Skip to main content

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....

The Timeline...
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.

February 17,2009-
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.

January 1,2011-
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.

March 26,2011-
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.

July 22,2011-
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).

August 02,2011-
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.

June 2012-
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.

June 23,2012+
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).

October 31,2011-
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"
"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. EDD has not and will not use Case A0-265448 as a precedent for EUC08 determinations.
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
Robert Dresser
Pam Harris

cc: to
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).

August 26,2012-
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 Programs
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.
Irrefutable 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.

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"
http://www.bls.gov/...

"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 status
(in thousands)
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
(in thousands)
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
(in thousands)
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
(in thousands)
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),
Unemployed (73.1%)
Involuntary part-time workers (4.4%)
Part-year discouraged workers (2.3%)
Discouraged potential workers, outside the labor force (2.9%)

By 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.

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.


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  No matter how you slice it, it's still Spam. (10+ / 0-)

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:40:19 PM PDT

  •  Should I HR or not, people? (16+ / 0-)

    Let's see if I get this straight.  You think there's some sort of vast cover up concerning Unemployment benefits.  Probably negatively affecting you.  You write a LONG incoherent ramble about said conspiracy.

    Try this--rewrite this whole thing into three short paragraphs so that it makes sense.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:40:56 PM PDT

    •  you missed (9+ / 0-)

      That it is at the same level as Watergate. Just ugh!

      The Spice must Flow!

      by Texdude50 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:48:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong (13+ / 0-)
      You write a LONG incoherent ramble about said conspiracy.
      It's not "A" long incoherent ramble. It is the latest in a series of such.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  please read it, follow the links, (0+ / 0-)

      and then HR away. I have already made contact with "them" and offered up private information to vet this by. I have the facts and documents ready to go. I did not spend the time to detail the entire investigation for public disclosure to entertain the twitteratti or be easily dismissed. Nor was it spent for the drive comment spammers. It was meant to help many people and our economy, if you would just look at the facts.

      I beg those haters to actually spend the less than 15 minutes to read this. 5 Pages for a detailed timeline that exposes irrefutable evidence of serious abuses of authority and malfeasance in office. There are plenty of short summations within the many links I offer for your inspection across these diaries. Vet away...

      The look at your yourselves and what you have done and said:

      and listen to what Jill has got to say about it:

      My invitation to you very objective and fair writers is open and stands...fancy type away...I bring evidence and data. You make the magic words...I have an investigation to work on.

      •  Have a breakfast bunny (15+ / 0-)

        breakfast bunny

        You'll feel better in the morning.

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:57:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, please, please, please (9+ / 0-)

        here's your chance...in one paragraph please explain what impropriety you are alleging occurred.  I'm giving you one shot.  You don't have to prove it, that's what the 5 pages are for...all you need to do is tell me what, in the name of the flying spaghetti monster, you are talking about.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:00:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  February 2012 (0+ / 0-)

          A Federal Agency, with no authority to intervene in state unemployment determinations, threatens the entire state of California with the loss of EUC08 benefits if a particular appeal decision is set as a precedent. The decision in question reversed determinations for EUC08 benefits that were made based on their guidelines. This reversal exposes the error in the Department of Labor guidelines issued to every state. They never tried to take the case to court to overturn it. But the precedent was denied while the case was left to stand. The office of inspector general for this same agency, refused to investigate and said that they did not get involved in state determination matters. Are those enough violations for you?

          •  OK. You don't get it. (7+ / 0-)

            WHICH "agency"?
            WHICH decision?
            Explain in ONE paragraph what said "determinations" were.
            WHAT "precedent"?

            We still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

            All it sounds like is that you think you got shafted some money and are having a temper tantrum about it.

            "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

            by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:18:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  grill away... (0+ / 0-)

              The Department of Labor was mentioned if you would read the short paragraph (on anything with a screen bigger then your palm). You wanted it short right? I shortened it and mentioned the agency once to simplify. Like Jill said...

              You want it long. Got that: The "Agency" is the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration Unemployment/Insurance Division run by Gay Gilbert (and Dale Ziegler).

              The "decision" mentioned many times in the diary you flamed without reading was the appeal I won on 10/20/11 in California. CTRL+F for Case No. A0-265448. That was from the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board or CUIAB. Robert Dresser and Roy Ashburn were the Administrative Law judges. Alberto Roland is the "chief" ALJ there. CTRL+F again.

              The determinations for EUC08 eligibility were made by the Employment Development Department of California run by the very charming and social Pam Harris. Her legal counsel is lead by Sandra Hughes. Their Unemployment Insurance Branch Manager is Talbot Smith.

              These determinations were based on the Department of Labor UIPL 23-08 Change 1+ guidelines that talk about "multiple EUC claims":

              1. I went back to work after collecting "some" EUC08 money. The payments stopped of course. I worked long enough to qualify for a new state unemployment claim. When I stopped working, and after exhausting the 26 weeks of state benefits, EUC08 was available again. Instead of opening a new claim based on this year. EDD used the DOL "multiple EUC claims" error to force me to be paid less money from an older remaining balance. This was reversed. I got the money back. Millions of others and the inventors of CTRL+F are the ones who have been shafted.

              2. Because I was paid the remaining balance from an older claim. EDD also made an error with regards to HR4213/PL 111-205, the  "Part Time Penalty Fix" eligibility (look it up on NELP). The point is that they based a decision to either continue paying me EUC08 or pay me a new and lesser state claim on the wrong benefit year. This decision was reversed based on (1.) above and the 20 CFR 615 evidence. I was now being paid a new EUC08 claim based on the current year that made me eligible to pass this very technical Ui hurdle that millions faced and were blocked by.

              The "decision" was the first to successfully challenge the "multiple EUC claim policy" by the Department of Labor "agency". In doing so on 10/20/11, this reversed the "determinations" based on the "agency" errors in the guidelines they issued to all states. A request to make this "decision" (A0-265448) a "precedent" is what got the Department of Labor and maybe the White House's attention. They made improper threats with no legal basis and the State of California EDD and CUIAB caved in.

              They decided not to put this evidence before a Superior Court judge under a Writ of Administrative Mandate. They would not apply the precedent either. Nor would they take the case to court to overturn it. There was no mention of the regulations found at 20 CFR 615. This is what the appeal case was based upon and prevailed by. It still stands.

              I won. I proved them wrong and that they shafted millions of Americans and our economy. They still cannot overturn this case nor refute the evidence. It's a stand off for now. I doubt anyone here can refute the evidence if they cannot (no offense honestly...this is wicked hard). Millions of others lost and continue to lose. So does the economy.

              Piles of FOIA and Privacy Act documents back this up. Everything else you can find through the links that lead to all the public government manuals and regulations.

              I just see baseless tantrums in return. HR and CTRL+F away. You will find no error. If nothing else I seek to make sure none can be found. You can fire away at the messenger. I won't move. I won't blink.

              I am sorry you are so infuriated by these facts, that I have offered up for people to make short, long, red white and blue essays about as long as they like. Like it or not, this is all true.

              I know many of you head-in-the-sanders do not want to take the time to do anything anything other than poo poo on a very serious effort to help millions of citizens and our economy. Your buzz just brings more views.

              So far these "debates" all have ended with no evidence to prove me anything other than, "not invited to your party". Fine by me and the millions of unemployed struggling workers and families that your thoughtless comments further piss on. We vote. Remember?

            •  I think the author is trying to say the Dept. (7+ / 0-)

              of Labor (DOL) was asked by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUI-AB) to make their decision (CUI-AB) a precedent based on an error that the DOL made in the execution based on the writing of the 2009 Stimulus Program (ACCA) that extended unemployment benefits beyond the individual state standards.  

              If I'm reading it right the author claimed to be on "partial" unemployment while he was doing part-time work. Therefore he was eligible for his partial unemployment for the benefit year of 2011. Then when he lost his part time work (or it ended), he tried to get his unemployment reinstated to full bennies and the state denied it. So he fought it. While he was appealing the decision, the state informed him, based on what the Feds told the state, that not only is he not eligible for full reinstatement but that his NEW benefit year should now be based on 2012. This would then make his 'New benefit amount' based on the part-time salary instead of the full time salary that he was receiving prior to taking the part time job. However, the state accepted his appeal, agreed with him and re-instated his FULL benefit amount. Additionally, the Feds said fine but they are not reversing their decision and they will not make it precedent (meaning they paid him off to shut him up).

              To which my response to the author is thus: You shouldn't have taken the part time job. Once you start taking part-time work and allowing the state and/or the feds to reduce your benefits, you will be hard pressed to get those benefits reinstated. And while you found an error in the code that conflicts with the state, that does not mean that error applies in totality of the entire federal law. My state is very clear that once the 26 weeks are expired regardless of full or part time unemployment, my eligibility is not reinstated until the new calendar year. So if I go on EUC08, that is a federal program that the state is administering for the Feds and I am still eligible for state benefits at the calendar year (a new 26 weeks) if I worked during any of the 4 quarters of the previous year, even if it was part time. The EUC08 is the Federal Program and not the state program. If anything, it appears, to me, that the state should not have paid you. The Federal Program, only covers the time frame you are unemployed from the start of the stimulus program until the end of this calendar year. so once you run out of the 73 weeks (regardless of benefits paid by the Feds) you run out of the 73 weeks. You have to fall into the original time frame of the 2009 Stimulus program & it's extension in order to qualify for the Federal EUC08. If you worked part time AFTER the qualifying extension dates, then you are not eligible for EUC08. And I believe that last qualifying date EB (extended benefits) is BEFORE May 12, 2012. If you were already in Tier 3 or 4 while you were working part time, then those benefits end at the latest June 30, 2012. If you were in either Tier 3 or 4, regardless of what you were paid (even part-time) you are not eligible for the "difference". The program ended June 30th. EUC08 does not work like the state programs work. Once those 72 weeks are exhausted, regardless of the benefit amount you were eligible for for part time work or full time, the state has nothing to do with that. If you were working part-time and were on tier 2-4, you were getting paid the difference that you were approved for. You can't extend that money for a longer timeframe like you can with the state. They are two completely different programs. One is state funded and the other is federally funded. EB & EUC08 are Federal Programs. Even if an error is found and they (the Feds) corrected it, the program is over now. I will restate what I said at the beginning of this paragraph, you should not have taken part-time work. The only way I was willing to take part time work was if it paid more than my unemployment paid (which it never did).

              The good part is that it sounds like you are eligible for a new 26 weeks through the state based on the part time work that you did. That's nice. We are not eligible for UI if we worked part time (only if our company cuts our full time hours TO part time are we eligible for partial unemployment).

              Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

              by yawnimawke on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 07:12:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Now THAT I understand. (3+ / 0-)

                "In other words, if we bust our butts, there's an even chance things will get better; and if we sit on our butts, there's a major chance things will go completely to hell". --- G2geek

                by Lorinda Pike on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 07:15:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  thank you for looking at the evidence (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yawnimawke

                just a few points to clarify:

                1. The DOL is not involved nor supposed to be involved in any state unemployment determinations let alone precedent decisions. EDD made the incorrect determinations based on the DOL EUC08 guidelines errors that all states followed. I appealed this with the CUIAB. They saw fit to agree with me on 10/20/11.

                2. The stimulus (ARRA), just extended the payment of EUC08 from its earlier Public Law 110-252 limitations. Remember that the law has been leapfrogging the end date of the EUC08 program (and State EB) back further and further every year. It is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

                3. The error was made by the DOL Employment & Training Administration, in 2008, when they published UIPL 23-08 change 1 with the "multiple EUC claims" mistake. This does not comply with the regulations for extended benefits (standing statutes) found at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. This would also violate the "chevron doctrine" for federal agencies (CTRL+F for the link here). This states that they must follow the regulations as they wrote them. The DOL wrote those regulations btw. Their website links for compliance point to them.

                4. Not taking part time work, which is all I get in my union industry, would be illegal and cause me to lose my benefits. Despite the Ryan comfy hammock theory, the unemployed are actively engaged in looking for work, simply because they lose their benefits if they don't. Check out the Florida and California unemployment "rules" and see for yourself what millions have had to face. There just isn't much work and a great deal of it is part time or temporary (a reduction from what they had before the recession at the least).

                You don't want to be discouraging people and telling them to sit at home and wait this out (the government not you personally). This is what HR4213 and Public Law 111-205 were specifically mean to address. Congress passed this law in 2010 to reduce the penalty and disincentive for taking part time work. That is exactly what people used to do back then, pick between a temp job or longer lasting benefits.

                If not for the EUC08 errors HR4213 would have been more effective. Thanks to the errors and the double penalty that comes from them in this case, people are thinking just what you said: "how will this job affect my benefits now and down the road". This is a very real and valid financial argument to consider for any sane human being.

                5. The error in the federal law is from the feds and their federal EUC08 guidelines that they wrote. All states follow the same guidelines that they issued to them, with the same errors from the same source that has been refuted by the same CUIAB decision and whistle blower evidence. I refer back to the "chevron doctrine" with regards to their need to comply with the federal regulations that they themselves wrote. EUC08 Guidelines don't trump the regs. Fact of law and Supreme Court precedent back this up. Period. (again nothing personal...thank you for reading...it is very complicated as you can see).

                6. I won't go into every detail you state about my claim history (its a bit off). Just double read my details. EUC08 is paid until the end of this year. You can qualify before the maze of new dates this year and be paid out the remainder of your EUC08 claim within this years end date (12/23 I think?).

