I haven't seen in the lawsuit where Wolf Weiss is "suing to get a raise". Could someone please send me a in-line text version instead of an attachment?

My understanding of the lawsuit is that it is to repeal the surcharge ordinance. Am I mistaken? What am I missing?

The only formal request is the petition for 24% which I filed last year which has yet to be voted on as far as I know. 24% might have been a bit steep last year, but I think it's perfectly acceptable now...WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION WHATSOEVER!

For the record, I filed that petition after a series of events I will consider comical as soon as we get our fare increase. I didn't start it, but I made 110% sure that it reached the finished line.

I am in no way taking major responsibility for the petition or ANY resposnibilty for the position I found myself in that fateful, interesting day (and night and day.)

'Nuff said, knowhatImean?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Again, cutting up your fellow man. This man is sueing the city to get a raise for all of us. What have you done? As you don't seem to know, the raise is always three years late and is always 12-15%. Go ahead and ask for 30%. Then the city can paint us as unreasonable and push us aside. We have to ask for a reasonable cost of living increase, get it and ask for another as costs go up again. We really need to get a raise and ask for a yearly review of our costs vs. current rates of fare so we don't end up working for almost nothing as we sometimes do now.

Until you do something to help quit making fun of those that are.

"The only formal request is the petition for 24% which I filed last year which has yet to be voted on as far as I know."

it's my understanding that lots o' people were involved with that petition so why do u gotta try to take credit?

I've been extremely clear that "lots of people" were involved in that petition. I'm not "trying to take credit" for anything other than what I did.

In fact, if you knew the full story, you'd see how I am in fact, not "trying to take credit".

I mention the fact that I am in fact the one who filed the petition so that others are aware of the fact that I know the facts about the petition.

In fact, I could list all of the people who deserve credit for collecting signatures if you are worried about "giving credit". I'll do it if you really care about that.

But, none of them can "take credit" for actually filing the petition no matter how hard some of them might have tried. There's really no point to explain further because those who know all the facts know that nobody is really to "blame" for anything. **** happened.

We can all "take credit" for that.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

"The only formal request is the petition for 24% which I filed last year which has yet to be voted on as far as I know."

it's my understanding that lots o' people were involved with that petition so why do u gotta try to take credit?

Wolf Weiss is not suing the City.

Wolfgang Weiss, Samuel Kanjama, Fred Davis, Saaed Siddiqui, Stanley Shen, Qiang Chen And Chao Tan are requesting to stop the City from enforcing several new sections of the law that they sneakily added under the disguise of the gas surcharge allocation.

The new laws triple basic fines, take away meter-and-one-half rates from two suburbs (two now, how many more later???), increase the "police powers" of Consumer Services.

Of course this may be OK with some of you.

But I, and the six other plaintiffs in this matter, are not inclined to grow poorer as the city benefits more and more from our mistakes.

For the record,

I have no trouble with the City increasing the fines in theory or in abstract...it is the unfair practices against those cabdrivers who are not actually liable or to the degree the City wishes which must be changed before any support to the idea that this benefits everybody and only hurts the "guilty" can be made.

Wolf, could you re-post the language of the injunction? Has it been corrected yet with regards to the mistakes about the surcharge? Could you give us a better update about the proceedings and any important futures dates to be aware of?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Wolf Weiss is not suing the City.

Wolfgang Weiss, Samuel Kanjama, Fred Davis, Saaed Siddiqui, Stanley Shen, Qiang Chen And Chao Tan are requesting to stop the City from enforcing several new sections of the law that they sneakily added under the disguise of the gas surcharge allocation.

The new laws triple basic fines, take away meter-and-one-half rates from two suburbs (two now, how many more later???), increase the "police powers" of Consumer Services.

Of course this may be OK with some of you.

But I, and the six other plaintiffs in this matter, are not inclined to grow poorer as the city benefits more and more from our mistakes.

"Again, cutting up your fellow man."

you know who's the king of cutting up his fellow driver? it's this cat, i mean wolf, mr. weiss. i only recently started contributing to this forum but i've been reading it for a long, long, long, time. the first time i jump in the action and YOU are criticizing ME?? i've been reviewing old postings and nowhere, i mean nowhere do i see you criticizing wolf for his mind-numbing n' constant attacks on fellow drivers. i do, however, see you laying into mike foulks lots o' times. in other words, spare me.

"This man is sueing the city to get a raise for all of us."

no he ain't. he's suing to get our surcharge taken away.

"what have you done?"
driven my cab. and u? what have u done?

"As you don't seem to know, the raise is always three years late and is always 12-15%."

pardon me but where in the world did you surmise that i "don't seem to know" that? please spare me the condescension.

"Go ahead and ask for 30%. Then the city can paint us as unreasonable and push us aside."

now it is my turn. AS YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW the city always cuts down what is asked for because they have to. they can't just say "OK here ya go. what else can we do for you?"

wanna know the funny thing about this? wolf agrees with me and not with u. read what wolf posted on 4/17. ahmed (i assume it was a different ahmed from u or else ur a hypocrit) said we need to ask for 30 percent so the city will give us 20. mr. lutfallah of the dispatcher even agreed and SO DID WOLF WEISS. so prey tell why he now says publicly 15% or better? more mixed messages.

at the last fare increase we got thanks to a few drivers but with no wolf in sight, drivers asked for i think 14%. AS YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW the city cut that down to under 12.

"We have to ask for a reasonable cost of living increase, get it and ask for another as costs go up again. We really need to get a raise and ask for a yearly review of our costs vs. current rates of fare so we don't end up working for almost nothing as we sometimes do now."

well now that makes lots o' sense. ur not the first to come up with that idea either. what have u done to push it forward?

"Until you do something to help quit making fun of those that are."
u go first.

My standing: I think you need to read this lawsuit. It is posted on the Yahoo site. It DOES ask for a raise of the rates of fare charged in Chicago taxis. I have already gone first. Second and third in in fact taking on city hall. While you have been driving I have been making noise at the commisioners office for awhile now. There have been some changes in operation policy from the DCS due to my interaction. I am not part of the current lawsuit, but would join if it becomes a class action suit.
Now for MY OPINION:
Mr. Mike foulks went over the line in his postings. He has not shown the ability to be a leader that can be taken seriously in council chambers. All of this back biting and in fighting is hurting this effort. I encourage all that say they are members of a drivers group to unite with one another to form one group that can be recognized and respected by city hall. While I am not nominating anyone, I can say that I did see some of the people using this site on television projecting a positive image. These people need to come forward for the good of all. Al least Weiss, Shen and these other drivers are alerting others to our plight. I do know that a nice settlement to the lawsuit would be to do away with the current surcharge in favor of a raise.

"There have been some changes in operation policy from the DCS due to my interaction."

ugh. now you sound like mike foulks. when all of u realize that ur all basically the same person you'll get somewhere. ur no diffrent from peter enger, mike foulks & wolf weiss. u should just all realize it n' have a group hug.

until then it's just just more talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.

Ahmed R.,

Please post a copy of the lawsuit you saw of the "Yahoo site".

The preliminary copies I saw didn't ask for a raise of rates of fare...in fact, it contained factual errors.

If there is a redacted, correction, addendum, or and subsequent filings, I'd like to see them.

What "changes in operation policy" have you affected?

You are entitled to your opinion about my conduct. I think part of the selfishness of it is that you know where YOUR line is, but myself and others don't.

I have shown the "ability" to be a leader. I have led cabdrivers and produced valuable work and made difficult decisions, collecting signatures for the fare increase petition and figuring out what to do with it independent of outsiders' "guidance" or "supervision".

I am not invited to UTCC meetings. UTCC members are welcome to join the CCO and participate in this election on Wednesday, IF THEY ARE CURRENT CHICAGO CABDRIVERS.

Who exactly did you see on television "projecting a positive image"? Please elaborate.

I've alerted many cabdrivers and non-cabdrivers to our plight, here, other places on the Net, person-to-person, on television, radio, in newspapers, and in public and though word-of-mouth.

Wolf says he's not "suing the City". So how do you think a "lawsuit" is going to be settled by "doing away with the current surcharge in favor of a raise"?

Wolf says he isn't asking the City to "do away with the current surcharge".

Here's some of my "leadership" for you:

PLEASE DON't REFER TO A FARE INCREASE AS A "RAISE"!!!

It isn't a "raise" like employees get for better performance; it's very easy to confuse people to argue against this by making them think they are employers judging us collectively. Cabdrivers who you have virtually no authority or influence over will prevent you from getting a "RAISE" almost anytime you ask for that.

We need and are asking for a "FARE INCREASE"!!! That isn't the same thing as a "raise".

How much of a fare increase would you consider acceptable?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

My standing: I think you need to read this lawsuit. It is posted on the Yahoo site. It DOES ask for a raise of the rates of fare charged in Chicago taxis. I have already gone first. Second and third in in fact taking on city hall. While you have been driving I have been making noise at the commisioners office for awhile now. There have been some changes in operation policy from the DCS due to my interaction. I am not part of the current lawsuit, but would join if it becomes a class action suit.
Now for MY OPINION:
Mr. Mike foulks went over the line in his postings. He has not shown the ability to be a leader that can be taken seriously in council chambers. All of this back biting and in fighting is hurting this effort. I encourage all that say they are members of a drivers group to unite with one another to form one group that can be recognized and respected by city hall. While I am not nominating anyone, I can say that I did see some of the people using this site on television projecting a positive image. These people need to come forward for the good of all. Al least Weiss, Shen and these other drivers are alerting others to our plight. I do know that a nice settlement to the lawsuit would be to do away with the current surcharge in favor of a raise.

"....he's suing to get our surcharge taken away"

WRONG. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Before you continue to embarrass yourself with ignorant statements like the above, go to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division and request a copy of the Petition for Injunctive Relief, case # 08 CH 15273.

You may want to testify under oath regarding this matter.

Also, provide your full name, address and telephone number for the purpose of service of process and for the purpose of receiving and receipting for notices and demands. Email it to zybarwulf@comcast.net.

Then you may get a chance to explain to the Court why you want to spread such false, malicious, viscous and baseless rumors about something that you obviously know nothing.

You might also get to explain to the Court why you should not be held in Contempt of Court and held accountable for civil and criminal penalties for interference with due process.

OK, go ahead and continue making a fool of yourself.

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

Replying to:

"Again, cutting up your fellow man."

you know who's the king of cutting up his fellow driver? it's this cat, i mean wolf, mr. weiss. i only recently started contributing to this forum but i've been reading it for a long, long, long, time. the first time i jump in the action and YOU are criticizing ME?? i've been reviewing old postings and nowhere, i mean nowhere do i see you criticizing wolf for his mind-numbing n' constant attacks on fellow drivers. i do, however, see you laying into mike foulks lots o' times. in other words, spare me.

"This man is sueing the city to get a raise for all of us."

no he ain't. he's suing to get our surcharge taken away.

"what have you done?"
driven my cab. and u? what have u done?

"As you don't seem to know, the raise is always three years late and is always 12-15%."

pardon me but where in the world did you surmise that i "don't seem to know" that? please spare me the condescension.

"Go ahead and ask for 30%. Then the city can paint us as unreasonable and push us aside."

now it is my turn. AS YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW the city always cuts down what is asked for because they have to. they can't just say "OK here ya go. what else can we do for you?"

wanna know the funny thing about this? wolf agrees with me and not with u. read what wolf posted on 4/17. ahmed (i assume it was a different ahmed from u or else ur a hypocrit) said we need to ask for 30 percent so the city will give us 20. mr. lutfallah of the dispatcher even agreed and SO DID WOLF WEISS. so prey tell why he now says publicly 15% or better? more mixed messages.

at the last fare increase we got thanks to a few drivers but with no wolf in sight, drivers asked for i think 14%. AS YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW the city cut that down to under 12.

