To: President Donald Trump, The California State House, The California State Senate, Governor Gavin Newsom, The United States House of Representatives, and The United States Senate
Department of Labor Errors are Robbing the Unemployed out of Recovery Aid
Starting January 1, 2011, the California Employment Development Department began paying me federal emergency unemployment compensation benefits incorrectly and illegally, based on a historic implementation error that the Department of Labor's Robert Wagner, Chief of Special Benefits is responsible for. His mistaken and illegal interpretation of the already existing federal "definition" for the "applicable benefit year" for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08 73-99 weeks), led the Employment & Training Administration to publish a MISTAKE in the EUC08 Program "guidelines", starting August 15, 2008 in UIPL 23-08 change 1, Q&A #7 under section D. Monetary Eligibility ("Multiple EUC Claims"). The EUC08 Program is a vital part of the Recovery Act (ARRA), but it was implemented incorrectly almost four years ago.
This historic EUC08 program implementation error has affected myself and millions of other unemployed struggling workers and families nationwide. The Economy has been denied billions of Recovery Act errors because of this blunder. Every state has blindly followed the same mistake that was passed down from the federal Department of Labor through their "program guidelines". This has affected millions of claims for ARRA emergency designated funds. EUC08 determinations, payments and adjudication have all been affected by this serious error that contradicts the previous 1990s implementation of the exact same benefits (EUC08). It also violates the same federal regulations for these extended benefits that the Department of Labor wrote themselves.
The federal Department of Labor issues "unemployment insurance program letters" to ALL states nationwide so they can implement the billions of dollars allocated for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
It was the ERROR published in these federal guidelines that caused my state to pay me EUC08 benefits incorrectly and illegally in violation of federal regulations (picked up the remaining balance from an older EUC08 claim for much lesser funds and weekly benefit amount than the most recent benefit year I was in) . This implementation ERROR contradicts what the 1990s Department of Labor did with the same definitions and regulations (see scans of documents below).
I looked this all up online and was able to successfully challenge the State of California, and indirectly the federal Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case No. A0-265448 on October 20, 2011. This decision REFUTED FEDERAL EUC08 POLICY and awarded me back $2786 dollars denied over 26 weeks. Now ANY AND ALL older and terminated benefits years that had left over EUC08 balances ARE IGNORED as they should be according to federal regulations (see below).
This case is very significant, because I directly challenged the ERROR that the federal DOL ETA made, and published in UIPL 23-08 change 1+, that caused the California Employment Development Department to also make a faulty implementation of their state "Deferred New Claim Program", which shares the same FEDERAL ERROR IN IMPLEMENTATION, as does EVERY STATE nationwide.
Federal officials at the Department of Labor have made a historic implementation error in the EUC08 Program that violates three of their own federal regulations at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. This affects millions of claimants for emergency benefits. This affects the Recovery Act (ARRA of 2009), the Improper Payments Act, The Inspector General Act, Public Law 110-252 and 111-205 (HR4213 that "Part Time Penalty EUC08 Fix"). This also affects the Unemployment Rate and the Extended Benefits last 20 Weeks of emergency aid (triggers for EB are based on the unemployment rate over a three month look back trigger). Billions of ARRA, state and federal dollars have been wasted implementing a recovery program that has serious errors and flaws that violate federal law and regulations.
The problem: the government has been exposed trying to subvert my efforts post appeal. I tried to make this case a precedent so other claimants nationwide would benefit from the same victory against the same ERROR they were affected by. They ignored the precedent request and got caught (see scans below). They cut a secret deal to keep this out of court and pay me state funds to cover this up (see FOIA documents below that exposed this). They made illegal threats to end benefits for ALL California claimants if a precedent was set (see scans below). I have exposed this all and they still won't respond, especially before the election (the White House was notified about this last November 2011...see scans below).
This is not right. This is not legal. Millions of citizens have had their rights violated. The whistle blower who filed a recovery fraud complaint has been ignored and his efforts delayed and subverted (me). No agency will obey their legal obligation and oversight duty to investigate ARRA fraud...
