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?
