Skip to main content

This is not the news anyone wants to hear...myself included. But here are the facts, in the form of the formal complaint I have sent to the State and Federal Officials I seem to have caught in a serious cover up and scandal thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. Before you think about your politics take one moment to imagine what this has done to our Economy and the unemployed "struggling workers and families" for the past four years...

-------- Original Message (edited for DK) -------
Subject:     DOL EDD CUIAB joint complaint and demand for a response re Actions Against EUC08 Whistle Blower Efforts Feb 2012 re CUIAB CASE A0-265448 and Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506
Date:     Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:12:23 -0700
From:     jerkyspace



Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
California Employment Development Department

Marty Morgenstern, California Labor & Workforce
Mark Woo Sam, California Labor & Workforce Legal
Robert Dresser CUIAB Chair, ALJ
Alberto Roland, CUIAB, Chief ALJ
Pam Harris, Director Employment Development Department (EDD)
Talbott Smith, EDD Unemployment Branch Manager
Sandra Clifton, EDD Legal
Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor
Dale Ziegler, Department of Labor Unemployment Insurance Division
Gay Gilbert, Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration
+any related parties that are involved

Good day.
I think you know why I am writing you.

This is my formal complaint, that will be sent to the California State Bar, California State Audit, the American Civil Liberties Union, The Department of Justice/FBI, Legal Counsel, The Public and the Media, and if all administrative remedies have come to an end, then it will serve the as basis of the civil/criminal legal action in the courts if the US government intends to force things in that direction.

Please consider and respond with regards to your actions and in-actions this past year, weighed against my research/evidence/standing decision/recovery fraud complaint/FOIA discoveries:

1. On 2/14/12 California Employment Development Department Director Pam Harris and California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Chair Robert Dresser, apparently under the direction and approval of Marty Morgenstern California Labor & Workforce Development Agency responded to the 2/7/12 letter from Todd Yamamoto Department of Labor ETA Region 6 San Francisco. This response contains multiple violations of Procedure, Law, Regulations and Oversight both State and Federal. This request and response contains multiple Civil Rights and Constitutional Violations. These letters were exposed by the Whistle Blower, July 2012, via FOIA request from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General. Many other FOIA, Privacy Act and Presidential Records Act requests are under way to further my investigations in to the serious problems with the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program implementation since 2008.

(a) in this 2/14/12 letter, Pam Harris and Robert Dresser are jointly involved in the attempt to keep CUIAB Case A0-265448 from becoming a precedent decision. All documentation by EDD and the CUIAB clearly states that the CUIAB is separate and independent from the EDD. Yet here, in the 2/14/12 letter they are actively involved together in denying the precedent and application of it. By what legal right does the EDD explain its involvement is this matter jointly with the CUIAB regarding my case being set as precedent? Why are these agencies acting together in these matters when they clearly should not be?

(b) in this joint EDD and CUIAB 2/14/12 letter, Pam Harris has responded to the improper and illegal threat of the loss of all emergency benefits for all California claimants by the Department of Labor Todd Yamamoto, who says that the 10/20/11 CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 standing decision, is "contrary to federal law". He bases his improper and illegal threat on his assertion that Department of Labor UIPL 4-10 Change 4 Attachment I Section D, is the federal law We both know as your Legal Counsel Sandra Clifton, Legal Counsel for California Labor & Workforce Mark Woo Sam know very well, that the actual federal administrative law is not UIPL 4-10. That is the interpretation and implementation of the actual federal administrative law found at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. This interpretation and implementation was made incorrectly by the DOL policy experts at the Employment & Training Administration. The Q&A sections of these UIPLS (23-08 through 4/10+) contain errors that do not comply with Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. Evidence from 20 CFR 615 was what won the appeal in Case No. A0-265448 on 10/20/11. How is it that EDD and the CUIAB and DOL never mention it once in either letter? Does DOL, CUIAB and EDD and their legal counsel stand by UIPL 4-10 CHANGE 1 (and anywhere else), which contains the same mistakes my evidence and Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0 point out in detail? Can the DOL compare them to 20 CFR 615 to refute this? Are both EDD the CUIAB and the DOL trying to say that Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 is not the actual federal administrative law for EUC08? Please explain and justify in detail?

(c) in this 2/7/12 and 2/14/12 exchange between the Federal Department of Labor and these State agencies, that demanded that the EDD/CUIAB appeal and overturn my 10/20/11 appeal victory in Case No. A0-2675448, the DOL has violated its own rules and procedures for dealing with State Ui Determinations and Adjudication. I quote from the Department of Labor website regarding benefits denials:

"Please note that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene in individual claims for benefits".

