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 !

...

You are on the right track contacting the Federal Department of Labor. Found at dol.gov. Looks like you contacted politicians. That is what I meant by checking your state website. In this case the state must comply, since this is Federal money.

I had to call the DoL about my COBRA benefits. The agency that was doing the work was stopping my benefits at 17 and taking the 18 month I paid. I found out many in my former company was also being screwed. I fought for over two months and was costing me dearly. Within the hour after I called, because I had no other recourse. The matter was taken care of. The law was clearly on my side and I hope the DoL did prosecute. They called me back and personally thanked me, because it help so many others.

I would follow up within the week and the investigation should not take that long. However, I heard at the time the computer system sucked real bad. The one that gives up looses when your dealing with the government. I had to appeal two times and go to a hearing with a lawyer! I always won, because I had my facts right. I was not paid for 9 months one time!

I can sympathize with you. I will pray for a fast good answer.

... ... . . . . .

You are truly amazing. Thank you for fighting.

I couldn't do it, just didn't have the emotional strength. My notice of the right to appeal came late, three months after my last claim form. I gave up trying to straighten the whole mess out, just couldn't take the added stress.

Thank you for sharing all the details of your own struggle and congratulations on your victories so far. Bless you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case A0-265448 (EUC)
OA Decision No.: 3761037

Board Panel Members:
Robert Dresser
Roy Ashburn

Mailed October 20,2011

ISSUE STATEMENT:
The claimant appealed from a determination that held the claimant was not eligible for extended benefits under the Supplemental Appropriations ct of 2008, Public Law 110-252, sections 4001(b) and 4002(g), as amended, (June 30, 2008). The issue in this case is whether the claimant is entitled to continue receiving extended benefits.

FINDINGS OF FACT:
We adopt the Administrative law judge's Statement of Facts,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Case 3761037(EUC)):
""The claimant exhausted his parent claim with a benefit year beginning March 28,2010 and qualified for a Tier I extension on his claim. He qualified for 20 weeks of benefits at $450 per week on this extension. He began receiving these extension benefits effective January 1, 2011. Effective March 27,2011, the claimant's 52 weeks on his prior parent claim benefit year beginning March 28, 2010 had run. At that time, based on work he had had during these 52 weeks, the claimant qualified for a new parent claim with a benefit year beginning March 27,2011. The claimant qualified for twenty six weeks of benefits at a weekly benefit amount of $325 and a maximum benefit amount of $8450. At the time of the hearing, the claimant continued to have benefits available to him on his claim with a benefit year beginning March 27,2011."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case A0-265448 (EUC)
We add the following.

A claim for unemployment benefits for the claimant was filed with an effective date of March 28,2010. After benefits were exhausted, the claimant established a claim for extended benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation [EUC]. On March 28,2011 the claimant became eligible to establish new claim for unemployment insurance benefits and in fact, a new claim was filed for him.

Because the claimant became eligible for a new claim, the department stopped paying benefits on the extension. The new claim had a weekly benefit amount of $325. The EUC extension mount was $450. The claimant contends that the extension should be exhausted before the new claim become effective.

REASONS FOR DECISION:
We adopt the first and third paragraph of the administrative law judge's Reason for Decision,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Case 3761037(EUC)):
Paragraph 1 -
"The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-252 (June 30, 2008), 122 Stat 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note) provides for extended benefits for individuals that have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Section 4001(b) of the Act provides for payment of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) to individuals who:
(1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law or Federal law;
(2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law; and
(3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week under the unemployment compensation laws of Canada.
An individual may be entitled to receive federal-state extended benefits if the individual has exhausted all rights to regular unemployment compensation, has exhausted all rights to EUC, and if California is in an extended benefit period (Unemployment Insurance Code, sections 4001 and 4552(b); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, section 2005(b)(February 17,2009), 123 Stat. 144; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note.)"

Paragraph 3 -
"The applicable benefit year means the current benefit year if, at the time a claim for EUC is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year, or, in any other case, the individual's most recent benefit year. (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, section 4006 (June 30,2008) Stat. 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note; Code of Federal Regulations, title 20, section 615.2(c)(2).)"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case A0-265448 (EUC)
We add the following in reversing the decision of the administrative law judge.

Effective July 23, 2010, section 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-252 (June 20,2008), 122 Stat. 2353, as amended; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note) provides that if:
(1) -
(A) an individual has been determined to be entitled to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit year,
(B) that benefit year expired after July 23,2010,
(C) that individual has remaining entitlement to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that benefit year, and
(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual's weekly benefit in the benefit year referred to in subparagraph (A),
(2) -
a new benefit year, if permitted by State law, shall be established but payment of regular compensation with respect to that new benefit year shall be deferred until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

"Benefit Year" mens the 52 week period beginning with the first day of the week in which a valid claim for benefits is filed.

In this case, the claimant exhausted a claim for unemployment benefits and established an extension of EUC. Thereafter, the claimant became entitled to establish a new claim for unemployment benefits. The benefit year of the original claim for benefits expired on March 27,2011, subsequent to July 23,2010. The weekly benefit amount for the new claim is at least $100 less than the weekly EUC claim. As such, the claimant may take advantage of the provisions of section 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act and benefits are controlled by section 4001(g) of that statue.

On appeal to this Board the claimant had submitted a notice of determination issued subsequent to the decision of the administrative law judge. No have no jurisdiction over that matter at this juncture. The claimant may wish to file an appeal for a hearing before and administrative in that matter.

DECISION:
The determination is reversed. The claimant is entitled to continue Emergency Unemployment Compensation under section 4001(b) and 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, as amended (*** by Public Law 111-205 // HR4213 ***).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congrats on the decision. I wish you the best moving forward.

Never give up if you know your right. I have fought many battles myself with the government and won. Recently against Bank of America for screwing with my credit rating! Remember they may win a current battle, does not mean you can't win the war. The truth overrules those that screw others.

Congratulations, you give others encouragement to stay with it!

...

...

You will prevail... blessings to you!

...

.. . . .

.. . . . ..

...

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

.. . ...

.... . . . .

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

So how do you apply this mountain of information? Here is a guide to the appeal process in these cases, from my experience in California. I have been putting this together for a while, and I hope it can help. I am no legal expert, but I want to give out this "open source" appeal template for those who have had incorrect and harmful EUC determinations made against them. I am still trying to force the government to investigate the contradictions my evidence has brought to light in the implementation of these Federal Recovery Act Funds. Until then...

Cut and paste as needed to for your document requirements:

---------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 1:

1. Have you been forced onto an older EUC Account from an older and expired Benefit Year?
(Paid with respect to BY1 while in BY2+ that was a subsequent return to Regular State Ui funds that then ran out of funds allowing you to become an EUC08 "exhaustee" again)

2. Did this cause you to lose the EUC Account funds you would have gotten from this subsequent Benefit Year?
(BY1 lesser weekly benefits than BY2+)
(Then being piad BY1 funds past the BY2 end date and then losing the BY2 EUC Account for good)

3. Did this also cause further EUC Determinations to harm you based on the fact that you are "stuck" being paid with respect to BY1?
(Failed Part Time Penalty EUC FIx and forced onto lesser state claim based on BY1)
(loss of BY2+ EUC Accounts due to length of time to exhaust BY1 EUC Account at lesser weekly benefit amount)

If YES
then you have had an incorrect/illegal EUC Determination made against you just like I did in 2011. I won an appeal on it and this is how.
GO TO STEP 2.

