Part Time Penalty/BYE/Update

First topic message reminder :

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/2010/Final%20EUC%20Fix%20QA.pdf

The above link is the part time penalty fix defined.


If anyone has been a victim of the part penalty prior to July 2010 "fix" this F.Y.I. is good news!

I was a victim of the part time penalty, 2-weeks into EUC Tier 2 my BYE ended,my benefits were slashed for working a part time job while supplementing benefits.
Rather then continue on EUC, I was forced to take a new claim at the lower rate.
When the law changed in July it really did fix this problem for many. Others like myself remained at the lower rate on a new claim for 26 weeks.

The 26 week claim has now expired and because of having an existing EUC claim still open from my original claim (2-weeks into EUC Tier 2) my original Rate has now been re-established. This is an odd circumstance but make sure your state is aware.

Now if your BYE ends at least you don't have to worry about being reduced. I know this may be hard for some to follow, I was a member of the UF forum working hard on the part time penalty fix and my efforts now have come full circle.
Feel free to ask any questions on this subject I am more than happy to help.
Great job on this new site from many of my UFriends forum 1.0 !

.. . . . .

Jerkyspace,

I know that your cause is good but your blinding detail is sure to lose those that you are trying to reach in this forum.

Would you please provide a concise bullet point statement of your ongoing class action against the government? Thanks.

1. The US Government refuses to acknowledge nor refute the Emergency Unemployment Compensation appeal victory in October of 2011, that reversed two incorrect determinations based on published federal guideline errors that have distributed nationwide to every state.

2. This appeal victory stopped the government from paying the remaining balance from an an older EUC08 account, which caused harm, by paying less extended benefits.

3. The evidence used to win this appeal was from the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Department of Labor shows they are supposed to comply with.

4. The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published Q&A sections of the EUC08 implementation guidelines that contain errors that don't follow the federal regulations.

5. These errors have turned into an incorrect and harmful Federal "policy", followed in every State.

6. This evidence has been shown to the State the FBI, the US Attorneys, The Department of Justice, The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and the DOL Office of Inspector General, but none of them will investigate or take action, except to delay and cover this up without making one attempt to refute the evidence.

7. The evidence proves that a Federal Agency published mistakes in their implementation guidelines for these important emergency designated funds affecting the $40 Billion Unemployment Trust Fund and up to 4 Million other EUC08 claimants Nationwide. What they say is the opposite of what the Federal Regulations require affecting payments, determinations and adjudication. This has greatly harmed the intent of the Recovery Act.

8. Many thousands and thousands of unemployed, in every state have tried to appeal these errors and lost. The evidence shows that EUC08 "policy" found in the Code of Federal Regulations has been implemented correctly, via the appeal victory, for one claimant in California only, but everyone else is basically on their own and subject to an "authority" that has not followed the regulations they say they are supposed to comply with.

9. The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General has twice blown their oversight duty off, incorrectly citing the evidence and reasons they were contacted without even addressing the DOL ETA published Q&A mistakes nor the ARRA at all. They are trying to ignore it as a "State Only" determination mistake, stating that every claimant "has a right to appeal" (ignoring the adjudication error evidence).

10. A response from the RATB, to the DOL OIG refusing to act again should be coming in the next weeks. They will get a "responsive report" from the DOL OIG. The hope is that that they will issue a FLASH REPORT to the President and Congress. Delays are adding up while Workers and Families struggle without the emergency designated funds they were promised by law.

11. The economy is still treating them very harshly, while the government ignores the requirement that immediate action be taken with regards to any problems with Recovery Act Funds. These denied ARRA funds would go right back out to our struggling economy. Taxpayer dollars would not be wasted on the flood of EUC08 appeals.

12. People have been forced to accept less EUC08 money and many others have run out of aid earlier than they should have because of these errors.

13. Repairing these errors and paying claimants back on EUC08 or Extended Duration Benefits adds them back to the Unemployment Rate. This could turn back on State Triggers for these other extended benefits that have recently been ending due to many unemployed running out of benefits.

