NLA Certification Forum [Archive] - The Limousine Discussion Forum

September 1st, 2000, 01:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
For those following the discussion of the Chauffeured Transportation Certification Program which Greg Casteel of Pinnacle Performance dumped on the NLA, note that NLA has formed a certification committee to decide what to do with this program. Yesterday there was a memo that has been sent selectively by NLA staff to some but not all members inviting those interested in the future shape of the certification program to attend a certification forum in Chicago on September 20, 2000 at the Doubletree Hotel O'Hare - Rosemont. This is obviously an important forum for it MAY determine the future course of the program. Also, obviously, I did not receive an invitation to attend directly because certain factions in NLA don't REALLY want input in this program. Under ordinary circumstances, I wouold not attend and I think the program is dead or will die shortly, but I don't want to be in the position of being an exceptionally vocal critic of the NLA staff and this program and then not attend when the chips are down. I'm trying to clear my schedule to get to Chicago for this meeting even though I didn't get the memo (I've been asked by others to attend).
Anyone who is interested in this forum can attend. To get the specifics, call or fax NLA headquarters and ask to get a copy of the August 31, 2000 memo addressed to "Certification Forum Participants." If NLA does not respond (as I expect they will not), e-mail me, use this forum to pass a message, or call me, and I'll e-mail or fax a copy of the memo to you.
Michael, if your industry stuff is up and running, can you post this memo there if I get a copy to you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
**************

Here you go again, shooting out those negative waves. I am trying to clear my schedule. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you will give input and be prepared to answer questions, just like the rest of us. It's also my birthday, maybe we can have dinner and have a constructive dialog on the future of the NLA.
John

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

September 2nd, 2000, 12:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jhj:
[b] maybe we can have dinner and have a constructive dialog on the future of the NLA.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're on, John, assuming that I can get there - right now it's about 60% and I have to move another thing or two. Funny, though, I think I'm being very constructive - we just have different viewpoints. How much more constructive can you get than (1) terminate the contract with Host Communications, (2) get rid of the staff, (3) move the office to the D.C. area, (4) hire new staff, (5) get a good, experienced association head, and (6) radically redraft the by-laws of NLA. At least my constructive agenda is on the table. Between now and Sept 20 I'm going to post here things to think about in connection with the CTCP program and why it should be changed rather radically and administered by someone other than NLA. Here's the FIRST thought. As presently structured, the program is billed as a "safety" program. By setting an industry standard with NLA administering such a program, the legal standard of care in operating a limousine company and in operating vehicles is being established. In accident cases, the operators' liability can be established with reference to the "industry standard" which is higher than the normal standard of case in vehicle operatrions. In other words, a company which is not certified will be measured against the standard, and whether a company and driver has complied with the CTCP standards will be at issue in Court. I am sure that if insurer's look carefully at this, they might end up charging MORE in liability premiums to the industry rather than less. MY SUGGESTION: although safety follows from it, the standards should be QUALITY standards and focus on a broader aspect of operations than safety (gee, sounds like ISO 9000, doesn't it). Your comments, John.

September 2nd, 2000, 01:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
although safety follows from it, the standards should be QUALITY standards and focus on a broader aspect of operations than safety (gee, sounds like ISO 9000, doesn't it).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before John jumps my bones on this part of my last post to point out that the present CTCP DOES have focus beyond safety, let me point out that I meant broader than vehicle operations. In other words, the quality standards should extend to ALL ASPECTS of a company's operations - how reservations are taken and managed, how vehicles are dispatched, how complaints are resolved, how drivers are hired and trained, etc. All of these factors go to QUALITY and RELIABILITY. The nice thing about ISO is that nobody sets the standards that you must comply with to be certified. Each ISO 9000 certified company designs it's own QUALITY program to suit it own needs and it's own objectives. Some are more stringent than others, and the quality program is designed to fit the type of operation. In the case of our industry, companies that do weddings, proms, nights out and special events have a different set of objctives and standards than a company with 90 sedans and 5 limousines. Why should both types be jammed into the same set of standards??? Each should be able to meet quality standards as their business dictates.

September 2nd, 2000, 04:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
Before John jumps my bones on this part of my last post to point out that the present CTCP DOES have focus beyond safety, let me point out that I meant broader than vehicle operations. In other words, the quality standards should extend to ALL ASPECTS of a company's operations - how reservations are taken and managed, how vehicles are dispatched, how complaints are resolved, how drivers are hired and trained, etc. All of these factors go to QUALITY and RELIABILITY. The nice thing about ISO is that nobody sets the standards that you must comply with to be certified. Each ISO 9000 certified company designs it's own QUALITY program to suit it own needs and it's own objectives. Some are more stringent than others, and the quality program is designed to fit the type of operation. In the case of our industry, companies that do weddings, proms, nights out and special events have a different set of objctives and standards than a company with 90 sedans and 5 limousines. Why should both types be jammed into the same set of standards??? Each should be able to meet quality standards as their business dictates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jim
You make some good points. I do agree with you. Just for the record, when the board voted for the certification program, it was my understanding that we would look at other programs and take the best to integrate with this program. We were getting heated exchanges from large operators such as the 100 plus cars, that they had their own programs and felt they shouldn't have to pay twice to achieve the same goal.

I will admit to you, that I did not know anything about IOS9000 program until you posted some information on that system. During the past seven years, no one has ever approach our company concerning this program. I am willing to take a look at it, and if its as good as you say, I don't have a problem on using all or part of this program for the NLA.

One more thing Jim, this meeting in Chicago is to gather input from members on the CTCP program. We want members to be proud that this program is part of the NLA. Your other comments concerning "changing by-laws, etc" needs to be addressed at another time and place. If you want to dicuss the matter with me privately during our proposed dinner meeting, that fine. But lets stay focus on the matter at hand.
John

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

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-02-2000).]

September 2nd, 2000, 03:27 PM

That program was a farce from the get go, the correct name for it should have been the Carey certification program as that was who really took it over.
I am not saying certification for the right reason is wrong.
But theres just so much more, this will be an interesting meeting in Chicago.

September 2nd, 2000, 03:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by B P:
That program was a farce from the get go, the correct name for it should have been the Carey certification program as that was who really took it over.
I am not saying certification for the right reason is wrong.
But theres just so much more, this will be an interesting meeting in Chicago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so BP

Our company was a charter member on the certfication program from the begining. Three years before we became associated with Carey International.
Your comment is to general. Please expand on your claim.
John

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

September 2nd, 2000, 03:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dean Schuler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
For those following the discussion of the Chauffeured Transportation Certification Program which Greg Casteel of Pinnacle Performance dumped on the NLA, note that NLA has formed a certification committee to decide what to do with this program. Yesterday there was a memo that has been sent selectively by NLA staff to some but not all members inviting those interested in the future shape of the certification program to attend a certification forum in Chicago on September 20, 2000 at the Doubletree Hotel O'Hare - Rosemont. This is obviously an important forum for it MAY determine the future course of the program. Also, obviously, I did not receive an invitation to attend directly because certain factions in NLA don't REALLY want input in this program. Under ordinary circumstances, I wouold not attend and I think the program is dead or will die shortly, but I don't want to be in the position of being an exceptionally vocal critic of the NLA staff and this program and then not attend when the chips are down. I'm trying to clear my schedule to get to Chicago for this meeting even though I didn't get the memo (I've been asked by others to attend).
Anyone who is interested in this forum can attend. To get the specifics, call or fax NLA headquarters and ask to get a copy of the August 31, 2000 memo addressed to "Certification Forum Participants." If NLA does not respond (as I expect they will not), e-mail me, use this forum to pass a message, or call me, and I'll e-mail or fax a copy of the memo to you.
Michael, if your industry stuff is up and running, can you post this memo there if I get a copy to you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
**************

Here you go again, shooting out those negative waves. I am trying to clear my schedule. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you will give input and be prepared to answer questions, just like the rest of us. It's also my birthday, maybe we can have dinner and have a constructive dialog on the future of the NLA.
John
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can't think that the NLA really regulates anything !!!! They are a soci joke organization . The NLA was last effective in 1989.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dean

I feel that the NLA should regulate its members. Example: Insurance,permits,etc.
NLA is not a joke. Love to correspond with you on an e-mail basis.
John

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

September 2nd, 2000, 11:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
One more thing Jim, this meeting in Chicago is to gather input from members on the CTCP program. We want members to be proud that this program is part of the NLA. Your other comments concerning "changing by-laws, etc" needs to be addressed at another time and place. If you want to dicuss the matter with me privately during our proposed dinner meeting, that fine. But lets stay focus on the matter at hand.
John
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already replied privately to an e-mail message of similar import from John, but want to state publicly part of what I said there. When we went into the CTCP it was with the knowledge that it had existed for 4-5 years and was a private operation. Change was not an issue. Obviously, change has become a big
issue. Anyone who thinks I am going to the Chicago meeting to rattle the garbage can will be disappointed. The public aspect of the meeting has one purpose - the CTCP, and my comments there, if any, will be constructive. I do know how to switch from being the gadfly to being constructive when the opportunity to be effective arises. As to criticism of the NLA - any such discussions will be private. As I intimated in earlier posts, there has developed a monstrous "back channel" as a result of these forums which now far exceeds what has been going on here. If all the directors would come out publicly for what they're saying privately, NLA could be in for some tremendous change.

September 2nd, 2000, 11:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
Dean

I feel that the NLA should regulate its members. Example: Insurance,permits,etc.
NLA is not a joke. Love to correspond with you on an e-mail basis.
John

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would truly be the death of NLA. Few, if any, trade associations attempt to "regulate" their members, in substantial part because of antitrust considerations and the effect on competition. Trade Associations are most effective in dealing with legislative and regulatory matters and education. That's why it needs to be in D.C., for starters. If I were the "dictator" of NLA, I'll tell you what I would do first. I would set up a technology trainin center where every limousine software publisher and accounting software publisher and fleet management software publisher (you get the idea) would be invited to install their programs on a bank of computers, and trained staff familiar with each program, would assist members who would come to the center to evaluate these programs and learn how to become computer literate (if not already) and be able to make an informed decision. The center would also be used for training of members' employees in such software (many times the owner is not and will not bcome proficient with computers him/herself, so dealing with employees is important). The training would be on a fee-for-service basis, the other part would be at NLA expense and the software publisher's expense.

I digress. John, leave regulation or "standards" to organizations that have expertise in such - NLA cannot be effective in that area. Imposition of standards is not how NLA can improve the industry. Education is.

September 2nd, 2000, 11:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
Dean

Love to correspond with you on an e-mail basis.
John

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why by e-mail? Why not right here? As I indicated, there is already a back-channel bigger than the forums that a lot of "lurking" participants are not part of, and that's too bad. These threads are going to die off and people will think there is no interest in the subjects, when what has happened/is happening is that the discussions have gone "off-forum." Michael - this is a point you need to make.

September 3rd, 2000, 03:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
This would truly be the death of NLA. Few, if any, trade associations attempt to "regulate" their members, in substantial part because of antitrust considerations and the effect on competition. Trade Associations are most effective in dealing with legislative and regulatory matters and education. That's why it needs to be in D.C., for starters. If I were the "dictator" of NLA, I'll tell you what I would do first. I would set up a technology trainin center where every limousine software publisher and accounting software publisher and fleet management software publisher (you get the idea) would be invited to install their programs on a bank of computers, and trained staff familiar with each program, would assist members who would come to the center to evaluate these programs and learn how to become computer literate (if not already) and be able to make an informed decision. The center would also be used for training of members' employees in such software (many times the owner is not and will not bcome proficient with computers him/herself, so dealing with employees is important). The training would be on a fee-for-service basis, the other part would be at NLA expense and the software publisher's expense.

