Obama Admin covering up Economic Stimuls Fraud

[corazonroto]

Now that other scandals have revealed the very real possibility that our government has been up to some serious violations of rights and laws, and that they will go to great lengths to cover up and deny involvement in, I would like to try again to draw attention to this much ignored story/saga that should become national news, but has not simply because most people thought it could not be true, despite the hard facts and strong evidence that back up my claims.

The Obama Administration is actively involved in trying to cover up/hide their involvement in a historic case of Economic Stimulus Fraud and Public Corruption involving wasted and denied funds from the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08) that have harmed our economy and millions of claimants since 2008. This program pays additional federal unemployment insurance benefits to qualified claimants, to supplement their state UI during tough economic times. According to the government, since 2008, more than $100 billion dollars has been paid out on more than 29 million claims.

I have evidence that proves a great many of those EUC08 claims in all states have been paid improperly and that even more claimants have been illegally denied these emergency funds from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). I have more damaging evidence that may incriminates President Obama himself, from documents I obtained from the Freedom of Information Act in 2012. I have copies of memorandum that show the White House, The President and Hilda Solis of the US DOL, being alerted of my investigative efforts, and the appeal victory I won on my own against these US DOL published guideline errors. I have documents that show them conspiring to subvert the Californian appeal victory I won against these implementation mistakes (CUIAB Case A0-265448 10/20/11).

They made threats and demands, through the US DOL, directed at the State of California (on 2/7/12), and forced them to squash the "precedent" request I made for the appeal I won that should have helped millions of other claimants who were illegally denied benefits (the same way I was). They "disagreed" with the results of a decision in a court of law, but did not further use the courts to prove their mistaken implementation arguments. Instead they just violated my rights and millions of others by beginning a cover up right before the last election. I have been investigating on my own over since, trying to alert the media and public, who just does not want to hear the horrible truth nor speak about the "unspeakable" unemployed.
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
Abuse Of Authority All Documents Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

I started out as a victim of this serious implementation disaster that the US Department of Labor is responsible for (2011). They made critical errors when they published the EUC08 program implementation guidelines for this state/federal partnership. In those "program letters" or "UIPLs", that are issued to all states nationwide, they instructed states to make EUC08 payments and determinations based on advise that contradicts federal law, regulations and even other section of the same guidelines! The details are complicated (explained more in the petition and thread links below), but essentially the government is forcing claimants who have "multiple EUC08 claims" from different benefit years since 2008, to be paid older claims first and always until they fully exhaust, no matter what the weekly benefit rate is (often MUCH lesser), and no matter whether or not the new state claim they had just exhausted would pay them a higher amount or not.

This actually violates the law. Our government made a series of serious and historic implementation blunders starting back in 2008. All states are still following those faulty and illegal instructions today. Even worse, once they found out the problems, they went out of their way to avoid repairing them because it would make their "recovery efforts" look like a total farce (they are at least as far as the EUC08 program goes). That is not the "news" your want to hear when you are trying to get reelected as President Obama was in 2011-2012, right when I started making noise about the problems that been illegally denying claimants and our economy vital recovery aid for more than five years.

For example:

A claimant was initially paid federal EUC08 for $100/week back in 2008, for just a few weeks based on a short term part time job they lost (they were paid a full state claim for unemployment first, and then federal EUC08 kicks in after they EXHAUST the state unemployment funds...EUC08 determinations and payments are supposed to be based on the state claim that just exhausted funds). Then after being paid just a few weeks of EUC08 benefits, they are lucky (unlike many), and get to go back to work at a better paying full time job long enough to qualify for a new state unemployment claim (2009-2010)(EUC08 payments stop from he 2008 claim). But, eventually this job ends through no fault of their own and they claim state unemployment again based on this new work/base period that pays them $400/week in state benefits (2010-2011).

They are unable to find a new job, and when the state unemployment paid at $400/week is fully exhausted, they are then qualified for federal EUC08 funds again, that by law are supposed to be based on this same state claim/base period for $400/week (2012). (now they have "Multiple EUC08 claims", an old one from 2008 and a new one in 2012 now) (state claims end after the funds run out or the 52 week benefit year is over...no carry over like EUC08). BUT, due to the mistakes published from UIPL 23-08 forward, by the US DOL, when a state agency comes across a "Multiple EUC08 Claim" situation like this, they follow the illegal and mistaken advise found in the federal governments program guidelines, and force the claimant back onto the "remaining balance" from the older 2008 EUC08 claim for $100/week and make them fully exhaust that old claim before they can be paid any funds from the current, legal and valid brand new 2012 $400/week EUC08 claim they SHOULD be starting instead (normal UI state claims don't work this way) (The EUC08 law and US DOL guidelines allow for payment of older EUC08 claims when all current entitlement is out of the way).

Even worse many of these claimants are being illegally told that they will also lose the new EUC08 claim illegally put on "hold" while they exhaust the older and lesser claim first (in this case the 2012 one for $400/week), if they don't "make a claim" for those "new" benefits" based on the most recent benefit year, within the state 52 week benefit period" it is based on and paid with respect to (exhaust the $100/week claim all tiers of EUC08 first). EUC08 benefits pay much longer than state claims that are usually only 26 weeks. Federal EUC08 benefits have 4 "Tiers" that pay from 8-20 weeks each and follow one after the other automatically. So these poor claimants get "stuck" on an older and lesser claim (2008 for $100/week), instead of starting a brand new $400/week one (2012), and then are told they took "too long" to exhaust that older and lesser claim so they cannot be paid the more beneficial most recent one at all!

The US DOL is instructing all states to pay EUC08 claims "out of order", while denying full EUC08 claims totally if they are not "claimed" in the same year they are based on. That denies both the claimant and the economy ARRA funds. It violates rights and the law. Older EUC08 claims with "remaining balances" and even claims that had not be opened yet, can be paid after all other most recent ones exhaust and no other eligibility remains. I also recently proved this twice in California, in 2012 and now in 2013, despite the "protests" from the state and feds who tried to deny my benefits again, but lost each time, because they still don't know the law in 2013, five years after it began in 2008!

Claimants can be paid more than 52 weeks of EUC08 benefits, so this creates problems when people go back to work without exhausting all the funds they were qualified for, and they stay employed long enough to qualify for new state benefits and therefore another EUC08 claim based on that years wages/base period. This creates "Multiple EUC08 claims", and despite the lies and negligence from our government the complex law is quite clear when it comes to these benefits if you just spend a little time researching it all online like I have over the past three years. I am confident I know more than the state/feds do about their own EUC08 program implementation (that's NOT something I am proud of...it points to the sad state of our government who SHOULD know more than I do about their own laws or AT LEAST as much since we are reading from the same sources).

I took the state of California to court over my own initial denial of funds based on the US DOL "Multiple EUC08 Claims ERROR" and prevailed on 10/20/11 in Californian Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case A0-265448. And as I mentioned above I have made several other key challenges that they state and feds did not try to appeal (after the 10/20/11 victory). I keep proving that I am being denied EUC08 benefits due to their implementation errors and prevailing (I have detailed records and emails proving all this), but all other claimants nationwide are being IGNORED despite my request to set my case as a "legal court precedent", as if my challenges never happened and doesn't directly apply to their similar to identical denials of benefits (same guidelines errors nationwide!).

In my case alone, I would have been denied more than $20,000 in EUC08 funds over the past three years, if I had not fought so hard using our own laws against our corrupt government who refuses to admit they are wrong. If there are similar problems with even 1% of the 29 million other claims and $100 billion spent since 2008, then we have a serious and historic case of government fraud to further investigate and report on.

The government is trying to isolate this problem to me, and paying me very reluctantly in hopes my success won't spread to others. That is madness and highly illegal. These are impeachable offenses, but the state and feds won't fix the problem until I force them too. I am already helping other claimants as we speak in their own appeal/court challenges. But this is just a few needles in many giant haystacks of denied claimants nationwide since 2008. I fear millions of people have been affected and billions of dollars have been wasted/denied.

I am using FOIA/Privacy Acts and state public records requests in an effort to obtain claimant denial notices/records in each state in hopes of discovering more victims who should be paid their denied EUC08 funds, but now the state and feds are fighting everything I try to do. They are further violating the law by violating both FOIA and other state records request in an effort to stall me, force me to give up. The Obama White House has illegally ignored my last three FOIA requests and I plan to sue them this summer over this.

Despite my own victories, the state and feds are still denying millions of other EUC08 claimants their federal ARRA benefits when "Multiple Claims" come up by improperly paying the older funds before the most recent ones. Unlike state UI, EUC08 claims "never die" as long as the program has not expired, but all states are saying the opposite and further denying funds meant to help our weak economy and millions of struggling workers and families nationwide. Key sections of the US DOL EUC08 program guidelines do not follow the law which simply says to pay EUC08 claims based on the state claim that they most recently exhausted. I have evidence that proves the government is making contradictory denials of benefits, telling one claimant one thing and another the opposite, with the same result: benefit denial. But they keep ignoring all my successful challenges of the very same errors! The EUC08 guidelines/laws are very clear and I just used this against the state of California twice in the last two years for myself (post appeal victory issues). Everyone else is stuck with the mistakes I have prevailed against multiple times now. Are they all supposed to fight on appeal one at a time? This is impossible for most unemployed who are too busy trying to survive and find work.

I have spent the past three years proving the US DOL and state of California to be wrong (the EUC08 guidelines and their own improper "interpretations" of them). They tried to deny my EUC08 benefits several different ways, all based on several critical EUC08 program implementation and guidelines errors that do not conform to the law that I keep successfully using against them. I have been battling with, and investigating on my own the, state and federal government, their ongoing cover up of these serious problems, negligent mistakes, outright fraud, public corruption, official misconduct and abuses of authority that have potentially denied/wasted billions of dollars in ARRA emergency designated funds from the EUC08 program since 2008.