                EUC08 claims can cross benefit years when you have not worked at all (since they were 99 weeks and are now down to 73 or so like you said). In my case the recession got the worst of me only last year. I worked and had a minimal amount of union gigs that qualified me for the second benefit year and claim prior to this. But, I have been out of work straight since last March 2011 (that's the end year of claim 2/start of EUC08 claim #3). All state and federal laws that intermingle here were obeyed after my appeal victory (with regards to my forcing the 20 CFR 615 regulations to be obeyed through the decision to present day for me alone).

                I am actually on EUC08 claim #3! Claim #1 was for $450 a week but I only used a few weeks of it before THAT benefit year ended in March 2010.

                I went back to more steady off and on union work through the rest of 2010 and 2011 and qualified for the State regular 26 week + EUC08 claim #2 that I had to fight for with the appeal. That claim was used up more because the union work has been on a steady decline for many like me (not with the right last name in tough times).

                Even then I did not fully exhaust this second EUC08 claim for the same $450/week benefit amount due to part time union work and the deferred regular compensation claim I served for 26 weeks after this EUC08 claim (in support of HR4213/PL 111-205 part time penalty fix).

                When March 2012 came up I qualified for a third EUC08 claim over being forced onto a lesser state claim for $260 (that is invalid due to state rules about back to back benefit year claims with support from federal guidelines for EUC08). The older balances were ignored in both cases from the older EUC08 due to the appeal victory (EUC08 #1 and #2 never fully exhausted). This claim was for $325/week EUC08 and falls into the 73 week length rules you mention for this year.

                This is just how regular state claims work, just for longer amounts of time with the federal money behind these "extensions". You don't go back and get money from older state unemployment claims do you? Before you can start a new claim based on a new most recent year?

                I feel your word puzzle headache. I always hated word problems. But here I am...

                Had I lost the appeal. I would have been stuck on EUC08 claim #1. I was lucky to not have been forced to lesser amount because of all the hours we work in the entertainment biz but even at the same rate I was not going to be paid a FULL 99 weeks for 2011, just the leftover 2010 weeks. Because of the short draw of funds from this first EUC account, I would also have passed more than 52 weeks at the $450 a week with some of the 99 remaining. At this 2012 determination I would lose the second $450 EUC claim and be in a position to get NO EUC08 NOR state unemployment.

                Of course that is a moot point because before I even get to this penalty, the State would have enforced the HR4213/Public Law 111-205 rule on March 27,2011 (the 52 week benefit year end date), that requires I have a benefit year that ends after July 22 2010. If I lost the appeal and was on benefit year one still I would lose more money. They wanted to force me off the EUC08 claim #1 $450 a week onto a $325 weekly state Ui claim for 26 weeks based on the 2010 benefit year end date (this is what my appeal overturned and saved me from).

                In addition you must consider that I would have NO BENEFITS right now in either case above, if not for my appeal victory (on the path that would have worked out according to state and federal laws and regulations that contain serious implementation errors). Millions of others were not so lucky and went right down the drain I just described. Those emergency ARRA EUC08 funds did not get to the economy (some money was overpaid too).

                7. The EUC08 program is not over as far as payments that continue until the end of the year for those who qualified earlier this year. I just got a qualification notice for Tier II just the other week (check out the National Unemployment Law Project website, they explain it very well). The "inviolate rights to EUC08" described in UIPL 23-08 Attachment A are not expired. The requirement to obey the US laws and regulations have not expired. The oversight requirements do not cease with the program end. Investigations go back all the time and find problems and crimes after the fact. The statute of limitations have not even started yet.

                There are a host of state and federal rights, laws, regulations and rules that have been broken here. none of them with regards to my case nor evidence. THEY have done all the rule breaking. As you might now understand, the extended benefits program is hella complicated, as the kids say out here.

                A mistake is understandable given the extreme complexity of the subject matter. Four years of covering it up or whatever gross negligence is going on is shameful and no excuse. I looked up how the program was supposed to work online, researched and deciphered their dense jargon, and did what their compliance experts could not or would not...what is their excuse?

                I do have the slight advantage of 20 years of global entertainment industry troubleshooting and research training in the field of automated lighting fixtures, lighting consoles, networks, video media servers, pixel banks and many other gizmos under my belt. Figuring out some FUBAR government manual is just an extended stay in some crazy Shanghai nightclub hanging upside down from a truss trying to figure out why the "toys" won't play right to me...

                8. You are absolutely eligible for unemployment, EUC08 and EB, at least in California for the amount of money I make in a short period of time over the insane hours I work. The base period qualification here and in some other states allows for part time/temp workers to get aid. I technically am a perpetual temporary worker, attached to employers who lay us off at the end of lucrative short term "gigs".

                There actually is a legal provision (state and federal I think), that allows a claimant to turn down work, that is for less than their EUC08 weekly benefit amount (post July 22,2010). That's one HR mistake you might find, it has been a while and that may have been swept away in the current laws for 2012.

                But I understand what you said about the dilemma people are forced to face. I have been exactly there: will this job mess up aid that would help me in the long run? Survival Math 101 right?. Whoever says the unemployed have it easy...go for a trip down this maze of rules and regulations and see for yourself what it takes to keep any aid flowing...

                Any haters left?...talk to the woman with three children who was forced off $450 a week and down to $71 a week over a year ago. She contacted me from City Data and Unemployed Friends 2.0 and begged for my help over a year ago. I lost touch with her and am worried if she has been able to make it or not (got those emails and posts too doubters).

                From the "guide":
                Department of Labor...harmful/danger/Death and despair.

                City Data...voracious backwards flat earther censors, but lots of poor unemployed looking for and getting some help among themselves. Use mild caution. Try not to be eaten.

                Unemployed Friends 2.0 - Please go talk to the wonderful Mark Kay. She's got my back and knows of my 10,000+ view threat that started this whole saga. Fine place to get to know the amazing unemployed citizens of America.

                Everyone please insert their babel fish, and this will all make so much more sense...

                •  HR myself (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  yawnimawke

                  Mark Kay = Mary Kay.
                  So sorry. She is an amazing champion for the unemployed (as is the Unemployed Friends 2.0 website)!

                  I am 40+ years young.
                  I have spent years staring at blinky lights and working in the dark.
                  I have no healthcare to get proper glasses/contacts.
                  The grocery store reading glasses aren't working too well.
                  + Been fighting off the mob all day=tired eyes and lazy fingers...

                •  I did get a headache and took a PM & laid (0+ / 0-)

                  down. So I'm checking in before I finally pass out. I figured I had your employment dates wrong (it was easier just to go with 2011/2012 for the purposes of trying to figure out what was all going on). I get how CA allows for part-time UI benefits. That's not how it works in my state. We may be able to get Fed UI benefits for part-time work but I don't know about that. What I do know is that if we are full-time and our hours are reduced then we can apply for partial UI to cover the difference. If we end up losing the job entirely then we can move to full UI bennies. But not the other way around, obviously.

                  As far as what you are saying about the EB & EUC08, the last payable EB expires 05/12/12. So that is the 20 weeks after the SUI runs out (first 26 weeks). The first 26 weeks are always the State UI. If your state is still under-performing in unemployment (and I have no idea what the baseline is for that) then the state is eligible for EB paid for by the Feds. But it's a Fed program. I'm "assuming" this is the 2008 law that you are citing. I understand that the 2009 Stimulus law contradicts the  2008 writing regarding part-time status and when/how it effects 2009 tier3 & tier4. But tier3 & tier4 are the 2009 Stimulus law. What i don't understand, in your case, is how you were eligible for the EB benefits? From what I understand, based on the laws in my state, your eligibility would be based on the the time you worked for the same company (at least 1 quarter of the 5) & the amount you made during the four of five quarters (baseline). Most "part-time" or "temp" workers do not meet that floor amount. We can't do that here. You have to be working full time and your hours were cut by the same company, not the union. Meaning you would have had to work full time for at least one quarter of the calendar year in order to be eligible. And because the state is under-performing in employment (our state has to have a 7% or higher UI rate to be eligible for EB) then you could go on EB for an additional 20 weeks. If you exhausted those 20 weeks and were in/or going in tier3 by 05/12/12 then you could continue getting that tier(3) of benefits.  However, if you were still in EB after 05/12/12, you are no longer eligible for tier3 or tier4. EUC08 is no longer available to you. At least that is how I read it.

                  Now, it still sounds, to me, that CA SUI works differently than my state because part-time and temp work is eligible for SUI. My next question would then be, is the Federal EB available for part-time & temp like CA SUI is? My third question is EUC08 available for part-time & temp work, like CA SUI is? Because not every state covers part-time & temp work the way you are talking about. As a matter of fact, most states do not cover part-time & temp work under SUI. It's based on how much money you made during the quarters and working for the same employer for at least 1 quarter. Most part-time workers don't make enough in the quarters to qualify for SUI. And temp employees usually either sign their right to claim away to get the gig OR they work for 60-75 days and don't meet the floor of 90+ days. I understand that the Feds don't tell states how to administer their SUI but the Feds DO and ARE able to tell them what the minimum requirements are for EB & EUC08 (especially EUC08). And because CA SUI is different than many of the other states, there is a possibility that CA SUI & the Fed EB & EUC08 conflict.

                  I'm not comfortable saying you are wrong and they are right. To be honest, I want to say you are right. But there is one thing I know about law and it is when YOU think you have all the bases covered, there is some obscure loophole somewhere, where you didn't look that says this overrides that. And when it comes to the state & the Feds, the Feds always overrule the state. Even if there is an error between what is written for EB & EUC08, because EUC08 is a temporary measure, there is a clause somewhere, wherein it states that EUC08 overrides EB in a given circumstance for the time period it is enacted.  

                  Like I said, the SUI laws are different in most of the states. CA SUI is not the same as the laws in my state. Some states don't allow part-time/temp UI at all. So I have to think the EB & EUC08 account for the differences in the states. And it could be that they just don't cover part-time or temp quarters. Or there is a minimum baseline/floor that has to be meet. I don't think the Feds are going to be as flexible as CA. They certainly aren't when it comes to minimum wage.

                  But I have tried to understand what you are saying. What I do find problematic is that your case went so high up the chain. That is why I took the time to read everything. I do think that is odd. If there wasn't a conflict between EB & EUC08, then why send it so far up the chain? But I would have to read both laws in their entirety and I'm not a lawyer. If you think there is something there take it to an employment lawyer. They are going to know what's in the EB & EUC08. Or at least the have paralegals to find out. In the meantime, the response from the Fed, to CA has been "fine, we'll pay this one but don't ask us again." And that response puzzles me too. If you had something, they wouldn't necessarily say that...CA is our most indebted state. They are looking for money anywhere they can get it. If they thought they could get more $$$ out of the Feds, they would. So, you can see my conflict...

                  But again, if you think you have something, take it to an employment lawyer. And take it to one that has taken cases in front of the DOL. AND has an ax to grind. I don't think there is a cover-up though. A mistake, maybe. But it would be a mistake congress made, not the administration. Congress writes the laws. The administration enforces them.  

                  Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

                  by yawnimawke on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 12:23:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  good questions... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    yawnimawke

                    Welcome to my last year of non stop headache. I will try to further clarify then I have to crash. Much other work was set aside today to play defense (as I would expect to have to do).

                    1. It wasn't "EB" at all for me, as in the last 20 weeks of the extended benefits in California knows as Fed-ED. This is a common and frustrating mistake hard to avoid. Both Emergency Unemployment Compensation and the Federal State extended benefit program are technically "extended benefits" (both coming after regular unemployment compensation exhausts).

                    The 1970s EB was around before EUC08. They were both active in the 1990s recession. And both work "together" again in our current mess. Regular state benefits first, then EUC08 then EB. (26 weeks + 99/73 weeks + 20 weeks or whatever EB is reduced to if any states still even have it..most triggers went OFF this year).

                    They are both federal programs but administered by the states based on the federal guidelines that are issued to them (they actually write matching state laws and regulations for them to match the federal implementation for better or worse). There is some difference in the way the funds are paid or matched by the state/feds and employers (or not). Lets not go into that headache...

                    I never got to the California Fed-ED program (the "EB" you are talking about/last 20 weeks AFTER EUC08 that is over now). Not once on any claim. According to 20 CFR 615.5(2) they are all terminated with no entitlement to any remaining balance. Just like EUC08 is supposed to work since they share THE SAME REGULATIONS at 20 CFR 615.

                    If you work part time or temp work like I have. You keep hitting new 52 week benefit years/claims and play juggle the EUC08 and state benefits back and forth (so yes part timers in Cali can get EUC08 if they work enough).

                    I never collected unemployment until the recession kicked in. I mainly worked as a freelancer for over a decade+ and was stuck in the grey area between contractor and temporary employee (show biz is a crock when it comes to labor laws and freelancers). I never want to have to deal with this nightmare of Ui rules and regs again trust me but freelancing these days is not what it used to be.

                    2. California does not link your base period earnings for unemployment eligibility to one single employer. I am very fried from this long day of inquisition but I think it is a set amount per quarter/base period and number of hours worked. If I cannot get anyone to care about a multi billion dollar fraud and cover up before the election, then not much point going into detail about that right?

                    For perpetual temp workers like me and many others, we get the joy of filling out tons of extra paperwork for huge numbers of multiple employers. I swear I had over 50+ W2's from just on year! Union workers can count on at least one or two EDD problems with an overpayment accusation each year.