If NO, then forget about all of this, it will make your head hurt.
But if you hear about someone being screwed, point them here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

STEP 2:
CONTACT YOUR STATE Ui AGENCY
1. PREPARATION STEP 2:
Here is the information in (YOUR STATE APPEALS HERE) California on Appeals from EDD:
http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/First_Level_Appeal.htm

From the CUIAB (good chart):
http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/Documents/cuiabUiAppealsFlowchart.pdf
http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/Documents/cuiabAppealsProcedureManual.pdf

Gather ALL your documentation for the benefit years in question:
Notice of State Ui/EUC awards with Base Period, Wage Totals for Highest Quarter, Benefit Year Start and End Dates, Weekly Benefit Amounts, Effective Dates etc...

THEN

2. Contact California EDD (YOUR STATE UI AGENECY HERE) via email:
http://www.edd.ca.gov/About_EDD/Contact_edd.htm

and/or

2. Write by certified mail with return receipt:
Unemployment Insurance
Employment Development Department
P.O. Box 826880 - UIPCD, MIC 40
Sacramento, CA 94280-0001

and/or

2. Call (YOUR STATE UI AGENCY HERE) California EDD (if you dare) and ask for an Appeal Specialist:
1-866-333-4606

THEN

3. In California you must get the State Ui Agency to send you a Notice of Determination (what you are appealing that you disagree with and what the state issues as an Appeal Issue to the CUIAB). You MUST DO THIS FIRST. If you just send an appeal with no NOD they will ignore it. This happened to me. They will try to do this to you right away. Don't let them. Contact and confirm with the State UI Agency before sending any paperwork in "blind".

When you contact them here is what you need to get across to them before they issue any notices/appeal paperwork, because in theory no appeal is needed if they will follow the law and accept this specific and factual evidence:

1. I do not agree with the EUC Determination made on (ENTER DATE PAYMENT STARTED), that caused me to be paid from an Older EUC Account instead of the current EUC Account that should be available with respect to the current Applicable Benefit Year (20 C.F.R. § 615.2 (c)(2), that I just ran out of State Ui fund again in. I would be otherwise eligible for and paid at a higher weekly benefit amount on this second and current EUC Account (ENTER YOUR DETAILS HERE).

2. Paying me from an older EUC Account violates the definition of the "Eligibility Period" (20 C.F.R. § 615.2 (h)(2)), by paying from an older and expired Eligibility period instead of the current Eligibility Period based on the current Applicable Benefit Year that would pay a higher weekly benefit amount from EUC Account 2 based on this subsequent Benefit Year. (STATE YOUR WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNTS AND BYB BYE DATES AS YOU GO TO HELP THE JUDGES. )

3. Opening up this Older EUC Account from an Expired and Terminated Benefit Year violates the Definition of an "Exhaustee" (20 C.F.R. § 615.5 (2)), that specifically says what is supposed to happen to ANY EUC Account when the claimant returns to a subsequent Regular Compensation State Ui Claim. It says: "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.". I did in fact start a subsequent Regular Compensation State Ui claim on (ENTER YOUR Benefit Start Date HERE), after payments on my first EUC Account were halted and terminated (ENTER DATE HERE), leaving me no further entitlement to ANY remaining balance to these EUC Funds. I am an "exhaustee" for EUC08 again on (ENTER DATE YOUR STATE UI CLAIM RAN OUT OF FUNDS HERE), so I am eligible for a Second EUC Account based on this Applicable Benefit Year, and not allowed payment from any older year nor any remaining balance (GIVE THE DATES WHEN AND THE AMOUNT YOU SHOULD BE PAID).

4. Then paying EUC08 from or making EUC08 Determinations with respect to this incorrect older terminated and expired EUC Account, will cause the failure of the Eligibility Requirements for the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) "Euc Fix for the Part Time Penalty", and cause me to be forced to accept an even lesser State Ui claim, forcing me off the older lesser terminated EUC Account and potentially causing me to lose the eligibility to the Second EUC Account all together due to the time required to serve out the lesser State Ui Claim and then exhaust the EUC Account from this older expired and terminated benefit year (STATE YOUR DETAILS AND DATES THROUGH THIS)

5. This is harmful and illegal, violating the Recovery Act, three specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and one Federal Law. I would receive more money (SPECIFIC AMOUNT) from the higher claim based on the subsequent EUC Account, not fail Public Law 111-205 Eligibility Requirements (section 3(g)), and likely be eligible for more EUC08 Accounts and or Extended Duration Benefits in my State because I would have the correct Determinations made on the correct Applicable Benefit Year (STATE YEAR AND BYE DATE) instead of the incorrect and older benefit year (STATE YEAR AND BYE DATE).

6. I am aware of the Department of Labor guidelines that have specifically caused this error (PROGRAM LETTER 23-08 and 4-10). They do not have any legal basis to pay from Older EUC Accounts and then make subsequent EUC08 determinations based on this year no matter how long it takes to exhaust the funds. This comes ONLY from the Q&As found in two specific Program Letters sent to the 53 State Agencies. These claims by the Department of Labor, that say you can pay from older EUC accounts, and have to do so first and always contradicts with what is said in the Code of Federal Regulations, which says specifically that you must terminate these older claims when a new benefit year is started for regular compensation. There is no entitlement to any remaining balance. This "policy" is found nowhere in the Implementing and Operating Instructions for EUC08, with no basis of factual law from the Us Code, Federal Register, Standing Statutes, Federal Regulations, Federal Law nor law in any State. Here is what Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A says in the Implementing and Operating Instructions for EUC08 at the bottom of page A-3:

"b. Determining Exhaustees .
(1) Under Section 4001(c) of the Act, for an individual to be considered to have
exhausted benefit rights to regular compensation in an applicable benefit year
(for purposes of meeting the first EUC 08 eligibility criterion), the individual
must have either:
(A) received all regular compensation payable based on employment and/or
wages during the applicable base period; or
(B) had rights to regular compensation terminated by reason of the
expiration of the applicable benefit year in which these rights existed.
(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 thes e 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. "
(NO MENTION OF SAVING THE BALANCE FOR LATER OR HOW TO REOPEN IT AND WHEN AND WHAT TO DO WITH THE SUBSEQUENT EUC ACCOUNT THAT WAS IGNORED/DEFERRED AND IT FOLLOWS 20 C.F.R. § 615.5 (2) EXACTLY)

7. The Department of Labor is the "Authority" for issuing guidelines to the States for Unemployment Insurance matters. BUT, They are supposed to obey the Federal Law and Regulations. In this case they have made faulty implementation Q&As that contradict the Law and Regulations as well as their own Implementing and Operating Instructions/Definitions. They have no authority to re-write these to suit their incorrect implementation interpretations. Their actions have damaged the intent of the Recovery Act, wasted and denied Federal Funds and wasted untold tax payer dollars on EUC appeals.