Over $100 billion dollars has been spent since 2008. More than 29 million claims for EUC08 benefits have been filed nationwide. The Department of Labor botched the implementation and published mistakes in the EUC08 guidelines issued nationwide, that all states followed blindly. When they were uncovered and challenged in a court of law (by me), our own government decided it was better to cover up my success(es) and ignore the millions of other victims nationwide, all affected by the same EUC08 program guideline errors that violate federal law by paying benefits improperly and in a way that denies funds to claimants and from our weak economy.

This also has helped lower the unemployment rate artificially by forcing struggling workers and families OFF emergency unemployment compensation sooner than they should have been (if not for the mistakes that all states followed since 2008). They then become "discouraged workers" and are no longer counted as unemployed. The "unemployment rate" is a joke. Not only is the U6 rate ignored, but millions have been kept from being "counted" because they became discouraged workers, many as a result of these EUC08 program denials (I would not be counted right now in 2012/2013, but am thanks to my appeal victory and continued EUC08 payments for example).

Our President, White House, FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board, and almost every single state unemployment insurance related agency nationwide have been notified. They have been given detailed evidence with points of law. They have been show emails and posts from victims online. They have been given documents obtained via FOIA and state pubic records acts that show the problems exist and that state and federal officials have been directly involved in trying to cover this up (before the last presidential election just like other recent scandals are showing this administration to be capable of).

They refuse to act, because they would have to investigate themselves, and our President, who knew about these problems in 2011, before the last election, but has done nothing since, except to hide from this historic problem he could have helped to fix long ago.

Evidence here
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

CUIAB Case A0265448 Victory On October 20 2011 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

Abuse Of Authority All Documents Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket


What the government tells the public and what the real unemployment data shows are two different things (links and info from this post might help)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/282580-246-000-new-jobs-drop-rate-to-7-7-a-34.html#post6927086

What the media and public don't know about the unemployment rate and the long ignored scandal involving the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation implementation disaster and fraud
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/282580-246-000-new-jobs-drop-rate-to-7-7-a-34.html#post6927463
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ogram-economic-stimuls-fraud.html#post6950523
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...denial-department-remove-edds-pam-harris.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...isconduct-by-state-and-federal-officials.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...raud-and-abuses-of-authority.html#post6769750

The sadly ignored petitions, that would further expose the Obama Administration's illegal habit for covering up vital information about their failures and illegal activities before the last election (like all the other recent scandals people still refuse to accept)
http://www.change.org/petitions/cal...p-emergency-unemployment-compensation-denials
https://www.change.org/petitions/de...re-robbing-the-unemployed-out-of-recovery-aid

Final Note
I am not a "professional" nor experienced writer (obviously). I do so because nobody else will. I am good at research and investigating things. I am failing at explaining this problem to the media and public. I just want to help the economy and claimants who were denied funds. I am anti-political party these days, and think more people should consider common sense over corporate and lobbyists fueled political BS from the left and right.

This "cause" is about OUR country and HOW IT AFFECTS ALL OF US (where does unemployed $$$ immediately go? to businesses and the economy of course). This cause needs the help of professional investigative reporters, if any are left, to tell and "sell" this story to our reluctant US media (exposure not $ is what I seek). People and our economy are being denied ARRA benefits, while others are trying to say how great a job Obama has done on the recovery no less! Please help me tell this story so that we can repair this historic mess that has subverted our recovery efforts for so long.

I am happy to answer any questions, to provide any required explanation or proof required. If I can defeat the US Government more than half a dozen times, I am sure I can pass any vetting test you might ask of me. This is for real folks and its about time we dealt with it whether we like it or not.

 

[itfitzme]

I am confident I know more than the state/feds do

And your surprised?

This is pretty typical regardless of the type of organiztion. It is a typical quality of people. I've seen it in institutions ranging from a few dozen people to a thousand. I've seen it in both public and private organizations.

It has been said, "Never attribute to malice, that which is better attributed to shear stupidity."

Surely you realize that half of people have a below average reading level.

Can you imagine them actually doing the level of research that you've done? My experience is that the folk actually doing the work make up the rules as they go along.

It is almost as if, to work for the government, requires being a lawyer. Seems like everything you do has some law attached to it. What is up with that?

 

[corazonroto]

I am confident I know more than the state/feds do

And your surprised?

This is pretty typical regardless of the type of organiztion. It is a typical quality of people. I've seen it in institutions ranging from a few dozen people to a thousand. I've seen it in both public and private organizations.

It has been said, "Never attribute to malice, that which is better attributed to shear stupidity."

Surely you realize that half of people have a below average reading level.

Can you imagine them actually doing the level of research that you've done? My experience is that the folk actually doing the work make up the rules as they go along.

It is almost as if, to work for the government, requires being a lawyer. Seems like everything you do has some law attached to it. What is up with that?

Not surprised...just shocked at the first hand evidence piled up in my office!

After three years of talking to Obama Administration officials from all sides, I have to agree. They are too many incompetent people working in important positions and they stay there for far too long with little review nor oversight (The OIG SYSTEM IS BROKEN).

I have been dealing with some of the worst at the US DOL and so called Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board (Donald Cox is a joke!). Try calling them or the White House/DOJ sometime and see how the "average citizen" is treated: They refuse to ID themselves, and spoiled ignorant uninformed and self righteous political zealots man all the phones it seems (for the public anyway...now if you have $ and want to Lobby or give some Wall Street tips out...different story).

Left or right or whatever no longer matter.
Its US and THEM.
Not unlike the colonial times vs the british.
Our Revolution simplified: no representation under imperial "law" except for rich and powerful and thus America was "born" in the first place!

The more things change...the more they stay the same?

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)."

 

[corazonroto]

I am confident I know more than the state/feds do

And your surprised?

This is pretty typical regardless of the type of organiztion. It is a typical quality of people. I've seen it in institutions ranging from a few dozen people to a thousand. I've seen it in both public and private organizations.

It has been said, "Never attribute to malice, that which is better attributed to shear stupidity."

Surely you realize that half of people have a below average reading level.

Can you imagine them actually doing the level of research that you've done? My experience is that the folk actually doing the work make up the rules as they go along.

It is almost as if, to work for the government, requires being a lawyer. Seems like everything you do has some law attached to it. What is up with that?

[ame=http://youtu.be/t-9pDZMRCpQ]Tea Party - Schoolhouse Rock - No more Kings - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh fruitloops, oh fruitloops, gotta love the fruitloops.

 

[corazonroto]

Oh fruitloops, oh fruitloops, gotta love the fruitloops.

So you have done your research and fact checking and determined that this memorandum to the White House means "nothing"? Especially the fact that Dale Zeigler one of the DOL Employment & Training Admins, went out of his way to alert the White House/Obama/Hilda Solis in communications marked "High Priority" mentioning me by name, my allegations that thousands (to millions) had been harmed by ARRA FRAUD the feds were responsible for, sent THE DAY AFTER I won California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case No A0-265448 on 10/20/11 (that specifically challenged mistakes and errors published in the US DOL EUC08 guidelines issued to ALL states nationwide since 2008)? How often does a state appeal determination matter get brought to the attention of the heads of the DOL and White House? How often does one obtain FOIA documents to back this up:

White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
http://s1359.photobucket.com/user/c...5448 Victory on October 20 2011?sort=4&page=1

And then I suppose it is legal for the US DOL to make threats to end a Recovery Act program (federal EUC08) for an entire state affecting millions of claimants in Californian, if a "precedent" is set for the appeal victory that proved these EUC08 program errors actually exists (absent required action in the courts to do what they are in these letters)? And for California EDD to do and say what they did without ever notifying me, nor trying to take my case to superior court to overturn it? (even though in these letters they say the "decision is contrary to law" but if so why not take me to court then)?

Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
http://s1359.photobucket.com/user/c...DD and CUIAB Abuse of Authority?sort=4&page=1

The White House has just ignored my last three follow up FOIA requests (for more documents based on those above I got in the summer of 2012 before they knew I was investigating them).
I am assisting other claimants who were denied benefits the same way I was, but AFTER my appeal victory (one superior court case will be decided in the next weeks in our favor we expect).
All those struggling workers and families I have been in contact with over the past three years, who were denied benefits before and after my successful and still standing appeal challenge in similar ways (needles in a much larger haystack full of many more)...are they a bunch of fruitloops too?

You and anyone else who just walks into a thread and cries "fruit loop" is dead wrong, uninformed and not thinking clearly.
Even after the recent news scandals reveal serious problems in the Obama Administration...you still doubt its possible they could cover up something else like this EUC08 program implementation disaster?

I challenge you to back up your claims. I know I can back up mine. Otherwise find another thread to pollute. This is serious business ignored for far too long and I have little time for fools like you (other than to prove you wrong and back up my allegations that is).

Got arguments/evidence to refute my claims with?
Or would you like to contact these poor victims and tell them that the one person trying to help them is a "fruitloop" (me)?

From:
unemployed friends 2.0
Part Time Penalty BYE Update
(jerkyspace=corozonroto)


1.
by Rdp321 on Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:54 pm

Hi Jerkyspace,

Yesterday I found your blog and found that we are in the same situation. Yesterday I received notice from EDD of my new benefit weekly amount that reflects the part time temporary and it shows I will only receive $81 per week, when I was used to receiving $305 per week from the original job or parent claim. Do you think I still have a chance and tell EDD rep that there is a Deferred New Claim program or the HR4213 that should allow me to stay on my parent claim? What advice can you give me. I have no idea how I am going to continue living with $81 per week with me and my 3 young kids. I am so depressed at this situation, I was only trying to do the right thing to take a part-time job and now I am being penalized for doing so.

