I have had an excessive number of reasons to write complaints of abuse and foul treatment, to the administrative and executive management of Pittsburgh Port Authority Transit Co.
Copies of some examples will be posted for public awareness of these abuses.
My concern is becoming much more than annoyance, as their tactics become much more predatory and harmful to personal health and general well being.
I am talking about the on-going efforts, of some criminal cooperatives, to assist; a local, national and possibly global criminal cartel, in the INTENTIONAL pulling down and destroying of health, reputation and freedom of honorable U.S. Citizens’ lives, EVEN to include the INTENTIONAL criminalization of their reputation, through fabrication and false witnessing.
The major motivating factor, seems to be initialized with the stealing and selling of the identities of the “U.S. Citizen” who are their “victims”.
What I intend to do, is to relate one personal, most recent experience of abuse, by a Pittsburgh Port Authority bus driver, connect that, or show the similarity and pattern of It, to a previous abuse, by a different P.A.T. employee and show the correlation of these 2 abuses, with a third and forth P.A.T. experience that involved trespass and invasion of privacy.
Then, I intend to unwind the 4 separate recordings of information and reveal a local, regional and possibly global criminal connection, with a visible pattern of intention; modus operandi and preparations, with intention to seize; local, regional and possibly national Governments, on a global scale.
It has been primarily a black movement of a neo-cottage industry of crime in the U.S., but has recently been enacted by whites, who were recruited by blacks, to cover up the black initialization of the criminal activity.
Again, it is only one avenue of the criminal activity, occurring in the U.S., that is intended to progress to the full extent of the plan, which I believe, is to total break down of our economy, our Judicial System and our Democracy.
Evidences of these results are already clear enough, that the U.S. Government can no longer even deny their existence.
What they DO still deny, is that it is being accomplished, by U.S. Citizens, attempting to seize the U.S. Government, for what they have been dishonestly lead to believe, will be a fully free Democracy that will be totally controlled, managed and operated, for the full benefit and dispersement of all opportunity to Black Americans.
This is not such a bad idea…..if you are black. But a contradiction of term arises with the word “Democracy” where only blacks are intended to enjoy the freedoms.
What they are actually accomplishing, in their endeavors to “Take Control”, is a consistently progressive break down, of the existence of “Democracy”, by violating the Constitutional Rights, Human Rights and Civil rights of every “Victim” they attack.
This break down is occurring whether the attack is with their usual “ground-forces mode” of slander, false witnessing, accusations of illegal technological associations and activities, or of a more criminal and genocidal nature, which uses excessive electrical computer technology, now in combination with biological contaminants, and in an illegal predatory, reckless and dangerous manner toward humans.
They are functioning as separate groups, with varying levels of activity and involvement. They receive funding from both separate and in some cases, are double tapping from the same funders, as the other, by impersonating the other. This is creating even more havoc through their inept, inefficient abilities, of the function that they are not efficiently imitating, of the others.
Their trespassing into the illegal experimentation of others, and combining the harmful effects of both their own amateur or imitated additions, in an effort to replace those who fund them, by initiating with their own out-sourcing and leasing or selling of access portals, of the victims, for income opportunities or to replace those who serve in the more advanced levels of “ground-force modes” of expanding the geographical periphery of the operation and acquiring control of the illegal technological experimentations and assaults, that are already trespassing into the environment of the victims, are combined and now expanded, as their intimidation and modeling or apeing acts constitute an "instigation to compel a response", from the victim, and results in the compounding, of the harmful results ON the “Victims”, through misevaluation of the initial illegal experimenters’ observations.
They lease out access and then destroy the accuracy of the findings of the leasee. The leasee then, in fact becomes another victim with professional abilities placed in suspect and critisized for inaccuracies.
They are hounded, stalked and trespassed on, in their home and work place, with virtual surveilance, slandered and ridiculed until their career is ended in shame, bankruptcy is filed, court issues are mounting, Drivers license, especially in Pennsylvania, will be inappropriately canceled and State I.D. ordered turned, an imposter will begin to present themselves, in public, acting insane, lewd or committing criminal acts, the leasee will be forced to flee the state and attempt to change their name, possibly assume a stolen identity, to avoid harm or embarrassement, they are marked with virtual locating technology and leases are sold to give access to their physical bodies for profit. Much discomfort and deterioration to physical health will manifest itself quickly, as well as physhological symptoms of post traumatic syndrom and terrorization. There is NO POSIBILITY of a diagnosis of "paranoia", which is the most frequently jumped to incorrect assumption, mad by amateure evaluators, because paranoia is a state of believing a delusion.
If these activities are in fact occurring, in their lives, and they are planned, intentional acts being conducted by a physical human against them, then there does not exist an imagined delusion. It is real, it is Physical, it is not a delusion, it is not paranoia.
If the victim manages to cope enough to even resist committing suicide, then the victim has a very strong mental status and cannot be considered mentally deficient, WHAT SO EVER ! !
At another point, the leasor will decide that he has made all the profit there is available, at this time, or will reach a point of needing immed. cash flow. They may sell the control and surveilence of the victim, to another, profiteer, lease them indefinetely to more dangerous experimentation, sell them to a nursing home to serve as a replacement for a dead patient that they want to keep collecting payment from, sell them to a phych. facility that leases them for research, uses them as replacements for lost patients, uses them for increases gov. funded treatment payments, etc. etc. depending on what the need of the buyer is. Many of these facilities are told that all is legal, with permission granted by family. Many don't care.
If they just get a sale for the assumed identity, the victim must be locked away, out of the way or put away permanently, then there is always a second sale available for the cadaver and body donor parts.
The new buyer sometimes becomes another victim, because the seller has blackmail leverage over them, if they are living under a stolen identity, so, the seller now has the cash of the sale and another whole life the disassemble, buck by buck.
It is also possible that they may get a chance to live a fairly normal, though enslaved life, if at some point a criminal recruiter will approach them to offer an opportunity for some income and they may be recruited to infiltrate somewhere in their field of knowledge and slander employees, on a "hit list" or destroy customer service and income at a business also on a hit list.
The leasors or sellers obsessive, though inept, profiteering and physical attempt to take over the life and the “system”, that controls the Golden Goose (the U.S. Citizen victim), is now killing the Golden Goose with incompatible head-butting of the excessive volume access portals and the introduction of excessive biological contaminants and carcinogens.
The initial operators, of the system, had no malevolent intentions and did not recruit these profiteers to be involved. But, trespassers and imitators of the originals, began the changes and variations that led to the lethal situation that exists today.
The earlier operators, though conducting illegal research through non-approved trespass, on the victims’ physical bodies, cannot even recognize the system today, due to multiple levels of variation and combined changes and some backward functionality and so, have no comprehension of how to operate within it or evaluate what they mistakenly believe are the visible results of the causes and effects, induced by them and others, without their knowledge.
The purpose of the initial motivation to solicit and fund the presence and involvement, of these newer, separate groups, was done by impersonators, of the first, for the purpose of providing the “MARKING”, of the victims, to be identified; stalked and “tracked” by this virtual technology group funding the “ground-force” markers, because the imitators, who solicited them, did not have the original master access to locate the marks without the “ground-forces” physical involvement and assistance.
As these most recent imitators attempt to replace their employers, they solicit interested parties to gain portal access through them, and not through their employers.
They then step completely away from the portal access purpose and focus on victimizing the new contractee, who is now funding them directly, by stalking and impersonating the new contractee, until they can consume and take over the industry, of the contractee, as well as placing the blame for the trespasses, onto the contractee and onto their initial employer, by “marking the individuals associated with the contractee and including them in the stream of victims receiving fatal exposure to the system.
They perform illegal terrorism by demanding “protection money”, or payment from the contractee, to stop the stalking and marking of them and to remove them from the fatal stream of the virtual transmissions.
They have now created a separate entity industry of illegal income opportunity for themselves and this is only one of thousands of “getting a piece”, that is opened up through just this one new entity of opportunity for corrupt involvement through cooperating criminal groups, working in separate association, but assisting each other to culminate a profitable opportunity for all the associated groups.
These steps, of the criminal system, are being enacted all over the country. Everyday they recruit more and more individuals to grab a piece of the opportunity by paying the recruiter for access, and every one recruited becomes a new portal of the access they bought, so the “WEB OF CORRUPTION AND EVIL INTENTION” is literally spreading and suffocating the entire globe.
It begins with one individual U.S. Citizen victim.
They are in effect, now murdering these “Victims”.
How “Democratic” is that ? What does all this have to do with Port Authority?
They have, in my opinion, been infiltrated, by criminal members of this system, that has been using them for numerous conveniences and benefits to their criminal activities, through the available access to U.S. Citizen's Identities and personal information that are now part of P.A.T. administrative procedures and have institutionalized themselves, as an entity of underground authority, within Port Authority.
They hold underground, super-ceding decision making power, and controling power over its own co-operating employees and they hold terroristic, job sabotaging power over P.A.T.'S loyal, non-co-operating employees.
What ever policy or command a loyal supervisor gives, will be changed by the underground leader and therefore,not obeyed. They obey the underground local leader instead of the instruction of the supervisor. It becomes an underground take-over first, as they get rid of all the loyal employees and supervisors and until they destroy the financial stability of the industry.
They do this with intentionally bad customer service, law suits and increased overhead expenses from pilferage and intentional destructions.Then it becomes the physical possessor of the industry, while the original files bankruptcy or fails, or is taken to prison on framed-up charges, where the criminal group will all stick together and give joint testimony agaist them, if they could not first lure them into committing an terminationable act or some other discrepancy. If they did nothing wrong, a complaint will be fabricated and backed up by all.
There does seem to be a terrorizing with stories of “victims and non-co-operatives” being murdered. Let me give a short modus operandi of the activities that identify a classical “Victim” patternization of activity.
My most recent has been from the Pittsburgh Port Authority Transit Co., and I will relate the details of that, after a brief background education to those having this situation revealed to them, for the first time.
I will use myself and my own first hand knowledge and experiences to show a small portion of the "system" at work. Port Authority is not where it begins, but in my case, it is where it began to get ugly and predatory, with attempted criminalization of an innocent citizen.
The major motivating factor, seems to be, the stealing and selling of the “U.S. Citizen” identities, of their victims. How could a bus company possibly be involved in such a theoretic accusation? They don't even KNOW your I.D. ! ...you might say.
Well, I have bad news for you. They have manuvered themselves, or been maneuvered into adopting a system that opens into an access point of obtaining personal I.D. of the poor people and the disabled people.
Again, the major motivating factor, seems to be, the stealing and selling of the identities of “U.S. Citizens”, who are their victims. But that is only the initiation point of the profiteering. They go further with seeking buyers of the I.D. first, then surveilence of the inside of the house and job site, to observe for habits and possible black-mail items, then there is also a side market for disposal of physical possessions during bankruptcy, of property, of children, of re-sale of the victim as a portal access income, as spare body parts and cadavers, etc., etc., etc, many groups getting in on the opportunities.
This particular expose', is not about identity theft, and yet it ties together loose ends of some very troubling mysteries that have both initiated at the Port Authority Bus Transit Company, although, I am sure that it does not limit itself to that facility or its "corrupt" staff members.
THIS one involves a black female driver, who repratedly refuses to pick up riders who have shopping carts or require use of the hudraulic lift, if they cannot pull the cart up steps, or simply cannot manage steps, dur to physical limitations.
This woman pulled the bus up to me, a disabled heart and lung patient, on social security, and refused to lower the lift for me, while I was standing in the rain.
She gave excuses of ,"The lift is only for wheel chairs", and one or two other lame comments, but she did not lower the lift. Instead, she made me stand, in the rain, while she called her supervisor and gave an exagerated, fabricated account of the status of the request and wanted his permission to refuse me access.
I waited while she was on the phone and then she suddenly hung up the phone and grabbed her purse and exited the bus. She walked around in a circle or two, while I gazed in confusion, as to what the supervisor had to say, and was forced to wait yet further, in the rain, for the lift to be offered.
I did not say a word, and had 2 friends standing with me who wanted to tell her what they thought of her cruel treatment toward me, in response to yet another excuse from her of why she felt that I was making an inappropriate request, but I advised them to say nothing and just watch and listen.
I advised them so, because I forsaw now, the workings of her mind as she re-entered the bus, pulled 2 black riders over to the drivers seat, and entered into conversation, while writing on a paper.
I knew both instinctively and from P.A.T. corrupt employee previous experience, that she was recruiting witnesses. She and I had had no conversation, other than me requesting the lift and she refusing with 2-3 excuses. What would she need witnesses for?
Then, the passengers were advised, by her to exit the bus and connect with some other bus at this corner. Now, the passengers were definetely being inconvenienced and I had not gained access to the bus, or prevented it from leaving without me.
What relevance would this have? It "De Ja Vued" to me a previous experience of abuse, from a black male P.A.T. employee, John Dorsey,P.A.T. Security guard, Whom I would personally consider as a corrupt employee, because that one found me dozing on the bus and started beating on me to wake up and ordering me to get off the bus immediately.
When I awakened, in a panic to find a strange black man practically laying on me, with his full body, I started hollering that I am turning in a formal complaint of this abuse and would not leave the bus until I was given full identity on him and on the driver, who witnessed the abuse.
He withheld I.D., on the driver, which was against company rules and delayed my leaving the bus. Then he signed a complaint, with the magistrates office to have me cited for "Disorderly Conduct" for complaining about the abuse and not leaving the bus without information necessary to file the official complaint, and of course to cover up the truth of the abuse.
He also advised the operator to "put her on the list", which I also complained about and could get no explanation of what list.
I fought this deplorable action in court and it is still on appeal, with the Pa Superior Court. I personaly prepared the "brief" which clearly proves, in his own words of testimony, that he perjured himself in more than one instance.
But, the similarity struck me, after gaining an acute new knowledge of exactly what the charge of "Disorderly Conduct" entails, because I cited it, in its entirety, to prove that my true actions, in no way were conducting an act of "Disorderly Conduct".
I was obviously not doing anything lewd or violent, but they tried to argue that I had caused service to be interrupted and created an inconvenience to the other customers. The driver had reached the end of the line, all other customers had exited and he discovered me, still on the bus dozing.
He called security to be advised as to how to wake this lady, at the end of the line, and John Dorsey came out to personaly handle the matter in a most despicable manner. From the moment the driver noticed me, there were no other passengers on the bus.
But John Dorsey lied and said that there were other passengers and they were being inconvenienced.
Now, I am witnessing this black female driver, I did not even ask her name, because we had had no conversation, but she is seeking to recruit witnesses....Why?I envision the possibility of her also lying, and falsely accusing me of holding up the bus and inconveniencing other customers.
Because she DID have other customers, on her bus, but it was HER decision to stall and take time to call the supervisor and it was Her decision to flee off the bus and it was HER decision to advise riders to transfer to another bus....
BECAUSE THAT SUPERVISOR SHE SPOKE TO, WAS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO DID NOT ACCEPT HER FABRICATED ACCOUNT OF MY REQUEST AND HE WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CART AND THE LADY AND THE ACTIVITY HIMSELF ! !
Thank God ! ! A proper, honorable, P.A.T. employee, a supervisor yet, who probably barely survived the slander and corrupt activities, of this gang, who were trying to get rid of all the good employees and replace them with more of their own abusers and liars.
He called her on her lies and came out in person and discovered me, an honorably dressed, intelligent, calm, polite, disabled lady with 2 adolescent children with her, and absolutely none of the situation as it was described to him on the phone! Even the 2 young ones were conservatively dressed, college students, in calm, polite composure, who were just "watching and listening".
He ordered her to lower the lift and apologized to me for MY inconvenience. He offered to physically assist me onto the bus, but I explained to him, that after watching and listening to this lady, I witnessed very inappropriate actions and comments and did not feel safe to ride with her.
I chose to wait for the next bus, which was a black male and where there were no questions asked, because the driver was obeying normal company policy, which does not refuse riders or access for disabled people.
He was also proving that not all the black drivers were obeying these sinister secret leaders of malevilent intent to sabotage both their employers and the customers of their employers. In all fairness, I also want to clarify that I have been abused by white P.A.T. drivers also.
I have watched and listened and asked some questions, at times of "who told you that this is a company practice or policy?", and have come to a theory that it is these company sabotagers, who include some corrupt security employees, who when giving new hire orientation teach them, "why the rider is the enemy and how we handle the enemy".
It was them, who trained the drivers to call for any trivial matter, even if it is an innocent, sleeping, disabled lady, who just needs to be woken up.
I believe that it is possible that they are attempting to create the appearence of a need, for themselves to stay as a budgeted department, on the county payroll.
They also started advising the new drivers that they have the right to refuse access to anyone that they feel is going to present a problem, even disabled people and especially people with shopping carts.
They were teaching them excuses, such as "They are a danger", "They cannot block the aisle", "you must empty it out and fold it up"......etc, etc, etc, of bull... excuses that are impossible inconveniences and nothing more than refusal to give access to public transportation and harrassment.
They were calling the parking of a cart in front of a bench, speacial needs seat, where it stuck out no more than a persons knees, as "blocking the asile" and yet they have no hesitation of piling in illegal excessive numbers of passengers, who have to stand in the asile and block every inch of it with their crunched, unhygienic bodies, where the cart left a full clear path to walk passed it in without turning sideways.
Where was the obstruction being caused by the cart? I had many experiences where they ordered me off the bus if I did not fold it uo (where the heck am I going to put all the things in it...in my lap? ! !) or if I didn't go stand at the back door with it, (I am cardiac and lung disabled...I should be sitting down by the front door).
I did go to the back door one time when I was having a better than usual day, physically, and did not want any harrassment, and as I was pressed into the back door, with the cart parked next to me, the driver opened the back door, while the bus was moving, and I and my cart almost flew right out the door, had I not had one hand on a railing there! ! ABUSIVE ! !
PREDATORY ! !CRIMINALS ! ! ANIMALS ! !
Through these excessively numerous bad experiences, with bus drivers, I have always maintained that these are not the policies of P.A.T. and they are only the bad activities of corrupt employees.
While I was waiting for approval of SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), I was forced, by bad health putting me out of the job market income solution to any of my financial problems, to stay in a temporary Women's Shelter and go on Public Welfare. My bad health status banned me from a job income solution to any financial problems.
Welfare, in PA, has a MAXIMUM of $200.00 per month cash and $149.00 per month food stamp allotment. There is NO HOUSING BENEFIT OR ASSISTANCE. The $200/mo is all there is toward that or any other needs.
At one time, while forced to survive with this impossible budget, I found that I had no avail. cash to take the bus to a Doctor appointment. Someone informed me that P.A.T. had a program for the needy, that would give you a one trip ride to appointments.
I went down to the P.A.T. downtown office and spoke to a middle-aged black female who acknowledged the program and asked me to present proof of financial need with my Welfare "ACCESS" card. I gave her the card, expecting her to call the Welfare office to verify that it was current and active, but what she did was, place the card in a telephone hand-set and dial a number that connected to a system that read the bar-code on my ACCESS card and began verbalizing a recording, that I could hear, that was giving her ALL the private information, contained in my Welfare file.
This would include AL IDENTITY INFORMATION, including children's names, burthdates, name of bank, account number etc., etc., etc. You can imagine all the info. Welfare required, before it accepted a new recipient.
I sat there stunned and furious, that she was able to access ALL this private information for a $2.00 bus pass. How could they legally demand and have right to such a private card information system, for just a $2.00 bus pass?? It truely IS a CRIMINAL INVASION OF PRIVACY ! !
Then, When I first got approved for SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), I was told that I would recieve Social Security Cash benefit immediately, but I would not be entitled to be covered by Medicare for 2 years!
Now, when investigation, by the social security has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am chronically ill, and will progress to terminally ill within "2-3 years, it progresses rapidly", and cannot ever work again... they decide that I am forbidden to receive medical coverage for 2 years ! !
Are they hoping we will all just die off by them and save on the budget?
I mean NO MEDICAL COVERAGE. At the moment that Social Security completes its investigation, of all your medical records and possible interviews, and approves you for SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), the same day, the State of Pa cuts you off of ALL benefits of cash welfare and State Medicaid Medical coverage.
They leave only one benefit available to you, from the State Social Services Treasury, and that is a MAXIMUM of $10.00 per month food stamp assistance.
Now aside from that atrocity, the point is that SSDI is not given easily. The evidence of your health status has been FULLY investigated. My relevance for bringing up the ugly truths, that you may not have been aware of, is that upon being labeled as "disabled", you are entitled to free public transportation through Medicare contribution and PA Lotto Senior Citizens Contribution.
When I was first approved for SSDI, I was informed that at least I could get a half off discount, for disabled, until I came under coverage by Medicare, 2 years later. Then, upon recieving my Medicare card, I would have full free public transportation benefit, by just showing the card. To get the half fare discount, I just had to show proof of SSDI, while I waited for medicare coverage, instead of paying the $60.00 per month for a monthly paid pass, which I had been doing on the $200.00 budget.
I took my letter of approval, for SSDI, to the office of Port Authority, Pittsburgh, Pa, Downtown and requested a special pass. I was told, by a black female clerk, that I had to fill out an application, approx. 4 pages, and provide all doctors names, hospital names and all personal and private information on the application.
I was stymied by this second invasion of privacy and asked why they could not just accept my proof of SSDI approval letter? I was told that there was no way I could get a half-off disabled pass, without providing all the information required on the P.A.T. application forms.
I recalled the first invasion of my privacy, by them, and I was not willing to give them all my Doctors names, etc. that was absolutely none of their business and already investigated by the federal SSDI investigation Team. Who were they to second-guess the Federal people and duplicate their work? It was already done ! ! Why should they have more access to more private information ? ! ! I did not fill out the application, and left.
It never entered my mind, that there did exist the possibility of an IDENTITY THEFT situation, with all that invasion of privacy. But it IS possible now, I see, that the first seizing of info from my ACCESS card, was possibly stored in a criminal cartel data base of IDENTITIES OF U.S. CITIZENS, and may have been sold or violated several times since.
It enters my mind now, because, the black, male P.A.T. Security Guard, who was hitting me on the bus, John Dorsey, accepted my drivers license to call in a check on my police record, at my invitation, when I said, "I would be very happy if you called in my Identity, so you can verify that I have NO CRIMINAL RECORD and that I am an honorable citizen, who does NOT deserve this treatment ! !".
He called in, what I assumed was an official police operator, to give my license number and also instructed her to "better put her on the list", then refused to tell me what list he was talking about.
