Mr. Nathan,
Please answer these simple questions:
Chicago cabdrivers already pay $4.50 in Workmens' Compensation. It comes from the first nine (9) fares, who each pay 50 cents in a 'pass-through'.
Do you advocate that this amount should increase? If yes, why, and how much?
Mr. Kasp's and Mr. Lutfallah's proposal to limit any future lease cap increase to 50% of a prerequisite fare increase could mitigate what happened to Chicago cabdrivers the last time we got a 'raise'...a significant portion of the 11.9% fare increase went to this 'pass-through' arrangement with Workmens' Comp.
It seems that a fare increase is inevitable.
Are you just here to make sure that the insurance lawyers involved in Workmens' Comp also get a bigger piece of pie?
Like George Lutfallah, I am also a cabdriver who does not support a lease cap increase, yet someone associated with Prateek Sampat apparently believed that I was actually in favor of removing the lease cap entirely and started circulating that falsehood to at least one of my associates!
Do you associate with and support a KNOWN LIAR like Prateek Sampat? If yes, why?
Three (3) simple questions, Mr. Nathan. Please answer as simply as a 'lawyer' like you can.
-Mike Foulks, President, Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)
Three simple questions, the last one loaded. But I'll answer them anyway - even the loaded one.
ONE --- I do NOT advocate that Workers Compensation insurance being paid for by Chicago cabdrivers should increase for cabdrivers.
I do advocate that drivers should take full advantage of the benefits that are available. Most of the ones who have the time and the basic smarts like you can fill in the blanks of an application for benefits at the Illiois Workers Compensation Commission and get medical bills paid by insurance companies WITHOUT ANY PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE.
TWO --- I do NOT believe lawyers representing cabdrivers at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission should have the right to higher fees. They are generally limited to 20% of what they win for their clients in excess of any offer made by an insurance company before they are involved OR $100 to do paperwork in cases where the award is an automatic one. That's more than a fair fee. There is no reason why it should be any higher. It would be a gouge to allow a lawyer to take any more than this.
Clear enough?
THREE --- Your third question presumes Prateek Sampat is a known liar. Sampat strikes me as a bright young man just as you too strike me as a bright young man. I'm not going to indulge your presumption in answering your question that Sampat is a liar. It's almost as bad as trying to extract a loyalty oath. It's kind of like the tactics used by Senator Joe McCarthy - if you have dinner with a Communist, you must be a Commie.
Come on, Mr. Foulks. You don't strike me as the type who would use McCarthy logic. You're way too smart for that.
As for the question of association, you need to define "associate with". I do not hobnob with anyone one-third of my age socially. I do not "support" any one INDIVIDUAL, per se. I am not affiliated with AFSC and have never even met any of the people associated with that agency in Chicago save for Sampat.
I do support taxi workers rights and the concept of cabdrivers in the Chicago Metro area having the opportunity to make a decent living, to have the right to uninsured motorist benfits when hurt by bums who drive without liability coverage, to have the right to underinsured motorist benefits when catastrophically injured by drivers with substandard insurance, to have the opportunity to get group health insurance of some sort, to have the right to 401(k) and other pension plans, etc.
To answer all three of your questions more directly/succinctly: I'd rather accentuate the positve, de-emphasize the negative.
I recommend you not be a negativist.
Mr. Nathan,
Thank you for answering so quickly (and concisely). I'd like to expand on your response in the third question...
There is nothing presumptuous about my assertion that Prateek Sampat is a known liar.
Have you not been made aware of the infamous flyer which began circulating falsehoods about politcally active cabdrivers whose only 'crime' was to disassociate with Prateek Sampat and the TWO (Taxi Worker Organizing) Project, which are a facet of the AFSC (American Friends Service Committee), part of the Quaker Church?
Have you ever seen this infamous (or is 'defamatory' the proper legal term) flyer?
Have you, at the very least, heard of it?