"We have to ask for a reasonable cost of living increase, get it and ask for another as costs go up again. We really need to get a raise and ask for a yearly review of our costs vs. current rates of fare so we don't end up working for almost nothing as we sometimes do now."

well now that makes lots o' sense. ur not the first to come up with that idea either. what have u done to push it forward?

"Until you do something to help quit making fun of those that are."
u go first.

Wolf, I do not approve of your tactic to intimidate people who post on this forum.

People are entitled to their opinion. If the opinion is something with which you disagree, then counter it. When you threaten it just makes others, including myself, wonder what you're trying to hide. If he's wrong, explain to him why he's wrong.

I will not tolerate your attempt to dissuade people from posting here who happen to disagree with you. All opinions, no matter how outlandish, are welcome here. You should know that from experience.

Furthermore, have you not stated in the past that you would be in favor removing the surcharge?

Finally, do you really want to open the can of worms that calls on the government to scrutinize the truthfulness of all posters in this forum?

Don't threaten. Refute, if you can.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

"Then you may get a chance to explain to the Court why you want to spread such false, malicious, viscous and baseless rumors about something that you obviously know nothing.

You might also get to explain to the Court why you should not be held in Contempt of Court and held accountable for civil and criminal penalties for interference with due process."

I want people to post their opinions, too.

I want people to think about what they are posting and not going beyond the bonds of common sense and decency and manners in "public" discourse and/or debate.

Intimidate? I have no intention of intimidating anyone.

It was not intended to be a threat, just a stern, load and clear make-no-mistake-this-is-serious heads up (warning). Like HONK!

Refute? You know what? I have been driving since early afternoon and I am just too effin' warn out right now. (I gotta find a way to charge for these edification services....)

Didn't I post the petition somewhere? It's all "legalese" and formal-like matter of fact.

I hope (I would like to believe) that anyone who has the ability to get on line can also read and think about what they read and can make enough sense out of the court document to realize we are not trying to take anything away from cab drivers.

We are trying to stop the City from implementing recent changes in the law that were hidden under the gas surcharge. Like "Here's a nice treat little doggies." But the treat has some very powerful poison in it.

We are trying to make the City give back what they took away in reducing two suburban meter-and-one-half fares -- and will continue take away in new triple higher minimum fines.

We are trying to make the City take the responsibility of establishing "fair and equitable" rates, like the law says, instead of a surcharge that didn't do much good for Seattle cab drivers either.

I was spelling out the possible consequences of making false and malicious statements, especially regarding matters before the Court -- such as the statement that says the direct opposite of our intent in gaining an injunction.

If that scares the person who made the false and malicious statement or is repeating a false and malicious statement he may have heard that is good.

The last thing I want is the government on our backs.

But certain waste materials have been known to hit the fan, so I would strongly urge caution in thought and words posted here.

"There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend
yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy."

Anyway, sorry to scare anyone. I am scared, too.

I am scared of the City having so much power over our lives and being able to screw up this badly and not be called to answer for it and to correct their errors with a "fair and equitable" meter increase, which, again, is clearly established in the law.

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

Replying to:

Wolf, I do not approve of your tactic to intimidate people who post on this forum.

People are entitled to their opinion. If the opinion is something with which you disagree, then counter it. When you threaten it just makes others, including myself, wonder what you're trying to hide. If he's wrong, explain to him why he's wrong.

I will not tolerate your attempt to dissuade people from posting here who happen to disagree with you. All opinions, no matter how outlandish, are welcome here. You should know that from experience.

Furthermore, have you not stated in the past that you would be in favor removing the surcharge?

Finally, do you really want to open the can of worms that calls on the government to scrutinize the truthfulness of all posters in this forum?

Don't threaten. Refute, if you can.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

"Then you may get a chance to explain to the Court why you want to spread such false, malicious, viscous and baseless rumors about something that you obviously know nothing.

You might also get to explain to the Court why you should not be held in Contempt of Court and held accountable for civil and criminal penalties for interference with due process."

Kick-save and a beauty!

Now Wolf, could you post the lawsuit here? Or do you and your unethical-lawyer-who-has-other-non-Chicago-cabdrivers-beg-Chicago-cabdrivers-and-others-for-money-despite-his-claims-of-being-afflunet-and-free-and-here-only-to-help think that we are all a bunch of "mopes" again who can't understand a court document?

It seems to me that the "falsehood" about this lawsuit are those which make you, others, and it out to be more than it actually is.

I call that "false hope" and "wishful thinking".

I also think that we Chicago cabdrivers must do more than sit back and think that a legal action which could drag on for YEARS is our only hope to get a "fair and equitable" fare increase.

Of course, we could have done so over the last six months if you participated in the first CCO election and term...but you didn't...you're self-appointing yourself as the one to "win" us a fare increase.

I sincerely doubt you will "win" us a fare increase as you or others imagine. I will be one of the first to congratulate you if you do.

Who made you the one to negotiate or decide on what number to settle with the City of Chicago? You're going to settle with "15%"? I don't think that's enough.

If you and the City don't settle, how do you think the Judge or Jury is going to decide on a "fair and equitable" number?

I think what is going to "scare" the City the most is a bunch of angry Chicago cabdrivers who are more organized to work against them if forced to and possibly shame and embarrass them effectively enough than the rag-tag "mob" and "solo artists" we have now.

I think what gives all of us more respect and power is the TRUE voice and will eminating from a large, democratic group of Chicago cabdrivers who meet regulary to determine what that is and carry it out...TOGETHER.

Wolf, I share some of your "weariness" and concern about others perpetuating lies or misconceptions for their own personal, selfish agendas. Let's not give up getting the truth out there. I say, give me a fare increase or give me death!

More seriously, why don't you consider running in the CCO election and encourage others to do so so that this "legal action" of yours can be regularly communicated and discussed in CCO meetings with as many Cabdriver-Representatives as possible to prevent as much confusion as possible?

If you get the second-highest amount of votes, I might consider appointing you Vice-President, assuming I can! Can you run a meeting as an effective Chairperson?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

I want people to post their opinions, too.

I want people to think about what they are posting and not going beyond the bonds of common sense and decency and manners in "public" discourse and/or debate.

Intimidate? I have no intention of intimidating anyone.

It was not intended to be a threat, just a stern, load and clear make-no-mistake-this-is-serious heads up (warning). Like HONK!

Refute? You know what? I have been driving since early afternoon and I am just too effin' warn out right now. (I gotta find a way to charge for these edification services....)

Didn't I post the petition somewhere? It's all "legalese" and formal-like matter of fact.

I hope (I would like to believe) that anyone who has the ability to get on line can also read and think about what they read and can make enough sense out of the court document to realize we are not trying to take anything away from cab drivers.

We are trying to stop the City from implementing recent changes in the law that were hidden under the gas surcharge. Like "Here's a nice treat little doggies." But the treat has some very powerful poison in it.

We are trying to make the City give back what they took away in reducing two suburban meter-and-one-half fares -- and will continue take away in new triple higher minimum fines.

We are trying to make the City take the responsibility of establishing "fair and equitable" rates, like the law says, instead of a surcharge that didn't do much good for Seattle cab drivers either.

I was spelling out the possible consequences of making false and malicious statements, especially regarding matters before the Court -- such as the statement that says the direct opposite of our intent in gaining an injunction.

If that scares the person who made the false and malicious statement or is repeating a false and malicious statement he may have heard that is good.

The last thing I want is the government on our backs.

But certain waste materials have been known to hit the fan, so I would strongly urge caution in thought and words posted here.

"There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend
yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy."

Anyway, sorry to scare anyone. I am scared, too.

I am scared of the City having so much power over our lives and being able to screw up this badly and not be called to answer for it and to correct their errors with a "fair and equitable" meter increase, which, again, is clearly established in the law.

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

Replying to:

Wolf, I do not approve of your tactic to intimidate people who post on this forum.

People are entitled to their opinion. If the opinion is something with which you disagree, then counter it. When you threaten it just makes others, including myself, wonder what you're trying to hide. If he's wrong, explain to him why he's wrong.

I will not tolerate your attempt to dissuade people from posting here who happen to disagree with you. All opinions, no matter how outlandish, are welcome here. You should know that from experience.

Furthermore, have you not stated in the past that you would be in favor removing the surcharge?

Finally, do you really want to open the can of worms that calls on the government to scrutinize the truthfulness of all posters in this forum?

Don't threaten. Refute, if you can.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

"Then you may get a chance to explain to the Court why you want to spread such false, malicious, viscous and baseless rumors about something that you obviously know nothing.

You might also get to explain to the Court why you should not be held in Contempt of Court and held accountable for civil and criminal penalties for interference with due process."

This does not merit a reply.

This merits a reply.

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

Replying to:

This does not merit a reply.

George,

There is never anything wrong with letting a court of law decide a disagreement of this nature. Yes, spitting on a sidewalk, spilling milk, accidently leaving a water hose running, etc. These kinds of things do not belong in court. When a dictator that is disguised as a fair mayor is running city hall, we need a court to step in for us and decide right from wrong. It's wrong for us to wait by while the gas prices are going up up and up some more. The Olympic games are also part of our problems belive it or not.

These lawsuit guys have gotten more attention for us at city hall. The more the better. I do know that any businessman in Chicago can't afford to stick his neck out too far for us with the current administration. You have done well to try to tell it like it is without the city coming down on you. My only complaint is that you put your own opinion on the front page about the AFSC. Editorials, and this was one, never appear on the front page in other publications. It wasn't labeled an editorial, but was an editorial disguised as an informative article. The written or non written rules for a newspaper is to tell it like it is only. No personal opinion in the text. Sure, they sometimes omit things to make you think something, but the publishers personal opinions are found in the editiorials only.

In closing, it didn't look too good when you told the city to pretty much take your license and shove it, only to later show up driving at the airport. You are looked up to and respected here. You have a greater responsibility to the cause being the Minister of information. Please don't sell us out. Please just tell it like it is and keep your personal stuff where it belongs!

Just a footnote, If you spent half the time you put into the newspaper running an organization of your fellow drivers, we might already have a raise!

Ahmed, thank you for this posting. It's probably the best posting I've ever seen on here in that it is challenging and at the same time professional and respectful.

It is a good posting to open up discussion and allows me to dispel certain myths.

Ahmed wrote, "It's wrong for us to wait by while the gas prices are going up up and up some more."

Agreed.

Ahmed wrote, "The Olympic games are also part of our problems belive it or not."

Agreed.

Ahmed wrote, "These lawsuit guys have gotten more attention for us at city hall. The more the better."

I'm not sure I'm with you on this. I don't know how much attention they've gotten at city hall and can't say that what attention they are getting is beneficial, particularly when a critical premise of the complaint was false.

Ahmed wrote, "You have done well to try to tell it like it is without the city coming down on you."

I appreciate that but your assumption that I've done it without the city coming down on me isn't accurate. The city has come down on me but we've pushed on to send the message that we're here to stay, creating a situation that has allowed better communication between the city and the taxicab industry, via the Chicago Dispatcher.

"My only complaint is that you put your own opinion on the front page about the AFSC. Editorials, and this was one, never appear on the front page in other publications."

We put on the front page what we consider to be the most important items.
We aren't other publications and don't have to play by their rules. For example, other publications allow advertising on their front pages. We don't.