                    We don't get pay stubs from our stellar Local Hall for most of these temp gigs nor from the employers. So we keep track of our ever changing union rates and contracts on our own or beg the not so friendly job steward to email us the "report" he files to the office and employer with the exact wages and hours for the crew. It is not uncommon to report your wages to EDD (state unemployment) only to find out later that there was a change in the contract, or error in the report, after you get the check weeks later.

                    Did I mention I had to fight off a denial of benefits due to this exact type of overpayment error during the same 26 week appeal period for the EUC08 errors? (2011). I am 5-0 or 6-0 against EDD depending on how your score things.

                    3. I hope that clears up the EUC08 then EB/Fed Ed confusion. No wonder the feds made a mistake! As for what you said about the law and my "allegations", in a way I have "found that loop-hole" except it is not the loop-hole but the way the program was supposed to work in the first place. It is supposed to match how state regular Ui and the final 20 weeks of State EB/Fed-ED work. No entitlement to any remaining balance on older claims.

                    It is actually pretty simple when you start knowing that. I had to figure it all out backwards from the faulty implementation the feds put in place (which is ten times more complicated the way they are doing it and trying to keep track of more claims than they need to).

                    The links and information about our laws and regulations available to the public still amaze me. I have checked everywhere and the power of CTRL+F/search documents on the internet is amazing. It makes it very easy to search for, because the feds use the same key jargon phrases in the law and regulations over and over. See for yourself. I spent months re-checking and looking for that loop-hole to defeat myself before I even started talking publicly about what I discovered.

                    If it existed, and refuted me, wouldn't the heads of the California Ui appeal board have found it and defeated me on 10/20/11 (this was appeal #2 remember after being turned down). t is rare to win Board appeals for any reason after being denied. The feds came to California for just that same purpose again on 2/7/12 (with no right to do so according to their own documentation). They walked away on 2/14/12 without even trying to take me to court. I still have my funds and standing decision.

                    I have basically been taunting them and trying to embarrass them into saying anything one way or the other ever since. I keep daring them to refute me (not those words). I am still going the "legal" route within my administrative remedies left to me. In theory the Recovery Board, or the DOL or the White House could swoop in at any moment and agree to investigate my complaints officially instead of what has happened so far.

                    If nothing else, I am impressed and amazed at the amount of data we have available at our fingertips these days. This would take ten years in the 70s if not longer...just to investigate. For that alone it was worth the education in how the system works (at least related to this narrow area of law).

                    Every kid in school should have to take a class that shows them how to check the laws and regulations online. You would be amazed at what documents you can find. If have piles of them. These are the manuals for how the government is supposed to work. Wanna see?

                    4. DING DING DING! You are super smart! This is one of the points that the high school kid made to me: why in the hell do the states want to take on MORE unemployment debt that they cannot bail themselves out of? This is what is happening due to so many people being forced off of or paid much shorter/lesser EUC08 claims due to the "errors". Very few people reach EUC08 claim #2, and instead use up state funds in many cases that would not be spent otherwise if this was fixed. Then bam! they are out of benefits all together and then they turn to the state for food stamps and other assistance. See the size of the problem?

                    I would have no benefits right now if I was forced behind door #1. SNAP would be looking real good in those circumstances. I got to choose door #2. And less state money has been used. Except of course for the money wasted on the appeal nightmare and the "hush money" I am being paid by the states to cover my Federal EUC08 that the DOL refuse to pay. That is just part of the cover up fun...

                    The feds are paying for far less of this recession dinner tab and the states are sinking very fast due to alarming Ui insolvency. This helps accelerate that to nightmare proportions when federal funds would have been spent instead. Go figure?

                    Thank you. You just made this whole party worth it.

                    5. It was a mistake. It is now a cover up of that mistake that I uncovered. That is exactly what happened in the chain of events that resulted from my 10/20/11 appeal victory and led to the improper squashing of the precedent decision request by the State of California and Feds in February of 2012. Those letters are VERY INCRIMINATING.

                    The lengthy documented email trail I have kept shows them ignoring oversight for these funds while they tried to take my case away. They failed. Here we are months later and still no notice that my decision is being challenged in court yet and they won't even say boo about it either way.

                    I scared the bejezus out of poor CUIAB Robert Dresser when I filed a state bar complaint against him and others who were involved (he did after all award me my victory in the first place before he caved in on 2/14/12). So after a phone call to his office line, I took notice of his "tone". He took a very, "your are engaged in legal actions against me. I am not talking with you. Thank you and good day approach." They were pretty smug with me before the FOIA revelations. Now...not so much...

                    I kind of knew that in California the state bar does not have "jurisdiction" over the CUIAB. I also was told that the Committee for Judicial Review has no authority over them nor EDD personnel either. Wonder why both EDD and the CUIAB are all FUBAR? There you go.

                    But, it revealed that they are acting to defend themselves rather than go after me anymore. Good news bad news for me. I can stop losing sleep about losing my money anytime soon (months and months of that). But trying to get this government to budge...I don't have to preach to this crowd on that note.

                    No oversight is the theme of this tale...

                    6. I hope with the EB clarification vs EUC08 this clears up some of your valid questions. I repeat. I never made it to EB and looks like I never will will with the current 2012 deadlines/trigger off situation. Oh well. I am not doing bad otherwise considering what would have happened to me if I was not able to get this far.

                    Thanks again for your questions.

                    BTW...MANY LAWYERS have been contacted and consulted within the past year on many legal issues (my own and those of the victims). I have more in place than the feds realize.

                    I am working with other legal counsel and some claimants to get their own Writs of Mandate going against these incorrect determinations (after they lost appeals in the past based on the "errors"). We are waiting for word on court dates. One of them might go down before the election....

                    As for me, I am playing the game called "wait for all administrative remedies to conclude". I already prevailed on my own so far. From many conversations with legal folk, they have told me this initial work I am doing on my own, would take much longer in their hands and cost a small fortune, before they even got to find out what money they might get out of this (getting the money that was denied back is easier than claiming any damages out of this).

                    So to be frank, its a giant pain in the ass that only Kim Dotcom could spend the time, money and energy on to litigate "by the book" (btw...there is another abuse of authority by the FBI that does not get much press in that case). An unemployed worker? Get a law firm to do that on contingency or pro bono?

                    If you think the response here is harsh, then try to run that by some lawyers. I have about 798 times in the past year+.

                    I still prefer that the government obey the rights, laws, regulations and oversight without some long painful and wasteful legal battle. How exactly will that help the unemployed and our economy? Do you know how much money has been wasted on incorrect and improper EUC08 adjudication nationwide so far? I don't even want to think about how many tax dollars are gone because of that alone...

                    Thanks for playing. Good night for now...

                    •  thanks for the clarifications. I wish you well on (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      corazonroto

                      what I would now label as a quest for you. I will keep my eyes peeled if I see anything or hear anything from anyone in my neck of the woods that is having similar problems. But it sounds like a big fat mess. If you have them, like you say you do, then hold them to the fire. Drop a line to the newspaper (you are going to have to find a sympathetic reporter), I would suggest Glenn Greenwold or Ezria Klein. Perhaps that can get you farther than here. But it does sound like the state is losing $$$ and why they would not fight for that, I really don't get. It is curious.

                      Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

                      by yawnimawke on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 08:24:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you rock....thanks (0+ / 0-)

                        ...an unfortunate and unwanted quest indeed...

                        I am holding on as tight as I can. I will give those reporters a try along with many others. Thanks for the suggestion. This is really all I am trying to do...gets this info to the pros so they can get the job done.

                        It is an amazing example of a pig headed government mess isn't it? Everything they are doing is against their own interests and ours.

                        If I were part of the California Government and had any say, I would mobilize my own legal team to protect my state. If the feds screwed up and were caught causing my very insolvent Ui fund to get even worse, then I would just tell em what General Anthony Clement McAuliffe (July 2, 1898 – August 11, 1975) told the Germans when they asked him to surrender during the battle of the bulge in WWII...

                        ...."NUTS!"....

                        California should have fought for their rights and those millions of claimants they left hanging on 02/14/12. Fire Pam Harris. Fire Talbott Smith. Let Sandra Hughes go. Remove Robert Dresser and Alberto Roland from further adjudication responsibility. Remove Mark Woo Sam from his position at the top of California "policy" law. Marty Morgenstern pack your bags. I would have fought off the the Feds BS threats using actual facts of federal administrative law (and their own UIPLs against them). If a filth covered unemployed peasant can pull it off...

                        The EUC08 "errors" let the feds duck a much bigger ARRA bill, and stick it to the already broke states who have taken on the additional burden thanks to them (which includes paying me my federal EUC08 hush money). More state funds wasted. More people forced onto general assistance/food stamps. On and on.

                        This has all happened before, and this will all happen again...if we don't wake up.

                        Lose. Lose. Lose.
                        The States. The claimants. The Economy.

                        Perfect government logic...

          •  This is a good start (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hohenzollern, Wee Mama, kalmoth

            Now, tell me what the "error" is...in simple language.  What is the particular "appeal decision", what is the "decision in question"?

            Just use the basic journalism system, the first paragraph should tell the reader who, what, where, and when.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:22:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually you might start with something really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hohenzollern, Pluto

              simple...what are EUCO8 beneifts?  

              "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

              by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:26:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  May I? (0+ / 0-)

                As mentioned in the second paragraph after the fleur de kos:

                Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2008, Title IV— Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PL. 110-252)
                And again in paragrapg 3:
                In the attachment, Emergency Unemployment Compensation, 2008 – Questions and Answers,
                It was a rather dry read, but interesting, nonetheless.  Gave me something to do while my nails dried...

                ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

                by geekydee on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 06:59:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  CTRL+F...not a journalist...they bailed (0+ / 0-)

              so I am typing and investigating. I am happy as a breakfast bunny to answer such reasonable requests from such reasonable people.

              The "error", can be examined in detail here,
              Details...

              The Shorty as possible (hacker writers feel free to "K this down" as us ASM guys used to say):

              You become unemployed and are paid based upon the most recent base period (your last job). The state pays you 26 weeks of benefits in California for example. During the recession two levels of federal benefits augmented this when you run out of state money. Here are the problems I have exposed:

              1. Emergency Unemployment Compensation. Public Law 110-252/111-205 and part of the American Recovery and Re-Investment Act of 2009. EUC08 is the abbreviation among the unemployed and unemployment agencies. EUC08 originally paid 99 weeks, across four "Tiers". Payment are supposed to be based on the most recent benefit year and base period. By law. By regulations the "agency" swears to comply with. EUC08 guidelines...not so much...

              The "errors" in the EUC08 guidelines listed, punished by the DOL ETA, UIPL 23-08 change 1 forward, are found in the "Multiple EUC Claims" Q&A section, separate from the actual Attachment A Implementing and Operating Instructions. They can be found and easily searched online.

              Taken together the two documents contradict each other on this key point: what to do when a claimant becomes eligible for a new EUC claim while still having a remaining balance from an older one. The code of federal regulations Title 20 Chapter V Part 615.5(2) specifically says that the EUC claim must end and is terminated with no remaining entitlement to any remaining balance. Attachment A appears to back this up and says the EUC claim ends. The question should not even be considered. Just like it would not for regular unemployment nor the last 20 weeks of EB (that shares the same regulations).

              The EUC08 Q&A guideline "errors" say, "screw those regulations", and advise the states to pay the claimant the remaining balance from any older EUC claims instead of paying them based on the most recent benefit year. This results in many cases of people who were paid $450/week by the state, but then when federal EUC08 came up again they went back to a $100 or less claim, in many cases for more than 52 weeks+. You lose eligibility to the most recent and higher paying claim at this point to boot. Quite the FUBAR error...along with future determinations causing more harm based on the older and wrong benefit year determinations made against millions of other claimants for years...

              2. State extended benefits (the 20 extra weeks known as "Fed-ED" in California). These are also called extended duration benefits. These benefits came from the 1970s EB ACT and were activated along with EUC08 during this recession. They both share the same federal regulations found at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. State EB are triggered ON and OFF based on a three year look-back of the unemployment rate (then vs now). Pay millions of people less money and make them uncounted discouraged workers (due to the "errors") and this may have had an effect on triggers going OFF earlier than they should have...

              Once the EUC08 program went sideways due to the "multiple EUC claim" error it sideswiped both the last 20 weeks of eligibility for extended benefits, by changing the order of claims that come before it, often pushing benefits out of reach due to the error....

              and

              3. the Public Law 111-205/HR4213 eligibility has mostly nullified by the "multiple EUC claim "error". Once you are being paid from an older benefit year during a current one, you are straddling between these "multiple EUC claims". When the next determination for EUC08 is made to see if you qualify to pass this important law that congress wrote to help the unemployed, it all gets FUBAR.

              You have to have a benefit year end date after July 22,2010 to pass the HR4213 "test" (is the state claim 25% or $100 less then the current EUC08 payments? If so the lesser claim is differed until EUC08 is exhausted.). Millions of people were on claims in this time period that crossed the date and made them eligible to avoid being forced onto any lesser state claims while being paid whatever EUC08 they were on. This was the basis for CUIAB Case A0-265448. The one that reversed this "error". Millions of others have been shafted...