How does EDD and the CUIAB explain their allowing the Federal Department of Labor to violate this important rule, that they themselves also ignored when it came to trying to cover up CUIAB Case No A0-265448 and keep it from becoming a precedent. Placing this case in front of a Superior Court Judge would be exposing this billion dollar + fraud of emergency designated ARRA funds that has harmed millions of claimants nationwide for the past four years, wouldn't it? Why did they allow themselves to be threatened when the Feds are not supposed to interfere? This is after all why Eder Marcus from the DOL OIG, denied investigating my problems on 2/17/12: This office said they did not have time to investigate, because it was a "state determination matter" and they would not interfere with that, yet here the DOL ETA is on 2/7/12 just 10 days earlier, making threatens and demands about a "state determination matter" and precedent decision no less. Please explain how you think this is legal and proper?

(d) in the 2/14/12 reply from the California EDD and CUIAB, Pam Harris and Robert Dresser agree, without due process, and jointly despite the supposed independence of the CUIAB, and did decide without notifying the whistle blower to not make CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 a precedent decision, as it should be. They did this without ever mentioning 20 CFR 615, while under improper and illegal threat from the Federal DOL, and also while never trying to take CUIAB CASE NO A0-265448 to Superior Court under a Writ of Administrative Mandate, which is the proper legal route to overturn/challenge a standing decision awaiting precedent status. How does the CUIAB/EDD justify these actions and explain them with legal backing? How can my decision still stand but the DOL expects action to occur whether the EDD and CUIAB can appeal and overturn my case or not. How do you explain this?

(e) in the 2/7/12 and 2/14/12 exchange of letters between the DOL and California EDD and the CUIAB, the DOL refuses to pay federal funds in support of Case No A0-265448. EDD's Pam Harris and the CUIAB Chair Robert Dresser, who should be separate and independent in these matters, agreed with the Feds and decided to pay state funds for the whistle blower's Emergency Unemployment Compensation, without ever notifying him of any change nor problems. All notices for EUC08 since 10/20/11 are for FEDERAL Emergency Unemployment Compensation, paid by FEDERAL funds. How does the DOL and EDD explain and legally justify this refusal to pay/method of payment and the lack of notification in changes to the EUC08 payments?

(f) in the 2/14/12, response the CUIAB refers to "conducting EUC training so that its judges fully understand the issues and deficiencies in Case No A0-265448". I ask again for the specific details of what issues and what deficiencies exist in Case No. A0-265448? How exactly does this decision violate the actual federal administrative law found at 20 CFR 615, Public Law 110-252/111-205?

(g) Why is Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 not mentioned once in either the 2/7/12 letter or the 2/14/12 letter? This evidence was the basis for the appeal victory on 10/20/11. If you did not "feel it necessary to pursue further action in court to seek the overturn of Case No. A0-265448", then how do you explain ignoring this evidence and what you tried to do (a)-(f)? How also do you explain that in this same time period, early 2012, the EUC08 whistle blower was trying to request ARRA, Improper Payments Act and Inspector General Act oversight for the problems and mistakes his 10/20/11 appeal victory and still standing decision have exposed, yet you never replied nor tried to follow up with the whistle blower? Can you explain why you all think that the Q&A sections found in all the changes of UIPL 23-08 and 4-10 about "Multiple EUC Claims", are legal/correct? Can you show where this has legal backing in the federal administrative law which you refuse to compare it to ever nor try to refute the contradictions found at 20 CFR 615.5(2), 20 CFR 615.2(c)(2), and 20 CFR 615.2(h)(1)(2). This seems to refute everything these serious mistakes say. CUIAB Robert Dresser and Roy Ashburn agreed on 10/20/11, but after the threats from the DOL on 2/7/12, based on more errors and mistakes, at least Robert Dresser changed his mind and without due process and with EDD helping jointly, the precedent was in fact not set with due process/proper review. The EUC08 method of payment was altered illegally with no notice nor due process either. Can you explain and justify these actions with any legal basis?

FOIA, Privacy Act, Presidential Records Act and California Public Records request will be coming for you all.
Many of them for a long time.
New articles being written based on A-G, the Recovery Board failures/involvement and more FOIA/Privacy Act revelations about the White House Involvement 10/18/11, 10/21/11 and ???

The first of many State Bar Complaints is under way against CUIAB Robert Dresser (#12-15011), Mark Woo Sam and Sandra Clifton will either be added into this complaint or get separate ones against them very soon. State Bar Complaints against Federal Attorneys will follow in their respective States.

Is the cover up over now? Would anyone like to do their duty and contact me to begin a proper investigation? What will you all try to pull next now that you have been exposed before the November General Election?
Your move...

EUC08 Whistle Blower

Investigate the EUC08 Errors

Stop the Department of Labor Extended Benefits Mistake Cover Up

Copies of FOIA 2/7/12 and 2/14/12 Letters here:
If Regulations are Broken in the Forest and Nobody Sees and Hears them get broken

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

Future news update coming soon:
EUC08 Whistle Blower FOIA/Presidential Records Act request
re: Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0
re: SIMS ID 663175.Originator: "jerkyspace". Addressee: OBAMA. Subject: Denied Unemployment Benefits. Date entered 10/18/2011
re: WH9262011-61 Memorandum 10/21/11 from DOL ETA Dale Zeigler
re: CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 Victory 10/20/11

"Your FOIA request was received in the Office of Management and Budget on August 1, 2012 and was logged in as FOIA # 12-170.  OMB will review your request and make a determination within 20 days."

