As usual, Donald Nathan makes a false and defamatory statement about me.
Mr. Nathan,
I have never suggested that either of the married couples, Weiss/Weiss or Khan/Santucci, was a particular source of worry.
Any married couple in any organization should be the subject of scrutinization. In fact, it should be made obvious to the public that any two individuals in any organization, especially a non-profit, are married to each other.
Their lack of a criminal background isn't relevant. It is the legal and personal conflicts of interest (and privilieges) which would deter or prevent one spouse from properly serving the interests of the organization, the public, or the law...due to a natural interest in protecting the other spouse...LEGALLY OR NOT.
Nothing in this thread suggests that my general concerns about married couples in positions of authority and responsibility in any organization were wrong.
So, as usual, you lie and defame me when you say; "So, as usual, the felon is wrong."
What else are you, Mr. Nathan, "as usual", "wrong" about me being "wrong about".
Let me point out what you are, IN FACT, wrong about, Mr. Nathan:
There are no "CCO books" regarding any financial transactions for any future President of the CCO to audit. There is no Treasurer and there is no Treasury. The CCO, nor does any of its leadership or membership, DOESN'T SOLICIT OR ACCEPT MONEY OR GIFTS.
You've been aware of this and have been made aware of this many times, Mr. Nathan. When will you "get it"?
Your assertion that CPTDA members are currently unpaid is irrelevant. The CPTDA could accept a grant and Raja Khan or Diane Santucci might vote or throught their authority, ditribute and unjust amount of this money to their spouse, or, perhaps overlook the misappropriation of funds or any misconduct by the other.
The fact that Mr. Weiss is also involved in another organization with the same complexity of having spouses wielding power together is absolutely relevant to anybody who is concerned about the fact that he is also involved with the CPTDA.
I have no "personal animus" towards Wolf Weiss.
There is nothing specious about my concerns about married couples being in an organization together. I don't "object" to that situation unless the married couples themselves try to pretend that their marriage is irrelevant to the operations of that organization.
I am not "chronically single". I choose to be single. I have never been married simply because I haven't found any particular woman I would like to commit spending the rest of my life with. I doubt I ever will. I have had my share of satisfying relationships. I have no doubt that I will have more in due time.
Which group has its "meetings in a toliet stall"? I don;t think that public scutiny is or should be the same for them.
Just how much money is in the "Clients' Fund Account" you control, Mr. Nathan? Who gave you the money, where, when, how, and why?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
See below for the correct answers. Even I had to do some research. The question of privileged communication between husband and wife is a statutory one that has been interpreted by the courts, chiefly in criminal settings. The issue rarely comes up in civil contexts.
As for the credit examples raised by the felon, I'd observe that neither of the couples he would want to draw focus upon needs to be a source of worry. None of the four of these people has ever been charged with a felony - or even a crime, let alone multiple crimes.
So read through the privilege again. If one spouse makes an admission to the other that he or she embezzled money, the communication has to be kept confidential. But if one spouse comes upon knowledge of the embezzlement independent of the communication, he or she can testify against the other about it.
So, as usual, the felon is wrong.
On the other hand, because - THANK GOD - Ted isn't married to any felon, when he goes through the CCO books after he is elected and he might find an embezzlement, I sure do hope he reports it to the proper authorities. There sure would be no breach of any privilege here. Ted would never marry a felon. Get the comparison everybody?
As for the question of compensation, keep in mind that the CPTDA Directors are unpaid, so it hardly matters that Diane and Raja are both among the Directors from the standpoint of remuneration. The felon's criticism in this regard is just stupid. As for the relationship of Wolf Weiss to his wife, Shannon Weiss, in respect to their organization, I don't see how that relates to the taxi industry one iota. Why should anyone care what their relationship is on this "Forum" with respect to a renters' rights organization? WHO CARES?
WHY DO YOU CARE OTHER THAN FOR YOUR PERSONAL ANIMUS?
Your objection to married couples being in any organization together is utterly specious. No wonder you are chronically single.