But, when I recieved the citation, from the magistrates office, one sheet of the documents involved in that conflict, listed my address as the bridge housing Women's shelter, that I had moved into, while waiting for SSDI.
I had never used this address on my license or for my mail. It could only have been revealed by the staff at the housing dorms or the Welfare Department Records.
My current legal mailing address was on the PA drivers license, I presented to him. The address, he gave to the Magistrate, was from then, an illegal data base of U.S. Citizens IDENTITIES.The P.A.T. bus clerk had put my ACCESS Card info onto data storage. Was this proof of an illegal connection of IDENTITY INFO COLLECTION AND STORAGE? There was no other way he could have had this address. It was not the address listed on the drivers license.
I believe that I may have some very important information here for the F.B.I. and C.I.A. on all my personal experiences involving abuse, discovery of fraud and corruption and victimization of U.S.Citizens.
What the HECK ? ……….What is she talking about ?..........Where does she get these ideas ? …….
My body contains damage and scars from these “virtual” attacks and experimentation.
I have read articles, in journals of scientific experimentation and research, that coincidentally correspond with my physical and environmental experiences conditions and damages.
I have listened to black conversations, witnessed black patterns of activity and suffered social and physical injury from these attacks.
My “Honorable Citizen” record now contains pleas and appeals, to the Judicial Courts, for assistance in averting additional repercussions of “Victimization”.
I could go on and on with more “NON-Delusional” examples, but why bother?
My personal case is only one example of a global threat and active aggression, that IS IN ACTION, against millions of global citizens especially in the U.S., at this moment, and is of far more priority than my personal loss of health, right to exist and right to pursue happiness, to expose the horrendous truth, if ther are to be any survivers of this demented, doomed species called humans..
In a “nut” shell, I call it that because we have over a million “NUT CASES”, both black and white, running around the U.S., actively taking part in the “criminal activity” and not fully understanding where it is all intended to lead, but are convinced that they must stay on the “Band Wagon”, or get lost as one of the “Victims”.
Or, they foolishly, have bought the lure of recruiters, and believe the false promise that it will lead to a “Black Controlled American Democracy”.
Or, they don’t give a hoot about the politics, of the situation and are just running on “MILITANT HATRED” and have found an excuse to both profit and hold their inhuman attitudes as valid.
There are other motivating factors, but this is not the textbook I need to write on “Global Psychological Warfare With Aggressive Technological Sen-Surround Influencial Convincing”.
(to be cont’d – by Dawn Naret’)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
PARTIAL DOCUMENTATION OF p.a.t. GUARD, JOHN DORSEY, "HIT AND CHARGE" ILLEGAL TACTICS
OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO PORT AUTHORITY FROM DAWN NARET' THEIR VICTIM OF TERRORISM AND PHYSICAL ABUSE:
I attempted to submit this report yesterday, 4-23-07, but the library computer system kept interfering with my work. I did not have time to finish, before closing time and hit confirm, but I'm not certain that you got it. I will give all the info over.
This is the absolutely worst complaint I have ever had to send in. I was shaking still at 11PM over an incident at approx. 5PM. I could not calm down from concern of the immense malevolency the situation represents to our society.
I am the disabled woman who falls asleep on the bus from a medical condition of C.O.P.D., which occurs when my oxygen is low or your gases or carbon monoxide exhaust gases are high.
I apparently did doze off, I would have to say passed out, because I did not even feel tiredness coming on. I was on my way to the Carnegie library and was shocked out of sleep by a P.A.T. Policeman, J. Dorsey ofc. #30, beating me very hard on my left are. At least 12 times, he hit me. I woke up and looked at him and he continued to hit me yelling, "Com'on lady! “You're getting off this bus!!".
I was shocked and confused and said, "you're hitting me!! “Why are you hitting me?!!". He just kept hollering to get off the bus. We were at Swissvale busway. I stood up and was getting oriented to location and trying to find a pen in my purse to write down the name of the driver ect. to file a complaint.
I asked the driver if he had tried to wake me, before calling the PAT police and he said had. This verifies again, that I did not doze off. I must have passed out from fumes, because I am a light sleeper, except when I am being gassed or anesthetized. The driver had responded calmly and politely, but I could not get his name out of him. He appeared to be a new trainee, because he was wearing a thin zip-up fabric vest with the PAT logo and #1076 on it. when I ask him his number, he pointed to the vest, when I asked him his name he looked at the policeman and seemed to be taking a que to not answer. Or maybe it was not his vest and he didn't know the name that went with #1076. This driver was a white male, heavy build, with thin brown, short hair.
I still had not found my pen, the policeman had one in his pocket, but would not let me use it. He continued to yell at me to get off the bus, while I was talking to the driver and then grabbed my personal bags and carried them off the bus and put them on the ground. I took out my lipstick to continue trying to get the info I would need to file a report on this. and the policeman kept trying to stop me from taking down the info. I clarified to him that this was a very serious incident and I intended to file a complaint. He gave me his name and number and demanded to see my I.D. I gave him my PA drivers’ license and he called it into dispatch or somewhere. The driver said he had to leave to get back on schedule, and that there would be another bus leaving there in 5 min.
I listened to his info, but I was trying to hear what the policeman was saying on the phone while he was checking my ID.
I clearly heard a female voice say "negative" to his inquiry, but he was instructing her on something else. He said," Well, she is a frequent......(I could not make out the next word, possibly flyer)....So you had better go ahead and put her on that list anyway.".
I asked him what list he was talking about there, and he said it was none of my business. I became annoyed and said, "That's MY name you just used, It most certainly IS my business!!".
Then 2 more PAT policemen pulled up and got out. Ofc. Joe Smith #21 and Ofc. Dipippa #55. They approached calmly and seemed friendly, saying "What seems to be the problem here?" I told them that I was being hit repeatedly and I intended to file a complaint and I could not leave the bus until I got the info nec. To file the report.
When they became aware that I was planning to file a complaint, they turned mean and insulting. Dipippa said "where are you from, are you a German?" I said "yes, German/Austrian". Then Smith said are you one of those nazi cornels of the third reicht? Oh, It's not even a full moon!" Then when he saw me write these quotes down, he said "You're making ME mad now."
Then Dorsey jumped in and said "well, she'll be getting a citation" . I asked what is a citation? and he said it will come in the mail. I was upset now and said "is it like a ticket or something?" He said "yea, a citation". I asked if it would have a fine or anything like a ticket, and he said "Yea, it will be a citation for disorderly conduct".
I said, "What are you talking about?! “You were hitting ME and you want to give me a citation for disorderly conduct?!!!!". I stated again that this was all unacceptable and tried to walk over to where the bus would pick me up and Dorsey held out his arms in a block to my exit and said you wait right here, we're not finished yet. I said," you're just trying to make me miss that bus, you heard him say it would be leaving in 5 min.". Then the bus pulled off.
Then another car pulled up with a very heavy black man in it and they said he was the Chief. He asked what was going on here and I started to tell him all these things. I asked him his name and he would not give it. One of the other men said, "just call him Chief". He was not in a PAT car or a PAT uniform. These 4 men were terrorizing me in the parking lot of the Swissvale busway and then suddenly said, "You have to get OFF this property NOW!!" 2 minutes ago I had tried to get the bus and they physically blocked my exit.
I left then and went over to wait for a bus at the passenger benches. I got on the #61B 5039, inbound and requested to go to the swissvale police station. The driver did not know where that was. A rider told me to get to it I should take the 61A.
I wanted to go to the real police to check on the conversation with the dispatcher. I thought, perhaps they had called my license into Swissvale police station to have it checked on. I realized that they never asked me my mailing address or my physical address they just said where do you live and I said Squirrel Hill. No more was asked. My license still has an old Lancaster, Pa address on it that they told me would not be updated until I get my renewal and new picture done this oct.
But I am concerned about being on this "LIST" I want my name removed IMMEDIATELY. And also, how could they mail me a citation without having my address? If I did not receive it in the mail, I would be denied "DUE PROCESS" of appealing anything on it and if I was not notified of a fine They could put out a warrant for not paying it!!!
Is THIS the kind of terroristic, predatory tactics that our citizens are being stalked with today? How many others have suffered from these brutes trying to harass and intimidate innocent citizens. Possibly causing them to have a criminal record or some undeserved tarnish to their record or reputation. I demand that I receive your written promise that NO CITATION and NO LIST will be registered with my name on it .
Very seriously looking for legal, mayoral and news media recourse,
EXIBIT #2
COPY OF LETTER TO P.A.T., RELAYING RESULT OF HEARING PROCESS AT JUNE 19, 2007 HEARING
Dawn Naret'
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/EXPANDED REPORT OF COMPLAINT DATED 06-19-07.
I DISCOVERED THAT, ON MY PRINTED HARD COPY, SOME PORTIONS OF THE FULL REPORT, SUBMITTED 06-19-07, HAD BEEN ERASED, BY AN UNKNOWN HACKING SOURCE, WHILE I ENTERED IT INTO THE SYSTEM AT CARNEGIE LIBRARY, SQUIRREL HILL, PA
I am filing a complaint to report, to you, that I am still having great problems occurring, due to the physical assault, on my body, by your PAT Policeman, J. Dorsey #30. I will give a quick overview of the incident.
On 04-23-2007, I was heading for the Carnegie Library and dozed off enroute. I was shocked out of sleep by officer Dorsey hitting me, repeatedly, on the arm. I hollered to stop and asked for the name and empl. # of the Pittsburgh PAT policeman, and of the driver.
The PAT policeman tried to obstruct me from getting the info I needed, to file a complaint of physical abuse, by refusing to allow me to use the pen, sticking up in his pocket, and by directing the driver to not reveal his name.
All this was turned in to your web site complaint route on 04-23-07 and on 04-24-07.
There were also 2 other officers, Joe Smith #21 and officer Dipippa #55, who showed up and terrorized me, with ethnic/national insult about my German Heritage. Then FALSELY implied that I had a history of psychiatric care at Western Psychiatric Hosp.
After the driver had left, with the bus I had been on, the 3 PAT officers had me standing outside a storage bldg., between the bldg. and a parked bus, at the far end of the Swissvale Bus way, away from where the passenger benches were. When I tried to leave, to get another bus back into town, Officer Dorsey jumped in front of me and held out both his arms and obstructed me from passing to the walkway. He said, “We’re not through with you yet”.
Then, a 5th employee showed up, being called “Chief” by the men. But he did not wear a PAT uniform or drive a PAT car. I don’t think he even worked for PAT, because he refused to give me his name or badge number.
This is the main reason that I do not believe that he worked for PAT. A legitimate “CHIEF” would have been more professional and would never refuse to identify himself.
The chief listened to my short version of what had occurred and that I wanted to file a complaint and left to speak with the men. He left the area without returning to me.
Then one of the officers came up to me and said,” You have to get off this property Immediately”. This was most absurd, because I had tried to leave and they had blocked my path. The only possible explanation for this mixed up, inappropriate instruction, would be that the Chief had more intelligence than they did.
When they told him they were going to cite me up for refusing to get off the bus, He may have drawn their attention to fact that I WAS already OFF the bus and THEY HAD OBSTRUCTED ME FROM LEAVING THE AREA! Now, how could they write me up for refusing to get off the bus? So they decided to cover it and hope to cite me for not leaving the PROPERTY as ordered.
The terrorizing was bad enough, but as a punishment and further intimidation, I was told that a citation, for “disorderly conduct”, would be issued, because I refused to leave the bus. It was the officer who was disorderly, by hitting me. You cannot instigate an issue by physically violating their body, and then cite them for complaining.
In my complaint, I demanded that you destroy any citation, because it was the Pittsburgh PAT officer being disorderly and abusive and that you make sure that my name is removed from THE LIST, that he instructed someone to register me onto, after I gave him my I.D. He had called it in to somewhere and I clearly heard a female respond “NEGATIVE” to his inquiry. He said “Well she is a frequent (some word-perhaps “flyer”) so, we had better go ahead and put her on the list.
You did not repair the damage he had done, and I received a citation, in the mail, with a charge of disorderly conduct.
The hearing was today and I am complaining two-fold.
One: that he was permitted to further damage my reputation with a criminal citation.
Two: that he perjured himself on 7 counts, in testimony about the incident. He gave a long FALSE history of what a problem customer I have been, that I always sleep on the bus, and that I always give them a hard time and will not co-operate, that PAT Executive management prefers that I not even ride the buses, that I resisted giving him my I.D. immediately, and that he only tapped me lightly on the arm when he woke me up. In truth, it was repeatedly and hard enough that it left bruising. But, HE DID ALREADY CONFESS THAT HE HIT ME. What right did he have to touch my body AT ALL!
The Magistrate seemed to me, to be about as corrupt as the officer was. He wanted to refuse to allow me to testify, that I had been hit and that was why I did not get off the bus immediately. I also wanted to tell him that when I tried to leave, these “3 Pittsburgh PAT officers from hell”, who were terrorizing me, blocked my path and said they were not done yet.
The Magistrate shut me up at every effort to speak and demanded to know, “Did you ARGUE with him?” I said yes and he declared me GUILTY.
I immediately appealed the ruling, through the County Circuit Court. The appeal was filed within 1 hour after leaving the hearing. And I am taking action to move the process to have criminal corruption charges filed against the three officers and the Magistrate. If YOU could not stop the fraudulent slandering and personal damage, then the Magistrate SHOULD have.
I am warning you, that you must reel these lying deceivers and abusers in, before they cause YOU to also be on the list for criminal charge processing. I have told you repeatedly, that I am a medical, COPD patient and suffer shortness of breath and sleepiness from low oxygen. My lungs go into spasm with stress and I could die instantly. I also have Congestive Heart Failure, and cannot tolerate stress.
If you are now aware of the condition and you cannot stop these hooligans from persecuting and harassing me, It will clearly be considered a PRE-MEDITATED, WREAKLESS ENDANGERMENT to my health.
If I should have a heart attack or die of lung spasm during, or as a result of one of their terrorizing episodes, of abusing your customers, then it will be deemed PRE-MEDITATED MURDER.
You have been fully informed and fully warned. I have already spoken with an attorney and the County Circuit Judge. I will be turning in a request to the State Internal Investigations Office, to please investigate these numerous complaints of abuse, perjury and slander.
I really do not want to give PORT AUTHORITY a problem. That is why I keep you fully informed about who is doing what to the riders. But I need co-operation from you, that you will get rid of these abusers, who are trying to put you out of business.
I also request that if you need policemen to protect the drivers from robbery or danger, I congratulate you. But their authority must be limited to that of protectors and not permitted to be abusing authority by fabricating disorderly conduct citations, where there was no aggressive threat from the rider and especially not where there was a criminal act committed by the PAT officer and he is trying to cover it up.
It seems that a more professional, safer policy would be; to strip these SECURITY officers from the right to issue any citation, since they have proven a tendency to abuse authority. They would be required to arrive immediately to the site of a problem, assess it, release the driver to continue on schedule and do what they can to resolve it, then call the official Pittsburgh Police to come in if an arrest seems in order. The bus could be on its way and no further danger to passengers if the perpetrator is removed from the bus and left in the custody of the SECURITY officers to prepare a report of the incident.
I will keep you informed, as always,
Dawn Naret’
NOTE: THIS CASE DECISION WAS APPEALED AND AS OF 5/23/08, WAS AWAITING A COURT DATE, WITH THE PA SUPERIOR COURT. THE WAIT LASTED FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR. I FINALLY WON THE CASE, IN SUPERIOR COURT. I SERVED AS MY OWN ATTORNEY AND WROTE THE EXTREMELY LONG BRIEF, THAT WILL BECOME A VALUABLE EDUCATIONAL TOOL, TO FUTURE JUDICIAL STUDENTS. IT NOT ONLY STATED THE DETAILS, OF THE CASE, BUT SLOWLY, REVEALED AND EXPOSED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS OF DECEPTION AND THE OPENING, OF PUBLIC AWARENESS, INTO A PATTERN OF PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OCCURRING NATIONALLY. - DAWN NARET'
IN ADDITION TO THESE 2 EXAMPLES, I HAVE A DOZEN OTHER COMPLAINTS OF ABUSE, FROM P.A.T. DRIVERS AND SERVICE AND THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT HEARING, SHOWING THAT CLEAR AND BLATANT PERJURY WAS STATED, IN HIS OWN WORDS.
I INTEND TO ALSO POST THE VERY LONG "BRIEF", PREPARED FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL, A WORK OF PROFESSIONAL ART, THAT TAKES THE COURT ON A STEP BY STEP, LINE BY LINE REVELATION OF PERJURY AND ALSO OF A DEVELOPING AND PROVEN PATTERN OF INTENTIONAL SLANDER, CRIMINALIZATION WITH TOTAL FINANCIAL AND LIFE DESTRUCTION.
THAT IS THE PROCESS AND A CONSISTENT PATTERN I HAVE WITNESSED, LIVED AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM AND EXPOSE, SO THAT THESE CRIMINALS CAN NO LONGER MANIPULATE EMPLOYERS OR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ,TO ASSIST THEM IN BRINGING CITIZENS TO A POINT OF DESTITUTION, WHILE THEY MOVE IN AND STEAL THEIR IDENTITY AND ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS.
HOW CORRUPT EMPLOYEES OF PA STATE GOVERNMENT CAUSED ME TO BECOME AND REMAIN HOMELESS
THIS ONE IS DESIGNATED FOR STALKING CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMES.
MY LIFE HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED AND DESTROYED BY CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMES. FROM WHITE COLLAR CORPORATE SABOTAGE TO STREET SLIME STALKERS AND FALSE WITNESSES FOR HIRE.
THROUGH IT ALL, I HAVE MAINTAINED MY SANITY, MY INTELLIGENCE, AND MOST OF ALL, MY HONOR. I HAVE DISCOVERED ENEMIES AND CRIMINALS IN EVERY ENDEAVOR I HAVE MADE IN CAREER AND BUSINESS DEALINGS AND HAVE DROPPED MY JAW AT THE INTER-CONNECTED IMPLICATIONS THAT THESE REVELATIONS HAVE COGNIZATED.
TODAY, WILL BEGIN A LONG SOMETIMES CHOPPY DISORTATION, AS I GATHER AND REVEAL THE VICTIMIZATION THAT I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO DURING THE TRADGETY OF MY UNLIVED LIFE.
PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I EXPECT THE USUAL HACKING, INTERFERENCE AND ATTEMPTS OF OBSTRUCTION, BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT.
I MUST EXPOSE THIS DEGENERATE SYSTEM OF EVIL , ESPIONAGE AND GENOCIDE, FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF ALL THOSE VICTIMS STILL IMPRISONED IN ITS PROCESS.
I WILL SUPPORT THEIR INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF VICTIMIZATION WITH FACTS OF MY OWN TO HELP THEM PROVE THAT IT WAS NOT A "COINCIDENCE" OR "ALL IN THEIR MIND".
GOD BLESS AND PROTECT US AS WE "DO THE RIGHT THING".
I CANNOT START AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LIFE LONG ABUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, BUT FOR NOW, I WILL PRESENT SAMPLES OF MORE RECENT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SINCE 1992, AS I GATHER IT TOGETHER.
1ST, IS A SAMPLE OF THE INJUSTICE I SUFFERED IN 2004, BY THE STATE OF PA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEPT., WHEN THEY EVALUATED AN UNJUST TERMINATION FROM A JOB WELL DONE AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY WOULD RATHER VIOLATE THEIR OWN CODES AND RULES THAN TO PROTECT ME FROM EVICTION AND HOMELESSNESS THAT RESULTED FROM THE CORRUPTION THAT WAS THE FUNCTIONING PHILOSOPHY IN THE HARRISBURG AND LANCASTER, PA OFFICES.
1ST IS THE "STATEMENT OF THE CASE", WHICH IS A CHRONOLOGICAL CALENDAR OF HOW THE EVENTS AND DEMISE OF MY FINANCIAL SURVIVAL PLAYED ITSELF OUT. I DID UPDATE THIS, AND HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL WHICH ONLY WENT TO NOV. 2004. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REVEAL HOW THE INJUSTICE OF THE CORRUPTION, IN THE UCBR DEPT AND THE PA JUDICIARY SYSTEM, ADDED STILL ADDITIONAL TRAGEDY ONTO THE DESTRUCTION OF MY LIFE AND ALL EFFORTS TO SURVIVE IN A NORMAL QUALITY OF LIFE.
I INTEND TO UPDATE IT YET AGAIN, TO INCLUDE ALL THE LATER INJUSTICES AND PREDATORY ACTIVITIES AGAINST MY EFFORTS AND MY LIFE, THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURING, SINCE THIS LAST UPDATE OF JUNE 27, 2007, AND REPLACE IT WHENEVER I FIND ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO EXPAND THIS CALENDAR.
FOLLOWING THIS WILL COME EXAMPLES OF THE CORRUPT JUDICIARY PROCESS THAT I WAS VICTIMIZED BY AS WELL. I SERVED AS MY OWN ATTORNEY, AND DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF GOING BY THE BOOK, WITHIN ALL DEADLINES AND PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED AND RELATIVE DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCES.
WHAT DID I GET? SHOVED UNDER THE RUG, BY A CORRUPT GENERAL CLERK AND 2 CORRUPT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGAL DEPT. OF THE PA UCBR.
EXIBIT #1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NARET v. UCBR NO. 1742 CD 2004 (2004)
BY DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:This is an appeal of the final determination of the Unemployment compensation Board Of Review, (hereafter referred to as UCBR), which ruled, on July 17, 2004, that claimant was not entitled to Unemployment Compensation Benefits, (hereafter referred to as UC Benefits).
On February 7, 2004, the Unemployment Compensation Department ruled that the claimant was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law
On March 12, 2004, a service-contract company from missouri named TALX filed an appeal to that determination claiming itself non-legal agent of the employer. A hearing was held April 21, 2004 before referee, Marilyn Gunden. A local employee of the employee was present to represent the employer.
The claimant was late to arrive and was denied during two (2) phone requests to allow her a few more minutes to attend the hearing or to deliver a written testimony to be evaluated before a final decision.
The referee held a 15 minute hearing with the employers representative while the claimant was on the phone but was denied the opportunity to testify. The referee decided on May 17, 2004 in favor of the employer and ruled that the claimant was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e).
On June 1, 2004 Claimant appealed the decision of the referee with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereafter referred to as UCBR) and forwarded written testimony to the UCBR as instructed by the referee's office.