              4. The courts show precedent for a federal Agency being required to follow the standing statues of the USA. It is called the Chevron Doctrine.  Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1981 during Reagan's day:
              wiki code of federal regulations

              According to the evidence I have presented so far, the Department of Labor would appear to FAIL the "chevron test" with regards to the "multiple EUC claims error". This "policy" does not comply with three specific regulations found at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 (615.2(c)(2), 615.2(h)(1)(2), and 615.(2)). The California appeal "decision" was based on this, before the threats by the DOL ETA anyway. It still stands.

              Who, What, Where, When was right here,
              Who What Where When specifically...

              and here,
              Mr Prez there is a problem...

              Thank you for your time and attention.
              Next question please?
              The cute, friendly and unemployed lady in the first row perhaps?

          •  While I'm tempted to think that the claimant (3+ / 0-)

            in question is you, the larger point - made more eloquently by other commenters - is that you have lost the power of your point in all of the impenetrable density and "inside baseball" nature of this and your other posts.  A couple of thoughts:

            -- I am unaware of a "one post per topic" rule; if there is it was crushed under the ponderous weight of reality long, long before you signed up for the purpose of launching your series of diaries...

            -- Since you are preparing to go to "the others" with what you apparently consider actions of an impeachable nature, you're work here is probably done...

            "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

            by Jack K on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 06:11:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  reading is fun (0+ / 0-)

              I am the claimant who won the appeal. This has been stated many times. Verification of my personal details has been provided to the Oversight Group and the "creator" among many others.

              Re: your "others" comment:
              Would you allow the train to run off the tracks if you could slow it down before it dumped coal on those poor girls? I am not driving the runaway train nor pushing it along. I am merely pointing out that it is out of control and I know how to stop it. Because you like the engineer you would say or do nothing other than shoot down the person trying to warn everyone?

              The "others" are dumb as door nails. Listen to them. It's all people talk about. That's what they want. Even if they wanted to score points off the Big O, who I hope is not involved as I clearly and carefully have stated, it goes against their current standing orders:

              They would have to do something that would help the unemployed and poor. In the end the Department of Labor and many state agencies are in deep trouble. Many of "them" work there or have friends there. All I know and have said is that the White House was informed of myself, my efforts and CUIAB Case on 10/18 and 10/21/11. This is not normal procedure trust me...

              The decision in my favor was on 10/20/11. Do the math. As the precedent request and recovery fraud complaints came at them they did what they did on 2/7, 2/14 and 2/17/12. When is the last time you saw the State and Feds get together and act so fast. For my "little" state appeal case no less?

              I'm not the guy...
              ask them the questions...
              both sides of Congress have gotten notice from many claimants other than myself for years that there was a problem...

            •  ohhh...those "others" (0+ / 0-)

              no, no and nope. No way I give those clods my personal info.

              The "others" that I sent private verification information to refers to KOS and the Oversight Group. I have made myself further available for any questioning...

              I live in the bay area. So come on down or we can meet at a Kinko's and you can get your copy of the irrefutable facts.

              As I said before, the repugs would sooner chew their own hand off, than help the poor and unemployed. I doubt they will touch this, as much as they might want to. I think they are too dumb to begin to figure this out no matter how it is presented to them.

              Since this is the "smart class", and there are serious problems with the reality of my evidence even here, I don't think that those that doubt the existence of Global Warming would even bother...

              •  Here's your fundamental problem, and I offer (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kalmoth

                it in all seriousness:

                You are getting too far into details and creating incredibly  lengthy posts that make eyes glaze over and turn the readers off.  The H/R's accrue because the nature of your posts make you look like some sort of troll...  

                ...if you want to make the point that you obviously want to make in a way that actually connects with the intended audience, you really need to dispense with all of the details that clearly matter so much to you but are simply a tedious drudgery for the rest of us when included in one really, really long blog post...  

                ...figure out how to distill your concerns into something that is shorter and more digestible; this particular venue - all of the blogging world, for that matter - is ill suited for the sort of long-form posts that you have been doing.  Tell people in way fewer words what the basic problem is; tell them why they should care in way fewer words than you have been doing.  Create a blog on Blogger or some other hosting site to link to where they can get more information if they are interested...    

                "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

                by Jack K on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 08:46:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  thanks for the sincere advice (0+ / 0-)

                  been there done that...I am unemployed and broke and very busy at the same time.

                  This is the reason for just dumping the details as full public disclosure. There is no time for me and those denied emergency designated funds. This is not a long form activism platform and there are no funds for any blog setup. Unemployed Friends 2.0, DK, the Democratic Underground and as many related news stories that I can find are what I have little time to post on. I don't sleep much anymore and have not for the past year.

                  "Emergency requirements for emergency needs". Is emergency defined in some way that I have missed?

                  MANY attempts have been made in shorter and more concise form to alert the media and "elders" here about this problem before I began posting with that need in mind. I am in the middle of the investigation, so time to re-work the "message" is limited (while I am still looking to get back to work at the same time). Much of these diaries are just a cut and paste over from posts that have been up on Unemployed Friends 2.0 over the past year. The unemployed get it...

                  I make clear that my intent is to do just that. Evidence dump and inform the public (or those who intend to pick up writing about it). Here are all the facts. I have organized and linked everything into a very workable form for any real party of interest investigating.

                  I apologize to the masses and the those that rely on hand held computing displays (very valid despite my pokes). The "baseball" jargon is unfortunate and necessary when you talk about the complex extended benefits world and the specific evidence involved.

                  I am glad that discussion has been provoked and I have attempted to provide answers to thoughtful questions. I think some people are beginning to get it. This is exactly the point where I exit stage left...

                  ...and some hot shot reporters and writers come in and make a name for themselves. I am happy to assist them and further advise after any required vetting of the facts. I have timed the length it takes to read this data. We quizzed high school art kids that a neighbor teaches and THEY GOT IT in under 30 minutes (I even have one kid pointing out some of the legal issues I brought up here recently after showing him the links)!

                  I mean no personal offense to anyone despite the tone I felt from much of these fairly thoughtless attacks and messages (not yours btw), but this is exactly what they call the "knee jerk reaction" of our 24 hour and many slices of micro-second news and blog cycle. It is what it is. I was online after I published this and in under a minute or two negative jabs popped up. You cannot read the post in much less than 15 minutes. And they say I am a troll?

                  I just program the light show man. I have read a great deal of excellent writers work on DK over many years. I have also seen the stupid and lame posts that come along with such well earned success. I am a proud 300 baud veteran, so all this is nothing new.

                  There is some fantastic investigative journalism and activism going on here. I am not looking for a place amongst that. I don't even want to go back to play "delay the investigation" with the government. But I can't get the image of some of the suffering claimants I have talked to out of my head (even though we have not met in person). Someone has got to help them...I got my money back, they should too.

                  Somebody has to investigate and go through all the jargon and write up an analysis or report, that is then polished into whatever format works best to get the job done. I'm the data guy...

                  You fine people make with the pretty words. I mean that will all due respect. That's why I came here...I "was" a democratic voter once upon a time for many years after all.

                  I don't know what to think now...other than its us or them come vote time, and I am not down with Johnny Sokko Ryan and his Giant Robo Mitt Romneytron (or vice versus..it works both ways). The unemployed get fracked in the middle...either way...if I cannot get them help.

                  Time is not a luxury in these specific circumstances...

          •  lolwut? n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens
      •  Can you explain it in ONE paragraph that's SHORT? (6+ / 0-)

        I'm looking for COHERENCY, not a Joyce-ian stream of consciousness ramble.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

        by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:04:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ...any answer he gives will be wrong... (0+ / 0-)

    •  hella funny (0+ / 0-)

      but...inaccurate when describing the diary author.

      It would be correct if you are describing what I have exposed in my own diary dungeon...see the growing list in the comments.

      btw...there are many versions of short paragraphs provided. I aim to please.

      Remember the 1980's Dragonslayer movie? And the big bad, dressed in black "Urlander" Tyrian who was sent to stop the Dragonslayer from his task by the fearful king?

      The wizards assistant Hodge replied to their challenges and doubts by saying, "Ah, so it's a test you're looking for. We don't do tests!"

      Tyrian, responds, "No, of course not. They never do tests. Not many real deeds either. Oh, conversation with your grandmother's shade in a darkened room, the odd love potion or two, but comes a doubter, why, then it's the wrong day, the planets are not in line, the entrails are not favorable, "we don't do tests"! "

      the quote source above

      I feel like the poor old wizard. He has slain dragons before. Nobody wants to believe him nor the facts. He and I have puled off many real deeds that can be verified. In my case, I have taken your "tests" and passed as far as the facts and evidence go. Keep looking. Keep asking questions. I will answer them. I never said was a writer. Feel free to show us how you would write this important and relevant story up...

  •  If anybody read all of that, let me know (7+ / 0-)

    I have some suggestions for ways you can spend your time.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:48:58 PM PDT

    •  He/she tried to explain it again. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hohenzollern, kalmoth

      Still incoherent.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

      by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:19:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  timed at (0+ / 0-)

      under 15 minutes to read in full.
      5 pages of text.
      The unemployed and our economy have been shafted by government mistakes. The government tried to cover it up and got caught. You don't care. Noted.

      Please describe what happens to the economy if you take back the $97 billion dollars spent on EUC08 so far? Then describe what happens if billions of dollars more are added and recovered if they errors and evidence were not burned at the stake?

      Other links are a much longer read to provide the detail that is always asked for. I still answer the questions here anyway.

      Complicated problems have no easy answers. I leave that for the more enlightened and professional writers here and elsewhere...

  •  I think you may need to be introduced (8+ / 0-)

    to two very novel concepts in writing--the topic sentence and introduction.  In these two advanced writing techniques, the goal is to tell the reader what it is you are arguing for or against, and provide a thumbnail sketch of you argument.

    These advanced techniques help the reader figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE ON ABOUT!

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:51:41 PM PDT

    •  Near as I can tell.... (5+ / 0-)

      ....he got cut off unemployment and thinks Obama's behind it.

      If Obama didn't get Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger; then Bin Laden didn't take down the World Trade Center because he didn't fly the planes.

      by Bush Bites on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:50:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I should add. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Empty Vessel

      I feel sorry for the guy if he did lose unemployment, but feeding his paranoia isn't going to help him.

      If Obama didn't get Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger; then Bin Laden didn't take down the World Trade Center because he didn't fly the planes.

      by Bush Bites on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yet here you all still are... (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks again for the attention. Some will not get this no matter what nor care. I am not trying to help them any more than I need to or wasting time worrying about it. I have made a reasonable and strong defense that has not found a response that refutes it in any way whatsoever.

        Thank you for the concern tho. I did not lose unemployment for as long as millions of others have.

        You and others here argue like a "birther" or climate change doubter does (from a technical view of these "proceedings" sans emotive personal accusations). No matter what is provided, no matter what the format, you will never believe the truth. You won't even look at it. It is amazing how many on both sides don't see how much they are the same sometimes...

        These facts are easily checked, especially the government laws and regulations. I provided many links. Did I fake and spoof all those websites too? I guess it is easier to thrown stones these days than spend some time and clicks looking into a problem of pressing national importance. Imagine what this would be like pre-internet?

        My invite to investigate and write your own real stories remains open...sorry you feel the way you do. The great thing is that this is still a right we have that has not been taken away. Good for us all despite all the noise.

        Hmmm...now who do I know that has had their rights and emergency funds taken away? Let me think...

  •  I think your Tags alone may be longer than (9+ / 0-)

    some of my diaries.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:54:05 PM PDT

  •  I need a fag (7+ / 0-)

    cig birthday cake

    Oh, wait -- I already quit over 6 months ago.  WTF is this thing about?

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:54:57 PM PDT

    •  this is what my grams taught me. (0+ / 0-)

      Do the right thing.

      She passed away last year, while I was fighting the government that was busy stealing federal emergency aid from me and millions of others during and emergency economic crisis due to their incompetence and malfeasance. THIS is about what she STOOD for:

      Elizabeth K. Anderson, 91, of Canadensis, died Friday evening, Jan. 28, at the VNA Hospice House in East Stroudsburg. She was the widow of William Anderson, who died Jan. 31, 1979.

      Born on Dec. 2, 1919, in Bethel, Vt., she was the daughter of the late William and Annie (Coon) Kennedy and lived in Barrett Township since 1945.

      She was a registered nurse, having worked at the Pocono Medical Center until retiring in 1982 after 25 years of service.

      A veteran of World War II, she served from March 1941 until January 1946 in the U.S. Army as an army nurse.

      She was an active member of the Moravian Church of Canadensis.

      and THIS is also for what my grandpa stood for that seems to have died on DK at least,
      Birth:     Apr. 12, 1920
      Millersburg
      Dauphin County
      Pennsylvania, USA
      Death:     Oct. 3, 2001
      Carlisle
      Cumberland County
      Pennsylvania, USA

      Deceased Name: Richard P. Jury MILLERSBURG -- Richard P. Jury, 81, of 301 North St., died Wednesday in ManorCare, Carlisle.

      He was a retired postmaster and Army veteran of World War II.

      He was a member, past master and trustee of Susquehanna Lodge 364 F&AM, member of Harrisburg Consistory, Zembo Temple, Tall Cedars Millersburg Forest 125, Upper Dauphin Shrine Club, American Legion Post 326, VFW Post 5507, 7th Arm'd DW Association, St. Paul's Lutheran Church and former teacher and secretary of the Sunday school, past secretary of the Millersburg Branch of the YMCA, Millersburg Lions Club and Millersburg Fire Company.

      Those are REAL Americans. They would not have put up this this government error nor your thoughtless comments and ignorance. What THEY taught me I am trying to apply.