14. Hopefully, the RATB will act upon seeing the oversight requirement evidence, and force the DOL OIG to investigate, or they will act on their own (they have this power). They can also alert Congress and the President then action may come that way. Solyndra is a specific example of ARRA oversight investigation that got IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

15. The RATB can and should also get the Department of Treasury and Justice to investigate, because this follows the definition for illegal activities and fraud (affecting the Unemployment Trust Fund and ARRA Emergency Designated Funds).

16. If the US Government tries to cover up and ignore this problem legal action can be taken against the State and Federal Government by citizens. The Government has seemed to have put themselves into these areas of legal liability. All administrative "remedies" must be exhausted first.

17. Spread the word and blow the whistle on this waste, harm, denial and fraud by making more people aware of what has happened. Organize and identify unemployed victims for any future legal action in the courts.

18. Put pressure on the government officials involved by sending them an email demanding to investigate and repair these errors.

19 Contact the media to get the story to a wider audience in more concise form. Contact organizations dedicated to similar causes for the unemployed or underprivileged.

20. We can all help put a stop to this. The law is on our side.


https://www.facebook.com/investigatetheeuc08errors
https://www.facebook.com/investigatetheeuc08errors/info

Super! Thank you JS.

1. The US Government refuses to acknowledge nor refute the Emergency Unemployment Compensation appeal victory in October of 2011, that reversed two incorrect determinations based on published federal guideline errors that have been distributed nationwide to every state.

2. This appeal victory stopped the government from paying the remaining balance from an an older EUC08 account, which caused harm, by paying less extended benefits.

3. The evidence used to win this appeal was from the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Department of Labor shows they are supposed to comply with.

4. The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published Q&A sections of the EUC08 implementation guidelines that contain errors that don't follow the federal regulations.

5. These errors have turned into an incorrect and harmful Federal "policy", followed in every State.

6. This evidence has been shown to the State, the FBI, the US Attorneys, The Department of Justice, The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and the DOL Office of Inspector General, but none of them will investigate or take action, except to delay and cover this up without making one attempt to refute the evidence.

7. The evidence proves that a Federal Agency published mistakes in their implementation guidelines for these important emergency designated funds affecting the $40 Billion Unemployment Trust Fund and up to 4 Million other EUC08 claimants Nationwide. What they say is the opposite of what the Federal Regulations require affecting payments, determinations and adjudication. This has greatly harmed the intent of the Recovery Act.

8. Many thousands and thousands of unemployed, in every state have tried to appeal these errors and lost. The evidence shows that EUC08 "policy" found in the Code of Federal Regulations has been implemented correctly, via the appeal victory, for one claimant in California only, but everyone else is basically on their own and subject to an "authority" that has not followed the regulations they say they are supposed to comply with.

9. The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General has twice blown their oversight duty off, incorrectly citing the evidence and reasons they were contacted without even addressing the DOL ETA published Q&A mistakes nor the ARRA at all. They are trying to ignore it as a "State Only" determination mistake, stating that every claimant "has a right to appeal" (ignoring the adjudication error evidence).

10. A response from the RATB, to the DOL OIG refusing to act again should be coming in the next weeks. They will get a "responsive report" from the DOL OIG. The hope is that that they will issue a FLASH REPORT to the President and Congress. Delays are adding up while Workers and Families struggle without the emergency designated funds they were promised by law.

11. The economy is still treating them very harshly, while the government ignores the requirement that immediate action be taken with regards to any problems with Recovery Act Funds. These denied ARRA funds would go right back out to our struggling economy. Taxpayer dollars would not be wasted on the flood of EUC08 appeals.

12. People have been forced to accept less EUC08 money and many others have run out of aid earlier than they should have because of these errors.

13. Repairing these errors and paying claimants back on EUC08 or Extended Duration Benefits adds them back to the Unemployment Rate. This could turn back on State Triggers for these other extended benefits that have recently been ending due to many unemployed running out of benefits.

