Mr. Nathan,

There are no 'secrets' here. Nice try at delusion, but...no. Are you gonna keep trying to find one or are you gonna keep looking (like O.J. looks for Nicole Simpson's 'killer')??? Keep trying to suggest something about me that isn't true and you will appreciate my comprehensive interpretation of the term 'extralegal'.

You will be out of your element there.

It is no 'secret' I despise you. I watched you very carefully, Mr. Nathan. I have judged you fairly. You supported liars and fools. What does that make you?

It is no 'secret' that I am 'not licensed to practice law'. I never suggested I was. It does not make your legal opinions any more valuable or valueless. It doesn't modify the face value of my contributions.

I can give much better practical advice to the realistic legal situations cabdrivers face every day as opposed to those on your admitted agenda of 'expand(ing our) rights'.

I have no 'reason to hide (cabdrivers') rights from them'. When, where, and how have I 'hidden' cabdrivers' rights from them? You are an idiotic interloper. You really don't know who I am. A lot of cabdrivers do. Maybe you should ask one about me.

I also am notorious for 'taking advantage' of my rights. Do you know of any other cabdriver who put a political hack of a judge like Ms. Fawell through the inanity of a jury trial for a speeding ticket?

Why would you suggest that I wouldn't take full advantage of my rights or that I'm 'hiding' rights from cabdrivers?

If we were in a bar, Mr. Nathan, you would already be 'ejected'. HOW DARE YOU attempt to portray me as something I'm not!

WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE MR. NATHAN!?!

There are 'dirty secrets' in this business. You won't find them 'cited' anywhere. They are not 'public knowledge'. We don't need legal help for those that some of us already use to our advantage.

You are so much more 'linked' to Mr. Tang than me and yes, you are so much more 'linked' to the 'cab companies' than Mr. Lutfallah. Quit lying.

I am glad that you are not so narrow-minded as to understand that the tactics available to cabdrivers extend beyond the legal arena.

Mr. Nathan, first you imply that the CCO should do something and then you avoid the direct question as if I brought it up pointlessly. Is it any wonder why I might 'hate' you?

I don't 'hate' you, Mr. Nathan. I'm not a Jew-hater, as you previously implied, and you are 3/8ths Jew. How's that for logic?

(Mr. Nathan's logic: If you don't agree with him that I have an 'ugly soul', you are not commonly decent! Therefore, commonly decent people agree with Mr. Nathan...Mike Foulks has an 'ugly soul'!)

I have no need for a lawyer like you, Mr. Nathan. I never will.

I'm not from Hell. I'm from the South Side of Chicago. I currently reside in Chinatown. It's convenient to 26th and California and the Federal Courts, which I visit frequently.

Quit talking about what your 'hundreds of clients' think about you without allowing us a way to check. Please.

I'll try to read the McCabe case; you could just admit that you don't have an electronic version of this critical case of yours. Apparently, you haven't taken the time to create such a file. What does that say about your interest with helping cabdrivers here?

I guess we are all supposed to take 'Grandpa Don's' word for it. Guess again.

HEE-HAW!

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Foulks:

Your personal enmity oozes out of your posting. You have an ugly soul, and anyone who is commonly decent can spot it a mile away by one of the senses other than sight.

I respond to your points:


"It is you who is out of your element, not I."

--- You, sir, are not licensed to practice law. You are out of your element in offering legal opinions even when they involve Chicago Cabdrivers.


"Your silly attempt to belittle me by asserting that I need to 'think of myself a certain way' in order to collect whatever benefits I am entitled to under the law is not appreciated, nor is it sound 'advice'."

--- Who cares about you enough to belittle you? It's only important that drivers should know their rights. Do you have some reason to hide their rights from them? Who gives a diddly **** that you might choose to avoid taking advantage of your rights if you should be injured in a wreck while in the course of and within the scope of your employment relationship with Chicago Carriage Cab or any other entity. But why would you want to hide those rights from other drivers? What's the motive, Mr. Foulks?


"The Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO) is not 'mine'. Why do you and Mr. Tang insist on confusing the CCO with some other group that exists only in your imaginations?"


--- Okay, it's not yours. There you go.


"There are cabdrivers who have challenged the requirement to work in underserved areas. You're just not aware of them because you're no longer a 'connected' cabdriver."