Rdp321
Member

2.
by Feyth on Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:10 am

Just wanted to thank jerkyspace for all the great info. After going through all this myself, I concur. I also received the runaround trying to appeal. Was promised a form that never arrived, etc. After searching the net for any indication that an appeal --even if I could get one-- would stand a chance, I gave up. As my new lowered benefit is less than what I am currently earning from my part-time job, no more assistance for me.

I also wanted to point out that the recent money EDD received from the feds makes the whole situation worse. Before, EDD had to wait one quarter before filing these lowered benefit awards, according to their benefit year formula. CA received the new fed funds after "updating" their systems, which allowed them to redefine this formula.

Now, EDD will automatically examine earnings at the end of every quarter. So anyone who worked part-time/temporarily during April, May and/or June may receive a lowered claim notice in the next few days.

Personally, I've had to do some soul-searching as to what battles I'm able to take on while struggling to survive day by day. I do what I can. I have great respect for those who are able to do more. Heartfelt thanks.

3.
by evw59 on Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:08 pm

mj33 wrote:
Im sure you'll certainly have your insight and thoughts well prepared as candidly and firmly as possible. Keep us all informed on this battle.
The woman turned out to be nothing but a mouth piece. She basically said that they followed the law,duh! that's why I contacted a lawmaker. I explained to her that she needs to inform her boss that there are flaws in the law. She kept going back to the july 2010 date. When I explained that I was reduced on my 2nd bye which date was May 2011 she really didn't have any explaination. After you take a claim and do 26 weeks, if EUC is available it should be used 1st reguardless of any EUC untouchable balance on the so-called parent claim.

4.
Re: Appeal?

From stuck To jerkyspace, Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:34 am
Exactly as I thought. I would need to appeal to the board. Thank you for the very informative reply, as always it is much appreciated! I know that was a very lengthy and time consuming task.

Here is my case number: 3999900 (EUC) and date and place: 01/19/12 in Van Nuys.

I will definitely give Elena a call before I fully prepare all of the paperwork to send in to the appeal and hear what she has to say on the matter (and as well as your case). Which case number should I cite for her that was your win?

And yes, I did tell the ALJ about your case and the case number. As I wrote earlier she told me she was very interested in seeing what happened with it. I guess her interest faded when she came to the the same conclusion as your first case had before you appealed yourself.

City Data Unemployment (censorship HQ...beware)
City Data Ui Threads

5.
09-08-2010, 08:49 PM
antrob
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
40 posts, read 55,326 times
Reputation: 24

Need advice with California EDD
I recently had to re certify my unemployment claim after I been on it for a year. I worked a part time job during this year and when I went to re certify my claim on 9/1/10 they told me my new benefit amount was being reduced from $300 a week to $42 a week.

I know in July of this year legislation was passed to protect people in my situation from being penalize if their benefit amount was being reduced by $100 or 25%.

After telling the Representative this she denied any law was passed and after being passed around on the phone I finally had a supervisor admit that the law is on the books but California has no procedure in place to file new claims under the new law and I have to collect the new benefit amount until they come up with something.

Remember this law was passed in July and were in September and they still have no procedure in place to pay out the benefit amount I'm entitled to.

Does anyone know anyway to speed this process up. I asked to appeal the new amount but the supervisor told me I can't appeal anything because I wasn't denied benefits. Is this true? That don't sound right. I don't believe anything they tell me now after being lied to by three different people regarding the law that was passed.

Any advice or tips that can lead me in the right direction to get this fixed would be appreciated. Thank you.

6.
09-08-2010, 09:11 PM
chelebelle
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
140 posts, read 152,301 times
Reputation: 47

Ok, Unfortunately you are going to have to wait. Step in line, behind me. LOL I've been waiting a long time but my circumstances are a little different.

You have the date you originally opened your claim. From that date until a year passes, is your "benefit year". You obviously received 26 weeks and were on an extension and your benefit year ended. So, you had earnings in that year and may be eligible for a "state funded" new claim. It's a requirement that you file it and collect any benefits on it before you can continue on your extensions. In my case, my benefits went down to $89 a week and I had worked about 2 1/2 months full time so it sounds like you did about the same. Sooooo..... probably around 11 weeks of $82 a week "until they come up with something. I sooo feel your frustration.

7.
10-24-2010, 09:00 AM
kissfan007
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
2 posts, read 2,009 times
Reputation: 10

I can't believe this!
I was on tier 2 of my extension when i took a job in dec09/jan10, this job lasted 3 weeks and I made $2900(I live in Illinois). So when my benifit year ended in april 2010 they told me that I will be collecting a new "lower amount". I went from maximum amount to minimum amount for 6 months. It killed me! Last week that "standard" 26 weeks was over. I just recieved a letter stating that i would be put back on the extension for that same lower amount! I kept thinking I would go back to my "original" claim extension amount. I have hopes that this new law will pertain to me and my situation. I was even told 6 months ago that I would go back to the original amount. I don't get it!

8.
02-07-2011, 04:24 PM
cardfan33
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
7 posts, read 6,573 times
Reputation: 11

I wanted to add on this post a copy of the e-mail I sent to my Congressman and both Senators. I think my situation is the same as most and more and more are discovering it each week.

Here is the text:

I wanted to comment about one of the provisions of HR 4213.

I lost my job in December 2008, and went on unemployment. At that time, I received the maximum amount of $427 per week. I started my job search and was able to find a few temp jobs and a seasonal job as well, but nothing that was either full-time or permanent.

At the beginning of November, 2009, I had to apply for 1st tier Federal extension and received 4 weeks at $421. My State benefit year then ended on the first week of December and I had to open a new claim. This time the amount was for $321.

Again, I was able to find temp work, a job with the Census and a summer job.

In November, I ran out of my regular state benefits and applied for a tier 1 Federal extension and received a claim judgment for $321 per week, however, there had been earlier legislation that kept my previously claimed extension open and I was being paid from that at $427. In other words, pay the oldest claim first.

The problem came at the end of this past benefit year on the first week of
December. I again applied for a new year as required and was given a WBA of $126.

I heard of a provision in HR 4213 that allowed for individuals to stay on their federal extension if their new amount was either $100 or 25% less than they were receiving through said extension. The intent was not to punish those who were continuing to take whatever work they could find.
I was informed it did not apply to me because NHES has ruled that my benefit year did not end after the enactment of the bill.

This interpretation, in my mind has left me with some serious doubts about a system that actually does punish you for working, by finding a loop-hole to avoid the intent of a federal law.

I have never taken a dime of assistance -- no food stamps, rental assistance, fuel assistance, etc. I have spent all my savings and drained my 401k to pay a mortgage on a house that I lost anyway. Paid 18 months of COBRA and can't afford healthcare. And this interpretation has left me facing eviction, and last week my storage locker with many of my personal belongings was auctioned off.

There is no way to express my anger and frustration at what is happening here beyond writing a letter to anyone who might be able to actually do something about this. For me, it is obviously too late, but it might help someone else.

Fix HR4213 to allow for retention of benefits from the most current year.

9.
2-08-2011, 02:05 PM
Rusa
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
2 posts, read 3,785 times
Reputation: 10

Please tell me what should I do??
Hi,
I'm having trouble with the EDD California.They have filed a New claim for me without my participation and the amount is $202,from $450 of my parent claim.
I was still receiving my first extension, when they sent me a letter that I can file a New claim.At that time I have sent my form for the remaining money(about$250) that I had to get from my First extension.That check never came...instead they sent me a form to fill for a New claim that they filed for me with a back date of Jan.09/2011.I wrote them a letter stating that I didn't file New claim yet, I didn't get a letter stating Benefit Award , but I have received a claim form and that I'm trying to see what is best for me and see if I can continue with second extension and quoting HR 4213 or if EDD wants to put me on a New claim, that amount should be restored to previous amount .It seems that the EDD guy that replied to my letter didn't even read it!He simply said that I will soon be receiving my First check from the New claim.I didn't send the claim form, but what a shock, yesterday I received my check from the New claim - only $182!I haven't cashed the check, I'm afraid that if I do it will mean I accepted their New Claim they filed for me.I don't know what to do.Please, help!
I can't possibly live on $182 a week
Thank you in advance!

10.
03-04-2011, 10:42 PM
clearyred
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
4 posts, read 5,834 times
Reputation: 10

Hello. Your situation was just like mine. I was however nearing end of FEDED (5th ext) with about 5-6 more checks to come when this happened. I had no idea of this DNCP and have emailed them with same response and note that I opened new claim blah blah.. ect. My payments reduced now from $775 to $210 bi weekly. Yea, lower that minimum wage even.. I had to send back first claim or missed getting paid all together and I had t go thru phone interview because I was late sending in because I couldn't reach anyone to explain.. anyhow, they have ignored my last email, no response just new chek at lower amount and appeal forms. So my question is what exactly do I do with this form, what to say, I have a paper trail showing i still had a balance and did not open claim and I should qualify to keep FED ED balance as my benefits are severely reduced. Would you be so kind as to walk me threw what you did with your appeal and I will most likely mirror it. I was going to stash those check as benefits were nearing the end but didn't plan them to stop overnight. I would appreciate help with what to say and what exactly will happen in an appeal hearing. uote=SoCalAaron;17277425]If you've ended up reading this thread because you're searching for information on how EDD is implementing HR4213, and the provisions to coordinate Tiers I-IV with regular benefits, I've got some information to share. Section 3 of HR 4213, made law on July 22nd, provides several options for states to continue to pay Emergency compensation out until exhausted, if a new claim would result in a reduction of your benefits by $100 or 25%. This became an issue in CA for many people when EDD performed their routine quarterly recalculations October 1st.