Have you discussed it with anyone, especially Mr. Sampat?
Do you have an opinion about it (legal or otherwise)?
Is it okay to 'hate' liars, Mr. Nathan?
If not 'hate', then is it okay to view them 'negatively'?
Or is that too 'ugly' of a thing for you to stomach?
You say you support 'taxi workers rights'. I support defending and promoting the rights and privileges of cabdrivers. What's the difference?
Why do you use the term 'taxi worker'? When did cabdrivers become 'taxi workers'?
On your list of rights, which are those we don't have already?
What rights are Chicago (city, not Metro) cabdrivers being denied right now which you, as a charitably concerned lawyer, are willing to pursue in a court of law on our behalf?
Please don't compare me with Prateek Sampat; if your impression of him and me aren't dissimilar enough to show my respect for the truth and my natural interest in these matters, then you are just as dangerous to cabdrivers' fate when you butt in to our affairs.
I will not let a liar like Prateek Sampat represent cabdrivers to the City or the media...because he might get caught lying to them...to all cabdrivers' detriment.
I will not let a lawyer like you, Mr. Nathan, represent cabdrivers to the City, the media, or the Courts, because we didn't ask you, and because you don't show us much respect, individually or as a group.
Your invocation of McCarthy reveals your thought processes, not mine.
Answer any of these questions as you wish, Mr. Nathan, but if you must answer only one more question...
What exactly are you doing here and what is it that you hope to accomplish? Please be as specific and as elaborate as a lawyer like you can...
Positively,
-Mike Foulks, President, Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Three simple questions, the last one loaded. But I'll answer them anyway - even the loaded one.
ONE --- I do NOT advocate that Workers Compensation insurance being paid for by Chicago cabdrivers should increase for cabdrivers.
I do advocate that drivers should take full advantage of the benefits that are available. Most of the ones who have the time and the basic smarts like you can fill in the blanks of an application for benefits at the Illiois Workers Compensation Commission and get medical bills paid by insurance companies WITHOUT ANY PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE.
TWO --- I do NOT believe lawyers representing cabdrivers at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission should have the right to higher fees. They are generally limited to 20% of what they win for their clients in excess of any offer made by an insurance company before they are involved OR $100 to do paperwork in cases where the award is an automatic one. That's more than a fair fee. There is no reason why it should be any higher. It would be a gouge to allow a lawyer to take any more than this.
Clear enough?
THREE --- Your third question presumes Prateek Sampat is a known liar. Sampat strikes me as a bright young man just as you too strike me as a bright young man. I'm not going to indulge your presumption in answering your question that Sampat is a liar. It's almost as bad as trying to extract a loyalty oath. It's kind of like the tactics used by Senator Joe McCarthy - if you have dinner with a Communist, you must be a Commie.
Come on, Mr. Foulks. You don't strike me as the type who would use McCarthy logic. You're way too smart for that.
As for the question of association, you need to define "associate with". I do not hobnob with anyone one-third of my age socially. I do not "support" any one INDIVIDUAL, per se. I am not affiliated with AFSC and have never even met any of the people associated with that agency in Chicago save for Sampat.
I do support taxi workers rights and the concept of cabdrivers in the Chicago Metro area having the opportunity to make a decent living, to have the right to uninsured motorist benfits when hurt by bums who drive without liability coverage, to have the right to underinsured motorist benefits when catastrophically injured by drivers with substandard insurance, to have the opportunity to get group health insurance of some sort, to have the right to 401(k) and other pension plans, etc.
To answer all three of your questions more directly/succinctly: I'd rather accentuate the positve, de-emphasize the negative.
I recommend you not be a negativist.
Mr. Foulks:
You want to use an Internet blog "Discussion Forum" to air opinions laced with hate. Anyone reading your last posting old enough to remember watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on black-and-white T.V. would have an instant flash of the question being asked of Joe McCarthy: "Have you no decency, sir?"
