About Wolf Weiss' claims that I am a "cyberstalker"...
Mr. Weiss,
I am not a cyberstalker. You know exactly who I am. You know where I live. I'm not sure where you live, but I have a reasonable and legally-obtained indication of where you live. I would only visit you at your residence to serve legal papers on you, with a witness.
We are both cabdrivers. Each of us is an official in different organizations involving cabdrivers.
Many of us, including George Lutfallah, have reasonable and legally-obtained suspicion that you have posted here on Cabmarket.com using many different aliases.
In combination, all of the "comments" made by you and these aliases can place this allegation of "cyberstalking" right back where it belongs: on you.
Thank you for making me aware of the "cyberstalking" law that you, yourself, and your aliases may be, in fact, guilty of, whereas I am not.
Should I warn the authorities in Palatine that the woman who has the same name as my mother might be in danger from a nutcase like you, Wolf Weiss?
Why is the "Masked On-Line Ranger" trying to determine my mother's address or asking me if "she still lives there" in the same message which asks me if I "really want to find out if (he's) scared"?
You have lied about me publicly, Wolf Weiss. That's a basis for suing you for defamation. Don't worry - the damage you've done to your own reputation and credibility far outweighs any compensation I could imagine receiving from any court. I have very little interest in suing you.
To me, you are simply a pest. My only warning to you is to conduct yourself more responsibly; others might not be as forgiving of your conduct as I am.
I was wrong...it's seems it's not too late to tell a man of your advanced age to "grow up" after all...
Grow up, Wolf Weiss.
-Mike Foulks
Subject: "ONLY A DUMMY WOULD JUMP INTO THAT TRAP."
Name: Don Woods
Date Posted: Sep 13, 08 - 9:47 AM
Message: ONLY A DUMMY or an imaginary ax-murderer WOULD JUMP INTO THIS cyberstalker TRAP.
FOULKS' PLOY 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 FALSE 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."
NOW THE MASKED ON-LINE RANGER KNOWS WHERE WOLF LIVES:
Entity Name CHICAGO PROFESSIONAL TAXICAB DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION
File Number 65247062
Agent Name WOLFGANG JOHANNES WEISS
Agent Change Date 11/16/2006
Agent Street Address 3007 N ASHLAND AVE REAR #2
Agent City CHICAGO
Agent Zip 60657
President Name & Address
WOLFGANG JOHANNES WEISS
President Name & Address
3007 N ASHLAND AVE REAR #2
CHICAGO 60657
Many of us, including George Lutfallah, know all about Foulks. We also know that Foulks' legal acumen and expertise, his ability to analyze a legal situation and form a successful strategy has ended him up in prison - all for jis brilliant plan to raise $125,000 by threatening his dysnuncyional family in M***T P******T, I******s.
Now MOLR's fictional ax-murderer may be able to guess where the woamn who spawwned this turd lives. Seems kind of suspicious that Foulks would try to extort #125,000 out of his family and now wants protect them from an imaginary character.
Back to reality: Why did mommy demand you plead guilty if you are totally innocent, convict Foulks?
Why did mommy threaten to withdraw bail bond unless you plead guilty, convict Foulks?
Anyone who wants become a three-time looser looking at a fourth shot, follow Foulks.
js
It seems the only "cyberstalker" is the "DUMMY" himself: "Jack Spear"/Wolf Weiss.
I haven't used the internet to "HARASS(ED) another individual, made "FALSE ACCUSATIONS", or "TRANSMI(tted)...THREATS...for HARASSMENT PURPOSES"
I have never been to prison.
I have never attempted to extort $125,000 from anyone, anyhow.
You wrote: "Seems kind of suspicious that Foulks would try to extort #125,000 out of his family and now wants protect them from an imaginary character."
Meditate on this and you might snap back into reality.
Why my mother did what she did isn't any business of yours. I'm sure she wouldn't answer any of your questions under oath, no matter how respectful or "friendly" to her you might appear.
By the way, the term "three-time loser" doesn't apply to my criminal record. You aren't well versed in criminal lingo or the law.
I don't have "followers". Your use of this term speaks volumes about why you don't have "followers" of your own, or even any measurable support of any term or definition.
