Remember good ol' Watergate? In the 1970's, President Nixon and many top advisers where caught up in a major scandal. This led to Mr. Nixon's resignation in 1974. His administration got caught trying to get information from the Democratic National Committee HQ via a botched burglary. They tried to cover up the whole thing and any involvement in it, but they were exposed for their abuses of authority and malfeasance in office.
This was revealed after 5 burglars were caught at the HQ on July 17th 1972. While investigating this crime, it was discovered that these men were involved either directly or indirectly with Mr. Nixon's attempts to get re-elected. They were trying to steal information for Mr. Nixon and his Committee for Re-Election and got caught red-handed. The president was exposed to have been secretly recording conversations, that in the end proved his involvement in this conspiracy.
As a result he was forced to resign. Congress reigned back Presidential powers. The Freedom of Information Act was strengthened. For the pre-internet public, this was a shocking moment: for the first time they became aware of how corrupt our leaders were becoming and to what lengths they would go to stay in power. But, they also saw that everyone could be accountable to the law...even our President.
We thought we would never seen an administration act so recklessly again. You would think that in the information age with the endless ways to detail and record every moment, our leaders would think twice.
After Monica? After ENRON? After WMDs? After IRAQ? After PLame? After Fast and Furious? After Columbia Secret Service Prostitute Scandal? After the Financial Meltdown?
They have not learned a thing. It is happening all over again, not much different from before....
Unemployment background mumbo jumbo first...intrigue and scandal starts after October 20 2011
July 07, 2008-
The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration publishes the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Implementing and Operating Instructions in support of the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2008, Title IV— Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PL. 110-252). This manual is 100% compliant with Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 Federal-State Extended Benefits (administrative law from the code of federal regulations).
August 15, 2008-
The DOL ETA issues Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UiPL) NO.23-08, Change 1. In the attachment, Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008 – Questions and Answers, the DOL ETA publishes an error that does not comply with 20 CFR 615 nor the original UIPL 23-08 Attachment A "instructions" that came before this. The "Multiple EUC Claims" error found in Q&A section D. Monetary Eligibility incorrectly advises the state unemployment agencies to pay claimants the remaining balance from any older claims when they come up to their second benefit year eligibility. This violates 20 CFR 615.5(2) specifically.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed and EUC08 was made part of this act. Section 5 of the Act, designates all funds in the ARRA as "...an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs...".
August 15,2008-July 22, 2010-
The unemployed struggling workers of our once great nation take quite a beating from the economic nose-dive, and the implementation errors that the DOL ETA made. These EUC08 errors did not initially "kick in" until EUC08 claimants began to reach their second benefit year, after working part time or for a job that did not last as long as they hoped (2009/2010).
In addition to this government created problem, most claimants were being hit with another penalty throughout this time: The Part Time Penalty. People were scrambling to take any part time work during the recession and this caused a problem for them when they would work short term jobs while still eligible to collect EUC08 funds off and on in between them.
These claimants also faced a second benefit year problem: they were eligible for very low paying new claims based on this short term work they did, while receiving higher paying EUC08 payments based on full time work pre-recession. The feds never thought out how 99 weeks of benefits would conflict with 52 week benefit years like this (so typical).
For example: A project manager for an internet start up loses work in 2008. She is eligible for 99 weeks at $450 a week Federal EUC08 after her state $450/week claim for 26 weeks is exhausted. She wants to get back to work, not live on Paul Ryan's magic comfy hammock, so while being paid EUC08, she takes part time work or jobs she hopes become permanent. She does this off and on for 52 weeks and still has $450/week EUC08 payments available to from her from the 99 weeks total. BUT, the state wants to force her onto a lesser state claim because she is eligible based on the short term work according to state law. What to do? Well screw the claimant of course no matter what the difference between the higher and lower claims are...they were all forced onto lesser claims legally until the law change to fix this on July 22, 2010 with Public Law 111-205 (HR4213).
