So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
I have re-read my "attack post of August 2" as you suggested.
You call this an "attack post". I ask you, why? Be specific.
Mr. Nathan, YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF MY CRIMINAL RECORD, NOT ME.
YOU DISTORTED IT AS YOU DISCUSSED IT. WHY?
Why would you characterize my correction of the distortions as "making excuses"?
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific.
You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan. Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me?
You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
What "facts am I mistating"?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case. What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism" and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST "MORAL TURPITUDE", Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP, Mr. Nathan?
Now we see the true Donald Nathan:
A man who digs dirt and throws mud on an elected president of a democratic cabdriver organization.
A man who mischaracterizes a question about whether or not he will answer questions as a "right to demand information by a low-life convicted felon.(CAPS OMITTED.)"
A man who sees himself as a "champion of justice for cabdrivers in the Chicago METRO AREA. (CAPS OMITTED, except for emphasis.)"
A man who doesn't understand that I have little or no interest in any cabdrivers other than those licensed by the City of Chicago, despite my numerous attempts to explain that.
A man who sees me as an "ultra-right winger (CAPS OMITTED)", despite my previous employment by, and publicly-elected position in, the Democratic Party.
A man who claims I "attack" him, but can't specify how.
A man who can't name a single individual or organization I should be "shaking hands with" after claiming I am "throwing stones" at them.
A man who is trying to invite me to a meeting of an organization of which he is not a member.
A man who wants me to "lay down the sword", whatever that means.
A man who can't mention a single issue after complaining that the criminal record he raised and distorted was distracting from a discussion of the issues.
A man who claims it would take "hours" to do so after posting the lengthiest comments lately about my criminal record, which he raised and distorted, and then objected to my correcting his mischaracterizations.
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
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.
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS IT'S A GAME.
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
IT HELPS THOSE WHO THINK YOU ARE SOMEONE TO RESPECT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT SOMEONE TO RESPECT.
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific. You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I CALLED IT AN ATTACK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WEISS, TANG OR ME IS AN ATTACK AT THIS POINT IF IT IS IN THE THIRD PERSON AND IT IS ON THIS FORUM.
ANYONE OF COMMON SENSIBILITY WOULD UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AS SNIPES. WEISS HAS BEEN BANNED BY GEORGE LUTFALLAH AND CANNOT RESPOND. TANG CHOOSES NOT TO RESPOND. I DON'T TAKE YOUR SNIPES LAYING DOWN. TAKE A VERBAL POKE AT ME, AND I HIT BACK WITH THE TRUTH. AND THE TRUTH HURTS ANY FELON.
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
YOU PRESUME YOUR FELONY CONVICTION WAS WRONGFUL. I DON'T. AND JUDGE TOBIN THOUGHT IT WASN'T WRONGFUL EITHER. SHE'S NO FOOL. MOST CABDRIVERS AREN'T FOOLS EITHER.
IS THERE AN APPEAL PENDING FROM JUDGE TOBIN'S DENIAL OF YOUR MOTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR GUILTY PLEA TO THE FELONY CHARGE? WHAT'S THE APPEAL NUMBER IF ONE IS PENDING?
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan.
VICTIM? AREN'T YOU PRESUMING YOU WERE BEING VICTIMIZED? FROM WHERE I SIT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOYER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE THE VICTIMS, AND YOU ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO HAVING HARASSED THEM ON THE TELEPHONE. IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU PULLED ONE OF THOSE SHOTS.
Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
MAYBE I DID. MAYBE I LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE THE SMELL OF A SKUNK.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
NOT AT ALL. I DO KNOW THAT THE RECORD HAS SEVERAL PAGES MISSING.
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEEN HIDDEN, BUT YOU'VE EVEN SAID THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO REVEAL. I'M NOT IMAGINING.
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me? You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
ON THE ATTACK AGAIN, FOULKS? NOT A SMART THING FOR A FELON TO BE ON THE ATTACK.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHERE YOU'VE LIED, BUT FELONS TYPICALLY DO LIE. THAT'S WHY THEIR FELONY BACKGROUNDS ARE RELEVANT IN COURT. THAT'S WHY THE FACT OF THEIR FELONY HISTORY IS BROUGHT OUT TO ATTACK THEIR CREDIBILITY.
NOBODY BELIEVES A CONVICTED FELON IF HE'S SMART.
What "facts am I mistating"?
WHO KNOWS? WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE STATING TRULY?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case.
I'M SURE THERE WASN'T. BUT THERE WAS IN THE FELONY CASE, I'M SURE. THAT'S WERE THE FACT OF THE 1990 CASE OR CASES CAME UP.
What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'M CAREFUL ENOUGH.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism"
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. IT WASN'T AN "ADMISSION" TO SAY IT WASN'T, FOOL.
and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
AGAIN, I NEVER SAID IT WAS.
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR 1990 CHARGES INVOLVED A CURFEW VIOLATION UNTIL YOU SAID SO - I'M STILL NOT REALLY SURE OF IT.
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
I HAVE A DOCUMENT, BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A CURFEW VIOLATION. IT REFERS TO AN ARREST IN BENSENVILLE IN 1990 AND NOTHING MORE.
Why did you suggest "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE AND FIGURED YOU MIGHT EXPLAIN IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
IT'S NEITHER. THAT'S LIKE ASKING ME WHETHER I BEAT MY WIFE OR KICK HER. I DO NEITHER.
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
Why did you bring it up, Mr. Nathan?
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE YET OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES IN YOUR BACKGROUND THAT YOU HAD BEEN HIDING FROM LONG AGO
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID?
Mr. Nathan,
This is no game, at least, not to me and my fellow cabdrivers.
You said that you would "play along - a little".
We would prefer that you go "play" somewhere else. This is our livelihood.
You want "those who think (I am) someone to respect understand that (I am) not some one to respect."
That statement helps everyone understand you, Mr. Nathan.
Don't you consider calling me names like "Felon Foulks" an "attack"?
You claim that "anything (I) have to say about Wolfgang Weiss, Yi Tang, or (you) is an attack at this point if it is in the third person and it is on this forum."
That is a ridiculous statement, sir.
First, I have never used the "third person". Please show where I have. If you meant "used an alias", I haven't done that either. Wolf Weiss has. So has Yi Tang. So have many others whose true identities aren't that hard to figure out.
Second, where a statement is posted doesn't qualify it as an "attack" or not. It's the content that's important.
Third, and most obvious, is that "anything" isn't an "attack". Again, it's the content that's important.
It seems like your purpose is to try to get me to simply shut up. You won't succeed at that, Mr. Nathan.
You have the appearance of a blackmailer, Mr. Nathan.