You aren't an "imaginary character". You are a "cyberstalker".
If you are ever held accountable for it, you will be the "DUMMY".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Subject: "ONLY A DUMMY WOULD JUMP INTO THAT TRAP."
Name: Don Woods
Date Posted: Sep 13, 08 - 9:47 AM
Message: ONLY A DUMMY or an imaginary ax-murderer WOULD JUMP INTO THIS cyberstalker TRAP.
FOULKS' PLOY 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 FALSE 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."
NOW THE MASKED ON-LINE RANGER KNOWS WHERE WOLF LIVES:
Entity Name CHICAGO PROFESSIONAL TAXICAB DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION
File Number 65247062
Agent Name WOLFGANG JOHANNES WEISS
Agent Change Date 11/16/2006
Agent Street Address 3007 N ASHLAND AVE REAR #2
Agent City CHICAGO
Agent Zip 60657
President Name & Address
WOLFGANG JOHANNES WEISS
President Name & Address
3007 N ASHLAND AVE REAR #2
CHICAGO 60657
Many of us, including George Lutfallah, know all about Foulks. We also know that Foulks' legal acumen and expertise, his ability to analyze a legal situation and form a successful strategy has ended him up in prison - all for jis brilliant plan to raise $125,000 by threatening his dysnuncyional family in M***T P******T, I******s.
Now MOLR's fictional ax-murderer may be able to guess where the woamn who spawwned this turd lives. Seems kind of suspicious that Foulks would try to extort #125,000 out of his family and now wants protect them from an imaginary character.
Back to reality: Why did mommy demand you plead guilty if you are totally innocent, convict Foulks?
Why did mommy threaten to withdraw bail bond unless you plead guilty, convict Foulks?
Anyone who wants become a three-time looser looking at a fourth shot, follow Foulks.
js
All your denying on this forum will do you no good.
What seems to be, is not what it is, is it?
Sad. Very sad. Pathetic. Very pathetic.
The court records clearly indicates, by Mr. Foulks' own words, his sworn statements and testimony, that his guilty plea should be reversed because mommy would have refused bail if did not plead guilty.
Mr. Foulks' statemnts run counter to the PUBLIC COURT RECORDS.
Of course, the City and County are so corrupt, they lock up innocent people all the time, like that guy who was convicted of a shot-gun murder was just let out after twenty five years of hard time because he didn't do it.
That, my fine feathered friend, was a wrongful conviction.
That poor man did not plead guilty just to get out - of jail, do minimum time and mental health probation - he stuck to his convictions (pardon the pun!).
That, sir, is the difference between a petty offense three looser and an innocent man.
It seems "Jack Spear" can't read. The public record doesn't say what he claims...
Mr. "Spear",
You wrote: "The court records clearly indicates, by Mr. Foulks' own words, his sworn statements and testimony, that his guilty plea should be reversed because mommy would have refused bail if did not plead guilty."
I never pled guilty to obtain bail. I was bailed out of jail long before I pled guilty. Period.
Your claim makes no sense, nor could it ever.
You wrote: "Mr. Foulks' statemnts run counter to the PUBLIC COURT RECORDS."
NO, SIR. YOUR STATEMENTS RUN COUNTER TO PUBLIC COURT RECORDS. LEARN HOW TO READ.
WHAT DAY WAS I BAILED OUT OF JAIL? WHAT DAY DID THE COURT WRONGFULLY ACCEPT A PLEA OF GUILTY?
There are many more people who have been wrongfully convicted and served time than the one case you have mentioned, or even what you seem to believe.
When I pled guilty, I didn't "get out of jail". I was sentenced to jail, you idiot. If "mental health probation" was such a preferable "deal", why would I motion to withdraw my "deal" and face up to 4 years in PRISON?
It was quickly discovered that I hadn't, nor ever had, a mental illness. I have never asserted that I did.
Join a handful of self-interested people who have lost a lot of their credibility claiming that I am "crazy".
It's a pathological group...they don't want others to hear what I have to say and they can't argue with what I am saying (the truth)...so..."Don't listen to Mike; he's crazy."
