, and the ones who aren't should be AND ARE drummed out of the practice. I can name a couple who advertise in a certain newspaper lots of cabdrivers read who can attest to the fact that I'm right about this.
And although I do not have personal knowledge of it, it would amaze me if Wolfgang Weiss had ever been arrested for something beyond a traffic charge. The same goes for Yi Tang. So for all the whining and attacking you do of your self-creatred enemies - I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema - we aren't criminals with felony backgrounds OR ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ANY KIND.
Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it. And it's high time you stop casting stones. Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not, whether they are from competing organizations or not.
WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues.
Donald Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
My reply to this is posted below.
This is because you have posted the exact same thing twice again in different places.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks? We all would have left it alone if you hadn't started up with it. We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings trying to make excuses for your felony background. Nobody cared anymore. The thread had passed. It was history until you woke it up again.
Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record.
There was a motion filed by Assistant Public Defender Larry Kugler to withdraw your plea of guilty, Foulks, to telephone harassment, a class 4 felony. You entered a plea of guilty to that charge before Judge Tobin. You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now? The motion was denied. Allegedly, an appeal was taken from that denial, but we haven't been able to locate anything concerning it as yet other than a few Bates stamped pages of the record all of which are out or order.
By the by, what was the "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude which would be of interest to the cabdriver community. Lots of us have children, you know. Lots of children.
One way or another, I'm sure glad I'm not Evan Winer. I'd say you might be a bit disappointed in his effort to meet the standard of care for criminal defense attorneys in the community in which he practices, although I express no opinion as to whether his representation caused you any damage. After all, if you were guilty (and your motion to withdraw the guilty plea WAS denied), what damage was done by entering into Rule 402 negotiations? This is doubly so the case if any appeal from the denial of the motion was abandoned or withdrawn.
Was it?
There are so many unanswered questions about you, Foulks. And the reason these questions become of interest is because you are such an important man in the community of cabdrivers. After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest.
The reason I brought up the fact that I had never even been arrested on felony charges is that had I been, I would have never been licensed to practice law in all likelihood. If I were convicted of a felony, I would almost certainly be disbarred - and rightfully so. Lawyers have to be clean as a whistle, and the ones who aren't should be AND ARE drummed out of the practice. I can name a couple who advertise in a certain newspaper lots of cabdrivers read who can attest to the fact that I'm right about this.
And although I do not have personal knowledge of it, it would amaze me if Wolfgang Weiss had ever been arrested for something beyond a traffic charge. The same goes for Yi Tang. So for all the whining and attacking you do of your self-creatred enemies - I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema - we aren't criminals with felony backgrounds OR ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ANY KIND.
Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it. And it's high time you stop casting stones. Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not, whether they are from competing organizations or not.
WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues.
Donald Nathan
I am not an attorney. Death threats and extortion sound like terrorism to me. I would also think that terrorism is a forceful felony. Perhaps given the circumstances of this conviction, the license in question wouldn't have been issued.
There was a pattern established and this violation occured multiple times. This is why felony charges were approved and this man was arrested. He must have been convicted of his felony at a bench trial in Rolling Meadows. This must be since he denies entering a guilty plea. Again, I'm not an attorney, just someone that knows how to read.
It will be interesting if George takes my comments as allegations again. I'm just quoting what has already been said on this forum by others and putting the pieces together. The others were not punished. Why should the one that condenses the issues for all to see clearly keep getting shown the door?
Mr. Nathan,
I never "entered a plea of guilty to having done those acts". M.D. Foulks
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
That is correct. Are you aware of the context or are you deliberately omitting it?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
I never "entered a plea of guilty to having done those acts". M.D. Foulks
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
It is obvious you are not an attorney.
I have never been convicted of "terrorism" or a "forceful" or FORCIBLE felony. I have never been convicted of "death threats" or "extortion" either.
I have been wrongfully convicted of telephone harassment.
The circumstances of any of my convictions do not prevent me from having, holding, or renewing a chauffeur's license.
The only pattern which was established is judges and other officials ignoring the law and proper procedure.
Felony charges weren't approved pre-arrest.
I didn't have any trial resulting in a felony conviction.
I denied entering a "guilty plea admitting to those acts."
Read my statements again. Try to be a better reader.
When did George "take your comments as allegations" previously? What were the comments? George who?
Who are the "others who were not punished"?