You dug some dirt on me. Rather than plainly stating it for all to see and discuss, you hinted about it when Wolf Weiss was temporarily banned from this forum for misconduct.
When it became clear that I wouldn't be stopped from making comments you disagreed with, you started throwing mud by revealing this dirt in an incomplete and misleading manner.
When I choose to defend myself by stating the truth about the matter, you objected, calling it "making excuses".
I fail to see how pointing out your (and others') lies, misinformation, and speculative "conclusions" about my criminal record can be construed as "making excuses".
You wrote: "The truth hurts any felon."
You are wrong, Mr. Nathan. The truth doesn't hurt a wrongfully-convicted felon such as myself.
I am not "presuming my felony conviction was wrongful", Mr. Nathan.
Of course Judge Tobin doesn't think my conviction was wrongful. She's the judge who wrongfully-convicted me.
She's one judge who ignored the law and proper procedure. She's not the only judge or other official to do so to my detriment.
If an appeal is yet to be a matter of public record, then I will not discuss it until it is, if ever. A good lawyer would understand how and why this might be.
You are not a good lawyer, Mr. Nathan.
I am also not "presuming (I) was being victimized", Mr. Nathan.
I only entered one plea of guilt to telephone harassment. That plea was improperly made.
Your suggestion that I ever did so more than once either reflects you deliberately mistating the facts or your incomplete reading of the public record. Which is it?
I am no "skunk", Mr. Nathan, nor do I "smell".
You admit that "several pages are missing" from the record.
I never said that "there are lots of things that (I) don't want to reveal".
This is a classic problem you have, Mr. Nathan. You claim that others say things they haven't said.
You re-state things and add an element which never existed until you conveniently decide to insert it.
You seem to get upset when myself or others notice it and point it out.
This is what makes you "unbelievable and ridiculous". I would hardly call that an "attack", sir.
I am glad that you admit that you "don't know when or where (I've lied)". Perhaps you could refrain from calling me a liar until you do.
I invite anyone to point out where and when I lied.
Mr. Nathan, you suddenly don't seem so sure of your suggestive condemnation.
You are caught in a lie:
You are the one who brought up the 1990 Bensenville case, not me. You suggested "moral turpitude" and brought up the fact that "lots of cabdrivers in the 'community' have children".
You say you saw a "pre-sentence report or other such document" which confirmed my explanation that this was for a curfew violation.
You then are asked if a curfew violation is moral turpitude and you rightly say "no".
You then are asked why you suggested "moral turpitude" if you had a document which confirmed that the case was about a curfew violation.
You now claim that the document you have says nothing about a curfew violation.
You are lying, Mr. Nathan.
You have said that you have a document which confirms that the 1990 case is about a curfew violation.
You have also said that you don't have the document when asked why you suggested "moral turpitude".
What's the truth of the matter, Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you do both: you deliberately confuse the facts AND you are incompetent.
I have no idea whether or not you "beat you wife". I wouldn't suggest that you did in the absence of evidence of such.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that your wife beats you.
Here are the questions you refused to answer, Mr. Nathan and your response:
(MIKE FOULKS)"""Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you."""
"""Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?"""
"""What's the nature of the "competition"?"""
"""By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately."""
(DONALD NATHAN)"""YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA."""
Mr. Nathan, asking you to admit that you are part of an organization which you consider to be a "competitor" is hardly an "attack".
You refusal to answer these question reveals your nature and purpose, sir.
You go on stating:
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
Mr. Nathan, I don't know who the "we" you are refrring to are. Could you explain who the "we" are?
Where is it exactly that "you" think "(I am) going"?
Who have I "constantly attacked" and how, exactly? Can you be specific?
Could you be sure to distinguish between the "Chicago" and "National"?
How has my "effectiveness" been diminished, exactly?
For the record, I couldn't care less about being considered a "buffoon" nationally in the industry.
There's no point in arguing that you are wrong about this. Any national image of me has been tarnished by you and others here in Chicago who seem to find some comfort in misleading national figures as to what's really go on in Chicago.
For example, I am not "widely despised locally as a common criminal by people of good will".
No matter how much you say it or wish that to be true, Mr. Nathan.
Care to answer the questions, Mr. Nathan?
Or are you going to make an ad hominem attacks as usual?
You are essentially useless to me and Chicago cabdrivers, Mr. Nathan. Find another hobby.
This is no game, Mr. Nathan. Quit playing games with the truth.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS IT'S A GAME.
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
IT HELPS THOSE WHO THINK YOU ARE SOMEONE TO RESPECT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT SOMEONE TO RESPECT.
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific. You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I CALLED IT AN ATTACK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WEISS, TANG OR ME IS AN ATTACK AT THIS POINT IF IT IS IN THE THIRD PERSON AND IT IS ON THIS FORUM.
ANYONE OF COMMON SENSIBILITY WOULD UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AS SNIPES. WEISS HAS BEEN BANNED BY GEORGE LUTFALLAH AND CANNOT RESPOND. TANG CHOOSES NOT TO RESPOND. I DON'T TAKE YOUR SNIPES LAYING DOWN. TAKE A VERBAL POKE AT ME, AND I HIT BACK WITH THE TRUTH. AND THE TRUTH HURTS ANY FELON.
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
YOU PRESUME YOUR FELONY CONVICTION WAS WRONGFUL. I DON'T. AND JUDGE TOBIN THOUGHT IT WASN'T WRONGFUL EITHER. SHE'S NO FOOL. MOST CABDRIVERS AREN'T FOOLS EITHER.
IS THERE AN APPEAL PENDING FROM JUDGE TOBIN'S DENIAL OF YOUR MOTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR GUILTY PLEA TO THE FELONY CHARGE? WHAT'S THE APPEAL NUMBER IF ONE IS PENDING?
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan.
VICTIM? AREN'T YOU PRESUMING YOU WERE BEING VICTIMIZED? FROM WHERE I SIT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOYER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE THE VICTIMS, AND YOU ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO HAVING HARASSED THEM ON THE TELEPHONE. IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU PULLED ONE OF THOSE SHOTS.
Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
MAYBE I DID. MAYBE I LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE THE SMELL OF A SKUNK.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
NOT AT ALL. I DO KNOW THAT THE RECORD HAS SEVERAL PAGES MISSING.
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEEN HIDDEN, BUT YOU'VE EVEN SAID THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO REVEAL. I'M NOT IMAGINING.
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me? You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
ON THE ATTACK AGAIN, FOULKS? NOT A SMART THING FOR A FELON TO BE ON THE ATTACK.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHERE YOU'VE LIED, BUT FELONS TYPICALLY DO LIE. THAT'S WHY THEIR FELONY BACKGROUNDS ARE RELEVANT IN COURT. THAT'S WHY THE FACT OF THEIR FELONY HISTORY IS BROUGHT OUT TO ATTACK THEIR CREDIBILITY.