And the collection of money is something that has to be done in a fiduciary capacity by any individual or organization with the greatest of care. Whether it is done by a charitable organization, a not-for-profit corporation, an attorney with a Clients' Funds Account or a rag-tag outfit that holds its meetings in a toilet stall makes no difference. Public scrutiny should be the same for all of them.
Donald Nathan
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois monitors and periodically audits the Clients' Funds Account of my professional corporation. You don't have that right.
It will be a very cold day in a very warm place before an accounting is made of what is being held there for a felon - or any other individual for that matter - other than the clients who have their money entrusted being held there.
Funds are maintained there for clients in cases that require confidentiality that could never be breached. Even a moron understands that.
In other words, go to blazes.
I understand more than you know, Mr. Nathan. You said, "Public Scutiny", not me!
So which is it?
Do I, as a member of the public, have a right to "scrutinize" your Clients Fund Account or not?
Why did you suggest that it was open to "Public Scutiny" a few comments ago?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois monitors and periodically audits the Clients' Funds Account of my professional corporation. You don't have that right.
It will be a very cold day in a very warm place before an accounting is made of what is being held there for a felon - or any other individual for that matter - other than the clients who have their money entrusted being held there.
Funds are maintained there for clients in cases that require confidentiality that could never be breached. Even a moron understands that.
In other words, go to blazes.
No false or defamatory statement has been made about the convicted felon, foulks, in discussing the privilege of interspousal communications. I have made the observation that layman foulks spouts his legal lack of knowledge in such a way that it amazes me anyone could take him seriously.
Instead of doing any legal research, he blubbers conclusions of law that are patently WRONG about what couples can do with funds. And he makes indirect suggestions that improper things might happen with monies entrusted to certain couples in the taxi industry.
Hey, felon foulks - people who live in glass houses gought to be careful about throwing stones. You just might break the glass around you. When you already stink to high heaven, you don't have the right to criticize others.
In the next life when you're holier than the Saints, maybe you'll have the privilege of leveling the wrath of the Lord. For the rest of this one, however, you're just going to have to make due with the felony history you've got. There's nothing defamatory about the truth, buster. That's all I've ever used around you.
Make your case with an actual example, Mr. Nathan. You are a blowhard.
You wrote: "Instead of doing any legal research, he blubbers conclusions of law that are patently WRONG about what couples can do with funds."
What "conclusion" did I "blubber" which was "patently WRONG"?
By the way, I believe that Ms. Desai of the NYTWA in New York married a member of that organization.
Would it be proper for the hubby to audit the wifey in that organization?
I don't have to be a legal scholar or researcher to know that the answer is NO...no matter how you want to present your "answer".
You have defamed more times than I think you are even aware of, Mr. Nathan. When anyone actually cares, I might sue you...ooops...I meant "show you".
Watch your mouth, "pal" "buster" or whatever condescending term you like to add on to your arrogant messages to me.
There's nothing intimidating to me about your litte law license or your limited knowledge of the law.
Blow-hard.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
No false or defamatory statement has been made about the convicted felon, foulks, in discussing the privilege of interspousal communications. I have made the observation that layman foulks spouts his legal lack of knowledge in such a way that it amazes me anyone could take him seriously.
Instead of doing any legal research, he blubbers conclusions of law that are patently WRONG about what couples can do with funds. And he makes indirect suggestions that improper things might happen with monies entrusted to certain couples in the taxi industry.
Hey, felon foulks - people who live in glass houses gought to be careful about throwing stones. You just might break the glass around you. When you already stink to high heaven, you don't have the right to criticize others.
In the next life when you're holier than the Saints, maybe you'll have the privilege of leveling the wrath of the Lord. For the rest of this one, however, you're just going to have to make due with the felony history you've got. There's nothing defamatory about the truth, buster. That's all I've ever used around you.
foulks - there is no need to engage you. Your suggestion that married couples who happen to be in the taxi industry owe some special fiduciary duty is imbecilic. No one in his right mind would buy into your logic. It almost reads like Sarah Palin dressing moose.