Who is the "one that condenses the issues for all to see clearly" and how is that person "kept getting shown the door"?
Maybe you should be more clear.
Perhaps you could start by using your real name.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I am not an attorney. Death threats and extortion sound like terrorism to me. I would also think that terrorism is a forceful felony. Perhaps given the circumstances of this conviction, the license in question wouldn't have been issued.
There was a pattern established and this violation occured multiple times. This is why felony charges were approved and this man was arrested. He must have been convicted of his felony at a bench trial in Rolling Meadows. This must be since he denies entering a guilty plea. Again, I'm not an attorney, just someone that knows how to read.
It will be interesting if George takes my comments as allegations again. I'm just quoting what has already been said on this forum by others and putting the pieces together. The others were not punished. Why should the one that condenses the issues for all to see clearly keep getting shown the door?
OK So I stand corrected felony charges were approved post arrest, not pre arrest. Demanding 250,000 or I'll kill you is terrorism to me. Perhaps you were indeed technically convicted of a lessor felony. Your acts would seem to be terrorism to the majority however.
Let me get the rest of this nonsense straight while we're at it. You did not enter a guilty plea, nor were convicted at trial. Like majic a felony conviction just happen to show up on your record. I also stand by my statement that the 24 months of m@#$%^ h@#$%^ probation does not seem to have helped.
"Big Fat Mouth",
I'm glad you admit you were incorrect. You are still wrong.
I never "demanded 250,000 or I'll kill you".
Anyhow, to call this "terrorism" is disrespectful to victims of terrorism, such as those who were murdered on 9/11 or in Oklahoma City.
My "acts" have never been, nor will they ever be, considered "terrorism" by any neutral majority.
My plea of guilty was improper. I was not convicted at trial. Read my statements more carefully.
"Magic" has nothing to do with anything.
What is "m@#$%^ h@#$%^ probation"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
OK So I stand corrected felony charges were approved post arrest, not pre arrest. Demanding 250,000 or I'll kill you is terrorism to me. Perhaps you were indeed technically convicted of a lessor felony. Your acts would seem to be terrorism to the majority however.
Let me get the rest of this nonsense straight while we're at it. You did not enter a guilty plea, nor were convicted at trial. Like majic a felony conviction just happen to show up on your record. I also stand by my statement that the 24 months of m@#$%^ h@#$%^ probation does not seem to have helped.
Since you want me to mention it, after your jail term the judge entered an order for a 24 month mental health probation. Why didn't it help you?
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
Why didn't it help me? Because I never had a mental illness. This is one of many serious errors made by judges and other officials who ignored the law and proper procedure. I was suddenly placed on regular probation.
In fact, regular probation in this case also ended quite suddenly.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Since you want me to mention it, after your jail term the judge entered an order for a 24 month mental health probation. Why didn't it help you?
Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks? We all would have left it alone if you hadn't started up with it. We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings trying to make excuses for your felony background. Nobody cared anymore. The thread had passed. It was history until you woke it up again.
Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record.
There was a motion filed by Assistant Public Defender Larry Kugler to withdraw your plea of guilty, Foulks, to telephone harassment, a class 4 felony. You entered a plea of guilty to that charge before Judge Tobin. You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now? The motion was denied. Allegedly, an appeal was taken from that denial, but we haven't been able to locate anything concerning it as yet other than a few Bates stamped pages of the record all of which are out or order.
By the by, what was the "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude which would be of interest to the cabdriver community. Lots of us have children, you know. Lots of children.
One way or another, I'm sure glad I'm not Evan Winer. I'd say you might be a bit disappointed in his effort to meet the standard of care for criminal defense attorneys in the community in which he practices, although I express no opinion as to whether his representation caused you any damage. After all, if you were guilty (and your motion to withdraw the guilty plea WAS denied), what damage was done by entering into Rule 402 negotiations? This is doubly so the case if any appeal from the denial of the motion was abandoned or withdrawn.
Was it?
There are so many unanswered questions about you, Foulks. And the reason these questions become of interest is because you are such an important man in the community of cabdrivers. After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest.
The reason I brought up the fact that I had never even been arrested on felony charges is that had I been, I would have never been licensed to practice law in all likelihood. If I were convicted of a felony, I would almost certainly be disbarred - and rightfully so. Lawyers have to be clean as a whistle, and the ones who aren't should be AND ARE drummed out of the practice. I can name a couple who advertise in a certain newspaper lots of cabdrivers read who can attest to the fact that I'm right about this.