--- Cite to it, sir. Let's have chapter and verse.


"Your closest link (Mr. Tang) is no longer a Chicago cabdriver."

--- I am not "linked" to Yi Tang any more so than I am to you. I am just a lawyer for thirty-two years who drove a cab as a young man for seven years. For close to 20 years, I defended cab drivers for Delta Casualty, the carrier for Flash Cab and served as an advisor for the captains of the industry - I say it with mixed pride and shame at this point. Most people acquainted with me in the industry would not say my link with it is Yi Tang. But you suit yourself.


"There are ways to challenge these things (de facto) other than litigation."

--- I suppose I agree. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did it with tactics other than just litigation. So too did Gandhi - he beat the British without a weapon in his hands, only his head.


"The only apparent justification for you being involved in any of these discussions is for you to properly inform us of your legal opinion."

--- Gee. Thanks for the indirect respect.


"You admit that we already win cases in our favor when we are 'hurt badly enough'. So why is their a need for further litigation as to our 'employment status'?"

--- Admit? What's to admit? My concern is to expand those rights and win cases that broaden those rights. If you don't want to do so on your own behalf or on behalf of other Cabdrivers, maybe you have motives that should be exposed.


"What do you think the 'CCO' or any group of cabdrivers should be doing and why?"

--- What does it matter what I think your "CCO" should be doing? Do you really want MY opinion? Why? So you can attack me? I'm not biting your bait, Mr. Hate. I mean Mr. Foulks.


"Why are you so interested in those cabdrivers who are organizing themselves, Mr. Nathan?"

--- Why are you worried about me having ulterior motives? What are you assuming here?


"I would never have you represent me in a court of law, no matter how much you decide to hone your knowledge or your personality."

--- You, sir, would be the client from hell. No lawyer in his right mind would take you on as a client. No one could represent you effectively.


"Please list a 'couple hundred' of your former clients by name, case title and date, and a contact number so that I may get their opinion of you 'straight from the horse's mouth'."

--- I think that inappropriate and doing so in the way you might want it done would possibly be a violation of the Canons of Ethics. Pass.


"Please post or e-mail me the entire McCabe case, especially since you suggest its simplicity of concluding this question."

--- Read the posting to which you replied. IT IS CITED AS GLOBE CAB CO v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION with the book and page numbers for you to pull it and read it. The case is 26 years old. I represented McCabe in the uninsured motorist claim against Prestige Casualty Company and in the Circuit Court of Cook County in the Law Division when I was an associate at Heller and Morris, a law partnership that dissolved later in the mid 1980's.


"Please allow me the honor of reading between your lines and insisting that it takes a Jackass to know a Jackass, and you sir, are a Jackass."

--- Thanks for your judgment, sir. Others may not necessarily agree with you about me, at least.


Don Nathan

Mr. Foulks:

The book and page numbers of the Globe Cab case were given to you so you could read it. It is obvious you do not have easy access to a law library. So I will try to send you an electronic link to it by ordinary e-mail later today.

The Workers Compensation aspect of the case was handled by Louis Cohn of Cohn, Lambert & Ryan. The common law aspect of the case against the uninsured motorist and the Declaratory Judgment action against Prestige Casualty were handled by me. However, it's the W/C aspect of the matter that went to the Supreme Court, and it's lessons are still of use today while squabbles linger over whether cabdrivers are independent contractors or employees.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I choose to ignore it - it deserves no dignity in a response - rantings and no more.

Bye bye, Mr. Foulks.


Don Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

Thank you for sending me this case by e-mail. I will pose any questions I have about it to you directly or here on Cabmarket.com. I look forward to reading it.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mr. Foulks:

The book and page numbers of the Globe Cab case were given to you so you could read it. It is obvious you do not have easy access to a law library. So I will try to send you an electronic link to it by ordinary e-mail later today.

The Workers Compensation aspect of the case was handled by Louis Cohn of Cohn, Lambert & Ryan. The common law aspect of the case against the uninsured motorist and the Declaratory Judgment action against Prestige Casualty were handled by me. However, it's the W/C aspect of the matter that went to the Supreme Court, and it's lessons are still of use today while squabbles linger over whether cabdrivers are independent contractors or employees.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I choose to ignore it - it deserves no dignity in a response - rantings and no more.

Bye bye, Mr. Foulks.


Don Nathan