People were very happy that the Part Time Penalty was being fixed. BUT, most did not realize that the EUC08 "Multiple EUC claim" errors would essentially nullify this important law change for millions of people. By paying the claimant the remaining balance from any older EUC08 claim instead of paying them a new EUC08 claim based upon the the most recent benefit year and state regular compensation, they are changing which benefit year is being considered for the eligibility to pass the HR4213 requirements (that the claim end date is after the July 22,2010 start of this law).
This is where the "Multiple EUC Claim" error kicks back in as a double penalty. People were paid lesser weekly benefit amounts based on older claim remaining balances. When you do this the state and feds decide that this is the "applicable benefit year" for all determinations and adjudication related to this claim (forever until it exhausts). By doing this they have now also violated 20 CFR 615.2(c)(2) and 615.2(h)(1)(2). The states are using the wrong "applicable" benefit year (not the most recent one) and paying benefits based on one eligibility period, during another.
These claimants then hit the HR4213 eligibility at the end of their 52 week benefit year. This decides whether they get forced onto an even lesser state regular Ui claim (from part time work), or get to continue on EUC08 (deferring the lesser state claim until after the federal funds are used up). If they were being considered and paid based on the most recent benefit year (if 20 CFR 615.5(2) had been followed in the first place) this would not happen and they would pass the HR4213 test. Millions failed the test due to the previous errors by the DOL ETA.
A California Claimant comes along and realizes that he is being paid from an older EUC claim, just after he exhausted a new benefit year state claim for a new EUC claim. He starts making inquiries and is ignored by the state of California Employment Development Department.
This claimants 52 week state benefit year comes to an end while still being paid EUC funds from the older claim balance (from 2010). EDD "follows" the Public Law 111-205 part time penalty guidelines (HR4213), but uses the wrong benefit year for the eligibility test due to the EUC08 errors. The older benefit year that ended in March 2010 was used instead so the claimant failed the test and was forced off the higher paying federal EUC claim and had to accept an even lesser state claim. After exhausting this state claim (26 weeks minimum), the claimant would be "allowed" to continue on the higher paying EUC funds. If he survives that long anyway...
The claimant did some research online and very quickly found the DOL ETA EUC08 guidelines and the compliance requirements for them at 20 CFR 615. An obvious error was discovered, and the claimant decided to appeal the EDD determination against him based on this mistake. All public laws, regulations, statutes and guidelines have become widely available since 2004 for most state and federal agencies. Thank you DARPA for giving us the internet...too bad the feds don't use it more often when making sure their guielines are in compliance.
After much delay, the claimant gets his first hearing on July 22,2011 in Oakland, CA in California Unemployment Appeals Board Case No3761037 heard by Chantal M. Sampogna (administrative law judge). This not very friendly nor competent ALJ, berated the claimant throughout the hearing and then made a summary judgement based on the older Public Law 110-252 and not the most recent law that had passed months earlier (HR4213/111-205 amendment to 110-252). This was a major issue in California for millions of claimants (many other states too). The states could not keep up with the changes and requirements in law, and too many people had their rights to a prompt and fair hearing violated. Benefits were delayed or denied due to millions of mistakes (interpreting the compliant part of the law).
The CUIAB judgement to deny the claimant appeal was issued. The judge ignored the current law, in error. But she actually noted in the Finding of Fact, that the claimant had started a new EUC claim as of January 1,2011. Admin Law judges do not make long briefs and there was no explanation. She obviously used 20 CFR 615.5(2) and ignored the older EUC claim balance (the claimants evidence pointed this out). She "officially" states that a new EUC claim starts 01/01/11 (contradicting what EDD asserts).
This benefit year would end after July 22,2010 in March 2011. That would make the claimant then eligible for the HR4213 test, if only she used the most recent law instead of the older one! 20 CFR 615.5(2) is supported (new EUC claim instead of remaining balance from older one), but she still denied the continued payment on this EUC claim from March 27,2011 forward. Instead the payment of a lesser state claim was held up (for now).
While not able to collect on it yet, this appears to "reset" his EUC account to a full 99 weeks starting from 01/01/11, instead of it picking up from the older remaining balance left from 2010 (20 CFR 615.5(2).