8. Evidence to back this up:

A. Here is the Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08
Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf
(search and you will find no reference to multiple euc claims nor paying older claims first)

B. Here are the Federal Regulations and Laws:

1. EXTENDED BENEFITS IN THE FEDERAL-STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM):
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
(Sections 615.2, 615.4, and 615.5 are the most relevant).
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title20/20cfr615_main_02.tpl
(no paying older claims first mentioned)

2. Public Law 110-252 and the Subsequent amended version post July 24,2010 Public Law 111-205:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ252/pdf/PLAW-110publ252.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ205/pdf/PLAW-111publ205.pdf
(no paying older claims mentioned)

C. Here is the only mention of paying the older claim first in a "Multiple EUC Claim" situation(s), these are the "source" of these errors:
Department of Labor Employment & Training Authority Program Letter 23-8 and 4-10 Q&As:
a. http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
<Page 5+6 D. Monetary Eligibility Q&A 7. May an individual have more than one EUC claim>

b. http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C3a1.pdf
<Page 3+4 D. Multiple EUC08 Claims and Order of Payment Q&A 1-5 Augmenting Tiers up to 20 weeks>

c. http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/uipl/uipl23-08c5a1.pdf
<Page 6 F. Multiple Claims and Order of Payment Q&A 1 If Multiple Claims Which is paid first>

d. http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/uipl/uipl23-08c6a1.pdf
<Page 5 F. Multiple EUC08 Claims Q&A Q 1+2 Augmenting Older Accounts First>

e. http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL04-10_Ch4a1.pdf
<Page 3+4 D. Multiple EUC08 Claims/Accounts Q&A Q 1+2 Multiple EUC Accounts PL 11-205, BY1 vs By2 Entitlement>

Read the Q&As in full and there are contradictions within them regarding the Applicable Benefit Year and these "multiple claim/pay/augment older first" situations, starting with Program Letter 23-08 Change 1 Page 3+4 Q&A C1+C3. How can the DOL advise the State UI agencies to have the claimant collect any remaining entitlement to any remaining balance from older claims after a return to regular compensation (page 5 Q&A D7) but in the same instructions have two questions that contradict this (and it violates 20 CFR 615.5 (2))?

These two key Q&A's back up the Definition of the Applicable Benefit as it should be, as written in the CFR, instead of the Department of Labor thinking that it is always the initial claim until exhausted and that whatever year this is "becomes" the Applicable Benefit Year when you are paid from it while ignoring the current most recent benefit year:

"C. Applicable Benefit Year for EUC08 Purposes
1. Question: May an individual choose the benefit year under which an EUC08
claim will be filed? For example, the individual has two different benefit
years that ended on or after May 1, 2007, or the individual has one benefit year
that ended on or after May 1, 2007 and another benefit year that has not ended
but all UC benefits have been exhausted?
Answer: No. The applicable benefit year is the most recent benefit year.
(See Attachment A to UIPL No. 23-08, page A-1, Definitions - #4.)

3. Question: An individual has two different benefit years that ended on or after
May 1, 2007. However, on the most recent benefit year, the individual does
not meet the 20 weeks of work requirement. The individual’s prior benefit year does meet this requirement. Since the most recent benefit year does not
meet the EUC08 monetary requirements, might the individual qualify for
EUC08 based on the prior benefit year?

Answer: No. The applicable benefit year, which is used as the basis for an
EUC08 claim, is the most recent benefit year. "

These both specifically give a case of Multiple EUC Claims (just like page 5 Q&A D7), except here the most recent benefit year is correct in both cases. But, in this next section we get to the heart of the errors which does contradict the above Q&As by going for the older year first and for as long as it takes to exhaust instead paying based on the most recent benefit year:

"Monetary Eligibility
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."

This has been the main EDD (YOUR STATE AGENCY HERE) appeal issue sent out to the CUIAB (YOUR APPEAL AGENCY) to defeat claimants who appeal this, who try to have their rights restored and these incorrect determinations reversed. They clearly state that they require you to exhaust the older claim first when there is no mention of this anywhere else. It is contradicted by the previous Q&As on page 3+4 listed above, the definition of the Applicable Benefit Year defined in Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A, the same definition found in the CFR along with that of the Eligibility Period and the Definition of an Exhaustee (20 CFR 615.2 (c)(2), 615.2 (h)(2) and 615.5(2)).

The only defense this amounts to is the "we say so argument", which is absent the FACTS that what the Department of Labor "says" does not give them the "authority" to violate regulations and laws nor to make false interpretations of them:

"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.)"

These two items combined together are the specific way that EDD and the CUIAB are violating your rights. This so called "argument" does not refer to ANY instructions, nor law, nor statute, nor regulation, but ONLY faulty Q&As that are themselves contradicted directly by other sections of these same instructions and 20 CFR 615.5(2). This is trying to convince us that whatever the Department of Labor puts in their instructions is infallible, yet major errors exist and have caused great harm, waste, denial and this Recovery Act Fraud.

The Decision in CUIAB Case A0-265448 proved that this is incorrect, and had the older EUC Account correctly terminated with no remaining entitlement to any remaining balance (20 CFR 615.5 (2), allowing the claimant to access a new EUC Account based on the most recent benefit year (the Applicable Benefit Year 20 CFR 615.2 (c)(2)), and have subsequent EUC determinations based on this year that were beneficial instead of harmful (Public Law 111-205 eligibility).

(you can attach all the EUC08 related Program Letter 23-08 and Program Letter 4-10 changes if you like from here):
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2649 (23-08)
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2836 (4-10)

D. and here are the "Standing Decisions" regarding this exact same matter from an appeal case that was won successfully in California as well as a Pennsylvania Decision that backs up the Applicable Benefit Year Definitions found at 20 C.F.R. § 615.2 (c)(2) and in the Department of Labor Implementing and Operating Instructions Attachment A Page A-1 Definition #4:

1. California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Case A0-265448 EUC Decision mailed October 20, 2011 in favor of the Claimant:
(The Appeal+)
http://www.unemployed-friends2.org/t656p45-part-time-penalty-bye-update#38972

(The Full Decision)
http://www.unemployed-friends2.org/t656p75-part-time-penalty-bye-update#48367

2. Rashwane Lowe PA/NJ Applicable Benefit Year case (contradicts what the other state agencies and DOL are saying about the ABY being the initial year until the claim is exhausted...like my case does too):
http://www.unemployed-friends2.org/t656p60-part-time-penalty-bye-update#45850
and here is the original public source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatecasefiles.justia.com%2Fdocuments%2Fpennsylvania%2Fcommonwealth-court%2F1925cd10_6-14-11.pdf%3Fts%3D1323908943&ei=B1RjT42rKa_-iQL-m6WiDw&usg=AFQjCNFRD4a7odoKtiexpU6ugabFecmd_g&sig2=uLEsEMLPvX2n

E. Here is what the Department of Labor told the claimant just before the Decision in CUIAB Case A0-265448 on October 7, 2011. This statement in writing contradicts the CUIAB judges Decision, as well as Program Letter 23--08 Page A-1 Definition #4 and 20 C.F.R. § 615.2 (c)(2):

"The applicable benefit year used in determining an individual’s entitlement to EUC08 is defined as the most-recent benefit year at the time the initial claim for EUC08 is filed. The state agency determines an individual’s most recent benefit year at the time the EUC08 claim is filed and it serves as the benefit year for that EUC08 claim until EUC08 entitlement based on that benefit year is exhausted.
Once you exhaust your regular UI benefits, if otherwise eligible, you may continue to collect any remaining EUC08 entitlement. "

F. Here is what the State UI Agency, the California Employment Development Department told the claimant in Case A0-265448 before they won their appeal, reversing the "policy" that caused the harm and violated the federal Law and Regulations:

" You object to the determination by the Employment Development Department (EDD), that you are not eligible to continue receiving Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits. You failed to qualify for the EDD's Deferred New Claim Program (DNCP) because the parent (regular claim on which the EUC is based) claim did not expire after July 24, 2010. Your parent claim began on March 29, 2009 and expired on March 27, 2010.
The DNCP is available to claimants receiving EUC benefits who meet all of the following requirements:
1. The claimant is receiving benefits from an EUC claim or, in some cases, a Fed-Ed extension
2. The expiration date of the parent claim is after July 24, 2010.
3. The weekly benefit amount of the new claim must be significantly lower (at least $100 or 25%) than the EUC.
4. The claimant has not earned sufficient wages in another state to file a new UI claim in that state before the
California parent claim expires.
Your message also mentioned that the EDD did not comply with the federal legislation that created that program and that you have been unjustly denied. The EDD can only implement any UI program if it complies with all Federal laws in that regard. The US Department of Labor also issues guidelines to States further explicating the important provisions and how states may proceed. To that end, the EDD's policies and procedures regarding the DNCP meet all federal guidelines.
You have appealed your denial and must now appear before an Administrative Law Judge. The EDD will, once it receives the decision, implement the ALJ's determination."

G. Both E and F are refuted by the appeal victory in case A0-265448 (D1), the Rashwne Lowe Applicable Benefit Year affirmation in the Pennsylvanie EUC Case (D2), and the specific text of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 (B1) and the Federal Law (B2). E and F point back to the same specific errors found in the Department of Labor Program Letters already listed in C. The Program Letter Q&As contradict the same Facts of Law (B1 and B2) and two Standing Cases (D1 and D2). The illegal EUC determinations were reversed in Case A0-265448 EUC (D1) and the claimant had almost $3000 in funds restored, also allowing them to correctly pass the Public Law 111-205 Eligibility Requirements that the claim ended after July 24,2010 and avoid a subsequent lesser state Ui claim. These correct results reverse the harm these errors found in the Department of Labor Q&As have caused.

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

STEP 3:
It would be best to email all the above STEP 2 info and or send it by certified mail, but however you made first contact, how did your State Ui Agency Respond?

Did they go verify this evidence and decide to pay you your benefits instead of forcing an Appeal?
If YES
YOU ARE SO LUCKY! CONGRATS! NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS WASTED ON AN UNNECESSARY APPEAL!

If NO, they disagree with you despite all this evidence, so you may Appeal:
1. Make sure they send you the correct appeal information, mailed to you with all the right data about your case, determination you are challenging.
2. Go to Step 4 and put your appeal together.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STEP 4
PUTTING TOGETHER YOUR APPEAL

1. Gather all the evidence and documentation from STEP 2 and Add the following:

A. Your personal and Ui information, and a brief one page description of your benefit years, one at a time with start and end dates. Whether you worked or not with as much detail as you need. And when you were paid EUC, how much and when it stopped. These are just the FACTS in your case to give the Judge an idea of what is going on. See my Appeals first few pages for an idea or just cut and paste away:
(The Appeal+)
http://www.unemployed-friends2.org/t656p45-part-time-penalty-bye-update#38972

B. Start a new page with your "claim/appeal" against the specific determination you disagree with, copy STEP 2 here in as much full detail as you can, attaching the evidence from the other cases with copies of all the state ui/federal law/regulation and department of labor info/evidence (1-8 points and Evidence A-H).

C. You don't need to say much else, like my first appeal. STEP 2 1-8 and the evidence A-H should speak for you. After you state your "appeal" you can simply do a final page to sum up what should have happened to your EUC Account and what you expect them to do:

1. Stop paying me from the Older EUC Account which is supposed to be Terminated with NO further entitlement to ANY remaining balance (20 C.F.R. § 615.5 (2)).

2. Re-calculate my EUC payments and pay me the difference between the lesser weekly benefit funds based on the Terminated and Expired Older EUC Account, and the higher weekly benefit funds from New EUC Account based on the current and correct Applicable Benefit Year (§ 615.2 (c)(2)).

3. Pay me the correct newer EUC Account funds based on this Applicable Benefit Year and continue to make any EUC08 Determinations based on this benefit year only (like Public Law 111-205 EUC Fix for the Part Time Penalty).

4. Do not open up nor pay me from any other EUC Accounts from the past.

THEN

2. Fill out your State UI Appeal Form and attach this documentation and evidence. Give just a brief description on the form of your case and refer to this documentation that you will attach.

3. Also make sure to attach a separate page with the Program Letter 23-08 information regarding appeals:

Program Letter 23-08 Implementing and Operation Instructions
Processing claims for EUC08
" Page A-10 and A-11
5. Appeal and Hearing.
a. Applicable State Law. The applicable state law provisi ons concerning the right of appeal and fair hearing from a determination or redetermination of entitlement to regular compensation shall apply to determinations and redeterminations of eligibility for or entitlement to EUC08.
b. Rights of Appeal and Fair Hearing . The right of appeal and o pportunity for a fair hearing to claims for EUC08 must be consistent with these inst ructions and with sections 303(a)(1) and 303(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (SSA) (42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1) and
503(a)(3)).
c. Promptness of Appeals Decisions.
(1) Decisions on appeals under the EUC08 Pr ogram must accord with the "Standard for Appeals Promptness—Unemployment Compensation" in 20 CFR Part 650.
(2) Any applicable state law provision allowing the advancement or priority of unemployment compensation cases on judicial calendars, or otherwise intended to provide for the prompt payment of unemployment compensation when due, must apply to proceedings involving entitlement to EUC08.

4. Mail this out by certified mail back to the address you have been provided with the Notice of Determination from the State Ui agency.

5. When the State Ui agency responds, make sure everything seems correct. If not contact the State UI Agency Appeal Specialist (EDD) and/or your State UI Appeal Board (CUIAB). They should send you the information from your State UI Appeal Board, with an Appeal Date, Location and Time of Hearing and Appeal Issue(s). Confirm everything and contact them before the hearing date if you have any problems or questions. When making contact try to email and write as much/or in addition to any phone calls, KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING: the time, who you spoke to, what you said and what they said. If you get an Appeal Issue that quotes or seems to quote the Department of Labor Guidelines, try to point out, in writing to both the State UI Agency and the State UI Appeal Board that you question these Q&As and require a specific basis a factual law supported by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. (May or may not work). If not be prepared to tackle the Appeal Issue at the hearing as not backed up by the Code of Federal Regulations with your evidence. If the Appeal Issue is "wrong" you have a right to ask the State Appeal Agency to request a correction from the State UI Agency. I did this between my first Level and Second Level Appeal to correct my appeal issue from an older law to the current one (PL 110-252 v 111-205). Make sure to note anything like this in the documents you send to the Board Appeal.

6. Wait for the appeal. Your State may pay you the EUC benefits due to your "Rights to your Benefits Pending Appeal". In the past, in California, I have been paid the disputed benefits in non EUC related cases (overpayment x2), which are in effect a "loan" of your money that you may have to pay back if you lose. They do not (EDD/CUIAB) seem to be paying ANYONE this with EUC Cases nor does ANY other State. It is worth asking both EDD and the CUIAB (YOUR STATE AGENCIES HERE). In the mean time contact these folks and send your appeal information/complaint to them as well (send whole appeal or go over/attach all from STEP 2):

(send to YOUR REPS AND THESE since they have already heard about this problem from me many times...hearing it from you will help)

A. Your State government State and Fed reps/Governor:
California Governor Jerry Brown
http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
California Lt Governor Gavin Newsom
http://www.ltg.ca.gov/m_contact.asp

Senator Ellen Corbett
jack.bastida@sen.ca.gov

Rep Barbara Lee
ricci.graham@mail.house.gov
colin.foard@mail.house.gov
mariah.jones@mail.house.gov

Nancy Pelosi
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

B. Heads of your State UI Agency:
California EDD Director Pam Harris
pharris@edd.ca.gov
California EDD Fraud Division
ciu@edd.ca.gov

C. Your State Fraud/Audit Bureau:
California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/contactus
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/hotline/filecomp

D. The Department of Labor (Federal)
1. Service Request CALL 1-866-487-2365
http://www.dol.gov/dol/contact/
Give them info from STEP 2 or WRITE by certified mail:
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment & Training Administration
Unemployment Insurance Division
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210
2. Also email the same to the following:
eder.marcus@oig.dol.gov
hotline@oig.dol.gov
clark.lakimbrelle@dol.gov
gilbert.gay@dol.gov
etapagemaster@dol.gov
talktosolis@dol.gov
Young.Clarisse@dol.gov


E. Contact your State Department of Labor Head:
California DOL
Mark.Woo-Sam@labor.ca.gov

F. The National Unemployment Law Project:
neng@nelp.org

G. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
refer to my case 212084:
CongRel@gao.gov
fraudnet@gao.gov

F. The Department of Justice
ffetf@usdoj.gov
Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov
inspector.general@usdoj.gov

G. Tell your story to your local and national press: radio, TV, internet/blogs etc...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 5
THE FIRST LEVEL APPEAL

1. You go in person (a lawyer is not required but you could maybe find one if you want to waste the money), so be prepared, look neat, and drop any attitude or resentment towards the system. Have all your paperwork ready and organized.

2. Most State UI Appeals, have you report to an office and check in. Be 30 minutes early if you can. You are usually given a chance to review the State UI Appeal board paperwork that the Judge (and ALJ or Administrative Law Judge), read it all and question/mark anything that seems wrong or missing before the hearing.

3. For the hearing be calm and patient. It is a roll of the dice as to whether your state will give you a friendly/helpful and competent judge or the kind I got for my first appeal (not any of those).

4. Make sure to state you issue and give your evidence. Go through the evidence with the Judge with brief explanations, and note everything the judge takes and says.

5. In California, the ALJ is going to process you as quick as they can, so don't make it longer than it needs to be. Pay attention and give respect to the judge no matter what. Avoid interruptions and answer questions as short and direct as possible. If the ALJ does not understand they will ask.

6. They won't likely argue much with you except what can and cannot be accepted as evidence you submit or say to them. In California it is basically a submission and confirmation process. It ends with the judge taking your evidence and then they make their Decision later based on what was accepted vs the Notice of Determination/ the Appeal Issue and the FACTS about your claim from the UI agency (other states may vary in process).

7. Wait for them to mail the Decision. A copy of the Program Letter 23-08 Appeal & Hearing section won't hurt as evidence before the end of the appeal either.

8. The will respond in writing (like the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board). Hopefully you should have won your Appeal with this evidence. But in California there seems to be a plague of first round judges who do not interpret a single thing. Its all black and white by the State Ui guidelines and/or the Department of Labor Q&A errors. If they gave you an Appeal Issue that is from the DOL Q&As, they may deny you. DO NOT GIVE UP. I lost my first round but later prevailed on mostly the same evidence (April>July First Round, July>October for Board Appeal which I won October 20,2011).

A. If you win your appeal, the State UI Appeal Board will notify the State UI Agency of the Decision. The State UI Agency must obey the Appeal Decision whether they agree or not. Depending on your state they may make the second round appeal if state law allows.

B. If you lose based on faulty Appeal Issue(s) or their response using the Department of Labor Q&As as reasons to deny you, then send in your request to Appeal this first level Denial:
EDD Second Level Appeal
http://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/Second_Level_Appeal.htm

1. You will just be forwarding the same appeal to the State UI Board Level Appeal. Fill out the paperwork, and attach a new note page if there was anything specific from the first hearing you want to make sure is clarified (go over the Judges Decision against you in full and point out errors with the evidence you have). it does not hurt to also reaffirm the Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A Appeal & Hearing Sections.

2. In Californian, you just sit back and wait. You are not required to go to the "hearing" which is run by their Judges who go over your evidence, the first level appeal hearing information, and anything new you have sent in. In my case I updated the CUIAB Board Level Judges with the full text of the Code of Federal Regulations, highlighting the secitions that the DOL Q&As contradict: 615.2 (c)(2) Applicable Benefit Year, 615.2(h)(2) Eligibility Period and 615.5(2) Definition of an Exhaustee and what is supposed to happen to ALL EUC Accounts when the claimant returns to a regular compensation state Ui claim.

3. Same as First Level Appeal, the State UI Appeal Agency will mail you the Decision. Then they contact the State UI Agency and you get your funds returned and your EUC Account reset correctly to present day.

4. If you are denied or have been denied before. Contact me. Contact the State UI Appeal Board Agency and present this new evidence if you have been screwed through the process earlier. In many cases you can still appeal/sue in State/Federal Court. It would require a lawyer most likely. But I will help as much as I can.

5. Don't despair because I am pressing several investigations to try and force the government to fix the problem without the need for thousands of appeal cases. I may seem like I am getting nowhere, but for a government fight, I think I am doing everything I can without lawyers to pressure the Department of Labor from multiple sides to act or respond one way or the other.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will update and edit as needed...
Good Luck!

.....

....

RECOVERY FRAUD COMPLAINT RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-O

In the further interest of PUBLIC DISCLOSURE (unlike our government), here's the full complaint to the RATB (not including evidence submitted to support this..everything you have seen here so far online has been submitted to them and much more):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.recovery.gov/Contact/ReportFraud/Pages/Report_Fraud.aspx
Recovery.gov Complaint Form

Allegation
Please provide as much information as possible. Detailed, complete and accurate information will improve the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’s ability to respond to your allegation. If you do not know the answer to a question, you can leave the space blank.

What
Provide details of the alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement. Examples of facts and circumstances to include are (1) a description of the misconduct; (2) how you know about the allegation; (3) how and when the misconduct was discovered; (4) the amount of money involved; (5) how long the alleged misconduct occurred; (6) attempts by the alleged violator(s) to hide the misconduct; and (7) any other information you believe may be relevant.
--------------------------------------------------------

(1) Description of the misconduct: 
The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and their Unemployment Insurance Division have issued Implementing and Operating Instructions and Guidelines for the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program that distributes Recovery Act Funds via the 53 State Employment/Unemployment Agencies. In the Q&A section of several "changes" in Program Letter 23-08 and 4-10 they refer to "multiple EUC claims, order of payment, paying/augmenting older claims" and give no basis of factual law to back them up. These errors have caused the 53 State agencies think it is "legal" to pay an unemployed claimant,
" who has previously received EUC08 payments from an initial EUC Account based on an initial regular compensation state ui claim that exhausted funds, and then who subsequently returns to a new state regular Ui claim, that also then exhausts its funds, "
ANY "remaining" Federal EUC funds from a previous, expired and terminated EUC Account based on the initial benefit year and not the current one. This specifically violates three sections of the Code of Federal Regulations:

1. the definition of the Applicable Benefit Year (20 CFR 615.2(c)(2)) by making an eligibility determination based on the incorrect initial benefit year from a terminated/expired benefit year and not the current most recent year that the claimant just exhausted funds in.

2. the definition of the Eligibility Period (20 CFR 615.2(h)(2)), by then paying the claimant from this EUC Account in an earlier terminated and expired Eligibility Period (the initial claim) instead of paying EUC based on the Applicable Benefit Year (20 CFR 615.2(c)(2)), during the current and correct Eligibility Period in the MOST RECENT Benefit Year.

3. the definition of an Exhaustee found at 20 CFR 615.5 specifically says what is supposed to happen to the EUC Account when the claimant returns to regular compensation again in a new state ui claim, in part 615.5 (2) it says:
"(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."

The 53 State agencies are paying from older EUC Accounts that should be terminated with no further entitlement to ANY REMAINING BALANCE which is also paying from an older Eligibility Period instead of the current one while ignoring the correct Applicable Benefit Year.