On July 21, 2004 the UCBR ruled in favor of the referee and denied the claimant's request to have the decision remanded. The presiding board members were: William A Hawkins, Chairman Eileen B. Melvin, MemberRichard W. Bloomingdale, and MemberClaimant sent the UCBR a request for reconsideration and was denied a reconsideration.Claimant is now appealing to the honorable judges of the Commonwealth Court of Pa. A brief was hand-delivered by claimant on October 8, 2004 and was rejected by an unnamed person.
FACTUAL HISTORY:
On February 21, 2004 The Unemployment Compensation Department "Notice of Determination", listed a fact finding survey of the employer.the employer denied willful misconduct in the findings of fact:
1. The claimant was last employed on February 5, 2004
2. The claimant's job title was LPN Charge Nurse.
3. The claimant was discharged as a result of "unsatisfactory work performance".
4. The claimant had been warned about the unsatisfactory work performance.
5. The claimant worked to the best of her ability.
Based on the employers testimony in the fact finding survey, the Unemployment Compensation Department rendered a decision of eligible for UC Benefits pursuant to section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.On March 12, 2004 A service-contract company named TALX, from missouri, filed an appeal to eligibility, claiming itself representative and non-legal agent of the employer. Their appeal was charging willful misconduct that was already denied by the local employer. an appeal hearing should not have been granted
On April 21, 2004 A hearing was held at 10:30AM before referee, Marilyn Gunden. The representative for the employer, Ms. Donna Bowman, Director of nursing, arrived and was invited to inspect the file. She looked at the already existing file containing documents #1 through #31.
The referee stated that she would now enter items #1 through #31, (that were not presented by Ms. Bowman), into the record if THERE was no objection, and Ms. Bowman was sworn in for testimony. The claimant was late for the hearing. She phoned in to request a short recess of a few minutes untill she could arrive. The request was denied. She was told that the hearing had already started and she was too late to attend.
She phoned back a second time to request permission to drop off a written testimony, including evidence to be evaluated before a final decision by the referee. The request was denied. She was told that she would have an opportunity to present testimony to the UCBR, in an appeal process available to her if the referee decided in favor of the employer.
The hearing lasted 15 minutes and the claimant was on the phone twice, during that time, trying to attend or at least drop off written testimony.
On May 17, 2004 the referee made a determination in favor of the employer and reversed the original determination of eligible to not eligible.
On June 1, 2004 claimant filed an appeal to the UCBR, and mailed to them a 15 page initial cover letter plus 50 pages of example correspondence she had had with her superiors, aiding them in having full knowledge of problem areas and reporting her efforts to inspire state and corporate compliance and efficient functioning in the facility.
She requested a timely review, by the UCBR, because UC Benefits were immediately cut off upon the referee's decision of not eligible.
On July 6, 2004 A letter of inquiry was sent to Mr. Bill Truskey, Legislative Liaison for UCBR from the honorable Mike Sturla, PA State Representative to attempt to aid the claimant, his constituent, in ending the financial duress being suffered while awaiting remanding by the UCBR upon examination of all the testimony and evidence presented.
On July 21, 2004, three (3) months after the referee's hearing, the UCBR supported the referee's decision and denied eligibility of UC Benefits based on; "the entire record of the prior proceedings, including the testimony submitted at the referee's hearing".
There was no due process available to the claimant. Her testimony and evidence were not even evaluated in the appeal. There was no appeal process.
Her testimony was rejected from being accepted into the record. The discarding of the testimony of the claimant was stated to have been done because; "The claimant has not established good cause for her actions. The claimant's request that the record be remanded for additional testimony (the claimant's ONLY testimony) is denied as she has not advanced proper cause for her failure to appear at the original referee's hearing.".
Page one (1) and page two (2) of the 15 page initial letter filing appeal to the UCBR gave a clear explanation that the claimant was indeed attempting to attend but was forbidden to attend and also forbidden to deliver written testimony.
On July 28, 2004 claimant submitted a request for forms to enter an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of PA., in the event that a reconsideration would also be denied by the UCBR.
On July 29,2004, following a telephone request, a written request for all transcripts and records of the hearing was e-mailed to the UCBR.
On July 29, 2004 a five (5) page brief request for reconsideration, citing the list of items being appealed, was faxed to the UCBR.
On July 29, 2004 Claimant also post-marked and mailed a 34 page hard-copy letter to the UCBR, making a formal request for reconsideration and listing specific arguments to the final decision. The specific arguments from this letter were used in the original brief presented October 8, 2004, on pages two (2) through thirty-three (33) of the "brief of petitioner" portion listed in the table of contents. (That original brief was rejected and this one is a re-submission of brief.)
On July 29, 2004, The same day the e-mail and faxed requests were received by the UCBR, the staff of the UCBR prepared a packet of several form letters, acknowledging receipt of communications, but did not include any copies of the record of the hearing.
On August 4, 2004, five (5) days later, UCBR denied the request for reconsideration leaving the denial decision standing as final.
On August 5, 2004 claimant filed official forms, requesting an appeal to the decision of the UCBR, in the Commonwealth Court of Pa., prior to the 30 day deadline of August 30, 2004, and following the denial for reconsideration.
On September 2, 2004 a motion was filed and approved requesting permission to submit fewer number of briefs to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. claimant had still not received copies of hearing records that were imperative to the preparation of the court brief.
There was also a discrepancy existing with the name of legal council for the UCBR, listed on the order to submit a brief by October 12, 2004. Council listed was Clifford Blaze, Esquire, c/o UCBR, respondent. Unable to locate a phone # for attorney Blaze.
On October 8, 2004 Claimant traveled to Harrisburg, Pa and hand delivered five (5) copies of brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. prior to the October 12, 2004 deadline.
Also, one (1) copy of brief and certificate of service were delivered and accepted by ms. Denise Roddy, Supervisor of UCBR, 10 th floor Labor and Industry Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. Ms. Roddy signed the receipt of acceptance and explained that Clifford Blaze, Esquire had left his assignment as legal council for the UCBR in August 2004 and she was currently handling appeals for the UCBR. Claimant had still received no response to two (2) requests for copies of hearing records, but was forced to submit a brief before the deadline.
On October 13, 2004 five (5) days later, claimant received an order of rejection of brief with a full list of required form, but no listing of any specific inconsistency to acceptable form. There was also no copy of brief returned with the order.
This created great unfair demand to create and submit a new brief because no indication was given as to why the original had been rejected. The new deadline for submission was November 12, 2004.
On October 25, 2004 claimant e-mailed a third (3rd) request to the UCBR to please expidite the July 29th telephone and e-mail request for copies of the hearing records.
On October 26, 2004 that e-mail was responded to and a transcript of the taped testimony of the employers representative was forwarded to the claimant by Gerard M. Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Council for UCBR. However, on page two (2) of the transcript a reference was made to documents #1 through #31 being placed into the file before the employers representative arrived at the referee's office. The representative was given an opportunity to look at them and then they were entered into the record and the representative was sworn in to begin testimony.
On October 25, 2004 claimant mailed a hard copy letter to the Commonwealth Court requesting, "to re-open records of this proceeding for the reception of further evidence." and also requesting a verification that all major testimony and correspondence, from claimant to the UCBR, were available in the file presented to the Commonwealth Court of Pa.
"My main concerns are that you have copies of: 15 page initial letter to UCBR requesting an appeal, a 50 page packet of sample communications to my superiors and a 34 page letter requesting a reconsideration of the UCBR denial of my request for an appeal. and an authentic copy of corporate termination rules to be included.". (none was presented to the referee, termination policy and "just cause" requirements were accepted on hearsayof the representative).
On October 26, 2004 a response to that letter was prepared and mailed to claimant by Mr. C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk. Verification was given of the presence of a 15 page initial letter, a 50-page packet of sample correspondence to superiors and the five page brief request for reconsideration that was faxed on July 29, 2004.
It was discovered that the hard copy full request for reconsideration, with itemized points of dispute, that was post-marked the same day, was not included in the file. There was no mention of records and transcripts of the hearing that were available.
"If you believe the record is incomplete, you may file a motion to modify the record with this court." The motion to modify the record was the letter he was responding to. The request to re-open the records for reception of further evidence was already submitted.
On November 3, 2004 claimant e-mailed a forth (4th) request for full release of all records of hearing, specifically documents #1 through #31 that were entered into the record on page two (2) of the transcript, but not identified or quoted from during the hearing and not presented by the employers representative during testimony. (Claimant is now facing a deadline of November 12, 2004 for re-submission of brief.)
On November 8, 2004 The 4th request to the UCBR for the remaining records of the hearing, specifically documents labeled #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) have not been forwarded for inspection or consideration in the preparation of the replacement brief demanded by C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk.
Claimant is therefore requesting an immediate remand or reversal with prejudice on this case due to lack of timely release of records that are imperative to the preparation of the brief.
We are now four (4) days from the deadline of November 12, 2004 slated for submission. It is inconsistent with PA Code 101.54 which requires timely release of "INFORMATION FROM THE FILE" that are necessary for the preparation of a brief.
NOVEMBER 10 Post-mailed Official Motion by Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice to Commonwealth Court. Included a duplicate copy of the 34 page letter, requesting re-consideration, that was not appended to the record by UCBR, as verified by Mr Hostutler, Chief Prothonotary. E-mailed copy and Certificate of Service to Gerard Mackarevich .
NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phone call from Mr. Don Wagner, Prothonotary clerk, requesting Copy of Certificate of Service for Motion to be forwarded. Acknowledged receipt of Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice.Provided Fax # 717-787-9559. "no hard-copy follow up required"
NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phoned P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative to request permission to have faxing done by his staff. He agreed to leave written permission for assistance to be given Monday – I declined immediate need.
NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Discovered that E-Mail to Deputy Mackarevich was returned by the UC Dept. staff with a note that this should be sent to Commonwealth Court (??).Faxed copies instead to number listed on Deputy Mackarevich's stationery 717-783-5027. – "Successful Transmission" – From F&M College Campus.
NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Also faxed copy of Certificate of Service to Mr. Wagner, per his request, at number provided, "Successful Send" – From F&M College Campus.
November 14, 2004 Prepared Addendum to Motion of the Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice and faxed to both Commonwealth Court at the number provided by Mr. Wagner, Prothonotary Ofc. And to Deputy Mackarevich at his ofc. Fax number. Included a cover letter with a 5 th request for the remaining records, specifically items #1 to #31. Transmission Incompleted at F&M College Campus. Resent both from Office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. –"Successful Send" left copy in his office file.
NOVEMBER 26, Received copy and Certificate of Service for 11/24/04 Motion by UCBR to Dismiss Petitioner"s Appeal, submitted by UCBR Counsel, Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant counsel for UCBR. Motion, in its text, acknowledges receipt of; 10/25/04 request for records that was E-Mailed to the same address; as the later Motion by the Appellant to Remand, that the staff refused to accept for Deputy Mackarevich. Therefore, this was a correct number and the delivery should not have been refused.
The text in the Motion by the UCBR to Dismiss, also acknowledges receipt of my 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, plus Addendum, plus cover letter making the 5 th request for missing records.
NOVEMBER 29, 2004 Prepared Opposition to the Motion by Janet M. Tarczy to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal.
NOVEMBER 30, 2004 Faxed copies of Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to both Counselors Mackarevich and Tarczy at UCBR and to Commonwealth Court, using same correct fax numbers. – "Successful Transmission" from the office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. Left a copy of this plus 5 other letters of communication, pertaining to this case, in his hard copy file.
Transmitted E-Mail msg. and attachment of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss document to his Legal Liaison, Pat Coller to make available in his system file.
DECEMBER 6, 2004 Received notice from Prothonotary's office that this case will be dismissed, per request of UCBR, due to lack of reponses or evident interest from appellant, IF a brief is not submitted by Dec. 15, 2004.
* Prothonotary Clerk is still refusing to submit the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice TO THE JUDGE, as is required to be done, immediately upon receipt. The prothonotary clerk is ALSO still demanding submission of a brief which was deemed a canceled dead-line requirement, upon the submission of the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice.
BRIEF WAS NOT SUBMITTED – BECAUSE LEGAL PA PROTOCOL CANCELED IT AS A REQUIRED SUBMISSION, PENDING INVESTIGATION, BY THE JUDGE, INTO COMPLAINTS OF LACK OF COOPERATION FROM UCBR.
THE UCBR HAD 20 DAYS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES TO THE COMPLAINT AND NEVER OFFERED A DEFENCE. THEY INSTEAD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPELLENT'S CASE. A CLEAR REJECTION OF PROPER PROTOCOL AND FINAL EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIED AND VALIDATED THE APPELLANTS CHARGE OF NO COOPERATION.
CASE WAS DISMISSED AND CLOSED 12-15-04 BY DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE UCBR COMMANDING AND CONTROLLING THE PROTHONOTARY CLERK.
(The official Judge never heard of it or saw the evidence – the PA Judicial System was to corrupt to follow the proper procedural process).
ON DEC. 13, 2005, APPELLANT WAS EVICTED FROM APARTMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT. HAVING NO WHERE TO GO, NO MONEY AND NO VEHICLE, SET OUT ON FOOT. WITH A PULL TOTE. ALL PERSONAL BELONGINGS WERE LOST, INCLUDING FAMILY PHOTOS, HISTORY, ANTIQUES AND PIECES OF ORIGINAL ART, COLLECTOR PRINTS AND LITHOGRAPHS
.
APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SEEK SHELTER IN THE LOCAL TOWN HOMELESS SHELTER.
OVER-EXPOSURE TO INSECTICIDE AND A DEPLORABLE ENVIRONMENT, NOW FOLLOWED THE RECENT ON-SET OF DETERIORATING HEALTH THAT WAS INITIATED WHILE EMPLOYED AT THE LAST JOB POSITION.
THERE WERE CONSTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS CAUSING AN ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE OCCURRENCE OF RESPIRATORY AND INFECTIOUS ILLNESSES AMONG STAFF AND RESIDENTS.
APPELLANT WAS HOSPITALIZED AND DIAGNOSED WITH C.O.P.D., CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE AND PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE.
APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICAL DISABILITY WAS FILED AND APPROVED AND APPEALANT COULD NEVER WORK AGAIN.
THE CASH BENEFIT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY WAS ONLY $940. PER MONTH WITH NO MEDICARE COVERAGE PERMITTED FOR 2 YEARS.
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA DEMANDED A GARNISHMENT, FOR A DELINQUENT STUDENT LOAN, TO BE SEIZED EVERY MONTH OUT OF THE BENEFIT CHECK, REDUCING INCOME TO $750 PER MONTH AND CANCELLED STATE MEDICAL COVERAGE THE SAME DAY THAT FEDERAL DISABILITY WAS APPROVED.
STATE AND FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES CONTINUE TO ACT WITH OBSTRUCTION AND PREJUDICE, IE: SECTION 8 LOW-INCOME HOUSING APPLICATION WAS REJECTED THREE TIMES FOR LANDLORD EVICTION OR BAD CREDIT REPORT. ALSO ACTION HOUSING AGENCY REJECTED APPLICATION FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING, DUE TO BAD CREDIT REPORT. THESE ATROSITIES OF PRDJUDICE AGAINST HOMELESS PEOPLE IN FINANCIAL CRISIS ARE PREVENTING THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING HOUSING. THE MEGER INCOME WOULD NOT AFFORD RENT, UTILITIES AND FOOD.
JUNE 27, 2007 APPEALANT IS STILL HOMELESS AND RECEIVING APPROX. $750 PER MONTH SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT LAST 30 DAYS, WHILE FORCED TO OBTAIN MEALS IN RESTURANTS. USUALLY, THE LAST 2 WEEKS OF THE MONTH ARE SPENT EATING CRACKERS OR CHIPS.
NIGHTS ARE SPENT SITTING UP ON A BENCH WAITING UNTIL THE BUSSES START RUNNING SO YOU CAN GET TO A BATHROOM.
SLEEP OCCURS IN SHORT DOZING PERIODS, WHENEVER YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, WITHOUT SOMEONE TAPPING YOU ON THE SHOULDER AND TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN’T SLEEP HERE. …………….SOME CITIZENS ARE LESS THAN HUMAN.
Current Contact info:
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 2315,Pittsburgh, Pa., 15230-2315
EMAIL: (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
DAWN NARET’
EMAIL:
Reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
WEB SITES:
http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com/ “WE THE PEOPLE”
http://www.chagrinning.blogspot.com/ “CHAGRINNING”
http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com/ “BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE A LATTE ?”
http://www.dawnnaret.blog.com/ “58 YEAR OLD NATURAL-BORN LADY”
EXIBIT #2
MOTION TO REMAND or REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
NARET' v. UCBR (2004) NO. 1742 CD 2004
Dawn Naret', Attorney for the Appellant
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa. 17608
Commonwealth Court of Pa
Irvis Office Bldg. - Room 624
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
November 8, 2004
I am submitting, today, an official motion to immediately remand or
reverse with prejudice, the case referenced above.
I have made four (4) requests for full records of the hearing held
April 21, 2004 and did finally have the kind intervention of Gerard
M. Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Council of UCBR, who recently moved to
assist with the incompleted cases of Clifford Blaze, Esquire, who left
in August, 2004.
Deputy Markarevich forwarded the transcript of the taped testimony on
my 3rd request of October 25, 2004 to the UCBR for all records. The
deadline for my brief had been October 12, 2004. I submitted brief, in
person, on October 8, 2004 and it was rejected by an Unnamed Person
who did not return them, but sent me a form instruction list of
required brief form and gave me a new deadline of November 12, 2004.
That is only four (4) days away and it is clear that these records
have not been forwarded within reasonable time as required by
Pennsylvania Code 101.54 stating; "When an interested party or his
representative requests information from the file of the Board in
order to present and maintain the issues at a hearing before a referee
or the Board, or in an appeal to the Court, such information
(including the hearing transcript, where the record was transcribed)
shall be made available at a reasonable time to the party and his
representative, without charge."
Upon examination of these transcripts, it was discovered that before
the employers witness arrived, there was were thirty-one (31)
documents already present in the file. The witness was given an
opportunity to view them, upon arrival, and did not object to their
inclusion in the file. But the items were Never mentioned in the
hearing, never identified and never quoted from.
I Immediately made a 4th request to the UCBR, repeating that I needed
ALL RECORDS OF THE HEARING and I have had no response.
It should be clarified to this honorable Court, that on page one (1)
of the transcript, the referee is verifying names and addresses:
"The employer of record is Beverly Health Care in care of TALX UC
Express, P. O. Box 283, St. Louis Missouri, 63166. Is that the address
you'd like to use?". Five (5) sentences later, is a partial response
sentence stating; " This is just a corporate…" (unfinished statement).
The truth is that TALX is not the employer or even affiliated with the
employer except as a service-contractor, hired to appeal EVERY
Unemployment Compensation Claim filed, in order to reduce the
obligatory payments, of the employer, to the State Treasury
Department, for the use in UC Benefit payments. It was TALX who filed
this appeal after the employer already denied a situation of willful
misconduct on the initial fact-finding.
TALX is therefore not the employer or even a viable interested party
because they are not attorneys qualifying as representatives,
acceptable to present evidence or give testimony without being
Judicially objected to as hearsay.
May I cite: Phila. Elec. Co. v. UCBR, 129 Pa Cmwlth 417, 565 A2d 1246 (1989):
"It is hearsay for a Licensed Physicians Assistant to read a test
report into evidence where the assistant is not the person who
conducted the test.", ( The Physician Assistant's reading of a lab
report on test samples is not the testimony of an expert witness on
the stand using his/her expertise, rather, "it is the testimony of a
witness who merely reiterates and parrots the conclusions of
another.") ld.@ 1248.
Also, according to; Perminter v. UCBR 426 A2d 245:
" Hearsay evidence, although properly objected to, may be used as a
basis for further questioning by the referee. The testimony elicited
through the hearsay itself must NOT be given substantive evidentiary
value." ( It is then of itself, inadmissible as evidence and should be
struck from the record).
These documents, labeled #1 (one) through # 31 (thirty-one), which I
still have not received, were not presented by the employer, who
attended the hearing and brought only one exhibit labeled employer's
exhibit # 1 (one). They also were never mentioned in the hearing,
never identified and never quoted from.
Therefore, as they have been held from inspection, necessary for the
proper presentation of this appeal, I make a motion that these
documents labeled #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) be viewed as
hearsay evidence and in suspect of authenticity or relevance to this
specific claimant and be struck from the record as inadmissible or
hearsay evidence that could adversely affect the fact-finding and
evaluation of this case.
On the initial fact-finding, conducted by the Department of
Unemployment Compensation, the employer denied that the claimant was
terminated for "willful misconduct", and listed "poor work
performance" as their motivating factor and also stated that "she did
the best she could". This was NOT a charge of "willful misconduct".
During the hearing, the transcripts reveal that the employer, although
still not admitting that the claimant was unfairly accused of
incidents that she insisted she was not a party to, still heard the
referee remind her, (according to page two (2) of the transcript),
that she held the BURDEN OF PROOF to present evidence that "willful
misconduct" had occurred. She STILL DENIED IT UNDER OATH and testified
that the claimant was terminated for "poor work performance".
On the last line of page five (5) she is asked if the incident,
(which the claimant denied being part of), was considered a serious
"Category I" incident, (the company classifies either a Category I or
a Category II on complaints) and the EW (employers witness) stated:
"Actually, no it was Category II."
On page six (6), an explanation of the Categories is requested by the referee:
EMPLOYER: (straight testimony without interruption):
"Actually Category…if we… Category II is the LESS serious of the
Categories. Category I is the more serious and corporate actually
changed that somewhat within the past year. If in other words if we
give a Category I they expect us to immediately suspend somebody. So
we now for the most part use Category II's unless it's something
extremely, extremely serious. We tend to use the Category II because
it fits right in with POOR WORK QUALITY. It's a 2 point…2.2, It's POOR
WORK QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY and that's…"
The employer is then asked what the policy is then for Category II
(less serious) policy and she explains:
EMPLOYER:
"Right…right oh…and she was….actually I'm sorry I should've
said…mentioned that…after 4 warnings the counceling's don't count.
After 4 warnings it's suspension pending investigation for
termination. And that was her 4th".