      Obviously writing that would "raise your attention" so to speak, and satisfy your selfish and poorly backed up stabs and accusations...was not one of those things...

      Who cares?
      Your fellow trolls, snobs, snarks, flat-eathers, birthers and climate doubter wannabe's?

      Again I refer you to what the fabulous Jill Scott said in the comments earlier...

  •  I was told there would be no math (6+ / 0-)

    Clearly the money is being funneled to pay for the black helicopters, inmate trailers in the FEMA incarceration camps, and blue berets for the UN occupation troops. CONNECT THE DOTS PEOPLE!!! (scribbles nonsensical data furiously over 87 blackboards)

    (romney)/RYAN 2012 - I could never eat as much as I'd like to vomit.

    by Fordmandalay on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

    •  Hey! Those blue berets cost a lot! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fordmandalay

      Think it might be the tin foil they line them with...

      ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

      by geekydee on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 07:09:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  August 26, 2012 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, Anne was here, peptabysmal

    BORED TO DEATH

    I will vote for Obama, and every Democrat I can vote for, in 2012.

    by Food Gas Lodging on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:02:53 PM PDT

  •  Shocked! Shocked I tells ya... (8+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:07:10 PM PDT

  •  Question for those long time KOS internetters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, Kevvboy

    Are diaries like this posted merely as a way for other, ideologically opposed sites to provoke angry and/or dismissive responses, that can in turn be posted on those other sites to say "SEE, dem libruls r dilluded n branewashed, n deny teh fax!!"? Or am I being paranoid?

    But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone ISN'T out to get you...

    (romney)/RYAN 2012 - I could never eat as much as I'd like to vomit.

    by Fordmandalay on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:11:44 PM PDT

    •  They are only posted (8+ / 0-)

      for pootie woozle pictures.  No need for paranoia!

      babypootiepuppie

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:18:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no pimp hat here... (0+ / 0-)

      Your concerns are understandable after Acorn and all the other stupid witch hunts. People would tend to think reality show first and non-fiction second in these troubled times. I am not from anywhere other then Unemployed Friends 2.0 website and the land otherwise know as reality outside the bubble(s). I have offered myself and my evidence up, to be fully vetted. Check with Mary Kay at UF 2.0....

      I refer back to my runaway train description...

      I have information that would stop the runaway train from derailing. Some would ignore the warning, fearing a trojan horse of some sort. They were burned so many times before. They don't want to deal with stopping the train and fixing the tracks. They might look bad.

      I know. The engineer is such a sweet and cool guy too. He sings and has a nice family. People smile when he talks of great and good change. With good reason...

      But he did not build the train, lay the tracks nor make the schedule. In this case he simply might have know about the crazy guy who said the tracks up ahead have a serious defect in them.

      The train derails if nobody acts. In this case billions of ARRA dollars are denied or wasted. The economy and millions of claimants suffer when they don't have to. If the train crashes, the nice engineer might have to answer some tough questions at the wrong time. Maybe he should do something before this happens?

      Still don't want to talk to the guy that knows that there is a defect in the track at that tight curve overlooking the economy and the election?

  •  You Should Tell this Story at Parties. (6+ / 0-)

    Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS. Time for some Kossacks to eat a plate of crow.

    by kefauver on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:13:42 PM PDT

  •  HR (3+ / 0-)

    Tags list recommended which it is not.

    The Spice must Flow!

    by Texdude50 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:14:00 PM PDT

    •  cut and paste error (0+ / 0-)

      not misrepresentation.
      You got me!

      I did a cut and paste of the tags from a recommendation on an earlier diary. Apologies to any folk that were misdirected for the very brief time it was like that. This was not an attempt to violate rules or lure unsuspecting people to this diary.

      I even deleted the tag across all diaries to appease the powers that be (same cut and past I had not gotten to yet). Not trying to misrepresent anything and valid point noted. I was in the process of editing them anyway and got distracted by the discussion and my otherwise busy day.

      I fix my errors, unlike the Department of Labor. Now about the rest of my facts...

  •  Meh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth

    Light is seen through a small hole.

    by houyhnhnm on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:16:09 PM PDT

  •  JUST like Watergate!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texdude50, second gen, kalmoth

    except there's absolutely nothing in common.

    (Paste humorous photo here)

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:17:34 PM PDT

    •  Well "WTF" comes to mind . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BitterEnvy

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:46:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't Nixon deny some guy's unemployment? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karl Rover, elmo

      And then it just ballooned from there?

      No?

      If Obama didn't get Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger; then Bin Laden didn't take down the World Trade Center because he didn't fly the planes.

      by Bush Bites on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:47:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no...duh... (0+ / 0-)

        Nixon tried to cover up a mistake he and his administration made (a few people in it anyway). What they did in the first place was wrong and illegal (the robbery attempt). What they did to cover it up was even worse (illegal wiretapping and abuse of authority). The election and freedom of information acted played a role in all of this.

        Same with the EUC08 errors to a certain degree. The Feds made an error (the Department of Labor). In this case probably an honest one. At some point they become aware of it an realize the problems that would come up if revealed, especially just before the election.

        A cover up ensued and it was exposed. The president has "some involvement" based on the FOIA discoveries about the 10/18 and 10/21 memorandums the DOL ETA sent them (about a state determination matter they have no authority over even with EUC08 involved). The adverse and illegal actions by the DOL with the California EDD and CUIAB came after the White House notification...this part is still under investigation.

        When they had uncovered the robbery break in cover up and intent back in the 1970s (connections with Nixons re-election campaign), they did not just give up and ignore the problem before the figured out Nixon was behind it and had secret tapes proving it.

        The EUC08 scandal is at a similar point: "robbery" of ARRA funds, reveals cover up of implementation error with great repercussions before the election. In a way this is even bigger than Watergate.

        I hope it does not get to the impeachment point...but that is a very real possibility however unlikely. Would you not call for impeachment of a President who tried to cover up a billion dollar+ ARRA error/fraud affecting the economy and the unemployed..right before an election?

        Billions of dollars were not robbed from the Democratic HQ of course. Millions of people were not direct victims of that. The economy was not involved. But the point is the comparison between administrations and their abuse of authority. In that respect nothing has changed.

        They made a mistake. It got exposed. They want to cover it up. Laws do not matter. FOIA has helped expose them. An election is coming up and one of the main topics is unemployment and the recovery/stimulus. The EUC08 errors fit right into the middle of this.

        Something like this is "way off message" as they say isn't it? Why does the "message" trump law and justice and democracy?

        Welcome to post citizens united land..

    •  except for (0+ / 0-)

      The White House/EOP/President MAY have been involved in a cover up. The cover up tried to hide the errors in the federal EUC08 implementation affecting billions of dollars and millions of claimants. The cover up, by a federal agency, may have been directed by those "at the top". The cover up comes before the election and this fact might have swayed those involved to do what they did and when they did it. The cover up was exposed by a whistle blower using the FOIA to obtain documents to prove the cover up exists.

      Not like watergate at all...for now, but as close as we have come in recent memory (sad that there are too many other contenders for this prize).

  •  I admit to removing (8+ / 0-)

    "recommended" from the tags.  I know we aren't supposed to fuck with tags -- but that is something up with which I will not put.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:21:02 PM PDT

    •  Report to the Help Desk (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, Texdude50, Wee Mama

      That tag is not allowed except by automation.

      An ongoing annoyance, like trolls . . .

      •  Particularly considering that this drivel (3+ / 0-)

        does not have even one rec

        •  sherlock you are not aoeu... (0+ / 0-)

          The tip jar and ability to recommend this diary/my comments were yanked very early...I posted the word "recommended" in a tag that was cut and paste by error on all my diaries as I was updating tags. Apparently this is not even supposed to be possible (using that as a tag on your own).

          I was busy responding to the mob comments the first day and did not even notice. Then someone brought up the tag issue in comments only.

          I noticed the point being made and went and deleted the reference from all my diaries. The tag was removed by "management" here before I got to it and I have no problem with that. They could tell you that it was up for no more than hours.

          They could also explain the lack of tip jar for the diary now and lack of ability to recommend any comments I have made since (I did get some comment tips earlier...then nobody could rec anything except the negative attacks against me and this just cause).

          No big and nothing I seem to do can change that. I will side with the freedom of speech always. I see that the ability to repeatedly insult, snark, throw rocks, and act like an ignorant wanker towards the diarist remains wide open without such "oversight".

          That is just about as fair and balanced as fox news is...how ironic is that?

          •  Let me show you something. (0+ / 0-)

            corazonroto

            currently:
              Tip Jar (0+ / 16-)

            You might try being nice.  This diary didn't help you.

            •  hug kiss? (0+ / 0-)

              Seriously?

              "me" not being nice here? Thanks for the laugh...

              I just pointed out one more fact in my defense so far. I did get recs on other diaries, I made a cut and paste error that should not even have worked, I was busy defending myself from all the good people here who were so nice and fair (now silent except for you).

              I was getting recs to comments I made here on Sunday...and then poof....the trolled out Tip Jar vanished and the ability for anyone else to leave a positive comment towards me went with it. Of course the haters had a field day with this important subject matter because they could all +1 each as much as they liked and still can it seems.

              You were part of it. Did you forget this:

              "Particularly considering that this drivel(3+ / 0-)
              does not have even one rec" - aoeu
              Drivel...you did not read and verify before you spoke your ignorance.

              or this
              -aoeu
              Schizoid man....me?...real nice?

              or this with the attached dog snout photo (cute poochie tho):

              "Teh Snoot! Teh Snoot"
              -aoeu

              I won't even go into all the other not so nice comments you jumped in on here and gave a tip to...

              And finally you reply back with the above...what is that anyway? or what was it supposed to be? It came out as a snap shot of nothing that makes no sense on some flicker account.

              What is your point? (please do yourself a favor and skip the answer if it is about the recs I was unable to receive that you are trying to show?).

              Did you miss this before the recs for me got cut off? Let me show "you" something:

              +1 for me

              +1 and I was funny at least once...

              BTW where is your picture of the TIP JAR SHERLOCK? Take A GOOD LOOK. IT IS GONE. Can't get a tip with no jar son...
              and whatever YE TROLLS may think. This is all that matters to me and the intended audience along with the feds watching:
              Facebook
              Extend Unemployment Group
              re this Diary:
              what the unemployed think

              Fedup Lisa said "Outstanding article. Everyone should read to see if anything in it applies to them. Renews my faith in people doing the right thing! I hope this is successful and manages to blow the cover off another government fubar. By the way, fubar stands for "F** ked up beyond all repair or recognition". I learn something new every day."

              Back to unemployed Friends 2.0:
              Unemployed recommend the DK diary:

               Re: Mr.President, There Is A Serious Problem With The EUC08 Program
              Post by MaryKay on Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:36 pm
              Excellent read. Please all, take a minute and read this article.
              August 11 at 11:05am ·

               Re: Mr.President, There Is A Serious Problem With The EUC08 Program

              Post by Sick and tired on Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:49 pm
              I thought so too, very interesting to say the least!

              from this comment thread:
              what the unemployed who matter say about my writing and efforts

              Your life in the personal world aside. HERE: I name ye troll. Please get out from under my diary bridge or I will come down there and flush you out like I did the rest of them. Go play under some other bridge. There are plenty of them to chose from...

              As you can see, I have had to defend this very good cause that could help many of our citizens directly and indirectly. The economy would benefit too. The facts and evidence stand. Fact...not attitude. Is succeeding in defending ones self against the troll flash mob a crime now too?

              This is just my practical blue collar union trouble shooter get the job done attitude that I was lucky enough to learn from a few key people in my life (mentioned here). They lived in a wonderful time when that was appreciated, applied and flourished in this country. These days...not so much...

              All that said. Don't take it personal. I learned long ago, somewhere in the thrilling 300 baud to 14.4k transition days, that these are just bits and bytes of data. You know nothing about who I really am and I could not know how wonderful a human being you really are outside these comments. Everything I say to you and others here is from that perspective only and confined to that box.

              And what you said here wasn't that nice nor constructive to begin with. I called you out, to point out part of the reason why you made one of your "observations" (no recs and why partially due to lack of tip jar).

              Feel free to compare comment histories and decide who has been naughty or nice?

              Constestant #1 aoeu Comments

              Contestant #2 corazonroto Comments

              •  ps about that -16 (0+ / 0-)

                if the JAR was available to be examined...how many -1 would come from all the trolls like you I called out and and slayed so far? The ones with not much to say afterwards?

                If you have access to the Jar, unlike me and others I know from the unemployed world who have tried to comment rec in my defense and tip this diary but cannot...

                Would you care to list all the names of those who made the -1 tips? Would those names match closely the list of trolls I have called out here so far including yourself? Could we look at their comment history and profile to vet them?

                Would any of those -1ers like to come back and defend their decision in a productive and constructive way for the rest of the class? (btw you have to read all the comments so far and the actual diary in full..maybe even one or two of the links to all the PROOF too yo see unable to refute...unlike most of the initial -1 tips that came within less than 10 minutes of a 15 minute read+ diary being published).

                Well?

                •  As they say at SlashDot: Slow down Cowboy. (0+ / 0-)

                  TUs see all of your rightfully hidden drivel.

                  Think about it. Put your keyboard aside for a few days.

                  •  find a new bridge troll (0+ / 0-)

                    my diary.
                    you troll.
                    invaded with nothing but troll drivel....
                    no sound arguments....
                    and you have yet to address your BS accusation about recommends...like all ignorant trolls always do.