I just got to the appeal level in my situation, and I suspect others are just getting to this point too.

EDD will automatically open a new claim and new claim year on you anytime after your claim is at least 1-year old, and you have had enough NEW earnings to qualify for ANY benefit amount. For many people who have earned only some wages since they originally filed their first claim, called a "parent claim", this is resulting in a huge drop in their weekly checks, even though they haven't used up their federal extended benefits.

HR4213 was supposed to address this - effectively allowing you to exhaust your emergency compensation in some form before placing you on a new benefit amount. But, in my case, EDD has been arguing that I opened the new claim, and therefore had to accept it, and completely ignoring my questions about the coordination of federal benefits.

I just got done with an appeal hearing today, and the administrative law judge agreed that EDD"s argument that I filed the new claim is absurd. My situation is very unusual, because my new benefit amount changes because of school wages, so I may or may not be eligible under the law, but the hearing officer all but ruled that EDD filed the claim, not me, so he agreed to rule on the coordination of benefits as well, rather than force me to make a second appeal after he rules that I did not open the claim.

He also indicated that even their procedures predated HR4213 - so this issue may just now be coming to a head.

IF you have had a new claim filed on your behalf by EDD before you used up your federal benefits, and you experienced a drop in compensation, it is probably a good idea to appeal. I followed this tact: 1) Appeal whether or not you are required to accept the new claim, and 2) whether your benefits are being correctly calculated under the new law.

Admittedly, HR 4213, Section 3 can be interpreted a couple of ways - but the intention is to ensure that you get which-ever process benefits you the most. So far, it appears that the EDD is completely ignoring the coordination provisions - or doesn't know how to implement it - hence the unusual outcomes described in this thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
those are just some of the millions of victims nationwide....29 millions claims for EUC08 since 2008....over $90 billion spent....how many "improper payments" have there been in the past four+ years?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you tried to do anything for your country or citizens lately like I have been for three years straight with no outside help while being called a "fruitloop" by you and too many others who don't even read the evidence or have any arguments? I could have won my appeal victory and walked away...but since the government won't help these people I am trying to...because they were harmed the exact same I was, by the exact same errors, in the exact same program guidelines that have been used to waste and deny billions of dollars in ARRA emergency designated funds since 2008. I tried to warn the Obama Admin about these serious problems and they blew me off. Then I discovered what they were up to thanks to many successful FOIA and Privacy Act request in 2012. As soon as I presented them with the evidence I had gotten so far, they shut me down, refused to investigate, to refute my allegations or to process my FOIA requests.

In light of the recent news...I think it not so far outside the realm of possibility, that there is another cover up going on and that there needs to be further investigation. Thats what I have been doing on my own for the past three years and sharing with a reluctant public and media as I go.

+bonus anti-fruitloop evidence
FROM: Documents obtained under Californian Public Records Act 2012, provided in recent Criminal Complaint filed with USDOJ and FBI (about the state of California making thousands of mistakes in a short period of time...how many others nationwide!)

ME-
"This isn't their first screw up. Read for yourself from their own internal documents that I obtained in 2012, this is not the first time claimants have been denied EUC08 payments due to internal mistakes from UIPN 11-011 2/17/11,"

From EDD's own UIPN internal documents-
"A sweep of SCDB done this week showed that since January 6, 2011 there were approximately 2600 claimants that should have been eligible to participate in the DNCP but were not because staff did not follow established procedures running the DNCP macro")
(Deferred New Claim Program is the Public Law 111-205 Part Time Penalty Fix so many DID NOT qualify for due to mistakes like this).

That's thousands of errors in under a few weeks! How many since 2008? The California Assembly Committee on Insurance was aware of EDD's serious problems, before they made the mistake to put Pam Harris in charge of fixing this not long after this scathing report:
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/02/09/10/Letter_to_the_Governor1.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

"EDD's performance problems are severe and the Assembly intends to continue it's oversight throughout the year, in an effort to get the Department back on track"

The Cali Assembly has done nothing since (like the rest of the government), except to ignore the recent criminal complaint and same evidence I have shared with the public and media.
(In my case) The state and federal government have made more than half a dozen different EUC08 related implementation mistakes over the past three years, that would have violated the law and my rights, but I was able to prevail each time. I fought back and won: First through two appeals that took nearly a year to resolve and then on subsequent challenges to benefit denials that they kept trying to make, but failed each time absent any appeal attempt because they confirmed I was correct in the end each time just like this last time in the last two months...when they denied $1800 from me for five weeks...but then gave up with no appeal after reviewing my detailed evidence and points of law. I am "unique" when it comes to resources and ability to fight back. The rest of the unemployed struggling workers and families and other "fruitloops"...not so much.

Not one single government agent nor member of the media nor poster of clever comebacks has been able to refute any of my allegations for the past three years.
I keep trying to help the unemployed victims in the meantime...
Got refute?

 

[rdean]

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

GOP STIMULUS HYPOCRISY GETS EVEN MORE EMBARRASSING

Stimulating Hypocrisy: 114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

Seems there were nearly as many Republicans who took stimulus to be used for state projects nationwide than there were Democrats.

I especially love all the GOP Stimulus Ribbon Cuttings, don't you? Oops.

 

[corazonroto]

RELATED MEDIA/LINKS

Long-term unemployed finding few resources for help
Casualties of the Recession: Little help for long-term unemployed - Business - The Boston Globe

America's Jobless Crisis
America's Jobless Crisis - The Daily Beast

The Jobless Trap
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/o...nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130422&_r=1&

The Long-Term Unemployed Are Doomed
Rand Ghayad on long-term unemployment: The long-term unemployed are discriminated against.

Sequester Slashes Help for Long-Term Unemployed
Sequester Slashes Help for Long-Term Unemployed - NationalJournal.com

The tragedy of long term unemployment
The tragedy of long term unemployment | Felix Salmon

Moyers & Company 101: On Winner Take All Politics on Vimeo

Video: Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream | Watch Why Poverty? Online | PBS Video

Dr. King?s 'Two Americas' Truer Now than Ever | On Democracy, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Bill Moyers Essay: The United States of Inequality | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

Bill Moyers and Chris Hedges on Capitalism?s ?Sacrifice Zones? on Vimeo

21 Statistics About The Explosive Growth Of Poverty In America That Everyone Should Know

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)."

EUC08 Implementation Disaster Links:
https://www.facebook.com/UnemploymentBenefitsRestorationProject
http://www.change.org/petitions/cal...p-emergency-unemployment-compensation-denials
https://www.change.org/petitions/de...re-robbing-the-unemployed-out-of-recovery-aid

 

[corazonroto]

An objective writer friend helped me out with a more concise "summary" that I am happy to plagiarize/slightly modify and share here in hopes I can get some help fighting the government and to track down the other affected claimants who were paid improperly/denied ARRA funds:

1. After being improperly denied "extended" unemployment benefits in my state of California back in 2011, I discovered a conflict in the writing and implementation of the Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program (EUC08) found in the US DOL "program guidelines" issued to all states since 2008, that would have denied me 20K personally if I had not prevailed through multiple appeals/challenges over the past three years.

2. I challenged my state of California's EUC08 program implementation "errors", and the US DOL "policy mistakes" that the heads of this federal agency attempted to force upon me and too many others (improperly paying EUC08 funds and/or denying them). I won my case, proving this discrepancy in court (CUIAB Case A0-265448 10/20/11). These errors came directly from the EUC08 program guidelines issued by the US DOL, used by all states.

3. But, after I won my appeal, no changes were made to the program guidelines despite my request that my case be made a "court precedent" and that the US DOL EUC08 program implementation be "repaired". Instead of investigating my allegations further, I caught the state and federal government acting improperly via FOIA documents I obtained. In letters from 2/7/12 and 2/14/12 the US DOL and State of California agencies worked together to make sure the results of my appeal victory would not be applied to any other claimants. If so the US DOL made threats to end the EUC08 program in California. They stated that they strongly disagree with the court results and say it is "contrary to law" yet they never took my case to Superior Court to try to have it overturned. The decision still stands and is long past the statute of limitations.

4. There must be thousands to millions of more people in my situation, and certainly millions/billions of misspent dollars (plus inaccurate unemployment rate counts for those people denied benefits). I would like to bring this to light so that people get the benefits for which they were qualified. We have already spent more than $100 billion dollars since 2008 on more than 29 million claims for EUC08 benefits. This program is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and as such is meant to assist struggling workers, families AND our weak economy, also denied these emergency designated funds.

5. I am having difficulty getting the government to look at this as more than a single case both because of their potential improper actions and due to the the involvement of President Obama prior to the last election (according to FOIA documents from 10/21/11), but I have been researching ways to track down the other affected claimants in my state and others. I am currently assisting one specific claimant who has a California Superior Court challenge awaiting final positive decision in the next month. There are many more claimants to track down nationwide along with legal action to take over the US Government's failure to respond to recent FOIA and other State record requests related to my own ongoing investigation (class action on their behalf is what I am working towards).

6. If this sounds interesting to you as a journalist/lawyer, I keep excellent records and can show you exactly what has been done and where I am now (filing FOIA/State Public Records requests/helping individual claimants appeal). I am happy to answer any questions or to explain further and/or provide detailed documentation to back up my allegations. Thank you for your time.

 

[corazonroto]

From March until October 20, 2011, I was stuck waiting on appeal, after the California Employment Development Department (EDD) denied my EUC08 program benefits, based directly on the discrepancies/mistakes found in the US DOL program guidelines for these important ARRA funds. The US DOL themselves became directly involved, in an attempt to "defend" their program implementation.

On 10/20/11 those attempts failed when California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) case A0-265448 was decided in my favor. This decision reversed the determinations that California EDD made against me directly from the US DOL program guidelines, and from the direct intervention of high level management and policy heads from this federal agency (Employment & Training Administration specifically) (DOL ETA).

This sample of communications shows how "involved" high level officials at the US DOL have been, both just before my appeal case was heard and afterwards to present day (directly from FOIA/PA request documents and my own copies of emails/responses):

---------------------
September 2011
---------------------
I was in touch with the US DOL under Service Request # 18802887, trying to find out what their EUC08 policy actually was, since the program guidelines seemed to contradict themselves in several key sections, while on appeal in CUIAB Case A0-265448.

1. 9/14/11 - 10/7/11
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA "policy" specialist
Robert Wagenr - US DOL Head of Special Benefits
Emailed and spoke on the phone back and forth 9/14/11, 9/21/11 up to 10/7/11.

2. 9/21/11
Eder Marcus - DOL OIG
Emailed me and told me the Office of Audit would review my complaints about the program guideline mistakes I was challenging on appeal in California.

3. 9/21/11
Elliot Lewis - DOL Assistant OIG Office of Audit
Intake memorandum showing the receipt of my complaint from Eder Marcus above.

4. 9/22/11
Gay Gilbert - DOL ETA Admin
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Robert Wagner - DOL Chief of Special Benefits
Emails discussing what they plan to do about my service request # 188028807 and the pending appeal CUIAB appeal case A0-265448.

Gay Gilbert-
"Quinn - suggested response???"
(they appear to be "worried" instead of confident about the actual law but never speak directly about it in emails)

5. 9/28/11
Linda Wilkinson - ETA CTR
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Stephanie Garcia - Division Chief State & Federal Programs Team
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Robert Wagner - DOL ETA Head of Special Benefits

More Emails talking about me and my "policy challenges". Marked as: "Importance High".

6. Linda, Wilkinson
"Hi Betty, below is the inquiry that was received by the "Talk to Solis" communication from a citizen regarding EUC policy. I've contacted OPA regarding a standard or guideline on how OPA would communicate with this customer going forward. I will keep you updated on their response"

Others cc'd include:
Lee Clayton - OPA CTR (Office of Public Affairs)
Young Clarisse (DOL Secretary Hilda Solis Public Affairs)

Lee Clayton
"Please advise. It looks like Gay Gilbert from DOL received the email too"
(talking about my emails to the DOL with evidence of the EUC08 program problems).

7. 9/29/11
Linda Wilkinson - DOL ETA CTR
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Gay Gilbert - DOL ETA Admin
Stephanie Garcia - Division Chief State & Federal Programs Team
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Robert Wagner - DOL ETA Special Benefits Chief
Jennifer Pirtle - DOL ETA

Emails marked "importance High".

Linda Wilkinson
"Hi Betty. I spoke to the OPA representative, Calrisse Young, who supports "Talk to Solis" inquiring if there is an OPA standard, guideline or requirement on how we should communicate with this customer going forward. Clarisse stated that we can use our discretion on the communication vehicle we choose to address the customer....I also wanted you to know that OPA forwarded the email to the OIG as well"

8. 9/30/11
Linda Wilkinson - DOL CTR
Young Clarisse - OPA (Hilda Solis)
Clayton Lee - OPA CTR
Gay Gilbert - DOL ETA Admin
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Robert Wagner - DOL Chief of Special Benefits
Stephanie Garcia - Division Chief State & Federal Programs Team
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Jennifer Pirtle - DOL ETA

Importance: high
Linda Wilkinson
"Hi Clarisse. The Unemployment Insurance team has the inquiry and is formalizing a response to XXXXX. I will follow up with them today and let you know when they expect to have it completed"

An urgent response came from Clarisse Young - DOL OPA (Hilda Solis)
"Did this get handled yet?"

9. 9/30/11
Linda Wilkinson - DOL CTR
Young Clarisse - OPA (Hilda Solis)
Clayton Lee - OPA CTR
Gay Gilbert - DOL ETA Admin
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Robert Wagner - DOL Chief of Special Benefits
Stephanie Garcia - Division Chief State & Federal Programs Team
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Jennifer Pirtle - DOL ETA

Importance: High
Linda Wilkinson
"Hi Clarisse....I spoke with the Division Chief and she confirmed that they are coordinating their response with Region 6 and the formal communication will be sent early next week"

------------------
October 2011
------------------
(in the email above: they refer to the 10/7/11 email the US DOL sent me that stated their "EUC08 Policy" in writing (same as EDD's denial), that would later be refuted by the decision in CUIAB Case A0-265448 just weeks later on 10/20/11)

Also:

1. 10/4/11
Steve Narolewski - DOL Benefit Payment Control and Fraud Liaison
Quinn Watt - DOL ETA
Robert Wagner - DOL ETA
Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
Stephanie Garcia - Division Chief State & Federal Programs Team
Jamie Bachinski - DOL ETA Region 6 (involved in the 2/7/12 letter)

importance: High
Quinn Watt
"Good Morning Steve and Jamie. This morning we learned that Mr. XXXXXX has sent emails to the OIG hotline and to Secretary Solis. Because of this development, we need the information from California as soon as possible."

(about my ongoing appeal and evidence/claim history)

2. 10/7/11
Email from Dale Zeigler via DOL OUI Control Response -ETA
He is the Deputy Admin of the DOL ETA.
This is THE email that contains the "EUC08 Policy" that only exists in "the minds" of the US DOL, but not our actual Law.
I proved them to be wrong, and had their statement of EUC08 policy that had been used by California EDD reversed by the decision in my appeal case on 10/20/11.
The Illegal Noncompliant EUC08 Policy In Writing Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

3. 10/20/11
I win CUIAB Case A0-265448, refuting the harmful/mistaken written policy guidelines that the US DOL published and issued to all states nationwide starting in 2008.
CUIAB Case A0265448 Victory On October 20 2011 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

Here is how the US DOL and California responded after the state was forced to pay me back several thousand dollars in denied benefits form the past seven months (instead of investigating, setting my case as a precedent and repairing the denial/waste of ARRA funds affecting thousands to millions of other claimants in all states):

4. 10/21/11
The Day After I won the Appeal,
proving US DOL "policy" to be incorrect and harmful to me and potentially many many other citizens nationwide as well as our weak economy

White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
Memorandum for the White House
From: DOL ETA Dale Ziegler Deputy Admin
Subject: Mr. XXXXXX WH9262011-61

Dale Ziegler (to White House/President Obama)
"This is to inform you that Mr. XXXXXX emailed the Department of Labor on September 21, 2011 regarding his unemployment benefits, his email was responded to on October 7. Attached for your information is a copy of the response"

Attached with this from FOIA is the following (my communications/evidence sent to them are confirmed here as well as their receipt):
ETA Correspondence with XXXXXX (2004-Present)

NN 1 Sims ID 663175
Originator: Mr. XXXXX
Addressee: Obama
Subject: Denied Unemployment Benefits
10/18/11

NN 3 Sims ID 678331
Originator: Mr. XXXXX
Addressee: Solis
Subject: Claimants Harmed by Recovery Act Fraud Committed by DOL & UI Agencies


5. 10/31/11
Elliot Lewis - DOL Assistant Inspector General Office of Audit
Memorandum post CUIAB Case A0-265448 victory

Elliot Lewis
"The attached information submitted by Mr. XXXXX has been received by the Complaint Analysis Office (CAO). This additional information appears to support Mr. XXXXX allegations that the California Employment Department has failed to comply with applicable Public Law regarding the adjudication of claims for Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits and the Employment and Training Administration, Office of unemployment Insurance provided a response to his complaint that contained incorrect information."

-------------
November
-------------

1. 11/1/11
Email.
Mark Woo Sam - US DOL/California Labor & Workforce
"Thank you for forwarding the decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Board dated October 20, 2011, regarding your appeal of the EDD determination. I will contact you after I have finished reviewing this matter."
(he never followed back up to refute me or investigate further)

2. 11/14/11
Letter to me about my appeal victory and the repayment of my benefits.
Pam Harris - California EDD Director
"Since the Department is bound by law to abide the decision of the Board, regardless of whether it agrees with the decision, we are moving forward in establishing an Emergency Unemployment Compensation extension on your regular claim...however, should the Department chose to pursue the matter furthe in a higher court of law, and it prevails, you may be liable to reimburse the Department for any payments made to you, which you are not legally entitled to receive"

------------------
January 2012+
------------------

Here is the result of all the internal emails above, between the heads of the US DOL and the White House along with the State of California agencies (remember they lost the appeal and did not refute my evidence nor try to take my case to court to overturn it despite what they say here in these FOIA obtained letters)

1. 2/7/12 - US DOL Threatens California agencies
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

2. 2/14/12 - California caves in but does not further appeal my case
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

What they attempt to do and threaten, violates the law and peoples rights. Someone should act to bring these crimes to a stop. It is supposed to be the US DOL OIG, the Recovery Board (RATB), the FBI and DOJ who should have acted, but they all seem to be "involved" and have refused to investigate further giving no credible reason for not doing so nor refuting any of my evidence/allegations (that are so publicly visible and have been for so long).

3. 2/17/12
Email to me (keep in mid their actions on 2/7 and 2/14/12 that I discovered by FOIA in July of 2012 after this)
Eder Marcus - DOL OIG
"I am contacting you in follow up to your complaints to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG). Specifically, you reported that the California Employment Development Department has failed to comply with applicable Public Law regarding the adjudication of unemployment compensation claims.

The Office of Audit has reported it will not pursue your complaint. The DOL-OIG does not typically initiate investigations or directly intervene in complaints related to the handling, processing and/or adjudication of unemployment claims or benefit determinations, such as those you have reported. The Inspector General Act of 1978 gives the Inspector General broad discretion to determine when to make investigations and reports relating to the administration of the Department's programs and operations. With this discretionary authority in mind, and based on a review of the information you provided, the DOL-OIG does not plan on taking any further action in response to your complaints at this time. However the information you submitted will be maintained within the DOL-OIG for possible consideration in future audit work."

I found more details later via FOIA but at the time had no idea how many high level officials were involved and what they had been doing. I thought I was being blown off and thats just what they wanted me to think so I might give up. They also did not represent my full complaint, only the first submitted one from September with less evidence about the nationwide problem affecting millions of claimants and billions of dollars with the US DOL as the guilty party...not just Cali.

And despite what they say in this email to me, they DID intervene on 2/7/12 by threatening the state of California over a state determination matter for unemployment benefits (!), and the DOL OIG Elliot Lewis had earlier thought I had evidence that supported my allegations on 10/31/11. No FOIA documents show how the DOL OIG "all of a sudden" made up their mind to not investigate nor why specifically other than this very vague wave of their royal hand so to speak. Its curious that there is a bit of a FOIA "black hole" from November 2011 through 2012+, with very few documents being provided to me under the summer of 2012 FOIA requests (recent request have gotten nowhere and that seems to be what they want until I sue them over this).

This is why I have tried to obtain more documents, because obviously there were OTHER communications, there had to be to fill in the gaps of what they were doing/planning what did Solis and Obama know specifically for example and when). Even so there is enough of a connection between those involved leading from before my appeal, to the decision against them, to their notification of the White House. Then they took action on 2/7, 2/14 and 2/17/12 to shut my complaints down on all DOL related fronts (and with the RATB as well who complied with DOL requests to do so..recovery fraud complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506 was "buried" around the same time).

Does this help make clear that high level government officials appear to be conspiring to subvert my efforts to restore these benefits to others who were denied the same way? Perhaps because all those dates above precede the national election that President Obama won. What if this info had come out before then?

This confirms the US DOL was behind the Region 6 letter sent to California agencies on 2/7/12. The White House was informed that this was the course of action as early as 10/21/11, by Dale Ziegler the day after I won my appeal case. I don't have copies of the specific communications between them (the actual body letters/emails related to that memorandum above) but if Dale Ziegler and Betty Castillo are approving these responses that follow from 10/21/11 to 2/7/12, then the White House would appear to have been "in the loop" with all those other high level communications talking about me and my appeal challenge of their faulty EUC08 program policy that has denied and wasted potentially billions for ARRA dollars (that they still refuse to look into). Are they going to claim they never got the memo like they are with recent other scandals/cover ups?

This proves the US DOL involvement at least:
3/13/12
Routing and Transmittal Slip
re Sims Correspondence ID 673375 XXXXX

Dale Zielger - DOL ETA Deputy Admin
"The San Francisco Regional Office sent a letter to the California Agency (see attached) notifying them of the issue regarding Mr. XXXXX's complaint. We have already responded to Mr. XXXXX on October 7, 2011 (see attached) and California has been notified of actions the must take to correct the situation. Another response from the Office of Unemployment Insurance would not be helpful and is deemed unnecessary."

Betty Castillo - DOL Unemployment Insurance Ops
"In addition, the San Francisco Regional Office has sent a letter (copy attached) to the California agency notifying them of the issue surrounding Mr. XXXXX's complaint. Since we have already responded to Mr. XXXXX and the State of California has been notified of the actions they must take to correct the situation and has responded (see attached), we feel another response would not be necessary and would not be helpful."

(admitting they had involvement in the 2/7/12 letter from Region 6 above and that they have NO PLAN to ever respond to me again. Again they act as if the decision in a court of law "does not count" somehow and avoid any specifics in their emails by no coincidence).
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

I have tried to make subsequent FOIA request to follow up on all of these documents I already have, and the US Government has taken the position of NOT responding or just giving me copies of the emails I sent them back with nothing else (as if nobody was talking about this at high levels the whole time as shown above). In the meantime I am helping claimants with their individual appeal challenges until class action can be formed on their behalf (after I get claimant records from each state).

Got interest?
More to come....

 

[corazonroto]

I salute the Associated Press for this excellent and partially related story to my own US DOL investigative nightmares, that most people still seem to doubt are real despite the evidence I keep piling up (+other scandals that are sprouting like weeds lately).

I ran into my own similar FOIA request problems with both the US DOL and the White House. This excellent return to US investigative journalism by the Associated Press may shed some light on my own saga, and help explain why there seem to be so many missing documents from my own FOIA requests (2012):

Top political appointees use secret email accounts
Daily Democrat | Associated Press News

"The scope of using the secret accounts across government remains a mystery: Most U.S. agencies have failed to turn over lists of political appointees' email addresses, which the AP sought under the Freedom of Information Act more than three months ago. The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay more than $1 million for its email addresses."

"The secret email accounts complicate an agency's legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails in response to congressional or internal investigations, civil lawsuits or public records requests because employees assigned to compile such responses would necessarily need to know about the accounts to search them. Secret accounts also drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions."

"It included as one recipient the non-public address for Seth D. Harris, currently the acting labor secretary, who maintains at least three separate email accounts."

"The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay just over $1.03 million when the AP asked for email addresses of political appointees there. It said it needed pull 2,236 computer backup tapes from its archives and pay 50 people to pore over old records. Those costs included three weeks to identify tapes and ship them to a vendor, and pay each person $2,500 for nearly a month's work. But under the department's own FOIA rules - which it cited in its letter to the AP - it is prohibited from charging news organizations any costs except for photocopies after the first 100 pages. The department said it would take 14 weeks to find the emails if the AP had paid the money.

Fillichio later acknowledged that the $1.03 million bill was a mistake and provided the AP with email addresses for the agency's Senate-confirmed appointees, including three addresses for Harris, the acting secretary. His secret address was harris.sd(at)dol.gov. His other accounts were one for use with labor employees and the public, and another to send mass emails to the entire Labor Department, outside groups and the public. The Labor Department said it did not object to the AP publishing any of Harris' email addresses."

"Courts have consistently set a high bar for the government to withhold public officials' records under the federal privacy rules. A federal judge, Marilyn Hall Patel of California, said in August 2010 that "persons who have placed themselves in the public light" - such as through politics or voluntarily participation in the public arena - have a "significantly diminished privacy interest than others." Her ruling was part of a case in which a journalist sought FBI records, but was denied.

"We're talking about an email address, and an email address given to an individual by the government to conduct official business is not private," said Aaron Mackey, a FOIA attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. He said that's different than, for example, confidential information, such as a Social Security number.

Under the law, citizens and foreigners may use the FOIA to compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.

Obama pledged during his first week in office to make government more transparent and open. The nation's signature open-records law, he said in a memo to his Cabinet, would be "administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails."

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

Maybe I am not crazy after all...since others are finding similar "failings" within the Obama Administration many, including myself had so much hope for. So much for that....politicians are all the same for the most part and we have to change how we pick our "leaders" because the system is obviously broken if we keep picking losers like we are stuck with now, that do nothing but enrich themselves, and cover their own ass, while stocking it to the rest of us who outnumber them (like the unemployed victims of the EUC08 program implementation disaster I am trying to help for example that nobody wants to talk about).


"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)."

 

[pinqy]

I just want to address one small part:

This also has helped lower the unemployment rate artificially by forcing struggling workers and families OFF emergency unemployment compensation sooner than they should have been (if not for the mistakes that all states followed since 2008). They then become "discouraged workers" and are no longer counted as unemployed.

You realize, that the only criteria for being classified as unemployed are:

1. Did not work during the survey reference week.
2. Wants to work
3. Could have started work during the reference week.
4. Actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week.

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment benefits.

Further, even if we assume the worker does stop looking for work, that doesn't make them discouraged. Discouraged is

1. Did not work during the survey reference week.
2. Wants to work
3. Could have started work during the reference week.
4. Actively looked for work in the previous 12 months but not the previous 4 weeks.
5. Stopped looking due to belief that they would not be hired due to lack of jobs, experience, skills, education, or discrimination.

If they stopped looking for any other reason, they would not be Discouraged.

 

[corazonroto]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...op-rate-to-7-7-a-post6927086.html#post6927086

re-post here for the rest of the class:

Long-Term Unemployed Rises, Real Unemployment Basically Unchanged
By Matt Cover

"...Despite adding an estimated 236,000 jobs in February, the number of long-term unemployed rose and the broader, real unemployment rate remained virtually unchanged..."

"The broader U6 unemployment rate, called the real unemployment rate by some because it provides a fuller measure of the jobless picture, remained largely unchanged in February, falling slightly from 14.4 percent to 14.3.

U.S. U6 unemployment rates and all other BLS UI classifications (the real state of our economy) can be analyzed much better here at this very informative website:
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

A post from the class re the UI Rate:

"U-6 has never been the "REAL" unemployment rate. Answer this, how can the U-6 be the real unemployment rate when it includes people who are EMPLOYED?????? That's right, EMPLOYED workers are counted in the U-6 rate. U-6 is a measure of underutilization or underemployment. U-3 has always been the standard for unemployment for every Republican president, U-6 only became the "REAL" unemployment for Obama."