Therefore, although the employer appears to have satisfied the four
warnings requirement for suspension, she never testified whether there
was an investigation conducted as was ALSO required, according to her
testimony. There were several discrepancies in the testimony of the
employer that are not consistent with issues that occurred or that
qualify
within the judicial definition of "willful misconduct". The employer
stated and again repeated that the claimant was charged with Category
II , LESS serious complaints and a 2 point complaint is POOR WORK
QUALITY.
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT WAS NEVER PROVEN BY THE EMPLOYER. The employer also
failed to present an official copy of the current company policy of
required procedure for termination. The reasons and the procedure
testified to, were not acceptable reasons for termination, according
to actual company policy. The referee accepted hearsay testimony of
questionable documents #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) AND hearsay
testimony of what the disciplinary policy was and was blindly misled
to believe that the claimant was terminated with "just cause".
The term "just cause" may vary in as many specific interpretations as
there are different employers who determine their own policies and
procedures. That is why the UCBR is forbidden to deny benefits
according to proven "just cause", but must have proof of "willful
misconduct", fully demonstrated as Judicially Defined in Section 402
(e):
(1) the wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interests, or
(2) the deliberate violation of rules; or
(3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can
rightfully expect from his employee; or
(4) negligence which manifests as culpability, wrongful INTENT, EVIL
DESIGN OR INTENTIONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL disregard for the employer's
interests or the employee's duties and obligations.
These are extremely serious, intentional/deliberate/willful actions
that MUST occur before a label of "willful misconduct" can be applied.
Negligence of clocking back in after lunch may be a company's policy
for "just cause" termination, if committed repeatedly, but it is not a
negligence of the magnitude of the judicial definition of "willful
misconduct" required to deny benefits and none were even intimated by
the employer and definitely none were proven because none occurred.
My third reason for submitting a motion to remand and reverse with
prejudice, is that the UCBR failed to amend a 34-page letter of
request for reconsideration to the record of the case. On July 29,
2004 I responded to the letter of denial on appeal from the UCBR
decision of July 21, 2004. I sent on that day; an e-mail requesting
copies of all records, I faxed a five (5) page brief letter of timely
appeal for reconsideration and I post-marked a hard copy letter of
detailed point by point dispute to the procedure opinions and findings
as stated in the denial letter.
I am forwarding a duplicate copy with this communication. I already
submitted a petition to open the record for admission of additional
evidence on October 25, 2004, which was the letter responded to by
C.R. Hostutler on October 26, 2004. The purpose of that request was
the extended wait for copies of the record that I anticipated might
need additional rebuttal opportunity. This copy of the 34 page letter
is not new evidence but was part of the record of the request for
reconsideration WHERE THE REQUEST WAS DENIED AND NOT APPENDED TO THE
RECORD FOR EVALUATION UPON APPEAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT.
This is yet another violation of Pennsylvania Code:
"Where written application for reopening of a hearing was made to the
board and there is no evidence that the referee or the board appended
to the record the request, ANY supporting material, and the ruling on
the request, A DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMANTS APPEAL WILL BE REVERSED AND
THE RECORD REMANDED FOR A DETERMINATION OF PROPER CAUSE FOR CLAIMANTS
FAILURE TO ATTEND THE REFEREE'S HEARING."
-ORTIZ V. UCBR 85 PA CMWLTH, 327, 331, 481 A2D 1385
"Finally, a "proper cause" inquiry for non-appearance does NOT
impermissibly reallocate the burden of proof in a "willful misconduct"
setting.".
-FLORES V. UCBR 686 A 2D 66 (PA CMWLTH 1996)
With this over-whelming amount of error clearly proven in the
transcripts and records, I can only trust that this honorable Court
will end the injustice that has so extremely burdened and financially
destroyed this claimant since the initial unfair dismissal from her
job. Evidence proves that she was an excellent example of a
self-starter who gave extra effort in every area to assist her
employer with compliance to all laws, policies and organizational
efforts.
This attempt, by the employer to be released from payment of UC
Benefits stands as a despicable example of dishonest manipulation of
the Law and of the calendars of all the departments who have given
focus to this case. The employer's witness could not bring herself to
state "willful misconduct" because she knew it never existed in this
claimant's performance. And she admitted it twice in clarity.
The claimant, meanwhile:
(1) has a ruined reputation of job performance,
(2) was unexpectedly cut off from her only source of income when the
referee made the error of reversing her initial correct determination
of ELIGIBLE to denied benefits,
(3) she has suffered through five (5) whole months of absolutely no income,
(4) has been penniless without even 50 cents to buy a newspaper or
take a bus for any job searching or attending,
(5) her monthly accounts have not been able to receive any payments
and have now been reported to the Credit Bureau
(6) the Credit Bureau will now be giving an unfavorable report on her
FOR 7 YEARS
(7) she will have difficulty obtaining a new position from an unfair
record of her work
(8) she will have difficulty passing a credit check for a new position
(9) she will have difficulty passing a credit check for a new residence
(10) she has received notice of utilities to be turned off for non-payment
(11) she has received notice of eviction proceedings initiated already
by her landlord
(12) her bank has closed both her checking and savings accounts for
having a zero balance for too long
(13) she was seeking food at food banks to survive
(14) has suffered immense stress and will continue to be adversely
affected by this horrible miscarriage of justice for many years
(15) she has no family or friends to move in with and will become homeless
(16) she will have no address to receive mail of notice of hearing or
reinstatement or receive benefit checks necessary to survive
starvation and death
(17) if you have no residence address, you are not eligible for food
stamps or food bank donation pick-ups.
The state cuts you off and leaves you to starvation.
This is a shocking reality that must come to light for the protection
of citizens in this country. These aggressive moves to cut citizens
off from income is resulting in unbelievable numbers of increased
homelessness.
The UCBR admits to denying 100 to 200 cases per day just in one
office. To extend the multiplication, that is 24,000 to 48,000
citizen families per year placed in this position of possible
homelessness and total destruction to the magnitude that this claimant
is living as the very current reality of facing death within weeks
from now in spite of being totally healthy, with no acute, chronic or
fatal illness. What is Pennsylvania State doing to it's citizens? Why
are they denying with prejudice, benefits for people who have worked
all their lives? Now, to find out that if you no longer have an
address, you are ineligible for any aid declared to be available to
the needy. Who is more needy than a person who has no home?
This case never should have reached this point or been extended to
this amount of time or have to have traveled to this level of the
judicial system before someone would stop the violations of Civil
Rights, of Due Process, of UC Law and of Pa Codes and Statutes.
We have a very well designed litigation system, when it is followed
according to the original rules and intentions. The system was a
non-prejudice system that protected employees from being unfairly
dismissed or denied benefits during the transitional period. Of recent
years it has been digressing toward a system of prejudice for the
employer and denial of Due Process for the claimants.
The major problem seems to be the cutting off of UC Benefits before an
appeal has been decided. Helpful to this may first be to revise the
initial appeal rules to reject appeals being filed by these contract
companies that receive commission on every case they book into appeal
of eligibility. They are creating havoc on the calendar and causing
delays of reinstatement that never should have been lost and have
created financial crisis while they were cut-off. They also are not
able to present evidence or testimony as I have shown you in the Pa
Codes. Their involvement in these cases is inadmissible and removal of
them would greatly reduce the number of unjustified applications for
appeal of eligibility.
A second major problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the referee's
between termination for "just cause" by the employer and the true
requirements of the label "willful misconduct". Too many cases are
being denied without meeting the requirements of the full judicial
definition of the term "willful misconduct"
Of serious crisis development is that the Department of Unemployment
Compensation cuts off benefits immediately, upon the referee's
decision to reverse the eligible status, without giving any
consideration to the fact that the case has entered an appeal status
and the determination is not a final.
Next, the same department sends out a Repayment Due notice, in this
case it was assigned as a "no-fault" repay obligation for funds
already received. THE CLAIMANT MUST NOW ALSO REQUEST THE COURT TO
PERMIT RELIEF FROM THIS REPAYMENT OBLIGATION ON FUNDS SHE WAS ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CUT OFF FROM.
CLAIMANT MUST ALSO APPEAL TO THE COURT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT
THIS CRISIS CREATED BY SO MANY ERRORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED
TO REACH THIS POINT AND THE CLAIMANT IS REQUESTING RELEASE OF BENEFIT
CHECKS FOR EVERY WEEK SINCE CUT OFF ON MAY 11, 2004 UNTIL DECISION
DATE. AND THEREAFTER FOR AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, AS IT SHALL
TAKE, TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT AND RETAIN EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE SHE WAS
ROBBED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THROUGH THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
WITH THE AID OF UC BENEFITS AND ENDED UP INSTEAD ON THE OUTSIDE OF A
HUGE IRON CURTAIN THAT HAD NO EMPATHY OR SHAME FOR IT'S ABUSES.
But, these errors should be caught and corrected immediately by the
UCBR. Why are they passed through?
Why is the UCBR consistently violating Pa Code with endless
merry-go-round arguments that they will not re-open a case or consider
a remand because the claimant failed to attend a hearing? I have also
shown you that these arguments are now ceased forever. They are
inconsistent with the UC Law, Commonwealth Court Standards, Pa Code,
Federal Laws and Civil Rights. The constant defense that they write
their own policy and what violations, they are alledged to have
committed, are acceptable according to their policy, is unacceptable
to the higher authorities according to the higher Laws and
policies that they are obligated to be consistent with in their policymaking..
May I cite: VAN v. UCBR 508 PA 139, 494 A2D 1081 (1985):
"ALTHOUGH THE HEARINGS ARE INFORMAL, THEY INVOLVE SWORN TESTIMONY,
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND BY ALL THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL RULES OF A
LAW COURT SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
THIS MUST BE THE END OF POLICIES BEING MIS-INTERPRETED OR USED WITHOUT
FULL APPROVAL AND PROPER AMMENDMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGHER
RIGHTS AND STANDARDS AND LAWS PROTECTING THESE INDIVIDUALS THEY SERVE.
I thank you very much for a most enlightening experience. I have
learned much and hope to be able to use the expanded knowledge
productively, if I am unable to save my own life, perhaps my testimony
will inspire changes in the system that may save someone else's life.
You face an extremely serious responsibility of not only attempting to
have my funds released and delivered before it is too late, but to
initiate immediate changes in this predatory system that has knarled
its demon head above the values and honor, that our country and our
judicial system once held as it's identity and it's genuine character.
DAWN M. NARET'
Current Contact Info as of 2-23-07:
P.O.Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
EXIBIT #3
ADDENDUM TO:
MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
CASE NO. 1742 CD 2004
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 10, 2004
APPENDED NOVEMBER 14, 2004
BY DAWN M. NARET', ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
On April 21, 2004, during the original hearing, the claimant called into the office with a question on directions and was told that the hearing had already started and she would not be able to attend. She requested a continuance of a few minutes until she could arrive and the denial was repeated that the hearing had already started and she would not be able to attend.
Within minutes, she called back, a second time and requested permission to at least drop-off a written testimony, with supporting documents of evidence, that she wished to present and have considered before a final decision.
This request was also denied and she was told that she would have an opportunity to present written testimony in an appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), if the referee decided in favor of the employer.
I hold this interactive incident as further evidence of prejudice that has been unjustly obstructing the right to due process and a fair hearing, without prejudice, as required to be conducted by the UCBR.
May I repeat VANN v. UCBR 508 Pa 139, 494 A2d 1081 (1985):
"ALTHOUGH THE HEARINGS ARE INFORMAL, THEY INVOLVE SWORN TESTIMONY, CROSS-EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND BY ALL THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL RULES OF A LAW COURT, SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
The claimant appeals to this honorable court to acknowledge, in their conclusion, that where opinions and policies have, on several occasions, agreed that if an employer is absent from the hearing, then the available record, which is usually the initial fact-finding plus the additional written testimony and material evidence, mailed in by the employer, as reasons why they are appealing an initial determination of eligibility, will be enough information in the record for the referee to evaluate and make a final decision, even in the absence of the employer.
The charge of prejudice lies in the acceptance of the additional written testimony, with any material evidence, that has been mailed-in and accepted into the record, in the absence of the employer, to be considered before a final decision by the referee.
If then, the employer has been given the opportunity to mail-in additional written testimony and material evidence, to be entered into the record before a final decision, even in his/her absence, then the same situation, from the aspect of the claimant, where the claimant is absent from the hearing, and the referee is permitted to conduct the hearing in their absence and determine a final decision based upon the available record, which includes the written testimony and material evidence mailed-in, by the employer, with their petition for an appeal, then the claimant, who is absent, is not being given the same opportunity for a fair hearing unless they are also afforded the same opportunity to deliver or mail-in written testimony as the employer did.
A final decision, where the employer was afforded the opportunity to add additional written testimony to the record and the claimant was denied or not offered the same opportunity, is a final decision formed with prejudice, and the claimant has not been offered the opportunity for a fair hearing.
Due process has then been violated if the final decision is made in the absence of the claimant and a continuance has been denied. Also, the employer was not obligated to prove "proper cause" for being absent, in order to have his/her written testimony accepted into the record prior to the final decision, and neither can the claimant be demanded to prove, "proper cause" for absence, before being afforded an opportunity for submitting a written testimony.
The absence of a claimant does not waive the right to due process and a Fair Hearing. Therefore, having a hearing scheduled, where they could not attend, was NOT giving them full opportunity for a fair hearing, if the opportunity for submission of written testimony, to be evaluated before a final decision has been made, has been denied.
The referee is obligated to decide these cases on their merit, according to the information available in the record. If that information is unjustly accepted from one party and not the other party, then the merit is not fairly determinable, if the referee is evaluating, with prejudice, the record of only one party.
The opportunity to submit written testimony cannot be denied to the claimant, if it is not denied to the employer. A final decision must include additional written testimony, of the claimant, if it accepts additional written testimony of the employer.
The initial fact-finding affords the employer an initial testimony written into the record. The employee is notified of the fact-finding comments, of the employer, in the initial determination letter from the Unemployment Compensation Department (UC Dept.).
The employee is NOT given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebutt any of these comments. If the UC Dept. determines that the employee is eligible for benefits, the employer is afforded the opportunity to appeal the determination and is given a SECOND opportunity in stating reasons why they seek appeal and to attach any material evidence they wish to have accepted into the record. The employee is not given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebutt any of these new comments either, until the hearing.
If the employee cannot attend the hearing, then there are TWO mailed-in written testimonies of the employer and NONE from the employee, to be evaluated according to merit. What is going to be evaluated? It is a ONE-SIDED, PREJUDICED EVALUATION PROCESS.
Now, if there is yet the attendance of the employer, with or without accompanying witnesses, giving oral testimony, objecting to the eligibility of benefits, in the absence of the employee, then the merit, of the record, now contains at least THREE and possibly more testimonies, if witnesses were present, from the employer and NONE from the employee.
In both situations, where the employer is absent or not absent, the record is unjustly tipped in favor of the employer and is obviously being evaluated with prejudice, if it is evaluated without at least ONE opportunity, for even ONE written testimony to be entered into the record, from the employee, in the event of their absence from the physical hearing. They clearly have NOT been afforded the opportunity of a fair hearing.
The obligatory evaluation, without prejudice, by the referee, before making a final decision, cannot be waived by the referee, by the claimant, by the employer or by the UCBR, who are also obligated to assure the opportunity for a fair hearing and order a continuance if there is any doubt that this was accomplished at the referee's hearing. A ONE-SIDED, PREJUDICED EVALUATION PROCESS is definitely cause to doubt that a fair hearing was indeed afforded.
It is a Constitutional Right to due process, without prejudice, and it is a Fundamental Right that the UCBR is obligated to be consistent with in their policymaking, according to, again I would like to reiterate: VAN V. UCBR 508 PA 139, 494 A2d 1081 (1985), "SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
These Fundamental Rights, even in an informal UCBR setting, were already upheld by the Supreme Court in; DILLIPLAIN v. LEHIGH VLY. TRUST CO. 457 PA 255, 322 A2d 114 (1974). AND DILLIPLAIN WAS LATER SPECIFICALLY EXTENDED TO COVER UCBR PROCEEDINGS IN WING v. UCBR.
IN WING v. UCBR 496 PA 113, 436 A2d 179 (1981), the Supreme Court advised the UCBR to, "DISCARD THE DOCTRINE". The Supreme Court explained the rationale for "DISCARDING THE DOCTRINE", (the doctrine of Fundamental error) by noting; " THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TRIBUNAL MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITS ERRORS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE; DILIGENT PREPARATION AND EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MUST BE ENCOURAGED BY REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO DEVELOPE COMPLETE RECORDS AND ADVANCE ALL LEGAL THEORIES AND THE FINALITY OF THE LOWER TRIBUNAL'S DETERMINATIONS MUST NOT BE ERODED BY TREATING EACH DETERMINATION AS A PART OF A SEQUENCE OF PIECEMEAL ADJUDICATIONS." – Id, @ 117, 436 A2d @ 181. "SUCH RATIONALE CONTINUES TO BE SOUND."
They are to make every effort to investigate thoroughly by NOT erroneously denying a continuance, but are instead to grant a continuance more readily in order to create a complete record, so that they can be, "GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITS ERRORS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE." How can they correct their errors, if they dismiss due process and send the unsatisfied party into a higher appeals arena, still trying to receive correction on a fundamental error made at the referee level? Or repeated at the UCBR level?
The SEQUENCUAL PIECEMEALING OF ADJUDICATIONS, is the error of forming a denial based on one issue, where a second issue forbids denial. This case has not been thoroughly investigated, assembled into a complete record or judicially resolved, whatsoever, and cannot avoid being remanded or reversed for violation of due process.
IE: A claimant, absent at a hearing, is denied a continuance and is claiming that there was not fair and equal opportunity to present equal testimony into the written record, which served as the basis for evaluating the merit according to available information. The UCBR upheld the referee's denial of benefits, stating that the claimant was absent and did not give "proper cause" for the absence and was already afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing. –ISSUE #1
IE: The same claimant, absent at the hearing where there is a charge of willful misconduct, and the employer did not satisfy the Burden of Proof, for willful misconduct. A continuance, affording further testimony and evidence are refused, because the claimant was absent and was already afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing, then the UCBR is repeating the error of the referee in forming a denial based on ONE issue where another issue, willful misconduct ISSUE #2, forbids denial.
They cannot deny benefits because a claimant was absent at a hearing. The absence is issue #one and absence is not an acceptable reason to deny benefits. The issue #TWO compounds the error, with the evidence that the employer never satisfied the Burden of Proof with testimony on the willful misconduct charge. This is a SECOND issue that forbids the denial of benefits "where the employer has not proven willful misconduct".
These are examples of exactly what the Supreme Court was referring to when it advised the UCBR to, "DISCARD THE DOCTRINE".
The UCBR did in fact attempt to violate the findings of the Supreme Court and present a, SEQUENCE OF PIECEMEAL ADJUDICATIONS, in denying on ISSUE #1 and neglecting on ISSUE #2. The UCBR neglected to consider the sworn testimony of the employer's witness, who under oath, denied that the reason for termination was willful misconduct.
The claimant was absent from the hearing, so a denial of benefits was upheld, by the UCBR, and the failure of the employer to prove willful misconduct was neglected and permitted to be buried below the absence issue even though it is forbidden to be present in a denial decision.
The Supreme Court already determined that these UCBR policies and procedures and dismissals and denials are violations of Fundamental Rights and advised that these doctrines be discarded in 1981.
Therefore, in every instance since 1981, where the UCBR has upheld a denial for benefits and has denied a request for continuance, due to the absence of a claimant, in a willful misconduct setting, even where the "Burden Of Proof" of willful misconduct, in the full definition as judicially defined, was not satisfied by the employer, they have been in violation of a Supreme Court decision and advisement, to void these policies (DISCARD THE DOCTRINE) THAT INHIBIT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DEVELOP COMPLETE RECORDS AND ADVANCE ALL LEGAL THEORIES.
TO SUMMARIZE:
They CANNOT refuse a continuance due to absence from the original hearing,
They CANNOT refuse written testimony, from an absent party, to be accepted into the record, if they have accepted it from the opposing party, for evaluation before a final decision,
They CANNOT uphold an adverse decision, in a willful misconduct setting, where the "burden of proof" was not satisfied,
They CANNOT refuse or uphold a refusal for continuance, where an absent party has had NO opportunity to give ANY testimony, neither written or verbal,
They CANNOT repeatedly refuse to re-open cases or accept additional evidence, merely due to the objection of a re-opening, by the opponent, where the opponent's objection would be obstructing the right to due process if the objection is not over-ruled and the request is not granted.
These conclusions are NOT open for discussion or dispute. They have already BEEN decided by the SUPREME COURT.
Also, accepting that we cannot enable the possibility of blatant disregard of a Notice of Hearing, we must also consider that an absence, although entitled to present written testimony to be evaluated before a final decision, does already carry a consequence, in that the absent party is not able to witness the proceedings and is therefore, unable to cross-examine or rebut during the hearing.
They do not become aware of testimony presented unless they request transcripts and records of the hearing, which are to be made available with the absence of either party, in order to prepare an appeal, and they should be informed of this availability. If they have testimony and evidence to present, that would be relevant to the decision, they suffer a delay in the opportunity for rebuttal, but a continuance and that opportunity for rebuttal is required by Law.
Any policies proposed by the UCBR and approved as amendments to PA Codes and Statutes must meet the criteria test of consistency; that "CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.".