I digress. John, leave regulation or "standards" to organizations that have expertise in such - NLA cannot be effective in that area. Imposition of standards is not how NLA can improve the industry. Education is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim
I was referring to when a prospect applies for membership with the NLA. I have encountered companies who have the money to join but lacks funds or eithics when it comes to having commercial insurance, airport permits or workers comp for their employees.
John

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

September 5th, 2000, 03:20 PM

Jim you are right about some of the directors, they are not happy but will not cause any static. I wonder why there was a gag order placed on them a few months back?
I will leave it there in case someone wants to answer.

September 5th, 2000, 03:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by B P:
Jim you are right about some of the directors, they are not happy but will not cause any static. I wonder why there was a gag order placed on them a few months back?
I will leave it there in case someone wants to answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're looking for any NLA director to answer ANY question put to him/her in this forum, forget it. Go back throigh the threads and you'll find not one direct answer. Those Luddites who don't understand the internet think that eventually this will go away and that only a few disgruntled persons are involved are wrong. There is great interest in these threads and the back-channel is more active now than these forums, but people are afraid (including especially NLA directors). You know what happens when you're gagged - eventually you suffocate!

September 5th, 2000, 04:09 PM

I just had a pleasant surprise. I was looking at the LCT web site and decided to see what else Bobit Publishing was doing, so I took a shot at the web site http://www.bobit.com . I noticed there a web site maintained by Bobit called Transit Center, and clicked on it. Lo and behold, in a prominent location is "ISO 9000 Guide." So I clicked on that - you should, too. Go to http://www.transit-center.com .

September 5th, 2000, 04:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by B P:
Jim you are right about some of the directors, they are not happy but will not cause any static. I wonder why there was a gag order placed on them a few months back?
I will leave it there in case someone wants to answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Love to know where you get your information from? Could it be the Twilight Zone? Being a NLA board member has not kept me from being on this forum. I am happy to answer questions. It's getting a little old to read the same comments "No one answers questions" however this is pure crapola. The problem is some people don't like the answers and so they will never be happy. Is there something you want to ask me? Either ask your question on the forum or e-mail me.
John

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

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-05-2000).]

September 5th, 2000, 04:52 PM

Oh yes Jim I have been watching this forum and the one down in Florida also. I have plenty to say but for now I have only been listning. The guys in Florida have the same thing going on with a problem child there but its getting boring he don't answer there questions and they put him to bed. But Jim I am not who you think I am. But I am really getting fed up with the NLA also. I will be back to you soon. Oh who had to sign a confidentialality statement because to much was getting out to a group that was creating to many problems? Again I will be back soon.

September 5th, 2000, 05:00 PM

Hey B P if your still on tell me what you think about what's going on with the florida issue. Do you think the questions that were asked were unreasonable? These guys were just trying to add credibilty to R G if he could prove them wrong.

September 5th, 2000, 05:10 PM

I am still on but not for long, have to leave soon. Listen you guys know whats best for the majority of your members and thats what you should do. One of the guys mentioned something to the effect he wasn't going to be preasured by anyone including the NLA, do you know anything about what he means? I find it very interesting that this association won't come forward with its actual membership, I believe there is more to this story. I have to go for now but find out about the NLA comment, they have no business sticking there nose where its not wanted. Sorry Jim for taking some of your time here, but its a curious situation down there also. See you later men.

September 5th, 2000, 05:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by B P:
Oh yes Jim I have been watching this forum and the one down in Florida also. I have plenty to say but for now I have only been listning. The guys in Florida have the same thing going on with a problem child there but its getting boring he don't answer there questions and they put him to bed. But Jim I am not who you think I am. But I am really getting fed up with the NLA also. I will be back to you soon. Oh who had to sign a confidentialality statement because to much was getting out to a group that was creating to many problems? Again I will be back soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you getting fed up? What do you want the NLA to do for you? I am listening and reading. Either ask your questions, make a suggestion on this forum or e-mail. I will be waiting.
John

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

September 5th, 2000, 05:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
Love to know where you get your information from? Could it be the Twilight Zone? Being a NLA board member has not kept me from being on this forum. I am happy to answer questions. It's getting a little old to read the same comments "No one answers questions" however this is pure crapola. The problem is some people don't like the answers and so they will never be happy. Is there something you want to ask me? Either ask your question on the forum or e-mail me.
John
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,
I think YOU have been in the Twilight Zone. Since you will answer questions, here are some, including all of the ones previously asked and NOT answered that I've extracted from the threads:

1. Why was the announcement of the Chicago certification forum meeting not sent to all NLA members? Who was it sent to? What was the criteria for excluding some, but not others?
2. Why did you not arrange to have the organizational papers for the certification company (NLA Certification, LLC) for which NLA is the fig-leaf sent to me as you specifically said in the forums that you would? Why is this for-profit company named "NLA Certification?"
3. Who imposed the requirement on the nomination and election of NLA directors that same be nominated and elected by regions when the by-laws contain no such provision?
4. Why is the NLA nominating committee unlawfully constituted? That is, why does it have more people than provided in the by-laws, why does it not have the people on it who are required by the by-laws to be on it? See By-Laws Article 6, Section I, subsection b.
5. Why is Sara McLean of Bobit Publishing on the NLA board? She is not listed as an allied vendor representative, but as a regular board member. See p. 4 of the 2000-2001 NLA Directory. See By-Laws Article 5, Section G, that directors must be Active Regular Members, and By-Laws Article 3, Section A, subsection 1 which defines "Regular Active Members," and which requirement she does not meet.
6. Why are there four (4) "Vendor Members" of the board listed in the NLA Directory, when the by-laws provide for only one? See p. 5 of the 2000-2001 NLA Directory, and By-Laws Article 8, Section A.
7. How many presentations from other companies did the NLA board get before contracting with Host Communications subsidiary Host Interactive for the new NLA web site? How much is the contract to develop the site? How much to maintain it?
8. Why has NLA not responded to our e-mail since July 19 concerning where to send certification testing and pre-certification material? Why has Bob Scott not responded to my e-mail of July 29 for him to call me?
9. Why is Linda Bouland the person named to be the contact person for certification when she knows nothing about it and doesn't communicate with members?
10. The back-channel of NLA directors and other insiders has confirmed what has been loosely referred to by B P as a "gag order." Why was this done?
11. Who holds the equity in the certification company, NLA Certification, LLC?
12. Does NLA issue membership certificates every year, or just the year a company joins? If every year, why do not all members get them?
13. "Explain how endorsements are made by the board to the industry. A recap of the livery coach case would be most interesting, if you care to go there." Asked by Dean Schuler, Sept. 1.
14. "I plan on logging into the General Forum on a daily basis. I will be happy to respond to questions or concerns." Posted by John Sinibaldi, August 20. Why have you not done what you said and responded to the questions above?
15. The following questions were impliedly asked, but not directly, so I'll state them here more directly:
(a) What form of proxy is approved by the NLA Directors to be used by members at any annual meeting? See By-Laws Article 5, Section D. If so, will you see that NLA forwards a copy of any such approved form.
(b) Is there a signature form in existence to be used by members who wish to submit proxies to be voted at any annual meeting? See same By-Law section referred to above.
16. Where in the forums (by date and respondent) has any NLA board member answered any of these questions that you claim have been answered and the someone simply didn't like the answers?
If you go back and read every post in every thread in these forums you will find most of these questions asked in even greater detail and you will also find no answers. This is your big chance, John, answer away! If you think any have been answered, refer to the person and date of posting as a reference. And quit using the cute phrase that someone "doesn't like the answers," because, in fact, there haven't been any answers, and I don't think you're going to answer them now even after they've been gathered together and listed here.

September 5th, 2000, 07:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John,
I think YOU have been in the Twilight Zone. Since you will answer questions, here are some, including all of the ones previously asked and NOT answered that I've extracted from the threads:

1. Why was the announcement of the Chicago certification forum meeting not sent to all NLA members? Who was it sent to? What was the criteria for excluding some, but not others?
2. Why did you not arrange to have the organizational papers for the certification company (NLA Certification, LLC) for which NLA is the fig-leaf sent to me as you specifically said in the forums that you would? Why is this for-profit company named "NLA Certification?"
3. Who imposed the requirement on the nomination and election of NLA directors that same be nominated and elected by regions when the by-laws contain no such provision?
4. Why is the NLA nominating committee unlawfully constituted? That is, why does it have more people than provided in the by-laws, why does it not have the people on it who are required by the by-laws to be on it? See By-Laws Article 6, Section I, subsection b.
5. Why is Sara McLean of Bobit Publishing on the NLA board? She is not listed as an allied vendor representative, but as a regular board member. See p. 4 of the 2000-2001 NLA Directory. See By-Laws Article 5, Section G, that directors must be Active Regular Members, and By-Laws Article 3, Section A, subsection 1 which defines "Regular Active Members," and which requirement she does not meet.
6. Why are there four (4) "Vendor Members" of the board listed in the NLA Directory, when the by-laws provide for only one? See p. 5 of the 2000-2001 NLA Directory, and By-Laws Article 8, Section A.
7. How many presentations from other companies did the NLA board get before contracting with Host Communications subsidiary Host Interactive for the new NLA web site? How much is the contract to develop the site? How much to maintain it?
8. Why has NLA not responded to our e-mail since July 19 concerning where to send certification testing and pre-certification material? Why has Bob Scott not responded to my e-mail of July 29 for him to call me?
9. Why is Linda Bouland the person named to be the contact person for certification when she knows nothing about it and doesn't communicate with members?
10. The back-channel of NLA directors and other insiders has confirmed what has been loosely referred to by B P as a "gag order." Why was this done?
11. Who holds the equity in the certification company, NLA Certification, LLC?
12. Does NLA issue membership certificates every year, or just the year a company joins? If every year, why do not all members get them?
13. "Explain how endorsements are made by the board to the industry. A recap of the livery coach case would be most interesting, if you care to go there." Asked by Dean Schuler, Sept. 1.
14. "I plan on logging into the General Forum on a daily basis. I will be happy to respond to questions or concerns." Posted by John Sinibaldi, August 20. Why have you not done what you said and responded to the questions above?
15. The following questions were impliedly asked, but not directly, so I'll state them here more directly:
(a) What form of proxy is approved by the NLA Directors to be used by members at any annual meeting? See By-Laws Article 5, Section D. If so, will you see that NLA forwards a copy of any such approved form.
(b) Is there a signature form in existence to be used by members who wish to submit proxies to be voted at any annual meeting? See same By-Law section referred to above.
16. Where in the forums (by date and respondent) has any NLA board member answered any of these questions that you claim have been answered and the someone simply didn't like the answers?
If you go back and read every post in every thread in these forums you will find most of these questions asked in even greater detail and you will also find no answers. This is your big chance, John, answer away! If you think any have been answered, refer to the person and date of posting as a reference. And quit using the cute phrase that someone "doesn't like the answers," because, in fact, there haven't been any answers, and I don't think you're going to answer them now even after they've been gathered together and listed here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
****************************************
Wow Jim, what a long winded statement: Why do most lawyers write so much to say so little. When it could of been addressed in about four short statements. However I will do my best now. I will have to answer some of your other questions during the next few days or sooner. I must be getting to you.

1.To the best of my knowledge, this notice was sent to individuals who have asked to be on the certifcation commitee. These individuals want to contribute to this program. Sorry you didn't get one, but from all your posts, you want out of this program. I am still waiting for your letter to give you a refund that was already communicated to you by staff. What's the delay. You keep slaming this program and to ohers it shows you really have no interest on being productive.

7. To the best of my knowlege "Sorry about the lawyer jargen" There were five proposals sent out. Four companies responded, three were invited to make a formal proposal to the board. Only one came to Vancouver, which happen to be Host. I was impressed with their presentation so I voted for them.