14. Hopefully, the RATB will act upon seeing the oversight requirement evidence, and force the DOL OIG to investigate, or they will act on their own (they have this power). They can also alert Congress and the President then action may come that way. Solyndra is a specific example of ARRA oversight investigation that got IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

15. The RATB can and should also get the Department of Treasury and Justice to investigate, because this follows the definition for illegal activities and fraud (affecting the Unemployment Trust Fund and ARRA Emergency Designated Funds).

16. If the US Government tries to cover up and ignore this problem legal action can be taken against the State and Federal Government by citizens. The Government has seemed to have put themselves into these areas of legal liability. All administrative "remedies" must be exhausted first.

17. Spread the word and blow the whistle on this waste, harm, denial and fraud by making more people aware of what has happened. Organize and identify unemployed victims for any future legal action in the courts.

18. Put pressure on the government officials involved by sending them an email demanding to investigate and repair these errors.

19 Contact the media to get the story to a wider audience in more concise form. Contact organizations dedicated to similar causes for the unemployed or underprivileged.

20. We can all help put a stop to this. The law is on our side.

DOL RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-O and the emailed Evidence Packet, proves the following:
Whistle blower discovered the following serious contradiction between the Federal Regulations and the Written and Published Emergency Unemployment Compensation "Policy" last Spring 2011 and has tried repeatedly to shows this evidence to the State and Federal Government who have not acted except to ignore and try to cover this up (these public concerns about implementation and payment of ARRA emergency designated funds in the billions of dollars).

"Every regulation in the CFR must have an "enabling statute," or statutory authority. The United States Code (U.S. Code) precedes the CFR and contains statutes enacted by Congress. The CFR contains regulations, which spell out in further detail how the executive branch will interpret the law.[1] The two documents represent different stages in the legislative process. The U.S. Code is a codification of legislation, while the CFR serves as administrative law. Administrative law exists because the Congress often grants broad authority to executive branch agencies to interpret the statutes in the U.S.Code (and in uncodified statutes) which the agencies are entrusted with enforcing. Congress may be too busy, congested, or gridlocked to micromanage the jurisdiction of those agencies by writing statutes that cover every possible detail, or Congress may determine that the technical specialists at the agency are best equipped to develop detailed applications of statutes to particular fact patterns as they arise"

A. The CORRECT AND LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. Code of Federal Regulations Implementation of Extended Benefits (EUC08) (for payments and determinations):
TITLE 20 CHAPTER V PART 615--EXTENDED BENEFITS IN THE FEDERAL-STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title20/20cfr615_main_02.tpl

A1. 20 CFR §615.5 Definition of ''exhaustee.''
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf71d5995674544af26026840fb1b036&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20
§ 615.5 Definition of “exhaustee.”
(a)(1) “Exhaustee” means an individual who, with respect to any week of unemployment in the individual's eligibility period:
(2) An individual who becomes an exhaustee as defined above shall cease to be an exhaustee commencing with the first week that the individual becomes eligible for regular compensation under any State law or 5 U.S.C. chapter 85, or has any right to unemployment compensation as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, or has received or is seeking unemployment compensation as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section. The individual's Extended Benefit Account shall be terminated upon the occurrence of any such week, and the individual shall have no further right to any balance in that Extended Benefit Account.

A2. CUIAB CASE EUC A0-265448 correctly followed the CFR 615.5(2) regulation (A1), and the Whistle Blower, had the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board force the California Unemployment Development Department to stop paying from the OLDER EUC08 ACCOUNT that was NOT terminated as it should have been when new regular compensation began (A1). In addition to illegally paying from an older and terminated EUC08 account with less weeks left on the available Tier I balance, this caused the ELIGIBILITY FAILURE of the PUBLIC LAW 111-205 SECTION 3(G) requirement that the Applicable Benefit Year (now the correct most recent new EUC08 account) be after a certain date (July 22, 2010). The claimant had been forced off EUC08 all together because of this, like thousands of others, onto a much lesser paying State regular Ui claim (an error the Decision fixed). This determination by the CUIAB who read the CFR evidence in full, helped the claimant by ignoring the older EUC08 account that gave an incorrect eligibility determination for less weeks of Tier I balance on an older EUC Account, and would have also later, in the next benefit year, caused lesser EUC08 payments based on more incorrect determinations that would have continued based on the OLDER EUC Accounts Benefit Year (again illegal and just what has happened to thousands and thousands of others in every state). In thousands of other claimants cases they have been forced onto a lesser paying older euc account instead of a more recent and higher paying one, also violating 615.5(2).


B. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Directives (Recovery.gov Directives):
http://www.doleta.gov/Recovery/legislation.cfm

B1. UIPL No. 23-08, Change 4 Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008 - Program Extension 3/4/09 (extension of UIPL 23-08 Change 1+ that contains the EUC08 IMPLEMENTATION ERRORS).
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=2716 (change 4+)
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf (Change 4+ extends the MISTAKES in the Q&A from UIPL 23-08 CHANGE 1)


B2. UIPL NO. 4-10 Extension of Temporary Provisions - Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008, Federal Additional Compensation, and Extended Benefits 12/23/09 (EUC08 UIPL 23-08 Q&A ERRORS EXTENED AND CONTINUE INTO THIS UIPL AND ITS CHANGES):
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL04-10_Ch3a2.pdf (4-10 Change 2+ Q&A identical to EUC08 ERRORS from UIPL 23-08 Q&A)

B3. Department of Labor Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Pertaining to the Department of Labor
http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/
Title 20 — Employees' Benefits
http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/Title_20/
600 to 699 Chapter V Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor
http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/Title_20/Chapter_V.htm
PART 615 Extended Benefits In the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e94b2dfd6265049fd654439f9f738212&rgn=div5&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8&idno=20


C. Department of Labor Employment & Training Authority EUC08 Implementation (for payment and determinations)

C1. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO.23-08 (NON ERROR FOLLOWS 20 CFR 615.5(2))
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2649
1. Attachment A - Implementing and Operating Instructions for EUC08
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf
Operating Instructions: Page A-3 and A-4
1. Eligibility for EUC08 .
b. Determining Exhaustees .
(2) Exhaustees cease to be exhaustees when they can establish a valid new benefit
year; therefore, at each quarter change, the state must check to see if an
individual meets the state’s requirements to establish a new benefit year. If the
individual can establish a new benefit year, s/he would no longer qualify for
the EUC08 claim. In these cases, the claimant should be advised that s/he no
longer qualifies for the EUC08 claim and th at s/he can file a regular UI claim.
Once the claimant qualifies for a new claim, the payments on the EUC08 claim
must end, even if the Weekly Benefit Amount (WBA) for the new claim is
lower than what the claimant was receiving on the EUC08 claim.

C2. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO.23-08, Change 1 (ERROR CONTRADICTS 20 CFR 615.5(2))
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2657
August 15, 2008
1. Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008 – Questions and Answers
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
Attachment to UIPL No. 23-08, Change 1 (any later Change extended these errors)
Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008
Questions and Answers
D. Monetary Eligibility Page 5
7. Question: May an individual have more than one EUC08 claim?
Answer: Yes. An individual may establish a claim for EUC08, qualify for a
new UC benefit year, exhaust that benefit year, exhaust the first EUC08 claim
and subsequently qualify for a second EUC08 claim based on the new (most
recent) benefit year.
Example:
An individual is determined eligible for EUC08 based on a UC benefit year
that ended on May 12, 2007. S/he receives 10 weeks of EUC08 prior to the
calendar quarter change, at which point s/he qualifies for a new UC benefit
year. Because the individual qualifies for regular UC, EUC08 payments must
stop.
The individual exhausts benefits based on his/her new UC benefit year;
therefore, s/he is again an exhaustee for EUC08 purposes. S/he may collect
the remaining entitlement on his/her existing (first) EUC08 claim and after
exhausting these benefits s/he may file a new (second) EUC08 claim based on
the new (most recent) UC benefit year. The new/most recent benefit year is
the applicable benefit year for a second EUC08 claim, if the initial claim for
that second claim is for a week of unemployment ending on or before March
31, 2009.

