"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
To be clear, please put quotes around my statements.
Where did you get the idea that I "want to lead all"?
I certainly don't want to lead cabdrivers into "adjoining cells at 26th and California".
How have I been doing that?
How could such an absurdity occur?
Would you care to reveal your identity so that we can investigate your record?
What are you hiding? If nothing, then why are you hiding?
You think that telephone harassment is "terrorism" and that a curfew violation is "moral turpitude"?
You think that I want to "lead all cabdrivers" into "adjoining cells at (the jail)"?
You think that I have a "bad record"?
Quit being so silly. You are only embarrassing yourself.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems that you want to equate telephone harassment with "terrorism" and a curfew violation with "moral turpitude".
One with a bad record wants to lead all. Where, right into ajoining cells at 26th& Cal.
A guy with a felony and a few minor charges has a great record? No a felony record is a bad one Mike. I never said one word about your morals. You have me confused with others. I do think your record is bad. The felony was a repeat offense for those that don't know. Or in other words the courts slapped you the first time and you still didn't get the message. Then they sent you to the hole to teach you a lesson the second time.
As president of the CCO you want to be a leader. I am pointing out that the best leading you have done in the last few years is to county jail and for mental health probation. At least it appears that you have completed your sentence.
THIS IS ALSO POSTED ABOVE BECAUSE FOULKS POSTED HIS RESPONSE IN TWO SEPARATE PLACES.
You wrote: "Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks?"
I never "raised the topic of my (criminal) record" in the first place.
YOU SURE RAISED THE TOPIC IN YOUR ATTACK POST OF AUGUST 2. TRY RE-READING IT.
You wrote: "We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days..."
If my "(criminal) record" wasn't a "real issue" in the first place, why did you discuss it then?
IT WAS ONLY DISCUSSED TO THE EXTENT YOU RAISED IT AGAIN.
You wrote: "...when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings..."
How did I "attack" anyone with this post?
YOU DID. RE-READ IT. YOU TOOK THE OCCASION TO ATTACK YI TANG, WOLF WEISS AND ME. YOU WERE A LITTLE LESS VIRULENT THAN USUAL, BUT IT WAS AN ATTACK JUST THE SAME. ANYONE READING IT WOULD TAKE IT AS AN ATTACK.
You wrote: "...trying to make excuses for your felony background."
Telling the truth about it is considered "making excuses"? That's a strange choice of words, Mr. Nathan. You wrote: "Nobody cared anymore." Then why was it still being discussed? Why are you still discussing it now?
ONLY BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. HAD YOU LEFT IT ALONE AND STUCK TO ISSUES OF INTEREST TO CABDRIVERS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOTHERED THE FURTHER WITH YOUR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN ON FELONY CHARGES. IT WAS GETTING BORING UNTIL YOU DECIDED TO MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT IT.
You wrote: "Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record." So, you admit that you really don't have a complete understanding of this case. This is the basis for your speculative and misleading "conclusions".
ANY WANT OF UNDERSTANDING IS THE RESULT OF SOMEONE HAVING LIFTED SEVERAL PAGES OUT OF THE RECORD. WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE THE MOTIVE TO HIDE THE TRUTH? IS IT THE GUY WHO SAYS HE WON'T TELL ALL OF THE FACTS? YOU, MAYBE?
You wrote: "You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now?"
I never plead guilty to "felony charges". I never denied entering a "guilty plea". You are misreading and mistating the facts. This is because you aren't very careful.
HUH? THE CHARGE BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN TO WHICH YOU ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA WAS A FELONY. YOU CAN'T LIE YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT. DON'T GO DOUBLE-SPEAKING. THE ONLY GUY MISTATING FACTS HERE IS YOU, AND ANY CABDRIVER - EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
Now you raise the issue of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? You wrote: "I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude..." Mr. Nathan, that was a case of a curfew violation, a misdemeanor.
GOOD - I'M GLAD TO HEAR A RATIONAL EXPLANATION. IT APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT OR SOME SUCH DOCUMENT.
Is telephone harassment "terrorism", Mr. Nathan?
NOT IN MY OPINION. IT CAN BE A FELONY, HOWEVER.
Is a curfew violation "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
NO.
In this first case, the penalty was simply NO FINE.
WHAT FIRST CASE? THE FIRST CASE OF TELEPHONE HARASSMENT? ONE WOULDN'T EXPECT A FINE IN SUCH A CASE.
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE.