Would that I could find a way to ask you a question like that.
What do you care so blessed much about some infamous flyer that you have to berate a 22 year old college student? You seem hell bent on hanging him out to dry just like Joe McCarthy tried to crucify that young lawyer in 1953 for who the devil knows what.
What is so blessed important about it?
Have you no decency, sir?
Don,
Don't excuse Prateek for his flier by saying he's a 22 year old college student.
He's a big boy. He can speak for himself. He was old enough to write that flier. I say he's old enough to apologize for it.
Don, the flier was an attempt to defame three taxi drivers (Melissa, Kasp and me) who were trying to help other drivers. The flier was vicious and filled with lies. You think it should be excused because of Prateek's youth? I don't.
Wasn't Prateek hired to help us to do exactly what we did? Instead he cut us down and testified against us at the fare increase hearing.
If Prateek wants to be forgiven, he first needs to apologize. I make mistakes and ask for forgiveness when I do. I wouldn't call that flier a mistake - it was premeditated. But that doesn't mean he still can't be forgiven. As long as he doesn't apologize and maintains his prejudicial views of people, he won't be forgiven, at least not by me.
Hopefully Prateek is more of a man than you. You wouldn't apologize when you knew you were wrong because you thought you wouldn't be forgiven. But Don, you don't apologize on the condition of the outcome; you apologize for doing something wrong.
Hopefully Prateek is maturing enough that he may realize this and will offer an apology because it's the right thing to do. Then maybe we can move forward.
George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher
George:
Who are you to "try" anyone? And if Prateek Sampat chooses not to prostrate himself before you or atone for what may well have been in your eyes a mortal sin, who are you to pass judgment? Who is anyone to do so? What gives you the moral authority to cast the first stone?
It's not much different from Senator McCarthy branding someone a "Commie". That's the basis of the criticism I offered previously. Faced with that, a smart young man - and Sampat is no fool - would never respond to anything you publish on YOUR turf using your bat, your ball and your rules.
It's not my place or intention to "excuse" Sampat for anything he did or didn't do. I couldn't care less about such tripe. To me, the issues of employer-independent contractor and whether cabdrivers should have decent benefits and a meter raise are focal. I couldn't give less of a diddly-doo about some flier that affects nobody except perhaps you who still are incensed about it and harbor a grudge.
For that matter, nobody else except you and Mike Foulks has expressed the slightest concern about Sampat's flier in weeks on your "Forum". At this point, I even doubt Melissa Callahan or Kasp care about it. There are much more important issues: the proposed new rules and regulations come to mind as foremost to anyone driving a taxi in Chicago these days.
Reading back through the questions you and Mike Foulks pose of me in the light of your challenge to Sampat, I see them as "mis-leading". They are like asking a guy: "How often do you beat your wife?" The question presumes the person being interrogated beats his wife.
Objection sustained.
Next question - if you have any that are not loaded.
But then why answer any questions? What advantage does it bring?
Mr. Nathan,
Raja Khan, the 'C' or 'P' of CPTDA (I'm not sure), re-raised the issues about the flyer. That generated the 'weeks' of response. Raja Khan never posted counter-responses. He didn't get away with his subtle 're-telling' of the 'truth'.
You are in the position of speculating about Melissa Callahan's and George Kasp's opinions about issues. I don't need to speculate. I have good dialogue with both cabdrivers.
We don't need Legal 101 here, Mr. Nathan. We 'mope/lunatic' cabdrivers are a little smarter than you give us credit for.
How often DO you beat your wife, Mr. Nathan? Or your daughters?
The simple, honest answer is for you to say 'Never!', assuming that it is a true statement.
The problem is that there's nothing simple or honest about your presence here.
Why answer questions? What a schmuck. You answer questions to promote understanding. Answering questions can reveal you to be a truth-teller or a mother-******* liar.
Which are you, Mr. Nathan, usually?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
George:
Who are you to "try" anyone? And if Prateek Sampat chooses not to prostrate himself before you or atone for what may well have been in your eyes a mortal sin, who are you to pass judgment? Who is anyone to do so? What gives you the moral authority to cast the first stone?
It's not much different from Senator McCarthy branding someone a "Commie". That's the basis of the criticism I offered previously. Faced with that, a smart young man - and Sampat is no fool - would never respond to anything you publish on YOUR turf using your bat, your ball and your rules.
It's not my place or intention to "excuse" Sampat for anything he did or didn't do. I couldn't care less about such tripe. To me, the issues of employer-independent contractor and whether cabdrivers should have decent benefits and a meter raise are focal. I couldn't give less of a diddly-doo about some flier that affects nobody except perhaps you who still are incensed about it and harbor a grudge.
For that matter, nobody else except you and Mike Foulks has expressed the slightest concern about Sampat's flier in weeks on your "Forum". At this point, I even doubt Melissa Callahan or Kasp care about it. There are much more important issues: the proposed new rules and regulations come to mind as foremost to anyone driving a taxi in Chicago these days.
Reading back through the questions you and Mike Foulks pose of me in the light of your challenge to Sampat, I see them as "mis-leading". They are like asking a guy: "How often do you beat your wife?" The question presumes the person being interrogated beats his wife.
Objection sustained.
Next question - if you have any that are not loaded.
But then why answer any questions? What advantage does it bring?
Mr. Nathan,
Perhaps you expect all cabdrivers to be agreeable 'mopes' and you have trouble with those who won't embrace you without question...'lunatics' like me, I guess.
I don't have to be 'old enough' to have the cultural reference of 'McCarthy', or to be aware of the significance of 'Have you no decency, sir?'.
I am thirty-six (36) years old. I am a decent man. I am an honest, hard-working cabdriver.
When Prateek Sampat isn't acting as a self-interested defamer, he makes outrageous claims to get cabdrivers' attention, but then fails to support his claims, with documentation or otherwise.
The TWO Project, like the CPTDA, has more letters in its name than actual cabdrivers who have bona-fide leadership power or 'control'.
Prateek Sampat wants cabdrivers to be sheep. He's not even smart enough to be a wolf. He's a really bad shepherd. Like the one in the tale who always cries 'wolf, wolf, wolf!'.
The media will eventually stop running to this 'alarm'. Who is our best defender right now? (As long as we adhere to the truth...)
The media. Which of the media is most interested in reporting the truth about cabdrivers' stories?
The Chicago Dispatcher. What part of former full-time and erstwhile cabdriver Mr. George Lutfallah's 'media empire' has been most productive and tolerant of contentious discussion?
You're looking at it. Cabmarket.com.
Is this the same George Lutfallah that Prateek Sampat tried to 'warn' cabdrivers about at a 'meeting' at the UNITE-HERE building last year?
It is McCarthy-like for you, Mr. Nathan, to disparage me because I don't hold the 'conveniently-false' opinion that George Lutfallah should be regarded negatively because he partially finances his newspaper with advertisements from 'fleets' or allows Commissioner Reyes to contribute a column. Like McCarthy, you and others have felt the need to get attention for yourselves by using fear-mongering and name-calling to convince others (yourselves, too) that George Lutfallah and I are part of some conspiracy or 'secret plan'.
Have YOU no decency, sir?
What is so blessed important about Prateek Sampat in particular, or the American Friends Service Committe in general that a non-cabdriver like you wants us cabdrivers to overlook his serious, unapologetic trangressions and 'play nice' with him?
I know what's in it for him. Continued employment, at least. Is that enough of a 'profit-motive'?
What's in it for us cabdrivers? Continued headaches and distractions?
What's in it for you? A blossoming relationship with a network like the Quaker Church? Don't make us guess and then tell us we're stupid. We're not stupid...
Why does Don Nathan want cabdriver activists to include a known liar like Prateek Sampat?
