corazonroto
Member
- Dec 15, 2012
- 61
- 5
- 6
If a federal agency in charge of implementing a multi billion dollar program meant to help struggling workers and families as part of our "recovery efforts", published a harmful mistake in their program guidelines that all states follow to properly implement the law that congress wrote, what can the public do to stop them, especially when they refuse to admit they have done anything wrong and act as if whatever they say is correct no matter what the facts say? (like a king or dictator would try to do)
For example:
(before June 2008) The heads of the Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration's Office of Unemployment Insurance were in charge of interpreting the laws that our congress wrote, so that they could publish program guidelines for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08) in order for all states to administer these funds properly (that became part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009). From the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, PL 110-252, comes this most important definition that helps states to determine all EUC08 eligibility, payments and adjudication nationwide (federal-state partnership using federal funds):
"The applicable benefit year means the current benefit year if, at the time a claim for EUC is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year, or, in any other case, the individual's most recent benefit year. (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, section 4006 (June 30,2008) Stat. 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note"
Public Law*110 - 252 - Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
And that is almost exactly what the US DOL initially punished in July 2008, in the EUC08 program "Implementing and Operating Instructions", UIPL 23-08 Attachment A:
"Applicable Benefit Year” means, with respect to an individual, the current benefit year if, at the time an initial claim for EUC08 is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year only in the state against which claim is filed, or, in any other case, the individual’s most recent benefit year ending on or after May 1, 2007." (page A-1)
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
But, in the months after the program started (August 2008+), Robert Wagner, the Chief of Special Benefits for the Office of Unemployment Insurance interpreted this in a very different/contradictory way, and has been helping to force all states nationwide to comply with the following mistake he is responsible for (despite their own instructions above that contradict his advise), which appears to contradict the law as congress wrote it too, and as a result, improperly pays EUC08 benefits to struggling workers and families (denying them benefits from the most recent benefit year and forcing them to finish off any older lesser remaining balances of funds first which contradicts the law and subverts recovery efforts):
"The applicable benefit year used in determining an individual’s entitlement to EUC08 is defined as the most-recent benefit year at the time the initial claim for EUC08 is filed. The state agency determines an individual’s most recent benefit year at the time the EUC08 claim is filed and it serves as the benefit year for that EUC08 claim until EUC08 entitlement based on that benefit year is exhausted. "
The Illegal Noncompliant EUC08 Policy In Writing Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
Doesn't it seem like the US DOL just cut off the second half of the original definition that congress wrote, after they initially implemented it correctly in July 2008 (it is missing the "...or in any other case the most recent benefit year")? Can they just do whatever they like to the laws congress wrote (add/subtract and or arrange the words however it suits them like a game of Scrabble)? Clarification is one thing, but this is a direct modification of the intent of the law (to pay both on the initial claim year or the most recent benefit year, depending on circumstances explained in the rest of the program guidelines). This initial "interpretation of the law" by the US DOL in 2008, that appears to be faulty (and self contradictory to their own "instructions"), led the US DOL to also publish this related Q&A, that gave faulty legal advise too all states as a result of their misinterpretation of the law (August 2008):
"7. Question: May an individual have more than one EUC08 claim?
Answer: Yes. An individual may establish a claim for EUC08, qualify for a new UC benefit year, exhaust that benefit year, exhaust the first EUC08 claim and subsequently qualify for a second EUC08 claim based on the new (most recent) benefit year.
Example:
An individual is determined eligible for EUC08 based on a UC benefit year that ended on May 12, 2007. S/he receives 10 weeks of EUC08 prior to the calendar quarter change, at which point s/he qualifies for a new UC benefit year. Because the individual qualifies for regular UC, EUC08 payments must stop. The individual exhausts benefits based on his/her new UC benefit year; therefore, s/he is again an exhaustee for EUC08 purposes. S/he may collect the remaining entitlement on his/her existing (first) EUC08 claim and after exhausting these benefits s/he may file a new (second) EUC08 claim based on the new (most recent) UC benefit year. The new/most recent benefit year is the applicable benefit year for a second EUC08 claim, if the initial claim for that second claim is for a week of unemployment ending on or before March 31, 2009. "
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
This mistake adds an additional requirement to the law the never existed in the first place (and totally changes how it would be implemented nationwide as a result). Congress never said that a claimant must exhaust the full balance of the initial claim, and that all determinations, payments and adjudications were to be based only on the initial claim year until it was exhausted of any remaining funds (years later if need be). Regular unemployment insurance doesn't work that way, and congress made clear that "extended benefits" don't either. Yet, despite what congress specifically wrote down (PL. 110-252), the US DOL has been forcing their own "special interpretation" of the law through this one Q&A that has taken over as "the policy" despite many self contradictions with the original instructions and the fact that it harms claimants and subverts recovery efforts (it not written down anywhere else except in the document link I show above that I forced the US DOL to produce to explain their "policy" related to that faulty Q&A). They never even went back and modified UIPL 23-08 Attachment A (page A-1 original definition). They have just gone forward using a faulty definition for a multi billion dollar recovery act related program (EUC08), that only exists in the "minds" of the heads of the DOL. I thought this was wrong when my own funds were denied as a result of this historic blunder. I ended up taking my state labor agencies to court and proved this to be wrong in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case A0-265448 on 10/20/11. The ARRA funds that I was improperly denied were restored to me as a result of this appeal victory that proved the US DOL mistakes could be refuted.