                    YOU made the point about the recs.
                    I countered that the Tip Jar was yanked on Sunday very early. Fact, Can't get tips with no jar can you sherlock? Your photo evidence comeback lacked this important fact.

                    You refuse to acknowledge this nor the comments I pointed out that show other tips for me, nor the diary and comment history that shows other tips, along with the support from a top unemployed advocate and admin of Unemployed Friends 2.0 (Mary Kay).

                    How dense are you actually?
                    Have you measured recently?

                    I am not a new school internet snob. I was writing ASM and sharing code at 300 baud kiddo...

                    I don't know who or what TU's are nor do I care. Who is the one with the drivel talk now? Is that some of your secret <140K speak? How cute...just like your many other comments on this site to many others.

                    All that matters to me is watching trolls like you fail, and the crowd that it draws to this important cause. The world does not work on the gold star system. And you cry slow down as soon as I point out that you have no argument.

                    All I see is more views on this diary and trolls walking away to find a new bridge to foul up afterwards...please join the rest of them and let the adults leftover alone so they can talk about the serious problems our nation faces.

                    Again. If it is so important to your argument. Who were the 16 who made the negative comments? I bet I have refuted most of them already, so how much does it count for then eh? Any mob can shoot down a sound argument this way here...or in say a birther or climate change doubter argument that Dems love to face so much?

                    How are you and the trolls here any different?

                    Go away already. Or I let me continue to exercise my troll smacker 2000 on you...it works better when it is warmed up anyway.

                    As for me, I am not sitting behind my keyboard all day worrying about you or how many recs I have or don't have on DK. This takes up 1/4 of my multi screen workspace and I am busy using while working on the investigation you ignore but cannot refute.

                    Take a break from helping people and our economy who have been harmed? Sure...just like Congress and the Democrats who have taken a break from reality with their thoughtless comments here...our whole system is on a break if you had not noticed and that is the attitude that fuels it.

                    •  Clue? (0+ / 0-)

                      Me short. You working it the hard way.

                      •  you are clueless (0+ / 0-)

                        but still wasting time space and energy trolling out my diary with your own drivel....and increasing the view count every time you do. So thanks again troll. It gives me a little break and  distraction from real work on these little outings we keep having together...so thanks for the laughs...is tomorrow at 2 pm PST good for you?

                        Without the Tip Jar, that is the best way for this topic to get attention (they won't bother reading our little amusing exchange ...but the purpose is served for the diary). When people see views on a Diary, they go check it out. I skip the troll parts and read the material. See the problem with your plan so far?

                        Maybe I will keep you around after all and make a comfy little troll nest for you under the bridge (made out of the Paul Ryan comfy hammock if you like). You can say something dumb every now an then, like you have been doing so far, and then and I can warm up the troll slapper 2000 on ya.

                        Can I name you..."Sherlock Watson", my favorite little troll? So cute and fluffy...

                        •  Me, short. (0+ / 0-)

                          You long, too also.

                          •  you short (0+ / 0-)

                            on making any sense whatsoever. Aren't your thumbs tired yet? Thanks for the views and endless amusement so far...break is over now so I cannot play for a little while.

                            Feel free to keep soiling yourself all over the comment section for us to watch and enjoy.
                            You are a bit short on backing up any of your drivel.
                            You are just short on refuting any of the facts and evidence you haven't even read here.
                            You are obviously short on display resolution as well.

                            Me long and thick.
                            Where it counts.

                            Thanks for another "assist".
                            You do realize you are helping me score on your own goal don't you?

                            Bad troll!
                            Bad Bad Sherlock Watson!
                            I told you not to soil yourself in public again...
                            Now go back under the bridge and lick that mess you made off of your filthy little self...
                          •  btw....the plot thickens... (0+ / 0-)

                            about that TIP JAR again...

                            breakingranks

                            Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:27 PM PDT

                            Sorry I saw this message so late. I did go rec the diary, but the tip jar is gone.

                            Have a nice nap Sherlock Watson. I will see you again when you decide to poke your cute little head out from under the bridge again....

                            So counting the people from Facebook and Unemployed Friends 2.0 who contacted me so far, along with breakingranks, who else cannot defend an honest American against the troll party that has taken up arms against me? (people have tried to rec my comments and diary....they cannot)

                            Could be it be a bug? I guess nobody tried to HR that huh? The TIP JAR is in my comments, but when I try to click on it...it makes DK4 go boom....

                            A cover up of a cover up exposed?

                            Did the trolls pass around the crack pipe again? Listen and learn from someone who knows better than anyone:

    •  I have recommmends (0+ / 0-)

      no matter how few.
      Tag removed to appease you.
      It will not change anything.

      •  Having recommends (0+ / 0-)

        does not a recommended diary make.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 07:03:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  going on and on (0+ / 0-)

          about a simple cut and past mistake shows that there is not much else to refute me with is there?. Valid point,  or glitch that was not supposed to happen, how many victims were there exactly?

          With all due respect to the DK world here and its "systems"..get over it. You are making much out of nothing and just drawing more views to this Diary. Thanks again...

          It is obvious that many people are here for the poo poo express and nothing else...look at the comment history for these folks...I did.

          Look around. There is actual discussion happening amongst the wreckage these people are causing here. Hang on to that little mistake as long as you need to to make you feel like you "got me". Put it in a little glass jar and put it on the mantle to look at all day if you want.

          I will keep gift wrapping them up. Enjoy. It is the least I could do for all the attention this brings to the "cause".

          •  Oh, honey, don't get all bent out of shape (0+ / 0-)

            You wrote a fairly unreadable diary, and you're getting flack for it, that's all.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 11:12:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  again (0+ / 0-)

              thank you for the continued attention.
              Who needs recommends when you and others keep pushing the view and comment count up?

              How many times have you commented here now? 4-5?...empty vessel is working on 10 troll shots here...you have your work cut out for you if you want to catch up.

              Nice comment history btw (both of you and the others). Second Gen and FG too. Real constructive and productive stuff...

              Who will be my top troll this week?

              second gen Comments

              skohayes Comments

              empty vessel Comments

              aoeu Comments

              food gas lodging Comments

              fordmandalay Comments

            •  btw honey (0+ / 0-)

              what happened after this comment of yours? Nothing to say?

              Skohayes-
              "Your non-existent army of the unemployed doesn't have time for this and neither do we."

              I posted quite a few examples of support from the unemployed. Over ten specific examples. What's the matter? Got no comeback for your thoughtless comments so far?

              What do you have to say to this woman and her children?

              by Rdp321 on Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:54 pm
               "...I have no idea how I am going to continue living with $81 per week with me and my 3 young kids. I am so depressed at this situation, I was only trying to do the right thing to take a part-time job and now I am being penalized for doing so."

              Clever now?

    •  why not just ask first? (0+ / 0-)

      since this seems like a bug and misunderstanding?

      BTW did you also take away the "Tip Jar" too?. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to slam someone with not much due process for a simple mistake related to the recommend tag, then get on their case because they don't have any recommends? You are taking away that option as punishment? I did go and make sure the tag was removed on any other diaries that it got cut and paste into...

      Not that I care, but if you take away the tip jar, then you are not allowing for any fair discourse or equal chance for the diary to be seen (or at least making sure this has less of a spotlight on it). The intent of that is to bury the story on your site it would seem? I think I have been pretty fair in light of the heat I have enjoyed here so far (good discussion too).

      Keeps me warm...

      Again. No DK disrespect intended, just a question.

  •  A Sandwich Board would be more succinct. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama didn't get Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger; then Bin Laden didn't take down the World Trade Center because he didn't fly the planes.

    by Bush Bites on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:45:24 PM PDT

  •  If you could translate (0+ / 0-)

    this into Latvian, then back into English, it would make more sense.

    To the diarist:  I know you must be appalled that all your hard work has produced nothing but ridicule and head scratching.  But to those of us cruising through the diaries, this looks like an incredibly arcane discussion of some hugely important (to you) bureaucratic battle over the implementation of some rules that are somehow related to unemployment benefits.  The trouble here is, you are not communicating with your audience that this is an issue that anyone could either understand or care about.

    Best of luck.

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:51:45 PM PDT

    •  YOU (0+ / 0-)

      are not the audience. No offense. You see this from the perspective of your day to day practices here. I am not part of that. I am on data dump duty, then back to investigating and looking for work while legal counsel gets put together and finalized (if needed).

      It is not just important to ME, but very important to millions of unemployed claimants who were shafted. if you would take the time and be patient with your inquiries I would be happy to "explain you there". Did the Washington Post drop the entire Watergate scandal on the American public in one perfect and concise package in one day? No.

      Please think outside the nano second news/blog cycle. Plenty of unemployed have supported my work and my "writing" very strongly. Blue collar unemployed workers get this and have for over one year. Legal professionals and unemployment experts find no error nor excess jargon. I have "stumped" many an expert over the last year and not due to a language barrier. The feds know EXACTLY what I am saying. No babel fish required...

      As for the unemployed and where is my army of them question...They don't exactly have the time and resources that I have fought to hold on to. They are the victims of these errors, beat down, eating nationwide scorn from all sides, and your thoughtless comments are pissing on them even more. The economy, that has been denied these funds to feed on is very hungry. You are helping to starve it further with this blind ignorance.

      You would not be for billions of dollars that could get restored into the economy and fixing these government implementation errors? Problems in a $97 billion dollar recovery program...no big deal?

      I am not appalled. I have been at this game for over one year+. I already beat the feds and state of California. I run union lighting crews. Think I cannot handle some gruff?

      I expected lots of "attention" from either the left or the right. In that respect I feel great success is being achieved as the federal government looks on. Discussion is what I want and lots of it. The feds are not basing their decisions on how many recommends I get or how many hugs and kisses I get from people here (again no offense...I don't really care about that). It would be funny if they were though...

      •  And that is why you fail (0+ / 0-)
        YOU are not the audience
        Your non-existent army of the unemployed doesn't have time for this and neither do we.
        If you could post a diary that is more succinct, perhaps people would be less generous with the HR's, but doing a "data dump" here is non-productive.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 07:06:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no (0+ / 0-)

          your comments are non productive (except for the increased views you help to bring here).

          You insult the many unemployed struggling workers and families that have tried to find help among such obtuse people and government officials. I have talked with them. Read their many posts and emails. Talked about their problems with them. I can provide documentation to show their stories and pleas for assistance. In fact I will right now...

          Go to Unemployed Friends 2.0. Talk to Mary Kay. Ask about "jerkyspace". Go ahead and her and insult them with your thoughtless responses and see how the "non-existent" unemployed rise up against you.

          Here are some of the many invisible ones you dare shame with your ignorance:

          unemployed friends 2.0
          Part Time Penalty BYE Update

          1.
          by Rdp321 on Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:54 pm

          Hi Jerkyspace,

          Yesterday I found your blog and found that we are in the same situation. Yesterday I received notice from EDD of my new benefit weekly amount that reflects the part time temporary and it shows I will only receive $81 per week, when I was used to receiving $305 per week from the original job or parent claim. Do you think I still have a chance and tell EDD rep that there is a Deferred New Claim program or the HR4213 that should allow me to stay on my parent claim? What advice can you give me. I have no idea how I am going to continue living with $81 per week with me and my 3 young kids. I am so depressed at this situation, I was only trying to do the right thing to take a part-time job and now I am being penalized for doing so.

          Rdp321
          Member

          2.
          by Feyth on Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:10 am

          Just wanted to thank jerkyspace for all the great info. After going through all this myself, I concur. I also received the runaround trying to appeal. Was promised a form that never arrived, etc. After searching the net for any indication that an appeal --even if I could get one-- would stand a chance, I gave up. As my new lowered benefit is less than what I am currently earning from my part-time job, no more assistance for me.

          I also wanted to point out that the recent money EDD received from the feds makes the whole situation worse. Before, EDD had to wait one quarter before filing these lowered benefit awards, according to their benefit year formula. CA received the new fed funds after "updating" their systems, which allowed them to redefine this formula.

          Now, EDD will automatically examine earnings at the end of every quarter. So anyone who worked part-time/temporarily during April, May and/or June may receive a lowered claim notice in the next few days.

          Personally, I've had to do some soul-searching as to what battles I'm able to take on while struggling to survive day by day. I do what I can. I have great respect for those who are able to do more. Heartfelt thanks.

          3.
          by evw59 on Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:08 pm

          mj33 wrote:
          Im sure you'll certainly have your insight and thoughts well prepared as candidly and firmly as possible. Keep us all informed on this battle.
          The woman turned out to be nothing but a mouth piece. She basically said that they followed the law,duh! that's why I contacted a lawmaker. I explained to her that she needs to inform her boss that there are flaws in the law. She kept going back to the july 2010 date. When I explained that I was reduced on my 2nd bye which date was May 2011 she really didn't have any explaination. After you take a claim and do 26 weeks, if EUC is available it should be used 1st reguardless of any EUC untouchable balance on the so-called parent claim.

          4.
          Re: Appeal?

          From stuck To jerkyspace, Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:34 am
          Exactly as I thought. I would need to appeal to the board. Thank you for the very informative reply, as always it is much appreciated! I know that was a very lengthy and time consuming task.

          Here is my case number: 3999900 (EUC) and date and place: 01/19/12 in Van Nuys.

          I will definitely give Elena a call before I fully prepare all of the paperwork to send in to the appeal and hear what she has to say on the matter (and as well as your case). Which case number should I cite for her that was your win?