C3.UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER No. 04-10, Change 4 (ERROR CONTRADICTS 20 CFR 615.5(2))
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2935
1. Questions and Answers
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL04-10_Ch4a1.pdf

Attachment 1 to UIPL 04-10, Change 4
Questions and Answers
D. Multiple EUC08 Claims/Accounts Page 3+4
2) Question: A claimant established Benefit Year 1 (BY1), exhausted regular UC on that
benefit year, and then began receiving EUC08 based upon it. When the claimant established
a second benefit year, payment of EUC08 on BY1 was suspended, and s/he began receiving
regular UC on Benefit Year 2 (BY2). The claimant then exhausted the regular UC on BY2,
and resumed EUC08 based on BY1 (EUC08 claim was never established on BY2). BY2
now expires after the enactment of the Extension Act, and the claimant has sufficient wages
to establish Benefit Year 3 at a WBA that is at least $100 or 25 percent less than the EUC08
WBA. BY1 expired before enactment of the Extension Act which does not meet the first criterion
threshold. Does the State EUC08 Options provision apply to this claimant, allowing her/him to
continue the receipt of EUC08 based upon BY1?

Answer: No. The State EUC08 Options provision only applies to benefit years that expire
after enactment of the Extension Act. Since BY1 expired before enactment of the Extension
Act, the State EUC08 Options provision does not apply to it. Although BY2 meets the
condition of expiring after the enactment (criterion #1), the State Option provision still does
not apply because the claimant never established entitlement to EUC08 with respect to BY2
since s/he still has entitlement to EUC08 with respect to BY1.

C4. The SPECIFIC APPEAL ISSUE USED IN CALIFORNIA BY EDD AND THE CUIAB BASED ON THE ADVICE OF THE DOL ETA FROM THE LISTED DOL GUIDELINES ABOVE (ERROR CONTRADICTS 20 CFR 615.5(2)).
Used in CUIAB case #3999900 (EUC) heard 01/19/12 in Van Nuys, and this is the SAME WAY with LITTLE VARIATION that EDD AND THE CUIAB have TREATED ALL EUC08 CLAIMANTS who tried to fix this problem via appeals (as the DOL suggest several million people do). This is mirrored with little change in EVERY STATE that uses the same listed guidelines above that share this same "policy".
"EUC benefits must be administered in compliance with the operating instructions of the Secretary of the Department of Labor. (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, section 4001(d)(2)(B) (June 30, 2008), 122 Stat. 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note.)

Pursuant to Department of Labor operating instructions, once a claim for an extension of EUC benefits is established, all benefits on that extension must be exhausted before an extension of EUC can be filed on a second unemployment claim. (Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 23-08, Change 1, August 15, 2008.)"

SUMMARY
1. A1 and A2 show the correct and legal path of the law and regulations that the Department of Labor clearly shows they are supposed to follow and comply with. The Judges in CUIAB Case EUC A0-265448 on October 20, 2011 agreed with 20 CFR 615.5(2) and 20 CFR 615.2(c)(2) as written and shown to be part of the actual and current Code of Federal Regulations, valid and legal to present day, unchanged during the time period in question.

2. B1 and B2 and B3 show that the Department of Labor, the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, know, and should know, and this proves that they did and do know, what laws and regulations specifically apply to EUC08 and the ARRA. They had access to the same SPECIFIC TEXT OF LAW that C2-C3 CONTRADICT but A1 and A2 and C1 are supported by.

3. C1 almost follows 20 CFR 615.5(2) exactly, except that it says payment ENDS instead. C2 and C3 and C4 (the sections show above), SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICT A1 and A2 and C1. In all cases of EUC08 Account payment (older first instead of terminating with no further entitlement to any remaining balance) found through C2-C4, the Recipients of ARRA EMERGENCY DESIGNATED FUNDS, the Department of Labor, and State Agencies following the above listed DOL EUC08 Guidelines and Advice, they ALL INCORRECTLY CONTRADICT WHAT THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS TITLE 20 CHAPTER V PART 615.5(2) SAYS in A1 that SUPPORTS A2 and C1! The CFR SAYS TERMINATE WITH NO FURTHER ENTITLEMENT TO ANY BALANCE AND THE DOL ETA IN SEVERAL PLACES (Q&A ONLY NOT THE ACTUAL INSTRUCTIONS) SAYS OTHERWISE, REQUIRING PAYMENT OF OLDER EUC08 ACCOUNTS FIRST AND ALWAYS TO EXHAUSTION OF THE REMAINING BALANCE BEFORE ANY NEW EUC ACCOUNT CAN START AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE STATES FOLLOWED THIS BAD AND ILLEGAL ADVICE (SPECIFIC CALIFORNIA EUC08 APPEAL ISSUE BASED ON C2 and C3 ERRORRS EXAMPLE GIVEN in C4). C2 and C3 and C4 are MISTAKES published by the DOL ETA and should be investigated and repaired. EUC08 claimants SHOULD NOT need to file appeals nor legal action to get the US GOVERNMENT TO OBEY THE LAW AND REGULATIONS AS REQUIRED BY LAW. THE DOL OIG AND DOL ETA ARE THE ONES WHO MUST ACT ON THE EUC08 CLAIMANTS BEHALF. IF NOT THE RECOVERY ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TREASURY SHOULD ACT. FURTHER ACTION CAN BE TAKEN IN FEDERAL COURTS IF THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO COMPLETELY IGNORE AND COVER UP THESE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION BY LAW (BUT SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS). IF AN ENEMY OF THE US GOVERNMENT WERE LOOKING FOR A DEVIOUS WAY TO HARM OUR ECONOMY AND UNEMPLOYED CITIZENS AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND, THIS IS ONE WAY THEY WOULD DO IT AND THIS IS HOW THEY WOULD RESPOND IF THEY HAD INFLUENCE OVER THE DOL OIG AND DOL ETA. THIS IS HOW CRIMINALS ACT AND RESPOND (see 4. below). OR PEOPLE LOOKING TO SUBVERT THE RECOVERY ACT AND MAKE SURE PRESIDENT OBAMA FAILS IN HIS RE-ELECTION ATTEMPT (because this story will be in the media and very public before then, whether the government acts or not).

4. The responses from the State to Federal Agencies, for over one year, to ignore this CLEAR EVIDENCE and the oversight duty and IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED under the ARRA, the Improper Payments Act, and the Inspector General Act, are IN FACT, an ABUSE OF THEIR AUTHORITY. There is even more evidence and details of the errors and contradictions (RECOVER FRAUD COMPLAINT RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-O and from the Evidence Packet item 9. "guide to appealing illegal euc08 determinations"), but this is the heart of what went wrong. I SEE NO WAY ANY COMPETENT AGENCY COULD IGNORE SUCH CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MILLIONS TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN DENIED OR WASTED BECAUSE THE DOL ETA PUBLISHED THESE SPECIFIC ERRORS THAT CONTRADICT A1 AND A2. You cannot refute A1. You have not even tried to refute A2 (based on A1).C1 PROVES THE DOL WAS USING 20 CFR 615.5(2) AND AT LEAST HERE THEY END THE EUC ACCOUNT. C2-C4 are MISTAKES THAT EVERY STATE AGENCY HAS FOLLOWED WHEN MAKING EUC08 DETERMINATIONS AND APPEAL DECISIONS (KEEP PAYING THE OLDER EUC ACCOUNT DESPITE A1, A2 and C1). THE DOL OIG "REVIEW", THAT CONCLUDED TO DO NOTHING, VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR OFFICES OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (as shown in previous email evidence) AND FLAGRANTLY VIOLATES THE OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE LEAD TO AN INVESTIGATION OF THIS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS A MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFECTING MILLIONS TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EMERGENCY DESIGNATED FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN HARMED BY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND FRAUD BY THE RECIPIENTS OF THE ARRA FUNDS FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND.