8. One of the issues that will be discussed in New Orleans is the lack of return phone calls from staff to members. I plan on making this a priorty item that needs to be addressed and corrected ASAP. As for why Bob Scott or LInda haven't call you. I don't know. THey have been insulted enough by you, I guess anybody with have just about enough.

13. I was not on the board during the Livery case with Dean. So I am not in the position to answer. However, I am more concerned about his personal conduct on a number of meetings he attended. And I do mean his PERSONAL CONDUCT. He can certainly address that if he wishes.

9. Linda is the office manager. During the earlier stages we were in the process of obtaining all the records. Please provide all names and phone numbers of clients except you, who are not getting serviced. I will make sure they are taken care of. As for you, where's the letter to get your refund processed?

16. I suggest your read through the answers again. Case in point, when I gave our company's opinion concerning the certification program. Neither you or your buddy cared for my response. The both of you just blew it off.

I will be working on your other questions tommorow. By the way, You need to addess the questions Ron Sorci has been asking you. Stop hiding behind your key board. Call the man. Their will be alot of eyes on all of us including you in Chicago. We plan on making this program work. And I certainly have no problem in having an open dialog with you on this form. Stop writing that board members don't take an interest. The viewers will make their own judgement.

John

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

September 6th, 2000, 12:07 PM

You posted:
1.To the best of my knowledge, this notice was sent to individuals who have asked to be on the certifcation commitee. These individuals want to contribute to this program. Sorry you didn't get one, but from all your posts, you want out of this program. I am still waiting for your letter to give you a refund that was already communicated to you by staff. What's the delay. You keep slaming this program and to ohers it shows you really have no interest on being productive.
JHJ comment: Let me be clear that at the time we decided to proceed with certification the CTCP was nearly 4 years old and changing the program was hardly an option. Also, it was adminsitered by Pinnacle at the time. After we paid our money, two things happened. First, Casteel dumped the program on NLA, which is incompetent to administer it. Second, at no time from my posts in late July until the end of August did anyone suggest that the shape of the CTCP was up for grabs within some unknown committee at NLA - others provided that information. Although I will request the refund and we have elected another route, I'm not going to be accused of complaining and not being constructive. I'm willing to come to Chicago at my expense and offer my insights, although it is clear in advance that the NLA group of insiders won't like my insights in the least. We are going ISO 9000, which is where major companies will end up sooner or later.

You posted:
7. To the best of my knowlege "Sorry about the lawyer jargen" There were five proposals sent out. Four companies responded, three were invited to make a formal proposal to the board. Only one came to Vancouver, which happen to be Host. I was impressed with their presentation so I voted for them.
JHJ comment: As I suspected, there was only one formal proposal. The rest of the question, if you read back, was how much was the contract and how much for maintaining the site?

You posted:
8. One of the issues that will be discussed in New Orleans is the lack of return phone calls from staff to members. I plan on making this a priorty item that needs to be addressed and corrected ASAP. As for why Bob Scott or LInda haven't call you. I don't know. THey have been insulted enough by you, I guess anybody with have just about enough.
JHJ comment: Nice try, John. Go back and look at the posts in these forums. Casteel's letter telling everyone about his magnanimous "gift" was faxed July 16. My first e-mail to Linda Bouland was a day or two later. My e-mail asking Bob scott to call me was July 29. NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THE SUBSTANCE OF MY POSTS. I CRITICIZED NO ONE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOT RETURNING E-MAIL OR CALLS UNTIL SOMEWHAT AFTER AUGUST 1. Bouland and Scott, and everyone else at NLA, had WEEKS to respond to my inquiries. After that, they were fair game. Don't try to be a Ron Sorci and invent a timeline that doesn't exist. NLA staff didn't communicate because they don't communicate - and to claim that they didn't respond because they got bashed is "crapola," to coin a phrase.

You posted:
13. I was not on the board during the Livery case with Dean. So I am not in the position to answer. However, I am more concerned about his personal conduct on a number of meetings he attended. And I do mean his PERSONAL CONDUCT. He can certainly address that if he wishes.
JHJ comment: Since neither I nor, I am sure, most other participants in the forums, including lurkers, have no clue what you are talking about, why engage in some implied character assassination. If there are FACTS relating to anybody's conduct, and if that conduct is RELEVANT to anything being discussed in these forums, then belly up to the table and get it out. If not, shut up.

You posted:
9. Linda is the office manager. During the earlier stages we were in the process of obtaining all the records. Please provide all names and phone numbers of clients except you, who are not getting serviced. I will make sure they are taken care of. As for you, where's the letter to get your refund processed?
JHJ comment: I have been at depositions nearly every business day since last week until after 5:00 P.M. The letter will come in the ordinary course of business. Are you afraid I'll change my mind before you have a chance to get rid of us? Fat chance - we've made our decision. As for others in the same situation, I have no clue who is or is not getting serviced. I can only assume based on our experience that NLA communciates with no one, but I'm not going to get involved in anybody else's problem.

You posted:
16. I suggest your read through the answers again. Case in point, when I gave our company's opinion concerning the certification program. Neither you or your buddy cared for my response. The both of you just blew it off.
JHJ comment: I don't know who "my buddy" is supposed to be, but I think even a cursory review of the posts will reveal that someone who is unidentified by name took issue with you. Obviously, you want to make that person appear to be in league with me in some way, but you're grasping at straws. As for me - I said nothing at all about your opinions as to how your company has benefitted from the CTCP - go back and look, John. Maybe we would have benefitted too if Casteel hadn't dumped the program on a bunch of administratively inept morons. Obviously, there was a time when we thought we would have. But any benefits would have been far outweighed by the agony of trying to deal on a continuing basis with the totally unresponsive and inept NLA staff.

Your posted:
I will be working on your other questions tommorow.
JHJ comment: Gee, John, a bunch of the questions don't require any work - such as why you didin't get the papers sent to me that you undertook earlier in the posts.

You posted:
By the way, You need to addess the questions Ron Sorci has been asking you. Stop hiding behind your key board.
JHJ comment: Hiding? Hardly, John, I'm here in plain sight. It's Sorci that wants to go outside the forum and out of view.

You posted:
Call the man.
JHJ comment: I was attacked by Sorci in his August 3 letter when I had not written him, when no response was required by him, when his letter was entirely gratuitous and of no substance. His letter is exactly what it is, an attempt to be "cute" and appear "erudite," and address no facts - merely label my comments ridiculous and attempt character assassination the same way you are trying to do with Dean Schuler - apparently NLA directors have raised character assassination to a high art-form. I have absolutely no use for someone who occupies a position of trust in a national trade association and uses that position to belittle and ridicule a member who is legitimately criticizing what all of us know to be NLA administrative non-responsiveness. Sorci is a bully, and has nothing to back it up with. If he thinks he can deal with me on issues of substance, he can answer the questions directed to him in earlier posts (i.e., why he wrote the letter, why he said what he said, how he can justify doing so as an NLA director and co-chair of the certification committee, and unequivocally apologize), and I will then deal with him purely on issues of substance without any ad hominem references and we will put the matter behind us. Until then - well, I think my position is clear as to what I think of Sorci and I will make that opinion known whenever I choose to do so (I will not choose to do so publicly in Chicago, so if Sorci is making these entreaties for dialogue to avoid an "ugly" situation in Chicago, he need not do so).

You posted:
Their [sic] will be a lot of eyes on all of us including you in Chicago.
JHJ comment: I'm not sure what that means, John. I'm quite used to being in high profile situations, but I have no interest in who is watching and who isn't. I'm not trying to make points, I'm not trying to be an NLA director, I have made it clear that I can be more effective outside the club than in it, and that I'll make a contribution, whether it makes any difference or not. I really don't care what shape the certification program takes because we have gone past that point. I am going to Chicago because I think it's a point of honor. Whether I am right or wrong, believed or not believed, liked or disliked, is irrelevant - I will not criticize others from a distance and then be accused of not playing a constructive role given the oppotunity (note that until about August 30 there was no information that such an opportunity existed - even you didn't say anything here about the certification forum meeting in Chicago, why not?). Looks like another question for you to answer.

You posted:
We plan on making this program work. And I certainly have no problem in having an open dialog with you on this form.
JHJ comment: I think you should have a more open mind. Maybe some other program should "work." Maybe this program should be changed so it doesn't resemble this program at all. If it's broke, maybe it shouldn't be fixed. If it's broke, maybe it can't be fixed. What is the agenda for Chicago - make it work even if it dies in the process?

You posted:
Stop writing that board members don't take an interest. The viewers will make their own judgement.
JHJ comment: I agree with the latter statement, but not the first. There are 16 board members. Most are obeying the "gag order." Only five have been heard from at all here, and none have answered any questions until your partial attempt today. None have expressed any interest in the woeful non-responsiveness of the NLA staff. I'll call them like I see them until the directors do, indeed, take an interest.

September 6th, 2000, 05:42 PM

O K John, first I want to refer to the Florida issue. I have found that forum very interesting (Jim you have made this one very interesting also)so I made a few phone calls about what was going on, boy did I get an earfull. First it seems that most are against a state lisence and have asked questions to try and bring out some untruths but their questions will not be answered, but that part is there battle.
After some of my own investigations, what is the real reason the NLA is pushing other associations down there to have a sit down meeting with this Florida Livery association company? They have expressed that they have no desire to do such, has something been promised to sombody that can not be delivered? Why is a for profit association that is run by a person that does not even own a limousine company being backed by the NLA? How can a for profit company (association) be treated as an association member and not a trade member? Why does the NLA recognize an association that wont devulge their membership list? I will stop here for now.

September 7th, 2000, 03:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
I am still waiting for your letter to give you a refund that was already communicated to you by staff. What's the delay. You keep slaming this program and to ohers it shows you really have no interest on being productive.

John
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The letter officially requesting the refund of $960 was faxed and mailed to John this morning, along with a copy of the receipt from Pinnacle Performance Systems. I'll keep the forum posted on how many forevers it takes for NLA to make the refund (hmmmmmm, let's see, who knows how to read this letter from this Joseph guy, now let's see, refund???, how do we do that - oh, I guess we need the checkbook, anybody know where the checkbook is?, haven't seen it lately, well, someone order checks until we find it, how do you write out $960 - is it "Nine Hundred Six Zero" or "Nine Hundred Six?", O.K., what's this guy's address - you say we lost the letter, geez, well, put it aside, he'll write again and the letter will have the address - O.K., got another letter from the Joseph guy, here's his address - did the new checks come in yet - no? - well order them again, etc., etc. etc.).

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-07-2000).]

September 7th, 2000, 03:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by B P:
O K John, first I want to refer to the Florida issue. I have found that forum very interesting (Jim you have made this one very interesting also)so I made a few phone calls about what was going on, boy did I get an earfull. First it seems that most are against a state lisence and have asked questions to try and bring out some untruths but their questions will not be answered, but that part is there battle.
After some of my own investigations, what is the real reason the NLA is pushing other associations down there to have a sit down meeting with this Florida Livery association company? They have expressed that they have no desire to do such, has something been promised to sombody that can not be delivered? Why is a for profit association that is run by a person that does not even own a limousine company being backed by the NLA? How can a for profit company (association) be treated as an association member and not a trade member? Why does the NLA recognize an association that wont devulge their membership list? I will stop here for now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks B P for raising some points about whats been happening in Florida. Hopefully some of those NLA director/officer type people that are not reading the forum but who we know are reading the forum might be willing to answer some questions.

Seems that there is a corporation in Florida called the Florida Livery Association. This corporation represents itself to be a limousine association but in actuality is a for profit corporation owned by a single individual. Reiterating what B P started and expanding a little bit we have a few questions that I think should be answered by the NLA.

1. Why does the NLA recognize a private for profit corporation as a limousine industry industry association?
2. Why was the owner of this corporation allowed to go to Washington and participate in lobbying efforts when he doesn't even own a limousine business?
3. Why is this same individual allowed to speak as a representative of the NLA and discuss information and distribute news that should be disbursed from the NLA (1689, gas guzzler, etc...)?
4. Why doesn't this for profit business have trade member status? I have been told that this was to have occurred but to date nothing has changed.
5. How can the NLA recognize an entity that will not reveal how many members it has?
6. How can the NLA recognize an entity that will not reveal who its members are?

This organization purports itself to speak for the limousine industry in Florida. In actuality there are many, many companies that are not in agreement with this organization and its agenda. The NLA by recognizing this organization as an association does every NLA member in Florida a disservice.

I respectfully request a response from any NLA officer or director.

September 8th, 2000, 03:11 AM

Can you give some background on this for those of us that do not know the situation. How has the NLA recognized the FLA? Where is this known, advertised, or publicized?

September 8th, 2000, 03:12 AM

Sorry -- the above is off the thread topic which is supposed to be the CTCP meeting.

September 8th, 2000, 06:16 AM

Sorry Michael - just picking up on B P's original comments and JHJ's list of questions for the NLA that seemed to cover a much broader spectrum of issues than certification. I will move my comments on the NLA Florida issues to one of the other NLA forums.

September 9th, 2000, 03:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
The letter officially requesting the refund of $960 was faxed and mailed to John this morning, along with a copy of the receipt from Pinnacle Performance Systems. I'll keep the forum posted on how many forevers it takes for NLA to make the refund (hmmmmmm, let's see, who knows how to read this letter from this Joseph guy, now let's see, refund???, how do we do that - oh, I guess we need the checkbook, anybody know where the checkbook is?, haven't seen it lately, well, someone order checks until we find it, how do you write out $960 - is it "Nine Hundred Six Zero" or "Nine Hundred Six?", O.K., what's this guy's address - you say we lost the letter, geez, well, put it aside, he'll write again and the letter will have the address - O.K., got another letter from the Joseph guy, here's his address - did the new checks come in yet - no? - well order them again, etc., etc. etc.).
****************
Jim,
Got your letter and I have faxed and mailed the original to the Home Office. As I told you, "I will see to it that this gets done".
Your other remarks are out of line. However I understand through experience and from others that attorneys aren't so great about returing money in a timely manner. Case in point. Mr. F. Lee or shall I say "Flee" Bailey.
Get real Jim.

John
NLA Board Member.
ay
[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-09-2000).]

September 9th, 2000, 03:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by hesch (from Florida):
Thanks B P for raising some points about whats been happening in Florida. Hopefully some of those NLA director/officer type people that are not reading the forum but who we know are reading the forum might be willing to answer some questions.

Seems that there is a corporation in Florida called the Florida Livery Association. This corporation represents itself to be a limousine association but in actuality is a for profit corporation owned by a single individual. Reiterating what B P started and expanding a little bit we have a few questions that I think should be answered by the NLA.

1. Why does the NLA recognize a private for profit corporation as a limousine industry industry association?
2. Why was the owner of this corporation allowed to go to Washington and participate in lobbying efforts when he doesn't even own a limousine business?
3. Why is this same individual allowed to speak as a representative of the NLA and discuss information and distribute news that should be disbursed from the NLA (1689, gas guzzler, etc...)?
4. Why doesn't this for profit business have trade member status? I have been told that this was to have occurred but to date nothing has changed.
5. How can the NLA recognize an entity that will not reveal how many members it has?
6. How can the NLA recognize an entity that will not reveal who its members are?

This organization purports itself to speak for the limousine industry in Florida. In actuality there are many, many companies that are not in agreement with this organization and its agenda. The NLA by recognizing this organization as an association does every NLA member in Florida a disservice.

I respectfully request a response from any NLA officer or director.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*****************
Greetings:
Not sure where you got the impression that the NLA is behind the Florida Livery association. I can say this, "We did not provide money to them when they requested." One of the major concerns to Carol Nelson and the rest of the board was that the association refused to provide a complete detail list of members. I was not on the board at the time this request came up, I will have Carol Nelson contact you. Carol heads up the assoication commitee.
John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member
P.S. You are welcome to call me 1-800-517-9555. Thanks
------------------

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-09-2000).]

September 10th, 2000, 01:53 PM

ANY CHANCE I CAN GET MY MONEY BACK ON THIS DEAL? WHAT A WASTE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
I already replied privately to an e-mail message of similar import from John, but want to state publicly part of what I said there. When we went into the CTCP it was with the knowledge that it had existed for 4-5 years and was a private operation. Change was not an issue. Obviously, change has become a big
issue. Anyone who thinks I am going to the Chicago meeting to rattle the garbage can will be disappointed. The public aspect of the meeting has one purpose - the CTCP, and my comments there, if any, will be constructive. I do know how to switch from being the gadfly to being constructive when the opportunity to be effective arises. As to criticism of the NLA - any such discussions will be private. As I intimated in earlier posts, there has developed a monstrous "back channel" as a result of these forums which now far exceeds what has been going on here. If all the directors would come out publicly for what they're saying privately, NLA could be in for some tremendous change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
Betty Taylor
Taylor Transportation
Dallas, Texas

September 11th, 2000, 12:20 AM

On September 2 I said that between then and September 20 I would post some thoughts on the certification program. This is a SECOND thought. Any program which seeks to upgrade the quality of limousine services cannot be affiliated with any trade association for it will be far too parochical a program. It must be non-sectarian and industry-wide (this is the rule to which the corollary is that NLA is not competent to administer any such program). I think the only part of the CTCP program worth keeping is the thought that the industry needs to recognize that chauffeurs are where the "rubber meets the road" and is, in my opinion, the most important feature of the limousine business. To have a consistent, national program which identifies and honors accomplishment in this career-field is important and worthy of a program. Beyond being a recognition program, the CTCP is ill-suited to the oibjective. Anyone who has perused the posts in these forums knows that my personal view is that the limousine industry should attach itself to the ISO 9000:2000 certification program. We (our company) are proceeding along those lines. In fact, I am meeting with a representative of Perry Johnson, Inc. (see http://www.pji.com) (http://www.pji.com) in Rosemont on the afternoon of the 19th. I have privately invited some participants in the CTCP forum to join me to learn more about ISO 9000. Some are able to attend, others are arriving too late on the 19th (or the morning of the 20th), but this is an open invitation to join that meeting. Please e-mail me for the particulars if you are interested.
Tom Mazza, you are invited also, and I think the information available from PJI could be excellent background.
In another post, I will explain in more detail why I am boosting the ISO 9000 program as a superior alternative to the CTCP.

[This message has been edited by XENEFOX Media Corporation (edited 09-11-2000).]

September 11th, 2000, 10:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
On September 2 I said that between then and September 20 I would post some thoughts on the certification program. This is a SECOND thought. Any program which seeks to upgrade the quality of limousine services cannot be affiliated with any trade association for it will be far too parochical a program. It must be non-sectarian and industry-wide (this is the rule to which the corollary is that NLA is not competent to administer any such program). I think the only part of the CTCP program worth keeping is the thought that the industry needs to recognize that chauffeurs are where the "rubber meets the road" and is, in my opinion, the most important feature of the limousine business. To have a consistent, national program which identifies and honors accomplishment in this career-field is important and worthy of a program. Beyond being a recognition program, the CTCP is ill-suited to the oibjective. Anyone who has perused the posts in these forums knows that my personal view is that the limousine industry should attach itself to the ISO 9000:2000 certification program. We (our company) are proceeding along those lines. In fact, I am meeting with a representative of Perry Johnson, Inc. (see http://www.pji.com) (http://www.pji.com) in Rosemont on the afternoon of the 19th. I have privately invited some participants in the CTCP forum to join me to learn more about ISO 9000. Some are able to attend, others are arriving too late on the 19th (or the morning of the 20th), but this is an open invitation to join that meeting. Please e-mail me for the particulars if you are interested.
Tom Mazza, you are invited also, and I think the information available from PJI could be excellent background.
In another post, I will explain in more detail why I am boosting the ISO 9000 program as a superior alternative to the CTCP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*************
Jim
Your 0 for one. The address you posted for ISO 9000 comes up as an invalid address. Should I assume that fools and morons run this site?
John
NLA Board Member

[This message has been edited by XENEFOX Media Corporation (edited 09-11-2000).]

September 11th, 2000, 10:47 AM

There was a typo in the link code which I fixed.

September 11th, 2000, 01:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by XENEFOX Media Corporation:
There was a typo in the link code which I fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Feel stupid, John??? A little too quick to try to be cute. When a hyper-link doesn't work, always try it manually before sticking foot in mouth up to hip (gee, I think I said that before).

September 11th, 2000, 02:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
Should I assume that fools and morons run this site?
John
NLA Board Member
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that you raised the subject, John . . . I called to make a reservation today at the Doubletree Rosemont where the forum meeting will be on the 20th. When I spoke with the reservation clerk she told me that unless I was on the NLA "rooming list," I couldn't get the advantage of the group rate negotiated by NLA (note that NLA has never told SOME people of the availability of a group rate). Being the tenacious person that I am, I asked for the general manager (Mark Hartman, for those who want to check and think I may be inventing this story) and told him that I found it offensive that I would be required to contact NLA and get on the rooming list to take advantage of a lower room rate, so I intended to stay at another hotel. Readers of this forum know what my reaction was to the suggestion that I contact NLA to have them put me on the "rooming list." Anyhow, Hartman apologized and took my reservation and said he would check the NLA group rate and give me that price. In the meantime he quoted me a $159 rate (which is also the quoted rate on Doubletree's web site - feel free to check it at http://www.doubletree.com (http://www.doubletree.com))). My wallet was in my jacket in a different office and I told Hartman I had to call him back to give him my credit card number to guarantee the room. A little later I called him, gave him my credit card number, and I asked him what the final rate was. He told me $159, because the group rate negotiated with NLA was $189, and my rate (the internet rate) was better. As a result, he claims they were lowering the NLA group rate to $159 also. A simple thank you from everyone who will now pay $30 per night less will be fine, thank you. Please notice how I avoided the temptation to use the word moron in this post?

And by the way, John and Ron Sorci, I've remained rather quiet the past 4-5 days to give you the time you stated you needed to confer with other as to the answers to the questions that I and others posed to you. Don't mistake that reprieve as a loss of interest in exposing the NLA and its directors for what it is/they are. Eventually your silence will even embarass Tom Mazza into raising these issues - unless the too cozy relationship between NLA and LCT is simply too much for even objectivity to overcome. Don't the questions pique your interest, Tom - doesn't the failure of NLA directors to answer them pique it even more? LCT can keep it's finger in the NLA dike for only so long.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]

September 11th, 2000, 03:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
I understand through experience and from others that attorneys aren't so great about returing money in a timely manner. Case in point. Mr. F. Lee or shall I say "Flee" Bailey. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With this reference to John's earlier post, I rest my case as to NLA director's raising character assassination to a high art form. Having said that, let me give some perspective to his comments. Since Lee Bailey and I have been friends since I met him in law school in 1968 shortly after the Shepard trial, and we have worked on cases together (see Rudy Maxa, "Dare to Be Great," William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1977, p. 162 for a partial account of my relationship with "Flee Bailey," as John calls him), I find the character assassination reprehensible. In the first place, I have never found a newspaper account of any matter in which I have been involved to be close to accurate (we'll see how well Tom Mazza vindicates the Fourth Estate in the weeks to come), and I have long ago refused to pass judgment on anything at all based upon newspaper accounts (I am not assassinating the character of journalists but speak from my personal experience, and as a former owner of daily and weekly newspapers). Next, in his career, Lee Bailey has done more to advance the cause of private citizens against the power of government than any legion of NLA directors could ever hope for as a career accomplishment. The Federal government has been after Lee Bailey, and every other prominent, high-powered and effective criminal defense lawyer for a quarter of a century after they gave up trying to beat them. The unfortunate commentary on Bailey and others is that this country has become a "Banana Republic" where those who hold power (however temporarily), and those out of power, try to reverse the hold on power by indicting their opponents, or by wholesale character assassination (sounds like the NLA directors and the Limo Old-Boys, doesn't it?). At least Banana Republics are honest and straightforward - they simply have a coup and shoot their opponents. I will not defend Lee Bailey in any way for to do so is to make some assumption based on newspaper accounts, and I refuse to do so based on my experience. Come off the character assassination, John, it isn't becoming to you. Deal with the issues. Answer the questions that you were "working on" almost a week ago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]

September 11th, 2000, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
Feel stupid, John??? A little too quick to try to be cute. When a hyper-link doesn't work, always try it manually before sticking foot in mouth up to hip (gee, I think I said that before).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
************
Not so Jim. You have been very quick to judge people. Well I guess your not perfect. Is the kitchen a little warm?
John

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

September 11th, 2000, 03:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
With this reference to John's earlier post, I rest my case as to NLA director's raising character assassination to a high art form. Having said that, let me give some perspective to his comments. Since Lee Bailey and I have been friends since I met him in law school in 1968 shortly after the Shepard trial, and we have worked on cases together (see Rudy Maxa, "Dare to Be Great," William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1977, p. 162 for a partial account of my relationship with "Flee Bailey," as John calls him), I find the character assassination reprehensible. In the first place, I have never found a newspaper account of any matter in which I have been involved to be close to accurate (we'll see how well Tom Mazza vindicates the Fourth Estate in the weeks to come), and I have long ago refused to pass judgment on anything at all based upon newspaper accounts (I am not assassinating the character of journalists but speak from my personal experience, and as a former owner of daily and weekly newspapers). Next, in his career, Lee Bailey has done more to advance the cause of private citizens against the power of government than any legion of NLA directors could ever hope for as a career accomplishment. The Federal government has been after Lee Bailey, and every other prominent, high-powered and effective criminal defense lawyer for a quarter of a century after they gave up trying to beat them. The unfortunate commentary on Bailey and others is that this country has become a "Banana Republic" where those who hold power (however temporarily), and those out of power, try to reverse the hold on power by indicting their opponents, or by wholesale character assassination (sounds like the NLA directors and the Limo Old-Boys, doesn't it?). At least Banana Republics are honest and straightforward - they simply have a coup and shoot their opponents. I will not defend Lee Bailey in any way for to do so is to make some assumption based on newspaper accounts, and I refuse to do so based on my experience. Come off the character assassination, John, it isn't becoming to you. Deal with the issues. Answer the questions that you were "working on" almost a week ago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*********
Jim
Not personal to you, and my opinions are my own. But I don't see a whole alot of difference on the way you have attacked people by calling names and other insulting remarks.However attorneys are human, and you're no different.I may not have the gift to ramble on and on and on like you, but I like to come to the point. Just keep on writing your long winded statements and the vistors can make their own judgement. I have received quite of few calls concerning our exchanges. I am in the process of gathing up some information on your other questions and I will be posting my comments later in the week.I am still reviewing the IOS 9000. By the way, I still stand my my earlier opinion of Mr. Bailey. Money speaks.

John
NLA Board Member

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

September 11th, 2000, 03:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
Feel stupid, John??? A little too quick to try to be cute. When a hyper-link doesn't work, always try it manually before sticking foot in mouth up to hip (gee, I think I said that before).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
************
Not so Jim. You have been very quick to judge people. Well I guess your not perfect. Is the kitchen a little warm?
John

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhhh - is it me, or does this post not make any sense? I think your ignorance of software is showing - the correction to the code made by Michael was not an error on my part, but how the software used by limos.com for these forums codes embedded URLs. Try it. Type in any URL in a post, and unless you leave spaces on each side of the URL the software will not embed it properly. Note my post with the Doubletree URL - click on it and it won't work because the trailing end does not have a space after it. Michael can correct that coding error.

September 11th, 2000, 04:16 PM

John-
You said:
But I don't see a whole alot of difference on the way you have attacked people by calling names and other insulting remarks.
My comment:
You need to be more discriminating in your perception, John. As to the NLA directors, please review the posts and if you find a place where I called any of them (except the "ridiculous" Ron Sorci) names (remember, names are nouns), please point it out. And the only name I have called the NLA staff is "moron." In each case of criticism I have set forth facts upon which the criticism is based and how and why the conclusion has been/is reached. In virtually no instance has anyone even attempted to refute the facts or the logic of the compelling conclusion. My logic stands in stark contrast to the character asassination of the NLA directors, and, to use you as an example, your pregnant comments concerning Dean Schuler and the goofy syllogism by which you try to assassinate me starting with the Lee Baily reference. For those not schooled in formal logic, the deficient syllogism goes like this: (1) Lee Bailey is a thief and did not return money he should have returned; (2) Lee Bailey is a lawyer; (3) Therefore, lawyers are thieves. The next jump in logic, and the purpose of invoking the Bailey assumption to begin with, is to try to get readers of these forums to make the next jump that because I am a lawyer I am a thief, too. Not only is your logic awful, John, but your shot is so cheap as to be more a reflection on you than me.
You said:
. . . I like to come to the point.
My comment:
I'm waiting for you to make one.
You said:
I have received quite of few calls concerning our exchanges.
My comment:
Me, too. I KNOW you're getting calls - the NLA directors' long distance phone bills have increased exponentially since this forum got moving in early August trying to circle the wagons. I told you before, not all the NLA directors are on the reservation, John.
You said:
I am in the process of gathing up some information on your other questions and I will be posting my comments later in the week.
My comments:
Forget comments, John - answers are what is in order - FACTS. I am curious, however, if you were present in Vancouver and voted for the Host Interactice contract to build the NLA web site, why is it taking so long to answer the questions of how much the contract was and how much to maintain the site? You should know those numbers off the top of your head - or were the directors never told?
You said:
I am still reviewing the IOS 9000.
My comments:
It's ISO 9000.
You said:
By the way, I still stand my my earlier opinion of Mr. Bailey. Money speaks.
My comments:
You are entitled to all of your opinions, John, just as the Aryan Nation is entitled to theirs, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society are entitled to theirs - however, whether opinions are based on fact and logically drawn ends up being more a commentary on the holder of the opinion than on the opinion itself.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]

September 11th, 2000, 05:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John-
You said:
But I don't see a whole alot of difference on the way you have attacked people by calling names and other insulting remarks.
My comment:
You need to be more discriminating in your perception, John. As to the NLA directors, please review the posts and if you find a place where I called any of them (except the "ridiculous" Ron Sorci) names (remember, names are nouns), please point it out. And the only name I have called the NLA staff is "moron." In each case of criticism I have set forth facts upon which the criticism is based and how and why the conclusion has been/is reached. In virtually no instance has anyone even attempted to refute the facts or the logic of the compelling conclusion. My logic stands in stark contrast to the character asassination of the NLA directors, and, to use you as an example, your pregnant comments concerning Dean Schuler and the goofy syllogism by which you try to assassinate me starting with the Lee Baily reference. For those not schooled in formal logic, the deficient syllogism goes like this: (1) Lee Bailey is a thief and did not return money he should have returned; (2) Lee Bailey is a lawyer; (3) Therefore, lawyers are thieves. The next jump in logic, and the purpose of invoking the Bailey assumption to begin with, is to try to get readers of these forums to make the next jump that because I am a lawyer I am a thief, too. Not only is your logic awful, John, but your shot is so cheap as to be more a reflection on you than me.
You said:
. . . I like to come to the point.
My comment:
I'm waiting for you to make one.
You said:
I have received quite of few calls concerning our exchanges.
My comment:
Me, too. I KNOW you're getting calls - the NLA directors' long distance phone bills have increased exponentially since this forum got moving in early August trying to circle the wagons. I told you before, not all the NLA directors are on the reservation, John.
You said:
I am in the process of gathing up some information on your other questions and I will be posting my comments later in the week.
My comments:
Forget comments, John - answers are what is in order - FACTS. I am curious, however, if you were present in Vancouver and voted for the Host Interactice contract to build the NLA web site, why is it taking so long to answer the questions of how much the contract was and how much to maintain the site? You should know those numbers off the top of your head - or were the directors never told?
You said:
I am still reviewing the IOS 9000.
My comments:
It's ISO 9000.
You said:
By the way, I still stand my my earlier opinion of Mr. Bailey. Money speaks.
My comments:
You are entitled to all of your opinions, John, just as the Aryan Nation is entitled to theirs, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society are entitled to theirs - however, whether opinions are based on fact and logically drawn ends up being more a commentary on the holder of the opinion than on the opinion itself.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

********
Jim
Like I said before. Don't take the whole comment as personal. Some of my best friends are lawyers. It's just that you seem so down on people if they don't measure up to you.

My long distance calls are not coming from other NLA board members. However, they are aware of your comments. I feel the Chicago meeting should bring out alot of postive points for the Certification program and also areas that need improvment. Case in point would be the renewal process and having enough staff the process applications. Being a basball umpire and you being a lawyer, we both should have tough hides.
John

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

September 11th, 2000, 05:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
I feel the Chicago meeting should bring out alot of postive points for the Certification program and also areas that need improvment. Case in point would be the renewal process and having enough staff the process applications.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I should rest my case at this point. This all started in July when NLA staff would not respond to communications concerning our certification after we had paid Greg Casteel $960. It is well known that renewals are a very low percentage - but this has nothing to do with staff, John. The folks who have been certified are not finding value in the program, so they're not renewing. You need to detach from your inherent biases, John. Your company is invested heavily in the CTCP, you are now a Carey affiliate with that inherent bias toward the program, and your relationship with Greg Casteel makes it a point of honor for you to defend the CTCP. I know, I know - all about captains and sinking ships and how admirable that's supposed to be (in the 18th Century). But most others have the survival instincts of rats, who know when to leave. The CTCP cannot and will not survive in any recognizable form - only the timing I cannot predict inasmuch as those with vested interests may induce NLA to throw great gobs of money at CTCP in a desperate attempt to make it float - but it won't, float.

September 11th, 2000, 06:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
Maybe I should rest my case at this point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I Move JHJ rest his case!"

{"I second!"}

"It's been moved and seconded that JHJ rest his case. All those in favor??"

{"AYE!!!"}

"Those opposed?"

(sound of crickets)

"The Ayes have it, motion carried, JHJ rests his case, let's eat!"

September 11th, 2000, 11:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Board:
"I Move JHJ rest his case!"

{"I second!"}

"It's been moved and seconded that JHJ rest his case. All those in favor??"

{"AYE!!!"}

"Those opposed?"

(sound of crickets)

"The Ayes have it, motion carried, JHJ rests his case, let's eat!"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are signs of life in this forum after all. I would say "spoken like a true NLA director," except the post is far too witty. The only line missing after the motion and second, however, is "there being no opposition . . .." The NLA has been determined to be incompetent to administer the CTCP. Nothing more need be said about THAT subject.
I certainly wish the writer would have taken credit for that post http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

September 16th, 2000, 01:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
You posted:
1.To the best of my knowledge, this notice was sent to individuals who have asked to be on the certifcation commitee. These individuals want to contribute to this program. Sorry you didn't get one, but from all your posts, you want out of this program. I am still waiting for your letter to give you a refund that was already communicated to you by staff. What's the delay. You keep slaming this program and to ohers it shows you really have no interest on being productive.
JHJ comment: Let me be clear that at the time we decided to proceed with certification the CTCP was nearly 4 years old and changing the program was hardly an option. Also, it was adminsitered by Pinnacle at the time. After we paid our money, two things happened. First, Casteel dumped the program on NLA, which is incompetent to administer it. Second, at no time from my posts in late July until the end of August did anyone suggest that the shape of the CTCP was up for grabs within some unknown committee at NLA - others provided that information. Although I will request the refund and we have elected another route, I'm not going to be accused of complaining and not being constructive. I'm willing to come to Chicago at my expense and offer my insights, although it is clear in advance that the NLA group of insiders won't like my insights in the least. We are going ISO 9000, which is where major companies will end up sooner or later.

You posted:
7. To the best of my knowlege "Sorry about the lawyer jargen" There were five proposals sent out. Four companies responded, three were invited to make a formal proposal to the board. Only one came to Vancouver, which happen to be Host. I was impressed with their presentation so I voted for them.
JHJ comment: As I suspected, there was only one formal proposal. The rest of the question, if you read back, was how much was the contract and how much for maintaining the site?

You posted:
8. One of the issues that will be discussed in New Orleans is the lack of return phone calls from staff to members. I plan on making this a priorty item that needs to be addressed and corrected ASAP. As for why Bob Scott or LInda haven't call you. I don't know. THey have been insulted enough by you, I guess anybody with have just about enough.
JHJ comment: Nice try, John. Go back and look at the posts in these forums. Casteel's letter telling everyone about his magnanimous "gift" was faxed July 16. My first e-mail to Linda Bouland was a day or two later. My e-mail asking Bob scott to call me was July 29. NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THE SUBSTANCE OF MY POSTS. I CRITICIZED NO ONE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOT RETURNING E-MAIL OR CALLS UNTIL SOMEWHAT AFTER AUGUST 1. Bouland and Scott, and everyone else at NLA, had WEEKS to respond to my inquiries. After that, they were fair game. Don't try to be a Ron Sorci and invent a timeline that doesn't exist. NLA staff didn't communicate because they don't communicate - and to claim that they didn't respond because they got bashed is "crapola," to coin a phrase.

You posted:
13. I was not on the board during the Livery case with Dean. So I am not in the position to answer. However, I am more concerned about his personal conduct on a number of meetings he attended. And I do mean his PERSONAL CONDUCT. He can certainly address that if he wishes.
JHJ comment: Since neither I nor, I am sure, most other participants in the forums, including lurkers, have no clue what you are talking about, why engage in some implied character assassination. If there are FACTS relating to anybody's conduct, and if that conduct is RELEVANT to anything being discussed in these forums, then belly up to the table and get it out. If not, shut up.

You posted:
9. Linda is the office manager. During the earlier stages we were in the process of obtaining all the records. Please provide all names and phone numbers of clients except you, who are not getting serviced. I will make sure they are taken care of. As for you, where's the letter to get your refund processed?
JHJ comment: I have been at depositions nearly every business day since last week until after 5:00 P.M. The letter will come in the ordinary course of business. Are you afraid I'll change my mind before you have a chance to get rid of us? Fat chance - we've made our decision. As for others in the same situation, I have no clue who is or is not getting serviced. I can only assume based on our experience that NLA communciates with no one, but I'm not going to get involved in anybody else's problem.

You posted:
16. I suggest your read through the answers again. Case in point, when I gave our company's opinion concerning the certification program. Neither you or your buddy cared for my response. The both of you just blew it off.
JHJ comment: I don't know who "my buddy" is supposed to be, but I think even a cursory review of the posts will reveal that someone who is unidentified by name took issue with you. Obviously, you want to make that person appear to be in league with me in some way, but you're grasping at straws. As for me - I said nothing at all about your opinions as to how your company has benefitted from the CTCP - go back and look, John. Maybe we would have benefitted too if Casteel hadn't dumped the program on a bunch of administratively inept morons. Obviously, there was a time when we thought we would have. But any benefits would have been far outweighed by the agony of trying to deal on a continuing basis with the totally unresponsive and inept NLA staff.

Your posted:
I will be working on your other questions tommorow.
JHJ comment: Gee, John, a bunch of the questions don't require any work - such as why you didin't get the papers sent to me that you undertook earlier in the posts.

You posted:
By the way, You need to addess the questions Ron Sorci has been asking you. Stop hiding behind your key board.
JHJ comment: Hiding? Hardly, John, I'm here in plain sight. It's Sorci that wants to go outside the forum and out of view.

You posted:
Call the man.
JHJ comment: I was attacked by Sorci in his August 3 letter when I had not written him, when no response was required by him, when his letter was entirely gratuitous and of no substance. His letter is exactly what it is, an attempt to be "cute" and appear "erudite," and address no facts - merely label my comments ridiculous and attempt character assassination the same way you are trying to do with Dean Schuler - apparently NLA directors have raised character assassination to a high art-form. I have absolutely no use for someone who occupies a position of trust in a national trade association and uses that position to belittle and ridicule a member who is legitimately criticizing what all of us know to be NLA administrative non-responsiveness. Sorci is a bully, and has nothing to back it up with. If he thinks he can deal with me on issues of substance, he can answer the questions directed to him in earlier posts (i.e., why he wrote the letter, why he said what he said, how he can justify doing so as an NLA director and co-chair of the certification committee, and unequivocally apologize), and I will then deal with him purely on issues of substance without any ad hominem references and we will put the matter behind us. Until then - well, I think my position is clear as to what I think of Sorci and I will make that opinion known whenever I choose to do so (I will not choose to do so publicly in Chicago, so if Sorci is making these entreaties for dialogue to avoid an "ugly" situation in Chicago, he need not do so).

You posted:
Their [sic] will be a lot of eyes on all of us including you in Chicago.
JHJ comment: I'm not sure what that means, John. I'm quite used to being in high profile situations, but I have no interest in who is watching and who isn't. I'm not trying to make points, I'm not trying to be an NLA director, I have made it clear that I can be more effective outside the club than in it, and that I'll make a contribution, whether it makes any difference or not. I really don't care what shape the certification program takes because we have gone past that point. I am going to Chicago because I think it's a point of honor. Whether I am right or wrong, believed or not believed, liked or disliked, is irrelevant - I will not criticize others from a distance and then be accused of not playing a constructive role given the oppotunity (note that until about August 30 there was no information that such an opportunity existed - even you didn't say anything here about the certification forum meeting in Chicago, why not?). Looks like another question for you to answer.

You posted:
We plan on making this program work. And I certainly have no problem in having an open dialog with you on this form.
JHJ comment: I think you should have a more open mind. Maybe some other program should "work." Maybe this program should be changed so it doesn't resemble this program at all. If it's broke, maybe it shouldn't be fixed. If it's broke, maybe it can't be fixed. What is the agenda for Chicago - make it work even if it dies in the process?

You posted:
Stop writing that board members don't take an interest. The viewers will make their own judgement.
JHJ comment: I agree with the latter statement, but not the first. There are 16 board members. Most are obeying the "gag order." Only five have been heard from at all here, and none have answered any questions until your partial attempt today. None have expressed any interest in the woeful non-responsiveness of the NLA staff. I'll call them like I see them until the directors do, indeed, take an interest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JHJ, It sure would be nice to have a National set of standards for the chauffeured transportation industry that we all agreed on. I don't think anyone can argue with safety and trained chauffeurs. To shine in the public's eye, we all need to do a better job of promoting the hired car trade as a legitimate profession, and thus take our rightful place in the sun. Sincerely, Dean Schuler

September 16th, 2000, 01:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
You posted:
1.To the best of my knowledge, this notice was sent to individuals who have asked to be on the certifcation commitee. These individuals want to contribute to this program. Sorry you didn't get one, but from all your posts, you want out of this program. I am still waiting for your letter to give you a refund that was already communicated to you by staff. What's the delay. You keep slaming this program and to ohers it shows you really have no interest on being productive.
JHJ comment: Let me be clear that at the time we decided to proceed with certification the CTCP was nearly 4 years old and changing the program was hardly an option. Also, it was adminsitered by Pinnacle at the time. After we paid our money, two things happened. First, Casteel dumped the program on NLA, which is incompetent to administer it. Second, at no time from my posts in late July until the end of August did anyone suggest that the shape of the CTCP was up for grabs within some unknown committee at NLA - others provided that information. Although I will request the refund and we have elected another route, I'm not going to be accused of complaining and not being constructive. I'm willing to come to Chicago at my expense and offer my insights, although it is clear in advance that the NLA group of insiders won't like my insights in the least. We are going ISO 9000, which is where major companies will end up sooner or later.

You posted:
7. To the best of my knowlege "Sorry about the lawyer jargen" There were five proposals sent out. Four companies responded, three were invited to make a formal proposal to the board. Only one came to Vancouver, which happen to be Host. I was impressed with their presentation so I voted for them.
JHJ comment: As I suspected, there was only one formal proposal. The rest of the question, if you read back, was how much was the contract and how much for maintaining the site?

You posted:
8. One of the issues that will be discussed in New Orleans is the lack of return phone calls from staff to members. I plan on making this a priorty item that needs to be addressed and corrected ASAP. As for why Bob Scott or LInda haven't call you. I don't know. THey have been insulted enough by you, I guess anybody with have just about enough.
JHJ comment: Nice try, John. Go back and look at the posts in these forums. Casteel's letter telling everyone about his magnanimous "gift" was faxed July 16. My first e-mail to Linda Bouland was a day or two later. My e-mail asking Bob scott to call me was July 29. NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THE SUBSTANCE OF MY POSTS. I CRITICIZED NO ONE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOT RETURNING E-MAIL OR CALLS UNTIL SOMEWHAT AFTER AUGUST 1. Bouland and Scott, and everyone else at NLA, had WEEKS to respond to my inquiries. After that, they were fair game. Don't try to be a Ron Sorci and invent a timeline that doesn't exist. NLA staff didn't communicate because they don't communicate - and to claim that they didn't respond because they got bashed is "crapola," to coin a phrase.

You posted:
13. I was not on the board during the Livery case with Dean. So I am not in the position to answer. However, I am more concerned about his personal conduct on a number of meetings he attended. And I do mean his PERSONAL CONDUCT. He can certainly address that if he wishes.
JHJ comment: Since neither I nor, I am sure, most other participants in the forums, including lurkers, have no clue what you are talking about, why engage in some implied character assassination. If there are FACTS relating to anybody's conduct, and if that conduct is RELEVANT to anything being discussed in these forums, then belly up to the table and get it out. If not, shut up.

You posted:
9. Linda is the office manager. During the earlier stages we were in the process of obtaining all the records. Please provide all names and phone numbers of clients except you, who are not getting serviced. I will make sure they are taken care of. As for you, where's the letter to get your refund processed?
JHJ comment: I have been at depositions nearly every business day since last week until after 5:00 P.M. The letter will come in the ordinary course of business. Are you afraid I'll change my mind before you have a chance to get rid of us? Fat chance - we've made our decision. As for others in the same situation, I have no clue who is or is not getting serviced. I can only assume based on our experience that NLA communciates with no one, but I'm not going to get involved in anybody else's problem.

You posted:
16. I suggest your read through the answers again. Case in point, when I gave our company's opinion concerning the certification program. Neither you or your buddy cared for my response. The both of you just blew it off.
JHJ comment: I don't know who "my buddy" is supposed to be, but I think even a cursory review of the posts will reveal that someone who is unidentified by name took issue with you. Obviously, you want to make that person appear to be in league with me in some way, but you're grasping at straws. As for me - I said nothing at all about your opinions as to how your company has benefitted from the CTCP - go back and look, John. Maybe we would have benefitted too if Casteel hadn't dumped the program on a bunch of administratively inept morons. Obviously, there was a time when we thought we would have. But any benefits would have been far outweighed by the agony of trying to deal on a continuing basis with the totally unresponsive and inept NLA staff.