August 03,2011-October 20,2011-
The claimant makes a "board level appeal" to the heads of the CUIAB. He asked these judges to review the decision in Case 3761037, that erred by ignoring the updated HR4213 part of Public Law 110-252 (an amendment to the original 110-252 from 2008). The claimant points out the full code of federal regulations from 20 CFR 615 and asks it to be enforced over the DOL ETA Q&A mistakes, and asked to have the current law applied that would have allowed this claimant to remain on his higher paying EUC account (111-205 instead of the unamended 110-252).
While waiting on the state appeal (July 2011), the claimant files a "service request" with the DOL ETA asking for compliance information regarding the "multiple EUC claim" error and its effects on the "applicable benefit year" and the "eligibility period" policy that all states are blindly following. After much followup effort, he actually ends up on the phone with Quinn Watt and "Bob" who inform him that Gay Gilbert was on speakerphone (early October 2011). They argued about the implementation. The claimant used evidence from the CFR and the DOL fumbled through their own error ridden manuals.
As a result of these conversations, the claimant was able to force both the DOL and EDD to issue statements of policy in writing to him. They gave no compliance backing aside from "we say so". This is what was in the manuals and this is how they were going to follow it. Period. They never referred to 20 CFR 615 at all. To them they are "the law" and anything they issue is always correct and error free. All they did was parrot the "multiple EUC claim" error and said that the "applicable benefit year" was the initial claim year FOREVER or until the claim was exhausted (an error...neither regular Ui nor the last 20 weeks of state EB work this way). 20 CFR 615.5(2) refutes these incorrect assertions.
On 10/20/11, the CUIAB mailed the appeal decision in Case No. A0-265448, to this claimant. They favored the claimant over EDD and restored almost $3000 in denied EUC08 funds. This reversed the key determinations based on the DOL ETA's "Multiple EUC Claim" error in UIPL 23-08 change1+. It also refuted both statements that were obtained by EDD and the DOL ETA (their applicable benefit year definition proved to be non-compliant). The claimant asked that this case be made a precedent decision, in order to assist the many claimants who had been denied their rights previously. This would also bring a challenge right to the DOL from the California state agencies involved to help repair this nationwide.
October 21,2011-present day (August 2012)-
Hope dies hard. Despite much evidence and numerous public concerns being sent to the state and federal agencies, including a recovery fraud complaint with the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board in March 12', along with several attempts to request an investigation from the DOL Office of Inspector General (Feb 12'), the government still refuses to speak to, follow up with, or explain their position to the whistle blower, nor refute the standing decision from 10/20/11 that he won.
Fed up with being delayed and blown off. After some more internet research, the claimant turns into a whistle blower investigator. He files several Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests with the RATB, the DOL ETA and the DOL OIG. He must have caught them off guard, because he was able to obtain MANY incriminating documents that show a cover up of his previous efforts.
The whistle blower has uncovered the following information from FOIA documents that show what was actually going on from October 2011 to present day. A cover up and conspiracy to squash a precedent decision that proves errors in federal EUC08 implementation has been exposed:
September 21,2011-November 14,2011-
The claimants complaint to the DOL OIG fraud hotline was turned down due to "resource constraints". The claimant was not notified. The complaint was forwarded to Freddie Howell, ARRA fraud investigations (11/14/11+ for "future audit purposes"), and also was sent to the Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations. The DOL ETA was also sent a courtesy copy for review. No follow up ever came.
October 18 and October 21, 2011-
The Dale Zeigler, head of the unemployment insurance division at the DOL ETA, sent two memorandums to the White House. One on 10/18/11, Sims ID 663175, Addressee Obama, Subject "denied unemployment benefits" (claimants case and efforts). The second one was sent on 10/21/11, WH9262011-61. This was updating the White House about the appeal case and the claims being made by this claimant (about errors in the EUC08 program). The claimant had no idea that the White House was being informed in October 2011 (the President no less!). They had blown off months of phone and email communication attempts before and after this time period. Only the cover sheets and copy of the October 7, 2011 DOL ETA "policy statement" were obtained via FOIA. The context of the memos, who saw them and what was done in response remain a mystery and were not included in the request (FOIA appeal pending).