Violation of this obligation is now verified by the Commonwealth Court and the supremacy of its opinion over the policies of the UCBR, plus the support of those just opinions by the Supreme Court, will nullify the standing, credibility and acceptance of these policies, as arguments that would DISREGARD the decision by the Supreme Court, if they do not pass the criteria test of consistency to Basic and Fundamental rights, as already demanded and clarified by the Supreme Court, and now I must request that it also be supported, reiterated and upheld by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. (end of addendum)
AUTHOR: DAWN NARET'
2-28-07 author update: Current Contact Info:
Dawn Naret'
P.O.Box 2315, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230-2315
Email: reply2dn@gmail.com OR dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
Blogsites: http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com
http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com
EXIBIT #4
NARET' V. UCBR (2004) DOCKET NO. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04 REPLY FROM APPELLANT TO:
11/24/04 RESPONSE FROM UCBR TO PETITIONER'S 11/8/04 MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
AND
OPPOSITION TO: 11/24/04 MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL FILED BY UCBR
APPELLANT IS FILING AN AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE 11/24/04 MOTION, BY UCBR, TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL
APPEAL TO:
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE DOCKET NO. 1742 CD 2004
DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY, PRO SE,
APPELLANT
VS.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
NARET' V. UCBR (2004) NO. 1742 CD 2004 (CONT'D)
APPELLANT, DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY PRO SE, FILES THIS
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(The reply number will correspond to the response line it is replying to as much as possible)
1. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereafter referred to as the UCBR) filed this 11/24/04 Motion to Dismiss as a response to the 11/8/04 9 page Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice and 7page Addendum, filed by the appellant (petitioner). The arguments and legal citings in the appellant's combined 16 page Motion, with its Addendum, presented undebatable evidence that conduct and procedure were repeatedly in error in this case, since the initial filing of an appeal against the decision of eligibility, made by the Department of Unemployment Compensation. Their initial, correct decision was based on the fact that the employer denied willful misconduct on the initial fact-finding inquiry and repeated that denial, in the dialog of the transcripts, as specified in the appellants Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. They were essentially appealing the initial employer's own testimony or to clarify, disputing with themselves, which once testified, cannot be revoked or appealed by the party that testified, and definitely should not be given a scheduled appeal hearing date, because that would unacceptably inflate the hearings calendar.
2. On July 21, 2004, the UCBR defaulted procedure by adopting the illegal decision, by the referee. It is illegal to deny UC Benefits, where the employer failed to prove willful misconduct, and clearly stated, in the transcripts, that the ALLEGED offense was a Category II, which is the "LESS SERIOUS" Category.
3. On October 8, appellant met the timely deadline of October 12, 2004, for filing brief, in spite of the UCBR's failure to respond with a timely submittal of all hearing records. Brief was hand-written.
4. On October 12, 2004, the prothonotary's office rejected the brief, for form, and set a new deadline of November 12, 2004. Appellant made every effort to encourage expedition of the forwarding of requested records but had only a portion of them forwarded on October 26, 2004, through the kind intervention of Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel for the UCBR. On November 3, 2003, a 4 th written request demanding the complete record, including " documents #1 through #31", that were mentioned on page 2 of the transcripts. None of the documents were forwarded even to date. Appellant then had no alternative but to file a timely 9page Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice plus a 7 page Addendum to the Motion on November 8, 2004, due to lack of UCBR'S cooperation in forwarding all records. This also nullified the new deadline of November 12, 2004 for filing a brief, according to the FEDERAL Rules of Appellate Procedure on Motion to Remand: "The motion shall be filed prior to the filing of the appellant's brief." - Rule 23B Section (A) paragraph 2. And may I also cite Rule 23B Section (D), "Oral argument and the deadline for brief shall be VACATED upon the filing of a Motion to Remand under this rule.".
It has frequently become apparent that the UCBR operates under a misconception of the extent of their own autonomy, in policymaking, as well as policy following, that has often revealed them to be non-compliant to the superior policies and authorities of the laws, policies and procedures of the Commonwealth Court, The UC Laws and the Federal Superior Court Procedures, THAT THEY ARE ALSO SUBORDINATE TO, in their UPWARD ASSIGNING OF APPELLANT DISPUTES. These higher authorities cannot and will not abide by the non-compliant policymaking practices of the UCBR, WHERE DUE PROCESS WOULD BE VIOLATED IF NON-COMPLIANT UCBR POLICIES WERE PERMITTED TO OVER-RIDE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES THAT HOLD SUPREMANCY OVER THEIR DEPARTMENT.
5. The UCBR, on Item #5 of their Motion to dismiss, incorrectly implies that the appellant has not complied with proper requirements of Chapter 21 of the Pa Rules of Appellate Procedure. The fact is, the appellant was exactly correct in timely functions and form, and the UCBR has attempted to persuade this court to overlook the filing of the combined 16 page Motion to Reverse, with all of its defaults documented, and its vacating of the brief deadline.
Therefore it is the UCBR who is not complying, due to their inappropriate filing for a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal instead of complying with the procedure of response to the Motion to Remand;
"A response shall be filed within 20 days after the motion is filed. The response shall include a proposed order of remand that identifies the ineffectiveness claims and specifies the factual issues relevant to EACH such claim to be addressed by the trial court in the event Remand is granted, unless the responding party accepts that proposed by the moving party. Any reply shall be filed within 10 days after the response is filed." – Rule 23B Section (B) Paragraph 2.
6. UCBR: " On October 25, 2004, Petitioner requested the Board forward the hearing transcript of the employer's testimony from the hearing of April 21, 2004."
REPLY: Prior to the July 21, 2004 decision, by the UCBR, a telephone request for records was made. On July 29, 2004 a written request for ALL RECORDS was delivered and no response was received. By the deadline of October 12, 2004, Brief had to be submitted and compiled without the full record of the hearing, which was imperative to its efficient completion. This is a serious default, as cited, with references, in the Appellants Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/ Plus Addendum. On October 25, 2004, Appellant submitted the THIRD not FIRST request for all records.
7. On October 26, 2004, a prompt response was made to the third request by, Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel, as stated in reply item #4 of this document, but he only forwarded a copy of the transcript and 1 exhibit of the employer (the only exhibit of the employer, according to the transcript.) On page 2 of the transcript was dialog referring to documents #1 through #31 being entered into the record. Discussion of this was expanded in the appellants Motion to Reverse. None of these documents were ever forwarded and they held significance because they were already present, in the file, before the employer arrived and were not delivered by her, quoted from or mentioned by her during her testimony, as evidenced in the transcripts.
On November 3, 2004 a FOURTH request was submitted to the UCBR, with a time is of the essence status, pending the November 12, 2004 deadline for brief. NONE was received. UCBR DEFAULTED, again, in neglecting to make a timely response to requests for ALL RECORDS.
8. UCBR: "ON or about November 12, 2004, Petitioner filed a Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice (Motion) with this court, purportedly requesting a remand or reversal due to lack of timely release of records that are imperative to the preparation of her brief."
REPLY: The FACT is; on November 8, 2004, NOT November 12, 2004, appellant had still received NO RESPONSE to the FOURTH request for ALL RECORDS. This was not a "purported" default but a serious obstruction to the efficient preparation of brief. The absence of a timely response, for the forwarding of the required documents, prompted the November 8, 2004, filing of the 9 page Motion of Remand or Reversal with Prejudice.
On November 10, 2004, appellant also filed a 7 page Addendum to that motion, providing a combined total of a 16 page Motion that revealed a wider view of the tragedy and proportionate number of victims that are being made homeless and losing entire households of possessions and property, due to these procedural spans, defaults and delays. If appeals are not resolved and UC Funds delivered to the claimants within 30 days, the claimant is vulnerable to an eviction on rental property, and if not resolved and delivered within 90 days, to a home-owner, they are facing mortgage foreclosure.
The staff of UCBR, as well as this honorable court must open their eyes; to the massive crisis the UCBR is creating by erroneously and illegally denying UC Benefits. By the UCBR'S own admission, they deny 100 to 200 appeals PER DAY.
That's 24,000 to 48,000 victims PER YEAR, that they are responsible for, by imposing on them, the vulnerability of having their only source of income cut off and becoming homeless!
The UCBR has not been complying with the purpose it was created for. It is responsible to; investigate, correct and resolve errors as quickly as possible by using all the non-prejudice evaluating processes, that are fair and just and legal according to all Federal Civil Rights Laws, Pa State Laws, UC Department Laws, and UCBR Tribunal policies, that are recognized as acceptable within their own department, as well as beyond themselves, to the superior authorities, that they are also obligated to be compliant with, in their policymaking and practices.
The referees are over-burdened with appeals from employers who are hiring profit service-contract companies to appeal EVERY single ELIGIBLE Determination. These companies MUST be removed from the arena, as they have no association as legal counsel or acceptable witnesses who can present testimony or evidence. I expounded on this, in more detail, in the Motion to Reverse. I sympathize with the staff of the UC Department, including the referees and the Tribunal. But the over-load they are burdened with, they have created themselves, by giving hearing scheduling to frivolous appeals that are being made, in order that the employer can avoid payment as required, to the State UC Fund. These problems cannot be resolved by prejudicing the claimants, by denying benefits, where no willful misconduct has been claimed by the employer in the initial fact-finding inquiry, just to expedite the over-load of cases out the door, where it was not the fault of the claimant that they were over-loaded and where the staff from the UC Department already determined them as ELIGIBLE. Why would they schedule a hearing for an appeal where the employer already denied willful misconduct in the initial fact-finding inquiry? They shoot themselves in the foot and create the over-load by permitting the unpermittable. The employer cannot waste the referee's time or put the UC Benefits of the claimant in question for the purpose of appealing his own initial testimony.
If the UCBR developed non-prejudice policies and procedure, supervised and followed-up on the decisions of the referees, the caseload of error, coming to them, would be drastically reduced, just by having the referee abide by the non-prejudice policies that must conform to the right of due process and the right to a fair hearing.
Their reluctance to grant continuances, to avail claimants the fair opportunity to completely voice all their testimony and present evidence, is causing the incompleteness that results in upward assigning and continuance, where the claimants are not receiving due process from the referee decisions. They CANNOT refuse continuances to claimants because too many employers have jammed their calendar with frivolous appeals. They pacify the request of the employer but not the claimant. This is clearly prejudice. They are devaluating the claimant and minimalizing the importance of their Civil Rights, their Right to a Fair Hearing and the importance and relevance of their testimony.
10. UCBR: (these statements are a perfect example, of the practice, of shoving the priorities and defaults under the rug and attempting to slide the testimony, of the claimant, out the door before anyone chances to hear or pay attention to them) Quote item # 10 in portions; " To the extent the court considers Petitioner's Motion and Addendum to be her amended Brief, these lack a statement of the scope of review and standard of review, statement of the questions involved, summary of argument, argument and conclusion…. Wherefore , Petitioner, having failed to comply with this court's order, dated October 12, 2004, to file an amended Brief…… and the petitioner's Motion and Addendum being non-responsive ….(???)…..Respondent moves that your honorable Court dismiss Petitioner's appeal…..Wherefore, petitioner, having failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted……. (???)….and Respondent, having complied with the Petitioner's request for a copy of the referee's hearing transcripts of April 21, 2004, Respondent moves that your honorable Court deny Petitioner's Motion and Addendum…..".
REPLY: the UCBR has clearly resorted to false statements, incorrect information and non-compliance with procedure. Also, in the attempt to over-step and erase the defaults proven in the appellant's Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/ plus Addendum, Respondent has failed to give any viable explaination or retort to several documented issues, including the employers initial fact-finding statements and their transcribed hearing testimony, that willful misconduct was NOT the reason for termination, the missing 34 page letter of request for reconsideration that was not appended to the record and possibly more missing material of testimony, presented by the appellant, or they would not consider that these blatent false statements could be found believable if ALL the evidence and testimony are available for evaluation. "Wherefore, Petitioner, having failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted….." Where are the pages listing all this material if this Respondent believes they have not been presented? It is obviously a rouse to avoid admitting that serious mistakes were made and Immediate Reversal of their Illegal Decisions can be the only recourse possible for this Honorable Court to proceed with, having in its philosophies founded on a more ethical standard of practices than these being resorted to by the Respondent. Therefore, the Appellant moves that this honorable and ethical Court deny the Respondents Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal, and further moves that the Appellant be granted an immediate reversal of all decisions that denied UC Benefits with prejudice.
In conclusion, UCBR counsel, having the disadvantage of arriving late in these proceedings, and to be liberal, may not have been privy to the entire record of testimony and the chronology of evidence presented by the Appellant, is unfortunately lacking an awareness and insight of the urgency of the need for immediate Reversal and disbursement of UC Funds to legally ELIGIBLE claimants. Please review the list of 17 personal tragedies that are suffered within 30 days of a referee's denial, listed on page 6 of the Appellants Motion to Reverse.
This is not a time to "save face", but an opportunity to "man up" and admit honorably that errors have been discovered, many victims have been left homeless, many lives are being destroyed by these merry-go-round delay tactics and policies. Yes, the claimants do eventually go away and leave you alone. They are forced to leave the state, those who survive alive. But these were never the stereotypical images you are holding of hoboes who are too lazy to work. These are people who have worked hard all their lives. Some have degrees, own their own homes and serve on community boards. These are people who were employed full-time, very recently. But in an alarming number of cases, they have been unjustly severed from the workplace through a common practice of deception, slander and framing innocent employees in order to dishonestly lay the groundwork for false statements of "just cause" for termination in order that the employer might avoid UC Benefits payments. These are people who have even been more adept and efficient at doing their job than their supervisors and were viewed as a threat. Therefore the groundwork is laid down to get rid of them "with just cause".
They never deserved to loose their jobs, and now you impose on them homelessness, starvation, banishment and possibly death.
Read my lips. A State, a city, a country cannot survive the budgets required when there are no citizens paying taxes or having consumable income. Everyone and everything is affected by negative, unethical, uncaring, uncompromising policies and practices that would obstruct consumable incomes to the citizens. These are good people being abused.
Please STOP THE ABUSE.
Thank you,
Dawn Naret'
Current Contact Info:
P.O. Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
(Old Original Contact Info-see below):
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa. 17608 (no phone anymore – dependant on free Library computer access)
dawn_naret@emailaccount.com
dawn_naret@yahoo.com
EXIBIT #5
LETTER TO MACAREVICH, ATTY FOR PA STATE:
Dawn M. Naret’
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608
(717) 394-2171
Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
10th floor Labor and Industry Bldg.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
November 14, 2004
Deputy Mackarevich,
On October 25, 2004, I sent a repeat request for records on case no. 1742 CD 2004. You very kindly and very promptly intervened and responded to that request in the absence of Clifford Blaze, Esquire, but you did not send me ALL the records.
Unfortunately, I have reached an end of available waiting time and have submitted a Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice (you’re welcome J) to the Commonwealth Court of Pa, on November 10, 2004.
I also attempted to send you a copy of the correspondence, for Certificate of Service, since I have not been informed of exactly whom, if not yourself, is assuming full duties of the absent Attorney Blaze.
The mailing was returned to me, with refusal to forward it to you. I then faxed it to your fax number listed on your letterhead.
Today, I am mailing you a copy of an Addendum to that Motion. I chose to expand on some dialog.
Again, I thank you, very much, for your intervention and assistance in bringing this case to a long over-due completion.
Regards,
Dawn M. Naret’
LETTER TO PROTHONOTARY:
Dawn Naret’, Attorney, Pro Se
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608-0643
Commonwealth Court of Pa.
Office of the Prothonotary
Irvis Office Bldg. – Rm. 624
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Atten: Mr. Daniel R. Schuckers, Esquire
Regarding: Appellants 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or reverse with Prejudice and 11/10/04 Addendum to be appended to that Motion.
CASE: Dawn Naret’ v. UCBR
No. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04
Dear Mr. Schuckers,
I was awaiting a response, from the UCBR office, within the required 20 days, to the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, filed by me 11/8/04, (prior to the 11/12/04 dead-line for brief submission).
What I received is a partial response to only a few items of contention that prompted the Motion. I can only be liberal to the UCBR and assume that they have given a timely response to that Motion with their 11/24/04 communication, stated in the form of a request for Motion to Dismiss the Appeal of the Petitioner. (???)
It is an unusual response, considering the evidence presented in the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. I am very certain that a dismissal would be, without a doubt, a very serious violation of all laws, codes and procedures that they are obligated to comply with.
Their denial of Due Process was one of the contentious issues and the illegal denial of benefits, where willful misconduct was not proven or stated by the employer, relegate this case beyond the possibility of legal dismissal.
Therefore, I am submitting an OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S APPEAL and also requesting that the justification of this opposition be summarized in my permissible REPLY TO THEIR RESPONSE, as I am submitting it within the required 10 days and I am willing, as I said, to be liberal as to the venue of their 11/24/04 communication.
I hold no negative opinions toward any of the staff currently focusing on this case. I am fully aware of the difficulties they have encountered with staff replacements and various other cogs in the wheel.
I consider myself fortunate that Mr. Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel and Ms. Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant Counsel, should have been willing to come in on this problem situation at such a late date.
I have addressed the Certificate of Service to both or either Mr. Mackarevich or Ms. Tarczy, since I have not been told whom to consider the official replacement of Attorney Clifford Blaze, who left in August 2004.
There has been, repeated lack of communication as well as misinformation that created an unfair tragedy including now; eviction and homelessness, due to the illegal withholding of UC benefit funds.
Because of the situation advancing to such an intensely serious miscarriage of justice, I must beg your compassion and assistance in expediting the reversal and release of UC funds immediately. I have no phone either, and cannot continue to accomplish these necessary clerical communications and requirements.
It is not an incompetence on my part, it is an injustice that I should be required to suffer through so much difficulty to receive what I am already entitled to and was already approved for, before the referee erred in her judgment and knowledge of the UC Law.
I can be contacted by e-mail at:
Dawn_naret@emailaccount.com or
Dawn_naret@yahoo.com
Thank you and regards,
Dawn Naret’
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608
(No phone no.)
EXIBIT #6
LETTER TO PROTHONOTARY
Dawn Naret', Attorney, Pro Se
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608-0643
Commonwealth Court of Pa.
Office of the Prothonotary
Irvis Office Bldg. – Rm. 624
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Atten: Mr. Daniel R. Schuckers, Esquire
Regarding: Appellants 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or reverse with Prejudice and 11/10/04 Addendum to be appended to that Motion.
CASE: Dawn Naret' v. UCBR
No. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04
Dear Mr. Schuckers,
I was awaiting a response, from the UCBR office, within the required 20 days, to the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, filed by me 11/8/04, (prior to the 11/12/04 dead-line for brief submission).
What I received is a partial response to only a few items of contention that prompted the Motion. I can only be liberal to the UCBR and assume that they have given a timely response to that Motion with their 11/24/04 communication, stated in the form of a request for Motion to Dismiss the Appeal of the Petitioner. (???)
It is an unusual response, considering the evidence presented in the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. I am very certain that a dismissal would be, without a doubt, a very serious violation of all laws, codes and procedures that they are obligated to comply with.
Their denial of Due Process was one of the contentious issues and the illegal denial of benefits, where willful misconduct was not proven or stated by the employer, relegate this case beyond the possibility of legal dismissal.
Therefore, I am submitting an OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL and also requesting that the justification of this opposition be summarized in my permissible REPLY TO THEIR RESPONSE, as I am submitting it within the required 10 days and I am willing, as I said, to be liberal as to the venue of their 11/24/04 communication.
I hold no negative opinions toward any of the staff currently focusing on this case. I am fully aware of the difficulties they have encountered with staff replacements and various other cogs in the wheel.
I consider myself fortunate that Mr. Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel and Ms. Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant Counsel, should have been willing to come in on this problem situation at such a late date.
I have addressed the Certificate of Service to both or either Mr. Mackarevich or Ms. Tarczy, since I have not been told whom to consider the official replacement of Attorney Clifford Blaze, who left in August 2004.
There has been, repeated lack of communication as well as misinformation that created an unfair tragedy including now; eviction and homelessness, due to the illegal withholding of UC benefit funds.
Because of the situation advancing to such an intensely serious miscarriage of justice, I must beg your compassion and assistance in expediting the reversal and release of UC funds immediately. I have no phone either, and cannot continue to accomplish these necessary clerical communications and requirements.
It is not an incompetence on my part, it is an injustice that I should be required to suffer through so much difficulty to receive what I am already entitled to and was already approved for, before the referee erred in her judgment and knowledge of the UCBR laws.
Thank you and regards,
Dawn Naret
Current Contact Info as of 2-23-07:
P.O. Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
Reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
Old Original Contact Info: see below
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608
MY LIFE HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED AND DESTROYED BY CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMES. FROM WHITE COLLAR CORPORATE SABOTAGE TO STREET SLIME STALKERS AND FALSE WITNESSES FOR HIRE.
THROUGH IT ALL, I HAVE MAINTAINED MY SANITY, MY INTELLIGENCE, AND MOST OF ALL, MY HONOR. I HAVE DISCOVERED ENEMIES AND CRIMINALS IN EVERY ENDEAVOR I HAVE MADE IN CAREER AND BUSINESS DEALINGS AND HAVE DROPPED MY JAW AT THE INTER-CONNECTED IMPLICATIONS THAT THESE REVELATIONS HAVE COGNIZATED.
TODAY, WILL BEGIN A LONG SOMETIMES CHOPPY DISORTATION, AS I GATHER AND REVEAL THE VICTIMIZATION THAT I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO DURING THE TRADGETY OF MY UNLIVED LIFE.
PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I EXPECT THE USUAL HACKING, INTERFERENCE AND ATTEMPTS OF OBSTRUCTION, BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT.
I MUST EXPOSE THIS DEGENERATE SYSTEM OF EVIL , ESPIONAGE AND GENOCIDE, FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF ALL THOSE VICTIMS STILL IMPRISONED IN ITS PROCESS.
I WILL SUPPORT THEIR INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF VICTIMIZATION WITH FACTS OF MY OWN TO HELP THEM PROVE THAT IT WAS NOT A "COINCIDENCE" OR "ALL IN THEIR MIND".
GOD BLESS AND PROTECT US AS WE "DO THE RIGHT THING".
I CANNOT START AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LIFE LONG ABUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, BUT FOR NOW, I WILL PRESENT SAMPLES OF MORE RECENT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SINCE 1992, AS I GATHER IT TOGETHER.
1ST, IS A SAMPLE OF THE INJUSTICE I SUFFERED IN 2004, BY THE STATE OF PA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEPT., WHEN THEY EVALUATED AN UNJUST TERMINATION FROM A JOB WELL DONE AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY WOULD RATHER VIOLATE THEIR OWN CODES AND RULES THAN TO PROTECT ME FROM EVICTION AND HOMELESSNESS THAT RESULTED FROM THE CORRUPTION THAT WAS THE FUNCTIONING PHILOSOPHY IN THE HARRISBURG AND LANCASTER, PA OFFICES.
1ST IS THE "STATEMENT OF THE CASE", WHICH IS A CHRONOLOGICAL CALENDAR OF HOW THE EVENTS AND DEMISE OF MY FINANCIAL SURVIVAL PLAYED ITSELF OUT. I DID UPDATE THIS, AND HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL WHICH ONLY WENT TO NOV. 2004. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REVEAL HOW THE INJUSTICE OF THE CORRUPTION, IN THE UCBR DEPT AND THE PA JUDICIARY SYSTEM, ADDED STILL ADDITIONAL TRAGEDY ONTO THE DESTRUCTION OF MY LIFE AND ALL EFFORTS TO SURVIVE IN A NORMAL QUALITY OF LIFE.