Are you a male Barbie?
I grant you don't have to be a legal scholar to gurgle out stupidities. But when you shoot from the hip (remember that even I had to go to the books on this point) and miss the target altogether, you can expect you might be criticized with justification.
Try reading the law that I looked up. Try reading the cases I found on the point. When you do, then stop shooting from the hip and we can talk about what married couples can say and do based on knowledge each other has. This has nothing to do with any defamation or your limited knowlege of the law.
Mr. Nathan,
Married couples in most orgs. present real and apparent conflicts of interest.
There's nothing "defamatory" about pointing out this fact and the facts that certain people who don't share the last same name but are married are involved in cabdriver organizations in both Chicago and New York.
Don't want to "engage me further" on these facts?
Good. I've got better things to do. My point has been made.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
foulks - there is no need to engage you. Your suggestion that married couples who happen to be in the taxi industry owe some special fiduciary duty is imbecilic. No one in his right mind would buy into your logic. It almost reads like Sarah Palin dressing moose.
Are you a male Barbie?
I grant you don't have to be a legal scholar to gurgle out stupidities. But when you shoot from the hip (remember that even I had to go to the books on this point) and miss the target altogether, you can expect you might be criticized with justification.
Try reading the law that I looked up. Try reading the cases I found on the point. When you do, then stop shooting from the hip and we can talk about what married couples can say and do based on knowledge each other has. This has nothing to do with any defamation or your limited knowlege of the law.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Lutfallah allows his "Forum" to be the vehicle for a felon to defame couples who happen to be in or near the taxi industry: Diane Santucci and Raja Khan; Bhairavi Desai (a New Yorker) and her husband whose name I do not even know; Wolfgang Weiss and his wife, Shannon (not even in the taxi industry).
The felon has a need to hose anyone he thinks might have opinions that differ from his. He figures that Lutfallah is going to let him get away with his nonsense forever, and it now looks like Lutfallah will. That reflects badly on Mr. Lutfallah, but there are, no doubt, many who think the felon and his protector walk on water.
Maybe they do.
I know this much. The reason the felon asked Peter Enger what he thought about centralized dispatch services was because after Da Mare appoints him next Commissioner of DCS, he wants to give that lucrative business to one of his close cronies. Enger's opinion is important because he speaks for so many cabdrivers in Chicago.
If Da Mare keeps Ms. Reyes as Commissioner, he wants Enger's opinion anyway for the same reasons. He has his own self-interest in some other way that I haven't been able to figure out yet. But he still needs to know what Enger thinks before he can exploit the idea for his own benefit.
One way or another, the felon defames decent people and does it in a despicable way. Shame on him.
Mr. Nathan,
How have I "defamed" Raja Khan and his wife, Diane Santucci?
How have I "defamed" Bhairavi Desai and her husband?
How have I "defamed" Wolf Weiss and Shannon Weiss?
I welcome anyone who might have different opinions about anythinhg with anyone to discuss them here on CabMarket.com.
So does Mr. Lutfallah. None of this reflects badly on either him or me.
Mr. Lutfallah isn't my "protector". I don't "walk on water".
Mayor Daley isn't going to appoint me to be the "next Commissioner of DCS". You, and anyone else who suggests or thinks so is simply riduculous.
The "reason (I) asked Peter Enger what he thought about centralized dispatch servicees" is because Mr. Enger published the concept in a recent issue of the UTCC Voice.
Don't you even read the UTCC Voice?
I'm glad you (rightly) see promotion of "centralized dispatch services" as an opportunity for somebody to make yet another buck off the backs of me and my fellow cabdrivers. Most likely, without a commensurate value to anyone.
Mr. Enger doesn't "speak for so many cabdrivers in Chicago". At least, I speak for many more than he.
We don't want "centralized dispatch services". We don't want to be forced to even take a "call-a-day" for that matter.