This historic EUC08 program implementation error has affected myself and millions of other unemployed struggling workers and families nationwide. The Economy has been denied billions of Recovery Act errors because of this blunder. Every state has blindly followed the same mistake that was passed down from the federal Department of Labor through their "program guidelines". This has affected millions of claims for ARRA emergency designated funds. EUC08 determinations, payments and adjudication have all been affected by this serious error that contradicts the previous 1990s implementation of the exact same benefits (EUC08). It also violates the same federal regulations for these extended benefits that the Department of Labor wrote themselves.
The federal Department of Labor issues "unemployment insurance program letters" to ALL states nationwide so they can implement the billions of dollars allocated for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
It was the ERROR published in these federal guidelines that caused my state to pay me EUC08 benefits incorrectly and illegally in violation of federal regulations (picked up the remaining balance from an older EUC08 claim for much lesser funds and weekly benefit amount than the most recent benefit year I was in) . This implementation ERROR contradicts what the 1990s Department of Labor did with the same definitions and regulations (see scans of documents below).
I looked this all up online and was able to successfully challenge the State of California, and indirectly the federal Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case No. A0-265448 on October 20, 2011. This decision REFUTED FEDERAL EUC08 POLICY and awarded me back $2786 dollars denied over 26 weeks. Now ANY AND ALL older and terminated benefits years that had left over EUC08 balances ARE IGNORED as they should be according to federal regulations (see below).
This case is very significant, because I directly challenged the ERROR that the federal DOL ETA made, and published in UIPL 23-08 change 1+, that caused the California Employment Development Department to also make a faulty implementation of their state "Deferred New Claim Program", which shares the same FEDERAL ERROR IN IMPLEMENTATION, as does EVERY STATE nationwide.
Federal officials at the Department of Labor have made a historic implementation error in the EUC08 Program that violates three of their own federal regulations at Title 20 Chapter V Part 615. This affects millions of claimants for emergency benefits. This affects the Recovery Act (ARRA of 2009), the Improper Payments Act, The Inspector General Act, Public Law 110-252 and 111-205 (HR4213 that "Part Time Penalty EUC08 Fix"). This also affects the Unemployment Rate and the Extended Benefits last 20 Weeks of emergency aid (triggers for EB are based on the unemployment rate over a three month look back trigger). Billions of ARRA, state and federal dollars have been wasted implementing a recovery program that has serious errors and flaws that violate federal law and regulations.
The problem: the government has been exposed trying to subvert my efforts post appeal. I tried to make this case a precedent so other claimants nationwide would benefit from the same victory against the same ERROR they were affected by. They ignored the precedent request and got caught (see scans below). They cut a secret deal to keep this out of court and pay me state funds to cover this up (see FOIA documents below that exposed this). They made illegal threats to end benefits for ALL California claimants if a precedent was set (see scans below). I have exposed this all and they still won't respond, especially before the election (the White House was notified about this last November 2011...see scans below).
This is not right. This is not legal. Millions of citizens have had their rights violated. The whistle blower who filed a recovery fraud complaint has been ignored and his efforts delayed and subverted (me). No agency will obey their legal obligation and oversight duty to investigate ARRA fraud...
Why is this important?
This petition is based on:
Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0 March 2012 against the Department of Labor
CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 won on 10/20/2011 (challenged the faulty and illegal EUC08 policy mistakes and prevailed).
(A) The Department of Labor published an implementation error in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
(B) This error was published by the Employment & Training Administration in August of 2008, in UIPL 23-08 Change 1, in the Q&A section about "Multiple EUC Claims".
(C) "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2). What they advise all states to do violates regulations and laws.
If you are a scholar and researcher of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), then you might want to look into Division B, Subtitle II section 2001, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published an error in their EUC08 guidelines Q&As that they issued to all state agencies starting in August of 2008. The Q&A about "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2) the "definition of an exhaustee".
What this does is force claimants for EUC08 to "finish off" any remaining balance leftover from any older benefit years EUC08 claim first, before being allowed to start receiving payment for EUC08 based on the most recent benefit year.