We've had editorials on the front page about the city for years and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. In my opinion, based on their own actions, the AFSC have not proven themselves to be friends to Chicago cabdrivers (pun intended). I believe I have stated why I believe so very clearly in my editorials. To this day there hasn't been much in the way of refuting my points. Just review this forum. Mostly there has been a lot of name calling. Even your criticism isn't about my editorial per se, but that the editorial was on the front page.

Ahmed wrote, "It wasn't labeled an editorial, but was an editorial disguised as an informative article."

Actually it was labeled as an editorial. "Snakes in the Morning" (August 2007) was labeled an editorial, right at the top of the piece above the headline. "Fake Friends" (March 2008) was also labeled an editorial. Again, "Editorial" was at the top of the story, above the headline. If my memory serves me correctly, the only other time I wrote about the AFSC in a front page piece was in "It's a Wonderful Life" (December 2007), which was labeled as a "Perspective" which still indicates that it's an opinion piece. “Perspective” was at the top of the story, above the headline.

In other words, nothing was disguised at all.

"The written or non written rules for a newspaper is to tell it like it is only. No personal opinion in the text. Sure, they sometimes omit things to make you think something, but the publishers personal opinions are found in the editiorials only."

Agreed. That's the way we do it too.

"In closing, it didn't look too good when you told the city to pretty much take your license and shove it, only to later show up driving at the airport."

Really? It didn’t look good that I embarrassed the city into giving me my chauffeur’s license by pointing out how badly they screwed up?

After I wrote that piece, the city reviewed what had happened and realized that they screwed up and that I had done everything I needed to do to obtain my license. So they gave it back to me without jerking me around by having me do all the unnecessary things they tried to get me to do before I wrote that piece.

The only thing I'm guilty of is not publicly thanking the DCS and Commissioner Reyes for giving it back to me. I didn’t think that a public thank you was appropriate for getting back what I had rightfully earned in the first place, though I was appreciative nonetheless.

However, I still should have probably thanked the DSC and Commissioner Reyes publicly for all the hard work they did to make 2350 W. Ogden run so much more smoothly after that. If you've been around, you will remember how bad that place was and you will notice how much more smoothly it runs now.

Now, I am not taking credit for this, nor have I ever suggested that I deserve any credit for it. That's not how I operate. But I’m also not going to tell you that it’s all a coincidence. You can draw your own conclusion.

Ahmed wrote, "You are looked up to and respected here. You have a greater responsibility to the cause being the Minister of information."

Thank you. That means a lot to me and the responsibility I have is one that I take very seriously.

Ahmed wrote, "Please don't sell us out."

Never have. Never will.

Ahmed wrote, "Just a footnote, If you spent half the time you put into the newspaper running an organization of your fellow drivers, we might already have a raise!"

I’m not an organizer; I’m a newspaperman. Most of your posting was about my ethical responsibilities as a newspaper publisher, which I addressed. As a publisher, I have a responsibility to my readership to look at all sides of things and take into consideration the perspective of drivers, owners, affiliations, the city and the riding public. I still have a right to my opinion though have no problem publicly saying that I support independent groups of drivers who wish to get organized.

For me to run an organization of drivers would require that I separate myself from the newspaper to a large degree. That’s what I did when I worked for Yellow and Wolley cab when I put Barbara Myers in charge of the Chicago Dispatcher.

As publisher of the Chicago Dispatcher, I can freely support and publicize driver initiatives to organize and press for actions such as fare increases. However it would be a challenge for me to actively publish the Chicago Dispatcher and lead an organization of drivers. It would be difficult for me to take one side of things on one hand and try to be balanced on the other. I wouldn't have maximum effectiveness at either. And as publisher of the Chicago Dispatcher, I have to be careful not to cross a line and become personally involved too much in organizing. In other words, as a journalist, I have to try not to become a part of the story, as much as I can help it.

If I were to run an organization of drivers, I would also then be in competition with the AUPD, CCO, CPTDA, UTCC, GCA and the Taxi Brotherhood (I apologize if I left somebody out). I can’t say that’s an area in which I’d be excited about competing, just like I didn’t want to start my own affiliation when I left Yellow and Wolley as was suggested to me.

As I’ve said on several occasions, if any independent group of Chicago taxi drivers wants my assistance, they know they can come to me and I will do whatever I can to assist.

By the way, you're the first person who's ever suggested that I should run an organization of drivers. I'm truly flattered.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

This is the article I wrote in June 2006 that Ahmed R referenced.

June 2006
Why I’m Giving Up My Chauffeur’s License
Trying to maintain a chauffeur's license in the City of Chicago isn't worth it, unless you have no other choices.

By George Lutfallah

The last time I was a passenger in a Chicago taxicab it smelled so bad from the driver’s body odor that I actually had a headache by the time the trip ended. I had put the window down trying my best to breathe the outside air but this man’s funk was so pungent that it didn’t help much at all. He also yapped on the phone the entire trip in his native tongue, barely pausing to listen to the address I gave him when the trip began and not pausing at all when I paid him and exited the vehicle. He didn’t say goodbye. He didn’t say thank you, even though I thanked him.

These are the kinds of people who the city of Chicago and the Department of Consumer Services allow to drive cabs. Correction: These are the kinds of people who the city of Chicago and the Department of Consumer Services encourage to drive cabs. Wait a minute. How can I say the city encourages these skunks to drive cabs? Doesn’t the city want decent people driving cabs? Doesn’t the city make it difficult to get a chauffeur’s license? Doesn’t the city hammer drivers with rules and regulations governing who can obtain and renew a chauffeur’s license? Uh oh. I may have just answered my own question.

To renew a chauffeur’s license, a driver has to go to the Secretary of State and purchase a motor vehicle report, pay for and take a drug test, pay for and get a physical, go back to the place where he or she got the physical within 48 hours to have the doctors check the TB test result, take a continuing education class every other time the driver has to renew, and get a letter from his or her affiliation which, by the way, some affiliations require the driver to go to the office in person to request this letter and to then come back the following day to pick it up. Not terribly unreasonable requests you’re thinking.

In spite of my disdain for spending time at the Department of Motor Vehicles, visiting doctors’ offices and urinating in plastic cups, I can understand these requirements. From a regulator’s perspective charged with securing public safety, these sound reasonable. They can proudly boast to the aldermen about all they’re doing to fix things. But look at it from a taxi driver’s perspective. On second thought, look at it from your perspective. Would you go through all this for a very difficult, stressful, low-paying job that has no benefits and no opportunity for advancement?

Moving on, if that driver is an especially horrible human being as I was in the 12 months prior to renewing the chauffeur’s license, and received one (that’s right, one) moving violation, that driver will have to complete eight hours of traffic safety school, even if they already went to court, paid a fine and took eight hours of traffic safety school with the state. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority of full-time taxi drivers who easily spend 3,000 hours on the road each year never make mistakes and get traffic tickets. Police officers, especially those in the suburbs, almost never give cabdrivers tickets, right?

The last time I took my eight hours of traffic safety school, my affiliation offered a four hour class on Saturdays. So I had to attend the same class twice. And I can safely say that I got only two things out of those classes – a headache on a Saturday and a headache on another Saturday.

I don’t drive a cab anymore. I do still drive my car a lot and manage to average one ticket each year, which is less than I averaged when I first started driving a cab. The last ticket I got was on the fateful night of August 8, 2005. I blew through a stop sign. It wasn’t intentional – I didn’t see the stop sign as it was dark out and my vision was obscured by a tree that partially covered the stop sign. Nevertheless, strict liability. Guilty as charged. I went downtown and paid my fine.

So this year when I went to renew my license, I knew what was coming. I’d have to give up four of my Saturdays to endure continuing education and traffic safety school. I’d have to spend time waiting at 2350 W. Ogden. I’d have to take the drug test. I’d have to take the physical. I’d have to go back to the doctors to let them check my TB test. I’d have to get a letter from my affiliation. Mind you that all of this takes time out of my work schedule (yes I work on Saturdays).

In addition to the onslaught that was to come, I was given a notice that “The City may seek revocation of your License.” I was given a notice that I had to go to a hearing on April 13, 2006 at 1 p.m. because I had a moving violation after attending traffic safety school.

With all that I have to go through to simply maintain a chauffeur’s license that I don’t even use anymore, do you think I bothered going to this hearing? You bet I did. I took time off of work and showed up a few minutes before 1:00. I handed my notice to Yvonne at 400 W. Superior. She kindly informed me that my ticket was not in the system. I asked her what that meant. She told me there was nothing they could do and that I should just leave. I left.

A few days later, I received a notice in the mail. It didn’t say what it was for but it did say that I had to come to 2350 W. Ogden within five days and threatened that if I failed to comply, “your license may be REVOKED.”

The following Monday, I took time off work to make my way to 2350 W. Ogden. I handed the notice over and inquired as to what it pertained. I was told to have a seat. A full hour and a half after arriving I was finally called up to the counter to be informed of why I was called there. I was asked if I went to my hearing. I said I did. I was asked what happened. I answered that I was told to leave because the ticket wasn’t in the system. Here’s the funny part: I was then told to have a seat again while they got me another court date. I protested that I had already gone to my hearing and that it wasn’t my fault they hadn’t put my ticket in the system. I was again told that I’d be given another court date. I was then given my “Corrected Date of Hearing” for May 11, 2006. “Corrected.” Couldn’t they have sent me a notice about this “correction” before I took time off of work to attend the first hearing? No, because this wasn’t a correction. It was a screw up.

Do you think I bothered going to this hearing? You bet I did not. Why should I be made to pay for a mistake made by some incompetent moron at the Department of Consumer Services? I’m not that desperate. I had a moving violation in August 2005. It wasn’t a reckless driving charge. It wasn’t a DUI. It was a moving violation. I’m not going to mitigate what it was. I’m not trying to say that it’s ok that I ran a stop sign. It was a mistake. But for this mistake, I went to court, paid a fine, then six months after this infraction I went to 2350 W. Ogden and was informed that I would have to go to eight hours of traffic safety school, then I was sent to court again, then I was ordered back to 2350 W. Ogden, then I was told to go to court again. And at that point enough was enough. Who knows how much more I would have had to deal with? Bravo DCS. You’re really teaching us cons a lesson. You’ve ridded Chicago’s streets of another menace to society. The good citizens and visitors to Chicago can now rest easier knowing that I will not be behind the wheel of a cab again anytime soon.

Never mind that I’m courteous to my passengers and have never had a single complaint against me. It doesn’t matter that when I drove, there was no neighborhood that I wouldn’t work in and that I picked up and dropped off people anywhere in Chicago. Forget that I have never refused a fare and don’t discriminate against people based on their race, sex, ethnicity, age, etc. So what that I never bypass people with disabilities, happily offering and providing assistance when requested or needed. Disregard that I never talk on the phone when I have a customer. Ignore that fact that I wait in front of my passengers’ residences when it’s prudent to do so to make sure they get in the door safely.

Here’s some other things that are unimportant: That I recognize when to keep quiet when a passenger is trying to work or when he or she is in a pensive mood and obviously doesn’t want to be disturbed. That I offer comforting and reassuring words to first-time visitors who are intimidated by being in the City of Big Shoulders. That I can answer questions about the city’s architecture and inform my passengers of some our city’s rich history. That I keep informed with things going on at Navy Pier, the Art Institute or the museums. That when I drive I make it a point to know the schedule of the Bears, Bulls, Blackhawks, Cubs, Sox, Wolves, Fire, Rush, etc. That I know where I’m going. That if I do make a mistake and accidentally make a wrong turn that I am proactive and notify my passengers of my error and make sure that I take responsibility for my error and adjust the price of the trip fairly. That when I’m having a bad day that I don’t take it out on my passengers. That I bathe frequently. That I help people with their luggage.