Well, Mr. Nathan?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks:
You want to use an Internet blog "Discussion Forum" to air opinions laced with hate. Anyone reading your last posting old enough to remember watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on black-and-white T.V. would have an instant flash of the question being asked of Joe McCarthy: "Have you no decency, sir?"
Would that I could find a way to ask you a question like that.
What do you care so blessed much about some infamous flyer that you have to berate a 22 year old college student? You seem hell bent on hanging him out to dry just like Joe McCarthy tried to crucify that young lawyer in 1953 for who the devil knows what.
What is so blessed important about it?
Have you no decency, sir?
Please excuse me, I forgot to sign my name to the last post.
At least I have always had the 'courage' to sign my name and not use pseudonyms here on Cabmarket.com, unlike some 'cowards'.
-Mike Foulks, President, Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
Perhaps you expect all cabdrivers to be agreeable 'mopes' and you have trouble with those who won't embrace you without question...'lunatics' like me, I guess.
I don't have to be 'old enough' to have the cultural reference of 'McCarthy', or to be aware of the significance of 'Have you no decency, sir?'.
I am thirty-six (36) years old. I am a decent man. I am an honest, hard-working cabdriver.
When Prateek Sampat isn't acting as a self-interested defamer, he makes outrageous claims to get cabdrivers' attention, but then fails to support his claims, with documentation or otherwise.
The TWO Project, like the CPTDA, has more letters in its name than actual cabdrivers who have bona-fide leadership power or 'control'.
Prateek Sampat wants cabdrivers to be sheep. He's not even smart enough to be a wolf. He's a really bad shepherd. Like the one in the tale who always cries 'wolf, wolf, wolf!'.
The media will eventually stop running to this 'alarm'. Who is our best defender right now? (As long as we adhere to the truth...)
The media. Which of the media is most interested in reporting the truth about cabdrivers' stories?
The Chicago Dispatcher. What part of former full-time and erstwhile cabdriver Mr. George Lutfallah's 'media empire' has been most productive and tolerant of contentious discussion?
You're looking at it. Cabmarket.com.
Is this the same George Lutfallah that Prateek Sampat tried to 'warn' cabdrivers about at a 'meeting' at the UNITE-HERE building last year?
It is McCarthy-like for you, Mr. Nathan, to disparage me because I don't hold the 'conveniently-false' opinion that George Lutfallah should be regarded negatively because he partially finances his newspaper with advertisements from 'fleets' or allows Commissioner Reyes to contribute a column. Like McCarthy, you and others have felt the need to get attention for yourselves by using fear-mongering and name-calling to convince others (yourselves, too) that George Lutfallah and I are part of some conspiracy or 'secret plan'.
Have YOU no decency, sir?
What is so blessed important about Prateek Sampat in particular, or the American Friends Service Committe in general that a non-cabdriver like you wants us cabdrivers to overlook his serious, unapologetic trangressions and 'play nice' with him?
I know what's in it for him. Continued employment, at least. Is that enough of a 'profit-motive'?
What's in it for us cabdrivers? Continued headaches and distractions?
What's in it for you? A blossoming relationship with a network like the Quaker Church? Don't make us guess and then tell us we're stupid. We're not stupid...
Why does Don Nathan want cabdriver activists to include a known liar like Prateek Sampat?
Well, Mr. Nathan?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks:
You want to use an Internet blog "Discussion Forum" to air opinions laced with hate. Anyone reading your last posting old enough to remember watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on black-and-white T.V. would have an instant flash of the question being asked of Joe McCarthy: "Have you no decency, sir?"
Would that I could find a way to ask you a question like that.
What do you care so blessed much about some infamous flyer that you have to berate a 22 year old college student? You seem hell bent on hanging him out to dry just like Joe McCarthy tried to crucify that young lawyer in 1953 for who the devil knows what.
What is so blessed important about it?
Have you no decency, sir?
