Bravenet has not banned me. Nor has Lutfallah. This posting may be deleted by him because he pays so dearly for the right to be able to decide who posts on his website.
Lutfallah has deleted many of my postings in the past. But he won't delete any more. It's time to stop with the postings that take time away from activism.
Lutfallah's felon ally has suggested that details of the civil litigation against the City need to be disclosed on the "Dispatcher Forum" and that I have some sort of duty to lay out both progress and our strategy for the City attorneys to read along with the taxi industy. I think not. The reason foulks can to to the public record to satisfy his curiousity is that it is not in the interest of my clients OR the cabdrivers in Chicago to educate the enemy.
ONLY A DUMMY WOULD JUMP INTO THAT TRAP. But foulks is an agent of Richie Rich, and we all know it. He's on the short list to be the next DCS Commissioner even though he's a convicted felon. Da Mare doesn't mind his felony background. Why should he? It wasn't a violent felony. It was only a death threat.
So I'm planning on ignoring foulks' further provocations and his rantings. Let the junkyard dog howl at the moon. Unless there's something really useful to comment on - and it's certainly not going to come from ANYTHING foulks has to say - I think it best to take a pass on saying it.
No doubt most will find this a welcome choice anyway.
Donald Nathan
Wake up, Mr. Nathan. You are subconsciously responding to me with your self-delusions.
I'm glad to hear that neither Bravenet nor Mr. Lutfallah has banned you. Who is this "Jack Spear" who claimed to get an e-mail saying that both you and Mr. Weiss were banned?
Who but an enemy of George Lutfallah would distribute such a lie in an e-mail, or obviously lie here about such an e-mail?
There are many reasons why Mr. Lutfallah has deleted many of your previous postings. All of the ones I know about were with good reason.
I agree with you, Mr. Nathan, that it is indeed time to stop with the non-productive lies, half-truths, insults, and irrelevancies.
You go first.
You already blew it when you refer to me as "Lutfallah's felon ally". I am not an "ally" of Mr. Lutfallah's.
This is a powerful self-delusion which serves no good purpose to those suffering from it. If I can't convince you how untruthful this notion is, perhaps I can suggest that it is a great exagerration to call me, "Lutfallah' felon ally".
It is as disrespectful to Mr. Lutfallah as it is to me.
I simply asked for a more detailed update on the lawsuit you filed against the City of Chicago in Mr. Weiss' interest. I don't see how discussing the public record so far could have any detrimental effect upon the case, but I tend, reluctantly, to defer to your "expertise" at the moment.
However, your credibility about your "reasoning" takes a nose-dive when you proceed to refer to me as an "agent of Richie Rich". If you really believe that the City pays such close attention to this website, I don't see how deriding our Mayor in such a juvenile manner benefits anyone.
You go on to claim that I am a possible candidate to be DCS Comissioner. I am not qualified to be the DCS Commissioner nor would I accept any employment with the City of Chicago. I am a full-time cabdriver and I plan to be so for many years, perhaps until I retire.
I never admitted to making a "death threat" against anyone at anytime. This is part of the public record. I pled guilty only to telephone harassment, and I have made a timely claim regarding this unlawful conviction. The complete adjudication of this case will likely remain out of the public record once a final disposition is reached.
I anticipate being vindicated. It is a continuing criminal investigation involving several members of my extended family and officers of the court. Quite frankly, it is simply none of your business, at least, not at this time.
This is why much of the information about this unfortunate legal situation of mine isn't accessible to you and most other people. None of this affects my chauffeur's license or my political activities.
I think you have been a failure at many things, Mr. Nathan. I think you will fail to "ignore (my) provocations".
Especially because I have had many useful things to say. I will continue to have many useful things to say. I will continue to do many things worth commenting on, whether you are agreeable or not.
None of this is meant to "provoke" you, Mr. Nathan. You think you are far more important to me than the reality: I don't care about what you say or do much at all.
However, I agree again, most of us would prefer that you stick to the issues and stay out of our personal conflicts.
Here's an underhanded softball pitch for you, Mr. Nathan:
What are your legal thoughts about the credit card requirements?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Bravenet has not banned me. Nor has Lutfallah. This posting may be deleted by him because he pays so dearly for the right to be able to decide who posts on his website.
Lutfallah has deleted many of my postings in the past. But he won't delete any more. It's time to stop with the postings that take time away from activism.
Lutfallah's felon ally has suggested that details of the civil litigation against the City need to be disclosed on the "Dispatcher Forum" and that I have some sort of duty to lay out both progress and our strategy for the City attorneys to read along with the taxi industy. I think not. The reason foulks can to to the public record to satisfy his curiousity is that it is not in the interest of my clients OR the cabdrivers in Chicago to educate the enemy.
ONLY A DUMMY WOULD JUMP INTO THAT TRAP. But foulks is an agent of Richie Rich, and we all know it. He's on the short list to be the next DCS Commissioner even though he's a convicted felon. Da Mare doesn't mind his felony background. Why should he? It wasn't a violent felony. It was only a death threat.
So I'm planning on ignoring foulks' further provocations and his rantings. Let the junkyard dog howl at the moon. Unless there's something really useful to comment on - and it's certainly not going to come from ANYTHING foulks has to say - I think it best to take a pass on saying it.
No doubt most will find this a welcome choice anyway.
Donald Nathan
