Having considered the issue of an employer-employee relationship in light of the reasoning expressed by courts in other jurisdictions and its own reasoning in unemployment compensation cases, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence established
that the cab company had the right to control the activities of the driver and that the cab company was in the business of operating a fleet of cabs for public use, rather than merely leasing vehicles with no interest in their operation as taxis.

"In Hannigan v. Goldfarb (1958), 53 N.J.Super. 190, 147 A.2d 56, the cab driver paid $8 per 12-hour shift for the use of a cab. The driver kept all fares and tips and paid for all of his gasoline and oil. The court in holding for the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act rejected the cab owner's argument that the driver was not an employee as he was not compelled to work. It has been argued the driver could ignore the dispatcher's messages, park his cab and go to sleep if he chose. The court said the argument was unrealistic and that the cab owners would not tolerate such conduct by a driver. The court held that the cab owner had the right to control the work of the driver within the limitations set by the very nature of a cab driver's work. Too, the court asked itself the question whether the cab owner was merely engaged in the leasing of taxicabs or was he operating a fleet of taxicabs as a business. It concluded that he was in the business of operating taxicabs.

In this connection the court quoted from Kaus v. Huston (N.D.Iowa 1940), 35 F.Supp. 327, 331, a case in which it was held that a cab driver was to be deemed an employee and entitled to unemployment benefits. The language quoted is relevant here:

"'By narrow technical analysis of such relationship and particularly plaintiff's claimed want of control over the drivers, it is argued that the relationship of master and servant does not exist. It seems to me that this view of the question is too narrow. The real question for solution is, Does the plaintiff engage merely in the leasing of taxicabs, or does he operate a line of taxicabs as a common carrier of passengers? When all factors are considered and particularly the contractual relationship of the plaintiff with the passengers carried, I think there can be little doubt that plaintiff is operating the line of taxicabs, and that while he has adopted an ingenious method of fixing the compensation of his drivers and permits the drivers to exercise some discretion over the cab during the period of the driver's shift, nevertheless I think there is no discretion vested in the drivers inconsistent with the relation of master and servant. From the very nature of the case the drivers, in order to perform their duties properly, must exercise very complete control over the cabs while they have them out on their shifts.'

* * * hen all factors are considered we think there can be little doubt * * * they are * * * his employees. One cannot call these drivers ‘independent contractors' * * * without embarrassment. Hannigan v. Goldfarb, 53
N.J.Super. 190, 206-207, 147 A.2d 56, 65-66."

See Morgan Cab, 60 Ill. 2d at 98-99, 324 N.E.2d at 428-29.

In that regard, it is the right of control, not
the fact of control, that is the principal factor in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. Davila v. Yellow Cab Co., 333 Ill. App. 3d 592, 596, 776 N.E.2d 720, 724 (2002)).

To work backwards...

No right of control exists over cabdrivers (from cab owners) currently. Please cite an example if I'm wrong.

Cabdrivers today have full discretion over what we do, if we do anything at all, during our entire shift.

I am curious to know the 'contractual relationship of the plaintiff (cab owner) with the passengers carried' in the cited case. I do not believe any such contractual relationship exists today.

A cab owner today has no real financial interest in what we do once we pay our lease. The deal is done; whatever we do or not do afterwards has no bearing. No master-servant relationship exists.

I do not like old cases anymore than I like responding to people who won't reveal their identity; they are not necessarily bad, but they are necessarily suspect. Please identify yourself or at least state your reasons for keeping your identity hidden.

Thank you for this post though. Now at least two of us here are known to be aware of the right of control and the fact of control concepts in employment law.

The law exist as it has been established and tested to date...my original thoughts on this were not to contest what is law now, but to question what further beneifit would it be to cabdrivers to bring cases in an attempt to classify the cabdriver as an 'employee'?

I am not taking a position on this...I'm just asking!

It seems very clear to me that no cab owner is my employer. I am an independent contractor (self-employed cabdriver is actually the best way to describe it).

Are most of us who take this issue seriously willing to agree that cabdrivers and taxicabs in general occupy a unique position in the law, heretofore and henceforth? What I want to get at is the 'meat' of the matter...the legally practical benefit of 'doing something' other than needlessly complaining or worrying.

What is the ultimate purpose of having a man like Mr. Nathan running around and citing this case and that? What is the endgame?

Most of you know I'm concerned with securing a fare increase. Doesn't a spoonful of sugar help the medicine go down?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Having considered the issue of an employer-employee relationship in light of the reasoning expressed by courts in other jurisdictions and its own reasoning in unemployment compensation cases, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence established
that the cab company had the right to control the activities of the driver and that the cab company was in the business of operating a fleet of cabs for public use, rather than merely leasing vehicles with no interest in their operation as taxis.

