Mr. President: The US Department of Labor has violated Federal Statutes

[corazonroto]

In 2011 I was improperly denied federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08). I researched the applicable statutes (federal law Congress wrote and existing federal regulations about extended benefits) and discovered that the US Department of Labor had actually published a serious mistake in their "program guidelines" that were issued to all states starting in the summer of 2008, that was the specific source of my improper benefit denial in California that contradicted the federal law (see the "Multiple EUC Claims Q&A" below). I appealed the improper denials and payments, based on the faulty US DOL interpretation and implementation of federal statutes, that my state labor agency, the Employment Development Department, had blindly followed like all others, and actually prevailed in a court of law under California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case A0-265448 on 10/20/11. I had thousands of dollars in denied EUC08 benefits restored and my claim history/payments were adjusted in accordance with the federal statutes, ignoring the US DOL mistakes discussed below through payments to present day.
CUIAB Case A0265448 Victory On October 20 2011 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

These are "extended unemployment benefits" in the form of an EUC08 Account, that are paid with federal funds, from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Title II Division B Section 2001) to otherwise eligible claimants who "exhaust" their state regular unemployment funds. This is a Federal-State partnership between the US Department of Labor and all related state Labor Agencies. The federal statutes for this vital "recovery act" program are found, starting from Public Law 110-252, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 and through the regulations found at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615.
Public Law*110 - 252 - Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

The US Department of Labor took these "statutes" and from them created "program guidelines" for all States to follow. The original "operating instructions" for the EUC08 program were first published in June of 2008 in UIPL 23-08 Attachment A (unemployment insurance program letter).
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/att...L23-08C1a1.pdf

The Federal Law, the Federal Regulations and even the original "error-free" US DOL EUC08 "operating instructions" all used the same definition for this important term used to determine how and when to pay a claimant these federal emergency unemployment funds. They all say that the definition for the "Applicable Benefit Year" (ABY) is :

(1) Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008
"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"

(2) US DOL UIPL 230-8 Attachment A "operating instructions for EUC08 program"
"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)

(3) Federal Regulations at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615.2
"(c)(1) Benefit year means, with respect to an individual, the benefit year as defined in the applicable State law. (2) Applicable benefit year means, with respect to an individual, the current benefit year if, at the time an initial claim for Extended Benefits is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year only in the State in which such claim is filed, or, in any other case, the individual's most recent benefit year. For this purpose, the most recent benefit year for an individual who has unexpired benefit years in more than one State when an initial claim for Extended Benefits is filed, is the benefit year with the latest ending date or, if such benefit years have the same ending date, the benefit year in which the latest continued claim for regular compensation was filed. The individual's most recent benefit year which expires in an Extended Benefit Period is the applicable benefit year if the individual cannot establish a second benefit year or is precluded from receiving regular compensation in a second benefit year solely by reason of a State law provision which meets the requirement of section 3304(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(7))."

How to apply this important EUC08 definition (ABY) and the related Q&A about "Multiple EUC claims" (what to do, when and which to pay first) were the main issues in my appeal case. Prior to my state administrative court appeal win in October of 2011, the US DOL got directly involved in this state determination matter, since their "policy" had been directly challenged by evidence in my appeal and through a separate "service request" I made along with complaints to their Inspector General. They provided me, and the California Employment Development Department (as well as the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board) the following evidence, meant to refute my appeal challenge and back up the mistakes in the program guidelines I had pointed out:

(4) The US DOL Mistake that violates Federal Statutes:
"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

All other information and problems aside, at a minimum that "interpretation" of the federal statutes shown above is incorrect. The US DOL has no authority to play "scrabble" with the laws that Congress wrote and that is exactly what they did. Look at the three examples above (1-3) and compare them to (4). The US DOL improperly removed "the current benefit year" and got rid of "or, in any other case, the individuals most recent benefit year". They also added this incorrect statement meant to back up the faulty Q&A discussed below: "and it serves as the benefit year for that EUC08 claim until EUC08 entitlement based on that benefit year is exhausted.".