Eder Marcus from the DOL OIG updates Elliot Lewis at the DOL OIG about the appeal victory and renewed complaint based upon it by the claimant. He attaches the October 7, 2011 DOL ETA policy response to the claimant that tried to give a "false" definition for the applicable benefit year (to discourage his appeal attempts and public concerns). They make no response to being refuted (for refusing to investigate this before the appeal victory). They still do not contact the claimant (now whistle blower).
February 7, 2012-
Todd Yamamoto, from the DOL ETA Region 6 San Francisco office, sent a letter to Marty Morgenstern, the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (EDD and CUIAB are part of this). Only citing the DOL ETA UIPL guidelines (23-08 and 4-10), he tells California that the decision in CUIAB Case No. A0-265448, "...is contrary to Federal Law". He cites the "Multiple EUC Claim" Q&A error as the basis for this incorrect assertion.
He tells California that "they entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor to administer the EUC08 program as an agent of the Federal government". He reminds them they must make payments "...in accordance with the terms of the agreement and any regulations or operating instructions issued by the U.S. Department of Labor". He makes no mention that in the instance of the "Multiple EUC Claim" Q&A error, the operating instructions and regulations contradict each other. In this case the regulations should have won out but didn't.
Mr. Yamamoto goes on to say that since the CUIAB decision is inconsistent with the UIPL 4-10 Change 4 version of the same "Multiple EUC Claim" Q&A error, then the "Agreement" requires EDD to appeal this case (to overturn it). The feds wanted to take the money back from this claimant and disprove his assertions that any error had been made by them (even though they are aware of and are ignoring the regulations at this point).
He goes on to say,
"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 a 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 paid as the result of no reversal of the decision will result in disallowed costs under any audit"
He gives Marty Morgenstern 45 days to respond to these illegal, improper and unconstitutional threats based on non compliant guidelines errors. The DOL states clearly on their website and compliance pages that they have no authority to get involved in state determination matters. They say they are supposed to follow 20 CFR 615. They say that they know that EUC08 is part of the ARRA. The submitted numerous documents from 2009-2012 that profess how well they are taking care of their ARRA and Improper Payment Act oversight duties (both the ETA and OIG).
The agreement itself has a clearly defined section about Over-Payments and Fraud (denials are assumed but not discussed). The DOL is breaking that part of the Agreement by making errors in their implementation guidelines and then trying to cover them up. Millions of claimants have had their "inviolate rights to EUC08" violated by these threats over this state precedent determination.
February 14, 2012-
Despite the fact that California EDD and CUIAB are supposed to be separate and independent agencies they jointly respond to the DOL ETA threats. The CUIAB judges decide whether EDD has made proper payments and determinations. They set precedents that EDD MUST OBEY. Pam Harris, Director of EDD and Robert Dresser, the Chair of the CUIAB, one of two judges in CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 (with Roy Ashburn), said:
"Secretary Morgenstern has asked us to respond to you on this matter"1. EDD has not and will not use Case A0-265448 as a precedent for EUC08 determinations.
"Pursuant to our conversation last week with Jamie Bachinski and in accordance with your letter, we wish to provide you with the following assurances"