These three specific violations then cause Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) to have an incorrect EUC08 determination, because the DOL and the 53 State agencies are not referring to the correct "Applicable Benefit Year" in this section of the Federal Law. Most claimants who are paid from an earlier Benefit Year and EUC Account by the 53 state agencies will not be able to avoid the "Part Time Penalty" the Bill HR4213/Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) were expressly meant to eliminate (July 24,2010+).

Claimants are being paid from the wrong and terminated EUC accounts which usually harms them by paying a lesser weekly benefit amount than what they would be otherwise eligible for higher weekly funds based on the most recent benefit year and base period earnings,and further harms them by making them fail the Public Law 111-205 eligibility requirements that avoid the Part Time Penalty EUC claimants face when new state regular compensation claims come up with an even lesser benefit amount due to short term part time work while collecting EUC08. Section 3(g) of this law requires the correct "Benefit Year" to be used and if not then an incorrect and illegal EUC08 determination will be made against the claimant. Other claimants have been paid more EUC08 funds than they are allowed across multiple benefit years, while deferring subsequent EUC08 claims when their is no procedure or mention of this in the law nor regulations.

These specific violations of law and regulations further cause the claimants to have their rights in their respective State Unemployment Appeal violated because most administrative law judges (ALJs), refer to the same errors in the Department of Labor guidelines that caused the claimant for EUC08 to seek a Fair and Timely Appeal to have their rights restored. Most claimants are not aware of the Code of Federal Regulations and the fact that three sections contradict specifically with what the DOL says in those few Q&As across two of the key EUC08 "guidelines" issued to the 53 state agencies (23-08 & 4-10).
-----------------------------------

(2) How I know about the allegations:
I am an unemployed claimant for EUC08 in California. I became aware of this legal information while I was researching my own forced payment from an older and expired previous EUC Account, that also subsequently caused me to fail the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirements that would have allowed me to continue receiving EUC08 payments while deferring the incoming new lesser regular compensation state ui claim. 
--------------------------------------------

(3) How and When the Misconduct was discovered: 
Starting January 2, 2011, EDD began paying me EUC08 funds, $450/week, from my PRIOR and TERMINATED EUC08 Account based on the previous Benefit Year from where it last left off. I began receiving State Ui funds on this new claim (current) in March of 2010. It ran out of State Funds on Jan 1, 2011. EDD paid me from the REMAINING Tier I Balance from the prior state claim that began in March 2009 instead of Applicable Benefit Year which was for the current claim that started in 2010. This would have paid me a fresh 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011, but instead EDD opened the previous EUC Account again (despite 20 CFR 615.5(2)) and started paying me again where the previous Tier I left off in the previous Benefit Year that has already expired.

I first contacted EDD about paying me from an older Tier I balance from the older claim instead of paying me a new 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011. I pointed out the law and regulations and they ignored me. A short time later on March 26,2011, this second subsequent State Ui Benefit Year ended because the eligibility period is only 52 weeks for state claims. EDD automatically makes a determination to check this base period for any wages from full or part time work during this previous period. In my case I had managed to work part time through my union and then collect state UI funds and then later Federal EUC08 funds when I was out of work. This made me eligible for a New lesser state ui claim for $325/week starting March 27, 2011 (as opposed to my $450/week EUC08).

Since EDD was paying me EUC08 based on the initial benefit year starting 2009 instead of the year starting this March 2010 that just ended March 2011 ($450/week too...most people are not so lucky), they also made a second EUC08 related Determination, that was also incorrect and violates the law. EDD used the Benefit Year End Date (3/27/10) from the 2009 starting State Ui claim that they paid EUC08 on again staring Jan 2 2011, instead of using the current benefit years BYE of 03/27/11, when deciding if I passed the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirement that the "benefit year" (BYE or Benefit Year End Date) be after July 24,2010, so that the new lesser state claim for $325/week, which is $100 less or 25% than the EUC08 $450/week, would be deferred until I exhausted the remaining EUC08 funds (which is supposed to be from a new 20 week tier I starting Jan 2,2011+ and not leftover Tier I funds from 2009-2010 before this current claim that just ended).

While I attempted to appeal this violation of the law and my rights as well as that of thousands of others who have the same circumstances as I do (part time work + EUC08 across a first and then second benefit year), from April 2011 forward, EDD denied my rights to benefits pending appeal while I was on the lesser $325 state Ui claim and then further delayed my appeal hearing until June/July 2011 and gave me incorrect paperwork in the form of an Appeal Issue for the outdated 2008 Public Law 110-252 before the first CUIAB Judge, Chantal M Sampogna, in Case 3761037 on July 22,2011 denied my appeal and rights to the higher EUC08 benefits, based SOLELY on the incorrect Appeal Issue (she ignored copies of the Current PL 111-205 I gave her).

I then appealed to the CUIAB Appeal Board starting August 2011. I also made numerous request to the Department of Labor for clarification up to October 2011. The DOL ETA policy experts then came back to me with a statement in writing that contradicts my evidence from the Code of Federal Regulations used in my appeal that would go in my favor just weeks later. I was again delayed until October 20,2011 by the CUIAB and EDD, after having served out the entire 26 week state regular Ui claim at the lesser $325, when I was mailed the decision that reversed the previous appeal decision against me and reversed both EDD EUC08 Determinations, in CUIAB case A0-265448 (which also contradicts directly the statements of euc08 policy from EDD and the DOL I have been given up to this time):

1. I now retroactively am paid ONLY from the Second EUC Account based on the 2010-2011 benefit year, which began paying me 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011 (this reverses EDD paying me remaining Tier I funds from the 2009-2010 Benefit Year). This Decision follows the CFR Title 20, Chapter V, Part 615 sections I have mentioned above.

2. Because I am now paid EUC08 with respect to the correct Applicable Benefit Year 2010-2011, during the correct Eligibility Period 2010-2011 and the rules for an Exhaustee have been followed with respect to the Termination of the older EUC Account from 2009-2010, I now also retroactively pass the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirement that my Benefit Year be after July 24,2010 in order to defer the lesser state Ui Claim and allow me to collect the continuous EUC08 funds at the higher $450 weekly benefit Amount instead of the lesser $325 State ui claim (deferred until I can no longer collect EUC08).

3. The result of this Decision has forced EDD to pay me back almost $3000 in back EUC08 funds, now that this benefit year that I have served out the entire 26 week lesser claim on, has been "reset" to correctly follow the Code of Federal Regulations and NOT the errors from the Q&As found in the Department of Labor Guidelines that EDD and 52 other State agencies have followed.
--------------------------------

(4) The Amount of Money involved: 
In my case I was denied EUC08 funds, which were also being paid to me from a terminated and expired Benefit Year and EUC Account and paid a lesser State Ui claim when I should not have been if the government would not have violated the federal law and regulations. The difference owed me over the 26+ weeks it took to process my appeal (a further violation of my rights to a Fair and Timely Appeal according to DOL UiPL 23-08 Attachment A Section 5 Appeals and Hearings), was the amount owed from the $450 weekly benefit amount vs the $325 WBA I was incorrectly paid by EDD. This was approximately $2786 dollars that EDD was forced to pay me back.

Despite my appeal victory and subsequent attempts to point out to ALL applicable state and government representatives, agents etc, the DOL and EDD and the other 52 state agencies still implement EUC08 the EXACT same way they did with my case: paying older EUC accounts until full exhaustion no matter how many benefit years it takes, and asserting further that the Applicable Benefit Year is this initial year UNTIL the funds exhaust.