And although I do not have personal knowledge of it, it would amaze me if Wolfgang Weiss had ever been arrested for something beyond a traffic charge. The same goes for Yi Tang. So for all the whining and attacking you do of your self-creatred enemies - I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema - we aren't criminals with felony backgrounds OR ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ANY KIND.
Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it. And it's high time you stop casting stones. Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not, whether they are from competing organizations or not.
WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues.
Donald Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
You wrote: "Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks?"
I never "raised the topic of my (criminal) record" in the first place.
You wrote: "We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days..."
If my "(criminal) record" wasn't a "real issue" in the first place, why did you discuss it then?
You wrote: "...when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings..."
How did I "attack" anyone with this post?
You wrote: "...trying to make excuses for your felony background."
Telling the truth about it is considered "making excuses"? That's a strange choice of words, Mr. Nathan.
You wrote: "Nobody cared anymore."
Then why was it still being discussed? Why are you still discussing it now?
You wrote: "Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record."
So, you admit that you really don't have a complete understanding of this case. This is the basis for your speculative and misleading "conclusions".
You wrote: "You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now?"
I never plead guilty to "felony charges". I never denied entering a "guilty plea". You are misreading and mistating the facts. This is because you aren't very careful.
NOW YOU RAISE THE ISSUE OF "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990?
You wrote: "I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude..."
Mr. Nathan, that was a case of a curfew violation, a misdemeanor.
Is telephone harassment "terrorism", Mr. Nathan?
Is a curfew violation "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
In this first case, the penalty was simply NO FINE.
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE.
You wrote: "One way or another, I'm sure glad I'm not Evan Winer. I'd say you might be a bit disappointed in his effort to meet the standard of care for criminal defense attorneys in the community in which he practices, although I express no opinion as to whether his representation caused you any damage. After all, if you were guilty (and your motion to withdraw the guilty plea WAS denied), what damage was done by entering into Rule 402 negotiations? This is doubly so the case if any appeal from the denial of the motion was abandoned or withdrawn.
Was it?"
Much of this is not a matter of public record. I won't comment on this until it becomes so, if ever.
You wrote: "There are so many unanswered questions about you, Foulks. And the reason these questions become of interest is because you are such an important man in the community of cabdrivers."
Mr. Nathan, there are many more "unanswered questions" about you. I won't equate your "importance in the cabdriver community" with mine.
ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF, MR. NATHAN?
You wrote: "After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest."
Thank you for acknowledging that.
You wrote: "The reason I brought up the fact that I had never even been arrested on felony charges is that had I been, I would have never been licensed to practice law in all likelihood."
Who said otherwise?
You wrote: "If I were convicted of a felony, I would almost certainly be disbarred - and rightfully so."
And the law would be a better profession without you.
You wrote: "Lawyers have to be clean as a whistle, and the ones who aren't should be AND ARE drummed out of the practice. I can name a couple who advertise in a certain newspaper lots of cabdrivers read who can attest to the fact that I'm right about this."
Right about what? That you are "clean as a whistle" or that you will be "drummed out" once we know that you are not?
You wrote: "And although I do not have personal knowledge of it, it would amaze me if Wolfgang Weiss had ever been arrested for something beyond a traffic charge. The same goes for Yi Tang."
And then you write: "we aren't criminals with felony backgrounds OR ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ANY KIND."
You aren't sure, but two sentences later you're certain. This is classic "Donald Nathan"...
Ignorance, presumption, and speculation posing as complete knowledge and conclusive fact.
You wrote: "So for all the whining and attacking you do of your self-creatred enemies..."
Could you be specific?
You wrote: "I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema..."
Who said that you were? What DO you see yourself as?
You wrote: "Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it."
What are you referring to?
You wrote: "And it's high time you stop casting stones."
Again, what are you referring to?
You wrote: "Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry..."
Can you name them?
You wrote: "...whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not..."
Who are the ones who aren't "current Chicago cabdrivers"?
You wrote: "whether they are from competing organizations or not."
So, other organizations consider themselves "competition", but I should "shake their hand"?
No wonder they haven't "reached out to me" as I have to them!
What organizations are you referring to?
You wrote: "WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues."
I am wide awake, Mr. Nathan. What are the issues, in your opinion?