NOBODY BELIEVES A CONVICTED FELON IF HE'S SMART.
What "facts am I mistating"?
WHO KNOWS? WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE STATING TRULY?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case.
I'M SURE THERE WASN'T. BUT THERE WAS IN THE FELONY CASE, I'M SURE. THAT'S WERE THE FACT OF THE 1990 CASE OR CASES CAME UP.
What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'M CAREFUL ENOUGH.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism"
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. IT WASN'T AN "ADMISSION" TO SAY IT WASN'T, FOOL.
and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
AGAIN, I NEVER SAID IT WAS.
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR 1990 CHARGES INVOLVED A CURFEW VIOLATION UNTIL YOU SAID SO - I'M STILL NOT REALLY SURE OF IT.
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
I HAVE A DOCUMENT, BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A CURFEW VIOLATION. IT REFERS TO AN ARREST IN BENSENVILLE IN 1990 AND NOTHING MORE.
Why did you suggest "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE AND FIGURED YOU MIGHT EXPLAIN IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
IT'S NEITHER. THAT'S LIKE ASKING ME WHETHER I BEAT MY WIFE OR KICK HER. I DO NEITHER.
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
Why did you bring it up, Mr. Nathan?
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE YET OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES IN YOUR BACKGROUND THAT YOU HAD BEEN HIDING FROM LONG AGO
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID?
Let's start from here Mr. D. Foulks:
I speak to CCO members nearly every day. I do something as the "President of the CCO" nearly every week.
I haven't been "hiding" anything for "over a month".
The CCO election was on May 21. Today is June 11. That is barely three weeks. Are you bad at math?
Yes, I still have the ballots from the first election...52, I think.
Yes, I know who they are.
I haven't cross-referenced the voters from the two elections yet. I have noticed several "repeat voters", despite my only direct contact with them occurring late in the day of the election. This was deliberate.
It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.
-Mike Foulks
Any more Rarely-seen E-MAILS from DONALD NATHAN, Real eye-openers?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
This is no game, at least, not to me and my fellow cabdrivers.
You said that you would "play along - a little".
We would prefer that you go "play" somewhere else. This is our livelihood.
You want "those who think (I am) someone to respect understand that (I am) not some one to respect."
That statement helps everyone understand you, Mr. Nathan.
Don't you consider calling me names like "Felon Foulks" an "attack"?
You claim that "anything (I) have to say about Wolfgang Weiss, Yi Tang, or (you) is an attack at this point if it is in the third person and it is on this forum."
That is a ridiculous statement, sir.
First, I have never used the "third person". Please show where I have. If you meant "used an alias", I haven't done that either. Wolf Weiss has. So has Yi Tang. So have many others whose true identities aren't that hard to figure out.
Second, where a statement is posted doesn't qualify it as an "attack" or not. It's the content that's important.
Third, and most obvious, is that "anything" isn't an "attack". Again, it's the content that's important.
It seems like your purpose is to try to get me to simply shut up. You won't succeed at that, Mr. Nathan.
You have the appearance of a blackmailer, Mr. Nathan.
You dug some dirt on me. Rather than plainly stating it for all to see and discuss, you hinted about it when Wolf Weiss was temporarily banned from this forum for misconduct.
When it became clear that I wouldn't be stopped from making comments you disagreed with, you started throwing mud by revealing this dirt in an incomplete and misleading manner.
When I choose to defend myself by stating the truth about the matter, you objected, calling it "making excuses".
I fail to see how pointing out your (and others') lies, misinformation, and speculative "conclusions" about my criminal record can be construed as "making excuses".
You wrote: "The truth hurts any felon."
You are wrong, Mr. Nathan. The truth doesn't hurt a wrongfully-convicted felon such as myself.
I am not "presuming my felony conviction was wrongful", Mr. Nathan.
Of course Judge Tobin doesn't think my conviction was wrongful. She's the judge who wrongfully-convicted me.
She's one judge who ignored the law and proper procedure. She's not the only judge or other official to do so to my detriment.
If an appeal is yet to be a matter of public record, then I will not discuss it until it is, if ever. A good lawyer would understand how and why this might be.
You are not a good lawyer, Mr. Nathan.
I am also not "presuming (I) was being victimized", Mr. Nathan.
I only entered one plea of guilt to telephone harassment. That plea was improperly made.
Your suggestion that I ever did so more than once either reflects you deliberately mistating the facts or your incomplete reading of the public record. Which is it?
I am no "skunk", Mr. Nathan, nor do I "smell".
You admit that "several pages are missing" from the record.
I never said that "there are lots of things that (I) don't want to reveal".
This is a classic problem you have, Mr. Nathan. You claim that others say things they haven't said.
You re-state things and add an element which never existed until you conveniently decide to insert it.
You seem to get upset when myself or others notice it and point it out.
This is what makes you "unbelievable and ridiculous". I would hardly call that an "attack", sir.
I am glad that you admit that you "don't know when or where (I've lied)". Perhaps you could refrain from calling me a liar until you do.
I invite anyone to point out where and when I lied.
Mr. Nathan, you suddenly don't seem so sure of your suggestive condemnation.
You are caught in a lie:
You are the one who brought up the 1990 Bensenville case, not me. You suggested "moral turpitude" and brought up the fact that "lots of cabdrivers in the 'community' have children".
You say you saw a "pre-sentence report or other such document" which confirmed my explanation that this was for a curfew violation.
You then are asked if a curfew violation is moral turpitude and you rightly say "no".
You then are asked why you suggested "moral turpitude" if you had a document which confirmed that the case was about a curfew violation.
You now claim that the document you have says nothing about a curfew violation.
You are lying, Mr. Nathan.
You have said that you have a document which confirms that the 1990 case is about a curfew violation.
You have also said that you don't have the document when asked why you suggested "moral turpitude".
What's the truth of the matter, Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you do both: you deliberately confuse the facts AND you are incompetent.
I have no idea whether or not you "beat you wife". I wouldn't suggest that you did in the absence of evidence of such.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that your wife beats you.
Here are the questions you refused to answer, Mr. Nathan and your response:
(MIKE FOULKS)"""Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you."""
"""Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?"""
"""What's the nature of the "competition"?"""
"""By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately."""
(DONALD NATHAN)"""YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA."""
Mr. Nathan, asking you to admit that you are part of an organization which you consider to be a "competitor" is hardly an "attack".
You refusal to answer these question reveals your nature and purpose, sir.