This would affect ANY unemployed claimant in the 53 states who first lost work during an initial benefit year, that subsequently exhausted its funds and then paid EUC08.
This claimant would then receive EUC08 funds until the end of the 52 week benefit year that the EUC08 Account was based on.
Then the claimant starts a new subsequent state regular compensation claim, ending payments on their EUC Account due to the eligibility for a new state claim.
It is when this claimant runs out of funds on their second and subsequent regular compensation benefit year, before the end of the 52 week benefit year, that they again become and Exhaustee for EUC08 purpose and are eligible.

THIS IS WHEN THE ILLEGAL DETERMINATION BY 53 STATE AGENCIES BASED ON THE FAULTY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Q&As IN PROGRAM LETTER 23-08 AND 4-10 BEGIN,

and the claimant is paid from any remaining balance of EUC08 funds from ANY prior benefit year, ignoring any eligibility to the current and most recent Applicable Benefit Year, which is somehow deferred until the next time the state agency goes searching for EUC08 benefit balances.

If 3 to 3.5 million people claimed EUC08 funds in California alone (2010-2011 according to the Department of Labor), and a HIGH percentage of them have taken at least some part time work one or both benefit years leading up to the determination point I have described above, then they to will have their rights violated and the code of federal regulations will be violated which leads subsequently, in most case as well, to have them further fail the Public Law 111-205 eligibility fail.

Since this has gone on since 2008 before Public Law 111-205 (the paying from older EUC accounts), and then afterwards (paying older from older EUC accounts which then causes PL 111-205 to fail), then you can use the maximum weekly benefit rate allowed by law in California as a base for just the denied funds estimate:

Take my Case of 26 weeks paid $325 but owed $450 after the Judges Decision in my favor. EDD owed me the difference between $450-$325=$125 x 26 weeks that it was denied (less a few weeks I worked part time)=almost $3000. That is a mild case because the Public Law 111-205 cutoff is for state claims that are 25% or $100 less than the Federal EUC08. MANY people I have had contact with and heard of are being forced onto $100 or less state ui claims because they took a very short term part time or temp job and then went back on state ui or EUC08. This is the Part Time Penalty that this law was supposed to avoid and correct. Most claimants are also suffering the initial "penalty" of being forced on to an older and lesser EUC08 Account, instead of a higher paying one based on the Most Recent Benefit Year (20 CFR 615.2(c)(2)). So worst case a claimant like this who might be eligible for the maximum state/federal euc amount of around $450 week has been instead paid $100 week for 26 weeks due to these State and Federal violations of law and the Recovery Act (EUC08 is part of this). That would be $450-$100=$350 x 26 weeks denied = $9100 !!! If you even take an estimate that say 10% of the 3 million people were victims in JUST California alone and they had the a WORST Case example of being owed $450 but being paid $100 then thats 3,000,000 x 10% = 300,000 claimants owed up to $9100 each if they suffered 26 weeks or longer, which is likely since it is now March 2012! 300,000 x $9100 = $ 2 730 000 000 !

Of course there will be levels of denial and levels of overpayment in each of the 53 states within the minimum and maximum ranges of state/EUC08 funds payable. But also consider the Tax Dollars WASTED on all of the thousands of APPEAL CASES these errors have generated for YEARS since 2008. Since March 2011 I have been in touch with dozens of these victims just on a couple of Unemployment Forums on the Internet who have been talking about their denied appeals based on DOL these same DOL guidelines. 

The amount of money involved is easily in the millions even if you take the least case scenario. It is a FACT that most unemployed claimants have taken part time or temp work or full time work, who then lost this work and go back to state ui or EUC08 funds (or Extended Duration State extended Benefits that are also subject to these violations to to the wrong applicable benefit year being used).

(4) Amount of Money involved: 
to REPEAT. MILLIONS of Dollars affecting thousands and thousands of claimants for EUC08 in 53 states along with the untold tax payer dollars spent on the subsequent thousands of state ui appeal cases that have occured due to these errors and violations of the laws by the state and federal government that waste and deny Recovery Act Funds.
--------------------------------------------

(5) How long the alleged misconduct occurred  :
see (4) above also.
Payment from Older EUC Accounts seems to have started in 2008 with the release of Program Letter 23--08 and the first Q&As that talked about "Multiple EUC08 Claims" with giving any basis of law to back them up.

This got worse July 24,2010 + when the Applicable Benefit Year became vital to making a correct EUC08 determination for Public Law 111-205 section 3(g)+.

Despite my appeal victory October 20, 2011 and restoration of funds in November 2011, and repeated attempts to show this evidence to the State and Federal Government March 2011 to present, these violations of the Recovery Act have continued to present day, March 10, 2012. Here is a specific CUIAB case, among thousands in all 53 states, that is current, CUIAB case #3999900 (EUC) heard 01/19/12 in Van Nuys and denied based solely on the faulty DOL Q&As the SAME WAY I WAS the year before (the claimant is going to CUIAB board appeal using my evidence, pending...):

CUIAB APPEAL Response/Decision case 3999900 (EUC):
""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.)

In this case, the claimant exhausted a state claim for unemployment insurance benefits and established an extension of EUC. Before exhausting all of the EUC extensions on that claim, a new, second state claim for unemployment insurance benefits was established. Upon exhaustion of the second unemployment insurance claim, the claimant filed for a new EUC extension based on the second unemployment insurance claim. However, the priority of claims is established by the statute and operating instructions, which mandate payment of all EUC benefits on one claim before any EUC benefits can be paid on a subsequent claim, regardless of the respective benefit amounts of the two claims. It therefore is concluded the department properly denied EUC on the claim filed on the new unemployment insurance claim.

If the claimant exhausts all EUC benefits payable on the first claim, extended benefits may at that point become payable on the second claim. If that should occur, the claimant should contact the department.""

This Decision SPECIFICALLY VIOLATES the Code of Federal, as did my first case, and it is not even quoting the actual Q&A response let alone ANY Definition, Statue or SPECIFIC Regulation. The CFR says 615.5 (2) that the EUC Account from the first benefit year should have been terminated with no further entitlement to ANY remaining balance, yet here again EDD pays out on the OLDER EUC Account despite this which in this case penalizes the claimant with a MUCH lower weekly benefit amount that his eligibility for the current Applicable Benefit Year gives them.

This is happening to thousands of other claimants in all 53 states since 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------

(6)  Attempts by the alleged violator(s) to hide the misconduct:
I have presented this evidence to EDD by email and phone dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times since March 2010. I have contacted all my state and federal reps, senators, lt gov, governor, attorney general, us attorneys and dept of labor almost every month if not every week since April 2010. I reported to the SF FBI dozens of times. I reported to the Dept of Justice dozens of times. Since April 2010 I have contacted the Department of Labor as well. I sent in service requests and eventually talked several policy experts in October 2011 just before the October 20 appeal victory. They gave me a statement of policy in writing that was an incorrect definition for the Applicable Benefit Year, in an attempt to back up California EDD and defeat my appeal case. I won my appeal and the decision contradicts what they said. I followed up with the DOL, sent them the appeal decision and further evidence that they have ignored, all attempts, weekly since October 2011. They will not respond. I contacted the DOL Office of Inspector General and their agent Eder Marcus told me last week that they will not investigate nor respond further nor even refute my evidence in any way at all. I further followed up with the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and they also refused this last Friday March 9, 2011 to investigate and instead directed me to contact the Department of Labor again. 

How can the people who have violated laws and regulations, wasted and denied Recovery Act funds, who have attempted to deny my earlier claims and then ignore the evidence from my appeal decision that proves I am right, commit this fraud and then objectively investigate themselves again? Do the criminals get to run their own investigation without the DOJ nor ANY Office of Inspector General?