What will I discover next?

5:23 PM PT: INFORMATION UPDATE: requested, my non-writer attempt at a concise summary, written weeks ago before recent FOIA discoveries exposed the cover-up of the efforts described here:

Summary of EUC08 Errors, from Facebook Group Investigate The EUC08 Errors for the Public and Media:

Investigate the EUC08 Errors

1. The US Government refuses to acknowledge nor refute the Emergency Unemployment Compensation appeal victory in October of 2011, that reversed two incorrect determinations based on published federal guideline errors that have distributed nationwide to every state.

2. This appeal victory stopped the government from paying the remaining balance from an an older EUC08 account, which caused harm, by paying less extended benefits.

3. The evidence used to win this appeal (A0-265448) was from the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Department of Labor shows they are supposed to comply with.

4. The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published Q&A sections of the EUC08 implementation guidelines that contain errors that don't follow the federal regulations.

5. These errors have turned into an incorrect and harmful Federal "policy", followed in every State.

6. This evidence has been shown to the State the FBI, the US Attorneys, The Department of Justice, The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and the DOL Office of Inspector General, but none of them will investigate or take action, except to delay and cover this up without making one attempt to refute the evidence.

7. The evidence proves that a Federal Agency published mistakes in their implementation guidelines for these important emergency designated funds affecting the $40 Billion Unemployment Trust Fund and up to 4 Million other EUC08 claimants Nationwide. What they say is the opposite of what the Federal Regulations require affecting payments, determinations and adjudication. This has greatly harmed the intent of the Recovery Act.

8. Many thousands and thousands of unemployed, in every state have tried to appeal these errors and lost. The evidence shows that EUC08 "policy" found in the Code of Federal Regulations has been implemented correctly, via the appeal victory, for one claimant in California only, but everyone else is basically on their own and subject to an "authority" that has not followed the regulations they say they are supposed to comply with.

9. The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General has twice blown their oversight duty off, incorrectly citing the evidence and reasons they were contacted without even addressing the DOL ETA published Q&A mistakes nor the ARRA at all. They are trying to ignore it as a "State Only" determination mistake, stating that every claimant "has a right to appeal" (ignoring the adjudication error evidence).

10. A response from the RATB, to the DOL OIG refusing to act again should be coming in the next weeks. They will get a "responsive report" from the DOL OIG. The hope is that that they will issue a FLASH REPORT to the President and Congress. Delays are adding up while Workers and Families struggle without the emergency designated funds they were promised by law.

11. The economy is still treating them very harshly, while the government ignores the requirement that immediate action be taken with regards to any problems with Recovery Act Funds. These denied ARRA funds would go right back out to our struggling economy. Taxpayer dollars would not be wasted on the flood of EUC08 appeals.

12. People have been forced to accept less EUC08 money and many others have run out of aid earlier than they should have because of these errors.

13. Repairing these errors and paying claimants back on EUC08 or Extended Duration Benefits adds them back to the Unemployment Rate. This could turn back on State Triggers for these other extended benefits that have recently been ending due to many unemployed running out of benefits.

14. Hopefully, the RATB will act upon seeing the oversight requirement evidence, and force the DOL OIG to investigate, or they will act on their own (they have this power). They can also alert Congress and the President then action may come that way. Solyndra is a specific example of ARRA oversight investigation that got IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

15. The RATB can and should also get the Department of Treasury and Justice to investigate, because this follows the definition for illegal activities and fraud (affecting the Unemployment Trust Fund and ARRA Emergency Designated Funds).

16. If the US Government tries to cover up and ignore this problem legal action can be taken against the State and Federal Government by citizens. The Government has seemed to have put themselves into these areas of legal liability. All administrative "remedies" must be exhausted first.

17. Spread the word and blow the whistle on this waste, harm, denial and fraud by making more people aware of what has happened. Organize and identify unemployed victims for any future legal action in the courts.

18. Put pressure on the government officials involved by sending them an email demanding to investigate and repair these errors.

19 Contact the media to get the story to a wider audience in more concise form. Contact organizations dedicated to similar causes for the unemployed or underprivileged.

20. We can all help put a stop to this. The law is on our side.

The rest of the story can be found here (in order):

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

Part Two:
ARRA Fraud in the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Program

Part Three:
Mr. President, I hear FOIA calling...

Part Four:
Mr. President, there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program

The Recovery Fraud Complaint and CUIAB Case:
a Recovery Fraud Complaint ignored...
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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


More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site