You go on stating:
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
Mr. Nathan, I don't know who the "we" you are refrring to are. Could you explain who the "we" are?
Where is it exactly that "you" think "(I am) going"?
Who have I "constantly attacked" and how, exactly? Can you be specific?
Could you be sure to distinguish between the "Chicago" and "National"?
How has my "effectiveness" been diminished, exactly?
For the record, I couldn't care less about being considered a "buffoon" nationally in the industry.
There's no point in arguing that you are wrong about this. Any national image of me has been tarnished by you and others here in Chicago who seem to find some comfort in misleading national figures as to what's really go on in Chicago.
For example, I am not "widely despised locally as a common criminal by people of good will".
No matter how much you say it or wish that to be true, Mr. Nathan.
Care to answer the questions, Mr. Nathan?
Or are you going to make an ad hominem attacks as usual?
You are essentially useless to me and Chicago cabdrivers, Mr. Nathan. Find another hobby.
This is no game, Mr. Nathan. Quit playing games with the truth.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS IT'S A GAME.
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
IT HELPS THOSE WHO THINK YOU ARE SOMEONE TO RESPECT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT SOMEONE TO RESPECT.
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific. You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I CALLED IT AN ATTACK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WEISS, TANG OR ME IS AN ATTACK AT THIS POINT IF IT IS IN THE THIRD PERSON AND IT IS ON THIS FORUM.
ANYONE OF COMMON SENSIBILITY WOULD UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AS SNIPES. WEISS HAS BEEN BANNED BY GEORGE LUTFALLAH AND CANNOT RESPOND. TANG CHOOSES NOT TO RESPOND. I DON'T TAKE YOUR SNIPES LAYING DOWN. TAKE A VERBAL POKE AT ME, AND I HIT BACK WITH THE TRUTH. AND THE TRUTH HURTS ANY FELON.
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
YOU PRESUME YOUR FELONY CONVICTION WAS WRONGFUL. I DON'T. AND JUDGE TOBIN THOUGHT IT WASN'T WRONGFUL EITHER. SHE'S NO FOOL. MOST CABDRIVERS AREN'T FOOLS EITHER.
IS THERE AN APPEAL PENDING FROM JUDGE TOBIN'S DENIAL OF YOUR MOTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR GUILTY PLEA TO THE FELONY CHARGE? WHAT'S THE APPEAL NUMBER IF ONE IS PENDING?
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan.
VICTIM? AREN'T YOU PRESUMING YOU WERE BEING VICTIMIZED? FROM WHERE I SIT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOYER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE THE VICTIMS, AND YOU ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO HAVING HARASSED THEM ON THE TELEPHONE. IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU PULLED ONE OF THOSE SHOTS.
Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
MAYBE I DID. MAYBE I LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE THE SMELL OF A SKUNK.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
NOT AT ALL. I DO KNOW THAT THE RECORD HAS SEVERAL PAGES MISSING.
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEEN HIDDEN, BUT YOU'VE EVEN SAID THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO REVEAL. I'M NOT IMAGINING.
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me? You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
ON THE ATTACK AGAIN, FOULKS? NOT A SMART THING FOR A FELON TO BE ON THE ATTACK.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHERE YOU'VE LIED, BUT FELONS TYPICALLY DO LIE. THAT'S WHY THEIR FELONY BACKGROUNDS ARE RELEVANT IN COURT. THAT'S WHY THE FACT OF THEIR FELONY HISTORY IS BROUGHT OUT TO ATTACK THEIR CREDIBILITY.
NOBODY BELIEVES A CONVICTED FELON IF HE'S SMART.
What "facts am I mistating"?
WHO KNOWS? WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE STATING TRULY?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case.
I'M SURE THERE WASN'T. BUT THERE WAS IN THE FELONY CASE, I'M SURE. THAT'S WERE THE FACT OF THE 1990 CASE OR CASES CAME UP.
What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'M CAREFUL ENOUGH.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism"
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. IT WASN'T AN "ADMISSION" TO SAY IT WASN'T, FOOL.
and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
AGAIN, I NEVER SAID IT WAS.
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR 1990 CHARGES INVOLVED A CURFEW VIOLATION UNTIL YOU SAID SO - I'M STILL NOT REALLY SURE OF IT.
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
I HAVE A DOCUMENT, BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A CURFEW VIOLATION. IT REFERS TO AN ARREST IN BENSENVILLE IN 1990 AND NOTHING MORE.
Why did you suggest "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE AND FIGURED YOU MIGHT EXPLAIN IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
IT'S NEITHER. THAT'S LIKE ASKING ME WHETHER I BEAT MY WIFE OR KICK HER. I DO NEITHER.
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
Why did you bring it up, Mr. Nathan?
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE YET OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES IN YOUR BACKGROUND THAT YOU HAD BEEN HIDING FROM LONG AGO
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID?
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
What is the point of posting this?
By the way, my name isn't "D. Foulks".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Let's start from here Mr. D. Foulks:
I speak to CCO members nearly every day. I do something as the "President of the CCO" nearly every week.
I haven't been "hiding" anything for "over a month".
The CCO election was on May 21. Today is June 11. That is barely three weeks. Are you bad at math?
Yes, I still have the ballots from the first election...52, I think.
Yes, I know who they are.
I haven't cross-referenced the voters from the two elections yet. I have noticed several "repeat voters", despite my only direct contact with them occurring late in the day of the election. This was deliberate.
It happened in JUNE, 2008, not July.
-Mike Foulks
Any more Rarely-seen E-MAILS from DONALD NATHAN, Real eye-openers?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
This is no game, at least, not to me and my fellow cabdrivers.
You said that you would "play along - a little".
We would prefer that you go "play" somewhere else. This is our livelihood.
You want "those who think (I am) someone to respect understand that (I am) not some one to respect."
That statement helps everyone understand you, Mr. Nathan.
Don't you consider calling me names like "Felon Foulks" an "attack"?
You claim that "anything (I) have to say about Wolfgang Weiss, Yi Tang, or (you) is an attack at this point if it is in the third person and it is on this forum."
That is a ridiculous statement, sir.
First, I have never used the "third person". Please show where I have. If you meant "used an alias", I haven't done that either. Wolf Weiss has. So has Yi Tang. So have many others whose true identities aren't that hard to figure out.
Second, where a statement is posted doesn't qualify it as an "attack" or not. It's the content that's important.
Third, and most obvious, is that "anything" isn't an "attack". Again, it's the content that's important.
It seems like your purpose is to try to get me to simply shut up. You won't succeed at that, Mr. Nathan.
You have the appearance of a blackmailer, Mr. Nathan.
You dug some dirt on me. Rather than plainly stating it for all to see and discuss, you hinted about it when Wolf Weiss was temporarily banned from this forum for misconduct.