Your posted:
I will be working on your other questions tommorow.
JHJ comment: Gee, John, a bunch of the questions don't require any work - such as why you didin't get the papers sent to me that you undertook earlier in the posts.

You posted:
By the way, You need to addess the questions Ron Sorci has been asking you. Stop hiding behind your key board.
JHJ comment: Hiding? Hardly, John, I'm here in plain sight. It's Sorci that wants to go outside the forum and out of view.

You posted:
Call the man.
JHJ comment: I was attacked by Sorci in his August 3 letter when I had not written him, when no response was required by him, when his letter was entirely gratuitous and of no substance. His letter is exactly what it is, an attempt to be "cute" and appear "erudite," and address no facts - merely label my comments ridiculous and attempt character assassination the same way you are trying to do with Dean Schuler - apparently NLA directors have raised character assassination to a high art-form. I have absolutely no use for someone who occupies a position of trust in a national trade association and uses that position to belittle and ridicule a member who is legitimately criticizing what all of us know to be NLA administrative non-responsiveness. Sorci is a bully, and has nothing to back it up with. If he thinks he can deal with me on issues of substance, he can answer the questions directed to him in earlier posts (i.e., why he wrote the letter, why he said what he said, how he can justify doing so as an NLA director and co-chair of the certification committee, and unequivocally apologize), and I will then deal with him purely on issues of substance without any ad hominem references and we will put the matter behind us. Until then - well, I think my position is clear as to what I think of Sorci and I will make that opinion known whenever I choose to do so (I will not choose to do so publicly in Chicago, so if Sorci is making these entreaties for dialogue to avoid an "ugly" situation in Chicago, he need not do so).

You posted:
Their [sic] will be a lot of eyes on all of us including you in Chicago.
JHJ comment: I'm not sure what that means, John. I'm quite used to being in high profile situations, but I have no interest in who is watching and who isn't. I'm not trying to make points, I'm not trying to be an NLA director, I have made it clear that I can be more effective outside the club than in it, and that I'll make a contribution, whether it makes any difference or not. I really don't care what shape the certification program takes because we have gone past that point. I am going to Chicago because I think it's a point of honor. Whether I am right or wrong, believed or not believed, liked or disliked, is irrelevant - I will not criticize others from a distance and then be accused of not playing a constructive role given the oppotunity (note that until about August 30 there was no information that such an opportunity existed - even you didn't say anything here about the certification forum meeting in Chicago, why not?). Looks like another question for you to answer.

You posted:
We plan on making this program work. And I certainly have no problem in having an open dialog with you on this form.
JHJ comment: I think you should have a more open mind. Maybe some other program should "work." Maybe this program should be changed so it doesn't resemble this program at all. If it's broke, maybe it shouldn't be fixed. If it's broke, maybe it can't be fixed. What is the agenda for Chicago - make it work even if it dies in the process?

You posted:
Stop writing that board members don't take an interest. The viewers will make their own judgement.
JHJ comment: I agree with the latter statement, but not the first. There are 16 board members. Most are obeying the "gag order." Only five have been heard from at all here, and none have answered any questions until your partial attempt today. None have expressed any interest in the woeful non-responsiveness of the NLA staff. I'll call them like I see them until the directors do, indeed, take an interest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw that remark about conduct, it would be a good thing, going forward, to have live feeds of all board meetings. Sincerely, Dean Schuler

September 16th, 2000, 02:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dean Schuler:

JHJ, It sure would be nice to have a National set of standards for the chauffeured transportation industry that we all agreed on. I don't think anyone can argue with safety and trained chauffeurs. To shine in the public's eye, we all need to do a better job of promoting the hired car trade as a legitimate profession, and thus take our rightful place in the sun. Sincerely, Dean Schuler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am disinclined toward "standards" in the traditional sense for legal reasons, and I will restate that position in Chicago. Besides, different companies may want and need to define "standards" for their chauffeurs in different ways and to different levels to accomplish different purposes, and they should be permitted to do so. As readers here know, I am inclined toward and our company is going to pursue ISO 9000 certification which is a "quality" certification that deals not only with chauffeurs, but the whole company from reservations to chauffeurs to vehicle maintenance to fleet management to financial and management systems and procedures. ISO 9000 is a "process" driven certification program so that every company can do things differently and define their own standards and manner of attaining them, so long as the "process" by which they do so meets ISO 9000 criteria. Where does the present CTCP fit into such an approach? It doesn't really, except to the extent that NLA can, and should, have a chauffeur achievement program and national recognition. This should not be a "safety" or a "certification" program. It should be our industry's way of recognizing achievement and professionalism in this career field. More importantly, the CTCP should not be a "company" certification program for a number of different reasons.
NLA can set criteria for "recognizing" achievement in the career-field, but should not set "standards" as this word will come back to haunt the industry in courtrooms.

Dean, I want to add one more thing. More than anything else in the world I hate - no, I despise - character assassination. Character assassination can take place by simple slander and libel (i.e., saying untrue things about someone), but in its more insidious form it is accomplished by "innuendo." In its worst and most odious form it is practiced by persons in positions of trust who cloak themselves with righteousness supposedly derived from their position, and use that righteousness to create an aura that they are the "truthtellers" and the privileged in this world, or in a particular line of endeavor. I truly regret that the NLA board has become packed with little minds that have tried to assassinate your character by innuendo (and mine to a much, much lesser degree), suggesting to those of us who do not know you or them that their odious references to your leaving the board of NLA was in some way less than honorable. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't - but they don't want to tell us that, do they? Perhaps honor is in the eye of the beholder. If the scum who employ these techniques have something of a factual nature to say, then they should say it. If someone is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, then the critics should say so. The ad hominem "tell us about your bedroom at the xxxxx meeting" is the hallmark or a small mind and a vicious human being. By the way, the foregoing are purely examples to support my statements and do not in any way suggest or hint that these examples are related to the NLA Board of Directors' attempts in these forums to assassinate the character of Dean Schuler.

September 16th, 2000, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
I am disinclined toward "standards" in the traditional sense for legal reasons, and I will restate that position in Chicago. Besides, different companies may want and need to define "standards" for their chauffeurs in different ways and to different levels to accomplish different purposes, and they should be permitted to do so. As readers here know, I am inclined toward and our company is going to pursue ISO 9000 certification which is a "quality" certification that deals not only with chauffeurs, but the whole company from reservations to chauffeurs to vehicle maintenance to fleet management to financial and management systems and procedures. ISO 9000 is a "process" driven certification program so that every company can do things differently and define their own standards and manner of attaining them, so long as the "process" by which they do so meets ISO 9000 criteria. Where does the present CTCP fit into such an approach? It doesn't really, except to the extent that NLA can, and should, have a chauffeur achievement program and national recognition. This should not be a "safety" or a "certification" program. It should be our industry's way of recognizing achievement and professionalism in this career field. More importantly, the CTCP should not be a "company" certification program for a number of different reasons.
NLA can set criteria for "recognizing" achievement in the career-field, but should not set "standards" as this word will come back to haunt the industry in courtrooms.

Dean, I want to add one more thing. More than anything else in the world I hate - no, I despise - character assassination. Character assassination can take place by simple slander and libel (i.e., saying untrue things about someone), but in its more insidious form it is accomplished by "innuendo." In its worst and most odious form it is practiced by persons in positions of trust who cloak themselves with righteousness supposedly derived from their position, and use that righteousness to create an aura that they are the "truthtellers" and the privileged in this world, or in a particular line of endeavor. I truly regret that the NLA board has become packed with little minds that have tried to assassinate your character by innuendo (and mine to a much, much lesser degree), suggesting to those of us who do not know you or them that their odious references to your leaving the board of NLA was in some way less than honorable. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't - but they don't want to tell us that, do they? Perhaps honor is in the eye of the beholder. If the scum who employ these techniques have something of a factual nature to say, then they should say it. If someone is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, then the critics should say so. The ad hominem "tell us about your bedroom at the xxxxx meeting" is the hallmark or a small mind and a vicious human being. By the way, the foregoing are purely examples to support my statements and do not in any way suggest or hint that these examples are related to the NLA Board of Directors' attempts in these forums to assassinate the character of Dean Schuler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*****************
What's the past is the past. Let's focus on the future of the industry. Innuendo's and name calling really have no place in this forum. Leave that to the grocery store tabloid rack.

John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member

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

September 17th, 2000, 12:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
What's past is the past. Let's focus on the future of the industry. Innuendo's and name calling really have no place in this forum. Leave that to the grocery store tabloid rack.

John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, is this your way of saying that you are not, after all, going to answer any of the questions posed "in the past" in this forum and that have gone unanswered, even after you said you were "working" on them and Sorci said he needed to ask Bob Scott what he should say? I can pose them again, but I guess they will always be in the past. You can't duck these questions, John. First question on the table in Chicago is going to be "who owns the limited liability company, NLA Certification, L.L.C.," so you might as well answer it now before the big surprise answer hits everyone assembled in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]

September 17th, 2000, 02:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John, is this your way of saying that you are not, after all, going to answer any of the questions posed "in the past" in this forum and that have gone unanswered, even after you said you were "working" on them and Sorci said he needed to ask Bob Scott what he should say? I can pose them again, but I guess they will always be in the past. You can't duck these questions, John. First question on the table in Chicago is going to be "who owns the limited liability company, NLA Certification, L.L.C.," so you might as well answer it now before the big surprise answer hits everyone assembled in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim
Thanks for your post. You have misunderstood my meaning of my previous post. I still intend to answer your questions, Since I am new to the board, I need to spend some time with key individuals who can give me some background information.
It is still my understanding that the LLC is own by the NLA. The LLC was created to shield the NLA from any liabilty issues that could arise from the certication program. Also, the LLC provides a conduit to allow a Non Profit agency to operate a profit center business without endangering it's Non Profit Status. Many credit union use LLC to offer non traditional banking products, since as mutual funds, annuities, etc.

Getting back to my previous post. My remarks were to address some of the name calling of individuals and innuedos. I don't think it's productive.

John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member

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

September 17th, 2000, 03:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John, is this your way of saying that you are not, after all, going to answer any of the questions posed "in the past" in this forum and that have gone unanswered, even after you said you were "working" on them and Sorci said he needed to ask Bob Scott what he should say? I can pose them again, but I guess they will always be in the past. You can't duck these questions, John. First question on the table in Chicago is going to be "who owns the limited liability company, NLA Certification, L.L.C.," so you might as well answer it now before the big surprise answer hits everyone assembled in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JHJ----------Your last post stated that 'sorci said he has to ask Bob Scott what to say"------------I think you should reread my post which clearly indicated that I wished to discuss with a number of individuals your various questions. I do not need to ask anyone what to say .
I have been extemely busy with taking care of running my company and I extend my apology to you for not responding to your questions in the speed you desire. One of the reasons for the lack of speed in answering you, is primarily because I consider you and you alone someone who doesn't deserve my immediate attention and that stems from your abusive and constant attack on me and other members of the NLA.
I along with other individuals will respond to you when possible but if you continue your unjustified tirade, don't expect to hear from me and if you continue any further writings which include those bordering on libel and slander , expect a call from my attorney.
Ron Sorci

September 17th, 2000, 04:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
I am disinclined toward "standards" in the traditional sense for legal reasons, and I will restate that position in Chicago. Besides, different companies may want and need to define "standards" for their chauffeurs in different ways and to different levels to accomplish different purposes, and they should be permitted to do so. As readers here know, I am inclined toward and our company is going to pursue ISO 9000 certification which is a "quality" certification that deals not only with chauffeurs, but the whole company from reservations to chauffeurs to vehicle maintenance to fleet management to financial and management systems and procedures. ISO 9000 is a "process" driven certification program so that every company can do things differently and define their own standards and manner of attaining them, so long as the "process" by which they do so meets ISO 9000 criteria. Where does the present CTCP fit into such an approach? It doesn't really, except to the extent that NLA can, and should, have a chauffeur achievement program and national recognition. This should not be a "safety" or a "certification" program. It should be our industry's way of recognizing achievement and professionalism in this career field. More importantly, the CTCP should not be a "company" certification program for a number of different reasons.
NLA can set criteria for "recognizing" achievement in the career-field, but should not set "standards" as this word will come back to haunt the industry in courtrooms.

Dean, I want to add one more thing. More than anything else in the world I hate - no, I despise - character assassination. Character assassination can take place by simple slander and libel (i.e., saying untrue things about someone), but in its more insidious form it is accomplished by "innuendo." In its worst and most odious form it is practiced by persons in positions of trust who cloak themselves with righteousness supposedly derived from their position, and use that righteousness to create an aura that they are the "truthtellers" and the privileged in this world, or in a particular line of endeavor. I truly regret that the NLA board has become packed with little minds that have tried to assassinate your character by innuendo (and mine to a much, much lesser degree), suggesting to those of us who do not know you or them that their odious references to your leaving the board of NLA was in some way less than honorable. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't - but they don't want to tell us that, do they? Perhaps honor is in the eye of the beholder. If the scum who employ these techniques have something of a factual nature to say, then they should say it. If someone is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, then the critics should say so. The ad hominem "tell us about your bedroom at the xxxxx meeting" is the hallmark or a small mind and a vicious human being. By the way, the foregoing are purely examples to support my statements and do not in any way suggest or hint that these examples are related to the NLA Board of Directors' attempts in these forums to assassinate the character of Dean Schuler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The livery coach case left a bad taste with me, I stayed long enough to leave on my own terms. My resignation wasn't accepted until the Digest Show in November 1999. Bob Scott will verify this. In an industry that has more than doubled in size since the late 1980's I think we need to do a better job on every front. By the way, thanks for your remarks and remember that character assassination is the last refuge of scoundrels. Sincerely, Dean Schuler

September 17th, 2000, 05:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RPS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John, is this your way of saying that you are not, after all, going to answer any of the questions posed "in the past" in this forum and that have gone unanswered, even after you said you were "working" on them and Sorci said he needed to ask Bob Scott what he should say? I can pose them again, but I guess they will always be in the past. You can't duck these questions, John. First question on the table in Chicago is going to be "who owns the limited liability company, NLA Certification, L.L.C.," so you might as well answer it now before the big surprise answer hits everyone assembled in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JHJ----------Your last post stated that 'sorci said he has to ask Bob Scott what to say"------------I think you should reread my post which clearly indicated that I wished to discuss with a number of individuals your various questions. I do not need to ask anyone what to say .
I have been extemely busy with taking care of running my company and I extend my apology to you for not responding to your questions in the speed you desire. One of the reasons for the lack of speed in answering you, is primarily because I consider you and you alone someone who doesn't deserve my immediate attention and that stems from your abusive and constant attack on me and other members of the NLA.
I along with other individuals will respond to you when possible but if you continue your unjustified tirade, don't expect to hear from me and if you continue any further writings which include those bordering on libel and slander , expect a call from my attorney.
Ron Sorci
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you just said that you have no intention of answering the questions which were posed as long ago as a month, and restated two weeks ago, which doesn't surprise me. As for libel and slander, let's remember that truth is an absolute defense, and you must suffer damages, which means that your reputation must be provably damaged. As for any calls that you might want to have anyone make to me, you'll find my phone number on our web site and in the NLA directory - I also respond to e-mail. By the way, mitigation is also an issue in libel and slander actions, i.e., if you call to a person's attention the false statement and they retract it, they are entitled to mitigate such claims. If the falsity is not called to their attention in a timely manner, then the effect of the mitigation is the reverse. If you think I said something false about you which is also defamatory, then please state it here. There is a certain presumption of truth when there is no protest. I notice that you said my "tirades" BORDER on libel and slander which at least acknowledges that nothing I said has been untrue. Thank you for the acknowledgement.

September 17th, 2000, 05:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John, is this your way of saying that you are not, after all, going to answer any of the questions posed "in the past" in this forum and that have gone unanswered, even after you said you were "working" on them and Sorci said he needed to ask Bob Scott what he should say? I can pose them again, but I guess they will always be in the past. You can't duck these questions, John. First question on the table in Chicago is going to be "who owns the limited liability company, NLA Certification, L.L.C.," so you might as well answer it now before the big surprise answer hits everyone assembled in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim
Thanks for your post. You have misunderstood my meaning of my previous post. I still intend to answer your questions, Since I am new to the board, I need to spend some time with key individuals who can give me some background information.
It is still my understanding that the LLC is own by the NLA. The LLC was created to shield the NLA from any liabilty issues that could arise from the certication program. Also, the LLC provides a conduit to allow a Non Profit agency to operate a profit center business without endangering it's Non Profit Status. Many credit union use LLC to offer non traditional banking products, since as mutual funds, annuities, etc.

Getting back to my previous post. My remarks were to address some of the name calling of individuals and innuedos. I don't think it's productive.

John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, as to name-calling and innuendos, you will recall the innuendos were yours and which you started by asking Dean Schuler to tell everyone why he left the NLA Board. I admit ti name-calling, but ONLY when providing the context, orm when it was obvious. For example, you'll note that I don't anywhere call the NLA staff "morons" without a full and complete explanation of what acts (or non-acts) support the label I tag them with. Ron Sorci is an exception, because he tried to defame me without any reason, let alone support - remember, my "ridiculous" comments and that they were made by "someone like me." Sorci doesn't deserve more than what he gave, and I've only called him "ridiculous" by lifting the lable he tried to apply to me.

As to NLA Certification, LLC, you are repeating what you said before as if repeating it makes it true and avoids the need to answer the question I posed. I will repeat my response - I am fully aware of how and when non-profit entities use profit-making corporations for their non-eleomonsynary activities (i.e., the activities they intend to try to make money from). In our earlier exchanges you were going to have the organizing papers sent to me, and evidence of who owns the equity interest. After almost a month, you haven;t done that. A statement of "your understanding" or ownership isn't going to fly, because there's no basis for your understanding. Let's see the documents you were going to have sent to me - or would they prove embarassing? Why does NLA want to cover-up the ownership of NLA Certification, LLC?

September 17th, 2000, 12:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
John, as to name-calling and innuendos, you will recall the innuendos were yours and which you started by asking Dean Schuler to tell everyone why he left the NLA Board. I admit ti name-calling, but ONLY when providing the context, orm when it was obvious. For example, you'll note that I don't anywhere call the NLA staff "morons" without a full and complete explanation of what acts (or non-acts) support the label I tag them with. Ron Sorci is an exception, because he tried to defame me without any reason, let alone support - remember, my "ridiculous" comments and that they were made by "someone like me." Sorci doesn't deserve more than what he gave, and I've only called him "ridiculous" by lifting the lable he tried to apply to me.

As to NLA Certification, LLC, you are repeating what you said before as if repeating it makes it true and avoids the need to answer the question I posed. I will repeat my response - I am fully aware of how and when non-profit entities use profit-making corporations for their non-eleomonsynary activities (i.e., the activities they intend to try to make money from). In our earlier exchanges you were going to have the organizing papers sent to me, and evidence of who owns the equity interest. After almost a month, you haven;t done that. A statement of "your understanding" or ownership isn't going to fly, because there's no basis for your understanding. Let's see the documents you were going to have sent to me - or would they prove embarassing? Why does NLA want to cover-up the ownership of NLA Certification, LLC?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim

To best of my knowledge, the NLA is hiding nothing concerning the owership of the certification program. However, I will tomorrow try to obtain the business filing for the setup of this entity. I don't see a reason why I can't post this on this forum. I will be talking to you about this subject tomorrow. I don't have a problem as a board director, going public on this request. After all, the members are the NLA. I just happen to been elected to serve.
John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member
Your humble servant

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

September 17th, 2000, 02:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fivestaroregon:

To best of my knowledge, the NLA is hiding nothing concerning the owership of the certification program. However, I will tomorrow try to obtain the business filing for the setup of this entity. I don't see a reason why I can't post this on this forum. I will be talking to you about this subject tomorrow. I don't have a problem as a board director, going public on this request. After all, the members are the NLA. I just happen to been elected to serve.
John Sinibaldi
NLA Board Member
Your humble servant
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need the "humble servant" stuff - too much like "I'm just a country boy." everytime I hear that I check for my wallet and put a hand on my wristwatch.
You seem to be waffling a lot, John. In the last post you said "my understanding, " and this time you said "to the best or my knowledge." We lawyers learn to recognize those qualifications as "weasel words," and they ring bells and light lights, because they provide a way out for people who don't want pinned down. But I will not conclude yet that you are trying to do so, but why it has taken weeks to get the papers that you offered, that I asked for, and that you agreed to get, I don't know. There are two documents relevant, John. One is the organizing document, whatever it may be in the jurisdiction where this entity is organized, and the other is the management agreement which is the LLC equivalent of by-laws, for it tells you the management structure and who the first officers and equivalent of directors are, and how the entity is governed. It may not be dispositive of the question of ownership if someone is trying to hide ownership, but there's a 90% chance it will be.
Don't forget all the other pending questions, or are you deferring those to the "busy" Ron Sorci.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]

September 17th, 2000, 03:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jhj:
You don't need the "humble servant" stuff - too much like "I'm just a country boy." everytime I hear that I check for my wallet and put a hand on my wristwatch.
You seem to be waffling a lot, John. In the last post you said "my understanding, " and this time you said "to the best or my knowledge." We lawyers learn to recognize those qualifications as "weasel words," and they ring bells and light lights, because they provide a way out for people who don't want pinned down. But I will not conclude yet that you are trying to do so, but why it has taken weeks to get the papers that you offered, that I asked for, and that you agreed to get, I don't know. There are two documents relevant, John. One is the organizing document, whatever it may be in the jurisdiction where this entity is organized, and the other is the management agreement which is the LLC equivalent of by-laws, for it tells you the management structure and who the first officers and equivalent of directors are, and how the entity is governed. It may not be dispositive of the question of ownership if someone is trying to hide ownership, but there's a 90% chance it will be.
Don't forget all the other pending questions, or are you deferring those to the "busy" Ron Sorci.

[This message has been edited by jhj (edited 09-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

***********

Jim
Talk about a tough crowd. I am just a simple worker here in the sticks of Oregon. I didn't go to law school. But it seems to me that your comment of"Weasle Words" made me wonder if you think like a weasle. Sorry, but during my busines career,I have been able to do most of most business with a handshake and a persons word. Sometimes I have gotten the short end of the stick, but thats life

I plan on getting answers to your questions, but my family,business, and my injured back which is getting much better; have priority over your requests. I still feel you are looking for some smoking gun on this Corporation issue, and I feel you will be disappointed just like when the commitee voted to send HR1689 to the House. I believe in some way you are looking for sometime to bang the drum on to gather attention towards you.
Your questions will be answered in good time my friend. Be patient.

As far as inunedos, I have had a private e-mail exchange with Dean. I am satisfied with his answers. He is also helping me with some certifiation programs. His advise has been helpful. The name calling you have tossed out at many people has not served you well. I suggest you find a more PC way of communicating. As for waffling statement. I don't understand your position. If you check your wallet and watch, I think you still have them.

JOHN SINIBALDI
NLA BOARD MEMBER

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

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by fivestaroregon (edited 09-18-2000).]