My Response:
If 10 million Americans were only working one hour per week, they all would be counted as EMPLOYED under U-3. U-6 is simply a more "detailed" account of the state of our economy. Many reporters, economists, and authors (pro and anit-Obama) have chosen to label this is the "real unemployment rate" and I tend to agree. I also am pretty sure the U6 unemployment rate did not pop into existence on the day President Obama was elected. BLS has used that measurement for some time. It obviously became more relevant from 2007+ during the end of Republican George Bush's Presidency into the Democratic Obama Presidency due to the financial meltdown and ensuing economic woes we all have suffered for so long.

Technically U-3 is the standard for every president, whether they be a Democrat, Republican or other political classification, BLS reports the numbers the same way. U-6 just gives a better picture on what is really going on:

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
What is U6 unemployment rate ?

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 16 years of age) using two different labor force surveys conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition. The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:

•U1 : Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
•U2 : Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
•U3 : Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
•U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
•U5 : U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
•U6 : U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

•Contacting:
◦An employer directly or having a job interview
◦A public or private employment agency
◦Friends or relatives
◦A school or university employment center
•Sending out resumes or filling out applications
•Placing or answering advertisements
•Checking union or professional registers
•Some other means of active job search

Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian non-institutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(see Hidden unemployment and Long-term unemployment and Limitations of the unemployment definition)

Hidden unemployment

Hidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working.

The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" — those working fewer hours than they would prefer or in a job that doesn't make good use of their capabilities. In addition, those who are of working age but are currently in full-time education are usually not considered unemployed in government statistics. Traditional unemployed native societies who survive by gathering, hunting, herding, and farming in wilderness areas, may or may not be counted in unemployment statistics. Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment.

Limitations of the unemployment definition

Some critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account the 1.5% of the available working population incarcerated in U.S. prisons (who may or may not be working while incarcerated), those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants, those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work (involuntary early retirees), those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions, those who work for payment for as little as one-hour per week but would like to work full-time.[49]

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force."[26] These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labour force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labour force activities. And of course some people simply elect not to work, preferring to be dependent on others for sustenance.

My Summary:
Given the way the US Government "collects and interprets UI data" it seems clear that victims of the EUC08 program implementation scandal would fall into the uncounted "discouraged worker" category. (In my own case) I would have been denied benefits, and if I was part of the "government UI data set" then like many other victims who have not had their benefits restored, I would be classified as neither employed nor unemployed (long term discouraged worker). Many people struggle to find work, or work that is full time, since even 1 hour worked per week counts you as EMPLOYED. Think about just these people alone in a similar "grey area" like "those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants".

How can all the freelancers and independent contractors not count? (or rather why isn't there a better indicator along the lines of the U-6 rate....that almost nobody has even heard of since the feds use the most favorable one instead?). The Bay Area alone is full of workers who struggle to find full time work between W2 and freelance/contract 1099 gigs (dot com-ers, housing/construction workers, service industry workers). That falls through the current UI rate cracks doesn't it? I know the recession devastated them and still is but the "numbers" the government puts out to show "how good a job they have done with the recovery" don't reflect the truth about the real struggle workers seem to be permanently stuck with. Times are tough in this new global world economy that for most lacks long term job security while failing to provide little wage improvement in recent history vs increased hours/production demands, heavy handed employer scrutiny/oversight, long hours and little time off. People struggle to find a job, and once they do the employers know they are willing to put up with harsher and harsher working conditions out of unemployment fear. There are plenty of people waiting for that job so you better put up with whatever crap the boss gives you right?

If you are denied these vital ARRA benefits, and are long term employed who cannot find work, then you are not counted (the denial of benefits speeds up becoming a discouraged worker due to lack of resources).
If you are not denied these benefits you are counted (still long term unemployed but having resources makes it possible to look for work longer...no money/food/shelter means finding a job is much harder to impossible).
If thousands to millions for people nationwide have these improperly denied benefits restored (based on my challenges so far), and their claim history adjusted, then the UI rate will have to be adjusted accordingly (not in all cases but most).

Think of what would have happened if these benefits were not denied at the time they were supposed to be paid and how that would have helped the struggling worker continue to survive longer and search for more work...otherwise what chance do they have when they are forced onto food stamps/nothing, losing/lost home/apartment, with no/limited internet/computer/laptop/pda access? They will rapidly become a "discourage worker" when this happens and that is exactly what has happened to many EUC08 claimant/victims nationwide since 2008 (that I seek to help because I almost became one due to these improper benefit denials our government is responsible for).

Those denied funds would be pumped into our still weak economy, through the unemployed and to businesses that would benefit from that money directly. As we speak, the Obama Administration is doing everything it can to deny this is problem even exists, ignoring my complaints/petitions/appeal victory/challenges and the incriminating evidence that shows their cover up attempts I have expose so far. I think there are many painful questions that must be asked of our government and will keep looking for answers as I continue to work to restore beneifts to claimants, one by one until class action can be formed (if the feds keep refusing to refute my allegations/investigate further).

 

[pinqy]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...op-rate-to-7-7-a-post6927086.html#post6927086
If 10 million Americans were only working one hour per week, they all would be counted as EMPLOYED under U-3.

And many, if not most, would also be classified as Employed under the U-6. The U-6 includes "Part Time for Economic Reasons," which is defined as:

• Wants to work 35+ hours a week.
• Is able to work 35+ hours a week
• Worked less than 35 hours the week before the survey
• Because hours have been cut OR could not find full time job.

I've worked less than 4 hours/week by choice and so would not have been part of the U-6.

My Summary:
Given the way the US Government "collects and interprets UI data" it seems clear that victims of the EUC08 program implementation scandal would fall into the uncounted "discouraged worker" category. (In my own case) I would have been denied benefits, and if I was part of the "government UI data set" then like many other victims who have not had their benefits restored, I would be classified as neither employed nor unemployed (long term discouraged worker).

Again, if the person no longer recieving EUC08 or other benefits still looked for work, s/he would still be classified as Unemployed.
And Discouraged is only a tiny portion of those Not in the Labor Force (just under 1% of those Not in the Labor Force are Discouraged).

How can all the freelancers and independent contractors not count?

What do you mean they don't count? They're included in the labor force statistics.

If you are denied these vital ARRA benefits, and are long term employed who cannot find work, then you are not counted (the denial of benefits speeds up becoming a discouraged worker due to lack of resources).
If you are not denied these benefits you are counted (still long term unemployed but having resources makes it possible to look for work longer...no money/food/shelter means finding a job is much harder to impossible).
If thousands to millions for people nationwide have these improperly denied benefits restored (based on my challenges so far), and their claim history adjusted, then the UI rate will have to be adjusted accordingly (not in all cases but most).

Did you not read your own links? Benefits or No Benefits has nothing to do with how the UE rate is calculated. Oh, note on terms..."UI" stands for Unemployment Insurance, while "UE" stands for Unemployment. The "UI Rate", which is currently 2.3% is the number of people receiving State benefits as a percent of those covered by State UI programs. Nothing to do with the UE rate or U-3.

 

[Toro]

The real unemployment rate is 89%.

 

[corazonroto]

Its the result of the benefits denial that causes a worker to stop looking for work much sooner than if they had the protection that the UI system is supposed to provide by law, but has failed to in these cases I am investigating. Its not the specific denial that is a matter for UI rate "data" discussion we have been sharing, but how the denial result makes it so hard for the worker to find a job that they give up and are not counted in the end much sooner.

from those links I did read too many times (Wiki + others):

Hidden unemployment

In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working.

The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" — those working fewer hours than they would prefer or in a job that doesn't make good use of their capabilities....Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment.

Limitations of the unemployment definition

Some critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account...those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants,...those who work for payment for as little as one-hour per week but would like to work full-time.[49]

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force."[26] These are people who have no job and are not looking for one.


Being improperly/illegally denied federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits due to US Government negligence, discrepancies, and outright fraud nationwide does tend to lead to/accelerate one becoming a "discouraged worker" sooner than they would have otherwise (if at all), and therefore a person can NOT be counted/represented properly when denied these important ARRA funds.

I have nothing further to add on the UI rate note and respect your own views on the matter. No battles. Just looking to clarify how these victims fit into our economic "numbers" if you will, and obviously the public is engaged in a valid debate on how the UI rate should be represented or not (best for a topic of its own).

Your views are respected. There is just a disagreement. That's Democracy for ya.

I also have a "disagreement" with the Federal Government over their implementation of the EUC08 program and how that may have negatively affected many citizens, piles of ARRA dollars, many state resources/funds, our economy and perhaps the UI rate to some degree. I took my "disagreement" to court and proved them to be wrong (my denial). I beat them on subsequent challenges they felt they should not even try to appeal. All of those refuted "policy mistakes" come direct from US DOL program guidelines and their own administrative management statements made since 2008. They don't want to investigate their historic blunders and subsequent cover up. That's not very democracy-like at all.

Debate Good. Americans helping other Americans Good. Americans fighting Americans Bad (see Dan Aykroyd Speech around 1:11):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcqC3ZIsQRM&feature=youtu.be&t=58s]1941 (8/11) Movie CLIP - Mass Hysteria (1979) HD - YouTube[/ame]

ps and +
UI=UE typo and everyone understand what is meant.
Some are under the U-6 rate but thats not the one the government likes to talk about and this is the point many have made in other posts/topics here about what is "reported" and what is not and how.
As a whole, the denial of benefits would have some effect on the unemployment rate, number of unemployed citizens, and how the public and government "perceive the health of the economy" and "results of our recovery efforts".

 

[Rshermr]

Its the result of the benefits denial that causes a worker to stop looking for work much sooner than if they had the protection that the UI system is supposed to provide by law, but has failed to in these cases I am investigating. Its not the specific denial that is a matter for UI rate "data" discussion we have been sharing, but how the denial result makes it so hard for the worker to find a job that they give up and are not counted in the end much sooner.

from those links I did read too many times (Wiki + others):

Hidden unemployment

In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working.

The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" — those working fewer hours than they would prefer or in a job that doesn't make good use of their capabilities....Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment.

Limitations of the unemployment definition

Some critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account...those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants,...those who work for payment for as little as one-hour per week but would like to work full-time.[49]

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force."[26] These are people who have no job and are not looking for one.


Being improperly/illegally denied federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits due to US Government negligence, discrepancies, and outright fraud nationwide does tend to lead to/accelerate one becoming a "discouraged worker" sooner than they would have otherwise (if at all), and therefore a person can NOT be counted/represented properly when denied these important ARRA funds.

I have nothing further to add on the UI rate note and respect your own views on the matter. No battles. Just looking to clarify how these victims fit into our economic "numbers" if you will, and obviously the public is engaged in a valid debate on how the UI rate should be represented or not (best for a topic of its own).

Your views are respected. There is just a disagreement. That's Democracy for ya.

I also have a "disagreement" with the Federal Government over their implementation of the EUC08 program and how that may have negatively affected many citizens, piles of ARRA dollars, many state resources/funds, our economy and perhaps the UI rate to some degree. I took my "disagreement" to court and proved them to be wrong (my denial). I beat them on subsequent challenges they felt they should not even try to appeal. All of those refuted "policy mistakes" come direct from US DOL program guidelines and their own administrative management statements made since 2008. They don't want to investigate their historic blunders and subsequent cover up. That's not very democracy-like at all.

Debate Good. Americans helping other Americans Good. Americans fighting Americans Bad (see Dan Aykroyd Speech around 1:11):

1941 (8/11) Movie CLIP - Mass Hysteria (1979) HD - YouTube

ps and +
UI=UE typo and everyone understand what is meant.
Some are under the U-6 rate but thats not the one the government likes to talk about and this is the point many have made in other posts/topics here about what is "reported" and what is not and how.
As a whole, the denial of benefits would have some effect on the unemployment rate, number of unemployed citizens, and how the public and government "perceive the health of the economy" and "results of our recovery efforts".

Did you notice the huge lack of interest in this thread. The real stat of interest is that 95% of the posts to your topic are YOURS.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now that other scandals have revealed the very real possibility that our government has been up to some serious violations of rights and laws

Really? That's a possibility that you teabaggers just now realized? Before the "scandals" you guys thought differently, right?

 

[pinqy]

Its the result of the benefits denial that causes a worker to stop looking for work much sooner than if they had the protection that the UI system is supposed to provide by law, but has failed to in these cases I am investigating. Its not the specific denial that is a matter for UI rate "data" discussion we have been sharing, but how the denial result makes it so hard for the worker to find a job that they give up and are not counted in the end much sooner.

Again, while I'm sure some of that occurs, it is highly misleading to present it as a straight up cause and effect. When someone loses benefits, several things could happen:

1. They keep looking for work...Unemployed
2. They decide they don't want/need a job after all...Not in the Labor Force
3. They stop looking for work to help with the family, look after the kids, or other personal reasons....Not in the Labor Force: Marginally Attached.
4. They quit looking because they believe they'll be unsuccessful...Not in the Labor Force: Discouraged.

You've been ignoring 3 out of the 4 possibilities and presenting the smallest category as what Will happen.

In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working.

Because we're trying to measure the Labor Market...how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work, for whatever reason, is not availabe for work. You can't be hired if you're not looking for work.

The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" — those working fewer hours than they would prefer or in a job that doesn't make good use of their capabilities....

Because "underemployed" is still employed and doesn't fit in a measure of Unemployment. And it's highly subjective and can be misleading. Consider the following:
Person A works 10 hours a week by choice...she just wants some extra money and to get out of the house. Not underemployed.
Person B works 32 hours a week, but wants to work 36. You would call him underemployed.
Including B as "unemployed" means you'd be classifying someone working 30 hrs/week as Unemployed and someone working 10 hours/week as Employed. Do you see how that's problematical in calculating statistics?

Some critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account

Because it's not meant to measure that. Too subjective.

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force." These are people who have no job and are not looking for one.

And over 90% of those are not looking for work by choice...they don't want a job.

Being improperly/illegally denied federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits due to US Government negligence, discrepancies, and outright fraud nationwide does tend to lead to/accelerate one becoming a "discouraged worker" sooner than they would have otherwise (if at all), and therefore a person can NOT be counted/represented properly when denied these important ARRA funds.

Do you have any evidence that it does tend to do this? That the trend of people denied EUC still want jobs but quit looking because they think they won't be hired? I'm sure that's true for some, but you're claiming it's a trend.

As a whole, the denial of benefits would have some effect on the unemployment rate, .

There's no way to know that. The majority of Unemployed are not receiving benefits, so it seems odd to claim that loss or denial of benefits would stop those people from being classified as Unemployed when the majority of unemployed are not eligible for benefits.

 

[corazonroto]

Hopefully one or two people that can help or need help see my posts. As for the others I respect your rights to express yourselves freely whether it be on or off topic, thanks or flame. But, I spend less and less time in "forums" anymore because of responses like these so far. There are too many people eager to drive-by-flame legitimate efforts like mine that have yet to be pundit-approved or rubber stamped by their glorious party leaders (in my case trying to assist other struggling citizens and our weak economy both denied emergency designated funds). Too many posters these days are determined to "win" arguments absent the whole point of the thread. Should "news" to be shared with the public for their benefit be judged by who loves or flames it the most/least/best/worst? Is our society now based solely on a FB "likes" model? Sometimes a story is just a story without any hidden agendas. Network news is so bad because everyone just wants to see people argue/fight. Eager news junkies just prefer that somebody gets thrown to the lions at the coliseum these days over in depth reporting of the facts. No wonder its all FUBAR everywhere.

As for me:
Not a teabagger (hahahahaha that's pretty funny if you knew me).
Not a republican/conservative. I support 0% of their current agendas but see them as not much different than those they go after at the end off the day.
Not a demoLib anymore. I used to consider myself as such but most of them are just as bat s**t crazy as their so called polar opposites and they come off no different than their counterparts for the most part.
Adjust your "glasses" accordingly and give the evidence another read? I am just a naive fool trying to help other people who were denied benefits by the same EUC08 program implementation disaster that I have taken on and prevailed against (repeatedly on separate and specific policy errors that do not conform to our laws).

None of the main political groupies listed above would ever go outside their narrow and rigid party dogma. Nor do anything but try to beat any argument that was opposed to their view of the world no matter what the facts. None of the above would spend three years trying to help a bunch of people they never met to take on government malfeasance/negligence that for some reason everyone seems blind to/could care less about. None of the above would give .02 of their time/resources to the unemployed nor dare be seen as trying to get back extended unemployment benefits for struggling workers who were improperly denied them by our own government negligence.
I do...I did...I am.

I am trying to learn to look at issues, facts and evidence rather than hyper polarized punditized viewpoints that have to score points off of/beat the other viewpoint into submission with. I have provided facts, evidence and an analysis of what I have discovered so far. I feel I have to do this because nobody else is, this fiasco damage is larger than you think and getting worse every day the program implementation problems are ignored. Most people don't care about the unemployed nor understand the problem/economic scope. Usually that's when people start trolling a thread with many views but few responses (of substance anyway). If your favorite pundit/pretty face cue card reader doesn't tell you it happened or is true...then it may as well not exist.

Unlike how others immediately assume I MUST BE, I did not start this as a witch hunt to GET Obama, the Dems, the Government nor anyone else specifically. Its not a bid to become a popular poster/blogger nor to get my thread to the top either. I was just denied a significant amount of ARRA benefits and questioned the "policy" vs the actual law/regulations/guidelines. It was not a case of being "fair or unfair" or one agent or agencies making a human error, specific "EUC08 policy" both published guidelines and statements from high level US DOL officials did not seem to be legally justifiable. I challenged the discrepancies and prevailed (several times). It appeared that the same problems were affecting other claimants in my state and others. I tried to get the government to help/look into it and they refused. I was forced to investigate on my own after hearing how bad other unemployed victims were suffering and I discovered some "questionable" action/inaction by our Gov to say the least (a woman with hungry kids contacted me looking for help is what really got to me...what would you do?).

I really don't care what political party is "responsible" for this mess or not. I just want to to a help fix a serious problem that obviously exists and that nothing is being done about (my saga is not alone on the island of legitimate but lost causes that won't generate enough media profit). Maybe that's the problem...many forum threads here and other places are just like the news: mostly one sided tailored to the audience that is supporting it the most heavily. I would love to hand it off to one of the popular pundits of the day...but they are too busy or their corporate boss said it was not profitable enough (this story and too many others). That's how we get our news kids...and its going to do us in one day if we don't smarten up.

For those looking to just to argue (I am not...a quick defense/explain and then I am back to investigating over waiting for responses and attacking each one point by point). If you have nothing constructive to say or ask related to the EUC08 program implementation disaster, o for those that just want to quote me/other posters line by line to rebut every little detail until you feel you have "won"...first go outside and take a breath of fresh air, enjoy the world for a second...then if you still feel you have to battle everything I type just because you cannot help yourselves, then I respectfully direct you to this laughter friendly generic response to all future comebacks (since this is what they look like to everyone else in the end):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8]I know you are but what am I? - Pee-Wee's Big Adventure - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U]south park smug farts - YouTube[/ame]

Its your wall...spray paint it any color you like, as long as you like...that's democracy right? I'm done painting and am happy to explain my "piece". Probing questions, topic related discussion, interest in assisting in some way, or just going to tag the place up? It's all yours now, my cans are dry...