          And yes, I did tell the ALJ about your case and the case number. As I wrote earlier she told me she was very interested in seeing what happened with it. I guess her interest faded when she came to the the same conclusion as your first case had before you appealed yourself.

          City Data Unemployment (censorship HQ...beware)
          City Data Ui Threads

          5.
          09-08-2010, 08:49 PM
          antrob
          Member
          Join Date: Sep 2010
          40 posts, read 55,326 times
          Reputation: 24

          Need advice with California EDD
          I recently had to re certify my unemployment claim after I been on it for a year. I worked a part time job during this year and when I went to re certify my claim on 9/1/10 they told me my new benefit amount was being reduced from $300 a week to $42 a week.

          I know in July of this year legislation was passed to protect people in my situation from being penalize if their benefit amount was being reduced by $100 or 25%.

          After telling the Representative this she denied any law was passed and after being passed around on the phone I finally had a supervisor admit that the law is on the books but California has no procedure in place to file new claims under the new law and I have to collect the new benefit amount until they come up with something.

          Remember this law was passed in July and were in September and they still have no procedure in place to pay out the benefit amount I'm entitled to.

          Does anyone know anyway to speed this process up. I asked to appeal the new amount but the supervisor told me I can't appeal anything because I wasn't denied benefits. Is this true? That don't sound right. I don't believe anything they tell me now after being lied to by three different people regarding the law that was passed.

          Any advice or tips that can lead me in the right direction to get this fixed would be appreciated. Thank you.

          6.
          09-08-2010, 09:11 PM
          chelebelle
          Senior Member
          Join Date: Aug 2009
          140 posts, read 152,301 times
          Reputation: 47

          Ok, Unfortunately you are going to have to wait. Step in line, behind me. LOL I've been waiting a long time but my circumstances are a little different.

          You have the date you originally opened your claim. From that date until a year passes, is your "benefit year". You obviously received 26 weeks and were on an extension and your benefit year ended. So, you had earnings in that year and may be eligible for a "state funded" new claim. It's a requirement that you file it and collect any benefits on it before you can continue on your extensions. In my case, my benefits went down to $89 a week and I had worked about 2 1/2 months full time so it sounds like you did about the same. Sooooo..... probably around 11 weeks of $82 a week "until they come up with something. I sooo feel your frustration.

          7.
          10-24-2010, 09:00 AM
          kissfan007
          Junior Member
          Join Date: Oct 2010
          2 posts, read 2,009 times
          Reputation: 10

          I can't believe this!
          I was on tier 2 of my extension when i took a job in dec09/jan10, this job lasted 3 weeks and I made $2900(I live in Illinois). So when my benifit year ended in april 2010 they told me that I will be collecting a new "lower amount". I went from maximum amount to minimum amount for 6 months. It killed me! Last week that "standard" 26 weeks was over. I just recieved a letter stating that i would be put back on the extension for that same lower amount! I kept thinking I would go back to my "original" claim extension amount. I have hopes that this new law will pertain to me and my situation. I was even told 6 months ago that I would go back to the original amount. I don't get it!

          8.
          02-07-2011, 04:24 PM
          cardfan33
          Junior Member
          Join Date: Feb 2011
          7 posts, read 6,573 times
          Reputation: 11

          I wanted to add on this post a copy of the e-mail I sent to my Congressman and both Senators. I think my situation is the same as most and more and more are discovering it each week.

          Here is the text:

          I wanted to comment about one of the provisions of HR 4213.

          I lost my job in December 2008, and went on unemployment. At that time, I received the maximum amount of $427 per week. I started my job search and was able to find a few temp jobs and a seasonal job as well, but nothing that was either full-time or permanent.

          At the beginning of November, 2009, I had to apply for 1st tier Federal extension and received 4 weeks at $421. My State benefit year then ended on the first week of December and I had to open a new claim. This time the amount was for $321.

          Again, I was able to find temp work, a job with the Census and a summer job.

          In November, I ran out of my regular state benefits and applied for a tier 1 Federal extension and received a claim judgment for $321 per week, however, there had been earlier legislation that kept my previously claimed extension open and I was being paid from that at $427. In other words, pay the oldest claim first.

          The problem came at the end of this past benefit year on the first week of
          December. I again applied for a new year as required and was given a WBA of $126.

          I heard of a provision in HR 4213 that allowed for individuals to stay on their federal extension if their new amount was either $100 or 25% less than they were receiving through said extension. The intent was not to punish those who were continuing to take whatever work they could find.
          I was informed it did not apply to me because NHES has ruled that my benefit year did not end after the enactment of the bill.

          This interpretation, in my mind has left me with some serious doubts about a system that actually does punish you for working, by finding a loop-hole to avoid the intent of a federal law.

          I have never taken a dime of assistance -- no food stamps, rental assistance, fuel assistance, etc. I have spent all my savings and drained my 401k to pay a mortgage on a house that I lost anyway. Paid 18 months of COBRA and can't afford healthcare. And this interpretation has left me facing eviction, and last week my storage locker with many of my personal belongings was auctioned off.

          There is no way to express my anger and frustration at what is happening here beyond writing a letter to anyone who might be able to actually do something about this. For me, it is obviously too late, but it might help someone else.

          Fix HR4213 to allow for retention of benefits from the most current year.

          9.
          2-08-2011, 02:05 PM
          Rusa
          Junior Member
          Join Date: Feb 2011
          2 posts, read 3,785 times
          Reputation: 10

          Please tell me what should I do??
          Hi,
          I'm having trouble with the EDD California.They have filed a New claim for me without my participation and the amount is $202,from $450 of my parent claim.
          I was still receiving my first extension, when they sent me a letter that I can file a New claim.At that time I have sent my form for the remaining money(about$250) that I had to get from my First extension.That check never came...instead they sent me a form to fill for a New claim that they filed for me with a back date of Jan.09/2011.I wrote them a letter stating that I didn't file New claim yet, I didn't get a letter stating Benefit Award , but I have received a claim form and that I'm trying to see what is best for me and see if I can continue with second extension and quoting HR 4213 or if EDD wants to put me on a New claim, that amount should be restored to previous amount .It seems that the EDD guy that replied to my letter didn't even read it!He simply said that I will soon be receiving my First check from the New claim.I didn't send the claim form, but what a shock, yesterday I received my check from the New claim - only $182!I haven't cashed the check, I'm afraid that if I do it will mean I accepted their New Claim they filed for me.I don't know what to do.Please, help!
          I can't possibly live on $182 a week
          Thank you in advance!

          10.
          03-04-2011, 10:42 PM
          clearyred
          Junior Member
          Join Date: Mar 2011
          4 posts, read 5,834 times
          Reputation: 10

          Hello. Your situation was just like mine. I was however nearing end of FEDED (5th ext) with about 5-6 more checks to come when this happened. I had no idea of this DNCP and have emailed them with same response and note that I opened new claim blah blah.. ect. My payments reduced now from $775 to $210 bi weekly. Yea, lower that minimum wage even.. I had to send back first claim or missed getting paid all together and I had t go thru phone interview because I was late sending in because I couldn't reach anyone to explain.. anyhow, they have ignored my last email, no response just new chek at lower amount and appeal forms. So my question is what exactly do I do with this form, what to say, I have a paper trail showing i still had a balance and did not open claim and I should qualify to keep FED ED balance as my benefits are severely reduced. Would you be so kind as to walk me threw what you did with your appeal and I will most likely mirror it. I was going to stash those check as benefits were nearing the end but didn't plan them to stop overnight. I would appreciate help with what to say and what exactly will happen in an appeal hearing. uote=SoCalAaron;17277425]If you've ended up reading this thread because you're searching for information on how EDD is implementing HR4213, and the provisions to coordinate Tiers I-IV with regular benefits, I've got some information to share. Section 3 of HR 4213, made law on July 22nd, provides several options for states to continue to pay Emergency compensation out until exhausted, if a new claim would result in a reduction of your benefits by $100 or 25%. This became an issue in CA for many people when EDD performed their routine quarterly recalculations October 1st.

          I just got to the appeal level in my situation, and I suspect others are just getting to this point too.

          EDD will automatically open a new claim and new claim year on you anytime after your claim is at least 1-year old, and you have had enough NEW earnings to qualify for ANY benefit amount. For many people who have earned only some wages since they originally filed their first claim, called a "parent claim", this is resulting in a huge drop in their weekly checks, even though they haven't used up their federal extended benefits.

          HR4213 was supposed to address this - effectively allowing you to exhaust your emergency compensation in some form before placing you on a new benefit amount. But, in my case, EDD has been arguing that I opened the new claim, and therefore had to accept it, and completely ignoring my questions about the coordination of federal benefits.

          I just got done with an appeal hearing today, and the administrative law judge agreed that EDD"s argument that I filed the new claim is absurd. My situation is very unusual, because my new benefit amount changes because of school wages, so I may or may not be eligible under the law, but the hearing officer all but ruled that EDD filed the claim, not me, so he agreed to rule on the coordination of benefits as well, rather than force me to make a second appeal after he rules that I did not open the claim.

          He also indicated that even their procedures predated HR4213 - so this issue may just now be coming to a head.

          IF you have had a new claim filed on your behalf by EDD before you used up your federal benefits, and you experienced a drop in compensation, it is probably a good idea to appeal. I followed this tact: 1) Appeal whether or not you are required to accept the new claim, and 2) whether your benefits are being correctly calculated under the new law.

          Admittedly, HR 4213, Section 3 can be interpreted a couple of ways - but the intention is to ensure that you get which-ever process benefits you the most. So far, it appears that the EDD is completely ignoring the coordination provisions - or doesn't know how to implement it - hence the unusual outcomes described in this thread.

          Good luck - I'll share what I learn after my ruling is issued.[/quote]

          Facebook
          Extend Unemployment Group
          re this Diary:
          what the unemployed think

          Fedup Lisa said "Outstanding article. Everyone should read to see if anything in it applies to them. Renews my faith in people doing the right thing! I hope this is successful and manages to blow the cover off another government fubar. By the way, fubar stands for "F** ked up beyond all repair or recognition". I learn something new every day."

          Back to unemployed Friends 2.0:
          Unemployed recommend the DK diary

           Re: Mr.President, There Is A Serious Problem With The EUC08 Program
          Post by MaryKay on Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:36 pm
          Excellent read. Please all, take a minute and read this article.
          August 11 at 11:05am ·

           Re: Mr.President, There Is A Serious Problem With The EUC08 Program

          Post by Sick and tired on Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:49 pm
          I thought so too, very interesting to say the least!

          ----------------------------

          So now what do you and the others have to say to the unemployed voters?

  •  Waiter! Service, please! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BitterEnvy

    I didn't order word salad!  Please, return this, and also please keep the tinfoil out of my entrée.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 05:57:30 PM PDT

    •  you know (0+ / 0-)

      there are plenty of other restaurants on the block. Yet many feel the need to come around here and tinfoil the truth. Repeatedly.

      Go refutes?
      We always keep the door open and greet customers with a smile here. My "menu" is ready for any inspection...

      Thank you for your patronage either way.

  •  A suggestion for the diarist: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2

    Could you please write a brief precis of your diary, outlining the general thrust of your argument?

    A cursory read of the first few grafs does not make me wish to explore it in depth--the only option available, it seems--and yet I don't wish to dismiss what may be an important point somewhere in there.

    Posted without snark.

    •  link right here sir... (0+ / 0-)

      Follow the evolving Q&A vetting going on around here or direct your attention here please:

      About...

      or intake this from a prior Diary:

      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 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 blindly 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 $97 Billion+ spent on EUC08 so far and up millions of 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 and our economic recovery.

      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 issues 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).

      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.

      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.

      And here we are (cut down to save space and edited to present day). This was written before the FOIA request exposed the cover up I am now "reporting"...

  •  This is becoming annoying. eom (0+ / 0-)

    "Vulture/Voucher 2012"? ¡Venceremos!

    by Free Jazz at High Noon on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 06:22:04 PM PDT

    •  tell me about it... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Jazz at High Noon

      nothing to refute me with yet. Lots of bricks through the window tho...

      Looks like a an old Prodigy chat room...LoL. Those were the days...

      •  OK, that was funny. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        I'll even tip.

        I still don't know what you expect us poor plebes to do with your walls-o-text, however. Are you arguing with your readers here? What are we supposed to "refute"?

        I'm honestly confused- and please save the cheap shot (if you were thinking about it): it is the writer's obligation to be clear with his or her rhetoric, not the audience's to unpack "what you really meant."

        Comp 101.

        "Vulture/Voucher 2012"? ¡Venceremos!

        by Free Jazz at High Noon on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 12:18:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. The readers are arguing with me (0+ / 0-)

          and I am responding. Some are asking really good questions that I hope answer your question and others that come up.

          I can't win and am not trying to with those who just throw the rocks. Some people won't read the diaries. They won't read the comments. My response is to long. Too short. Too....BLOND! You know...

          You cannot feed the trolls forever. That's what they want. They won't leave either btw. So why are they here? Why come back to every diary and play the same game? Don't they know we can check out what kind of comments they leave others and see this isn't the first time?

          But for the people that do take the time to look over the "data", they will find every single doubter silent with nothing to refute back, or watch them make further fools of themselves. For all the diaries that have been flamed and spammed so far, you will find very little to refute what I say from them especially.