I'm going to re-post this as a new post above...please reply to my questions up there.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks? We all would have left it alone if you hadn't started up with it. We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings trying to make excuses for your felony background. Nobody cared anymore. The thread had passed. It was history until you woke it up again.
Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record.
There was a motion filed by Assistant Public Defender Larry Kugler to withdraw your plea of guilty, Foulks, to telephone harassment, a class 4 felony. You entered a plea of guilty to that charge before Judge Tobin. You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now? The motion was denied. Allegedly, an appeal was taken from that denial, but we haven't been able to locate anything concerning it as yet other than a few Bates stamped pages of the record all of which are out or order.
By the by, what was the "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude which would be of interest to the cabdriver community. Lots of us have children, you know. Lots of children.
One way or another, I'm sure glad I'm not Evan Winer. I'd say you might be a bit disappointed in his effort to meet the standard of care for criminal defense attorneys in the community in which he practices, although I express no opinion as to whether his representation caused you any damage. After all, if you were guilty (and your motion to withdraw the guilty plea WAS denied), what damage was done by entering into Rule 402 negotiations? This is doubly so the case if any appeal from the denial of the motion was abandoned or withdrawn.
Was it?
There are so many unanswered questions about you, Foulks. And the reason these questions become of interest is because you are such an important man in the community of cabdrivers. After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest.
The reason I brought up the fact that I had never even been arrested on felony charges is that had I been, I would have never been licensed to practice law in all likelihood. If I were convicted of a felony, I would almost certainly be disbarred - and rightfully so. Lawyers have to be clean as a whistle, and the ones who aren't should be AND ARE drummed out of the practice. I can name a couple who advertise in a certain newspaper lots of cabdrivers read who can attest to the fact that I'm right about this.
And although I do not have personal knowledge of it, it would amaze me if Wolfgang Weiss had ever been arrested for something beyond a traffic charge. The same goes for Yi Tang. So for all the whining and attacking you do of your self-creatred enemies - I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema - we aren't criminals with felony backgrounds OR ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS OF ANY KIND.
Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it. And it's high time you stop casting stones. Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not, whether they are from competing organizations or not.
WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues.
Donald Nathan
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE
MD Foulks
Which is the second case Mike? Bensenville? Or one of the two convictions for extortion/murder threats? Or is there another you would like to share with us?
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
The "second case" is the Bensenville curfew case which resulted in a $100 fine.
I have never been convicted of "extortion/death threats".
I have never "shared" any case. I have responded to others' dirt-digging and mud-slinging.
It seems that you want to equate telephone harassment with "terrorism" and a curfew violation with "moral turpitude".
You might be more successful selling ice to Eskimos. You are practicing the distortion of truth, anyhow.
Some think that this is what a good lawyer does. Mr. Nathan is a bad lawyer.
And, he couldn't sell ice to Eskimos in his wildest dreams, no matter how hard he tries.
Like it or not, I have no criminal record between 1990 and 2003.
Is there any more "dirt" or "mud" you would like to "share"?
What's your real name, "Big Fat Mouth"?
What organization do you belong to or support?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE
MD Foulks
Which is the second case Mike? Bensenville? Or one of the two convictions for extortion/murder threats? Or is there another you would like to share with us?
Ok we now have made the second case the Bensenville one. Then there were two more out in the fifth district. One felony and one minor one. Arrest numbers three and four. What are the details of the first arrest and do I need more hand to count them all? Or in other words, are there more since the last felony?
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
Why are you acting confused? To confuse others? Are you really that easily confused?
There's a curfew violation case from Bensenville in 1990.
There's a telephone harassment case from Mount Prospect in 2003.
There's a telephone harassment case from Mount Prospect in 2005.
The first case had a $100 fine.
The second case had no fine.
In the third case, no fine was ultimately paid.
These cases weren't in the "fifth district".
I haven't been arrested since 2005. I have been detained. I have been investigated.
I am a minor witness in a major case. I can't and won't speak about it until it is concluded, if ever.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Ok we now have made the second case the Bensenville one. Then there were two more out in the fifth district. One felony and one minor one. Arrest numbers three and four. What are the details of the first arrest and do I need more hand to count them all? Or in other words, are there more since the last felony?
If you say that 30 days in the county jail at 26th and Cal. and 24 months mental health probation isn't a fine, That's your opinion. I guess the probation visits were free too. No fees involved. I would have to believe that this isn't quite correct though.
While we're at it, the difference between 4000 and 5000 bail isn't really that much. More of interest is that your own mother had to post it.
In the third case, no fine was ultimately paid- MD Foulks
Again, thirty in the lock up and 24 months under parole/probation aren't a fine according to Mike. The 24 months didn't help......
It seems that you want to equate telephone harassment with "terrorism" and a curfew violation with "moral turpitude".
One with a bad record wants to lead all. Where, right into ajoining cells at 26th& Cal.
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
To be clear, please put quotes around my statements.
Where did you get the idea that I "want to lead all"?
I certainly don't want to lead cabdrivers into "adjoining cells at 26th and California".
How have I been doing that?
How could such an absurdity occur?
Would you care to reveal your identity so that we can investigate your record?
What are you hiding? If nothing, then why are you hiding?
You think that telephone harassment is "terrorism" and that a curfew violation is "moral turpitude"?
You think that I want to "lead all cabdrivers" into "adjoining cells at (the jail)"?
You think that I have a "bad record"?
Quit being so silly. You are only embarrassing yourself.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems that you want to equate telephone harassment with "terrorism" and a curfew violation with "moral turpitude".
One with a bad record wants to lead all. Where, right into ajoining cells at 26th& Cal.
A guy with a felony and a few minor charges has a great record? No a felony record is a bad one Mike. I never said one word about your morals. You have me confused with others. I do think your record is bad. The felony was a repeat offense for those that don't know. Or in other words the courts slapped you the first time and you still didn't get the message. Then they sent you to the hole to teach you a lesson the second time.
As president of the CCO you want to be a leader. I am pointing out that the best leading you have done in the last few years is to county jail and for mental health probation. At least it appears that you have completed your sentence.
THIS IS ALSO POSTED ABOVE BECAUSE FOULKS POSTED HIS RESPONSE IN TWO SEPARATE PLACES.
You wrote: "Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks?"
I never "raised the topic of my (criminal) record" in the first place.
YOU SURE RAISED THE TOPIC IN YOUR ATTACK POST OF AUGUST 2. TRY RE-READING IT.
You wrote: "We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days..."
If my "(criminal) record" wasn't a "real issue" in the first place, why did you discuss it then?
IT WAS ONLY DISCUSSED TO THE EXTENT YOU RAISED IT AGAIN.
You wrote: "...when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings..."
How did I "attack" anyone with this post?
YOU DID. RE-READ IT. YOU TOOK THE OCCASION TO ATTACK YI TANG, WOLF WEISS AND ME. YOU WERE A LITTLE LESS VIRULENT THAN USUAL, BUT IT WAS AN ATTACK JUST THE SAME. ANYONE READING IT WOULD TAKE IT AS AN ATTACK.
You wrote: "...trying to make excuses for your felony background."
Telling the truth about it is considered "making excuses"? That's a strange choice of words, Mr. Nathan. You wrote: "Nobody cared anymore." Then why was it still being discussed? Why are you still discussing it now?
ONLY BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. HAD YOU LEFT IT ALONE AND STUCK TO ISSUES OF INTEREST TO CABDRIVERS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOTHERED THE FURTHER WITH YOUR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN ON FELONY CHARGES. IT WAS GETTING BORING UNTIL YOU DECIDED TO MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT IT.
You wrote: "Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record." So, you admit that you really don't have a complete understanding of this case. This is the basis for your speculative and misleading "conclusions".
ANY WANT OF UNDERSTANDING IS THE RESULT OF SOMEONE HAVING LIFTED SEVERAL PAGES OUT OF THE RECORD. WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE THE MOTIVE TO HIDE THE TRUTH? IS IT THE GUY WHO SAYS HE WON'T TELL ALL OF THE FACTS? YOU, MAYBE?
You wrote: "You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now?"
I never plead guilty to "felony charges". I never denied entering a "guilty plea". You are misreading and mistating the facts. This is because you aren't very careful.
HUH? THE CHARGE BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN TO WHICH YOU ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA WAS A FELONY. YOU CAN'T LIE YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT. DON'T GO DOUBLE-SPEAKING. THE ONLY GUY MISTATING FACTS HERE IS YOU, AND ANY CABDRIVER - EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
Now you raise the issue of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? You wrote: "I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude..." Mr. Nathan, that was a case of a curfew violation, a misdemeanor.
GOOD - I'M GLAD TO HEAR A RATIONAL EXPLANATION. IT APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT OR SOME SUCH DOCUMENT.
Is telephone harassment "terrorism", Mr. Nathan?
NOT IN MY OPINION. IT CAN BE A FELONY, HOWEVER.
Is a curfew violation "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
NO.
In this first case, the penalty was simply NO FINE.
WHAT FIRST CASE? THE FIRST CASE OF TELEPHONE HARASSMENT? ONE WOULDN'T EXPECT A FINE IN SUCH A CASE.
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE.
WHAT SECOND CASE? WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A $100 FINE FOR A FELONY? SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK. YOU GOT TWO YEARS OF FELONY PROBATION FOLLOWING YOUR GUILTY PLEA ALONG WITH 30 DAYS IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT A $100 FINE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO MULTIPLE CURFEW VIOLATIONS? DID YOU COMMIT CURFEW VIOLATIONS WHEN YOU WERE 20 YEARS OLD IN BENSENVILLE? WHO CARES ABOUT SUCH THINGS? CERTAINLY I DON'T.
Mr. Nathan, there are many more "unanswered questions" about you. I won't equate your "importance in the cabdriver community" with mine. Are you going to answer questions about yourself, Mr. Nathan?
YOUR QUESTION PRESUMES YOU AS A LOW-LIFE CONVICTED FELON HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND INFORMATION FROM ME AS A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION. I DON'T OWE YOU AS A CONVICTED FELON THE TIME OF DAY MUCH LESS DO I OWE YOU ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MYSELF.
You wrote: "After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest."
Thank you for acknowledging that.
RIGHT-OH, BUD.
You wrote: "I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema..."
Who said that you were? What DO you see yourself as?
A CHAMPION OF JUSTICE FOR CABDRIVERS IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA. FRANKLY, I SEE YOU AS HAVING THE SAME GOAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU HAVE A SMUDGED PERSONAL BACKGROUND, AND YOU STRIKE ME AS BEING AN ULTRA RIGHT-WINGER.
You wrote: "Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it."
What are you referring to?
DOES THIS TAKE ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? IT MEANS YOU OUGHT TO STOP WITH THE ATTACKS. YOU STOP ATTACKING OTHERS, AND YOU MIGHT FIND OTHERS WILLING TO STOP ATTACKING YOU IN KIND.
You wrote: "And it's high time you stop casting stones."
Again, what are you referring to?
READ - YOU ARE A BRIGHT MAN, OR SO YOU SAY.
You wrote: "Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry..."
Can you name them?
WE BOTH KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I'M ONE OF THEM. I'VE TRIED TO SHAKE HANDS WITH YOU IN THE PAST ONLY TO HAVE YOU TRY TO BITE MY HEAD OFF.
You wrote: "...whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not..."
Who are the ones who aren't "current Chicago cabdrivers"?
RHETORICAL QUESTION.
You wrote: "whether they are from competing organizations or not."
So, other organizations consider themselves "competition", but I should "shake their hand"?
COME ON, FOULKS. STOP PICKING BONES FOR A CHANGE.
No wonder they haven't "reached out to me" as I have to them!
TRY COMING TO THE UTCC MEETING ON AUGUST 23. IT'S OPEN TO YOU TOO. I'M NOT A "MEMBER". JUST AN ALLY.
COME SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IT'S ABOUT. LAY DOWN THE SWORD.
What organizations are you referring to?
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
You wrote: "WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues."
I am wide awake, Mr. Nathan. What are the issues, in your opinion?
READ THE UTCC VOICE AND TEH CHICAGO DISPATCHER AND YOU'LL GET A PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. I DON'T NEED TO TAKE HOURS SPELLING IT OUT.
Mr. Nathan,
Why must you post the same thing in two separate places?
You should be responding to the new post I made above due to your posting the same thing in two separate places.
That is where this discussion should continue for the sake of clarity.
Are you trying to deliberately confuse the discussion?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
THIS IS ALSO POSTED ABOVE BECAUSE FOULKS POSTED HIS RESPONSE IN TWO SEPARATE PLACES.
You wrote: "Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks?"
I never "raised the topic of my (criminal) record" in the first place.
YOU SURE RAISED THE TOPIC IN YOUR ATTACK POST OF AUGUST 2. TRY RE-READING IT.
You wrote: "We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days..."
If my "(criminal) record" wasn't a "real issue" in the first place, why did you discuss it then?
IT WAS ONLY DISCUSSED TO THE EXTENT YOU RAISED IT AGAIN.
You wrote: "...when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings..."
How did I "attack" anyone with this post?
YOU DID. RE-READ IT. YOU TOOK THE OCCASION TO ATTACK YI TANG, WOLF WEISS AND ME. YOU WERE A LITTLE LESS VIRULENT THAN USUAL, BUT IT WAS AN ATTACK JUST THE SAME. ANYONE READING IT WOULD TAKE IT AS AN ATTACK.
You wrote: "...trying to make excuses for your felony background."
Telling the truth about it is considered "making excuses"? That's a strange choice of words, Mr. Nathan. You wrote: "Nobody cared anymore." Then why was it still being discussed? Why are you still discussing it now?
ONLY BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. HAD YOU LEFT IT ALONE AND STUCK TO ISSUES OF INTEREST TO CABDRIVERS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOTHERED THE FURTHER WITH YOUR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN ON FELONY CHARGES. IT WAS GETTING BORING UNTIL YOU DECIDED TO MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT IT.
You wrote: "Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record." So, you admit that you really don't have a complete understanding of this case. This is the basis for your speculative and misleading "conclusions".
ANY WANT OF UNDERSTANDING IS THE RESULT OF SOMEONE HAVING LIFTED SEVERAL PAGES OUT OF THE RECORD. WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE THE MOTIVE TO HIDE THE TRUTH? IS IT THE GUY WHO SAYS HE WON'T TELL ALL OF THE FACTS? YOU, MAYBE?
You wrote: "You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now?"
I never plead guilty to "felony charges". I never denied entering a "guilty plea". You are misreading and mistating the facts. This is because you aren't very careful.
HUH? THE CHARGE BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN TO WHICH YOU ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA WAS A FELONY. YOU CAN'T LIE YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT. DON'T GO DOUBLE-SPEAKING. THE ONLY GUY MISTATING FACTS HERE IS YOU, AND ANY CABDRIVER - EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
Now you raise the issue of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? You wrote: "I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude..." Mr. Nathan, that was a case of a curfew violation, a misdemeanor.
GOOD - I'M GLAD TO HEAR A RATIONAL EXPLANATION. IT APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT OR SOME SUCH DOCUMENT.
Is telephone harassment "terrorism", Mr. Nathan?
NOT IN MY OPINION. IT CAN BE A FELONY, HOWEVER.
Is a curfew violation "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
NO.
In this first case, the penalty was simply NO FINE.
WHAT FIRST CASE? THE FIRST CASE OF TELEPHONE HARASSMENT? ONE WOULDN'T EXPECT A FINE IN SUCH A CASE.
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE.
WHAT SECOND CASE? WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A $100 FINE FOR A FELONY? SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK. YOU GOT TWO YEARS OF FELONY PROBATION FOLLOWING YOUR GUILTY PLEA ALONG WITH 30 DAYS IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT A $100 FINE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO MULTIPLE CURFEW VIOLATIONS? DID YOU COMMIT CURFEW VIOLATIONS WHEN YOU WERE 20 YEARS OLD IN BENSENVILLE? WHO CARES ABOUT SUCH THINGS? CERTAINLY I DON'T.
Mr. Nathan, there are many more "unanswered questions" about you. I won't equate your "importance in the cabdriver community" with mine. Are you going to answer questions about yourself, Mr. Nathan?
YOUR QUESTION PRESUMES YOU AS A LOW-LIFE CONVICTED FELON HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND INFORMATION FROM ME AS A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION. I DON'T OWE YOU AS A CONVICTED FELON THE TIME OF DAY MUCH LESS DO I OWE YOU ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MYSELF.
You wrote: "After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest."
Thank you for acknowledging that.
RIGHT-OH, BUD.
You wrote: "I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema..."
Who said that you were? What DO you see yourself as?
A CHAMPION OF JUSTICE FOR CABDRIVERS IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA. FRANKLY, I SEE YOU AS HAVING THE SAME GOAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU HAVE A SMUDGED PERSONAL BACKGROUND, AND YOU STRIKE ME AS BEING AN ULTRA RIGHT-WINGER.