If you accept that Cook County and the State of Illinois has sent so many innocent men to DEATH ROW or LIFE IN PRISON, imagine how many wrongfully-convicted Class 4 felons have faced a criminal justice system which can completely disregard the safeguards which should prevent compelling an innocent man from admitting guilt.
"Jack Spear" or whatever you fancy calling yourself this week, Wolf Weiss, you are the same self-interested liar who claimed I was caught "red-handed" on "wiretap".
There is no difference between you and a fraud, Mr. Weiss.
You aren't a "three-time loser". Neither am I.
I am a "twice-elected" President of a small group of cabdrivers interested in the politics of our profession.
You are just a loser and a liar.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
All your denying on this forum will do you no good.
What seems to be, is not what it is, is it?
Sad. Very sad. Pathetic. Very pathetic.
The court records clearly indicates, by Mr. Foulks' own words, his sworn statements and testimony, that his guilty plea should be reversed because mommy would have refused bail if did not plead guilty.
Mr. Foulks' statemnts run counter to the PUBLIC COURT RECORDS.
Of course, the City and County are so corrupt, they lock up innocent people all the time, like that guy who was convicted of a shot-gun murder was just let out after twenty five years of hard time because he didn't do it.
That, my fine feathered friend, was a wrongful conviction.
That poor man did not plead guilty just to get out - of jail, do minimum time and mental health probation - he stuck to his convictions (pardon the pun!).
That, sir, is the difference between a petty offense three looser and an innocent man.
Are you doing the quote marks becuase my nmae has "ears" in it? Grow, expand, try to rise above these things of childhood.
A Fair Trade My Man – Your evidence for my evidence and I go first.
You are right "Mr. Foulks." I have trouble reading court documents. Help me out with this, if you would be so kind:
In your Supplemental Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty and Vacate Judgment filed on June 27, 2006, it says:
###
In support of this motion the defendant states as follows:
1. The defendant was in custody and unable to post a $45,000.00 "D" Bond.
2. The defendant's mother (name omitted) posted bond for the defendant.
3. (Name omitted) set a condition for the posting of bond that the defendant would "plead guilty".
4. When defendant was released on bond he told his mother, (name omitted) that he had decided that he was going to plead guilty and that he was going to 'fight the charges'.
5. The defendant states that (name omitted) told the defendant that if he pled not guilty she would have the judge revoke his bond and that she would say that the defendant made more threats to make sure that his bond would be revoked.
6. The defendant, fearing, that he would have his bond increased and that his Mother, (name omitted) would make additional allegations to insure that the defendant would not be able to post that bond ultimately pled guilty.
7. If the defendant had not feared actions by his mother to revoke his bond he would have not pled guilty.
###
But of course, the argument that you pled guilty because you would have to wait in lock up without the bond is not a valid argument for duress, although it must be very stressful for an innocent man to stew in jail even a minute.
In another Supplemental Motion (to) Vacate Plea of Guilty you claim you tried to argue that your mental health history was discussed, and you deny having any mental health history to talk about in the first place, but which you have confirmed here that you have had dysfunctional family problems since childhood.
Now, where is your evidence of Weiss' fraud you have claimed? If you don't have any, and you say he is a fraud, then you are the fraud, no?
Maybe the "the defendant" feared he would be convicted if he plead not guilty, an added inducement to plead out on lesser charges -- take it on the chin for 15 days and mandatory mental health probation instead of in the buns for up to four big years.
Can you blame the guy? Duh! Yes!
In County Jail, a guy who can fix an electrical appliance cord is an electrician, a natural born leader.
Your comment has a hole in your logic big enough to drive a truck through it...
You wrote: "Maybe the "the defendant" feared he would be convicted if he plead not guilty, an added inducement to plead out on lesser charges -- take it on the chin for 15 days and mandatory mental health probation instead of in the buns for up to four big years."
That could reasonably explain why a guilty defendant would willingly plead guilty.
However, that doesn't explain why a guilty defendant would then willingly file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and place himself back in jeopardy of "taking it in the buns for up to four big years".