          The only reason I am commenting is to defend myself and this important evidence against many baseless accusations and thoughtless wack jobs (no cheap shot at you). Just practice really. I am looking at this through the eyes of the government authorities I know are reading these and getting copies. This is just what I was looking for. Lots of discussion and chances to prove me wrong. This is exactly what they do not want happening.

          Too many people who have not and are not going to contribute anything positive have jumped in. You are only reading the results as the news cycle turns a very ancient half day old on this diary. I only expected to inform the public of serious concerns that affect the economy and millions of citizens. Judging from the views that has been accomplished.

          Try to put on my ARRA-funds-meant-to-meet-emergency-requirements-for emergency-needs-googles and see how I view this all. I work in the entertainment biz so I have a vague notion of what "emergency" means (and the difference between a producer "emergency" and the stage is going to fall over and kill us all one).

          Sorry you are wading through just one day of carnage here. Wait until Monday AM EST time hits soon! Your points are valid. I HATE WRITING. Programmers don't make good writers. We work in very different ways. I admire those who do write the words well. I tried to contact many of them and got no takers (and yes they got every form of evidence from short to long and in between I could think of).

          I only write what I have so far out of need to help the unemployed. Somewhere in all this wreckage I have stated many times I want to help any interested writers get this story off the ground and in a much prettier form. I like the pretty.

          Now its really time for bed...thanks for the thoughts. I am trying to help make a complicated problem clear in a fog of doubt...

  •  This reminds me of the snl whitewater song (0+ / 0-)
  •  Recipes, pics, and Music . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

  •  Needs more tags. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenderRodriguez

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 07:07:39 PM PDT

    •  needs more intelligent comments like yours (0+ / 0-)

      What this also needs is more comebacks from the so far vanquished trolls. Nothing to say? How come the kids that drive by and throw the eggs, never have the sack to face the people they messed with?

  •  You probably think this Watergate's about you (1+ / 0-)

    don't you?

    I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee
    clouds in my coffee

    •  . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tiggers thotful spot

      Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 08:56:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  evidence wise (0+ / 0-)

      you are correct.

      Dale Zeigler of the DOL ETA notified the White House about me and my CUIAB case that I won.

      The DOL ETA threatened the State of California about my appeal victory and my precedent request. They are all upset about my whistle blower efforts but cannot refute my evidence and claims.

      But, this story is really about the millions of unemployed that keep taking a beating and get ignored even in the light of such irrefutable evidence.

      If this were "all about me" I would ignore them and this horror show, finalize with a top notch law firm, and sue the government for many many dollars. I am fighting to get OTHER PEOPLE their benefits back. That money goes right to the hungry economy...

      Try to sue the feds for myself? I see that as the same kind of waste the feds caused in the first place. I have made much public disclosure which takes away my rights and many commercial interests that some less caring person might try to make a buck off of. I want to get this problem fixed for these people and our economy, then go back to finding my own work and dealing with the rest of my life. I hope to remain anonymous as possible in any future reporting of this scandal.

      What you refuse to see is a genuine effort to do "the right thing". Flame on sweet DK's...

  •  HR'd... (0+ / 0-)

    For excessive interest in Federal EUC08 trends between August 15 2008 and July 22 2010.

    •  if this were the 1970s (0+ / 0-)

      and you replaced Richard Nixon with Mr. Obama...

      Would you "HR" Woodward and Bernstein for posting a 6 part series on the evidence that proved he and his administration may have been involved in improper and illegal activities before the election?

      Would you take away the ability for the Washington Post reporters to have anyone else recommend any of their diaries or comments because you did not like the style, substance nor subject? (without even contacting them in the first place about any problems)?

      Would you continue to try to limit their chance to have a fair discussion about this important subject, even if nobody could find any way to refute the evidence?

      Back to the present...
      So, I present evidence that exposes a billion dollar+ scandal involving multiple state/federal agencies and their denial and overpayment of emergency designated ARRA funds...affecting the stimulus, the unemployed, the economy and everyone else one way or another before our general election this fall...

      I also stand firm and address all doubters as fairly as I can. I have tried to answer all reasonable questions thoroughly. Despite thoughtless drive by complaints, every successive diary contains comments asking for more information, to present things in a different way, shorter, longer, blonder, more info, less info etc...

      These are direct invitations to continue. More information is provided to try to clarify an urgent and important problem of national significance. These are emergency funds after all. Look up the definition of "emergency". This is a real one and is defined as such by law (see ARRA sec (5)).

      Every aspect of this tragedy has been covered for you. Read away. I discuss different and important aspects of the same important subject from different angles. Like it or not, these are facts. More than enough explanation has been provided in enough colors and flavors to get the point across.

      I even point out the skewed perspective here by giving examples of people who see my efforts and what I have written through entirely different and not so foggy goggles. Here...let me remind you again, from a serious and credible advocate for the unemployed:

      "Excellent read. Please all, take a minute and read this article."
      -Mark Kay
      Unemployed Friends 2.0
      UF 2.0 the best site for the unemployed on the internet...
      She is referring to this:
      Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program...

      She is one of the Admins on UF 2.0. Check out her many helpful and informative posts. She is one of the greatest supporters and champions of the unemployed there is. Check out the website and the people there that are begging for help from our government (on many issues not just this one). She is no joke, unlike the response here from many of you "good" people to this serious and pressing problem...HR that.

      I invite everyone who aspires to write and expose government waste, corruption and malfeasance, to use this "reference material" to let the public know what is going on.

      I look at the response here...to this serious problem I have tried to present...and sadly...most of the response, is no different than the way the birther's, climate change doubters, GOP and Tea Party "loons" act and react to what they don't want to hear...no matter how true and factual.

      think about it...and then riddle me this...

      Why should the poor, struggling, and very unemployed people vote for the Democratic Party, if this is going to be the kind of reaction they get when help is asked for?

      We already know the "other side" wants to turn us into living batteries and harvest the profits until we shrivel up and turn to dust...But, is this how your "side" plans to treat the unemployed and the serious problems affecting them and our country before you and the "Big O" ask for us to trust you again with our vote?

      The unemployed are watching this btw...they are not impressed.

      •  Curious. (0+ / 0-)

        Could you summarize that whole bit in less than a paragraph?  It's long enough to be a diary in and of itself.

        •  200k...500k....2000K...what exactly does (0+ / 0-)

          constitute the proper and correctly formatted response here?

          I remain happy to provide explanation and answer questions...here are several paragraphs to choose from. Feel free to write your own summation as well:

          1. ...I present evidence that exposes a billion dollar+ scandal involving multiple state/federal agencies and their denial and overpayment of emergency designated ARRA funds...affecting the stimulus, the unemployed, the economy and everyone else one way or another before our general election this fall...

          2. Congress passed a law. A key federal agency did not implement it properly. All states blindly followed the faulty implementation. This affects billions of dollars and millions of claimants over more than four years. A claimant came along last year, challenged the "policy" that had greatly shorted his federal emergency aid, and prevailed after a long appeal against the incorrect policy at the state level. The incorrect determinations were reversed and the funds were restored. The evidence from his appeal victory was the basis for multiple state and federal precedent requests, public concerns, and official complaints. The intent of this was to correct the non-compliant errors in the policy that the feds implemented, and to have the incorrect determinations, payments and adjudication that has affected millions of other claimants nationwide reversed. Instead of responding to the claimant and starting an official investigation, as required under multiple oversight laws and regulations, the state and federal government began to try to cover up all of his efforts, including improperly squashing the precedent decision request that would have exposed this problem. The claimant fought back using the freedom of information act, and obtained documents that prove the existence of the cover up attempts and their gross violations of rights, laws, regulations and oversight requirements. While continuing to investigate on his on, the claimant has begun a campaign of public and media disclosure of these facts.

          3. On October 20,2011 a California Claimant for federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation prevailed in an important appeal decision that may have exposed serious implementation errors in this vital American Recovery and Re-investment Act program. In California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Case NO A0-265448, the Employment Development Department of California, tried to blindly enforce and obvious federal implementation error upon this claimant and millions of others. EDD followed the Q&A section about "Multiple EUC claims" that provided to them by and was published by the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration starting back in 2008. According to the claimants evidence, he discovered that this specific part of the EUC08 guidelines had failed to comply with the Department of Labors own federal regulations for these types of emergency ARRA benefits. It appears that the DOL made the error starting after UIPL 23-08 Change 1, published August 15,2008. The "multiple EUC claim" Q&A specifically contradicts 20 CFR 615.5(2), which says that the claimant has no entitlement to any remaining balance from any older extended benefit claims once they return to work and become eligible for a new state unemployment claim again (EB or EUC08). The DOL has incorrectly done the exact opposite, and has instructed all states nationwide to force claimants to be paid from any remaining balance from any older terminated EC08 claims. This means, for example, that a person who was paid $400/week on their State claim, could then be forced to a lesser EUC08 claim amount based on this Q&A "error" only (say $71/week), due to a left over balance on an older claim from a lesser base period. They should be paid $450 a week EUC08 on a new claim, but will have to wait until they exhaust the $71/week claim to even start this one. If it takes more than 52 weeks to exhaust the $71/week claim (of the 73-99 available Tiers for EUC08) the this person also loses the $450 week claim entirely. They also face severe penalties under the HR4213/Public Law 111-205 eligibility requirements. Due to this federal error, this other important law meant to protect the unemployed is effectively nullified for millions. The wrong benefit year from the older paying terminated claim is used when making this and future EUC08 determinations. The frustration, harm and suffering that millions of unemployed struggling workers and families cannot be measured. The amount of money waste can. It reaches into the billions of dollars. That money would have helped our struggling economy and them. Full story and more to come...

          4. Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of emergency benefits. The got to the top of the hill, through such great force of will, only to find the federal reception to be ever so chill and not warm to it. The feds said we will toss your aid in the well to drown, whatever we say must go down, and if you don't like it then you better just obey our will and get used to it. Jack and Jill were smarter than that, they cried "there are regulations against that", and ignored the unfair warning. The feds said "WE are the rules", you get no EUC08 jewels, and that their arguments were extremely boring. Jack and Jill tried to argue back, everything they said was fact, but the feds and everyone else just slapped them back into yesterday morning. They both fell down and cracked their crown, sad and broken down, wishing they had headed the feds warning. Billions have been wasted, increase in debt has hastened, and yet people continue to ignore their warning....every single day and morning.

            •  short attention span (0+ / 0-)

              5. State and Federal emergency unemployment compensation program implementation errors are robbing the unemployed and the economy of billions of dollars and have been for the past four years+. They have been called out, and lost an important appeal case that proves and exposes this error. The government did not follow up with required oversight for ARRA emergency designated funds, and were caught in a cover up attempt of the whistle blower efforts to expose all of this thanks to the freedom of information act.

              Lost interest?
              Really?
              While candidates who want to be elected the "leader of the free democratic world" in a few months talk about this subject specifically every single day (economy, stimulus, recovery, unemployment, debt)?

              That makes perfect sense...

              Doesn't the sand get in your ears and eyes from being down it for so long? Do you guys where a helmet too to make sure you aren't distracted by any noise outside the bubble?

              You can break the 140k and palm size display barrier if you try...just click your heels three times and say...

              1. there's no thing like taking time to read important facts and evidence...

              2. there's no thing like taking time to read important facts and evidence...

              3. there's no thing like taking time to read important facts and evidence...

              Let me know when you are "there"...

              •  there is a good point or two in here... (0+ / 0-)

                I think I have passed "inspection" so far...but do you all think I am the one who brought the "doughnut" here? The feds are the ones who left their locker unlocked and its overflowing with rancid donuts.

                Hmm...what does this reaction remind me of...

                •  I don't like how brusque he is, but (0+ / 0-)

                  ...he's right that you should have an "elevator speech" version.

                  If people understand the gist of your argument up front, they may be interested in delving into the details. If they don't understand the argument, they might be afraid to invest their time. This guy asked for the summary, and you hit him with another essay! D:

                  Le nirvane n'existe pas. - Etienne Lamotte

                  by breakingranks on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:25:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lost in the fog of mob troll battle... (0+ / 0-)

                    You are correct ma'am.
                    After on year+ of trying to explain this complex problem all sorts of different ways, maybe this is as close as I could get on an elevator trip:

                    5. State and Federal emergency unemployment compensation program implementation errors are robbing the unemployed and the economy of billions of dollars and have been for the past four years+. They have been called out, and lost an important appeal case that proves and exposes this error. The government did not follow up with required oversight for ARRA emergency designated funds, and were caught in a cover up attempt of the whistle blower efforts to expose all of this thanks to the freedom of information act.

                    As for the above carnage...I was defending the diary a little too hard, after the tip jar/recs went bye bye. I understand if the information needs to be vetted, but allowing the mob to have their way until then.

                    I refer to my earlier response:
                    (x2 penalty)

                    I expected better from DK. That sums up my voter attitude right now, when it comes to the Democrats and Mr. Obama as well.

  •  Rec'd because (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corazonroto

    I don't understand why there are a hundred comments attacking this diarist. And why is the tip jar gone?

    He or she might be focused on this unemployment benefits carry-over problem, but that's hardly the same as posting a Rightwing screed to end abortion and invest in wacky gold coin schemes.

    From an outside perspective, this looks like mobbing to me. People coming to bully the diarist because other people did.

    If the style and savoir faire aren't up to DKos snuff, there are certainly more constructive ways to help the Diarist get their message across.

    Le nirvane n'existe pas. - Etienne Lamotte

    by breakingranks on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:21:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site