I INTEND TO UPDATE IT YET AGAIN, TO INCLUDE ALL THE LATER INJUSTICES AND PREDATORY ACTIVITIES AGAINST MY EFFORTS AND MY LIFE, THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURING, SINCE THIS LAST UPDATE OF JUNE 27, 2007, AND REPLACE IT WHENEVER I FIND ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO EXPAND THIS CALENDAR.
FOLLOWING THIS WILL COME EXAMPLES OF THE CORRUPT JUDICIARY PROCESS THAT I WAS VICTIMIZED BY AS WELL. I SERVED AS MY OWN ATTORNEY, AND DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF GOING BY THE BOOK, WITHIN ALL DEADLINES AND PROVIDING ALL REQUIRED AND RELATIVE DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCES.
WHAT DID I GET? SHOVED UNDER THE RUG, BY A CORRUPT GENERAL CLERK AND 2 CORRUPT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGAL DEPT. OF THE PA UCBR.
EXIBIT #1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NARET v. UCBR NO. 1742 CD 2004 (2004)
BY DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:This is an appeal of the final determination of the Unemployment compensation Board Of Review, (hereafter referred to as UCBR), which ruled, on July 17, 2004, that claimant was not entitled to Unemployment Compensation Benefits, (hereafter referred to as UC Benefits).
On February 7, 2004, the Unemployment Compensation Department ruled that the claimant was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law
On March 12, 2004, a service-contract company from missouri named TALX filed an appeal to that determination claiming itself non-legal agent of the employer. A hearing was held April 21, 2004 before referee, Marilyn Gunden. A local employee of the employee was present to represent the employer.
The claimant was late to arrive and was denied during two (2) phone requests to allow her a few more minutes to attend the hearing or to deliver a written testimony to be evaluated before a final decision.
The referee held a 15 minute hearing with the employers representative while the claimant was on the phone but was denied the opportunity to testify. The referee decided on May 17, 2004 in favor of the employer and ruled that the claimant was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(e).
On June 1, 2004 Claimant appealed the decision of the referee with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereafter referred to as UCBR) and forwarded written testimony to the UCBR as instructed by the referee's office.
On July 21, 2004 the UCBR ruled in favor of the referee and denied the claimant's request to have the decision remanded. The presiding board members were: William A Hawkins, Chairman Eileen B. Melvin, MemberRichard W. Bloomingdale, and MemberClaimant sent the UCBR a request for reconsideration and was denied a reconsideration.Claimant is now appealing to the honorable judges of the Commonwealth Court of Pa. A brief was hand-delivered by claimant on October 8, 2004 and was rejected by an unnamed person.
FACTUAL HISTORY:
On February 21, 2004 The Unemployment Compensation Department "Notice of Determination", listed a fact finding survey of the employer.the employer denied willful misconduct in the findings of fact:
1. The claimant was last employed on February 5, 2004
2. The claimant's job title was LPN Charge Nurse.
3. The claimant was discharged as a result of "unsatisfactory work performance".
4. The claimant had been warned about the unsatisfactory work performance.
5. The claimant worked to the best of her ability.
Based on the employers testimony in the fact finding survey, the Unemployment Compensation Department rendered a decision of eligible for UC Benefits pursuant to section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.On March 12, 2004 A service-contract company named TALX, from missouri, filed an appeal to eligibility, claiming itself representative and non-legal agent of the employer. Their appeal was charging willful misconduct that was already denied by the local employer. an appeal hearing should not have been granted
On April 21, 2004 A hearing was held at 10:30AM before referee, Marilyn Gunden. The representative for the employer, Ms. Donna Bowman, Director of nursing, arrived and was invited to inspect the file. She looked at the already existing file containing documents #1 through #31.
The referee stated that she would now enter items #1 through #31, (that were not presented by Ms. Bowman), into the record if THERE was no objection, and Ms. Bowman was sworn in for testimony. The claimant was late for the hearing. She phoned in to request a short recess of a few minutes untill she could arrive. The request was denied. She was told that the hearing had already started and she was too late to attend.
She phoned back a second time to request permission to drop off a written testimony, including evidence to be evaluated before a final decision by the referee. The request was denied. She was told that she would have an opportunity to present testimony to the UCBR, in an appeal process available to her if the referee decided in favor of the employer.
The hearing lasted 15 minutes and the claimant was on the phone twice, during that time, trying to attend or at least drop off written testimony.
On May 17, 2004 the referee made a determination in favor of the employer and reversed the original determination of eligible to not eligible.
On June 1, 2004 claimant filed an appeal to the UCBR, and mailed to them a 15 page initial cover letter plus 50 pages of example correspondence she had had with her superiors, aiding them in having full knowledge of problem areas and reporting her efforts to inspire state and corporate compliance and efficient functioning in the facility.
She requested a timely review, by the UCBR, because UC Benefits were immediately cut off upon the referee's decision of not eligible.
On July 6, 2004 A letter of inquiry was sent to Mr. Bill Truskey, Legislative Liaison for UCBR from the honorable Mike Sturla, PA State Representative to attempt to aid the claimant, his constituent, in ending the financial duress being suffered while awaiting remanding by the UCBR upon examination of all the testimony and evidence presented.
On July 21, 2004, three (3) months after the referee's hearing, the UCBR supported the referee's decision and denied eligibility of UC Benefits based on; "the entire record of the prior proceedings, including the testimony submitted at the referee's hearing".
There was no due process available to the claimant. Her testimony and evidence were not even evaluated in the appeal. There was no appeal process.
Her testimony was rejected from being accepted into the record. The discarding of the testimony of the claimant was stated to have been done because; "The claimant has not established good cause for her actions. The claimant's request that the record be remanded for additional testimony (the claimant's ONLY testimony) is denied as she has not advanced proper cause for her failure to appear at the original referee's hearing.".
Page one (1) and page two (2) of the 15 page initial letter filing appeal to the UCBR gave a clear explanation that the claimant was indeed attempting to attend but was forbidden to attend and also forbidden to deliver written testimony.
On July 28, 2004 claimant submitted a request for forms to enter an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of PA., in the event that a reconsideration would also be denied by the UCBR.
On July 29,2004, following a telephone request, a written request for all transcripts and records of the hearing was e-mailed to the UCBR.
On July 29, 2004 a five (5) page brief request for reconsideration, citing the list of items being appealed, was faxed to the UCBR.
On July 29, 2004 Claimant also post-marked and mailed a 34 page hard-copy letter to the UCBR, making a formal request for reconsideration and listing specific arguments to the final decision. The specific arguments from this letter were used in the original brief presented October 8, 2004, on pages two (2) through thirty-three (33) of the "brief of petitioner" portion listed in the table of contents. (That original brief was rejected and this one is a re-submission of brief.)
On July 29, 2004, The same day the e-mail and faxed requests were received by the UCBR, the staff of the UCBR prepared a packet of several form letters, acknowledging receipt of communications, but did not include any copies of the record of the hearing.
On August 4, 2004, five (5) days later, UCBR denied the request for reconsideration leaving the denial decision standing as final.
On August 5, 2004 claimant filed official forms, requesting an appeal to the decision of the UCBR, in the Commonwealth Court of Pa., prior to the 30 day deadline of August 30, 2004, and following the denial for reconsideration.
On September 2, 2004 a motion was filed and approved requesting permission to submit fewer number of briefs to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. claimant had still not received copies of hearing records that were imperative to the preparation of the court brief.
There was also a discrepancy existing with the name of legal council for the UCBR, listed on the order to submit a brief by October 12, 2004. Council listed was Clifford Blaze, Esquire, c/o UCBR, respondent. Unable to locate a phone # for attorney Blaze.
On October 8, 2004 Claimant traveled to Harrisburg, Pa and hand delivered five (5) copies of brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pa. prior to the October 12, 2004 deadline.
Also, one (1) copy of brief and certificate of service were delivered and accepted by ms. Denise Roddy, Supervisor of UCBR, 10 th floor Labor and Industry Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. Ms. Roddy signed the receipt of acceptance and explained that Clifford Blaze, Esquire had left his assignment as legal council for the UCBR in August 2004 and she was currently handling appeals for the UCBR. Claimant had still received no response to two (2) requests for copies of hearing records, but was forced to submit a brief before the deadline.
On October 13, 2004 five (5) days later, claimant received an order of rejection of brief with a full list of required form, but no listing of any specific inconsistency to acceptable form. There was also no copy of brief returned with the order.
This created great unfair demand to create and submit a new brief because no indication was given as to why the original had been rejected. The new deadline for submission was November 12, 2004.
On October 25, 2004 claimant e-mailed a third (3rd) request to the UCBR to please expidite the July 29th telephone and e-mail request for copies of the hearing records.
On October 26, 2004 that e-mail was responded to and a transcript of the taped testimony of the employers representative was forwarded to the claimant by Gerard M. Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Council for UCBR. However, on page two (2) of the transcript a reference was made to documents #1 through #31 being placed into the file before the employers representative arrived at the referee's office. The representative was given an opportunity to look at them and then they were entered into the record and the representative was sworn in to begin testimony.
On October 25, 2004 claimant mailed a hard copy letter to the Commonwealth Court requesting, "to re-open records of this proceeding for the reception of further evidence." and also requesting a verification that all major testimony and correspondence, from claimant to the UCBR, were available in the file presented to the Commonwealth Court of Pa.
"My main concerns are that you have copies of: 15 page initial letter to UCBR requesting an appeal, a 50 page packet of sample communications to my superiors and a 34 page letter requesting a reconsideration of the UCBR denial of my request for an appeal. and an authentic copy of corporate termination rules to be included.". (none was presented to the referee, termination policy and "just cause" requirements were accepted on hearsayof the representative).
On October 26, 2004 a response to that letter was prepared and mailed to claimant by Mr. C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk. Verification was given of the presence of a 15 page initial letter, a 50-page packet of sample correspondence to superiors and the five page brief request for reconsideration that was faxed on July 29, 2004.
It was discovered that the hard copy full request for reconsideration, with itemized points of dispute, that was post-marked the same day, was not included in the file. There was no mention of records and transcripts of the hearing that were available.
"If you believe the record is incomplete, you may file a motion to modify the record with this court." The motion to modify the record was the letter he was responding to. The request to re-open the records for reception of further evidence was already submitted.
On November 3, 2004 claimant e-mailed a forth (4th) request for full release of all records of hearing, specifically documents #1 through #31 that were entered into the record on page two (2) of the transcript, but not identified or quoted from during the hearing and not presented by the employers representative during testimony. (Claimant is now facing a deadline of November 12, 2004 for re-submission of brief.)
On November 8, 2004 The 4th request to the UCBR for the remaining records of the hearing, specifically documents labeled #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) have not been forwarded for inspection or consideration in the preparation of the replacement brief demanded by C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk.
Claimant is therefore requesting an immediate remand or reversal with prejudice on this case due to lack of timely release of records that are imperative to the preparation of the brief.
We are now four (4) days from the deadline of November 12, 2004 slated for submission. It is inconsistent with PA Code 101.54 which requires timely release of "INFORMATION FROM THE FILE" that are necessary for the preparation of a brief.
NOVEMBER 10 Post-mailed Official Motion by Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice to Commonwealth Court. Included a duplicate copy of the 34 page letter, requesting re-consideration, that was not appended to the record by UCBR, as verified by Mr Hostutler, Chief Prothonotary. E-mailed copy and Certificate of Service to Gerard Mackarevich .
NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phone call from Mr. Don Wagner, Prothonotary clerk, requesting Copy of Certificate of Service for Motion to be forwarded. Acknowledged receipt of Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice.Provided Fax # 717-787-9559. "no hard-copy follow up required"
NOVEMBER 11, 2004 Phoned P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative to request permission to have faxing done by his staff. He agreed to leave written permission for assistance to be given Monday – I declined immediate need.
NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Discovered that E-Mail to Deputy Mackarevich was returned by the UC Dept. staff with a note that this should be sent to Commonwealth Court (??).Faxed copies instead to number listed on Deputy Mackarevich's stationery 717-783-5027. – "Successful Transmission" – From F&M College Campus.
NOVEMBER 12, 2004 Also faxed copy of Certificate of Service to Mr. Wagner, per his request, at number provided, "Successful Send" – From F&M College Campus.
November 14, 2004 Prepared Addendum to Motion of the Appellant to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice and faxed to both Commonwealth Court at the number provided by Mr. Wagner, Prothonotary Ofc. And to Deputy Mackarevich at his ofc. Fax number. Included a cover letter with a 5 th request for the remaining records, specifically items #1 to #31. Transmission Incompleted at F&M College Campus. Resent both from Office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. –"Successful Send" left copy in his office file.
NOVEMBER 26, Received copy and Certificate of Service for 11/24/04 Motion by UCBR to Dismiss Petitioner"s Appeal, submitted by UCBR Counsel, Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant counsel for UCBR. Motion, in its text, acknowledges receipt of; 10/25/04 request for records that was E-Mailed to the same address; as the later Motion by the Appellant to Remand, that the staff refused to accept for Deputy Mackarevich. Therefore, this was a correct number and the delivery should not have been refused.
The text in the Motion by the UCBR to Dismiss, also acknowledges receipt of my 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, plus Addendum, plus cover letter making the 5 th request for missing records.
NOVEMBER 29, 2004 Prepared Opposition to the Motion by Janet M. Tarczy to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal.
NOVEMBER 30, 2004 Faxed copies of Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to both Counselors Mackarevich and Tarczy at UCBR and to Commonwealth Court, using same correct fax numbers. – "Successful Transmission" from the office of P. Michael Sturla, Pa State Representative. Left a copy of this plus 5 other letters of communication, pertaining to this case, in his hard copy file.
Transmitted E-Mail msg. and attachment of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss document to his Legal Liaison, Pat Coller to make available in his system file.
DECEMBER 6, 2004 Received notice from Prothonotary's office that this case will be dismissed, per request of UCBR, due to lack of reponses or evident interest from appellant, IF a brief is not submitted by Dec. 15, 2004.
* Prothonotary Clerk is still refusing to submit the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice TO THE JUDGE, as is required to be done, immediately upon receipt. The prothonotary clerk is ALSO still demanding submission of a brief which was deemed a canceled dead-line requirement, upon the submission of the motion to remand or reverse with prejudice.
BRIEF WAS NOT SUBMITTED – BECAUSE LEGAL PA PROTOCOL CANCELED IT AS A REQUIRED SUBMISSION, PENDING INVESTIGATION, BY THE JUDGE, INTO COMPLAINTS OF LACK OF COOPERATION FROM UCBR.
THE UCBR HAD 20 DAYS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES TO THE COMPLAINT AND NEVER OFFERED A DEFENCE. THEY INSTEAD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPELLENT'S CASE. A CLEAR REJECTION OF PROPER PROTOCOL AND FINAL EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIED AND VALIDATED THE APPELLANTS CHARGE OF NO COOPERATION.
CASE WAS DISMISSED AND CLOSED 12-15-04 BY DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE UCBR COMMANDING AND CONTROLLING THE PROTHONOTARY CLERK.
(The official Judge never heard of it or saw the evidence – the PA Judicial System was to corrupt to follow the proper procedural process).
ON DEC. 13, 2005, APPELLANT WAS EVICTED FROM APARTMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT. HAVING NO WHERE TO GO, NO MONEY AND NO VEHICLE, SET OUT ON FOOT. WITH A PULL TOTE. ALL PERSONAL BELONGINGS WERE LOST, INCLUDING FAMILY PHOTOS, HISTORY, ANTIQUES AND PIECES OF ORIGINAL ART, COLLECTOR PRINTS AND LITHOGRAPHS
.
APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SEEK SHELTER IN THE LOCAL TOWN HOMELESS SHELTER.
OVER-EXPOSURE TO INSECTICIDE AND A DEPLORABLE ENVIRONMENT, NOW FOLLOWED THE RECENT ON-SET OF DETERIORATING HEALTH THAT WAS INITIATED WHILE EMPLOYED AT THE LAST JOB POSITION.
THERE WERE CONSTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS CAUSING AN ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE OCCURRENCE OF RESPIRATORY AND INFECTIOUS ILLNESSES AMONG STAFF AND RESIDENTS.
APPELLANT WAS HOSPITALIZED AND DIAGNOSED WITH C.O.P.D., CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE AND PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE.
APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICAL DISABILITY WAS FILED AND APPROVED AND APPEALANT COULD NEVER WORK AGAIN.
THE CASH BENEFIT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY WAS ONLY $940. PER MONTH WITH NO MEDICARE COVERAGE PERMITTED FOR 2 YEARS.
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA DEMANDED A GARNISHMENT, FOR A DELINQUENT STUDENT LOAN, TO BE SEIZED EVERY MONTH OUT OF THE BENEFIT CHECK, REDUCING INCOME TO $750 PER MONTH AND CANCELLED STATE MEDICAL COVERAGE THE SAME DAY THAT FEDERAL DISABILITY WAS APPROVED.
STATE AND FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES CONTINUE TO ACT WITH OBSTRUCTION AND PREJUDICE, IE: SECTION 8 LOW-INCOME HOUSING APPLICATION WAS REJECTED THREE TIMES FOR LANDLORD EVICTION OR BAD CREDIT REPORT. ALSO ACTION HOUSING AGENCY REJECTED APPLICATION FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING, DUE TO BAD CREDIT REPORT. THESE ATROSITIES OF PRDJUDICE AGAINST HOMELESS PEOPLE IN FINANCIAL CRISIS ARE PREVENTING THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING HOUSING. THE MEGER INCOME WOULD NOT AFFORD RENT, UTILITIES AND FOOD.
JUNE 27, 2007 APPEALANT IS STILL HOMELESS AND RECEIVING APPROX. $750 PER MONTH SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT LAST 30 DAYS, WHILE FORCED TO OBTAIN MEALS IN RESTURANTS. USUALLY, THE LAST 2 WEEKS OF THE MONTH ARE SPENT EATING CRACKERS OR CHIPS.
NIGHTS ARE SPENT SITTING UP ON A BENCH WAITING UNTIL THE BUSSES START RUNNING SO YOU CAN GET TO A BATHROOM.
SLEEP OCCURS IN SHORT DOZING PERIODS, WHENEVER YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, WITHOUT SOMEONE TAPPING YOU ON THE SHOULDER AND TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN’T SLEEP HERE. …………….SOME CITIZENS ARE LESS THAN HUMAN.
Current Contact info:
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 2315,Pittsburgh, Pa., 15230-2315
EMAIL: (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
DAWN NARET’
EMAIL:
Reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
WEB SITES:
http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com/ “WE THE PEOPLE”
http://www.chagrinning.blogspot.com/ “CHAGRINNING”
http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com/ “BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE A LATTE ?”
http://www.dawnnaret.blog.com/ “58 YEAR OLD NATURAL-BORN LADY”
EXIBIT #2
MOTION TO REMAND or REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
NARET' v. UCBR (2004) NO. 1742 CD 2004
Dawn Naret', Attorney for the Appellant
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa. 17608
Commonwealth Court of Pa
Irvis Office Bldg. - Room 624
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
November 8, 2004
I am submitting, today, an official motion to immediately remand or
reverse with prejudice, the case referenced above.
I have made four (4) requests for full records of the hearing held
April 21, 2004 and did finally have the kind intervention of Gerard
M. Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Council of UCBR, who recently moved to
assist with the incompleted cases of Clifford Blaze, Esquire, who left
in August, 2004.
Deputy Markarevich forwarded the transcript of the taped testimony on
my 3rd request of October 25, 2004 to the UCBR for all records. The
deadline for my brief had been October 12, 2004. I submitted brief, in
person, on October 8, 2004 and it was rejected by an Unnamed Person
who did not return them, but sent me a form instruction list of
required brief form and gave me a new deadline of November 12, 2004.
That is only four (4) days away and it is clear that these records
have not been forwarded within reasonable time as required by
Pennsylvania Code 101.54 stating; "When an interested party or his
representative requests information from the file of the Board in
order to present and maintain the issues at a hearing before a referee
or the Board, or in an appeal to the Court, such information
(including the hearing transcript, where the record was transcribed)
shall be made available at a reasonable time to the party and his
representative, without charge."
Upon examination of these transcripts, it was discovered that before
the employers witness arrived, there was were thirty-one (31)
documents already present in the file. The witness was given an
opportunity to view them, upon arrival, and did not object to their
inclusion in the file. But the items were Never mentioned in the
hearing, never identified and never quoted from.
I Immediately made a 4th request to the UCBR, repeating that I needed
ALL RECORDS OF THE HEARING and I have had no response.
It should be clarified to this honorable Court, that on page one (1)
of the transcript, the referee is verifying names and addresses:
"The employer of record is Beverly Health Care in care of TALX UC
Express, P. O. Box 283, St. Louis Missouri, 63166. Is that the address
you'd like to use?". Five (5) sentences later, is a partial response
sentence stating; " This is just a corporate…" (unfinished statement).
The truth is that TALX is not the employer or even affiliated with the
employer except as a service-contractor, hired to appeal EVERY
Unemployment Compensation Claim filed, in order to reduce the
obligatory payments, of the employer, to the State Treasury
Department, for the use in UC Benefit payments. It was TALX who filed
this appeal after the employer already denied a situation of willful
misconduct on the initial fact-finding.
TALX is therefore not the employer or even a viable interested party
because they are not attorneys qualifying as representatives,
acceptable to present evidence or give testimony without being
Judicially objected to as hearsay.
May I cite: Phila. Elec. Co. v. UCBR, 129 Pa Cmwlth 417, 565 A2d 1246 (1989):
"It is hearsay for a Licensed Physicians Assistant to read a test
report into evidence where the assistant is not the person who
conducted the test.", ( The Physician Assistant's reading of a lab
report on test samples is not the testimony of an expert witness on
the stand using his/her expertise, rather, "it is the testimony of a
witness who merely reiterates and parrots the conclusions of
another.") ld.@ 1248.
Also, according to; Perminter v. UCBR 426 A2d 245:
" Hearsay evidence, although properly objected to, may be used as a
basis for further questioning by the referee. The testimony elicited
through the hearsay itself must NOT be given substantive evidentiary
value." ( It is then of itself, inadmissible as evidence and should be
struck from the record).
