Wolf Weiss and Don Nathan are banned according to an email I received.
Wolf is a criminal? He has accused you of being a criminal, too. Is that why you are saying he is one? What have you got on him? Details please!
Lawyers and litigants generally do not publicly discuss cases such as the suit for an injunction against the City of Chicago.
Being a matter of public record, anyone can look up the pleadings at Daley Center.
Perhaps you should not ask them to discuss the case. If attorney Nathan or any of the litigants want to say something in public about it, their statements made would be made through the main stream media and very carefully worded to protect everyone's interests.
Mr. "Jack Spear",
Who sent you an email indicating that Wolf Weiss and Don Nathan have been banned? When was it sent? How long is the ban?
I am not suggesting that Wolf Weiss is a criminal because he accused me of being one. I am suggesting it due to his behavior on this site.
Lawyers and litigants generally do not publicly discuss cases because generally, almost nobody else gives a **** about their particular lawsuit.
Putting aside limitations on discussing some details of a criminal case pre-trial, it is almost always in the interest of the party on the right side of a civil conflict to publicly discuss their case.
Especially if the court is likely to side with the other party due to precedent or some other unpopular or unfair technicalities of the law.
It is my understanding that this lawsuit of Mr. Weiss and Mr. Nathan's hasn't got much of a prayer and that it's primary purpose was to drum up some publicity about how the City of Chicago treats us and to deter the City from making more onerous policies without hesitation.
Where's the publicity?
It is a further example of how out of touch Mr. Weiss and Mr. Nathan are from the average Chicago cabdriver if they think that we are going to go to the Daley Center to satisfy our curiosity about this case.
It is an example of how out of touch YOU are, Mr. Spear, with the way things work today if you think that a "carefully-worded public statement to protect everyone's interests" would prevent any undesired dissection of what's really going on by the subsequent internet commentary by users of discussion forums like this one.
So, who's going to post whatever public record exists of this ill-conceived and ill-fated lawsuit against the City?
Who's brave enough to admit their desperate attempt to remain relevant or get attention with this silly lawsuit?
Who's willing to call a spade a spade?
Is either Mr. Weiss or Mr. Nathan ready to take responsibility for the ignorant rumor that any success in this lawsuit could mean millions of dollars of "back pay" restitution for each and every cabdriver?
Or does that "hope-dope propagandist" sign properly deserve to be hung around Prateek Sampat's, Pankaj Kapoor's, Peter Enger's or Steve Kim's necks?
Mr. Weiss and Mr. Nathan are free to discuss any issue they like in the similar discussion forums at cptda.bravehost.com or cco1.bravehost.com.
A warning: they are both subject to the same Bravenet policies whose enforcement has ejected them from Cabmarket.com, apparently.
Perhaps they'll behave better in their "own house" or, at least, they will in "my house". I don't tolerate as much irrelevant nonsense as Mr. Lutfallah does here.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Wolf Weiss and Don Nathan are banned according to an email I received.
Wolf is a criminal? He has accused you of being a criminal, too. Is that why you are saying he is one? What have you got on him? Details please!
Lawyers and litigants generally do not publicly discuss cases such as the suit for an injunction against the City of Chicago.
Being a matter of public record, anyone can look up the pleadings at Daley Center.
Perhaps you should not ask them to discuss the case. If attorney Nathan or any of the litigants want to say something in public about it, their statements made would be made through the main stream media and very carefully worded to protect everyone's interests.
ONLY A DUMMY WOULD JUMP INTO THAT TRAP.
IT IS THE MOST COMMON TACTIC OF ON-LINE STALKERS:
ON-LINESTALKING OR CYBERSTALKING "has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to HARRASS another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes fFALSE ACCUSATIONS ... the TRANSMISSION OF THREATS ... for HARASSMENT PURPOSES."
THE COMMON TACTIC OF ON-LINE STALKING & STALKERS:
"...the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats."
The email in question was from someone named Le Fof, the Donkey Boy.
How did you come to believe that I think a carefully-worded public statement to protect everyone's interests would prevent any undesired dissection of what's really going on by the subsequent internet commentary by users of discussion forums like this one?
Do you hear voices inside your head, Mr. Foulks?
I never mentioned anything about any undesired dissection of what's really going on by the subsequent internet commentary by users of discussion forums like this one.
I am amazed at how your mind works, Mr. Foulks. Let us undertake a dissection then.
The only undesired dissection I might object to is one performed on me while I was still among the living.
What is really going on?
It looks like there is a legal proceeding with several motions, among which is a motion to compell the the City to re-institute meter-and-one-half rates to the burbs they were lowered when they were made straight meter. It may have something to do with a law similar to the labor laws that protects minimum wages from being rolled back in wage-paying jobs.
Is that a desired or undesired dissection so far?
Who would subsequently perform an undesired dissection? Surely not you, Mr. Foulks. An undesired dissection on your part could bring into question any credibility or integrity you might subsequently lay claim to.
What is really going on? One would think that an undesired dissection of a carefully-worded public statement to protect everyone's interests is much better than flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character, and which violate discussion forum and web hosting rules of conduct.
One mght also consider that posting characterized as "flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character" may also be in violation of Illinois cyberstalking laws.
What is really going on? Explain why do you have such a strong interest in this case. You have been denouncing evryone and everythign involved inthis case.
Perhaps you could be one of the "insiders" if you behaved like a true gentleman and treated Mr. Nathan and his clients with the barest minimum of respect any human being deserves.
The possibilities for desired or undesired dissection dissection of this subject limitless. Dissect away, Mr. Foulks. Feel free to dissect your little heart and mind out.
You know, you do not have to put ears on my name like this: "Jack Spear".
Just Jack Spear, no "ears" on my name are required Mr. "Mike Foulks".
Judge Epstein has taken the City's motion under advisement and will issue a ruling on it on October 17 at 10:00 A.M. in Room 2405 of the Richard J. Daley Center. If he grants the motion, we will ask leave to file a Second Amended Petition based on whatever reasons he assigns for dismissing the Amended Petition. If he denies the motion, you will have to wait to see what our strategy will be.