I would later discover to my shock and surprise, thanks to FOIA requests in made in the summer of 2012, that the heads of the US DOL actually contacted the White House/President Obama to inform them of my appeal victory and allegations (I redacted my own name to hold onto some privacy while I still can) :
10/18/11 (10/21/11)
Memorandum for the White House
From: DOL ETA Dale Ziegler Deputy Admin
Subject: Mr. "corazonroto" WH9262011-61
Dale Ziegler (to White House/President Obama)
"This is to inform you that Mr. "corazonroto" 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"
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
But, sadly, instead of helping me to help other affected claimants nationwide, the US government (DOL) decided to threaten the state of California with the end of this vital recovery act program, if they made my case a court "precedent" as I had requested in November of 2011 (exposing and admitting to the errors). They also ignored multiple complaints and petitions to redress these serious grievances that obviously affected other claimants like me nationwide (the same guideline errors are used by all states) (complaints made to multiple agencies seeking help were also ignored):
2/7/12
Letter from US DOL to California State agencies that threaten the end of the EUC08 program:
(i) "This decision is contrary to Federal Law. This case came to our attention as the result of an inquiry from Mr. "corazonroto". I am writing to request the state to take actions set forth below to remedy this problem."
(ii) "the state's EUC08 decisions must be consistent with UIPL No. 4-10 Change 4. Since the CUIAB's decision is inconsistent with this UIPL, the agreement requires the EDD to appeal the CUIAB's decision, and if successful, to issue a determination establishing an overpayment of any EUC08 benefits paid to Mr. "corazonroto" before the payment of regular compensation based upon his most recent benefit year."
(iii) "If there is no reversal of this decision, then the EDD is not to use the CUIAB's decision as precedent in making future determinations of the eligibility for EUC08. Using this decision as precedent will result in the termination of the Agreement with the Secretary of Labor which will require the end of the EUC08 program in California. In addition, any EUC08 benefits incorrectly paid as the result of no reversal of the decision will result in disallowed costs under any audit. "
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
2/14/12
My state caves into the threats above (did not notify me, did not try take away my restored EUC08 funds, just ignored the court decision as if it never existed and agree to pay me state funds to help cover this up):
"Dear Mr. Yamamoto,
This letter responds to your letter February 7, 2011, letter to Marty Morgenstern, Secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, regarding decision in CUIAB Case No. A0-265448/"corazonroto". Secretary Morgenstern has asked us to respond to you on this matter:
Pursuant to our conversation last week with Jamie Bachinski, and in accordance with your letter, we wish to provide you with the following assurances:
1. The Employment Development Department has not and will not use the decision in Case A0-265448 as a precedent for its determinations under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC) program.
2. The decision in Case No. A0-265448 will not be adopted by the CUIAB as a precedent.
3. Any and all benefits paid in error to Mr. "corazonroto" pursuant to Case No. A0-265448 will be paid without the use of federal funds.
4. CUIAB will conduct EUC training so that its judges fully understand the issues and deficiencies in Case No. A0-265448.
We appreciate Jamie speaking with us last week to provide clarification on the DOL's expectations for resolving this matter. It is our understanding that with these assurances it will not be necessary to pursue further action in court to seek the overturn of Case No. A0-265448. Thank you for helping us achieve a satisfactory resolution to this matter. "
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
I might not have gone to law school, but what they appear to be saying and doing appear to violate rights, laws and regulations don't you think? It really seems like they are trying to cover up what my appeal victory exposed: that they made a mistake that contradicts the law, which has harmed many other claimants like I was, but they don't intend to do anything to fix the problem. They say my appeal victory is an "error" but agree not to try to overturn the results they disagree with, but to just pay me state funds to keep this quiet? So I am being paid one way in accordance with the law, and all others are stuck being paid according to the mistakes above?