I am not guilty of the charges. I was denied my civil rights to effective representation and a fair trial.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Maybe the "the defendant" feared he would be convicted if he plead not guilty, an added inducement to plead out on lesser charges -- take it on the chin for 15 days and mandatory mental health probation instead of in the buns for up to four big years.
Can you blame the guy? Duh! Yes!
In County Jail, a guy who can fix an electrical appliance cord is an electrician, a natural born leader.
You should stop fooling us around. You did waive your right, didn't you?
We would love to hear the story told differently. It was not YOU, but the other member of the family. May be you just try to help out your "brother" for the crime you did not commit, or may be your brother came forward after all. It was not YOU because of a decent alibi, or DNA, would prove otherwise.
It was not the case, wasn't it?
The system is not perfect, but it works perfectly to someone, just like YOU.
"Clueless",
My motion was filed in a timely manner. It's obvious you don't know much, "Clueless".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You should stop fooling us around. You did waive your right, didn't you?
We would love to hear the story told differently. It was not YOU, but the other member of the family. May be you just try to help out your "brother" for the crime you did not commit, or may be your brother came forward after all. It was not YOU because of a decent alibi, or DNA, would prove otherwise.
It was not the case, wasn't it?
The system is not perfect, but it works perfectly to someone, just like YOU.
You should educate the judge, your attorneys or your extended family members.
It's obvious you don't know much of right or wrong, "Foulks".
"Clueless",
Which judge are you referring to? What don't they "obviously" know about me?
What is it exactly that I "should educate (them), (my) attorneys, or (my) extended family members about?
How is it "obvious" that I "don't know much of right or wrong"?
-Mike Foulks, (no need to put quotes around my name...it's real, not an alias like "Clueless".)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You should educate the judge, your attorneys or your extended family members.
It's obvious you don't know much of right or wrong, "Foulks".
Which judge are you referring to? What don't they "obviously" know about me?
THE JUDGE WHO CONVICTED AND SENTENCED YOU, AND THE JUSTICES IN THE APPELLATE COURT WHO DENIED YOUR APPEAL.
What is it exactly that I "should educate (them), (my) attorneys, or (my) extended family members about?
THE FEDERAL FILE IN YOUR IMAGINATION, OR THE "X" FILE.
How is it "obvious" that I "don't know much of right or wrong"?
PROVE IT OTHERWISE?
-Mike Foulks, (no need to put quotes around my name...it's real, not an alias like "Clueless".)
THE REAL NAME IN THIS CASE IS "MICHAEL D. FOULKS"
"Clueless",
So, you are referring to Judge Tobin, and making another error of assumption.
You wrote: "THE JUDGE WHO CONVICTED AND SENTENCED YOU, AND THE JUSTICES IN THE APPELLATE COURT WHO DENIED YOUR APPEAL."
First, I have never had any appeal denied by any justice in the appellate court. None of my appeals have ever been in the public record. Some might never be, or, at least, not for a very long time.
The "federal file" you speak of and refer to as the "X FILE" isn't a figment of my imagination.
It too, isn't a matter of public record. I doubt that it would ever be so, completely, considering its nature and origin.
What could you imagine that Judge Tobin doesn't or shouldn't know about me that might be in that "X FILE"?
Moving on...
How could I prove that I know right from wrong? What evidence suggest that I don't? You made the statement; the burden of proof is on you, "Clueless".
Seems to be just another baseless insult.
"Mike" is one of the most common accepted and understood nicknames in the world. It is hundreds of degrees more "real" than "Clueless".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Which judge are you referring to? What don't they "obviously" know about me?
THE JUDGE WHO CONVICTED AND SENTENCED YOU, AND THE JUSTICES IN THE APPELLATE COURT WHO DENIED YOUR APPEAL.
What is it exactly that I "should educate (them), (my) attorneys, or (my) extended family members about?
THE FEDERAL FILE IN YOUR IMAGINATION, OR THE "X" FILE.
How is it "obvious" that I "don't know much of right or wrong"?
PROVE IT OTHERWISE?
-Mike Foulks, (no need to put quotes around my name...it's real, not an alias like "Clueless".)
THE REAL NAME IN THIS CASE IS "MICHAEL D. FOULKS"
How could I prove that I know right from wrong? What evidence suggest that I don't? You made the statement; the burden of proof is on you, "Clueless".
JUDGE TOBIN MADE THE STATEMENT, WHICH WE CALL IT A JUDGMENT! IT IS NOT WRONGFUL AS YOU CLAIMED.
YOU HAD A RIGHT TO APPEAL IT, BUT YOU DID NOT DO SO. IS THAT RIGHT?
"Clueless",
Judge Tobin made no such statement about right and wrong.
That makes you wrong.
With regards to your further presumptions about my appeal, you are wrong (again).
Did you expect to easily find a number or record of my appeal when the original case has part of it "missing"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
How could I prove that I know right from wrong? What evidence suggest that I don't? You made the statement; the burden of proof is on you, "Clueless".
JUDGE TOBIN MADE THE STATEMENT, WHICH WE CALL IT A JUDGMENT! IT IS NOT WRONGFUL AS YOU CLAIMED.
YOU HAD A RIGHT TO APPEAL IT, BUT YOU DID NOT DO SO. IS THAT RIGHT?
"Jack Spear", "Jack Spears", whoever, you have proven Wolf Weiss (you and yourself) to be a fraud - thank you!
The claim was made: "Mike Foulks pled guilty so his mother would bail him out of jail".
When I pled guilty, I was already out on bail.
By the way, there is an obvious error with your transcription of #4:
"4. When defendant was released on bond he told his mother, (name omitted) that he had decided that he was going to plead guilty and that he was going to 'fight the charges'."
It obviously should read "...he was going to plead NOT guilty and that he was going to 'fight the charges'."
More importantly, you draw an inaccurate conclusion about this motion and its relative merits to my wrongful conviction.
This motion was prepared by a public defender who has jeopardized his law license. He knows why. You won't, at least, not in the forseeable future.
But for the sake of argument, let's go back to #1, since you are so interested in this case.
There is case law and guidelines about the setting of bonds. While a judge has a lot of discretion as to how much bond he will set to ensure that the defendant will return to court, the judge in this case was biased based on his misconduct, not mine.
Simply put, he should not have been setting bond in this particular case. He knows why. You won't, at least not in the forseeable future.
He, not innocently, provided the leverage enabling my mother and other interested parties (both family members and court officers) to deny me my civil rights to effective representation and a fair trial.
I believe you are correct, the inability to raise bond isn't a valid argument for duress. That, however, isn't the real argument. Your presumption lies in the question of whether the bond was legally set or not in the first place.
You also presume that this motion is complete, or was legally made.
If you are sincerely interested, research the importance of "Geist". It's right up there with Miranda rights, in my opinion.
You go on to report something else inaccurately: (you really DO have a problem interpreting these documents)
You claim that there is another "Supplemental Motion to Vacate Plea of Guilty".
There is only one such motion in the public record. I believe you are referring to an "SOJ" motion - Substitution of Judge. The judge who ruled on that motion has also jeopardized his legal career. He knows why. You won't, at least, not in the forseeable future.
Anyhow, growing up or being a member of a "dysfunctional family" isn't a mental illness, nor is it a history of "mental defect".
You are blurring the lines of psychiatry and psychology. It is too common a mistake, in my opinion.
To answer your question: No, I am not a fraud. I have no mental illness and that is a fact the court was forced to accept. Her reluctance to do so only supports my valid claims that I was forced to plead guilty by her misconduct.
I was not surprised that she quickly gave up the gavel days after her last ruling in my case.
I'll let you peek at what the "end of the book" of this case looks like: it hinges largely on the question of whether a defendant can claim duress based on reasonable suspicion that he won't be allowed a fair opportunity to exercise his civil rights to effective representation and a fair trial, that such attempts are doomed, not due to the evidence, but rather by the willful corruption of the officers of the court and their unwillingness to follow the law and proper procedures, or, must a defendant be able to have had proof, not merely suspicions (at the time of the forced pleading), and the relevancy of the defendant being able to prove most or all of these suspicions post-conviction.
Perhaps you can start in the middle: How can a judge accept a plea of guilt, which includes a "deal" to be placed in mental health probation (which requires that the defendant be, in fact, mentally ill), from a defendant she believes to be mentally ill without first having him examined to determine if he is, in fact, mentally ill, or even sane enough to enter such a plea?
"Crazy" case, ain't it? Welcome to Cook County.
Anyhow, I don't see what any of this has to do with Wolf Weiss' cyberstalking.
I would argue that Wolf Weiss' cyberstalking on Cabmarket.com is a lot more relevant to the taxi business than my wrongful conviction for a Class 4 felony 3 years ago.
What do you think about Wolf Weiss' cyberstalking on Cabmarket.com, Mr. "Jack Spear"?
Or is it "Jack Spears"?
What's your REAL NAME?
I'm beginning to wonder if "Wolfgang Johannes Weiss" might actually be an alias as well. Perhaps Wolf really did kill his parents and change his name.
Who in their right mind would name their son "Wolfgang-Johannes"?
I can't prove that Wolf Weiss had a dysfunctional family, but I strongly suspect that Wolf Weiss is, in fact, mentally ill.
He's probably guilty of cyberstalking.
I don't think he's dangerous. He is, in my opinion, a coward at heart.
It's okay, Wolf; nobody expects you to be a hero.
All we can hope for is that you start behaving more responsibly.
Maybe you can stop deluding yourself or trying to delude others with your lies and half-truths.
You might find this easier if you post everything here using your real name and stop insulting people with silly names.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Are you doing the quote marks becuase my nmae has "ears" in it? Grow, expand, try to rise above these things of childhood.
A Fair Trade My Man – Your evidence for my evidence and I go first.
You are right "Mr. Foulks." I have trouble reading court documents. Help me out with this, if you would be so kind:
In your Supplemental Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty and Vacate Judgment filed on June 27, 2006, it says:
###
In support of this motion the defendant states as follows:
1. The defendant was in custody and unable to post a $45,000.00 "D" Bond.
2. The defendant's mother (name omitted) posted bond for the defendant.
3. (Name omitted) set a condition for the posting of bond that the defendant would "plead guilty".
4. When defendant was released on bond he told his mother, (name omitted) that he had decided that he was going to plead guilty and that he was going to 'fight the charges'.
5. The defendant states that (name omitted) told the defendant that if he pled not guilty she would have the judge revoke his bond and that she would say that the defendant made more threats to make sure that his bond would be revoked.
6. The defendant, fearing, that he would have his bond increased and that his Mother, (name omitted) would make additional allegations to insure that the defendant would not be able to post that bond ultimately pled guilty.
7. If the defendant had not feared actions by his mother to revoke his bond he would have not pled guilty.
###
But of course, the argument that you pled guilty because you would have to wait in lock up without the bond is not a valid argument for duress, although it must be very stressful for an innocent man to stew in jail even a minute.
In another Supplemental Motion (to) Vacate Plea of Guilty you claim you tried to argue that your mental health history was discussed, and you deny having any mental health history to talk about in the first place, but which you have confirmed here that you have had dysfunctional family problems since childhood.
Now, where is your evidence of Weiss' fraud you have claimed? If you don't have any, and you say he is a fraud, then you are the fraud, no?
I wish that he could respond to you.
You are the one blurring the lines here.
Don't you think that the appellate court or the supreme court justices were also against YOU?
You had your motion to withdrew your plea filed late. Didn't you forget counting? Was was the real reason of the "denial"? Why supreme court rules should not not apply to you, because you were so innocent?
You got what you deserved, and YOU knew why. We won't, at least, not in the forseeable future.
You may need to contact the Independent Council's Office this time.
I am beginning to understand. This is a very fascinating case.
So much minutia, so many issues just swirling around in your head. It seems more than enough to bring an average man to his knees and cry.
Question: If it is not true that you plead guilty so that mom would (and did) bail you out, why does it say so in (#3) of your motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
Poker players bluff or legal strategy?
"Jack Spear",
You are wrong (again)...#3 doesn't say what you claim.
You wrote: "Question: If it is not true that you plead guilty so that mom would (and did) bail you out, why does it say so in (#3) of your motion to withdraw the guilty plea?"
Here what's #1, #2, and #3 says:
1. The defendant was in custody and unable to post a $45,000.00 "D" Bond.
2. The defendant's mother (name omitted) posted bond for the defendant.
3. (Name omitted) set a condition for the posting of bond that the defendant would "plead guilty".
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT I PLED GUILTY SO THAT MY MOTHER WOULD BAIL ME OUT OF JAIL.
IT SAYS THAT MY MOTHER SET A CONDITION FOR THE POSTING OF BOND THAT I WOULD PLEAD GUILTY.
I am not obligated to honor my mother's (or any others') illegal contract.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I am beginning to understand. This is a very fascinating case.
So much minutia, so many issues just swirling around in your head. It seems more than enough to bring an average man to his knees and cry.
Question: If it is not true that you plead guilty so that mom would (and did) bail you out, why does it say so in (#3) of your motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
Poker players bluff or legal strategy?
You should start a thread on one or more legal and law discussion groups about your case. I hear they have discussion boards and blogs for ex-offenders, too. If I was in your shoes, I would be reviewing all possible channels.
Why is it that they will almost always believe a guy if he confesses or pleads guilty, but if he denies the charges they say he is a liar?
Somehow the presumption of innocence goes up in thin air when a guy confesses, and no matter what the reasons or circumstances to plead guilty were.
It was previously posted that Foulks tried to scare $125,00 out of (name omitted in (town omitted), IL.
That's $250,00 as the rap sheet says:
the "defendant used electronic communications to wit: a telephone for the purpose of threatening injury to the person or property to wit: defendant called the home of victim (name omitted) and told (name omitted) that he would kill him if he did not give the defendant $250,000."
Anyway, we should let this sleeping dog lie? No? Why? Since Foulks is running for "office" of a taxi-related group he has been trying to form, his past, his present and his future are at issue and subject to close scrutiny, worse than a cross-examination.
We want to choose our leaders based on their abilities and capabilities; judgment, honesty, integrity, intelligence, wit, political prowess, poise, communications skills, brand of clothes, family relations, professional and civic relations, and activities and a number other equally important factors.
Did the victim really robe a bank?
I have to double check on the Federal Prison system.
It all started in the year of 2003. Was it in June or in July?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It was previously posted that Foulks tried to scare $125,00 out of (name omitted in (town omitted), IL.
That's $250,00 as the rap sheet says:
the "defendant used electronic communications to wit: a telephone for the purpose of threatening injury to the person or property to wit: defendant called the home of victim (name omitted) and told (name omitted) that he would kill him if he did not give the defendant $250,000."
Anyway, we should let this sleeping dog lie? No? Why? Since Foulks is running for "office" of a taxi-related group he has been trying to form, his past, his present and his future are at issue and subject to close scrutiny, worse than a cross-examination.
We want to choose our leaders based on their abilities and capabilities; judgment, honesty, integrity, intelligence, wit, political prowess, poise, communications skills, brand of clothes, family relations, professional and civic relations, and activities and a number other equally important factors.
Seems like the "victim" and the State can't keep their story straight.
Was it $125,000? Was it $250,000?
$500,000? One Million Dollars?
Maybe Regis Philbin asked them through their TV if they wanted to "go for a million"?
Is that a "death threat"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It was previously posted that Foulks tried to scare $125,00 out of (name omitted in (town omitted), IL.
That's $250,00 as the rap sheet says:
the "defendant used electronic communications to wit: a telephone for the purpose of threatening injury to the person or property to wit: defendant called the home of victim (name omitted) and told (name omitted) that he would kill him if he did not give the defendant $250,000."
Anyway, we should let this sleeping dog lie? No? Why? Since Foulks is running for "office" of a taxi-related group he has been trying to form, his past, his present and his future are at issue and subject to close scrutiny, worse than a cross-examination.
We want to choose our leaders based on their abilities and capabilities; judgment, honesty, integrity, intelligence, wit, political prowess, poise, communications skills, brand of clothes, family relations, professional and civic relations, and activities and a number other equally important factors.
Is that a "death threat"?
Who knows what the fed is going to say about it.
Can we guess?