You wrote: "Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it."
What are you referring to?
DOES THIS TAKE ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? IT MEANS YOU OUGHT TO STOP WITH THE ATTACKS. YOU STOP ATTACKING OTHERS, AND YOU MIGHT FIND OTHERS WILLING TO STOP ATTACKING YOU IN KIND.
You wrote: "And it's high time you stop casting stones."
Again, what are you referring to?
READ - YOU ARE A BRIGHT MAN, OR SO YOU SAY.
You wrote: "Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry..."
Can you name them?
WE BOTH KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I'M ONE OF THEM. I'VE TRIED TO SHAKE HANDS WITH YOU IN THE PAST ONLY TO HAVE YOU TRY TO BITE MY HEAD OFF.
You wrote: "...whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not..."
Who are the ones who aren't "current Chicago cabdrivers"?
RHETORICAL QUESTION.
You wrote: "whether they are from competing organizations or not."
So, other organizations consider themselves "competition", but I should "shake their hand"?
COME ON, FOULKS. STOP PICKING BONES FOR A CHANGE.
No wonder they haven't "reached out to me" as I have to them!
TRY COMING TO THE UTCC MEETING ON AUGUST 23. IT'S OPEN TO YOU TOO. I'M NOT A "MEMBER". JUST AN ALLY.
COME SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IT'S ABOUT. LAY DOWN THE SWORD.
What organizations are you referring to?
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
You wrote: "WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues."
I am wide awake, Mr. Nathan. What are the issues, in your opinion?
READ THE UTCC VOICE AND TEH CHICAGO DISPATCHER AND YOU'LL GET A PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. I DON'T NEED TO TAKE HOURS SPELLING IT OUT.
I am not posting in separate places. Don't tell me where to post, son. It is not my interntion to confuse anything. I am terminating this thread.
EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
What crowd? There isn't one. There aren't any verifiable members of the CCO other than Mr. Foulks.
One other thing, if you were to ask the family that was the on the other end of the phone with Foulks when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism. It might not have fit the legal definition to get a verdict, but the threats and extortion were real. This guy is a real loose cannon and has no business with our kind of folk. No pun intended.
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
You claim there isn't a "CCO 'CROWD'". Mr. Nathan says there is.
One of you must be mistaken. Which is it?
You say there aren't any "verifiable members" of the CCO other than (me).
There are almost 100 Chicago cabdrivers who voted in the elections of the CCO in the last year. I have copies of their chauffeur's licenses, drivers licenses, leases or hard cards, and other important information on their registrations and ballots.
In fact, CCO members have attended meetings of other groups. Mr. Nathan (wrongly) refers to them as my "henchmen".
You claim that if one were to ask the "family that was on the other end of the phone with (me) when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism".
How did you determine this?
Did you speak with them?
What "threats" were made?
What "threats and extortion were real"?
How am I "loose cannon"?
Who is "your kind of folk"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
What crowd? There isn't one. There aren't any verifiable members of the CCO other than Mr. Foulks.
One other thing, if you were to ask the family that was the on the other end of the phone with Foulks when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism. It might not have fit the legal definition to get a verdict, but the threats and extortion were real. This guy is a real loose cannon and has no business with our kind of folk. No pun intended.
Mike, I'm going to take you up on this if it's possible. I am going to call the guy in Mt. Prospect or where ever he is now IF I can find him and make a complete report back here within the next seven days. Since he had you sent up the river for a felony I am sure the conservation is going to be full of information.
You asked for it, you got it. This will clear the air. I have this mans name. Perhaps he should speak to Norma Reyes. I am going to suggest it if he says what I believe he will after reading your file/record.
Peter Enger says the Ghanian drivers are the only other group he has been able to identify that has more than a handful of members. See his posts of say 10 days ago for this quote.
George I will not post allegations, just what the victim of the felony crime said to me word for word. Do you want to publish this story in lieu of posting it here? I will supply you with my sources for verification before posting if you wish.
Mike, Please confirm so we can move forward in clearing you here, *am** H**&r School St. 847-*59-54** Does this info appear to be correct? Do you think he might have an unlisted number due to your felony? Can you provide me a good number to reach your victim? Lets work to get the real info, after all it will clear you, right?
Mikey, Why are you standing in the way of truth?Perhaps Ho**r can "clear" you and restore your name.