Send email to the groups and lists below (add your state specific contacts as needed).

REPEAT once per week until we get a response. Do not spam or abuse these email contact lists:

Donald.Cox@ratb.gov,panel@ratb.gov,Kathleen.Tighe@ratb.gov,Michael.Nwaka@ratb.gov,Ivan.Flores@ratb.gov,Coyle.Robert@oig.dol.gov,Howell.Freddie@oig.dol.gov,Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.gov,eder.marcus@oig.dol.gov,hotline@oig.dol.gov

media_affairs@who.eop.gov,recovery@omb.eop.gov,ombdirector@omb.eop.gov,timothy.geithner@do.treas.gov,nal.wolin@do.treas.gov,rosie.rios@do.treas.gov,solis.hilda@dol.gov,harris.seth@dol.gov,oates.jane@dol.gov,talktosolis@dol.gov,Young.Clarisse@dol.gov,contact-sol@dol.gov,gilbert.gay@dol.gov,Ziegler.Dale@dol.gov,clark.lakimbrelle@dol.gov,Mark.WooSam@labor.ca.gov,san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov,washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,chicago@ic.fbi.gov,ny1@ic.fbi.gov,Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov,askdoj@usdoj.gov,inspector.general@usdoj.gov

newstips@latimes.com,news-tips@nytimes.com,center@cironline.org,mkatches@cironline.org,lwilliams@cironline.org,mschapiro@cironline.org,evening@cbsnews.com,foxreport@foxnews.com,ontherecord@foxnews.com,comments@foxnews.com,special@foxnews.com,foxnewstips@foxnews.com,irena.briganti@foxnews.com,brian.lewis@foxnews.com,newsmanager@foxnews.com,roxanne@rawstory.com,scoop@huffingtonpost.com,info@huffingtonpost.com,ElRushbo@eibnet.com,oreilly@foxnews.com,hannity@foxnews.com,talk@npr.org,fm@kqed.org,calreport@kqed.org,fair@fair.org,frontlineworld@flworld.org,60m@cbsnews.com,kee@cbsnews.com,crabbeS@cbsnews.com,pkrugman@princeton.edu,scoop@motherjones.com,info@pogo.org,jnewman@pogo.org,newstips@upi.com,letters@csmonitor.com,mediainquiries@msnbc.com,kpender@sfchronicle.com,mark.gongloff@huffingtonpost.com

ciu@edd.ca.gov,shughes1@edd.ca.gov,talbott.smith@edd.ca.gov,griggs@edd.ca.gov,ester.martignetti@edd.ca.gov,pharris@edd.ca.gov,albertor@cuiab.ca.gov,roberts@cuiab.ca.gov,mariah.jones@mail.house.gov,colin.foard@mail.house.gov,ricci.graham@mail.house.gov,AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

Labor.Fraud@state.co.us,RA-ADM-BFM-FieldAud@pa.gov,dcjtipline@njdcj.org,OEO@michigan.gov,InternetFraudEmail@michigan.gov,dlir.ui.honolulu@hawaii.gov,+UIAPage@azdes.gov,uiaclientadvocate@azdes.gov,TWC.fraud@twc.state.tx.us,Internal.Security@dir.alabama.gov,Esadmin.fraud@tn.gov,appealstribunal@labor.mo.gov,lirc@labor.mo.gov,Fraud@dol.ks.gov,www@labor.idaho.gov,kconway@mt.gov,ui4u@mt.gov,uiproginteg@dwd.wisconsin.gov,WIAQNA@jfs.ohio.gov,dol.webhelp@ct.gov,ui-tdi-fraud@dlt.ri.gov,webmaster@nhes.nh.gov,dws_uihelp@utah.gov,dwscontactus@utah.gov,wsinv@utah.gov,DWS_Constituent_Services@utah.gov,oet.uifraud@ky.gov,pio@dllr.state.md.us,ui@dllr.state.md.us,uifraud@dllr.state.md.us

. . . . . . . . .