These documents, labeled #1 (one) through # 31 (thirty-one), which I
still have not received, were not presented by the employer, who
attended the hearing and brought only one exhibit labeled employer's
exhibit # 1 (one). They also were never mentioned in the hearing,
never identified and never quoted from.
Therefore, as they have been held from inspection, necessary for the
proper presentation of this appeal, I make a motion that these
documents labeled #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) be viewed as
hearsay evidence and in suspect of authenticity or relevance to this
specific claimant and be struck from the record as inadmissible or
hearsay evidence that could adversely affect the fact-finding and
evaluation of this case.
On the initial fact-finding, conducted by the Department of
Unemployment Compensation, the employer denied that the claimant was
terminated for "willful misconduct", and listed "poor work
performance" as their motivating factor and also stated that "she did
the best she could". This was NOT a charge of "willful misconduct".
During the hearing, the transcripts reveal that the employer, although
still not admitting that the claimant was unfairly accused of
incidents that she insisted she was not a party to, still heard the
referee remind her, (according to page two (2) of the transcript),
that she held the BURDEN OF PROOF to present evidence that "willful
misconduct" had occurred. She STILL DENIED IT UNDER OATH and testified
that the claimant was terminated for "poor work performance".
On the last line of page five (5) she is asked if the incident,
(which the claimant denied being part of), was considered a serious
"Category I" incident, (the company classifies either a Category I or
a Category II on complaints) and the EW (employers witness) stated:
"Actually, no it was Category II."
On page six (6), an explanation of the Categories is requested by the referee:
EMPLOYER: (straight testimony without interruption):
"Actually Category…if we… Category II is the LESS serious of the
Categories. Category I is the more serious and corporate actually
changed that somewhat within the past year. If in other words if we
give a Category I they expect us to immediately suspend somebody. So
we now for the most part use Category II's unless it's something
extremely, extremely serious. We tend to use the Category II because
it fits right in with POOR WORK QUALITY. It's a 2 point…2.2, It's POOR
WORK QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY and that's…"
The employer is then asked what the policy is then for Category II
(less serious) policy and she explains:
EMPLOYER:
"Right…right oh…and she was….actually I'm sorry I should've
said…mentioned that…after 4 warnings the counceling's don't count.
After 4 warnings it's suspension pending investigation for
termination. And that was her 4th".
Therefore, although the employer appears to have satisfied the four
warnings requirement for suspension, she never testified whether there
was an investigation conducted as was ALSO required, according to her
testimony. There were several discrepancies in the testimony of the
employer that are not consistent with issues that occurred or that
qualify
within the judicial definition of "willful misconduct". The employer
stated and again repeated that the claimant was charged with Category
II , LESS serious complaints and a 2 point complaint is POOR WORK
QUALITY.
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT WAS NEVER PROVEN BY THE EMPLOYER. The employer also
failed to present an official copy of the current company policy of
required procedure for termination. The reasons and the procedure
testified to, were not acceptable reasons for termination, according
to actual company policy. The referee accepted hearsay testimony of
questionable documents #1 (one) through #31 (thirty-one) AND hearsay
testimony of what the disciplinary policy was and was blindly misled
to believe that the claimant was terminated with "just cause".
The term "just cause" may vary in as many specific interpretations as
there are different employers who determine their own policies and
procedures. That is why the UCBR is forbidden to deny benefits
according to proven "just cause", but must have proof of "willful
misconduct", fully demonstrated as Judicially Defined in Section 402
(e):
(1) the wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interests, or
(2) the deliberate violation of rules; or
(3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can
rightfully expect from his employee; or
(4) negligence which manifests as culpability, wrongful INTENT, EVIL
DESIGN OR INTENTIONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL disregard for the employer's
interests or the employee's duties and obligations.
These are extremely serious, intentional/deliberate/willful actions
that MUST occur before a label of "willful misconduct" can be applied.
Negligence of clocking back in after lunch may be a company's policy
for "just cause" termination, if committed repeatedly, but it is not a
negligence of the magnitude of the judicial definition of "willful
misconduct" required to deny benefits and none were even intimated by
the employer and definitely none were proven because none occurred.
My third reason for submitting a motion to remand and reverse with
prejudice, is that the UCBR failed to amend a 34-page letter of
request for reconsideration to the record of the case. On July 29,
2004 I responded to the letter of denial on appeal from the UCBR
decision of July 21, 2004. I sent on that day; an e-mail requesting
copies of all records, I faxed a five (5) page brief letter of timely
appeal for reconsideration and I post-marked a hard copy letter of
detailed point by point dispute to the procedure opinions and findings
as stated in the denial letter.
I am forwarding a duplicate copy with this communication. I already
submitted a petition to open the record for admission of additional
evidence on October 25, 2004, which was the letter responded to by
C.R. Hostutler on October 26, 2004. The purpose of that request was
the extended wait for copies of the record that I anticipated might
need additional rebuttal opportunity. This copy of the 34 page letter
is not new evidence but was part of the record of the request for
reconsideration WHERE THE REQUEST WAS DENIED AND NOT APPENDED TO THE
RECORD FOR EVALUATION UPON APPEAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT.
This is yet another violation of Pennsylvania Code:
"Where written application for reopening of a hearing was made to the
board and there is no evidence that the referee or the board appended
to the record the request, ANY supporting material, and the ruling on
the request, A DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMANTS APPEAL WILL BE REVERSED AND
THE RECORD REMANDED FOR A DETERMINATION OF PROPER CAUSE FOR CLAIMANTS
FAILURE TO ATTEND THE REFEREE'S HEARING."
-ORTIZ V. UCBR 85 PA CMWLTH, 327, 331, 481 A2D 1385
"Finally, a "proper cause" inquiry for non-appearance does NOT
impermissibly reallocate the burden of proof in a "willful misconduct"
setting.".
-FLORES V. UCBR 686 A 2D 66 (PA CMWLTH 1996)
With this over-whelming amount of error clearly proven in the
transcripts and records, I can only trust that this honorable Court
will end the injustice that has so extremely burdened and financially
destroyed this claimant since the initial unfair dismissal from her
job. Evidence proves that she was an excellent example of a
self-starter who gave extra effort in every area to assist her
employer with compliance to all laws, policies and organizational
efforts.
This attempt, by the employer to be released from payment of UC
Benefits stands as a despicable example of dishonest manipulation of
the Law and of the calendars of all the departments who have given
focus to this case. The employer's witness could not bring herself to
state "willful misconduct" because she knew it never existed in this
claimant's performance. And she admitted it twice in clarity.
The claimant, meanwhile:
(1) has a ruined reputation of job performance,
(2) was unexpectedly cut off from her only source of income when the
referee made the error of reversing her initial correct determination
of ELIGIBLE to denied benefits,
(3) she has suffered through five (5) whole months of absolutely no income,
(4) has been penniless without even 50 cents to buy a newspaper or
take a bus for any job searching or attending,
(5) her monthly accounts have not been able to receive any payments
and have now been reported to the Credit Bureau
(6) the Credit Bureau will now be giving an unfavorable report on her
FOR 7 YEARS
(7) she will have difficulty obtaining a new position from an unfair
record of her work
(8) she will have difficulty passing a credit check for a new position
(9) she will have difficulty passing a credit check for a new residence
(10) she has received notice of utilities to be turned off for non-payment
(11) she has received notice of eviction proceedings initiated already
by her landlord
(12) her bank has closed both her checking and savings accounts for
having a zero balance for too long
(13) she was seeking food at food banks to survive
(14) has suffered immense stress and will continue to be adversely
affected by this horrible miscarriage of justice for many years
(15) she has no family or friends to move in with and will become homeless
(16) she will have no address to receive mail of notice of hearing or
reinstatement or receive benefit checks necessary to survive
starvation and death
(17) if you have no residence address, you are not eligible for food
stamps or food bank donation pick-ups.
The state cuts you off and leaves you to starvation.
This is a shocking reality that must come to light for the protection
of citizens in this country. These aggressive moves to cut citizens
off from income is resulting in unbelievable numbers of increased
homelessness.
The UCBR admits to denying 100 to 200 cases per day just in one
office. To extend the multiplication, that is 24,000 to 48,000
citizen families per year placed in this position of possible
homelessness and total destruction to the magnitude that this claimant
is living as the very current reality of facing death within weeks
from now in spite of being totally healthy, with no acute, chronic or
fatal illness. What is Pennsylvania State doing to it's citizens? Why
are they denying with prejudice, benefits for people who have worked
all their lives? Now, to find out that if you no longer have an
address, you are ineligible for any aid declared to be available to
the needy. Who is more needy than a person who has no home?
This case never should have reached this point or been extended to
this amount of time or have to have traveled to this level of the
judicial system before someone would stop the violations of Civil
Rights, of Due Process, of UC Law and of Pa Codes and Statutes.
We have a very well designed litigation system, when it is followed
according to the original rules and intentions. The system was a
non-prejudice system that protected employees from being unfairly
dismissed or denied benefits during the transitional period. Of recent
years it has been digressing toward a system of prejudice for the
employer and denial of Due Process for the claimants.
The major problem seems to be the cutting off of UC Benefits before an
appeal has been decided. Helpful to this may first be to revise the
initial appeal rules to reject appeals being filed by these contract
companies that receive commission on every case they book into appeal
of eligibility. They are creating havoc on the calendar and causing
delays of reinstatement that never should have been lost and have
created financial crisis while they were cut-off. They also are not
able to present evidence or testimony as I have shown you in the Pa
Codes. Their involvement in these cases is inadmissible and removal of
them would greatly reduce the number of unjustified applications for
appeal of eligibility.
A second major problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the referee's
between termination for "just cause" by the employer and the true
requirements of the label "willful misconduct". Too many cases are
being denied without meeting the requirements of the full judicial
definition of the term "willful misconduct"
Of serious crisis development is that the Department of Unemployment
Compensation cuts off benefits immediately, upon the referee's
decision to reverse the eligible status, without giving any
consideration to the fact that the case has entered an appeal status
and the determination is not a final.
Next, the same department sends out a Repayment Due notice, in this
case it was assigned as a "no-fault" repay obligation for funds
already received. THE CLAIMANT MUST NOW ALSO REQUEST THE COURT TO
PERMIT RELIEF FROM THIS REPAYMENT OBLIGATION ON FUNDS SHE WAS ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CUT OFF FROM.
CLAIMANT MUST ALSO APPEAL TO THE COURT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT
THIS CRISIS CREATED BY SO MANY ERRORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED
TO REACH THIS POINT AND THE CLAIMANT IS REQUESTING RELEASE OF BENEFIT
CHECKS FOR EVERY WEEK SINCE CUT OFF ON MAY 11, 2004 UNTIL DECISION
DATE. AND THEREAFTER FOR AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, AS IT SHALL
TAKE, TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT AND RETAIN EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE SHE WAS
ROBBED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THROUGH THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
WITH THE AID OF UC BENEFITS AND ENDED UP INSTEAD ON THE OUTSIDE OF A
HUGE IRON CURTAIN THAT HAD NO EMPATHY OR SHAME FOR IT'S ABUSES.
But, these errors should be caught and corrected immediately by the
UCBR. Why are they passed through?
Why is the UCBR consistently violating Pa Code with endless
merry-go-round arguments that they will not re-open a case or consider
a remand because the claimant failed to attend a hearing? I have also
shown you that these arguments are now ceased forever. They are
inconsistent with the UC Law, Commonwealth Court Standards, Pa Code,
Federal Laws and Civil Rights. The constant defense that they write
their own policy and what violations, they are alledged to have
committed, are acceptable according to their policy, is unacceptable
to the higher authorities according to the higher Laws and
policies that they are obligated to be consistent with in their policymaking..
May I cite: VAN v. UCBR 508 PA 139, 494 A2D 1081 (1985):
"ALTHOUGH THE HEARINGS ARE INFORMAL, THEY INVOLVE SWORN TESTIMONY,
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND BY ALL THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL RULES OF A
LAW COURT SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
THIS MUST BE THE END OF POLICIES BEING MIS-INTERPRETED OR USED WITHOUT
FULL APPROVAL AND PROPER AMMENDMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGHER
RIGHTS AND STANDARDS AND LAWS PROTECTING THESE INDIVIDUALS THEY SERVE.
I thank you very much for a most enlightening experience. I have
learned much and hope to be able to use the expanded knowledge
productively, if I am unable to save my own life, perhaps my testimony
will inspire changes in the system that may save someone else's life.
You face an extremely serious responsibility of not only attempting to
have my funds released and delivered before it is too late, but to
initiate immediate changes in this predatory system that has knarled
its demon head above the values and honor, that our country and our
judicial system once held as it's identity and it's genuine character.
DAWN M. NARET'
Current Contact Info as of 2-23-07:
P.O.Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
EXIBIT #3
ADDENDUM TO:
MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
CASE NO. 1742 CD 2004
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 10, 2004
APPENDED NOVEMBER 14, 2004
BY DAWN M. NARET', ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
On April 21, 2004, during the original hearing, the claimant called into the office with a question on directions and was told that the hearing had already started and she would not be able to attend. She requested a continuance of a few minutes until she could arrive and the denial was repeated that the hearing had already started and she would not be able to attend.
Within minutes, she called back, a second time and requested permission to at least drop-off a written testimony, with supporting documents of evidence, that she wished to present and have considered before a final decision.
This request was also denied and she was told that she would have an opportunity to present written testimony in an appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), if the referee decided in favor of the employer.
I hold this interactive incident as further evidence of prejudice that has been unjustly obstructing the right to due process and a fair hearing, without prejudice, as required to be conducted by the UCBR.
May I repeat VANN v. UCBR 508 Pa 139, 494 A2d 1081 (1985):
"ALTHOUGH THE HEARINGS ARE INFORMAL, THEY INVOLVE SWORN TESTIMONY, CROSS-EXAMINATION AND RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND BY ALL THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL RULES OF A LAW COURT, SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
The claimant appeals to this honorable court to acknowledge, in their conclusion, that where opinions and policies have, on several occasions, agreed that if an employer is absent from the hearing, then the available record, which is usually the initial fact-finding plus the additional written testimony and material evidence, mailed in by the employer, as reasons why they are appealing an initial determination of eligibility, will be enough information in the record for the referee to evaluate and make a final decision, even in the absence of the employer.
The charge of prejudice lies in the acceptance of the additional written testimony, with any material evidence, that has been mailed-in and accepted into the record, in the absence of the employer, to be considered before a final decision by the referee.
If then, the employer has been given the opportunity to mail-in additional written testimony and material evidence, to be entered into the record before a final decision, even in his/her absence, then the same situation, from the aspect of the claimant, where the claimant is absent from the hearing, and the referee is permitted to conduct the hearing in their absence and determine a final decision based upon the available record, which includes the written testimony and material evidence mailed-in, by the employer, with their petition for an appeal, then the claimant, who is absent, is not being given the same opportunity for a fair hearing unless they are also afforded the same opportunity to deliver or mail-in written testimony as the employer did.
A final decision, where the employer was afforded the opportunity to add additional written testimony to the record and the claimant was denied or not offered the same opportunity, is a final decision formed with prejudice, and the claimant has not been offered the opportunity for a fair hearing.
Due process has then been violated if the final decision is made in the absence of the claimant and a continuance has been denied. Also, the employer was not obligated to prove "proper cause" for being absent, in order to have his/her written testimony accepted into the record prior to the final decision, and neither can the claimant be demanded to prove, "proper cause" for absence, before being afforded an opportunity for submitting a written testimony.
The absence of a claimant does not waive the right to due process and a Fair Hearing. Therefore, having a hearing scheduled, where they could not attend, was NOT giving them full opportunity for a fair hearing, if the opportunity for submission of written testimony, to be evaluated before a final decision has been made, has been denied.
The referee is obligated to decide these cases on their merit, according to the information available in the record. If that information is unjustly accepted from one party and not the other party, then the merit is not fairly determinable, if the referee is evaluating, with prejudice, the record of only one party.
The opportunity to submit written testimony cannot be denied to the claimant, if it is not denied to the employer. A final decision must include additional written testimony, of the claimant, if it accepts additional written testimony of the employer.
The initial fact-finding affords the employer an initial testimony written into the record. The employee is notified of the fact-finding comments, of the employer, in the initial determination letter from the Unemployment Compensation Department (UC Dept.).
The employee is NOT given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebutt any of these comments. If the UC Dept. determines that the employee is eligible for benefits, the employer is afforded the opportunity to appeal the determination and is given a SECOND opportunity in stating reasons why they seek appeal and to attach any material evidence they wish to have accepted into the record. The employee is not given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebutt any of these new comments either, until the hearing.
If the employee cannot attend the hearing, then there are TWO mailed-in written testimonies of the employer and NONE from the employee, to be evaluated according to merit. What is going to be evaluated? It is a ONE-SIDED, PREJUDICED EVALUATION PROCESS.
Now, if there is yet the attendance of the employer, with or without accompanying witnesses, giving oral testimony, objecting to the eligibility of benefits, in the absence of the employee, then the merit, of the record, now contains at least THREE and possibly more testimonies, if witnesses were present, from the employer and NONE from the employee.
In both situations, where the employer is absent or not absent, the record is unjustly tipped in favor of the employer and is obviously being evaluated with prejudice, if it is evaluated without at least ONE opportunity, for even ONE written testimony to be entered into the record, from the employee, in the event of their absence from the physical hearing. They clearly have NOT been afforded the opportunity of a fair hearing.
The obligatory evaluation, without prejudice, by the referee, before making a final decision, cannot be waived by the referee, by the claimant, by the employer or by the UCBR, who are also obligated to assure the opportunity for a fair hearing and order a continuance if there is any doubt that this was accomplished at the referee's hearing. A ONE-SIDED, PREJUDICED EVALUATION PROCESS is definitely cause to doubt that a fair hearing was indeed afforded.
It is a Constitutional Right to due process, without prejudice, and it is a Fundamental Right that the UCBR is obligated to be consistent with in their policymaking, according to, again I would like to reiterate: VAN V. UCBR 508 PA 139, 494 A2d 1081 (1985), "SO LONG AS CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
These Fundamental Rights, even in an informal UCBR setting, were already upheld by the Supreme Court in; DILLIPLAIN v. LEHIGH VLY. TRUST CO. 457 PA 255, 322 A2d 114 (1974). AND DILLIPLAIN WAS LATER SPECIFICALLY EXTENDED TO COVER UCBR PROCEEDINGS IN WING v. UCBR.
IN WING v. UCBR 496 PA 113, 436 A2d 179 (1981), the Supreme Court advised the UCBR to, "DISCARD THE DOCTRINE". The Supreme Court explained the rationale for "DISCARDING THE DOCTRINE", (the doctrine of Fundamental error) by noting; " THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TRIBUNAL MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITS ERRORS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE; DILIGENT PREPARATION AND EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MUST BE ENCOURAGED BY REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO DEVELOPE COMPLETE RECORDS AND ADVANCE ALL LEGAL THEORIES AND THE FINALITY OF THE LOWER TRIBUNAL'S DETERMINATIONS MUST NOT BE ERODED BY TREATING EACH DETERMINATION AS A PART OF A SEQUENCE OF PIECEMEAL ADJUDICATIONS." – Id, @ 117, 436 A2d @ 181. "SUCH RATIONALE CONTINUES TO BE SOUND."
They are to make every effort to investigate thoroughly by NOT erroneously denying a continuance, but are instead to grant a continuance more readily in order to create a complete record, so that they can be, "GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITS ERRORS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE." How can they correct their errors, if they dismiss due process and send the unsatisfied party into a higher appeals arena, still trying to receive correction on a fundamental error made at the referee level? Or repeated at the UCBR level?
The SEQUENCUAL PIECEMEALING OF ADJUDICATIONS, is the error of forming a denial based on one issue, where a second issue forbids denial. This case has not been thoroughly investigated, assembled into a complete record or judicially resolved, whatsoever, and cannot avoid being remanded or reversed for violation of due process.
IE: A claimant, absent at a hearing, is denied a continuance and is claiming that there was not fair and equal opportunity to present equal testimony into the written record, which served as the basis for evaluating the merit according to available information. The UCBR upheld the referee's denial of benefits, stating that the claimant was absent and did not give "proper cause" for the absence and was already afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing. –ISSUE #1
IE: The same claimant, absent at the hearing where there is a charge of willful misconduct, and the employer did not satisfy the Burden of Proof, for willful misconduct. A continuance, affording further testimony and evidence are refused, because the claimant was absent and was already afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing, then the UCBR is repeating the error of the referee in forming a denial based on ONE issue where another issue, willful misconduct ISSUE #2, forbids denial.
They cannot deny benefits because a claimant was absent at a hearing. The absence is issue #one and absence is not an acceptable reason to deny benefits. The issue #TWO compounds the error, with the evidence that the employer never satisfied the Burden of Proof with testimony on the willful misconduct charge. This is a SECOND issue that forbids the denial of benefits "where the employer has not proven willful misconduct".
These are examples of exactly what the Supreme Court was referring to when it advised the UCBR to, "DISCARD THE DOCTRINE".
The UCBR did in fact attempt to violate the findings of the Supreme Court and present a, SEQUENCE OF PIECEMEAL ADJUDICATIONS, in denying on ISSUE #1 and neglecting on ISSUE #2. The UCBR neglected to consider the sworn testimony of the employer's witness, who under oath, denied that the reason for termination was willful misconduct.
The claimant was absent from the hearing, so a denial of benefits was upheld, by the UCBR, and the failure of the employer to prove willful misconduct was neglected and permitted to be buried below the absence issue even though it is forbidden to be present in a denial decision.
The Supreme Court already determined that these UCBR policies and procedures and dismissals and denials are violations of Fundamental Rights and advised that these doctrines be discarded in 1981.
Therefore, in every instance since 1981, where the UCBR has upheld a denial for benefits and has denied a request for continuance, due to the absence of a claimant, in a willful misconduct setting, even where the "Burden Of Proof" of willful misconduct, in the full definition as judicially defined, was not satisfied by the employer, they have been in violation of a Supreme Court decision and advisement, to void these policies (DISCARD THE DOCTRINE) THAT INHIBIT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DEVELOP COMPLETE RECORDS AND ADVANCE ALL LEGAL THEORIES.