Their interpretation of the federal statutes is flawed, inaccurate, and completely wrong. This has not been made public by the US DOL. This has not been published by the US DOL. The US DOL did not go back and alter the other "public" definitions that contradicts this (1-3). They did not promulgate these new changes. They invented these, in order to back up the faulty related Q&A they published about "Multiple EUC Claims" (see below). They only show these "cards" when they try to deny benefits (an cover up their historic mistakes). They have no authority to do so and as a result, up to millions of EUC08 claimants nationwide may have been negatively affected since 2008, wasting up to billions of ARRA dollars in the process.

This is what the "Chevron Doctrine" says about federal agencies and the interpretation of the law, as explained by the Louisiana Law Review, making clear that what the US DOL is doing and trying to get away with would fail this key test in a court of law:

"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6250&context=lalrev
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The improper "alterations" this rogue federal agency has made through their faulty interpretation of the federal law makes a huge difference, without those phrases above that the US DOL willfully removed (and with the additional one they added at the end). It turns a conditional definition into an absolute one. The US DOL has further decided, contradicting what the statutes say about EUC08 eligibility determinations, that this means that claimants must fully exhaust all funds from the first EUC08 Account (based on the initial state regular unemployment claim wage and eligibility period) before they are allowed to be paid another new one based on any subsequent most recent and current benefit year that regular state unemployment was exhausted from.

The Problem: Claimants who had a lesser state regular unemployment claim from the past, with a lesser weekly benefit amount EUC08 account, are being forced to finish off all remaining weeks of Tiers I-IV (70 total give or take recent reductions), before they can be paid a higher paying brand new EUC08 account based on the current benefit years state claim at a higher weekly rate (example: trapped on a 2009 claim for $80/week with 58 weeks remaining, instead of paying "forward" to a new account for $450/week based on current exhausted state claim for 2011). Many times they are improperly being told that this current but not yet opened EUC08 account is "expired" if for some reason they don't claim it within the first year (52 week state benefit period). This has devastated many struggling workers and families, and will continue to do so until the mistakes are repaired.

This is the faulty program guidelines Q&A that came about and was published in August of 2008, as a result of this "internal" interpretation (4) of the statutes related to the ABY definition that contradicts the federal statutes shown in (1-3) above:

(5) Program Letter 23-08 Section D Monetary Eligibility "Multiple EUC Claims" Q&A Error
"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 is exactly what the US DOL and state of California Employment Development Department used to improperly pay and deny me EUC08 benefits. Both the Q&A mistake (5) and the ABY definition mistake (4) were in fact refuted by CUIAB Case A0-265448 on 10/20/11 based on evidence including the important comparison between (1-3) and (4). The faulty determinations based on those mistakes were reversed and I was paid properly according to the law. The specific statement of policy the US DOL provided was also refuted:

The Illegal Noncompliant EUC08 Policy In Writing Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

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

Mr. President, this is where you and the White House became involved:
My October 2011 appeal victory, that refuted US DOL EUC08 program implementation errors, caused the US Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration's Duty Administrator Dale Ziegler, to contact the White House/President Obama, on 10/21/11, the day after my appeal case prevailed (Memorandum WH9262011-61)
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

And it is very likely that this resulted in the following improper denial of my "precedent request" for my appeal case (to help other claimants and force the repair of the EUC08 program guideline mistakes), and the illegal threats to end the EUC08 program in California by the US DOL, who also refused to use federal funds to pay for the results of the appeal case, improperly forcing my state to pay instead:

2/7/12
Letter from US Department of Labor to California State agencies that threaten the end of the EUC08 program:
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
(i) "This decision is contrary to Federal Law. This case came to our attention as the result of an inquiry from Mr.XXXX. 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. XXXX 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. "

2/14/12
The State of California improperly caves into the improper threats and demands above:
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

"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/XXXX. 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. XXXX 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. "
FOIA Timeline US DOL Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

This happened despite some from the US DOL OIG who saw a need to investigate further (from November of 2011 after my appeal evidence was received by their office):
"This additional information appears to support Mr. XXXX allegations that the California Employment Development Department has failed to comply with the 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"
- Marcus S. Eder US DOL OIG Complaint Analysis Officer 10/31/2011
http://s1359.photobucket.com/user/corazonroto512/library/FOIA Timeline US DOL
http://s1359.photobucket.com/user/c...tionsatfirst_zps4e0a474d.jpg.html?sort=9&o=17

There seems to be a great deal of illegal activity going on in your administration President Obama. The timing of these events would appear to suggest a cover up, prior to your 2012 Election win. What would have happened if this story got out before then I wonder?