In my own case, I would have lost more than $20,000 over the past several years if I was forced to comply with the mistakes the US DOL has made. How many other claimants have been denied benefits the same way (since the government refuses to acknowledge their mistake nor refute my appeal victory/evidence)? How much damage does that add up to (since 2008)? The US DOL has been implementing the program this way ever since that faulty Q&A above was published about forcing claimants to use up any remaining balances from older EUC08 claims first before being allowed to be paid a new one, and in many cases the older claim is for lesser funds with a much lower weekly benefit payment). According to their own data:
(i) 29,748,954 EUC08 Claims (for all tiers)
(ii) that have paid a combined 663,688,610 weeks of benefits.
(iii) The amount spent so far = $97,433,246,688 for EUC08 benefits to present day.
Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State Programs, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
I think the US Department of Labor is responsible for a historic implementation disaster that I am having a hard time getting people to wrap their heads around. What can be done when the government refuses to even discuss the matters?
(from FOIA)
3/13/12
Routing and Transmittal Slip
re Sims Correspondence ID 673375
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. "corazonroro's" complaint. We have already responded to Mr. "corazonroto" 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." (a conspiracy to deprive me of my rights to petition the government to redress these serious grievances begins right here)
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. "corazonroto's" complaint. Since we have already responded to Mr. "corazonroto" 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." (speaking about the 2/7/12 threats Region 6 made on their orders)
What do you do when you government has conspired to not even speak with you again about these serious matters you keep petitioning them to redress? Is this still a Democracy? What about all the other unemployed victims who have been affected by this same implementation tragedy? (who are not eager to speak up nor to be found after so much abuse for so many years)
For example this poor woman (that shows Public Law 111-205/Bill HR4213 was affected negatively as well)
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
Part Time Penalty/BYE/Update
What do we tell her and her kids? Sorry...the government is not admitting mistakes anymore? Good luck feeding your kids on the lesser remaining balance of that EUC08 claim you got forced onto? This isn't just about the unemployed that many think have been living it up on these EUC08 benefits. They don't. They spend that money right away to survive. That money goes into that hands of businesses and this helps fuel our recovery efforts (the whole point of unemployment insurance in the first place). If that money is being denied improperly due to these serious mistakes by the US DOL, then that is subverting recovery efforts and something should be done to repair these problems (restore denied EUC08 funds and repair that faulty Q&A).
I will leave you with the plea from another victim I hope to help through my efforts to petition our government to redress these serious and urgent grievances:
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.
For example:
(before June 2008) The heads of the Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration's Office of Unemployment Insurance were in charge of interpreting the laws that our congress wrote, so that they could publish program guidelines for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08) in order for all states to administer these funds properly (that became part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009). From the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, PL 110-252, comes this most important definition that helps states to determine all EUC08 eligibility, payments and adjudication nationwide (federal-state partnership using federal funds):
"The applicable benefit year means the current benefit year if, at the time a claim for EUC is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year, or, in any other case, the individual's most recent benefit year. (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, section 4006 (June 30,2008) Stat. 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note"
Public Law*110 - 252 - Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
And that is almost exactly what the US DOL initially punished in July 2008, in the EUC08 program "Implementing and Operating Instructions", UIPL 23-08 Attachment A:
"Applicable Benefit Year” means, with respect to an individual, the current benefit year if, at the time an initial claim for EUC08 is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year only in the state against which claim is filed, or, in any other case, the individual’s most recent benefit year ending on or after May 1, 2007." (page A-1)
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
But, in the months after the program started (August 2008+), Robert Wagner, the Chief of Special Benefits for the Office of Unemployment Insurance interpreted this in a very different/contradictory way, and has been helping to force all states nationwide to comply with the following mistake he is responsible for (despite their own instructions above that contradict his advise), which appears to contradict the law as congress wrote it too, and as a result, improperly pays EUC08 benefits to struggling workers and families (denying them benefits from the most recent benefit year and forcing them to finish off any older lesser remaining balances of funds first which contradicts the law and subverts recovery efforts):
"The applicable benefit year used in determining an individual’s entitlement to EUC08 is defined as the most-recent benefit year at the time the initial claim for EUC08 is filed. The state agency determines an individual’s most recent benefit year at the time the EUC08 claim is filed and it serves as the benefit year for that EUC08 claim until EUC08 entitlement based on that benefit year is exhausted. "
The Illegal Noncompliant EUC08 Policy In Writing Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
Doesn't it seem like the US DOL just cut off the second half of the original definition that congress wrote, after they initially implemented it correctly in July 2008 (it is missing the "...or in any other case the most recent benefit year")? Can they just do whatever they like to the laws congress wrote (add/subtract and or arrange the words however it suits them like a game of Scrabble)? Clarification is one thing, but this is a direct modification of the intent of the law (to pay both on the initial claim year or the most recent benefit year, depending on circumstances explained in the rest of the program guidelines). This initial "interpretation of the law" by the US DOL in 2008, that appears to be faulty (and self contradictory to their own "instructions"), led the US DOL to also publish this related Q&A, that gave faulty legal advise too all states as a result of their misinterpretation of the law (August 2008):
"7. Question: May an individual have more than one EUC08 claim?