Cab service will never improve so long as the city makes it excessively difficult for good people to obtain and maintain a chauffeur’s license. And I suppose it would be easy for someone to argue that what happened to me was just some sort of oversight. Some freak error. There’s always something. Some runaround.

If after reading all of this you think that I’m suggesting that the city should let just anyone have a chauffeur’s license, you’ve missed the point. I’m not saying that getting a chauffeur’s license shouldn’t be challenging. But it should be challenging in a productive and efficient way. Challenge us intellectually. Let us take a self-study course that we can review while sitting in a cabstand so we can test out of certain things like continuing education or traffic safety school. Classes should be reserved for basic orientation for new drivers and things that require skills that need to be demonstrated like properly securing wheelchairs.

Giving us the runaround dealing with red tape and having monotonous, time-intensive, mind-numbing tasks is not the answer. And when you discover drivers who demonstrate rudeness to the public, patterns of bad driving and dishonesty, get rid of them. Hammer them with fines. Revoke their licenses. Punish them.

To be fair it is important for me to point out that the current administration of the Department of Consumer Services has been outstanding and a drastic improvement on the former regulators of the cab industry in many ways. They have brought advertising to the industry, which many observers thought would never happen. They have shown a genuine concern for driver safety and comfort, allowing the option (as opposed to mandating) of security cameras to be outfitted in cabs as an alternative to the backbreaking safety partition. They have been inclusive in their dealings with the industry, considering effects on affiliations, cab owners, drivers and the riding public. When they considered rule changes, they not only allowed but welcomed participation by all stakeholders.

But with chauffeur’s licensing and renewal requirements, they have missed the mark. They are wrong. There’s a concept in economics known as the Laffer Curve, which shows that when you raise taxes on people, total revenue to the government increases, but only to a point. When the government raises the tax rate beyond a certain point, the revenue to the government actually declines. Why? Because the more government taxes a people, the less incentive there is for the people to work at all. Think about the extreme: If the government taxed 100 percent of everything you made, would you even bother working at all?

The same general principal applies here. You can place requirements to get a chauffeur’s license but there is a point at which the total benefits to the government and thus the riding public actually decline.

Or let me put this in layman’s terms: Who would put up with this nonsense for a job that barely pays above minimum wage? Not me. Not a lot of people. There are only two types of people who would. The first type consists of hard-working entrepreneurial types who view taxi driving as the first step in pursuit of the American Dream. If you’re a cabdriver and you’re reading this, you fit into this category.

The second type consists of scumbags who couldn’t possibly get another job anywhere else in America. People who don’t bathe. People who are so rude that, if they were ever given a job, they were fired shortly thereafter for their inability to deal with people. People who have never been called back for a second interview. People who are incorrigible. In fact, these cabbies are so incompetent that if they didn’t have chauffeur’s licenses, the only jobs they’d be qualified for would be with the city.

Folks like myself who have other careers and simply want to maintain our licenses with the notion that we may want or need to drive again some day simply don’t have the time to deal with all the red tape, not to mention the “corrections.”

And people like me are very valuable to the industry and to the city of Chicago. When there’s a convention in town and people need cabs, it’s us part-timers who see the opportunity to make a few bucks and will lease a cab that might otherwise sit. This also helps cab owners to get their cars out on the streets, which also helps the good people selling taxicab advertising to boast the merits of their traveling billboards, which also helps…um…the city since they get a piece of that action.

But I’ve had enough. I have very fond memories of driving a cab and saw myself driving again at some point, just to keep fresh with the industry, if nothing else. I won’t be driving a cab again anytime soon since I can presume that the city will revoke my license for failing to show up at my “corrected” hearing. Unless I have no alternatives, I won’t be a passenger in a taxicab anytime soon either.

luv it!

"In fact, these cabbies are so incompetent that if they didn’t have chauffeur’s licenses, the only jobs they’d be qualified for would be with the city."

This was my favorite

"Why should I be made to pay for a mistake made by some incompetent moron at the Department of Consumer Services?"

George I hope I never get on your bad side!

We all say thing we regret later. I am sure George was just hot at the time and now has cooled down.

Ahmed,

I was hot at the time. No doubt about that. However I do not regret what I said at all. If put in that same situation again, I'd say it again.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

George, Ahmed R isn't a taxi driver. Wake up man.

Hello George, Glad you liked my letter. I will admit that I didn't notice the words "editorial" were on top of the article. I will admit that you do in fact have the right to post an editorial on your own front page if you wish. I just don't remember seeing the words editorial featured at the top. I think you will admit that it is unusal for an editorial to be featured on the front page of any publication though.

I also now understand why you didn't follow up the situation with your own chauffeurs license due to heat from the city. You did what everyone that finally wins with them does, runs away. I have done the same thing. I wow if it ever happens again that I will not worry about my medallion or license and sue for the income lost while I was wrongly tied up by them.

You must have some kind of license from the city to print and distribute your publication. I also understand that you value this license and have to be very careful of getting someone at city hall angry with you.

Organizing city drivers should be not for profit. However the management should get salary for the time spent on the project. If there was a good organization of drivers that paid dues for representation, there would be money there for someone like yourself. I haven't seen any perks of membership offered by any of the current groups. NOTHING. Nada. Examples: Join up, pay monthly and get legal help at 400 W. Superior and traffic court. Get help with your paperwork. Get free classes for continueing education. We have help for you. Low cost insurance etc.

Guess that I just think someone that starts up his own newspaper could qualify as one that can put together a proper drivers movement. One that could finally give us some "weight" One that can finally make us heard and not just laughed off.

Ahmed,

I admire your courage. Being willing to risk your chauffeur's license and medallion are things that very few cabdrivers would be willing to do. I wish most cabdrivers had not only your courage, but also your wherewithal for a lengthy and costly legal battle with the city.

I especially admire how you have effected changes in operation policy from the DCS due to your interaction. I hadn't heard of that and would like to learn about your experiences to share with our readers. Maybe it's something we all can learn from.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

George, Do you ever go to the 39th st. facility. I do take credit for the new way taxi two way radios, taximeters, and credit card swipes are inspected. The incident which lead me to complain to the commissioner is too long to detail here, but I will say that my complaint was heard and now the inspector calls himself/herself on the two way and also works the meter/creditcard swipe without the drivers interaction. How would you like getting yelled at to demonstrate the equipment after the inspector fumbled around and shut off your gandalf? "Whats taking so long? You're sh## doesn't work. Pull out you're getting a citation." My reply: "why don't you work it, you're the inspector. If you don't know how to work it yourself how can you inspect it?" I brought this to the attention of the commissioner. There have been changes.

The overhaul of the city inspection facility you wrote about needs one other thing to be effective, new people doing the insepctions. I do wish that some of the people at the inspection would be placed at 2350 W. Ogden for awhile. They might learn from the people that work there. This is one of the best run city facilities now and has some of the best workers the city has. Changes to a Chauffeurs license expiration date, say one week after someones birthday, and better equipment for the cashiers there are the only improvements now needed that I can see. The help/imput you gave really made this office become better. However they already had the one thing missing at 39th st. : respectful people. I sometimes think the guys trading insults here learned from the 39th st crew. Geroge, I for one welcome your opinions and ideas! Isn't this the reason we're here? Or are we just here to trade insults back and forth?

Ahmed R.,

I want to briefly explain my comparative disposition towards lawsuits and the legislative political process.

Lawsuits can only achieve a minimum effect for us cabdrivers most of the time. The courts may determine that the city has not met minimum standards of responsbility and could order them to do so.

If the City is breaking the law, it can order the City to stop or come into tolerable compliance.

The ultimate point of membership-based organization is to also impact the legislative political process. Numbers equal power. If our groups get large enough and co-operate, we can achieve conditions which are not only "tolerable" or "fair", but actually BENEFICIAL or PREFERRED or EXCELLENT for Chicago cabdrivers.

As long as doing so doesn't violate the law, of course.

I hope this sheds a little light on my skepticism of this current lawsuit "winning" a substantial fare increase anytime soon.

Filing lawsuits which approach frivolity is not the only way for us to "get attention" at City Hall or elsewhere. They can be eventually ignored or even backfire. Any case which isn't clear-cut is an uphill battle for the plaintiff and more easy for the defendant. I think any resolution of this particular case will be a mixed-bag at best. It could be part of a reason for the powers-that-be to capitulate and grant us a fare increase and other concessions, but on its own, I don't think so.

We must do more than just "get attention". We must demand and receive respect by collective agreement and regular, honest determination of that and using it judiciously.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

George,

There is never anything wrong with letting a court of law decide a disagreement of this nature. Yes, spitting on a sidewalk, spilling milk, accidently leaving a water hose running, etc. These kinds of things do not belong in court. When a dictator that is disguised as a fair mayor is running city hall, we need a court to step in for us and decide right from wrong. It's wrong for us to wait by while the gas prices are going up up and up some more. The Olympic games are also part of our problems belive it or not.

These lawsuit guys have gotten more attention for us at city hall. The more the better. I do know that any businessman in Chicago can't afford to stick his neck out too far for us with the current administration. You have done well to try to tell it like it is without the city coming down on you. My only complaint is that you put your own opinion on the front page about the AFSC. Editorials, and this was one, never appear on the front page in other publications. It wasn't labeled an editorial, but was an editorial disguised as an informative article. The written or non written rules for a newspaper is to tell it like it is only. No personal opinion in the text. Sure, they sometimes omit things to make you think something, but the publishers personal opinions are found in the editiorials only.

In closing, it didn't look too good when you told the city to pretty much take your license and shove it, only to later show up driving at the airport. You are looked up to and respected here. You have a greater responsibility to the cause being the Minister of information. Please don't sell us out. Please just tell it like it is and keep your personal stuff where it belongs!

Just a footnote, If you spent half the time you put into the newspaper running an organization of your fellow drivers, we might already have a raise!

Mike -

Just a couple of thoughts I would like to share with you in regards to your last posting to Ahmed R.

You wrote: "Lawsuits can only achieve a minimum effect for us cabdrivers most of the time. The courts may determine that the city has not met minimum standards of responsbility and could order them to do so."

You are correct, a lawsuit is not a remedy for all of the taxi industry's problems. If the petition for injunction is successful, it would remove some very unfair new regulations. In my opinion, that would be a monumental achievement.

Mike wrote: "The ultimate point of membership-based organization is to also impact the legislative political process. Numbers equal power. If our groups get large enough and co-operate, we can achieve conditions which are not only "tolerable" or "fair", but actually BENEFICIAL or PREFERRED or EXCELLENT for Chicago cabdrivers."

Organizing is definitely important, but ask yourself, what good is it to be organized if you have no authority or power? You said that numbers equal power and I agree to a point. For example, you and I both attended the surcharge hearing a couple months ago and you saw that the UTCC achieved a good number of drivers to attend, there were also many other individual drivers as well. Think about what kind of an effect the numbers had and how well that worked out.

1. The UTCC presented their case to the Transportation Committee, set their conditions on which they would accept the gas surcharge and even with a good number of driver behind them, the surcharge along with the new rules and regs were still put into effect. The power of numbers was nonexistent.

2. Over 1,000 letters in protest of the new rules and regulations were submitted to the Commissioner, that was ineffective.

3. A good number of drivers have met with alderman on the Transportation Committee, that was ineffective.

We have no authority. I don't mean to seem like a debbie downer but, at some point everyone that is involved activism for taxi drivers needs to take a step back and look at this situation so that efforts that have proved to be ineffective are not continually repeated and our time is not wasted. Donald Nathan and plaintiffs are appealing to a higher authority, being the court system, on our behalf. What is the problem? Everything that we drivers have done has made much of a difference. Maybe being slapped with a lawsuit will give Mayor Daley, Alderman Allen and Commissioner Reyes a nice wake up call. Maybe they'll finally realize that they are not above the law and hopefully they will learn the meaning of justice.

Mike wrote: "I hope this sheds a little light on my skepticism of this current lawsuit "winning" a substantial fare increase anytime soon."

No need to be skeptical. I have not seen any postings by the plaintiffs of the injunction claim that the outcome will be a fare increase, maybe you should take another look at the petition.

Mike wrote: "Filing lawsuits which approach frivolity is not the only way for us to "get attention" at City Hall or elsewhere."

I'm very surprised that you're suggesting that this lawsuit is frivolous. Do you know what frivolous means? not important, not having basis. Are you saying that the unfair new rules and surcharge (attached with more ways the city can take our hard earned money) is not something important to fight? That we have no basis to try and stop this? If so, it is pretty disappointing that you feel that way.

Mike wrote: "We must do more than just "get attention".

I believe that is precisely what Donald Nathan and the plaintiffs are doing.

Mike, if this lawsuit is successful it will not be your victory and I think that's what is really the problem for you. Humble yourself. This is something good for everyone and it does not matter who has taken the action. If you want to be a part of activism in the taxi industry you need to understand that you are not going to like everyone involved in the politics on a personal level. It's not necessary that you hold hands with your enemies and/or competitors and skip down the sidewalk but, you do need to be able to work together with others as well as acknowledge when they have done something positive.

Everything that we drivers have done has not made much of a difference.

Pay attention everyone!

Here is a voice to be heeded.

Melissa, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

You have demonstrated your remarkable understanding, vision and insight, which clearly demonstrated that you belong to the head of the crowd.

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

Replying to:

Mike -

Just a couple of thoughts I would like to share with you in regards to your last posting to Ahmed R.

You wrote: "Lawsuits can only achieve a minimum effect for us cabdrivers most of the time. The courts may determine that the city has not met minimum standards of responsbility and could order them to do so."

You are correct, a lawsuit is not a remedy for all of the taxi industry's problems. If the petition for injunction is successful, it would remove some very unfair new regulations. In my opinion, that would be a monumental achievement.

Mike wrote: "The ultimate point of membership-based organization is to also impact the legislative political process. Numbers equal power. If our groups get large enough and co-operate, we can achieve conditions which are not only "tolerable" or "fair", but actually BENEFICIAL or PREFERRED or EXCELLENT for Chicago cabdrivers."

Organizing is definitely important, but ask yourself, what good is it to be organized if you have no authority or power? You said that numbers equal power and I agree to a point. For example, you and I both attended the surcharge hearing a couple months ago and you saw that the UTCC achieved a good number of drivers to attend, there were also many other individual drivers as well. Think about what kind of an effect the numbers had and how well that worked out.

1. The UTCC presented their case to the Transportation Committee, set their conditions on which they would accept the gas surcharge and even with a good number of driver behind them, the surcharge along with the new rules and regs were still put into effect. The power of numbers was nonexistent.

2. Over 1,000 letters in protest of the new rules and regulations were submitted to the Commissioner, that was ineffective.

3. A good number of drivers have met with alderman on the Transportation Committee, that was ineffective.

We have no authority. I don't mean to seem like a debbie downer but, at some point everyone that is involved activism for taxi drivers needs to take a step back and look at this situation so that efforts that have proved to be ineffective are not continually repeated and our time is not wasted. Donald Nathan and plaintiffs are appealing to a higher authority, being the court system, on our behalf. What is the problem? Everything that we drivers have done has made much of a difference. Maybe being slapped with a lawsuit will give Mayor Daley, Alderman Allen and Commissioner Reyes a nice wake up call. Maybe they'll finally realize that they are not above the law and hopefully they will learn the meaning of justice.

Mike wrote: "I hope this sheds a little light on my skepticism of this current lawsuit "winning" a substantial fare increase anytime soon."

No need to be skeptical. I have not seen any postings by the plaintiffs of the injunction claim that the outcome will be a fare increase, maybe you should take another look at the petition.

Mike wrote: "Filing lawsuits which approach frivolity is not the only way for us to "get attention" at City Hall or elsewhere."

I'm very surprised that you're suggesting that this lawsuit is frivolous. Do you know what frivolous means? not important, not having basis. Are you saying that the unfair new rules and surcharge (attached with more ways the city can take our hard earned money) is not something important to fight? That we have no basis to try and stop this? If so, it is pretty disappointing that you feel that way.

Mike wrote: "We must do more than just "get attention".

I believe that is precisely what Donald Nathan and the plaintiffs are doing.

Mike, if this lawsuit is successful it will not be your victory and I think that's what is really the problem for you. Humble yourself. This is something good for everyone and it does not matter who has taken the action. If you want to be a part of activism in the taxi industry you need to understand that you are not going to like everyone involved in the politics on a personal level. It's not necessary that you hold hands with your enemies and/or competitors and skip down the sidewalk but, you do need to be able to work together with others as well as acknowledge when they have done something positive.

ooops!

I wrote "you belong TO the head of the crowd"

but I meant to write:

"you belong AT the head of the crowd."

Can somebody please clarify..

Does the petition ask for a fare increase or not?
I just looked at it and it says, "c. In the alternative, that this Honorable Court restrain defendant CITY and the DCS from failing to consider further and additional taxicab rate of fare revisions in futuro."

It sounds like they aren't asking for a fare increase but that they are asking the judge to stop the city from not considering a fare increase. Am I understanding this correctly? If so that doesn't seem to pack much punch because if they win this court case all they would get is a requirement to make the city "think" about a fare increase.

What am I missing?

Okay, Big John. I penned it - it's in "legalese" which is a stupid language. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding it myself. It's for that reason that an amendment to the Petition is necessary.

What I was saying in a left-handed way was that the Court should force the City to consider fare increases in the future; in knocking down the gas surcharge, the City should be stopped from refusing to consider whether to raise fares for cabdrivers. Is that clear enough?

In other words, "The Magnificent Seven" want the City: not to just have a gas surcharge but rather to raise meter rates - SUBSTANTIALLY; not triple fines for petty rule violations where hearings take place in kangaroo courts; not lower fares from the Midway to Burbank and O'Hare to Skokie by 1/3; and, not give Commissioner Reyes the right to suspend or revoke a driver's license before he or she is found guilty of a felony; that is, just on being charged and without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That lawsuit is being prosecuted by me as best I can without any fee and without any expectation of anything from it. I'm not asking for as much as a thank you. In spite of being lambasted by certain people as "unethical", I intend to do whatever I can to contribute to winning a fare increase for drivers who now face gas that's well over $4 a gallon. And it's going to get much worse over the course of the next few months, and we all know it.

With your Crown Vics burning at 13 MPG, the lot of you need to line up behind "The Magnificent Seven" instead of the nay-sayers.

Maybe Mr. Lutfallah will make this a sticky - probably not.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

Good thing you speak "STUPID", stupid.

Is "Condescendingly" a dialect of "Stupid"? That's the accent I'm hearing. Let me see if I can use it to communicate with you.

Maybe you should focus on "Legalese" or just plain "English" and quit making lame excuses for your poor performance on the initial document...

...a few of us "mopes" quickly caught your obvious error which obviously reflects your lack of understanding of the Chicago cabdriver's CURRENT and RECENT legal and business conditions and enviroment.

It's not 1974 anymore...you better get up to speed by associating with cabdrivers who are more than puppet-like place-holders who seem to have less than a passing understanding of the legal mistakes you have already made (again!).

Line-up behind the "Insignificant So-Fars"? Gee, I hope I get there before they run out of tickets and popcorn! What will all your asses look like when the Court throws you "ignorant asses" and your lawsuit into the street?

You're the Director of this cheap flick...if you had enough money to produce an "Alternative Ending", what would your sickest fantasy for a "settlement" or "judgement" be? How long is the "running time" on that one?

I mean, Daddy-O, how long do you think this is going to take?

Should we just sit back and let "Airborne" kick some ass? Is that your best advice, "Air-bomb"?

Don't get wrong, Mr. Nathan, I wish you luck. But, if (when) you **** this up and you are found guilty of giving my fellow cabdrivers false hope OR A BAD REASON TO PUT ALL OF THEIR "EGGS" IN YOUR BASKET...

...don't be surprised when I chop your neck off if those eggs don't hatch and you start to smell rotten.

I'm not lamb-basting you, Mr. Nathan. You smell and act like more like a goofy chicken to me. I'm getting my hot and spicy BBQ sauce ready and the biggest baster to shove up your ass if you fail to focus on your tasks at hand.

One simple question for you Mr. Nathan...

...why are you so worried about where cabdrivers are "lining up"? I thought you didn't even want a "thank-you".

I really hope your case isn't dependent on using the childish psychological tactics you think George Lutfallah will be tricked with into making your nearly-insulting response to Big John a "sticky".

For all of our sakes.

Please send me any information you deem appropriate about this lawsuit.

Let me thank you in advance just in case this will be my only opportunity to do so.

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Okay, Big John. I penned it - it's in "legalese" which is a stupid language. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding it myself. It's for that reason that an amendment to the Petition is necessary.

What I was saying in a left-handed way was that the Court should force the City to consider fare increases in the future; in knocking down the gas surcharge, the City should be stopped from refusing to consider whether to raise fares for cabdrivers. Is that clear enough?

In other words, "The Magnificent Seven" want the City: not to just have a gas surcharge but rather to raise meter rates - SUBSTANTIALLY; not triple fines for petty rule violations where hearings take place in kangaroo courts; not lower fares from the Midway to Burbank and O'Hare to Skokie by 1/3; and, not give Commissioner Reyes the right to suspend or revoke a driver's license before he or she is found guilty of a felony; that is, just on being charged and without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That lawsuit is being prosecuted by me as best I can without any fee and without any expectation of anything from it. I'm not asking for as much as a thank you. In spite of being lambasted by certain people as "unethical", I intend to do whatever I can to contribute to winning a fare increase for drivers who now face gas that's well over $4 a gallon. And it's going to get much worse over the course of the next few months, and we all know it.

With your Crown Vics burning at 13 MPG, the lot of you need to line up behind "The Magnificent Seven" instead of the nay-sayers.

Maybe Mr. Lutfallah will make this a sticky - probably not.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan,

Good thing you speak "STUPID", stupid.

YOUR USE OF INSULTS REFLECTS YOUR VICIOUSNESS. IT'S NEEDLESS AND IT APPEALS ONLY TO A CERTAIN LOW-LIFE ELEMENT. OF COURSE, THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO HATE LAWYERS AND DELIGHT IN SEEING YOU POKE AT ME FOR THAT REASON ALONE, SO I GUESS YOU HAVE YOUR FANS.

Is "Condescendingly" a dialect of "Stupid"? That's the accent I'm hearing. Let me see if I can use it to communicate with you.

YOU SHOULD CONDESCEND TO ME? THAT'S A LAUGH. I DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT ONE.

Maybe you should focus on "Legalese" or just plain "English" and quit making lame excuses for your poor performance on the initial document...

OKAY, MIKE - TRY TAKING THE ILLINOIS BAR EXAM IN JULY. OH YEAH, YOU HAVE TO GRADUATE FROM LAW SCHOOL FIRST. OH YEAH, YOU NEED TO GO TO COLLEGE AND TRY GRADUATING WITH HONORS TO GET INTO A LAW SCHOOL.