You have repeatedly and publicly claimed how great "recovery efforts" have been going, but fail to mention this historic ARRA denial disaster that has harmed struggling workers and families and negatively affects our weak economy since 2008 (denied EUC08 funds). When the US DOL mistakes were refuted by my appeal victory in October 2011, your administration went out of their way to illegally squash the precedent request I made in a state determination matter/court of law, and to make sure no other claimants would benefit, or else:

"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."

What do you have to say about all of this Mr. President? Is there any accountability left in your administration? Will you respond to my petitions and complaints under Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506 or keep ignoring the problem for as long as you can get away with while struggling workers and families pay the price for your refusal to deal with these urgent problems of national importance.

Mr. President. I call you out. I challenge you. I demand you refute the evidence and successful challenges I have made against the faulty implementation of the federal EUC08 program by the US Department of Labor or investigate and repair the historic problems you have tried so hard to cover up for so long.

 

[driveby]

Obama doesn't care and no one is going to do jack shit about it..........

 

[corazonroto]

I agree.

President Obama does not care about the affected long term unemployed struggling workers and families the US Departent of Labor EUC08 program implementation disaster has harmed. If he did he would have acted long ago to resolve these problems with the US DOL's failed implementation of the federal EUC08 program. He cares about staying out of trouble above all else like all in government do before our rights are ever even considered. Accountability, Oversight and Transparency are at an all time low. And this was the administration that made so many lofty proclamation about Open Government no less!

Nobody in his administration is going to do jack about it because that would mean many high profile names would be under investigation: President Obama, Hilda Solis, Daniel Petrole, Kathleen Tighe, Donald Cox, Robert Wagner, Gay Gilbert, Dale Ziegler, Seth Harris, Eric Holder, Kamala Harris, Marty Morgenstern, Pam Harris, Robert Dresser, Mark Woo Sam, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and many others would have to answer some uncomfortable questions about these too long ignored matters. If they were willing to let Wall Street and the Investor Banks walk after what they pulled, its unlikely this "little problem" with the implementation of the federal EUC08 program would get the attention and oversight our laws require. (to our government now) Everything is optional, bend and twist-able, especially when we "dare" point the finger at them and accuse them of doing something wrong.

However I am far from done investigating them on my own under Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506 and California State Audit Complaints I-2011-1281 and I-2013-0109. No matter how long it takes, I will find a way to help the unemployed struggling workers and families that our government has ignored. Along the way I hope to finally drag at least a few corrupt government officials to the justice shed for a good legal lesson if I can.

I am not going to let the US Department of Labor get away with illegally threatening the end of the EUC08 program in my state over my valid appeal victory that exposed the problems they prefer to cover up. Too many ignored struggling workers and families have had no choice but to be forced onto older and lesser claims, when they should have been paid more beneficial new ones. Most of the victims were also improperly told that the new higher paying EUC08 claims "expired" because they took "too long" to exhaust the older and lesser remaining balances. That contradicts federal law and subverted recovery efforts, straining other benefit programs like food stamps, and drove many struggling citizens over the financial cliff.

I took my state agencies to court in California, and even with the US Department of Labor directly involved, I used the actual law to prevail and prove their policy mistakes were legally invalid. Now they want to cover up the decision in my favor and make sure no other US Citizen benefits from the results that they would not even attempt to overturn in Superior Court.

It's a stalemate for now, until this administration is out of power anyway. In the meantime I am filing more FOIA and State Public Records requests, to obtain more incriminating documents, and to help track down other victims to form class action against the US Government. I am seeking the help of government oversight and FOIA advocacy groups to help me investigate further and deeper.

Nobody from the Obama administration is going to do jack except to violate my rights to petition them to redress these grievances and ignore ARRA oversight requirements. But, I am stepping in and hanging on for the long haul, because our government has failed to help these other affected citizens nationwide. Someone has to help them. I am determined to try, but I could use help, support and exposure.