When it became clear that I wouldn't be stopped from making comments you disagreed with, you started throwing mud by revealing this dirt in an incomplete and misleading manner.
When I choose to defend myself by stating the truth about the matter, you objected, calling it "making excuses".
I fail to see how pointing out your (and others') lies, misinformation, and speculative "conclusions" about my criminal record can be construed as "making excuses".
You wrote: "The truth hurts any felon."
You are wrong, Mr. Nathan. The truth doesn't hurt a wrongfully-convicted felon such as myself.
I am not "presuming my felony conviction was wrongful", Mr. Nathan.
Of course Judge Tobin doesn't think my conviction was wrongful. She's the judge who wrongfully-convicted me.
She's one judge who ignored the law and proper procedure. She's not the only judge or other official to do so to my detriment.
If an appeal is yet to be a matter of public record, then I will not discuss it until it is, if ever. A good lawyer would understand how and why this might be.
You are not a good lawyer, Mr. Nathan.
I am also not "presuming (I) was being victimized", Mr. Nathan.
I only entered one plea of guilt to telephone harassment. That plea was improperly made.
Your suggestion that I ever did so more than once either reflects you deliberately mistating the facts or your incomplete reading of the public record. Which is it?
I am no "skunk", Mr. Nathan, nor do I "smell".
You admit that "several pages are missing" from the record.
I never said that "there are lots of things that (I) don't want to reveal".
This is a classic problem you have, Mr. Nathan. You claim that others say things they haven't said.
You re-state things and add an element which never existed until you conveniently decide to insert it.
You seem to get upset when myself or others notice it and point it out.
This is what makes you "unbelievable and ridiculous". I would hardly call that an "attack", sir.
I am glad that you admit that you "don't know when or where (I've lied)". Perhaps you could refrain from calling me a liar until you do.
I invite anyone to point out where and when I lied.
Mr. Nathan, you suddenly don't seem so sure of your suggestive condemnation.
You are caught in a lie:
You are the one who brought up the 1990 Bensenville case, not me. You suggested "moral turpitude" and brought up the fact that "lots of cabdrivers in the 'community' have children".
You say you saw a "pre-sentence report or other such document" which confirmed my explanation that this was for a curfew violation.
You then are asked if a curfew violation is moral turpitude and you rightly say "no".
You then are asked why you suggested "moral turpitude" if you had a document which confirmed that the case was about a curfew violation.
You now claim that the document you have says nothing about a curfew violation.
You are lying, Mr. Nathan.
You have said that you have a document which confirms that the 1990 case is about a curfew violation.
You have also said that you don't have the document when asked why you suggested "moral turpitude".
What's the truth of the matter, Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you do both: you deliberately confuse the facts AND you are incompetent.
I have no idea whether or not you "beat you wife". I wouldn't suggest that you did in the absence of evidence of such.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that your wife beats you.
Here are the questions you refused to answer, Mr. Nathan and your response:
(MIKE FOULKS)"""Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you."""
"""Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?"""
"""What's the nature of the "competition"?"""
"""By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately."""
(DONALD NATHAN)"""YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA."""
Mr. Nathan, asking you to admit that you are part of an organization which you consider to be a "competitor" is hardly an "attack".
You refusal to answer these question reveals your nature and purpose, sir.
You go on stating:
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
Mr. Nathan, I don't know who the "we" you are refrring to are. Could you explain who the "we" are?
Where is it exactly that "you" think "(I am) going"?
Who have I "constantly attacked" and how, exactly? Can you be specific?
Could you be sure to distinguish between the "Chicago" and "National"?
How has my "effectiveness" been diminished, exactly?
For the record, I couldn't care less about being considered a "buffoon" nationally in the industry.
There's no point in arguing that you are wrong about this. Any national image of me has been tarnished by you and others here in Chicago who seem to find some comfort in misleading national figures as to what's really go on in Chicago.
For example, I am not "widely despised locally as a common criminal by people of good will".
No matter how much you say it or wish that to be true, Mr. Nathan.
Care to answer the questions, Mr. Nathan?
Or are you going to make an ad hominem attacks as usual?
You are essentially useless to me and Chicago cabdrivers, Mr. Nathan. Find another hobby.
This is no game, Mr. Nathan. Quit playing games with the truth.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS IT'S A GAME.
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
IT HELPS THOSE WHO THINK YOU ARE SOMEONE TO RESPECT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT SOMEONE TO RESPECT.
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific. You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I CALLED IT AN ATTACK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WEISS, TANG OR ME IS AN ATTACK AT THIS POINT IF IT IS IN THE THIRD PERSON AND IT IS ON THIS FORUM.
ANYONE OF COMMON SENSIBILITY WOULD UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AS SNIPES. WEISS HAS BEEN BANNED BY GEORGE LUTFALLAH AND CANNOT RESPOND. TANG CHOOSES NOT TO RESPOND. I DON'T TAKE YOUR SNIPES LAYING DOWN. TAKE A VERBAL POKE AT ME, AND I HIT BACK WITH THE TRUTH. AND THE TRUTH HURTS ANY FELON.
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
YOU PRESUME YOUR FELONY CONVICTION WAS WRONGFUL. I DON'T. AND JUDGE TOBIN THOUGHT IT WASN'T WRONGFUL EITHER. SHE'S NO FOOL. MOST CABDRIVERS AREN'T FOOLS EITHER.
IS THERE AN APPEAL PENDING FROM JUDGE TOBIN'S DENIAL OF YOUR MOTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR GUILTY PLEA TO THE FELONY CHARGE? WHAT'S THE APPEAL NUMBER IF ONE IS PENDING?
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan.
VICTIM? AREN'T YOU PRESUMING YOU WERE BEING VICTIMIZED? FROM WHERE I SIT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOYER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE THE VICTIMS, AND YOU ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO HAVING HARASSED THEM ON THE TELEPHONE. IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU PULLED ONE OF THOSE SHOTS.
Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
MAYBE I DID. MAYBE I LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE THE SMELL OF A SKUNK.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
NOT AT ALL. I DO KNOW THAT THE RECORD HAS SEVERAL PAGES MISSING.
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEEN HIDDEN, BUT YOU'VE EVEN SAID THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO REVEAL. I'M NOT IMAGINING.
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me? You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
ON THE ATTACK AGAIN, FOULKS? NOT A SMART THING FOR A FELON TO BE ON THE ATTACK.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHERE YOU'VE LIED, BUT FELONS TYPICALLY DO LIE. THAT'S WHY THEIR FELONY BACKGROUNDS ARE RELEVANT IN COURT. THAT'S WHY THE FACT OF THEIR FELONY HISTORY IS BROUGHT OUT TO ATTACK THEIR CREDIBILITY.
NOBODY BELIEVES A CONVICTED FELON IF HE'S SMART.
What "facts am I mistating"?
WHO KNOWS? WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE STATING TRULY?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case.
I'M SURE THERE WASN'T. BUT THERE WAS IN THE FELONY CASE, I'M SURE. THAT'S WERE THE FACT OF THE 1990 CASE OR CASES CAME UP.
What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'M CAREFUL ENOUGH.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism"
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. IT WASN'T AN "ADMISSION" TO SAY IT WASN'T, FOOL.
and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
AGAIN, I NEVER SAID IT WAS.
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR 1990 CHARGES INVOLVED A CURFEW VIOLATION UNTIL YOU SAID SO - I'M STILL NOT REALLY SURE OF IT.
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
I HAVE A DOCUMENT, BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A CURFEW VIOLATION. IT REFERS TO AN ARREST IN BENSENVILLE IN 1990 AND NOTHING MORE.
Why did you suggest "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE AND FIGURED YOU MIGHT EXPLAIN IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
IT'S NEITHER. THAT'S LIKE ASKING ME WHETHER I BEAT MY WIFE OR KICK HER. I DO NEITHER.
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
Why did you bring it up, Mr. Nathan?
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE YET OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES IN YOUR BACKGROUND THAT YOU HAD BEEN HIDING FROM LONG AGO
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
YOUR ATTACK MODE IS NOTED. IT IS HARDLY BECOMING. AND IT DOES NO GOOD FOR THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING. YOUR EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ALL WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS FOR CABDRIVERS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONALLY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BUFFOON NATIONALLY IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU ARE WIDELY DESPISED LOCALLY AS A COMMON CRIMINAL BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL.
WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID?
I don't see any hearing pending to overturn your "wrongful" convictions.
You were convicted, and you served the time. Anything else were left unsettled?
You were a good boy from 1990 to 2003, so what?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
I have re-read my "attack post of August 2" as you suggested.
You call this an "attack post". I ask you, why? Be specific.
Mr. Nathan, YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF MY CRIMINAL RECORD, NOT ME.
YOU DISTORTED IT AS YOU DISCUSSED IT. WHY?
Why would you characterize my correction of the distortions as "making excuses"?
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific.
You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan. Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me?
You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
What "facts am I mistating"?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case. What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism" and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST "MORAL TURPITUDE", Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP, Mr. Nathan?
Now we see the true Donald Nathan:
A man who digs dirt and throws mud on an elected president of a democratic cabdriver organization.
A man who mischaracterizes a question about whether or not he will answer questions as a "right to demand information by a low-life convicted felon.(CAPS OMITTED.)"
A man who sees himself as a "champion of justice for cabdrivers in the Chicago METRO AREA. (CAPS OMITTED, except for emphasis.)"
A man who doesn't understand that I have little or no interest in any cabdrivers other than those licensed by the City of Chicago, despite my numerous attempts to explain that.
A man who sees me as an "ultra-right winger (CAPS OMITTED)", despite my previous employment by, and publicly-elected position in, the Democratic Party.
A man who claims I "attack" him, but can't specify how.
A man who can't name a single individual or organization I should be "shaking hands with" after claiming I am "throwing stones" at them.
A man who is trying to invite me to a meeting of an organization of which he is not a member.
A man who wants me to "lay down the sword", whatever that means.
A man who can't mention a single issue after complaining that the criminal record he raised and distorted was distracting from a discussion of the issues.
A man who claims it would take "hours" to do so after posting the lengthiest comments lately about my criminal record, which he raised and distorted, and then objected to my correcting his mischaracterizations.
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
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.
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
I am a wongfully-convicted felon.
You remind me many times of the song which has the line:
"All eyes in jest at the man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Donald Nathan might have it on original vinyl. Perhaps he could let you borrow it and a "phonograph" or "hi-fi" to play the "record" on.
You see only what you want to see, "Clueless".
Or, only what you want others to see.
Yes, I was convicted and I served 15 days in Cook County Jail.
That didn't "settle" the matter, nor is it "unsettled".
I haven't been a "boy", good or otherwise, since the early 1980s.
What's your point?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I don't see any hearing pending to overturn your "wrongful" convictions.
You were convicted, and you served the time. Anything else were left unsettled?
You were a good boy from 1990 to 2003, so what?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
I have re-read my "attack post of August 2" as you suggested.
You call this an "attack post". I ask you, why? Be specific.
Mr. Nathan, YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF MY CRIMINAL RECORD, NOT ME.
YOU DISTORTED IT AS YOU DISCUSSED IT. WHY?
Why would you characterize my correction of the distortions as "making excuses"?
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific.
You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan. Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me?
You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
What "facts am I mistating"?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case. What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism" and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST "MORAL TURPITUDE", Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP, Mr. Nathan?
Now we see the true Donald Nathan:
A man who digs dirt and throws mud on an elected president of a democratic cabdriver organization.
A man who mischaracterizes a question about whether or not he will answer questions as a "right to demand information by a low-life convicted felon.(CAPS OMITTED.)"
A man who sees himself as a "champion of justice for cabdrivers in the Chicago METRO AREA. (CAPS OMITTED, except for emphasis.)"
A man who doesn't understand that I have little or no interest in any cabdrivers other than those licensed by the City of Chicago, despite my numerous attempts to explain that.
A man who sees me as an "ultra-right winger (CAPS OMITTED)", despite my previous employment by, and publicly-elected position in, the Democratic Party.
A man who claims I "attack" him, but can't specify how.
A man who can't name a single individual or organization I should be "shaking hands with" after claiming I am "throwing stones" at them.
A man who is trying to invite me to a meeting of an organization of which he is not a member.
A man who wants me to "lay down the sword", whatever that means.
A man who can't mention a single issue after complaining that the criminal record he raised and distorted was distracting from a discussion of the issues.
A man who claims it would take "hours" to do so after posting the lengthiest comments lately about my criminal record, which he raised and distorted, and then objected to my correcting his mischaracterizations.
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
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.
May be you could tell us the "true" and whole story, so we can all be sorry for you?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
I am a wongfully-convicted felon.
You remind me many times of the song which has the line:
"All eyes in jest at the man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Donald Nathan might have it on original vinyl. Perhaps he could let you borrow it and a "phonograph" or "hi-fi" to play the "record" on.
You see only what you want to see, "Clueless".
Or, only what you want others to see.
Yes, I was convicted and I served 15 days in Cook County Jail.
That didn't "settle" the matter, nor is it "unsettled".