Example:
1. A Teacher becomes unemployed in 2008.
2. She qualifies for and runs through a 26 week state regular compensation unemployment claim for $81/week based on a part time temp job.
3. She then becomes an "exhaustee" and qualifies for EUC08 at the same $81/week in late 2008 (99 weeks total available on this claim back then).
4. This claimant only uses up 5 weeks at $81/week but she has a 95 week still available when she returns to a much higher paying job again.
5. The EUC08 claim stops payment and ends (according to 20 CFR 615.5(2)).
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20
6. When she loses her job again in 2009, and she goes back onto a new state regular unemployment insurance claim for 26 weeks. This time she qualifies for $450/week. This claim is available for 52 weeks. In her case she started in August of 2009 and the state claim ends in August of 2010.
7. When she runs out of this 26 weeks of state aid for the second time now in early 2010, she becomes an "exhaustee" again for federal EUC08, and the "Multiple EUC Claims" error START (see link for (B) below).
8. Instead of paying her a new 99 week EUC08 claim, based on the 2009-2010 $450 week state claim she just finished, the "Multiple EUC Claim ERROR", incorrectly instructs the states to put her back on the old EUC08 claim from 2008-2009 claim at $81/week for the remaining 95 weeks.
9. This means that when the new benefit year she just entered that paid her $450/week ends in 52 weeks, she will still be stuck on the older $81/week EUC08 claim. She then loses eligibility to the $450/week claim (August 2010).
10. Also when she crosses the last state unemployment claims 52 week benefit year end in August of 2010, she WILL FAIL the Public Law 111-205/HR4213 eligibility test because she is being paid EUC08 from the old 2009 claim and not the 2010 one that would make her eligible for this important law as well. This law requires that the claim she has ENDS after July 22,2010. The old 2009 one does not, but the 2010 one she should have been paid on does (if 20 CFR 615.5(2) had been followed and "Multiple EUC Claims" had been ignored). So she may be forced off the $81/week federal EUC08 and be forced on to a new even lesser state claim for another 26 weeks. On and on...
It is just complicated enough that the feds think we are too dumb to figure this out. That almost worked too. Much less federal aid has been paid out for far shorter time periods due to these errors. You can compare and research the ERROR that the DOL ETA made in these links here (just like I did and used to win my appeal case with):
Here's the problem with the EUC08 program:
(A) Look up the Department of Labor Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08:
EUC08 Program pre-errors definition of an "exhaustee"
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf
(B) Then look up what the DOL issued just a month later and pay attention to Section D. Monetary Eligibility, Q&A (7) "Multiple EUC Claims":
EUC08 Program errors begin with this Q&A
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
(C) Then compare that to the DOL's own regulations for Federal State Extended Benefits at 20 CFR 615.5(2), and the definition of an "exhaustee" found here at (C) is the same as (A):
20 CFR 615.5 (C) Refutes what (B) says and supports (A)
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20
The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Case I won on 10/20/2011, pointed this same problem out. Case No. A0-265448 prevailed in support of 20 CFR 615.5(2) over the Q&A "Multiple EUC Claims ERRORS" that the Department of Labor published.
So there actually is a harmful and wasteful implementation error mistake in the "Stimulus". Further details can be found here (based on the appeal case mentioned):
an ARRA Implementation Error Exposed
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/18/1121545/-An-ARRA-Implementation-Error-Exposed
Here is the Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0, that the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board has "buried", and that the Department of Labor is "ignoring" (they are the "accused party in this complaint").
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121274/-a-Recovery-Fraud-Complaint-ignored
As for the Obama Administration that is seeking re-election...they got involved in this mess too:
Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program...
Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0 March 2012 against the Department of Labor
CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 won on 10/20/2011 (challenged the faulty and illegal EUC08 policy mistakes and prevailed).
(A) The Department of Labor published an implementation error in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
(B) This error was published by the Employment & Training Administration in August of 2008, in UIPL 23-08 Change 1, in the Q&A section about "Multiple EUC Claims".
(C) "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2). What they advise all states to do violates regulations and laws.
