Skip to main content

View Diary: An ARRA Implementation Error Exposed (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can you summarize in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    maybe 3 to 4 sentences what you are complaining about?

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 05:07:27 PM PDT

    •  there is no easy 140 character or less (0+ / 0-)

      summation for you. I have tried short. I have tried long. I would paint it red white and blue if that would get people's attention better. I am just the investigator...but I will continue to try.

      1. I was denied ARRA funds last year.

      2. I discovered evidence, in plain sight,  that shows the DOL EUC08 guidelines for these ARRA funds are non-compliant with federal regulations regarding "multiple EUC claims".

      3. Using this evidence I won funds back on Appeal in California with the CUIAB and had the incorrect error based determinations reversed.

      4. The appeal victory proves errors exists in EUC08 Implementation that violate 20 CFR 615.5(2), 20 CFR 612.2 (c)(2) and 20 CFR 615.2(h)(1)(2). The case still stands and payments still continue uninterrupted to this day.

      5. These implementation errors affect millions of claimants and billions of ARRA dollars nationwide.

      6. Much effort has been made to report this to our government via precedent request for the appeal, complaints to the involved agencies, requests for oversight, and via the recovery fraud complaint that was filed.

      7. The government would not respond, except to delay and cover up their trail.

      8. The government wants to refute this evidence and appeal victory but cannot. They tried and failed. The initial FOIA requests from the DOL OIG and the RATB show this clearly.

      9. In the course of ignoring my requests and trying to stop my case from becoming a precedent, they may have violated many rights, laws and regulations.

      10. FOIA and Privacy Act documents back this up and show many high level and high priority communications among agency heads and their  respective legal counsels over many months. This is the same time period I filed complaints and requested oversight, but got no response.

      11. I am still investigating and uncovering more. Multiple FOIA, Privacy Act and Presidential Records request are pending.

      Read through the links and the rest of my "story" no matter how painful it may be for you. Ask me questions. Test me. Fire away...

      •  It's just too much to wade through. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Okay, so you received the benefits that you were entitled to.  And the government is not going to try to recover any funds from you, is that correct?

        Now what exactly are you trying to do.  Ensure that other claimants get what is due to them?  Because it sounds like what you've done has already caused agency head to look into the matter, even if it is going at a snail's pace.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 05:45:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you won't read the material? (0+ / 0-)

          Okay then...I'm the new kid, so I will face the bullies. But good luck trying to get my lunch money...

          Yes. Guilty as charged with no due process. I am trying to get billions of dollars back for millions of struggling unemployed workers and families who are the victims of not only improper determinations and payments, but also faulty adjudication (all based on the errors in the UIPL Q&A sections).

          This money is not just for them. It goes right back into the economy. There is also an overpayment issue to deal with and the government had better be fair to those "lucky ones" they misinformed for more than four years.

          As for my ARRA funds, EDD and the CUIAB in California lost against me. They cannot recover the funds from me even though they would like to in order to support their incorrect implementation for these ARRA emergency designated funds. There is a small problem with the fact that the Feds REFUSE to pay me in support of CUIAB Case No A0-265448 (see below). Cali is paying me out of their state funds, to cover my federal EUC08 account, because of my appeal victory that they could not overturn.

          This is "the" definition of improper payments under the Improper Payment Act. If I won an EUC08 case against the feds faulty EUC08 implementation, then they have to pay me federal funds. But, my legal issues out of this take a back burner. Those denied emergency funds need them back before I even think about trying to spend years suing the feds for what they pulled on me (all administrative remedies are not quite at their final end for me...but close).

          The 2/7 an 2/14/12 letters I uncovered show that all agencies wanted overturn my case. They never took it to court despite saying that the decision was "contrary to federal law". The Feds cannot recover funds from me, despite trying to threaten California into do so, and are claiming that their UIPL guidelines ARE THE LAW (above the federal regulations). Read the letters and you will see the Feds demanded that no precedent be set whether they could overturn my case or not.

          This federal agency was caught messing in a state determination matter (a precedent decision that would directly affect their EUC08 implementation). They were caught making threats about state determinations, payments and adjudications. The even threatened millions of other claimants over my precedent request ("...end of the EUC08 program in California"). The DOL ETA states clearly on their webpages and elsewhere that they have no authority to do this:

          Benefit Denials
          "Please note that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene in individual claims for benefits."
          So at a very minimum, these actions from the 2/7/12 letter I discovered via FOIA, would be an "abuse of authority" by the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration would they not? (getting involved in my CUIAB case in the way they have and threatening other claimants over it).
          Thank you FOIA. This is right from the mouth of Todd Yamamoto, DOL ETA Region 6 San Francisco on 2/7/12:

          "I am writing to request the state to take actions set forth below to remedy this problem."

          "Since the CUIAB's decision is inconsistent with this UIPL, the agreement requires the EDD to appeal the CUIAB's decision..."

          "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."

          EDD Pam Harris and CUIAB Chair Robert Dresser (the judge in my appeal case), responded back to the DOL ETA on 2/14/12. They said:
          "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 xxxxx pursuant to Case No. A0-265448 will be paid without the use of federal funds."

          "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."

          No review process for the precedent. No mention of 20 CFR 615 that won my appeal case in either letter. No reference to any US Law, Code, Statute nor regulation. The same UIPLs I proved had non-compliant errors, that were the basis for my appeal victory in the first place, where the only "federal law" mentioned by any party.

          But, when I requested oversight and an investigation from the DOL Office of Inspector General in this same time period, this is what I was told in an email on 2/17/12 by Eder Marcus:

          "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 benefits determinations, such as those you have reported."
          I have the emails from FOIA/Privacy Act requests (lots of them). There is no investigation going at a snails pace. There is a cover up going on and it is moving very fast to subvert most of what I have tried to do ever since I won that appeal case.

          The emails I have clearly show communications labeled "high priority", sharing my evidence, complaints and public disclosure amongst the heads of the agencies and their respective legal counsel. I have only been allowed to see the "lower level" communications ( a violation of FOIA and the Privacy Act). I am appealing the earlier FOIAs to get the "upper management" side of these conversations (#688882 - Gay Gilbert, Hilda Solis, ETLS, Daniel Petrole among others). They are of course trying to stop me from doing that (White House FOIA #12-167/12-168 are still within the 20 day time limit).

          I know it is a great deal to swallow. Trust me I know better than anyone else. I invite you to read the material. There is something very wrong about how our government has been acting throughout this whole affair. They are violating FOIA, ignoring oversight under three federal laws (ARRA, Improper Payments and IG Act), while never refuting the evidence once. They don't even try to come up with an excuse. FOIA/Privacy Act documents show all the involved agencies sharing evidence and keeping each other up to date about my complaints, public concerns and media disclosure.

          Oh yea...and the EUC08 program has a major implementation error. The "Multiple EUC Claims" Q&As seem to have no basis in any factual law. This agency feels they are above those laws and that their faulty guidelines trump 20 CFR 615. They are wrong. Their own compliance material proves this.

          The DOL OIG is supposedly separate from the DOL ETA in investigations right? The Recovery Board should not be acting this way either, should they? Can anyone explain why the accused parties in an ARRA Fraud investigation are allowed to share evidence and dictate how the investigation against them is run? Is that how it is supposed to work? Would an ARRA "outside" contractor accused of Fraud/Improper Payments get such a luxury from the Feds?

          So. Is this spam? Or are we looking at a discovery of some serious abuses of authority by the Department of Labor? What about everything else? Have time to take a read now?

          Can I at least get my lunch money back?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site