My strong evidence and analysis resisted the legal might of the state and federal government for the past three years. Despite the initial disbelief factor I assure you everything I have alleged is true to the best of my knowledge under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.

"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)."
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm

https://www.facebook.com/UnemploymentBenefitsRestorationProject

 

[corazonroto]

If you have any initial doubts about my evidence and allegations, then keep this in mind as you read:

"This additional information appears to support Mr. XXXX's allegations that the California Employment Development Department has failed to comply with the 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"

- Marcus S. Eder US DOL OIG Complaint Analysis Officer 10/31/2011.

FOIA Timeline US DOL Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
US DOL OIG Post Appeal Victory Thinks I Have Merits Photo by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

This is how the US Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General initially responded to my complaints after I won the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case A0-265448 on 10/20/11 that proved the Employment & Training Administration published harmful mistakes in the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program guidelines they issued nationwide to all state labor agencies starting back in the summer of 2008 (about how to handle Multiple EUC08 claims).

But, instead of investigating the evidence that their own US DOL OIG complaint analysis officer favorably reviewed above (in November of 2011 after the appeal case was won). Agents within the federal government decided to instead cover the problem up, by threatening the State of California with the end of the EUC08 program 2/7/12 if they made that court case a precedent that would help any other affected victims of the implementation problems (Multiple EUC Claims/Applicable Benefit Year mistakes by the US DOL) :

2/7/12
Letter from US Department of Labor to California State agencies that threaten the end of the EUC08 program:
Department Of Labor Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket
(i) "This decision is contrary to Federal Law. This case came to our attention as the result of an inquiry from Mr.XXXX. 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. XXXX 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. "

A Federal Agency has been allowed to ignore an unfavorable decision in a court of law against them. They act as if the law and courts have no authority. They did not like how the California courts decided and instead of making a subsequent superior court challenge to prove they were right they made illegal threats and demands meant to cover the problem up for good (to make sure no other claimant would be paid properly like I was post appeal victory).

The Obama Administration refuses to be Open, Transparent and Accountable with regards to these highly illegal actions by multiple state and federal officials. All of the involved agencies refuse to act with no legal justification for their lack of oversight. They have successfully blocked any attempt I have made to investigate any further.

I have been trying to get my congressional representative Barbara Lee involved for many years now. She has been provided this same evidence and much more, that strongly suggests that state and federal officials have broken the law and conspired to cover up the damage they have done. Congress wrote the laws that the US Department of Labor has been allowed to twist and bend illegally. Someone from Congress needs to step up and help me force the DOJ and FBI to investigate this problem when the involved agencies have utterly failed in their mandatory oversight duties.

Instead of investigating further, Mariah Jones and others within Barbara Lee's office refuse to follow up on this strong evidence of government wrongdoing. Congresswoman Barbara Lee refuses to respond to my petitions and requests that we meet to discuss this serious problem affecting millions of struggling unemployed citizens nationwide.

Up to millions of struggling workers and families have been denied benefits by the exact same problem I prevailed against in a court of law. That result from a court of law has been intentionally subverted by agents of the Obama Administration across multiple state and federal agencies (to ensure that no other victim of the same problem would prevail as I had).

Up to billions of emergency designated ARRA dollars have been wasted since 2008 due to improper payments made based on the US Department of Labor's faulty implementation of the federal EUC08 program.

But, the US Government refuses to investigate my strong evidence and allegations simply because it would incriminate many high level Obama administration officials. Even so called "champions of the unemployed" like Congresswoman Barbara Lee refuse to get involved because of her obvious political connections (that are more important than the actual unemployed victims it seems).

The US Government has failed to make any attempt to overturn my appeal victory. I have continued to be paid federal EUC08 up through 2013 based upon the results of that appeal win on 10/20/11. This contradicts the errors that are still published in the federal EUC08 guidelines. The US DOL refuses to repair the mistake I proved wrong in a court of law. Our government refuses to properly pay all the other millions of EUC08 claimants who were harmed by the same mistakes I refuted in a court of law.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee's office is sitting on this evidence and doing nothing to help the affected struggling workers and families.