Answer: Yes. An individual may establish a claim for EUC08, qualify for a new UC benefit year, exhaust that benefit year, exhaust the first EUC08 claim and subsequently qualify for a second EUC08 claim based on the new (most recent) benefit year.
Example:
An individual is determined eligible for EUC08 based on a UC benefit year that ended on May 12, 2007. S/he receives 10 weeks of EUC08 prior to the calendar quarter change, at which point s/he qualifies for a new UC benefit year. Because the individual qualifies for regular UC, EUC08 payments must stop. The individual exhausts benefits based on his/her new UC benefit year; therefore, s/he is again an exhaustee for EUC08 purposes. S/he may collect the remaining entitlement on his/her existing (first) EUC08 claim and after exhausting these benefits s/he may file a new (second) EUC08 claim based on the new (most recent) UC benefit year. The new/most recent benefit year is the applicable benefit year for a second EUC08 claim, if the initial claim for that second claim is for a week of unemployment ending on or before March 31, 2009. "
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
This mistake adds an additional requirement to the law the never existed in the first place (and totally changes how it would be implemented nationwide as a result). Congress never said that a claimant must exhaust the full balance of the initial claim, and that all determinations, payments and adjudications were to be based only on the initial claim year until it was exhausted of any remaining funds (years later if need be). Regular unemployment insurance doesn't work that way, and congress made clear that "extended benefits" don't either. Yet, despite what congress specifically wrote down (PL. 110-252), the US DOL has been forcing their own "special interpretation" of the law through this one Q&A that has taken over as "the policy" despite many self contradictions with the original instructions and the fact that it harms claimants and subverts recovery efforts (it not written down anywhere else except in the document link I show above that I forced the US DOL to produce to explain their "policy" related to that faulty Q&A). They never even went back and modified UIPL 23-08 Attachment A (page A-1 original definition). They have just gone forward using a faulty definition for a multi billion dollar recovery act related program (EUC08), that only exists in the "minds" of the heads of the DOL. I thought this was wrong when my own funds were denied as a result of this historic blunder. I ended up taking my state labor agencies to court and proved this to be wrong in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case A0-265448 on 10/20/11. The ARRA funds that I was improperly denied were restored to me as a result of this appeal victory that proved the US DOL mistakes could be refuted.
I would later discover to my shock and surprise, thanks to FOIA requests in made in the summer of 2012, that the heads of the US DOL actually contacted the White House/President Obama to inform them of my appeal victory and allegations (I redacted my own name to hold onto some privacy while I still can) :
10/18/11 (10/21/11)
Memorandum for the White House
From: DOL ETA Dale Ziegler Deputy Admin
Subject: Mr. "corazonroto" WH9262011-61
Dale Ziegler (to White House/President Obama)
"This is to inform you that Mr. "corazonroto" 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"
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
But, sadly, instead of helping me to help other affected claimants nationwide, the US government (DOL) decided to threaten the state of California with the end of this vital recovery act program, if they made my case a court "precedent" as I had requested in November of 2011 (exposing and admitting to the errors). They also ignored multiple complaints and petitions to redress these serious grievances that obviously affected other claimants like me nationwide (the same guideline errors are used by all states) (complaints made to multiple agencies seeking help were also ignored):
2/7/12
Letter from US DOL to California State agencies that threaten the end of the EUC08 program:
(i) "This decision is contrary to Federal Law. This case came to our attention as the result of an inquiry from Mr. "corazonroto". I am writing to request the state to take actions set forth below to remedy this problem."
(ii) "the state's EUC08 decisions must be consistent with UIPL No. 4-10 Change 4. Since the CUIAB's decision is inconsistent with this UIPL, the agreement requires the EDD to appeal the CUIAB's decision, and if successful, to issue a determination establishing an overpayment of any EUC08 benefits paid to Mr. "corazonroto" before the payment of regular compensation based upon his most recent benefit year."