Mr. Daley has almost no distinct conception of who Peter Enger is, in my opinion. When the "gas surcharge" ordinance was passed, Mr. Enger wasn't even present. I, however, was recognized on sight by members of the press that day. Even Ms. Georges made eye contact and was smiling directly at me as I sat in the audience.
This idea of "centralized dispatch services" was disucssed with Mr. Enger in a telephone conversation I had with him some time ago. He obviously didn't understand why I brought the subject up as an example of an idea which seems good at first, but is actually detrimental to the interests of most Chicago cabdrivers.
He had no ideation of this concept before I mentioned it. In my opinion, Mr. Enger can clearly be a fool at times. If Mr. Enger wants to "steal my idea", he can have it. It's not something I endorse or promote.
"Centralized dispatching services" is a horrible idea.
If you don't believe my claims, research the discussion I had on this topic on Taxi-List@yahoogroups.com some time ago.
Mr. Nathan, I have "defamed" nobody. To do so, I would have had to tell a lie about them.
WHO HAVE I LIED ABOUT? HOW AND WHEN?
You are extremely uninformed much of the time, Mr. Nathan. That's no lie. I think your ignorance is largely deliberate or feigned.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is unfortunate that Mr. Lutfallah allows his "Forum" to be the vehicle for a felon to defame couples who happen to be in or near the taxi industry: Diane Santucci and Raja Khan; Bhairavi Desai (a New Yorker) and her husband whose name I do not even know; Wolfgang Weiss and his wife, Shannon (not even in the taxi industry).
The felon has a need to hose anyone he thinks might have opinions that differ from his. He figures that Lutfallah is going to let him get away with his nonsense forever, and it now looks like Lutfallah will. That reflects badly on Mr. Lutfallah, but there are, no doubt, many who think the felon and his protector walk on water.
Maybe they do.
I know this much. The reason the felon asked Peter Enger what he thought about centralized dispatch services was because after Da Mare appoints him next Commissioner of DCS, he wants to give that lucrative business to one of his close cronies. Enger's opinion is important because he speaks for so many cabdrivers in Chicago.
If Da Mare keeps Ms. Reyes as Commissioner, he wants Enger's opinion anyway for the same reasons. He has his own self-interest in some other way that I haven't been able to figure out yet. But he still needs to know what Enger thinks before he can exploit the idea for his own benefit.
One way or another, the felon defames decent people and does it in a despicable way. Shame on him.
You do not need to lie about people to defame them.
You have no concept of what defamation is about. It is not my function to be your law professor, however.
The innuendo you use is so personally offensive to so many people from the taxi industry who post here and who read postings that it amazes me you have been able to get away with your nonsense. I expect the reason you do get away with it has much to do with the tacit blessing of George Lutfallah and the prominence he allows your postings to have.
As for Mayor Daley appointing you to ANY executive position, don't hold your breath. Mr. Daley is far too sophisticated to make that kind of mistake. It has nothing to do with your felony background. It has more to do with your complete want of administrative experience and total lack of educational training. Say what you like of the last several Commissioners of DCS, at least they were women of letters - trained administrators who had experience in working with people instead of just insulting them.
You don't have to lie about people to defame them. You just have to defame them. You have done that time and again - deftly. Your racial slurs and ethnic epithets hardly endear you to people either. Ask a few of your victims, all of whom can now be counted among a growing list of those who hardly admire you.
Most of those people are just waiting for you to go down on your next felony charge.
Well said Mr. Nathan.
Mr. Nathan,
A lie is a fundamental requisite of defamation, Mr. Nathan. You don't know the law.
I am amazed that you passed the bar if you aren't aware of the simple fact that a lie is a fundamental requisite of defamation.
I haven't "gotten away" with anything, Mr. Nathan.
I'm glad your silliness has come full circle:
First, you suggest that I am on the "short list" or "next in line" for the position of DCS Commissioner.
Now you tell me not to "hold my breath" because Mayor Daley is "far too sophisticated to make that kind of mistake".
I wasn't "holding my breath", Mr. Nathan. I was laughing my ass off at your buffoonery. I still am.
I don't think I am the only one.
Again, Mr. Nathan, a lie is a fundamental requisite of defamation. I dropped out of high school, yet I know at least that much about the law.
Why don't you?
If you are truly "waiting for (me) to go down on (my) next felony charge", I have only one legal request of you...
Hold your breath. For everybody's sake.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You do not need to lie about people to defame them.
You have no concept of what defamation is about. It is not my function to be your law professor, however.
The innuendo you use is so personally offensive to so many people from the taxi industry who post here and who read postings that it amazes me you have been able to get away with your nonsense. I expect the reason you do get away with it has much to do with the tacit blessing of George Lutfallah and the prominence he allows your postings to have.
As for Mayor Daley appointing you to ANY executive position, don't hold your breath. Mr. Daley is far too sophisticated to make that kind of mistake. It has nothing to do with your felony background. It has more to do with your complete want of administrative experience and total lack of educational training. Say what you like of the last several Commissioners of DCS, at least they were women of letters - trained administrators who had experience in working with people instead of just insulting them.
You don't have to lie about people to defame them. You just have to defame them. You have done that time and again - deftly. Your racial slurs and ethnic epithets hardly endear you to people either. Ask a few of your victims, all of whom can now be counted among a growing list of those who hardly admire you.
Most of those people are just waiting for you to go down on your next felony charge.
You'll get some respect when you are no longer a convicted felon and you are ready to sit for the Bar Exam.
You just might have some trouble getting past the Committee on Character and Fitness even if you ever do graduate from college and then graduate from law school.
Having ANY conviction for ANY crime is a problem. Having SEVERAL convictions is something of a stumbling block. Having as much as an arrest takes a good bit of explanation.
I'm sure you will garner my respect and the respect of all who read the postings on this website when you achieve something in life other than the distinction of being a junkyard dog.
When you get to that point, mr. mike, then you can tell us all that I don't know what I am talking about as a lawyer with some authority. Until then, you just sound like a male version of Sarah Palin.
I guess there's not much difference between dressing moose and tossing sheep dip over your shoulder.
Best luck with your next election. Has Ms. Callahan accepted the opportunity to run for office? I would expect NOT. She has way too much class.
Donald Nathan
what if george and mike were married? then they would have to open the books of chicago dispatcher and cco to see if there was any wrongdoing. would they file taxes togeterh? what a bout a prenut-tual agreement?
they could get married in san francisco now. then if george run for election in cco they need another election judge to count ballots because mike would be the wife.
george i think you have to get a divorce from carriage first.
i said knock it off.
Lets keep it civil here. One thing though, George now has ties to two brothers that are taxicab vets. He is married on the North side now. He already struck out with the Russian mob. Trouble is he's with the Italians. Do these guys still lop off heads when they get tired of someone?
I'm still alive. The B brothers are civilized. They don't do bad things to people when they tire of them. I worked with them back in the '90's and I'm still here. Whether or not they tire of George, they will certainly treat him with the respect he deserves.
My previous comments were little more than joke Mr. Nathan. The other guy thought George was still affiliated with the so called Russian mob. I just made a joke that he switched to the maffia. I wasn't really serious as the two brothers probably couldn't even tell me where a good casino was. They are more like sheep than bulls.
I too was affiliated with the American United bunch in the 90's as you well know. I still stand by my previous comments that you did well to recover my losses more than once. I am sure our paths will cross agiain one day. Anyway, Thanks for helping us drivers! You are A REAL HERO TO US!
I don't post here seekeing praise, but when it comes it sure is appreciated just the same. Thank you.
Roger and Bobby were always good to me. Their dad was a prince - may he rest in peace. I could never do enough for Big Tony. And I only wish I had the chance to succeed for him the more before he passed away. The lot of them were always clean as a whistle in a tough business - honorable to a fault. Quote me.