WHAT SECOND CASE? WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A $100 FINE FOR A FELONY? SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK. YOU GOT TWO YEARS OF FELONY PROBATION FOLLOWING YOUR GUILTY PLEA ALONG WITH 30 DAYS IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT A $100 FINE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO MULTIPLE CURFEW VIOLATIONS? DID YOU COMMIT CURFEW VIOLATIONS WHEN YOU WERE 20 YEARS OLD IN BENSENVILLE? WHO CARES ABOUT SUCH THINGS? CERTAINLY I DON'T.
Mr. Nathan, there are many more "unanswered questions" about you. I won't equate your "importance in the cabdriver community" with mine. Are you going to answer questions about yourself, Mr. Nathan?
YOUR QUESTION PRESUMES YOU AS A LOW-LIFE CONVICTED FELON HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND INFORMATION FROM ME AS A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION. I DON'T OWE YOU AS A CONVICTED FELON THE TIME OF DAY MUCH LESS DO I OWE YOU ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MYSELF.
You wrote: "After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest."
Thank you for acknowledging that.
RIGHT-OH, BUD.
You wrote: "I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema..."
Who said that you were? What DO you see yourself as?
A CHAMPION OF JUSTICE FOR CABDRIVERS IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA. FRANKLY, I SEE YOU AS HAVING THE SAME GOAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU HAVE A SMUDGED PERSONAL BACKGROUND, AND YOU STRIKE ME AS BEING AN ULTRA RIGHT-WINGER.
You wrote: "Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it."
What are you referring to?
DOES THIS TAKE ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? IT MEANS YOU OUGHT TO STOP WITH THE ATTACKS. YOU STOP ATTACKING OTHERS, AND YOU MIGHT FIND OTHERS WILLING TO STOP ATTACKING YOU IN KIND.
You wrote: "And it's high time you stop casting stones."
Again, what are you referring to?
READ - YOU ARE A BRIGHT MAN, OR SO YOU SAY.
You wrote: "Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry..."
Can you name them?
WE BOTH KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I'M ONE OF THEM. I'VE TRIED TO SHAKE HANDS WITH YOU IN THE PAST ONLY TO HAVE YOU TRY TO BITE MY HEAD OFF.
You wrote: "...whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not..."
Who are the ones who aren't "current Chicago cabdrivers"?
RHETORICAL QUESTION.
You wrote: "whether they are from competing organizations or not."
So, other organizations consider themselves "competition", but I should "shake their hand"?
COME ON, FOULKS. STOP PICKING BONES FOR A CHANGE.
No wonder they haven't "reached out to me" as I have to them!
TRY COMING TO THE UTCC MEETING ON AUGUST 23. IT'S OPEN TO YOU TOO. I'M NOT A "MEMBER". JUST AN ALLY.
COME SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IT'S ABOUT. LAY DOWN THE SWORD.
What organizations are you referring to?
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
You wrote: "WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues."
I am wide awake, Mr. Nathan. What are the issues, in your opinion?
READ THE UTCC VOICE AND TEH CHICAGO DISPATCHER AND YOU'LL GET A PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. I DON'T NEED TO TAKE HOURS SPELLING IT OUT.
Mr. Nathan,
Why must you post the same thing in two separate places?
You should be responding to the new post I made above due to your posting the same thing in two separate places.
That is where this discussion should continue for the sake of clarity.
Are you trying to deliberately confuse the discussion?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
THIS IS ALSO POSTED ABOVE BECAUSE FOULKS POSTED HIS RESPONSE IN TWO SEPARATE PLACES.
You wrote: "Why did you raise the topic of your record and your case again, Foulks?"
I never "raised the topic of my (criminal) record" in the first place.
YOU SURE RAISED THE TOPIC IN YOUR ATTACK POST OF AUGUST 2. TRY RE-READING IT.
You wrote: "We had been busy with real issues for about 10 days..."
If my "(criminal) record" wasn't a "real issue" in the first place, why did you discuss it then?
IT WAS ONLY DISCUSSED TO THE EXTENT YOU RAISED IT AGAIN.
You wrote: "...when you came on like gangbusters with one of your renewed attack postings..."
How did I "attack" anyone with this post?
YOU DID. RE-READ IT. YOU TOOK THE OCCASION TO ATTACK YI TANG, WOLF WEISS AND ME. YOU WERE A LITTLE LESS VIRULENT THAN USUAL, BUT IT WAS AN ATTACK JUST THE SAME. ANYONE READING IT WOULD TAKE IT AS AN ATTACK.
You wrote: "...trying to make excuses for your felony background."
Telling the truth about it is considered "making excuses"? That's a strange choice of words, Mr. Nathan. You wrote: "Nobody cared anymore." Then why was it still being discussed? Why are you still discussing it now?
ONLY BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. HAD YOU LEFT IT ALONE AND STUCK TO ISSUES OF INTEREST TO CABDRIVERS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOTHERED THE FURTHER WITH YOUR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN ON FELONY CHARGES. IT WAS GETTING BORING UNTIL YOU DECIDED TO MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT IT.
You wrote: "Let's cut to the meat of it - at least as far as we can given what little we've been able to glean so far from the public record." So, you admit that you really don't have a complete understanding of this case. This is the basis for your speculative and misleading "conclusions".
ANY WANT OF UNDERSTANDING IS THE RESULT OF SOMEONE HAVING LIFTED SEVERAL PAGES OUT OF THE RECORD. WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE THE MOTIVE TO HIDE THE TRUTH? IS IT THE GUY WHO SAYS HE WON'T TELL ALL OF THE FACTS? YOU, MAYBE?
You wrote: "You've previously admitted to having entered a plea of guilty to felony charges on this forum. Why would you deny having entered a guilty plea now?"
I never plead guilty to "felony charges". I never denied entering a "guilty plea". You are misreading and mistating the facts. This is because you aren't very careful.
HUH? THE CHARGE BEFORE JUDGE TOBIN TO WHICH YOU ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA WAS A FELONY. YOU CAN'T LIE YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT. DON'T GO DOUBLE-SPEAKING. THE ONLY GUY MISTATING FACTS HERE IS YOU, AND ANY CABDRIVER - EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
Now you raise the issue of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" charge in Bensenville back in 1990? You wrote: "I know that's a long time ago, but was it just a misdemeanor? It's certainly not a crime of dishonesty, but it might be a crime of moral turpitude..." Mr. Nathan, that was a case of a curfew violation, a misdemeanor.
GOOD - I'M GLAD TO HEAR A RATIONAL EXPLANATION. IT APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT OR SOME SUCH DOCUMENT.
Is telephone harassment "terrorism", Mr. Nathan?
NOT IN MY OPINION. IT CAN BE A FELONY, HOWEVER.
Is a curfew violation "moral turpitude", Mr. Nathan?
NO.
In this first case, the penalty was simply NO FINE.
WHAT FIRST CASE? THE FIRST CASE OF TELEPHONE HARASSMENT? ONE WOULDN'T EXPECT A FINE IN SUCH A CASE.
In the second case, the penalty was simply a $100 FINE.
WHAT SECOND CASE? WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A $100 FINE FOR A FELONY? SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK. YOU GOT TWO YEARS OF FELONY PROBATION FOLLOWING YOUR GUILTY PLEA ALONG WITH 30 DAYS IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT A $100 FINE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO MULTIPLE CURFEW VIOLATIONS? DID YOU COMMIT CURFEW VIOLATIONS WHEN YOU WERE 20 YEARS OLD IN BENSENVILLE? WHO CARES ABOUT SUCH THINGS? CERTAINLY I DON'T.
Mr. Nathan, there are many more "unanswered questions" about you. I won't equate your "importance in the cabdriver community" with mine. Are you going to answer questions about yourself, Mr. Nathan?
YOUR QUESTION PRESUMES YOU AS A LOW-LIFE CONVICTED FELON HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND INFORMATION FROM ME AS A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION. I DON'T OWE YOU AS A CONVICTED FELON THE TIME OF DAY MUCH LESS DO I OWE YOU ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MYSELF.
You wrote: "After all, you are the PRESIDENT of the CCO. You are a key public figure, so who you are and what you are about becomes all the more of interest."
Thank you for acknowledging that.
RIGHT-OH, BUD.
You wrote: "I certainly don't see myself as your nemesis or anathema..."
Who said that you were? What DO you see yourself as?
A CHAMPION OF JUSTICE FOR CABDRIVERS IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA. FRANKLY, I SEE YOU AS HAVING THE SAME GOAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU HAVE A SMUDGED PERSONAL BACKGROUND, AND YOU STRIKE ME AS BEING AN ULTRA RIGHT-WINGER.
You wrote: "Watch out about casting the first stone - you shouldn't have done it."
What are you referring to?
DOES THIS TAKE ROCKET SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND? IT MEANS YOU OUGHT TO STOP WITH THE ATTACKS. YOU STOP ATTACKING OTHERS, AND YOU MIGHT FIND OTHERS WILLING TO STOP ATTACKING YOU IN KIND.
You wrote: "And it's high time you stop casting stones."
Again, what are you referring to?
READ - YOU ARE A BRIGHT MAN, OR SO YOU SAY.
You wrote: "Start putting the stones down and picking up your hand to shake the hands of those who care about the industry..."
Can you name them?
WE BOTH KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I'M ONE OF THEM. I'VE TRIED TO SHAKE HANDS WITH YOU IN THE PAST ONLY TO HAVE YOU TRY TO BITE MY HEAD OFF.
You wrote: "...whether they are current Chicago cabdrivers or not..."
Who are the ones who aren't "current Chicago cabdrivers"?
RHETORICAL QUESTION.
You wrote: "whether they are from competing organizations or not."
So, other organizations consider themselves "competition", but I should "shake their hand"?
COME ON, FOULKS. STOP PICKING BONES FOR A CHANGE.
No wonder they haven't "reached out to me" as I have to them!
TRY COMING TO THE UTCC MEETING ON AUGUST 23. IT'S OPEN TO YOU TOO. I'M NOT A "MEMBER". JUST AN ALLY.
COME SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IT'S ABOUT. LAY DOWN THE SWORD.
What organizations are you referring to?
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
You wrote: "WAKE UP, FOULKS. Let's get to issues."
I am wide awake, Mr. Nathan. What are the issues, in your opinion?
READ THE UTCC VOICE AND TEH CHICAGO DISPATCHER AND YOU'LL GET A PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. I DON'T NEED TO TAKE HOURS SPELLING IT OUT.
I am not posting in separate places. Don't tell me where to post, son. It is not my interntion to confuse anything. I am terminating this thread.
EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
What crowd? There isn't one. There aren't any verifiable members of the CCO other than Mr. Foulks.
One other thing, if you were to ask the family that was the on the other end of the phone with Foulks when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism. It might not have fit the legal definition to get a verdict, but the threats and extortion were real. This guy is a real loose cannon and has no business with our kind of folk. No pun intended.
"Big Fat Mouth", whoever you are,
You claim there isn't a "CCO 'CROWD'". Mr. Nathan says there is.
One of you must be mistaken. Which is it?
You say there aren't any "verifiable members" of the CCO other than (me).
There are almost 100 Chicago cabdrivers who voted in the elections of the CCO in the last year. I have copies of their chauffeur's licenses, drivers licenses, leases or hard cards, and other important information on their registrations and ballots.
In fact, CCO members have attended meetings of other groups. Mr. Nathan (wrongly) refers to them as my "henchmen".
You claim that if one were to ask the "family that was on the other end of the phone with (me) when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism".
How did you determine this?
Did you speak with them?
What "threats" were made?
What "threats and extortion were real"?
How am I "loose cannon"?
Who is "your kind of folk"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
EVEN THE CCO CROWD - CAN SEE THAT.
What crowd? There isn't one. There aren't any verifiable members of the CCO other than Mr. Foulks.
One other thing, if you were to ask the family that was the on the other end of the phone with Foulks when the threats were made, they would agree it was terrorism. It might not have fit the legal definition to get a verdict, but the threats and extortion were real. This guy is a real loose cannon and has no business with our kind of folk. No pun intended.
Mike, I'm going to take you up on this if it's possible. I am going to call the guy in Mt. Prospect or where ever he is now IF I can find him and make a complete report back here within the next seven days. Since he had you sent up the river for a felony I am sure the conservation is going to be full of information.
You asked for it, you got it. This will clear the air. I have this mans name. Perhaps he should speak to Norma Reyes. I am going to suggest it if he says what I believe he will after reading your file/record.
Peter Enger says the Ghanian drivers are the only other group he has been able to identify that has more than a handful of members. See his posts of say 10 days ago for this quote.
George I will not post allegations, just what the victim of the felony crime said to me word for word. Do you want to publish this story in lieu of posting it here? I will supply you with my sources for verification before posting if you wish.
Mike, Please confirm so we can move forward in clearing you here, *am** H**&r School St. 847-*59-54** Does this info appear to be correct? Do you think he might have an unlisted number due to your felony? Can you provide me a good number to reach your victim? Lets work to get the real info, after all it will clear you, right?
Mikey, Why are you standing in the way of truth?Perhaps Ho**r can "clear" you and restore your name.