2. The CUIAB will not adopt this as a precedent.
3. Any and all benefits paid to this claimant will be paid without the use of federal funds.
4. The CUIAB will conduct EUC08 training so judges understand the "issues and deficiencies in Case No. A0-265448".
"We appreciate Jamie speaking with us last week to provide clarification on 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".signed by
Marty Morgenstern, Labor & Workforce
Jamie Bachinski, DOL ETA Region 6
Mark Woo Sam, Labor & Workforce Legal
Ralph Hilton, EDD Legal
Sandra Clifton, EDD Legal Office
Talbott Smith, EDD Unemployment Insurance Branch
February 17, 2012-
Eder Marcus from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General emails the claimant and informs him that they again decline to investigate. He says,
"The information you provided was referred to the DOL-OIG’s Office of Audit for review and evaluation. 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. The Inspector General Act of 1978 gives the Inspector General broad discretion to determine when to make investigations and reports relating to the administration of the Department’s programs and operations. With this discretionary authority in mind, and based on a review of the information you provided, the DOL-OIG does not plan on taking any further action in response to your complaints at this time. However, the information you submitted will be maintained within the DOL-OIG for possible consideration in future audit work."March 21,2012-
Hilda Solis is informed of the complaint by the whistle blower (RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0). The actual document that shows this communication was not provided as part of the FOIA request with the DOL ETA (it should have been like ones to and from Gay Gilbert and others). This information comes from a cover sheet that was provided that is labelled "ETA Correspondence with XXX XXXXX (2004-present)". It is listed as the third communication (after the White House Obama one on 10/18/11 and the ETA pagemaster one on 2/6/12). The Sims ID is 678831, the originator is the whistle blower, the addressee is Solis and the subject is "Claimants Harmed by Recovery Fraud Being Committed by DOL & UI Agencies" entered on 3/21/2012 (after the RATB had been notified).
So here we are again. Now what? Who cares about the unemployed right? Hasn't this guy violated the one diary per topic rule? Should there be an emergency response to funds designated as emergency requirements to meet emergency needs? You should care. One bit of math and numbers may help sway your interest:
Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State ProgramsIrrefutable evidence appears to show the California claimant in Case No A0-265448 to be correct, refuting how the DOL ETA is advising states to pay and determine benefits in a "Multiple EUC Claim" situation (that comes up benefit year 2+). This means many millions of claimants and claims have problems that must be investigated and repaired (denials and overpayments of ARRA funds) The EUC08 Agreement requires this as well (under the EUC08 Fraud and Overpayment section). ARRA and Improper Payments Act Oversight should have begun, but has not. These funds remain either wasted on overpayments, or like the majority, have not been used when they could and should have been. This would have helped millions of claimants in every state. Billions of dollars would have gone into the economy but did not.
According to the BLS, since 2008 there have been 29,748,954 EUC08 Claims (for all tiers) that have paid a combined 663,688,610 weeks of benefits. The amount spent so far = $97,433,246,688 for EUC08 benefits to present day.
How much money is involved? Take the California claimant example that shows $3000 in ARRA EUC08 funds were restored after 26 weeks (with much part time work on and off). In California the maximum weekly benefit amount allowed is $450/week for regular state compensation. So for someone forced onto a lesser EUC08 balance that paid $100/week instead of $450 per week (based off the most recent state claim per 20 CFR 615), they would be faced with a difference of $350/week. If they were victims like the example, then $350 x 26 weeks = $9100 owed for one claimant denied for just 26 weeks. Many people took part time work while on EUC08 over the last four years:
According to BLS and " The Employment Situation -- July 2012"
"The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)"
July 2012 Table A-8 Employed persons by class of worker and part-time statusBy any math you care to apply, this adds up to billions of dollars denied and or wasted. That's billions of ARRA dollars misspent due to an an error the government refuses to admit and has gone out of their way to cover up. The administration doing this is currently up for re-election very soon. They have been caught and exposed and still they delay and cover up. No response and no evidence to refute what I have exposed has been presented.
Part time for economic reasons = 8111 (of which 2559 could not find any part time work)(footnote 3 numbers)
Part time for noneconomic reasons 18543
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 7123
On temporary layoff 1417
Not on temporary layoff 5705
Permanent job losers 4387
Persons who completed temporary jobs 1319
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Number of Unemployed (duration)
Less than 5 weeks 2711
15 to 26 weeks 1760
Duration 27 weeks and over 5185
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Not in the Labor Force 86,828
Persons who currently want a job 6837
Marginally attached to the labor force 2529
Discouraged workers 852
Other persons marginally attached to the labor force 1676
Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State Programs
EUC08 National Data by Month by Tier as of June 30, 2012
Initial Claims 452,081
First Payments of Tier I 234,390
First Payments of Tier II 223,549
First Payments of Tier III 163,427
First Payments of Tier IV 219,891
(yes that adds up to more than 452,081 total...I just copy what they print)
According to data from Cornell University ILR School, published 4/19/2011, Appendix B. Trends in Labor Force Status and Ul
Receipt Over Time:
Unemployed Persons and Those with Limited Labor Force
Attachment Relating to Economic Conditions Who Reported Ul
Receipt (2010 CRS analysis),
Involuntary part-time workers (4.4%)
Part-year discouraged workers (2.3%)
Discouraged potential workers, outside the labor force (2.9%)
I do not know how much Mr. Obama knows nor what his involvement was. It would be unusual for them to not have some part in this considering their notification last October 2011. Especially with regards to who gave Todd Yamamoto the sword to fall on (I was told he has retired recently...how convenient)? Who gave the authority to the DOL ETA to make those threats to the State of California and all those claimants for EUC08? Whoever did is in one heap of trouble and has some explaining to do. But so far the FBI and DOJ have remained just as silent as they have on Fast and Furious and many other matters. The media? They are busy playing chase the latest distraction from what is really going on.