AND BY THE BY, SIR, ILLINOIS IS LIBERAL ABOUT ALLOWING AMENDED PLEADINGS. AN AMENDED PLEADING WIPES OUT THE ORIGINAL PLEADING AS THOUGH IT HAD NEVER EVEN BEEN FILED.

I MAKE NO CLAIM TO PERFECTION. I'M CLEARLY MORE THAN A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS, AND I'M MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT - UNLIKE YOU. IF MY PLEADING NEEDED AN AMENDMENT, AND IT DID, A MOTION TO AMEND IT HAD TO BE DRAWN. AND SUCH A MOTION HAS BEEN DRAWN. IT WILL HAVE BEEN PRESENTED SHORTLY.

APROPOS NOTHING, I HAD A PHONE CALL FROM A SHERIFF'S DEPUTY A FEW DAYS AGO. THE GUY WILL GO UNNAMED HERE. HE ASKED ME WHERE THE SUMMONS FOR THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE SERVED. I SAID TO HIM THAT I HAD WRITTEN ON IT THAT IT SHOULD BE SERVED ON THE CITY OF CHICAGO AT CITY HALL. SO HE SAID: "WHERE? CITY HALL IS A BIG PLACE." SO I RESPONDED: "TRY DA MARE'S OFFICE". HE SAID "OKAY" SEEMING TO UNDERSTAND ME WITHOUT ANY TROUBLE.

SO FAR I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL.

...a few of us "mopes" quickly caught your obvious error which obviously reflects your lack of understanding of the Chicago cabdriver's CURRENT and RECENT legal and business conditions and enviroment.

WHAT OBVIOUS ERROR? AGAIN, MIKE - TRY TAKING THE BAR EXAM BEFORE YOU START PRACTICING LAW.

It's not 1974 anymore...you better get up to speed by associating with cabdrivers who are more than puppet-like place-holders who seem to have less than a passing understanding of the legal mistakes you have already made (again!).

MY EFFORTS AT THE BAR HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR PRACTITIONERS IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH I PRACTICE. ANY NEED TO AMEND THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ON MOTION IS NOT SOMETHING FOR WHICH CRITICISM IS APPROPRIATE, AND I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANY COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL TO OPINE TO THE CONTRARY.

Line-up behind the "Insignificant So-Fars"? Gee, I hope I get there before they run out of tickets and popcorn! What will all your asses look like when the Court throws you "ignorant asses" and your lawsuit into the street?

THAT'S JUST SILLY. JUDGE EPSTEIN IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO GIVE "THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN" A FAIR DAY IN COURT IN SPITE OF YOUR LESS THAN HUMBLE OPINION OF THE MERITS OF THEIR CAUSE. WHEN YOU CAN PUT "ESQ." AFTER YOUR NAME, YOU CAN OFFER YOUR CRITIQUE WITH AUTHORITY. UNTIL THEN, BITE YOUR TONGUE EVEN THOUGH YOU WANT TO CONDESCEND TO ME.

You're the Director of this cheap flick...if you had enough money to produce an "Alternative Ending", what would your sickest fantasy for a "settlement" or "judgement" be? How long is the "running time" on that one?

THE WORD IS SPELLED "JUDGMENT". THE "RUNNING TIME" IS GOING TO BE HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO ACHIEVE OUR END. STOP WISHING US FAILURE. YOUR BAD WISHES ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU, SIR.

I mean, Daddy-O, how long do you think this is going to take?

I HAVE NO IDEA. DO YOU?

Should we just sit back and let "Airborne" kick some ass? Is that your best advice, "Air-bomb"?

THIS ONE ESCAPES ME - IT'S SO OBTUSE THAT NO ONE BUT YOU WOULD EVER UNDERSTAND IT.

Don't get wrong, Mr. Nathan, I wish you luck. But, if (when) you **** this up and you are found guilty of giving my fellow cabdrivers false hope OR A BAD REASON TO PUT ALL OF THEIR "EGGS" IN YOUR BASKET...

WE ARE GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO OVERTURN A BAD ORDINANCE. IF WE FAIL TO SUCCEED, IT IS GOING TO BE UNFORTUNATE. I AM SURE YOU ARE WISHING US A FAILURE, AND MOST OF THE CABDRIVERS IN THE CHICAGO METRO AREA FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR MALICE. I THINK THEY RESENT YOUR BAD WISHES FOR THEM.

...don't be surprised when I chop your neck off if those eggs don't hatch and you start to smell rotten.

I DON'T EXPECT TO LOSE SLEEP THINKING ABOUT YOU, SIR.

I'm not lamb-basting you, Mr. Nathan. You smell and act like more like a goofy chicken to me. I'm getting my hot and spicy BBQ sauce ready and the biggest baster to shove up your ass if you fail to focus on your tasks at hand.

YOUR SITTING BY THE SIDELINES PRAYING FOR FAILURE OF THE EFFORTS OF "THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN" IS GOING TO BE REMEMBERED BY ALL OF THE DRIVERS WHO REALIZE WHAT CLOTH YOU ARE CUT FROM.

One simple question for you Mr. Nathan...

...why are you so worried about where cabdrivers are "lining up"? I thought you didn't even want a "thank-you".

THIS ONE IS SIMPLE, MIKE. I'M NOT A RICH MAN TO BE ABLE TO GIVE BIG MONEY TO CHARITY. BUT I'M AT THAT STAGE OF LIFE WHEN I WANT TO GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO HUMANITY. FOUR OF MY FIVE KIDS ARE OUT OF THE NEST. I DON'T NEED THE INCOME I DID 25 YEARS AGO OR EVEN 10 YEARS AGO ANY MORE. SO I GIVE AWAY TIME TO THE PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY THAT SUPPORTED ME OVER THE DECADES.

MAYBE WHAT I DO ISN'T ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL. BUT I TRY THE BEST I CAN, AND I DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING FOR IT. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? MAYBE NOT AT AGE 30 SOMETHING. WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE IN YOUR 60'S AND, FOR YOUR SAKE, MODESTLY SUCCESSFUL. THEN YOU'LL UNDERSTAND HOW SATISFYING IT IS TO GIVE AWAY YOUR TIME WITHOUT PEOPLE EVEN SAYING A THANKS.

I really hope your case isn't dependent on using the childish psychological tactics you think George Lutfallah will be tricked with into making your nearly-insulting response to Big John a "sticky".

For all of our sakes.

Please send me any information you deem appropriate about this lawsuit.

I HAVE EVERY EXPECTATION COPIES OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION AND THE AMENDED PETITION ARE GOING TO REACH YOU SOONER OR LATER. I SEE NO REASON TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE TIME OF DAY AT THIS TIME. YOU ARE A MALICIOUS PERSON TOWARD ME. YOUR PERSONAL ANIMUS FOR REASONS THAT I DO NOT CARE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND DISINCLINES ME FROM SAYING ANYTHING THE MORE ABOUT THE MATTER WITHOUT BEING INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY MY CLIENTS.

Let me thank you in advance just in case this will be my only opportunity to do so.

YOU ARE MOST WELCOME, ALTHOUGH I WILL GIVE YOU ANY NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO. I LOOK FORWARD TO A PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE WITH YOU RATHER THAN CONTINUING PERIODIC SPARING WHICH IS, FOR THE MOST PART, TOTALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

DONALD NATHAN

-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I really, truly and sincerely hate to say this but when I hear a taxi driver talk the way Michael Foulks talks I think to myself that he's a taxi driver so it is normal. When I hear Donald Nathan talk the way he talks I am shocked to realize that he is a lawyer. Mr. Donald Nathan why do you stoop to that level? Should not a professional attorney-at-law conduct himself in a more professional manner?

Don, I don't know what it is about your post that makes you think it deserves the top spot but here you go. I want you to be happy.

George

Thank you, George, for the opportunity to air the circumstances of the Petition for Injunctive Relief which is really in its early stages. The pleading that was filed did need amendment, and a motion to do so has been prepared. It is going to be filed shortly, and I anticipate Judge Epstein is likely to grant it: Illinois is very liberal about allowing pleadings to be amended, especially so in the Chancery courts.

At this point, the City has yet to appear. In fact, I am not sure service of process has been effected: see my reply to Mike Foulks' latest attack on me just above about the Deputy Sheriff who called me to ask where the City of Chicago should be served - Ha Ha Ha.

I am generally happy to answer questions about the Petition, and my clients have generally authorized me to respond to specific questions addressed at my e-mail address: donald.nathan@sbcglobal.net. I do not want to clog your discussion forum with a lot of irrelevant material, and I specifically do not want to give certain people ammunition to use against my cabdriver clients on your website.

No doubt all will understand this.

Donald Nathan

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

Replying to:

Don, I don't know what it is about your post that makes you think it deserves the top spot but here you go. I want you to be happy.

George

"Illinois is very liberal about allowing pleadings to be amended, especially so in the Chancery courts."

I guess we have that to be thankful for but at some point in the process legal mistakes will cost us and could be difficult to reverse. What checks are in place to assure us that the legal action of a few will not have the effect of damaging all of us?

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

very good question.

George - Your observation presumes a "legal mistake" was made. That is not the case. I'm not going to try to put a spin on it. On reading of the ordinance in a tortured way, I concluded one could take it to mean that the pittance of a surcharge would be all the City Council would dole out.

Regardless of how it was to be taken, the ordinance had to be attacked as woefully inadequate. Even Mr. Foulks thinks it stinks and that Chicago cabdrivers need a substantial fare increase. My take on it is that they all do better to have the ordinance stayed and to march en masse to City Hall DEMANDING a 25% increase.

My read is that the legal action of "The Magnificent Seven" is hardly going to damage the rest of you. I could be wrong, and I sure hope I'm not.


Donald Nathan

Don,

If no mistake were made, there would be no need to amend the petition, which you have indicated that you plan to do, due to your own confusion, per your own admission.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

George,

Slow down. Think about this. You're taking a punch at guy working for free that is trying a new way to get us a raise. George you are man enough to admit that you too have made mistakes. You wouldn't be in your position if you didn't. And no Mike, he's not putting a quarter in the slot hoping to hit a jackpot. I didn't read anything in the suit that asks for a cash award to Don Nathan/Shen Seven to be ordered by the courts for the city to pay.

Why are we beating up a guy trying to help???

"Why are we beating up a guy trying to help???"

Because I don't trust the motives of Donald Nathan and haven't accepted your premise that he's just "a guy trying to help." If you've been reading this forum for a while, it should be blatantly obvious why I hold that opinion.

The onus is not on me to change my mind; just to have an open mind. I saw no evidence whatsoever that Donald Nathan was "trying a new way to get us a raise" until he got clobbered and exposed by the good people who post in this forum.

You ought to be thanking them rather than just blindly following people. This is exactly where we've been burned in the past. Chicago cabdrivers are desperate for help so somebody comes along offering to help and the next thing you know they're gone and cabdrivers are no better off, thus making them less apt to trust the next "guy trying to help" who comes along. There had been nobody checking those people and keeping them honest.

So forgive me if I'm just a little bit skeptical of someone who has built a career finding angles to make money through the legal system who now says he wants to help for free. I simply would not be doing my job as a journalist if I were not watching and scrutinizing.

When you follow people blindly you might end up walking off a cliff.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

George - Again, you presume things.

I do NOT need to "build a career" The profit motive is not motivating me in what I do with cabdrivers in the Chicago area.

I am near age 63 - at the end of my career. It's none of your businesss, but I'll be specific about it anyway. Of my five children, two are married and completely independent. A third is self-sustaining in graduate school. A fourth is dead. The fifth is still in the nest, but my wife earns quite enough as a lawyer to support him. I don't need to make a lot of money like you presume I am trying to do.

At my stage of life, I can afford to give away time. Maybe what I do is going to be effective. Maybe it won't be. I'm going to do the best I can whether it's accepted or not. If cabdrivers say thanks, good. If they don't, I'm not asking for it. Nor am I seeking self-aggrandizement. It's purely an effort at giving back to the trade that gave a lot to me over the decades.

You're suspicious? That's your job. I can respect that. I'm going to do the best I can to move foreward anyway. And while we're on the subject, the City was served with summons on May 9 in the case of "The Magnificent Seven", and our motion to file an Amended Petition for Injunctive Relief is set for hearing before Judge Epstein on May 29. The City has not filed an answer or other pleading most likely in anticipation of receipt of the motion to amend.

Should you have other criticisms or questions, you are invited to direct them to me at my personal e-mail address: donald.nathan@sbcglobal.net

Donald Nathan

Don, your statement is false.

Nowhere did I say that you need to build a career.

Don't try to distract from the points I made by saying I presumed something. Spare me of the cheap lawyer tricks.

George

George, "The statement is false", so what?

Don't you think that no one can read like you do?

Don't you think a lawyer who represents the seven drivers in court should entertain you more here?

Why don't you go out to interview the police officers who did not arrest Thomas Gniadek for felony charge at the first place on Feb. 24? Will there be any new policies implemented due to the case of the brutal attack on our fellow taxi driver Stanley Shen?

May be Superintendent Weis can give you a simple answer on how to make sure the “Steve Weisberg” law will be fully enforced by his department in the future?

May be Commisioner Reyer can also give you a simple answer why the "surcharge" ordinance is so justified?

Any answers yet from the city since the law suit was filed?

Don't you anything more importantant to do than chasing the lawyer who does not even represent you.

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

Replying to:

Don, your statement is false.

Nowhere did I say that you need to build a career.

Don't try to distract from the points I made by saying I presumed something. Spare me of the cheap lawyer tricks.

George

Welcome back Mr. Tang. It's about time.

I appreciate your questions and will share them with Jonathan.

By the way, I love it when a client defends his lawyer.

George

George,

I am not defending anyone, and the city doesn't need your defend either.

I can be relaxed and let the professional to do the job, and I don't mind that you will file a seperate claim by yourself.

I just hope that you could try to get some quicker answers from the city for us, can't you?

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

Replying to:

Welcome back Mr. Tang. It's about time.

I appreciate your questions and will share them with Jonathan.

By the way, I love it when a client defends his lawyer.

George

Here it is again: What checks are in place to assure us that the legal action of a few will not have the effect of damaging all of us?

George,

Your question is a strange one.There are no CHECKS in place. What would be the harm to you or any of you when the seven drivers filed this law suit anyway? The court room is open to you too, either against the city or the seven drivers in whole.

Who is stopping you?

In 32+ years of practice, I've learned a couple of things - not that I've stopped learning things. One of the first lessons I learned was one picked up before I took an oath as a lawyer: "DON'T GUARANTEE RESULTS".

When that Petition for Injunctive Relief was first contemplated, then drawn, then filed, discussion was conducted with my clients about the iffy nature of the effort. The possibility that it might backfire was considered. We gave consideration to the fact that it might well end drivers up without a surcharge and without a fare increase.

The conclusion we reached was that it would be unlikely that if a court enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance and ended the surcharge that the cabdrivers would stand idly by and take it quietly. We figured that gas would go way over $4.00 a gallon and that thousands of drivers would go to the Transportation Committee DEMANDING a serious fare increase. Alderman Allen and his fellow members on the Transportation Committee would be hard pressed to ignore a thousand drivers led by someone like Melissa Callahan or Mike Foulks or both of them.

So far we are right about gas. I'll make book about it going over $5.00 a gallon by Labor Day in the City, and it might even happen the sooner.

So the answer is that YES, it's a risky thing to go to court just like open heart or brain surgery might be a risky thing. You have to weigh the danger against the consequence of doing nothing. "The Magnificent Seven" did that, and they came to a conclusion that I think all are eventually going to come to respect.

I sure do hope so. I would rather think you do too.


Donald Nathan

Mr. Nathan, as a driver against the surcharge from day one I agree with you totally. I can't speak for all drivers but I think it is worth the risk.

Dear Mr. Nathan ~

Thank you for advocating for taxi cab drivers. I read your petition and I hope you are able to amend it as you said. Will that be soon? We do need a fare increase and we need one now. I saw what Big John was talking about with the confusion of the language and decided to read the rest of your demands.

Please forgive me for saying so but it appears to me that all you really asked for was the removal of the surcharge and your costs. The rest of it sounds quite vague and does not seem to ask for anything but status quo.

WE DON'T NEED STATUS QUO. WE NEED A FARE INCREASE. EVEN THE SURCHARGE IS BETTER THAN STATUS QUO!

PLEASE do change the language of this petition before the courts hear it. A fare increase is what we need but a surcharge is still better than nothing. Don't fight to get us back to nothing!

Respectfully,
Lon

Dear Lon Tonni:

Your posting is a very important one - you bring up the most difficult of our problems.

You read the petition correctly, and the amended one is going to be asking for basically the same things: wiping out a terrible ordinance and for the cost of filing the petition which is not much money and for whatever other relief Judge Epstein feels is fair and just. The amended petition should be on file in less than a couple of weeks. I am going downtown today to file the motion to do it, but the court cannot hear it the same day it is filed.

A fare increase is the only real goal of the plaintiffs: "The Magnificent Seven". But the court is not a legislature. What you and most cabdrivers would want Judge Epstein to do is to grant a MANDATORY INJUNCTION that forces the City to grant a fare increase. That is just not in the cards because the Court is not the City Council. The judge does not have the authority to do what Alderman Allen and his fellow Aldermen should have done. Only the City Council has that kind of power. The court can wipe out laws that are not fair, and the ordinance is not a fair one.

So you want to keep the surcharge? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, Lon. Either you have the crumb they toss you off of the plate or you have the plateful. There's no middle ground, my friend. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My clients, "The Magnificent Seven", and I respect the situation you are facing right now. It is going to get much worse: gas is likely to be $5 a gallon by Labor Day. How much is that surcharge going to matter by then? "The Magnificent Seven" who are the plaintiffs in that injunction case want to overturn the ordinance and force the drivers to march in a group of 10,000 on City Hall to DEMAND a serious fare increase.

Which would you rather have? A couple of crumbs? Or would you rather have something fair?

Respectfully yours in return,


Donald Nathan, Esq.

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

Replying to:

Dear Mr. Nathan ~

Thank you for advocating for taxi cab drivers. I read your petition and I hope you are able to amend it as you said. Will that be soon? We do need a fare increase and we need one now. I saw what Big John was talking about with the confusion of the language and decided to read the rest of your demands.

Please forgive me for saying so but it appears to me that all you really asked for was the removal of the surcharge and your costs. The rest of it sounds quite vague and does not seem to ask for anything but status quo.

WE DON'T NEED STATUS QUO. WE NEED A FARE INCREASE. EVEN THE SURCHARGE IS BETTER THAN STATUS QUO!

PLEASE do change the language of this petition before the courts hear it. A fare increase is what we need but a surcharge is still better than nothing. Don't fight to get us back to nothing!

Respectfully,
Lon

Or we have nothing at all. That is also an option with this risky suit.

In reply to:
So you want to keep the surcharge? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, Lon. Either you have the crumb they toss you off of the plate or you have the plateful.

OKAY, JEROME. MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT, AND IT'S A RISKY LAWSUIT. BUT IF NOTHING IS DONE, AND THE PRICE OF GASOLINE CONTINUES TO SPIRAL UPWARD AND NO FARE INCREASE IS LEGISLATED, WHERE ARE YOU? I SAY YOU'RE UP A CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE.

OFFHAND, I THINK YOU'RE BETTER OFF WITH THE SURCHARGE AND ALL THE OTHER AWFUL THINGS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE WIPED OUT SO THE CITY COUNCIL IS FORCED TO TAKE A LONG LOOK AT A SIGNIFICANT FARE INCREASE!!!. IF THE SURCHARGE IS WIPED OFF THE BOOKS, YOU CAN BET THOUSANDS OF DRIVERS ARE GOING TO MARCH ON CITY HALL. TOM ALLEN IS GOING TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY AND HIS BROTHER UNTIL A 25% FARE INCREASE IS PASSED, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE NO SLACKING OFF.

IS IT WORTH THE RISK? YOU TELL US, JEROME. THE "MAGNIFICENT SEVEN" THINK SO. SO TOO DO MOST SENSIBLE DRIVERS.

DONALD NATHAN

Or we have nothing at all. That is also an option with this risky suit.

I agree with Mr. Nathan. If we throw the surcharge back in the city's face taxi drivers will be so starved that there will be mass demonstrations and marches on City Hall.

THIS IS STUPID WE CANT AFFORD TO STARVE YOU WANT US TO STARVE TO PROVE A POINT ITS NOT PLACE TO DO THAT DONO'T PLAY WITH MY MONEY

Suing the city is what we need. Maybe the language wasn't right the first time but that troubles me not. The main thing to do is send a message to the city that they will be subject to legal action. This is what the Brotherhood has been wanting for years. Glad somebody is finally doing it. Way to go guys.

I agree with this posting 100 percent. Go mag seven!

melissa lots o' great points. only thing is though is that u talk 'bout the surcharge hearing. from what i hear there were 'bout 50 drivers there total. that's not a big enough turn-out to make the city crap their pants. pants-crapping numbers are the kinds to bring before u can say that numbers don't matter. and yeah yeah yeah i wan't there so who am i to talk.

Your information is incorrect. The UTCC had approximately 50 drivers. In addition to that number there were at least another 25 drivers that attended individually. 75 people may not be a huge number but, it's the largest show of support at a public hearing that I've ever seen. If you compare the amount of drivers that have shown up to hearings in the past 5,10 to 75, that is a big difference.

Just a point of clarification: There were about 50 people wearing UTCC armbands, but they weren't all drivers and not all of the drivers wearing the armbands were actually with the UTCC, but put on the armbands when they were given to them without realizing they were specific to the UTCC.

Thus the number of UTCC drivers is unclear but is markedly less than 50, unless somebody tries to claim that there were UTCC drivers there who weren't wearing the armbands.

I'd say that Melissa's estimate of 75 total drivers is pretty good and I concur that is a good turn out for Chicago taxi driver standards in recent years.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

Melissa,

I would like you or somebody to e-mail or send me all of the legal documents filed so that I may make a completely informed personal judgement.

I am in favor of repealing the entire surcharge ordinance. I am in favor of a 25% fare increase instead.

How would we have any authority or power you are imagining if we are not first organized to seek it?

The decision of the Transporation Committee was pre-determined, in my opinion, but please don't see me as a cynic who thinks that the hearing was unimportant. Politics is a continual process. When you get more organized, each small step is followed by a bigger one.

When we get a fare increase, most likely, that Transportation Committee hearing will also be just as pre-determined. That doesn't mean we can't have an impact on how the vote will turn out...it's just that all of the "lobbying" or "politicking" occurs beforehand usually and especially in Chicago.

There's nothing for the UTCC (or anybody else) to "accept" in any formal or legal sense. While I think that having a true collective bargaining power with the City COULD have a positive impact on how much we make and our "working conditions", etc., it is in no way the only, likely, or even most economical way for us to influence the public and the politicians to secure an "acceptable" fare increase or other legislation.

In other words, the terminology of traditional unions is confusing a lot of people. Ordinances from the City aren't "offers" for us to vote upon. In my opinion, almost all of the outside organizers ultimately want this situation or a quasi-effect to exist because of their presumption that this is what we really need. I'm putting an asterisks *** here for a reason.

Some of them want to be the suits running the union, imagining great power and personal renumeration.

Some of the less-ethical "unionizers" can and have abused the traditonal union model to essentially rip-off the poor people they are purporting to represent. Type in "Teamster", "federal", and "monitor" into your search engine and begin a long descent down the rabbit-hole.

I don't consider you a "Debbie Downer" at all, but I must disagree with your claims that all of the organizing projects have been "ineffective". They have had effects, but perhaps not exactly the ones desired or to the degree that each of us may have wished for.

I am continually re-evaluating our individual and collective situations. Like it or not, I would assert that I am always trying to determine the facts and understand the motivation of everybody involved. I am trying to act in concert, independently, and re-act to everything that's going on.

My problem with Donald Nathan and the injunction lawsuit?

First, Donald Nathan didn't properly prepare a case that was supposed to be "monumental" at 400 W. Superior!!! He presented a witness who wasn't willing to take the oath...hence, useless. He is so out of touch with the cabdrivers involved in his "cases" that he never would imagine that he should have anticipated that remote possibility and avoid it by preparing the witness properly. Legal 101.

I don't want to dash anyone's realistic hopes for the outcome of this lawsuit; it's the unrealistic and mythical hopes that I am concerned about.

Mayor Daley isn't concerned about lawyers; remember Meigs Field midnight bulldozer party?

This lawsuit is being popularized as a "lawsuit to get a fare increase". Wolf Weiss has used the term "heros". A lot of misguided "pre-credit" is being liberally applied by selfish or deluded actors.

I am aware of the complexities of the various aspects of the surcharge ordinance and brevity prevents me from addressing each here right now.

I wasn't only referring to this lawsuit as "approaching frivolity"; there's another where the purpose has been stated to be more for publicity and much less about an acceptable use of the legal system to pursue a case which has a fair likelihood of success.

My honest defense would be that I am referring to that case and the questionable fund-raising conduct involved there much more than the injunction case you had in mind.

I think I can best answer you question by stating that I believe that the current powers of the Commissioner could and should be restricted by the Court. However, that power must reside somewhere, and if not in the executive, it falls back to the legislators.

The judicial system is almost certainly not going to regularly decide how much of a fare increase we are entitled to. It might determine a minimum, but is that what we are going to "accept", the minimum standard?

I know you can "trust" George Kasp...verify with him what I told him about the lawsuit when he called me to ask if I was a party to it. I think he will assure you that YOU shouldn't be disappointed by the immediate, honest answer I gave him.

I support it, but I'm not involved, nobody asked me to be involved and I doubt they want me involved.

I have almost no respect left for Donald Nathan's character; he isn't the only lawyer in the world who could help Chicago cabdrivers. He has made a few inappropriate statements which I think could be referred to the ARDC for a resolution unfavorable to him. I have disengaged from him and I wouldn't report him to the ARDC while the Shen case is pending, if ever. He is a scumbag AND a lawyer.

Yes, I AM the kettle and I AM calling him black; the difference is, the ARDC doesn't regulate my public conduct.

I also don't think he's as selflessly helping us as he would like us to believe. He is a mysterious meddler who doesn't like to answer questions put to him, whether by George Lutfallah, myself, or anyone else who might be a "mope" or a "brownshirt".

All Donald Nathan and the "Insignificant So-Far" plaintiffs have done is "gotten attention". I wish them luck and I think they will need it.

Of course, under one scenario, the City could capitulate and just agree to repeal the surcharge ordinance...and also not grant us a fare increase.

Just because the City COULD be in violation of a legal principle doesn't compel the court to continue hearing the case if Mr. Nathan's services are suddenly no longer available and no one replaces him.

I've seen how quickly Mr. Nathan tires. We all would be better off organizing an effort to HIRE lawyers WE control if a legal route were our only option.

Fortunately, the legal route isn't our only option, never has been, and likely will never be.

I agree with you, Melissa, politics can make for strange bedfellows.

However, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) as represented by Mike McConnell and Prateek Sampat have done more to hurt Chicago cabdrivers who are trying to "organize" than intentionally help.

I am willing to acknowledge the truth about any situation. My personal disagreements with their personal politics are, indeed, not as important.

Haven't you, too, become exasperated by the not-so-temporary inanity (yes, no 's') of Yi Tang?

I have very little use for useless non-cabdrivers. I can't say it any more politely than that.

I can better tolerate and more easily respect differences with Peter Enger and Wolf Weiss because they are fellow Chicago cabdrivers. I can't explain it any more simply than that.

The only worry about my personal reputation is when is deviates from reality. People can say whatever they want about me as long as it's true or at least a SEMBLANCE of an HONEST opinion.

Humility ain't one of my strengths; how's that for humble?

When we finally get a decent fare increase I'm definitely taking all the "credit" and mailing it away to Zimbabwe.

I have no doubt it won't make a shred of difference to them either.

We can all go out and celebrate then. I'll even do shots with Prateek Sampat until he pukes up all that propaganda he's swallowed and been regurgitating over the years.

Until then, let's keep our eyes on the prize, shall we?

-Mike Foulks

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

Replying to:

Mike -

Just a couple of thoughts I would like to share with you in regards to your last posting to Ahmed R.

You wrote: "Lawsuits can only achieve a minimum effect for us cabdrivers most of the time. The courts may determine that the city has not met minimum standards of responsbility and could order them to do so."

You are correct, a lawsuit is not a remedy for all of the taxi industry's problems. If the petition for injunction is successful, it would remove some very unfair new regulations. In my opinion, that would be a monumental achievement.

Mike wrote: "The ultimate point of membership-based organization is to also impact the legislative political process. Numbers equal power. If our groups get large enough and co-operate, we can achieve conditions which are not only "tolerable" or "fair", but actually BENEFICIAL or PREFERRED or EXCELLENT for Chicago cabdrivers."

Organizing is definitely important, but ask yourself, what good is it to be organized if you have no authority or power? You said that numbers equal power and I agree to a point. For example, you and I both attended the surcharge hearing a couple months ago and you saw that the UTCC achieved a good number of drivers to attend, there were also many other individual drivers as well. Think about what kind of an effect the numbers had and how well that worked out.

1. The UTCC presented their case to the Transportation Committee, set their conditions on which they would accept the gas surcharge and even with a good number of driver behind them, the surcharge along with the new rules and regs were still put into effect. The power of numbers was nonexistent.

2. Over 1,000 letters in protest of the new rules and regulations were submitted to the Commissioner, that was ineffective.

3. A good number of drivers have met with alderman on the Transportation Committee, that was ineffective.

We have no authority. I don't mean to seem like a debbie downer but, at some point everyone that is involved activism for taxi drivers needs to take a step back and look at this situation so that efforts that have proved to be ineffective are not continually repeated and our time is not wasted. Donald Nathan and plaintiffs are appealing to a higher authority, being the court system, on our behalf. What is the problem? Everything that we drivers have done has made much of a difference. Maybe being slapped with a lawsuit will give Mayor Daley, Alderman Allen and Commissioner Reyes a nice wake up call. Maybe they'll finally realize that they are not above the law and hopefully they will learn the meaning of justice.

Mike wrote: "I hope this sheds a little light on my skepticism of this current lawsuit "winning" a substantial fare increase anytime soon."

No need to be skeptical. I have not seen any postings by the plaintiffs of the injunction claim that the outcome will be a fare increase, maybe you should take another look at the petition.

Mike wrote: "Filing lawsuits which approach frivolity is not the only way for us to "get attention" at City Hall or elsewhere."

I'm very surprised that you're suggesting that this lawsuit is frivolous. Do you know what frivolous means? not important, not having basis. Are you saying that the unfair new rules and surcharge (attached with more ways the city can take our hard earned money) is not something important to fight? That we have no basis to try and stop this? If so, it is pretty disappointing that you feel that way.

Mike wrote: "We must do more than just "get attention".

I believe that is precisely what Donald Nathan and the plaintiffs are doing.

Mike, if this lawsuit is successful it will not be your victory and I think that's what is really the problem for you. Humble yourself. This is something good for everyone and it does not matter who has taken the action. If you want to be a part of activism in the taxi industry you need to understand that you are not going to like everyone involved in the politics on a personal level. It's not necessary that you hold hands with your enemies and/or competitors and skip down the sidewalk but, you do need to be able to work together with others as well as acknowledge when they have done something positive.

Melissa, Couldn't have said it better myself. We are on the same page here. Great response.

Mike was highly critical of the Mike Foulks labeled "Shen Seven" or "Magnificant Seven" He felt that they were cheating the rest of us by filing the suit. George felt that it should have gone through him first. I could post the quotes, but why bother. We all need to be able to work together. Lets try. Sure we might not always see eye to eye or even like the other. I have met Wolfgang Weiss and Stanley Shen of the Mag Seven. I have met Peter Enger. I even met Mike Foulks years ago when he was a newbie. I was/am able to communicate with all of them with the exception of Mike. He just doesn't realize that spitting venom drives people away. While not everyone can be positive all the time, who wants to meet with someone that bombs his fellow driver with insults.

Some of the previous organizers did some good and some bad. Steve Wiedersberg got a law passed to help protect us. He also gave a former commisioner a valentine. It was a chocolate heart box filled with some kind of foul thing. He made sure it was in the news. It made taxi drivers look like the bad people. I am worried that Mike will make the same impression on the general public someday. Screaming and yelling at city hall doesn't help.

A lawsuit does seem like the proper way to get someones attention. I do not know the answer to this for sure, but can almost guarantee that many lawsuits end up with an out of court settlement. Don Nathan might know the percentage of all suits never reaching a court decided verdict. I would bet that the parties involved in the lawsuit would like nothing better than a review of the rates and to have new fair rates established so we don't end up working day and night for free. Isn't this what everyone wants?

Ahmed said, "George felt that it should have gone through him first."

Actually Ahmed, what I said was that I thought it should go through us first. You know that.

George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher

I think you're right George with the us being the Dispatcher.

I'm not with the Dispatcher but I'm glad I got the chance to get my two cents in about the lawsuit. I'm also thankful to George for putting up this forum to give me and you the chance to say so. No disrespect to Mr. Nathan but a lot of us saw the problems with the way the petition was written. I don't see where you objected to anything at all, even though even to Mr. Nathan it should have been written better. You are critical of Mike Foulks and never say a good word about him and you are always positive to the UTCC and Mr. Nathan's people and are never critical of them. I think there is a lot you aren't telling the rest of us about yourself.

Nathan says he amending the petition. The city has so far ignored the lawsuit according to him. He's working for free. What more do you want? I don't expect him to be a magician like Johnny Cochran. If you or anyone else can get a 63 year old attorney to work for free for us please post his info.

I have said good things about Mike, read my posts. He did do a good job of writing a response letter to the Tribune. The original letter writer was a fool. This writer thinks we should work for free and take his abuse at the same time.

Now for something you don't want to hear, Peter Enger did point out the the complaint per ride ratio is almost zero. Not like the bogus numbers it was purported to be on the TV news. The news people got the "story" directly from the DCS. Am I missing something here? I do not belive I saw a correction in the Dispatcher, but will be happy if I did indeed miss it.

If George does his thing and Enger and Co. does theirs perhaps the industry can benefit. My respect for the UTCC and Nathan comes from the fact they are not afraid to take the "gloves" off. A city license holder would be a fool to take his/hers off unless the cause/case was a so called slam dunk. I do know for a fact the the city gets much more than the fair share of legal decisions to go their way in Cook County courts. They are a vindictive bunch.