"In Hannigan v. Goldfarb (195 , 53 N.J.Super. 190, 147 A.2d 56, the cab driver paid $8 per 12-hour shift for the use of a cab. The driver kept all fares and tips and paid for all of his gasoline and oil. The court in holding for the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act rejected the cab owner's argument that the driver was not an employee as he was not compelled to work. It has been argued the driver could ignore the dispatcher's messages, park his cab and go to sleep if he chose. The court said the argument was unrealistic and that the cab owners would not tolerate such conduct by a driver. The court held that the cab owner had the right to control the work of the driver within the limitations set by the very nature of a cab driver's work. Too, the court asked itself the question whether the cab owner was merely engaged in the leasing of taxicabs or was he operating a fleet of taxicabs as a business. It concluded that he was in the business of operating taxicabs.

In this connection the court quoted from Kaus v. Huston (N.D.Iowa 1940), 35 F.Supp. 327, 331, a case in which it was held that a cab driver was to be deemed an employee and entitled to unemployment benefits. The language quoted is relevant here:

"'By narrow technical analysis of such relationship and particularly plaintiff's claimed want of control over the drivers, it is argued that the relationship of master and servant does not exist. It seems to me that this view of the question is too narrow. The real question for solution is, Does the plaintiff engage merely in the leasing of taxicabs, or does he operate a line of taxicabs as a common carrier of passengers? When all factors are considered and particularly the contractual relationship of the plaintiff with the passengers carried, I think there can be little doubt that plaintiff is operating the line of taxicabs, and that while he has adopted an ingenious method of fixing the compensation of his drivers and permits the drivers to exercise some discretion over the cab during the period of the driver's shift, nevertheless I think there is no discretion vested in the drivers inconsistent with the relation of master and servant. From the very nature of the case the drivers, in order to perform their duties properly, must exercise very complete control over the cabs while they have them out on their shifts.'

* * * hen all factors are considered we think there can be little doubt * * * they are * * * his employees. One cannot call these drivers ‘independent contractors' * * * without embarrassment. Hannigan v. Goldfarb, 53
N.J.Super. 190, 206-207, 147 A.2d 56, 65-66."

See Morgan Cab, 60 Ill. 2d at 98-99, 324 N.E.2d at 428-29.

In that regard, it is the right of control, not
the fact of control, that is the principal factor in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. Davila v. Yellow Cab Co., 333 Ill. App. 3d 592, 596, 776 N.E.2d 720, 724 (2002)).

You may want to take a closer look of the CTA-TAP contract if you will.

Who signed the contract, and who cash the voucher for you?

You may also try to find out who is owner of the credit card merchant's account to allow you to process the charges.

Money laundering for fees?

You may also ask what the medallions are for.

Are they designed for taxi service to the public or just pure licenses for special equipment rentals to you?

You may also ask who the policy holders on the Workmen Compensation Insurance are.

Why the drivers are not allowed to purchase it by themselves?

You may also like to know why there is "One Call A Day" in Chicago.

Who were the people signing the agreement with the city for you?

May be there are more reasons out there, don't you think?

Thank you sir!

Now we're getting somewhere.

The question eventually becomes whether one prefers to use these facts to claim some kind of 'employee' status or to eliminate some of these 'mandates' because we are not 'employees'...

The best post in a while...Thanks again!

-Mike Foulks

This choice is yours, SIR. I am not willing to be blamed for your decisions. You can be whatever you want to be? Go ahead! There may be consequences to face on your actions, but so be it if there are.

Every action has a reaction, and it is not for FREE!

Are you sure that you are ready and capable for anything besides of talking?

Good post!

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

Replying to:

You may want to take a closer look of the CTA-TAP contract if you will.

Who signed the contract, and who cash the voucher for you?

You may also try to find out who is owner of the credit card merchant's account to allow you to process the charges.

Money laundering for fees?

You may also ask what the medallions are for.

Are they designed for taxi service to the public or just pure licenses for special equipment rentals to you?

You may also ask who the policy holders on the Workmen Compensation Insurance are.

Why the drivers are not allowed to purchase it by themselves?

You may also like to know why there is "One Call A Day" in Chicago.

Who were the people signing the agreement with the city for you?

May be there are more reasons out there, don't you think?

For your sake, Mike, I hope you never have a bad crash. If you do and you suffer a serious and permanent injury of some sort, you may not want to regard yourself as an employee, but you'll sure want to avail yourself of Workers Compensation benefits you can tap.

