Skip to main content

Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0

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.

Here it comes...

(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 correct 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 requirements.

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. 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).

(5) How long the alleged misconduct occurred:

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/...(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/...

http://wdr.doleta.gov/...

http://wdr.doleta.gov/...

http://wdr.doleta.gov/...

http://wdr.doleta.gov/...

Here is the Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08
Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A
http://wdr.doleta.gov/...
and here is Public Law 110-252 and the Subsequent amended version post July 24,2010 Public Law 111-205:
http://www.gpo.gov/...
http://www.gpo.gov/...
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 requirement 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).

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 since April 2011 and I can provide a much more detailed timeline 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.

xxxxxx

PO Box xxx
xxxx
California
xxxx
jerkyspacexxxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx

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?

The rest of the Story on DK...
Read me First:
Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program

Part One:
If Regulations are Broken in the Forest, and "Nobody" Sees and Hears them get broken...

Part Two:
ARRA Fraud in the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Program

Part Three:

Mr. President, I hear FOIA calling...

Part Four:
a Recovery Fraud Complaint Ignored

Part Five:
An ARRA Implementation Error Exposed

CUIAB Case No. A0-265448:

    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.

Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM PT: Petitioning The President of the United States:
The Obama Administration is robbing the Unemployed out of ARRA Funds

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    askyron
    Hidden by:
    second gen
  •  Haven't read every word, but I don't see any (0+ / 0-)

    sign of fraud.  Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between misconduct and mistake.  If your complaint was valid and mistakes made corrected, do not expect notice to that effect.  
    Such notification is not part of the protocol.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 11:04:42 AM PDT

    •  it started as just a mistake.. (0+ / 0-)

      but read on and follow the links. I hope you will see and understand the significance of what I have uncovered through my investigation this last year, via FOIA here:

      If Regulations are Broken in the Forest, and "Nobody" Sees and Hears them get broken...
      (scroll to the end for copies of the FOIA letters)

      These two letters expose a disturbing conspiracy to cover up a precedent decision that exposed the DOL's EUC08 implementation mistakes. This occurred while the whistle blower was actively engaged with all the parties trying to get them to investigate.

      After October 2011, I requested my case be made a precedent decision, filed complaints, provided evidence, and requested oversight under the ARRA, Improper Payments and Inspector General Act. I filed a Recovery Fraud Complaint with the RATB. I was dealing with the CUIAB, EDD, Labor & Workforce California, the DOL ETA and the DOL OIG Jan+ of 2012.

      While they ALL either ignored me, delayed response and/or refused to investigate with invalid reasons...they were ACTUALLY working TOGETHER, sharing evidence amongst ALL the "accused parties". They worked together to coordinate a multi-agency state and federal response that came in letters and emails on 2/7, 2/14 and 2/17 (they day the DOL OIG also "declined" to investigate).

      That's no coincidence. There are some serious violations of rights, laws and regulations going on here. They are also trying to damage one individual (the whistle blower), for their personal gain (so they are not exposed and prosecuted). In the process they threatened the ARRA benefits for an entire state of claimants (damage to many individuals for their personal gain by squashing my precedent request).

      Sounds like fraud to me and much worse. Multiple attorneys have agreed. This does involve over $90 billion dollars in ARRA funds and the government appears to have been caught trying to cover up these improper payments that affect millions of struggling workers and families...right before the election.

      That's why the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board accepted this complaint and filed it under RATB-2011-DOLL-9DF2506-0. They haven't done anything else since because everyone up to the White House knows about this in some way or the other (I have the emails via FOIA to prove this and more coming).

      Now nobody knows what to do with this or me...do they?

  •  This is your 5th spam diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    Wish the autoban would kick in.

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 01:11:38 PM PDT

    •  I wish people would spend more (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      second gen

      than a twitter moment to examine what I have uncovered. No matter what the style or packaging looks like on the outside, this is not going to taste any better if it were in the sweetest sexiest package ever conceived.

      If this is spam or fake, then prove me wrong. Almost all of the evidence is either online and linked, or free and available to the public. I am open and available for any question or reasonable discussion about the subject.

      I've been doing this for over one year before I ran into the "flat earthers" that keep popping up here. Nobody from the federal government has been able to refute me, so prove yourself smarter than them and their lawyers.

      What a divisive and suspicious nation we have become...it's so sad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site