Wake up people. We are being taken to the cleaners on a massive scale by our own leaders. Do they think we are stupid? Or so overloaded and tied up in our own individual activist issues that we won't get together on something this big? These are serious abuses of rights, laws, regulations, and oversight requirements. Literally dozens of state and federal officials are involved and know about it:
President Barrack Obama
White House EOP
White House OMB
Department of Treasury
Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board (Donald Cox, Atticus Reaser)
Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (Elliot Lewis, Eder Marcus, Danilel Petrole, Freddie Howell)
Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration (Hilda Solis, Gay Gilbert, Quinn Watt, "bob", Jamie Bachinski, Todd Yamamoto, Robert Wagner, Dale Zeigler...)
California EDD's Pam Harris, Sandra Hughes, Talbott Smith
CUIAB Chair Robert Dresser, ALJ Roy Ashburn and head ALJ Alberto Roland
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento FBI Offices
Department of Justice (Eric Holder, Fraud and Criminal Division)
and many many more....
Once the shock and disbelief wears off...Will the public and media let this stand? Before the general election while candidates talk on and on about the stimulus, the economy, the deficit, unemployment and jobs? If you want to get billions of dollars back for our economy and struggling citizens then start asking THEM some tough questions. NOW. pretty please?
Is this the next Watergate? Only if the trail leads to the EOP/Mr. Obama and they had some direct involvement in what the Department of Labor Employment & Training did with those threats to the state of California over the precedent decision that exposes their mistakes and this ARRA FRAUD. I hope not. I intend to find out for better or worse. Several FOIA/Privacy/PRA Act requests sit unanswered. No response from those above. They are very aware of what I am typing about them. I am the claimant and whistle blower. I am still being paid EUC08 in accordance with 20 CFR 615 and the CUIAB appeal decision. Everyone else...not so much...I want to change that.
The same story, just painted different colors from different angles, with links to the evidence made public so far (FOIA Documents, CUIAB Case, Recovery Fraud Complaint, Analysis comparing DOL Guidelines to DOL Regulations):
Mr. President, there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program
Just listen to poor Logan and Jessica 6, they aren't crazy even though they look and sound like it. I know how they feel...
The rest of the story is here:
(from the bottom to the top of the list)
The "fable" overview with copies of the 2/4 and 2/7/12 FOIA letters, copy of the formal complaint to the agencies involved after their cover-up was exposed, overview of the President Obama FOIA request for information about the 10/18 and 10/21/11 communications, overview of the entire EUC08 problem and history of it, a copy of the recovery fraud complaint filed March/April 2012 with a copy of the full CUIAB case decision from 10/20/11, a copy of the technical overview of the EUC08 implementation error and some more FOIA revelations and explanations, and finally this "21st century Watergate" timeline that goes over everything so far and tries to answer questions from previous diary comments while slaying as many trolls as possible along the way:
Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 8:56 AM PT: Suzzanne Simonetta, Chief of Legislature, in the Office of Unemployment, for the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration, has decline to make any response to explain and give regulatory backing for the "Multiple EUC Claims policy error" in the EUC08 Program.
The San Francisco FBI might finally be starting an investigation.
The Daily KOS community continues to ignore important facts, about problems with the Economic Stimulus, while millions of struggling workers and families remained screwed by Obama Administration.
Our government won't budge. They refuse to admit the errors. They refuse to explain and back them up with the US standing statutes.