. . . .

.. . . .

...

Hello,

I'm from NJ. Recently I exhausted the benefits on a claim I filed on Oct 2011 and they placed me back on the extension I had on my 1st claim in November 2010. This extension they put me back on is a lot less money then my second claim (I'm talking $1,500 less a month). I wanted to know if you guys have ever heard of a case where someone was able to skip the extensions on their first claim and move right into their second claim's extensions?

Quick Time Line
Nov 2010 - Laid Off
Nov 2010 - Filed Claim 1
Jun 2011 - Start New Job
Oct 2011 - Contract Ends in New Job
Oct 2011 - Refile claim and received new claim with new benefits

Please provide any info

. . . .

Thank you for helping us. You have done some really amazing research. I first became employed June of 2008. I collected for 26 weeks and then was put on EUC and I also worked part time. In June of 2009 a new claim was opened based on my part time wages and I started to collect on the new claim (luckily my benefit amount stayed above $400). After collecting for 26 weeks on the new claim I was put back on EUC. In June 2010 a new claim was being forced upon me which was going to cut my claim down from $450 to less than $100. At that point should I have been allowed to continue on the EUC? Does this HR4213 apply to my case? Thanks

. . .

Thank you for responding. It is so unfair that there is a cutoff, why wouldn't they help everyone who was a part of the EUC and all that. What about SoCal from the other board. His BYE was prior to July 22, 2010, I think?. Is he the only one? Did the judge in his case misinterpret the law? One other question, if I didn't have enough earnings to qualify for a new claim when my BYE came up in June, 2010. Then they look at your earnings for the next quarter to see if you then have enough earnings to open a new claim. That would have been in September 2010 which is after the July 22, 2010 law would have passed ... would that help at all in case I wouldn't have qualified for a new state claim until September 2010? Thank you

... ..... ......

hi I don't think the lag test is going to apply to me. Its a little complicated though! Are you a lawyer? if at my bye date in June 2010 I was not eligible for a new state claim, I was told that they would check my wages at the next quarter and if I had then accumulated enough wages they would take me off of euc and put me on a state claim.

.. ... ....

Hopefully jobs will open up in your field. Do you think it will get busier soon? I really hope you bring them down. They probably can't believe someone is going after them. It's great! Let me ask you as part of the cover up do you believe that it could ever come out that this was meant to be retroactive. I mean isn't it called EUC08 so why are the people that became unemployed one day or more before the law went into effect being cut off from the EUC fix? Or do you believe there is no misinterpretation of the effective date and that will never change even after you bring down the crooks?

. . . ... . ...

is there any way to get the law changed? or is that virtually impossible? do you have any idea how close you are to bringing them down? From what I read it sounds like you are making progess. Is this something that if exposed will come out in the media? Will they do everything to keep the cover up going so they don't have to pay back money to people who were wrongly cutoff from the part time fix?

.. . . . .

Hi I am confused about the part where you say denied funds for the past 4 years because I thought this law was only passed July 22 2010?
i) Up to 4 Million Claimants Denied Emergency Designated Funds NATIONWIDE FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, due to the Errors Reported in the EUC08 Whistle Blower Evidence, PUBLISHED BY THE DOL ETA, in the middle of a WORSENING ECONOMIC CRISIS, pose a VERY IMMINENT THREAT to the life or physical safety of these many Unemployed Struggling Workers and Families who have little else to survive on (unemployment benefits pay for food, shelter, health care).

Hi Sorry about your friend. thats sad. I wanted to ask you about hr4213 and the effective date. I don't really understand that whole thread where socal argues that part of the law it doesn't say anything about the law not being retroactive if your bye date was before july 24 2010. Didn't socal have a politician call on his behalf and he thinks that is the only reason he won. My parents are friends with the Democratic State Rep for PA and I know him also. would this be a person that could possibly help or is it hopeless because of the retroactive thing? I am pretty sure he is still the state rep he was in 2011

.........

... . . . .