Even if you don't report income to the federal or state governments, you are going to be entitled to these benefits whether you call yourself an "independent contractor" or whether you'll want to agree with the courts that you're an employee. You are going to be entitled to three areas of benefits:

--- 1. All of your medical bills are going to have to be paid by that Workers Compensation insurance company - NO DEDUCTIBLE, CO-PAY, no nothing for you to pay;

--- 2. Temporary Total Disability benefits are going to have to be paid - 2/3 of your average weekly wages for a 40 hour week (yes, I know you work double that, but it's better than nothing) for the 52 weeks immediately before the date of your injury will be paid to you after you are out of work for four days until a doctor who has a competent basis for it says you are capable of going back to work --- You even get the first four days paid for if you are out of work for two weeks;

--- 3. Permanent disability benefits - even at the minimum rate for a cabbie who doesn't file taxes, it can run into the six figure range for a catastrophic injury. If the injury is serious enough, you as an employee (whatever you want to call yourself notwithstanding) go on a State of Illinois pension that gives you enough to survive - sort of - for the rest of your work life.

For all of this, the lawyer who represents you (assuming you hire one and choose not to represent yourself as well you could) normally cannot charge you more than a 20% fee for benefit #3. The lawyer can only charge you for benefit #1 or #2 if he or she has to go to court to win it. And if you suffer an amputation or certain other specified injury for which there canot be any dispute, the lawyer can only charge you $100 for the time it takes to fill in the blanks of the form "application for adjustment of benefits" at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission.

Given those givens, you might want to think of yourself as an employee if you've been hurt arising out of and in the course of your employmeent relationship with that fleet owner from whom you lease your cab. God knows, you might suffer a disasterous injury sleeping in the back seat if rammed from behind while snoring.

And you'll sure want to be an employee when it comes time to satisfy subrogation rights of that Workers Compensation insurance carrier when you make a recovery from the guy who hurts you - the insurance company has to pay part of the baggage for your lawsuit and pays your lawyer some of the fees you would otherwise have to pay him - again, assuming you choose not to try to represent yourself.

And if someone paying you to take him home gets you riled enough that you decide to bust him in the chops breaking his jaw, you'll also want to be deemed an employee for the defense you're going to need for the whopper lawsuit that's going to be filed against you. You'll need the fleet owner's insurance lawyer who is appointed by the carrier and who won't charge you a dime.

You'll probably need a criminal defense lawyer too, and to the extent the fleet owner is potentially on the hook for your wilfull acts as its employee under the Davila holding, you're going to need its free lawyer to represent you at 26th and California or wherever charges are brought against you by the State.

Workers compensation insurance requirements have nothing at all to do with the City trying to save itself "...from facing litigated liability in its absence..." Rather it was a response to a series of court cases starting in 1975 in which the Supreme Court of Illinois held that cab drivers were sufficiently under the control of fleet operators to be covered under The Workers Compensation Act: see Morgan Cab Co v. Industrial Commission, 324 N.E.2d 425, 60 Ill.2d 92 (1975); also see, Penny Cab v. Industrial Commission, 326 N.E.2d 393, 60 Ill.2d 393 (1975).

Even more important than these cases are Globe Cab v. Industrial Commission, 427 N.E.2d 48, 86 Ill.2d 354 (1981), Yellow Cab v. Industrial Commission, 464 N.E.2d 1079, 124 Ill.App.3d 644 (1st Dist., 1984); and a second case: Yellow Cab v. Industrial Commision, 606 N.E.2d 523, 238 Ill.App.3d 650 (1st Dist., 1992). In Globe, my ciient, Orval McCabe won workers compensation benefits when he got hit in the rear by an uninsured motorist and was hurt badly. Read McCabe's case. The only issue was whether he was an employee or an independent contractor.

Again, with all due respect, you're out of your element here, sir.

You talk about the City becoming a "de facto employer" with a requirement to work in underserved areas in order to be licensed - to accept credit cards on the same basis. But nobody has tried to challenge that yet. Why on earth not? Is there some reason why drivers take it on the chin from DCS without a whimper for these indignities? Isn't this the kind of thing for your CCO to challenge?

You say you're not a lawyer, but that you have an informed opinion and want to debate the issue. Although I am a lawyer, I once was a cab driver, and I won't debate the issue because it is a settled one by the courts of the State of Illinois - and most other states that have addressed the issue. Your "...knowledge of the law as it applies to cabdrivers..." needs to be honed a bit before you can represent anyone with your opinions in the courts. As I said, when you get hurt badly enough, you'll see the benefit of being considered an employee under the law. Ask a couple hundred of my former clients who didn't have to take it on the chin.


Respectfully yours, sir,


Donald S. Nathan, Esq.
Former C/L #11473

Mr. Nathan,

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

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'.

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?

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. Your closest link (Mr. Tang) is no longer a Chicago cabdriver. There are ways to challenge these things (de facto) other than litigation.

The only apparent justification for you being involved in any of these discussions is for you to properly inform us of your legal opinion. It is sad that your conduct has cast a long shadow over the worth of these opinions and your 'impartiality'.

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

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

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.

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'.

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

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.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

For your sake, Mike, I hope you never have a bad crash. If you do and you suffer a serious and permanent injury of some sort, you may not want to regard yourself as an employee, but you'll sure want to avail yourself of Workers Compensation benefits you can tap.

Even if you don't report income to the federal or state governments, you are going to be entitled to these benefits whether you call yourself an "independent contractor" or whether you'll want to agree with the courts that you're an employee. You are going to be entitled to three areas of benefits:

--- 1. All of your medical bills are going to have to be paid by that Workers Compensation insurance company - NO DEDUCTIBLE, CO-PAY, no nothing for you to pay;

--- 2. Temporary Total Disability benefits are going to have to be paid - 2/3 of your average weekly wages for a 40 hour week (yes, I know you work double that, but it's better than nothing) for the 52 weeks immediately before the date of your injury will be paid to you after you are out of work for four days until a doctor who has a competent basis for it says you are capable of going back to work --- You even get the first four days paid for if you are out of work for two weeks;

--- 3. Permanent disability benefits - even at the minimum rate for a cabbie who doesn't file taxes, it can run into the six figure range for a catastrophic injury. If the injury is serious enough, you as an employee (whatever you want to call yourself notwithstanding) go on a State of Illinois pension that gives you enough to survive - sort of - for the rest of your work life.

For all of this, the lawyer who represents you (assuming you hire one and choose not to represent yourself as well you could) normally cannot charge you more than a 20% fee for benefit #3. The lawyer can only charge you for benefit #1 or #2 if he or she has to go to court to win it. And if you suffer an amputation or certain other specified injury for which there canot be any dispute, the lawyer can only charge you $100 for the time it takes to fill in the blanks of the form "application for adjustment of benefits" at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission.

Given those givens, you might want to think of yourself as an employee if you've been hurt arising out of and in the course of your employmeent relationship with that fleet owner from whom you lease your cab. God knows, you might suffer a disasterous injury sleeping in the back seat if rammed from behind while snoring.

And you'll sure want to be an employee when it comes time to satisfy subrogation rights of that Workers Compensation insurance carrier when you make a recovery from the guy who hurts you - the insurance company has to pay part of the baggage for your lawsuit and pays your lawyer some of the fees you would otherwise have to pay him - again, assuming you choose not to try to represent yourself.

And if someone paying you to take him home gets you riled enough that you decide to bust him in the chops breaking his jaw, you'll also want to be deemed an employee for the defense you're going to need for the whopper lawsuit that's going to be filed against you. You'll need the fleet owner's insurance lawyer who is appointed by the carrier and who won't charge you a dime.

You'll probably need a criminal defense lawyer too, and to the extent the fleet owner is potentially on the hook for your wilfull acts as its employee under the Davila holding, you're going to need its free lawyer to represent you at 26th and California or wherever charges are brought against you by the State.

Workers compensation insurance requirements have nothing at all to do with the City trying to save itself "...from facing litigated liability in its absence..." Rather it was a response to a series of court cases starting in 1975 in which the Supreme Court of Illinois held that cab drivers were sufficiently under the control of fleet operators to be covered under The Workers Compensation Act: see Morgan Cab Co v. Industrial Commission, 324 N.E.2d 425, 60 Ill.2d 92 (1975); also see, Penny Cab v. Industrial Commission, 326 N.E.2d 393, 60 Ill.2d 393 (1975).

Even more important than these cases are Globe Cab v. Industrial Commission, 427 N.E.2d 48, 86 Ill.2d 354 (1981), Yellow Cab v. Industrial Commission, 464 N.E.2d 1079, 124 Ill.App.3d 644 (1st Dist., 1984); and a second case: Yellow Cab v. Industrial Commision, 606 N.E.2d 523, 238 Ill.App.3d 650 (1st Dist., 1992). In Globe, my ciient, Orval McCabe won workers compensation benefits when he got hit in the rear by an uninsured motorist and was hurt badly. Read McCabe's case. The only issue was whether he was an employee or an independent contractor.

Again, with all due respect, you're out of your element here, sir.

You talk about the City becoming a "de facto employer" with a requirement to work in underserved areas in order to be licensed - to accept credit cards on the same basis. But nobody has tried to challenge that yet. Why on earth not? Is there some reason why drivers take it on the chin from DCS without a whimper for these indignities? Isn't this the kind of thing for your CCO to challenge?

You say you're not a lawyer, but that you have an informed opinion and want to debate the issue. Although I am a lawyer, I once was a cab driver, and I won't debate the issue because it is a settled one by the courts of the State of Illinois - and most other states that have addressed the issue. Your "...knowledge of the law as it applies to cabdrivers..." needs to be honed a bit before you can represent anyone with your opinions in the courts. As I said, when you get hurt badly enough, you'll see the benefit of being considered an employee under the law. Ask a couple hundred of my former clients who didn't have to take it on the chin.


Respectfully yours, sir,


Donald S. Nathan, Esq.
Former C/L #11473

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. 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