TO SUMMARIZE:
They CANNOT refuse a continuance due to absence from the original hearing,
They CANNOT refuse written testimony, from an absent party, to be accepted into the record, if they have accepted it from the opposing party, for evaluation before a final decision,
They CANNOT uphold an adverse decision, in a willful misconduct setting, where the "burden of proof" was not satisfied,
They CANNOT refuse or uphold a refusal for continuance, where an absent party has had NO opportunity to give ANY testimony, neither written or verbal,
They CANNOT repeatedly refuse to re-open cases or accept additional evidence, merely due to the objection of a re-opening, by the opponent, where the opponent's objection would be obstructing the right to due process if the objection is not over-ruled and the request is not granted.
These conclusions are NOT open for discussion or dispute. They have already BEEN decided by the SUPREME COURT.
Also, accepting that we cannot enable the possibility of blatant disregard of a Notice of Hearing, we must also consider that an absence, although entitled to present written testimony to be evaluated before a final decision, does already carry a consequence, in that the absent party is not able to witness the proceedings and is therefore, unable to cross-examine or rebut during the hearing.
They do not become aware of testimony presented unless they request transcripts and records of the hearing, which are to be made available with the absence of either party, in order to prepare an appeal, and they should be informed of this availability. If they have testimony and evidence to present, that would be relevant to the decision, they suffer a delay in the opportunity for rebuttal, but a continuance and that opportunity for rebuttal is required by Law.
Any policies proposed by the UCBR and approved as amendments to PA Codes and Statutes must meet the criteria test of consistency; that "CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HONORED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.".
Violation of this obligation is now verified by the Commonwealth Court and the supremacy of its opinion over the policies of the UCBR, plus the support of those just opinions by the Supreme Court, will nullify the standing, credibility and acceptance of these policies, as arguments that would DISREGARD the decision by the Supreme Court, if they do not pass the criteria test of consistency to Basic and Fundamental rights, as already demanded and clarified by the Supreme Court, and now I must request that it also be supported, reiterated and upheld by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. (end of addendum)
AUTHOR: DAWN NARET'
2-28-07 author update: Current Contact Info:
Dawn Naret'
P.O.Box 2315, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230-2315
Email: reply2dn@gmail.com OR dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
Blogsites: http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com
http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com
EXIBIT #4
NARET' V. UCBR (2004) DOCKET NO. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04 REPLY FROM APPELLANT TO:
11/24/04 RESPONSE FROM UCBR TO PETITIONER'S 11/8/04 MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE WITH PREJUDICE
AND
OPPOSITION TO: 11/24/04 MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL FILED BY UCBR
APPELLANT IS FILING AN AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE 11/24/04 MOTION, BY UCBR, TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL
APPEAL TO:
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE DOCKET NO. 1742 CD 2004
DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY, PRO SE,
APPELLANT
VS.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
NARET' V. UCBR (2004) NO. 1742 CD 2004 (CONT'D)
APPELLANT, DAWN NARET', ATTORNEY PRO SE, FILES THIS
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(The reply number will correspond to the response line it is replying to as much as possible)
1. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereafter referred to as the UCBR) filed this 11/24/04 Motion to Dismiss as a response to the 11/8/04 9 page Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice and 7page Addendum, filed by the appellant (petitioner). The arguments and legal citings in the appellant's combined 16 page Motion, with its Addendum, presented undebatable evidence that conduct and procedure were repeatedly in error in this case, since the initial filing of an appeal against the decision of eligibility, made by the Department of Unemployment Compensation. Their initial, correct decision was based on the fact that the employer denied willful misconduct on the initial fact-finding inquiry and repeated that denial, in the dialog of the transcripts, as specified in the appellants Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. They were essentially appealing the initial employer's own testimony or to clarify, disputing with themselves, which once testified, cannot be revoked or appealed by the party that testified, and definitely should not be given a scheduled appeal hearing date, because that would unacceptably inflate the hearings calendar.
2. On July 21, 2004, the UCBR defaulted procedure by adopting the illegal decision, by the referee. It is illegal to deny UC Benefits, where the employer failed to prove willful misconduct, and clearly stated, in the transcripts, that the ALLEGED offense was a Category II, which is the "LESS SERIOUS" Category.
3. On October 8, appellant met the timely deadline of October 12, 2004, for filing brief, in spite of the UCBR's failure to respond with a timely submittal of all hearing records. Brief was hand-written.
4. On October 12, 2004, the prothonotary's office rejected the brief, for form, and set a new deadline of November 12, 2004. Appellant made every effort to encourage expedition of the forwarding of requested records but had only a portion of them forwarded on October 26, 2004, through the kind intervention of Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel for the UCBR. On November 3, 2003, a 4 th written request demanding the complete record, including " documents #1 through #31", that were mentioned on page 2 of the transcripts. None of the documents were forwarded even to date. Appellant then had no alternative but to file a timely 9page Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice plus a 7 page Addendum to the Motion on November 8, 2004, due to lack of UCBR'S cooperation in forwarding all records. This also nullified the new deadline of November 12, 2004 for filing a brief, according to the FEDERAL Rules of Appellate Procedure on Motion to Remand: "The motion shall be filed prior to the filing of the appellant's brief." - Rule 23B Section (A) paragraph 2. And may I also cite Rule 23B Section (D), "Oral argument and the deadline for brief shall be VACATED upon the filing of a Motion to Remand under this rule.".
It has frequently become apparent that the UCBR operates under a misconception of the extent of their own autonomy, in policymaking, as well as policy following, that has often revealed them to be non-compliant to the superior policies and authorities of the laws, policies and procedures of the Commonwealth Court, The UC Laws and the Federal Superior Court Procedures, THAT THEY ARE ALSO SUBORDINATE TO, in their UPWARD ASSIGNING OF APPELLANT DISPUTES. These higher authorities cannot and will not abide by the non-compliant policymaking practices of the UCBR, WHERE DUE PROCESS WOULD BE VIOLATED IF NON-COMPLIANT UCBR POLICIES WERE PERMITTED TO OVER-RIDE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES THAT HOLD SUPREMANCY OVER THEIR DEPARTMENT.
5. The UCBR, on Item #5 of their Motion to dismiss, incorrectly implies that the appellant has not complied with proper requirements of Chapter 21 of the Pa Rules of Appellate Procedure. The fact is, the appellant was exactly correct in timely functions and form, and the UCBR has attempted to persuade this court to overlook the filing of the combined 16 page Motion to Reverse, with all of its defaults documented, and its vacating of the brief deadline.
Therefore it is the UCBR who is not complying, due to their inappropriate filing for a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal instead of complying with the procedure of response to the Motion to Remand;
"A response shall be filed within 20 days after the motion is filed. The response shall include a proposed order of remand that identifies the ineffectiveness claims and specifies the factual issues relevant to EACH such claim to be addressed by the trial court in the event Remand is granted, unless the responding party accepts that proposed by the moving party. Any reply shall be filed within 10 days after the response is filed." – Rule 23B Section (B) Paragraph 2.
6. UCBR: " On October 25, 2004, Petitioner requested the Board forward the hearing transcript of the employer's testimony from the hearing of April 21, 2004."
REPLY: Prior to the July 21, 2004 decision, by the UCBR, a telephone request for records was made. On July 29, 2004 a written request for ALL RECORDS was delivered and no response was received. By the deadline of October 12, 2004, Brief had to be submitted and compiled without the full record of the hearing, which was imperative to its efficient completion. This is a serious default, as cited, with references, in the Appellants Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/ Plus Addendum. On October 25, 2004, Appellant submitted the THIRD not FIRST request for all records.
7. On October 26, 2004, a prompt response was made to the third request by, Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel, as stated in reply item #4 of this document, but he only forwarded a copy of the transcript and 1 exhibit of the employer (the only exhibit of the employer, according to the transcript.) On page 2 of the transcript was dialog referring to documents #1 through #31 being entered into the record. Discussion of this was expanded in the appellants Motion to Reverse. None of these documents were ever forwarded and they held significance because they were already present, in the file, before the employer arrived and were not delivered by her, quoted from or mentioned by her during her testimony, as evidenced in the transcripts.
On November 3, 2004 a FOURTH request was submitted to the UCBR, with a time is of the essence status, pending the November 12, 2004 deadline for brief. NONE was received. UCBR DEFAULTED, again, in neglecting to make a timely response to requests for ALL RECORDS.
8. UCBR: "ON or about November 12, 2004, Petitioner filed a Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice (Motion) with this court, purportedly requesting a remand or reversal due to lack of timely release of records that are imperative to the preparation of her brief."
REPLY: The FACT is; on November 8, 2004, NOT November 12, 2004, appellant had still received NO RESPONSE to the FOURTH request for ALL RECORDS. This was not a "purported" default but a serious obstruction to the efficient preparation of brief. The absence of a timely response, for the forwarding of the required documents, prompted the November 8, 2004, filing of the 9 page Motion of Remand or Reversal with Prejudice.
On November 10, 2004, appellant also filed a 7 page Addendum to that motion, providing a combined total of a 16 page Motion that revealed a wider view of the tragedy and proportionate number of victims that are being made homeless and losing entire households of possessions and property, due to these procedural spans, defaults and delays. If appeals are not resolved and UC Funds delivered to the claimants within 30 days, the claimant is vulnerable to an eviction on rental property, and if not resolved and delivered within 90 days, to a home-owner, they are facing mortgage foreclosure.
The staff of UCBR, as well as this honorable court must open their eyes; to the massive crisis the UCBR is creating by erroneously and illegally denying UC Benefits. By the UCBR'S own admission, they deny 100 to 200 appeals PER DAY.
That's 24,000 to 48,000 victims PER YEAR, that they are responsible for, by imposing on them, the vulnerability of having their only source of income cut off and becoming homeless!
The UCBR has not been complying with the purpose it was created for. It is responsible to; investigate, correct and resolve errors as quickly as possible by using all the non-prejudice evaluating processes, that are fair and just and legal according to all Federal Civil Rights Laws, Pa State Laws, UC Department Laws, and UCBR Tribunal policies, that are recognized as acceptable within their own department, as well as beyond themselves, to the superior authorities, that they are also obligated to be compliant with, in their policymaking and practices.
The referees are over-burdened with appeals from employers who are hiring profit service-contract companies to appeal EVERY single ELIGIBLE Determination. These companies MUST be removed from the arena, as they have no association as legal counsel or acceptable witnesses who can present testimony or evidence. I expounded on this, in more detail, in the Motion to Reverse. I sympathize with the staff of the UC Department, including the referees and the Tribunal. But the over-load they are burdened with, they have created themselves, by giving hearing scheduling to frivolous appeals that are being made, in order that the employer can avoid payment as required, to the State UC Fund. These problems cannot be resolved by prejudicing the claimants, by denying benefits, where no willful misconduct has been claimed by the employer in the initial fact-finding inquiry, just to expedite the over-load of cases out the door, where it was not the fault of the claimant that they were over-loaded and where the staff from the UC Department already determined them as ELIGIBLE. Why would they schedule a hearing for an appeal where the employer already denied willful misconduct in the initial fact-finding inquiry? They shoot themselves in the foot and create the over-load by permitting the unpermittable. The employer cannot waste the referee's time or put the UC Benefits of the claimant in question for the purpose of appealing his own initial testimony.
If the UCBR developed non-prejudice policies and procedure, supervised and followed-up on the decisions of the referees, the caseload of error, coming to them, would be drastically reduced, just by having the referee abide by the non-prejudice policies that must conform to the right of due process and the right to a fair hearing.
Their reluctance to grant continuances, to avail claimants the fair opportunity to completely voice all their testimony and present evidence, is causing the incompleteness that results in upward assigning and continuance, where the claimants are not receiving due process from the referee decisions. They CANNOT refuse continuances to claimants because too many employers have jammed their calendar with frivolous appeals. They pacify the request of the employer but not the claimant. This is clearly prejudice. They are devaluating the claimant and minimalizing the importance of their Civil Rights, their Right to a Fair Hearing and the importance and relevance of their testimony.
10. UCBR: (these statements are a perfect example, of the practice, of shoving the priorities and defaults under the rug and attempting to slide the testimony, of the claimant, out the door before anyone chances to hear or pay attention to them) Quote item # 10 in portions; " To the extent the court considers Petitioner's Motion and Addendum to be her amended Brief, these lack a statement of the scope of review and standard of review, statement of the questions involved, summary of argument, argument and conclusion…. Wherefore , Petitioner, having failed to comply with this court's order, dated October 12, 2004, to file an amended Brief…… and the petitioner's Motion and Addendum being non-responsive ….(???)…..Respondent moves that your honorable Court dismiss Petitioner's appeal…..Wherefore, petitioner, having failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted……. (???)….and Respondent, having complied with the Petitioner's request for a copy of the referee's hearing transcripts of April 21, 2004, Respondent moves that your honorable Court deny Petitioner's Motion and Addendum…..".
REPLY: the UCBR has clearly resorted to false statements, incorrect information and non-compliance with procedure. Also, in the attempt to over-step and erase the defaults proven in the appellant's Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/ plus Addendum, Respondent has failed to give any viable explaination or retort to several documented issues, including the employers initial fact-finding statements and their transcribed hearing testimony, that willful misconduct was NOT the reason for termination, the missing 34 page letter of request for reconsideration that was not appended to the record and possibly more missing material of testimony, presented by the appellant, or they would not consider that these blatent false statements could be found believable if ALL the evidence and testimony are available for evaluation. "Wherefore, Petitioner, having failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted….." Where are the pages listing all this material if this Respondent believes they have not been presented? It is obviously a rouse to avoid admitting that serious mistakes were made and Immediate Reversal of their Illegal Decisions can be the only recourse possible for this Honorable Court to proceed with, having in its philosophies founded on a more ethical standard of practices than these being resorted to by the Respondent. Therefore, the Appellant moves that this honorable and ethical Court deny the Respondents Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Appeal, and further moves that the Appellant be granted an immediate reversal of all decisions that denied UC Benefits with prejudice.
In conclusion, UCBR counsel, having the disadvantage of arriving late in these proceedings, and to be liberal, may not have been privy to the entire record of testimony and the chronology of evidence presented by the Appellant, is unfortunately lacking an awareness and insight of the urgency of the need for immediate Reversal and disbursement of UC Funds to legally ELIGIBLE claimants. Please review the list of 17 personal tragedies that are suffered within 30 days of a referee's denial, listed on page 6 of the Appellants Motion to Reverse.
This is not a time to "save face", but an opportunity to "man up" and admit honorably that errors have been discovered, many victims have been left homeless, many lives are being destroyed by these merry-go-round delay tactics and policies. Yes, the claimants do eventually go away and leave you alone. They are forced to leave the state, those who survive alive. But these were never the stereotypical images you are holding of hoboes who are too lazy to work. These are people who have worked hard all their lives. Some have degrees, own their own homes and serve on community boards. These are people who were employed full-time, very recently. But in an alarming number of cases, they have been unjustly severed from the workplace through a common practice of deception, slander and framing innocent employees in order to dishonestly lay the groundwork for false statements of "just cause" for termination in order that the employer might avoid UC Benefits payments. These are people who have even been more adept and efficient at doing their job than their supervisors and were viewed as a threat. Therefore the groundwork is laid down to get rid of them "with just cause".
They never deserved to loose their jobs, and now you impose on them homelessness, starvation, banishment and possibly death.
Read my lips. A State, a city, a country cannot survive the budgets required when there are no citizens paying taxes or having consumable income. Everyone and everything is affected by negative, unethical, uncaring, uncompromising policies and practices that would obstruct consumable incomes to the citizens. These are good people being abused.
Please STOP THE ABUSE.
Thank you,
Dawn Naret'
Current Contact Info:
P.O. Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
(Old Original Contact Info-see below):
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa. 17608 (no phone anymore – dependant on free Library computer access)
dawn_naret@emailaccount.com
dawn_naret@yahoo.com
EXIBIT #5
LETTER TO MACAREVICH, ATTY FOR PA STATE:
Dawn M. Naret’
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608
(717) 394-2171
Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
10th floor Labor and Industry Bldg.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
November 14, 2004
Deputy Mackarevich,
On October 25, 2004, I sent a repeat request for records on case no. 1742 CD 2004. You very kindly and very promptly intervened and responded to that request in the absence of Clifford Blaze, Esquire, but you did not send me ALL the records.
Unfortunately, I have reached an end of available waiting time and have submitted a Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice (you’re welcome J) to the Commonwealth Court of Pa, on November 10, 2004.
I also attempted to send you a copy of the correspondence, for Certificate of Service, since I have not been informed of exactly whom, if not yourself, is assuming full duties of the absent Attorney Blaze.
The mailing was returned to me, with refusal to forward it to you. I then faxed it to your fax number listed on your letterhead.
Today, I am mailing you a copy of an Addendum to that Motion. I chose to expand on some dialog.
Again, I thank you, very much, for your intervention and assistance in bringing this case to a long over-due completion.
Regards,
Dawn M. Naret’
LETTER TO PROTHONOTARY:
Dawn Naret’, Attorney, Pro Se
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608-0643
Commonwealth Court of Pa.
Office of the Prothonotary
Irvis Office Bldg. – Rm. 624
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Atten: Mr. Daniel R. Schuckers, Esquire
Regarding: Appellants 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or reverse with Prejudice and 11/10/04 Addendum to be appended to that Motion.
CASE: Dawn Naret’ v. UCBR
No. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04
Dear Mr. Schuckers,
I was awaiting a response, from the UCBR office, within the required 20 days, to the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, filed by me 11/8/04, (prior to the 11/12/04 dead-line for brief submission).
What I received is a partial response to only a few items of contention that prompted the Motion. I can only be liberal to the UCBR and assume that they have given a timely response to that Motion with their 11/24/04 communication, stated in the form of a request for Motion to Dismiss the Appeal of the Petitioner. (???)
It is an unusual response, considering the evidence presented in the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. I am very certain that a dismissal would be, without a doubt, a very serious violation of all laws, codes and procedures that they are obligated to comply with.
Their denial of Due Process was one of the contentious issues and the illegal denial of benefits, where willful misconduct was not proven or stated by the employer, relegate this case beyond the possibility of legal dismissal.
Therefore, I am submitting an OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S APPEAL and also requesting that the justification of this opposition be summarized in my permissible REPLY TO THEIR RESPONSE, as I am submitting it within the required 10 days and I am willing, as I said, to be liberal as to the venue of their 11/24/04 communication.
I hold no negative opinions toward any of the staff currently focusing on this case. I am fully aware of the difficulties they have encountered with staff replacements and various other cogs in the wheel.
I consider myself fortunate that Mr. Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel and Ms. Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant Counsel, should have been willing to come in on this problem situation at such a late date.
I have addressed the Certificate of Service to both or either Mr. Mackarevich or Ms. Tarczy, since I have not been told whom to consider the official replacement of Attorney Clifford Blaze, who left in August 2004.
There has been, repeated lack of communication as well as misinformation that created an unfair tragedy including now; eviction and homelessness, due to the illegal withholding of UC benefit funds.
Because of the situation advancing to such an intensely serious miscarriage of justice, I must beg your compassion and assistance in expediting the reversal and release of UC funds immediately. I have no phone either, and cannot continue to accomplish these necessary clerical communications and requirements.
It is not an incompetence on my part, it is an injustice that I should be required to suffer through so much difficulty to receive what I am already entitled to and was already approved for, before the referee erred in her judgment and knowledge of the UC Law.
I can be contacted by e-mail at:
Dawn_naret@emailaccount.com or
Dawn_naret@yahoo.com
Thank you and regards,
Dawn Naret’
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608
(No phone no.)
EXIBIT #6
LETTER TO PROTHONOTARY
Dawn Naret', Attorney, Pro Se
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608-0643
Commonwealth Court of Pa.
Office of the Prothonotary
Irvis Office Bldg. – Rm. 624
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Atten: Mr. Daniel R. Schuckers, Esquire
Regarding: Appellants 11/8/04 Motion to Remand or reverse with Prejudice and 11/10/04 Addendum to be appended to that Motion.
CASE: Dawn Naret' v. UCBR
No. 1742 CD 2004
11/29/04
Dear Mr. Schuckers,
I was awaiting a response, from the UCBR office, within the required 20 days, to the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice, filed by me 11/8/04, (prior to the 11/12/04 dead-line for brief submission).
What I received is a partial response to only a few items of contention that prompted the Motion. I can only be liberal to the UCBR and assume that they have given a timely response to that Motion with their 11/24/04 communication, stated in the form of a request for Motion to Dismiss the Appeal of the Petitioner. (???)
It is an unusual response, considering the evidence presented in the Motion to Remand or Reverse with Prejudice/plus Addendum. I am very certain that a dismissal would be, without a doubt, a very serious violation of all laws, codes and procedures that they are obligated to comply with.
Their denial of Due Process was one of the contentious issues and the illegal denial of benefits, where willful misconduct was not proven or stated by the employer, relegate this case beyond the possibility of legal dismissal.
Therefore, I am submitting an OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S APPEAL and also requesting that the justification of this opposition be summarized in my permissible REPLY TO THEIR RESPONSE, as I am submitting it within the required 10 days and I am willing, as I said, to be liberal as to the venue of their 11/24/04 communication.
I hold no negative opinions toward any of the staff currently focusing on this case. I am fully aware of the difficulties they have encountered with staff replacements and various other cogs in the wheel.
I consider myself fortunate that Mr. Gerard Mackarevich, Deputy Chief Counsel and Ms. Janet M. Tarczy, Assistant Counsel, should have been willing to come in on this problem situation at such a late date.
I have addressed the Certificate of Service to both or either Mr. Mackarevich or Ms. Tarczy, since I have not been told whom to consider the official replacement of Attorney Clifford Blaze, who left in August 2004.
There has been, repeated lack of communication as well as misinformation that created an unfair tragedy including now; eviction and homelessness, due to the illegal withholding of UC benefit funds.
Because of the situation advancing to such an intensely serious miscarriage of justice, I must beg your compassion and assistance in expediting the reversal and release of UC funds immediately. I have no phone either, and cannot continue to accomplish these necessary clerical communications and requirements.
It is not an incompetence on my part, it is an injustice that I should be required to suffer through so much difficulty to receive what I am already entitled to and was already approved for, before the referee erred in her judgment and knowledge of the UCBR laws.
Thank you and regards,
Dawn Naret
Current Contact Info as of 2-23-07:
P.O. Box 2315 Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
Reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk
Old Original Contact Info: see below
Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 643
Lancaster, Pa 17608