I haven't been a "boy", good or otherwise, since the early 1980s.
What's your point?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I don't see any hearing pending to overturn your "wrongful" convictions.
You were convicted, and you served the time. Anything else were left unsettled?
You were a good boy from 1990 to 2003, so what?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
I have re-read my "attack post of August 2" as you suggested.
You call this an "attack post". I ask you, why? Be specific.
Mr. Nathan, YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF MY CRIMINAL RECORD, NOT ME.
YOU DISTORTED IT AS YOU DISCUSSED IT. WHY?
Why would you characterize my correction of the distortions as "making excuses"?
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific.
You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan. Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me?
You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
What "facts am I mistating"?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case. What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism" and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST "MORAL TURPITUDE", Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP, Mr. Nathan?
Now we see the true Donald Nathan:
A man who digs dirt and throws mud on an elected president of a democratic cabdriver organization.
A man who mischaracterizes a question about whether or not he will answer questions as a "right to demand information by a low-life convicted felon.(CAPS OMITTED.)"
A man who sees himself as a "champion of justice for cabdrivers in the Chicago METRO AREA. (CAPS OMITTED, except for emphasis.)"
A man who doesn't understand that I have little or no interest in any cabdrivers other than those licensed by the City of Chicago, despite my numerous attempts to explain that.
A man who sees me as an "ultra-right winger (CAPS OMITTED)", despite my previous employment by, and publicly-elected position in, the Democratic Party.
A man who claims I "attack" him, but can't specify how.
A man who can't name a single individual or organization I should be "shaking hands with" after claiming I am "throwing stones" at them.
A man who is trying to invite me to a meeting of an organization of which he is not a member.
A man who wants me to "lay down the sword", whatever that means.
A man who can't mention a single issue after complaining that the criminal record he raised and distorted was distracting from a discussion of the issues.
A man who claims it would take "hours" to do so after posting the lengthiest comments lately about my criminal record, which he raised and distorted, and then objected to my correcting his mischaracterizations.
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
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.
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
I could tell you much more about the telephone harassment case which fascinates you.
But, what would be the point?
You and others have already distorted the public records available about this case.
Even if you did "feel sorry for me", what good would that do?
Is that your idea of "fighting injustice"?
"Feel sorry" for the victims?
No wonder you have had such little success with cabdrivers.
What years did you drive a Chicago cab?
Why don't you drive a Chicago cab anymore?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
May be you could tell us the "true" and whole story, so we can all be sorry for you?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
I am a wongfully-convicted felon.
You remind me many times of the song which has the line:
"All eyes in jest at the man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Donald Nathan might have it on original vinyl. Perhaps he could let you borrow it and a "phonograph" or "hi-fi" to play the "record" on.
You see only what you want to see, "Clueless".
Or, only what you want others to see.
Yes, I was convicted and I served 15 days in Cook County Jail.
That didn't "settle" the matter, nor is it "unsettled".
I haven't been a "boy", good or otherwise, since the early 1980s.
What's your point?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I don't see any hearing pending to overturn your "wrongful" convictions.
You were convicted, and you served the time. Anything else were left unsettled?
You were a good boy from 1990 to 2003, so what?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So this is all a game to you, Mr. Nathan?
Calling me names (like "Felon Foulks") helps who?
I have re-read my "attack post of August 2" as you suggested.
You call this an "attack post". I ask you, why? Be specific.
Mr. Nathan, YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF MY CRIMINAL RECORD, NOT ME.
YOU DISTORTED IT AS YOU DISCUSSED IT. WHY?
Why would you characterize my correction of the distortions as "making excuses"?
How did I attack you, Yi Tang, and Wolf Weiss as you claim? Be specific.
You are the only one calling it an "attack".
I only continued defending the truth about my wrongful felony conviction because others were continuing to distort and discuss it.
Seems like you're blaming the victim again, Mr. Nathan. Maybe you worked for the insurance companies too long.
Are you now suggesting that I "lifted several pages out of the record"?
What "truth" are you imagining to be "hidden"?
If you can't verify what I say, Mr. Nathan, why would you believe me?
You can't verify much of what you have said about this case. You are unbelievable and ridiculous.
I have not lied, Mr. Nathan. Please specify any of my lies.
What "facts am I mistating"?
There was no "presentence report" in the 1990 curfew case. What "some such" document are you referring to? You aren't very careful, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad you admit that telephone harassment isn't "terrorism" and that a curfew violation isn't "moral turpitude".
If you knew this then why did you let others believe so?
You say you had the "presentence report or some such document" and knew that it was a curfew violation.
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST "MORAL TURPITUDE", Mr. Nathan?
Mr. Nathan, you are either deliberately confusing the facts or you are incompetent. Which is it?
You say you don't care about the curfew violation...
WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP, Mr. Nathan?
Now we see the true Donald Nathan:
A man who digs dirt and throws mud on an elected president of a democratic cabdriver organization.
A man who mischaracterizes a question about whether or not he will answer questions as a "right to demand information by a low-life convicted felon.(CAPS OMITTED.)"
A man who sees himself as a "champion of justice for cabdrivers in the Chicago METRO AREA. (CAPS OMITTED, except for emphasis.)"
A man who doesn't understand that I have little or no interest in any cabdrivers other than those licensed by the City of Chicago, despite my numerous attempts to explain that.
A man who sees me as an "ultra-right winger (CAPS OMITTED)", despite my previous employment by, and publicly-elected position in, the Democratic Party.
A man who claims I "attack" him, but can't specify how.
A man who can't name a single individual or organization I should be "shaking hands with" after claiming I am "throwing stones" at them.
A man who is trying to invite me to a meeting of an organization of which he is not a member.
A man who wants me to "lay down the sword", whatever that means.
A man who can't mention a single issue after complaining that the criminal record he raised and distorted was distracting from a discussion of the issues.
A man who claims it would take "hours" to do so after posting the lengthiest comments lately about my criminal record, which he raised and distorted, and then objected to my correcting his mischaracterizations.
Mr. Nathan, what use are you to me or any other CHICAGO cabdrivers? You seem to be nuisance, at best. We need more than nuisances like you.
Are you a member of Wolf Weiss' CPTDA? Is the CPTDA a "competing organization"? Is the UTCC a "competing organization"? Do they compete with each other?
What's the nature of the "competition"?
By the way, there's a lot more "going on in the industry" than what is in the UTCC Voice or the Chicago Dispatcher. Maybe if you talked directly to cabdrivers as often as I do you would know what they have to say and you could act more appropriately.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
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.
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
YOU SHOULDN'T!
I could tell you much more about the telephone harassment case which fascinates you.
WHY COULDN'T YOU?
But, what would be the point?