I feel the government is either in complete denial and ignorance or they have violated the law/regulations and intend to cover this fact up. Ether way my credible evidence has been ignored and dismissed outright because the assumption is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the US Government to have made any mistake let alone be involved in deliberate fraud, theft and denial of EUC08 funds that has caused such historic harm, waste and denial. I think that this federal law and these three specific regulations have been violated thousands of times since 2008 because of this.
-----------------------------------------------------

(7)  any other information you believe may be relevant:
Code of Federal regulations, 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
(Sections 615.2, 615.4, and 615.5 are the most relevant).

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

Department of Labor Employment & Training Authority Program Letter 23-8 and 4-10 Q&As:
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
<Page 5+6 D. Monetary Eligibility Q&A 7. May an individual have more than one EUC claim>

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C3a1.pdf
<Page 3+4 D. Multiple EUC08 Claims and Order of Payment Q&A 1-5 Augmenting Tiers up to 20 weeks>

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/uipl/uipl23-08c5a1.pdf
<Page 6 F. Multiple Claims and Order of Payment Q&A 1 If Multiple Claims Which is paid first>

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/uipl/uipl23-08c6a1.pdf
<Page 5 F. Multiple EUC08 Claims Q&A Q 1+2 Augmenting Older Accounts First>

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL04-10_Ch4a1.pdf
<Page 3+4 D. Multiple EUC08 Claims/Accounts Q&A Q 1+2 Multiple EUC Accounts PL 11-205, BY1 vs By2 Entitlement>

Here is the Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08
Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf

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

and here is Public Law 110-252 and the Subsequent amended version post July 24,2010 Public Law 111-205:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ252/pdf/PLAW-110publ252.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ205/pdf/PLAW-111publ205.pdf

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

WHEN:
When did the misconduct occur? If the misconduct occurred over time or is currently ongoing, enter the actual or approximate start date.

Starting in 2008 53 State Agencies used the Q&A section from Program Letter 23-08, regarding "Multiple EUC08 Claims", "Augmenting Older Claims" to mean that they had the right to seek out and pay from any older, terminated, expired and exhausted Benefit Years/EUC Accounts.

This continued up to the passing of Public Law 111-205, where the "policy" of paying from older EUC Accounts also caused the incorrect Applicable Benefit Year to be used in Public Law 111-205 Section 3(g) "a Benefit Year". 

Both errors have compounded and continued through several Program Letter 23-08 Q&A sections about "multiple euc claims", and also through th later 2009+ Program Letter 4-10 that leads to present day March 10, 2012.

In my case, EDD paid me from an older EUC claim instead of the current one based on the Applicable Benefit Year starting Jan 2, 2011. This later caused me to fail the Public Law 111-205 Eligibility Requirements that my EUC/Benefit Year be after July 24,2010. The Older EUC account was not, but the current one was.

In July 2011 my first EUC appeal was denied based on incorrect paperwork from EDD in the form of the Appeal Issue, which was for the older unamended version of Public Law 110-252 before the July 24, 2010 Public Law 111-205 passed. I then won my appeal after sending it to the CUIAB Board Level appeal hearing. The Judges reversed the previous decision against me, and on October 20 ,2011 ruled in my favor forcing EDD to reverse both the EUC determination to pay me from the older EUC Account and that I now pass the Public Law 111-205 Eligibility retirement now that I am being paid a full Tier I 20 weeks starting Jan 2, 2011 based on the correct Applicable Benefit Year ending March 2011 (which is after July 24,2010).
I have reported to all the agencies I have named since April 2011 the same evidence, over and over in numerous forms to present day March 10, 2012. NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN except for denial and dismissal with NO factual basis of law and with no objection examination of my credible and factual evidence.
------------------------------------------------

WHERE
Where did the misconduct occur?

Nationwide, in 53 states, by the State Employment/Unemployment Agencies who based their state law and extended benefits (EUC08) programs on the errors found in the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration/UI Division EUC08 Guidelines (Q&As).

Every EUC08 claimaint who was paid from an older EUC account and/or had the benefit year from that account used for any subsequent EUC08 determination has had their rights violated, the federal law and regulations broken, that denies them funds, forces them to be paid from a lesser claim when they are eligible for a higher one, or pays them more funds than they should have gotten.
---------------

Who
Identify the primary person or entity who engaged in the alleged misconduct. If more than one person is involved, enter the additional identifying information in the open box below.

The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration/ Unemployment Insurance Division issued the Emergency Employment Program Letters/Guidelines for the implementation of these Recovery Act Funds, and in UiPL 23-08 and 4-10 the Q&A sections they refer to "Multiple EUC Claims" and "Augmenting/Paying Older Claims". These references which are not reflected in the actual Operating and Implementing Instructions, Definitions, have caused the 53 State Agencies and the Policy experts from the Department of Labor to implement a policy that violates the Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Law.

The 53 State Employment Agencies, including the California Employment Development Department (in my case) have taken these Q&As to be actual law, statue and or regulations. They quote them when denying EUC08 claimants and paying them from older benefit years. They use the same Q&A references in Appeal Documentation. The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ALJs also refer to these Q&A errors when making appeal decisions. The other 52 state agencies act in a similar fashion based on the same errors from the same source.
---------------------------

Recovery Act Information
How do you know the complaint involves Recovery Act funds?
Emergency Unemployment Compensation is part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through various amendments under Public Law 110-252 and 111-205 these extended benefits have continued to be available now through most of 2012.

Federal Agency that awarded, distributed or administered the funds in question:
The Department of Labor.

Description of Grant, Contract, Loan or Program:
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08 or extended benefits).
(ARRA Division B Title II Section 2001)

Please list any other Government entities you have notified about this incident (Federal, State and Local):
Pam Harris Director of EDD.
EDD Fraud Division.
EDD Policy Division.
CUIAB Chief ALJ Alberto Roland, Legal Counsel, Complaints.
Governor Jerry Brown and Lt Gov Gavin Newsom of California.
Mark Woo Sam Department of Labor California/Department of Industrial Relations/Workforce Development Agency.
Kamal Harris Attorney General California.
California State Audit Bureau.
Senators Barbara Lee, Diane Feinstein, Boxer, Leibermann, Ellen Corbett, Bernie Sanders and Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Pete Stark.
The San Francisco FBI has been sent evidence, as has the offices in LA, DC, Chicago, and New York.
I spoke with US Attorneys in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.
I reported to and spoke with reps from the Department of Labor; Gay Gilbert, Quinn Watt, Bob, Dale Zigla and Eder Marcus among others at the Employment & Training Administration and the Ui Division and their Office of Inspector General for the entire DOL. I have reported to all recovery fraud hot-lines both state and federal as well as sent my evidence to the Department of Justice Criminal and Fraud Divisions as well as to their Office of Inspector General.

NOBODY HAS ACTED (except to delay and ignore), since April 2011 and I can provide a much more detailed time-line of who I spoke to and when if needed. I kept track of EVERYTHING since last year.
----------------------------------

You have all my information and other evidence.
I can provide any explanation and have much more detailed information I have collected over the past year.

I am trying to act as whistle-blower on this fraud, waste, denial and harm.
Nobody in the Government thinks it is possible they have made any mistake.
If this is the case then please provide me with the factual points of law to back up your claims.
This is all I ask.
If I am right thousands of people have been harmed, and millions of dollars have been wasted.
Is this not worth investigating given how much evidence I have presented?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOVERY FRAUD COMPLAINT RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-O

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

. . . . . . . . .

.... ... . ..