If you are a scholar and researcher of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), then you might want to look into Division B, Subtitle II section 2001, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08).
The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published an error in their EUC08 guidelines Q&As that they issued to all state agencies starting in August of 2008. The Q&A about "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2) the "definition of an exhaustee".
What this does is force claimants for EUC08 to "finish off" any remaining balance leftover from any older benefit years EUC08 claim first, before being allowed to start receiving payment for EUC08 based on the most recent benefit year.
Example:
1. A Teacher becomes unemployed in 2008.
2. She qualifies for and runs through a 26 week state regular compensation unemployment claim for $81/week based on a part time temp job.
3. She then becomes an "exhaustee" and qualifies for EUC08 at the same $81/week in late 2008 (99 weeks total available on this claim back then).
4. This claimant only uses up 5 weeks at $81/week but she has a 95 week still available when she returns to a much higher paying job again.
5. The EUC08 claim stops payment and ends (according to 20 CFR 615.5(2)).
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20
6. When she loses her job again in 2009, and she goes back onto a new state regular unemployment insurance claim for 26 weeks. This time she qualifies for $450/week. This claim is available for 52 weeks. In her case she started in August of 2009 and the state claim ends in August of 2010.
7. When she runs out of this 26 weeks of state aid for the second time now in early 2010, she becomes an "exhaustee" again for federal EUC08, and the "Multiple EUC Claims" error START (see link for (B) below).
8. Instead of paying her a new 99 week EUC08 claim, based on the 2009-2010 $450 week state claim she just finished, the "Multiple EUC Claim ERROR", incorrectly instructs the states to put her back on the old EUC08 claim from 2008-2009 claim at $81/week for the remaining 95 weeks.
9. This means that when the new benefit year she just entered that paid her $450/week ends in 52 weeks, she will still be stuck on the older $81/week EUC08 claim. She then loses eligibility to the $450/week claim (August 2010).
10. Also when she crosses the last state unemployment claims 52 week benefit year end in August of 2010, she WILL FAIL the Public Law 111-205/HR4213 eligibility test because she is being paid EUC08 from the old 2009 claim and not the 2010 one that would make her eligible for this important law as well. This law requires that the claim she has ENDS after July 22,2010. The old 2009 one does not, but the 2010 one she should have been paid on does (if 20 CFR 615.5(2) had been followed and "Multiple EUC Claims" had been ignored). So she may be forced off the $81/week federal EUC08 and be forced on to a new even lesser state claim for another 26 weeks. On and on...
It is just complicated enough that the feds think we are too dumb to figure this out. That almost worked too. Much less federal aid has been paid out for far shorter time periods due to these errors. You can compare and research the ERROR that the DOL ETA made in these links here (just like I did and used to win my appeal case with):
Here's the problem with the EUC08 program:
(A) Look up the Department of Labor Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08:
EUC08 Program pre-errors definition of an "exhaustee"
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf
(B) Then look up what the DOL issued just a month later and pay attention to Section D. Monetary Eligibility, Q&A (7) "Multiple EUC Claims":
EUC08 Program errors begin with this Q&A
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf
(C) Then compare that to the DOL's own regulations for Federal State Extended Benefits at 20 CFR 615.5(2), and the definition of an "exhaustee" found here at (C) is the same as (A):
20 CFR 615.5 (C) Refutes what (B) says and supports (A)
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20
The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Case I won on 10/20/2011, pointed this same problem out. Case No. A0-265448 prevailed in support of 20 CFR 615.5(2) over the Q&A "Multiple EUC Claims ERRORS" that the Department of Labor published.
So there actually is a harmful and wasteful implementation error mistake in the "Stimulus". Further details can be found here (based on the appeal case mentioned):
an ARRA Implementation Error Exposed
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/18/1121545/-An-ARRA-Implementation-Error-Exposed
Here is the Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0, that the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board has "buried", and that the Department of Labor is "ignoring" (they are the "accused party in this complaint").
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121274/-a-Recovery-Fraud-Complaint-ignored
As for the Obama Administration that is seeking re-election...they got involved in this mess too:
Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program...