SO YOU CAN START TO TELL THE "TRUTH" IN YOUR OWN VERSION, CAN'T YOU?
You and others have already distorted the public records available about this case.
HOW SO? BE SPECIFIC.
Even if you did "feel sorry for me", what good would that do?
SO YOU MAY START TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN BATTLE, IF IT WAS INDEED A "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
Is that your idea of "fighting injustice"?
YES, STARTING FROM YOURSELF, IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY "WRONG" SOMEWHERE.
"Feel sorry" for the victims?
THE REAL VICTIM WAS YOUR MOTHER WHO POSTED THE "BAIL" FOR YOU. $5000 WAS A LOT FOR HER.
No wonder you have had such little success with cabdrivers.
MY SUCCESS OR NOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
What years did you drive a Chicago cab?
Why don't you drive a Chicago cab anymore?
AGAIN, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION CASES?
-Mike Foulks
MICHAEL D. FOULKS IS YOUR REAL NAME
So, "Clueless", if you aren't Yi Tang, then who are you?
Why won't you post using your real name?
You've distorted the public record with this very post:
Bail was $4000, not $5000.
This clearly shows how you mistate or exagerrate the public record against me.
You would likely do the same with any further explanation.
There's no point in explaining anything to you.
You have deliberately used a name other than your own and you refer to me incorrectly. You spread misinformation about me.
You are simply a pest.
This is why you aren't successful with Chicago cabdrivers.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
YOU SHOULDN'T!
I could tell you much more about the telephone harassment case which fascinates you.
WHY COULDN'T YOU?
But, what would be the point?
SO YOU CAN START TO TELL THE "TRUTH" IN YOUR OWN VERSION, CAN'T YOU?
You and others have already distorted the public records available about this case.
HOW SO? BE SPECIFIC.
Even if you did "feel sorry for me", what good would that do?
SO YOU MAY START TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN BATTLE, IF IT WAS INDEED A "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
Is that your idea of "fighting injustice"?
YES, STARTING FROM YOURSELF, IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY "WRONG" SOMEWHERE.
"Feel sorry" for the victims?
THE REAL VICTIM WAS YOUR MOTHER WHO POSTED THE "BAIL" FOR YOU. $5000 WAS A LOT FOR HER.
No wonder you have had such little success with cabdrivers.
MY SUCCESS OR NOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
What years did you drive a Chicago cab?
Why don't you drive a Chicago cab anymore?
AGAIN, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION CASES?
-Mike Foulks
MICHAEL D. FOULKS IS YOUR REAL NAME
Why did you have to bother your mother for this?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So, "Clueless", if you aren't Yi Tang, then who are you?
Why won't you post using your real name?
You've distorted the public record with this very post:
Bail was $4000, not $5000.
This clearly shows how you mistate or exagerrate the public record against me.
You would likely do the same with any further explanation.
There's no point in explaining anything to you.
You have deliberately used a name other than your own and you refer to me incorrectly. You spread misinformation about me.
You are simply a pest.
This is why you aren't successful with Chicago cabdrivers.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
YOU SHOULDN'T!
I could tell you much more about the telephone harassment case which fascinates you.
WHY COULDN'T YOU?
But, what would be the point?
SO YOU CAN START TO TELL THE "TRUTH" IN YOUR OWN VERSION, CAN'T YOU?
You and others have already distorted the public records available about this case.
HOW SO? BE SPECIFIC.
Even if you did "feel sorry for me", what good would that do?
SO YOU MAY START TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN BATTLE, IF IT WAS INDEED A "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
Is that your idea of "fighting injustice"?
YES, STARTING FROM YOURSELF, IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY "WRONG" SOMEWHERE.
"Feel sorry" for the victims?
THE REAL VICTIM WAS YOUR MOTHER WHO POSTED THE "BAIL" FOR YOU. $5000 WAS A LOT FOR HER.
No wonder you have had such little success with cabdrivers.
MY SUCCESS OR NOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
What years did you drive a Chicago cab?
Why don't you drive a Chicago cab anymore?
AGAIN, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION CASES?
-Mike Foulks
MICHAEL D. FOULKS IS YOUR REAL NAME
Clueless, or should I say, Yi Tang,
Because I didn't have $4000 cash (10% of $40,000) when wrongly charged, for one. The other reasons are private.
The details of the relationships between members of my family are none of your business.
If you think that having one's father or mother bail one out of jail is unusual enough to comment on, feel free.
If you can't keep a simple fact like the amount of my bond correct, I see no point in answering any more of your questions.
You apparently have access to the public record. Much of the record is not accessible to the public. I can't and won't explain why until it is, if ever.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why did you have to bother your mother for this?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
So, "Clueless", if you aren't Yi Tang, then who are you?
Why won't you post using your real name?
You've distorted the public record with this very post:
Bail was $4000, not $5000.
This clearly shows how you mistate or exagerrate the public record against me.
You would likely do the same with any further explanation.
There's no point in explaining anything to you.
You have deliberately used a name other than your own and you refer to me incorrectly. You spread misinformation about me.
You are simply a pest.
This is why you aren't successful with Chicago cabdrivers.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Clueless", or should I say, Yi Tang,
YOU SHOULDN'T!
I could tell you much more about the telephone harassment case which fascinates you.
WHY COULDN'T YOU?
But, what would be the point?
SO YOU CAN START TO TELL THE "TRUTH" IN YOUR OWN VERSION, CAN'T YOU?
You and others have already distorted the public records available about this case.
HOW SO? BE SPECIFIC.
Even if you did "feel sorry for me", what good would that do?
SO YOU MAY START TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN BATTLE, IF IT WAS INDEED A "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
Is that your idea of "fighting injustice"?
YES, STARTING FROM YOURSELF, IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY "WRONG" SOMEWHERE.
"Feel sorry" for the victims?
THE REAL VICTIM WAS YOUR MOTHER WHO POSTED THE "BAIL" FOR YOU. $5000 WAS A LOT FOR HER.
No wonder you have had such little success with cabdrivers.
MY SUCCESS OR NOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION.
What years did you drive a Chicago cab?
Why don't you drive a Chicago cab anymore?
AGAIN, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENT IN YOUR "WRONGFUL" CONVICTION CASES?
-Mike Foulks
MICHAEL D. FOULKS IS YOUR REAL NAME
One that wants to be president has to make full disclosure.
Same thing I asked too. Does he subscribe to tell 100 lies and perhaps some will believe one?
Mr. Nathan is easily capable of reaching the issues. The place to do it is at Baba Palace tomorrow at 2:00 P.M. Come to the "Unity Meeting". Let's discuss issues live where it counts..
See posting to thread above.