(iii) "If there is no reversal of this decision, then the EDD is not to use the CUIAB's decision as precedent in making future determinations of the eligibility for EUC08. Using this decision as precedent will result in the termination of the Agreement with the Secretary of Labor which will require the end of the EUC08 program in California. In addition, any EUC08 benefits incorrectly paid as the result of no reversal of the decision will result in disallowed costs under any audit. "
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
2/14/12
My state caves into the threats above (did not notify me, did not try take away my restored EUC08 funds, just ignored the court decision as if it never existed and agree to pay me state funds to help cover this up):
"Dear Mr. Yamamoto,
This letter responds to your letter February 7, 2011, letter to Marty Morgenstern, Secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, regarding decision in CUIAB Case No. A0-265448/"corazonroto". Secretary Morgenstern has asked us to respond to you on this matter:
Pursuant to our conversation last week with Jamie Bachinski, and in accordance with your letter, we wish to provide you with the following assurances:
1. The Employment Development Department has not and will not use the decision in Case A0-265448 as a precedent for its determinations under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC) program.
2. The decision in Case No. A0-265448 will not be adopted by the CUIAB as a precedent.
3. Any and all benefits paid in error to Mr. "corazonroto" pursuant to Case No. A0-265448 will be paid without the use of federal funds.
4. CUIAB will conduct EUC training so that its judges fully understand the issues and deficiencies in Case No. A0-265448.
We appreciate Jamie speaking with us last week to provide clarification on the DOL's expectations for resolving this matter. It is our understanding that with these assurances it will not be necessary to pursue further action in court to seek the overturn of Case No. A0-265448. Thank you for helping us achieve a satisfactory resolution to this matter. "
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
I might not have gone to law school, but what they appear to be saying and doing appear to violate rights, laws and regulations don't you think? It really seems like they are trying to cover up what my appeal victory exposed: that they made a mistake that contradicts the law, which has harmed many other claimants like I was, but they don't intend to do anything to fix the problem. They say my appeal victory is an "error" but agree not to try to overturn the results they disagree with, but to just pay me state funds to keep this quiet? So I am being paid one way in accordance with the law, and all others are stuck being paid according to the mistakes above?
In my own case, I would have lost more than $20,000 over the past several years if I was forced to comply with the mistakes the US DOL has made. How many other claimants have been denied benefits the same way (since the government refuses to acknowledge their mistake nor refute my appeal victory/evidence)? How much damage does that add up to (since 2008)? The US DOL has been implementing the program this way ever since that faulty Q&A above was published about forcing claimants to use up any remaining balances from older EUC08 claims first before being allowed to be paid a new one, and in many cases the older claim is for lesser funds with a much lower weekly benefit payment). According to their own data:
(i) 29,748,954 EUC08 Claims (for all tiers)
(ii) that have paid a combined 663,688,610 weeks of benefits.
(iii) The amount spent so far = $97,433,246,688 for EUC08 benefits to present day.
Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State Programs, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
I think the US Department of Labor is responsible for a historic implementation disaster that I am having a hard time getting people to wrap their heads around. What can be done when the government refuses to even discuss the matters?
(from FOIA)
3/13/12
Routing and Transmittal Slip
re Sims Correspondence ID 673375
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. "corazonroro's" complaint. We have already responded to Mr. "corazonroto" 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." (a conspiracy to deprive me of my rights to petition the government to redress these serious grievances begins right here)
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. "corazonroto's" complaint. Since we have already responded to Mr. "corazonroto" 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." (speaking about the 2/7/12 threats Region 6 made on their orders)
What do you do when you government has conspired to not even speak with you again about these serious matters you keep petitioning them to redress? Is this still a Democracy? What about all the other unemployed victims who have been affected by this same implementation tragedy? (who are not eager to speak up nor to be found after so much abuse for so many years)
For example this poor woman (that shows Public Law 111-205/Bill HR4213 was affected negatively as well)
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
Part Time Penalty/BYE/Update
What do we tell her and her kids? Sorry...the government is not admitting mistakes anymore? Good luck feeding your kids on the lesser remaining balance of that EUC08 claim you got forced onto? This isn't just about the unemployed that many think have been living it up on these EUC08 benefits. They don't. They spend that money right away to survive. That money goes into that hands of businesses and this helps fuel our recovery efforts (the whole point of unemployment insurance in the first place). If that money is being denied improperly due to these serious mistakes by the US DOL, then that is subverting recovery efforts and something should be done to repair these problems (restore denied EUC08 funds and repair that faulty Q&A).
I will leave you with the plea from another victim I hope to help through my efforts to petition our government to redress these serious and urgent grievances:
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.
Last edited:
