Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Review

Reviews: 1

1 RATING
(1)

Total views: 4079

Published: 05 February 2019

Posted by: Anonymously

Who do I contact when everyone I tell about this miscarriage of justice by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, The Governor’s Office of Ohio, The Courts of Mongomery County Ohio, and the District Court of Dayton, try to conceal the misuse of a Presidential Emergency Loan. There have been thousands, maybe tens of thousands of hardworking unemployed Ohioans denied benefits with this single phrase “The Employer filed a timely appeal.” Then to have them drag the courts into this conspiracy to deny my civil rights, and my rights to honest services is just plain wrong. They concealed my records, falsified government documents, didn’t subpoena my witnesses, lost or destroyed some of my employment records, denied my due process rights, and conspired to cover up this scheme. Then the courts screw it up even more by sending out false notifications, with my name on the notice but someone elses case. This didn’t happen just once but several times during this case. Then I take it to the District Court and the Magistrate Judge throws all my 40 plus pages of evidence out with prejudice. But the courts never have the ODJFS nor the Ohio Attorney General’s Office produce the employers letter they relied on to deny my benefits, even though I made Motion’s for Discovery. Even the governor’s office lied in an email about my case saying that there was one just like mine in the Supreme Court of Ohio, but when I looked it up it was about a lady who didn’t even appeal on time. That is nothing like concealing records, violating my due process rights, mail and wire fraud, falsifying government documents, mailing classified documents through the mail or wire. Yes they accidentally sent someone’s classified pschological evaluation update records with their brief and I have all this documented. I couldn’t afford an attorney so I represented myself pro se. That was both good and bad. Maybe they wouldn’t have made so many mistakes in this case. Here’s just a portion of my brief my name was x’d out for privacy, but it is of public record. 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Action for Neglect to Prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; …. Travis v Miller (2002, ED Pa) 226 F Supp 2d 663. Kellogg v. United States, (In re West Texas Marketing Corp.), 54 F. 3d 1194, 1200 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 991, 116 S. Ct. 523, 133 L. Ed.2d 430 (1995). In determining a statute’s plain meaning, we assume that, absent any contrary definition, “Congress intends the words in its enactments to carry their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” O.R.C. § 2913.01 Theft and fraud general definitions As used in this chapter, unless the context requires that a term be given a different meaning: (A) “Deception” means knowingly deceiving another or causing another to be deceived by any false or misleading representation, by withholding information, by preventing another from acquiring information, or by any other conduct, act, or omission that creates, confirms, or perpetuates a false impression in another, including a false impression as to law, value, state of mind, or other objective or subjective fact. (B) “Defraud” means to knowingly obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself or another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another. O.R.C. § 2913.42 Tampering with records (A) No person, knowing the person has no privilege to do so, and with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall do any of the following: (1) Falsify, destroy, remove, conceal, alter, deface, or mutilate any writing, computer software, data, or record; (2) (B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with records. Mr. Xxxxxxx has shown that the Federal Courts do have Subject Matter Jurisdiction in this case. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mr. Xxxxxxx applied for unemployment benefits in August 2008. The claim was disallowed by the director in a mail dated August 20, 2008. Mr. Xxxxxxx filed an appeal from this decision (Plaintiff’s Exhibits III & IV). On October 28, 2008 the Director upheld his decision denying benefits to Mr. Xxxxxxx . Mr. Xxxxxxx filed an appeal from this redetermination(Plaintiff’s Exhibit VIII). In November, 2008 the ODJFS transferred jurisdiction to the UCRC. On December 4, 2008 Mr. Xxxxxxx requests to subpoena a witness(Plaintiff’s Exhibit XIII) according to O.A.C. §124-11-17(A). On December 19, 2008 a telephone hearing was held before the UCRC HO Jeffrey O. Schaffner Jr. The HO reaffirms the Director’s decision disallowing benefits to Mr. Xxxxxxx . Mr. Xxxxxxx appeals to the MCCPC dated April 15, 2009. Mr. Xxxxxxx received his director’s file by mail from the ODJFS dated May 5, 2009. Mr. Xxxxxxx reviews the documents within his file and finds discrepancies that the Director and the HO made false and misleading statements according to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1341, and that the HO did not subpoena Mr. Xxxxxxx’s witness as requested (Plaintiff’s Exhibit XIII) according to O.R.C. §§ 4141.17, 4141.281(C)(2). Mr. Xxxxxxx also found out that he had missing, lost and/or destroyed records and documents, (Plaintiff’s Exhibit VI) in violation of O.R.C. § 2913.42,and that the HO could not have reviewed Director’s file, as they stated (Plaintiff’s Exhibit XII) because the HO did not have Director’s file. Mr. Xxxxxxx informs Judge W of these fraudulent discrepancies in his file. O.R.C. § 2305.09 Four years – certain torts Except as provided for in division (C) of this section, an action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued: (A) For trespassing upon real property; (B) For the recovery of personal property, or for taking or detaining it; (C) For relief on the ground of fraud, except when the cause of action is a violation of section 2913.49 of the Revised Code, in which case the action shall be brought within five years after the cause thereof accrued; (D) For an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract nor enumerated in sections 1304.35, 2305.10 to 2305.12, and 2305.14 of the Revised Code; (E) For relief on the grounds of a physical or regulatory taking of real property. If …., or for the wrongful taking of personal property, the causes thereof shall not accrue until the wrongdoer is discovered; nor, if it is for fraud, until the fraud is discovered. Judge W denies Mr. Xxxxxxx’s appeal and affirms the decision of the HO & the UCRC, dated August 12, 2009. On, Feb. 4, 2010 Mr. Xxxxxxx filed civil fraud suit against ODJFS in the MCCPC. A Discovery Motion was served on the ODJFS and the OAGO, on August 27, 2010 to answer within 28 days allowed by law(“Plaintiff’s Exhibit XIV”), which the ODJFS did not. Mr. Xxxxxxx also sent out a Motion to Compel on Friday, October 1, 2010(“Plaintiff’s Exhibit XV”) to which Judge L did not have the OSAAG of the OAGO produce or confirm the Employer’s appeal letter. On November 18, 2010 Judge L affirms the decision of Judge W of the MCAC’s. Mr. Xxxxxxx files a fraud complaint with the United States District Court in Dayton, Ohio. DJTMR and MJMRM denies all forty plus pages of Mr. Xxxxxxx’s evidence with prejudice, even those that are under the State Seal of Ohio’s Unemployment Unit. MJMRM and DJTMR affirm the decision of Judge L of the MCCPC. So, here we are today with Mr. Xxxxxxx’s case against the Honorable Judge(s) Thomas M. Rose, Michael R. Merz, Mary K. Wiseman, & Dennis J. Langer, & the Ohio Senior Assistant Attorney General, Director of the ODJFS, and the HO and the commissioners of the UCRC on the claim of fraud, conspiracy, misuse of presidential emergency funds, Judicial Misconduct, Attorney Misconduct, the violation of Mr. Xxxxxxx’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, falsifying official government documents, Mail and Wire fraud, concealing of Mr. Xxxxxxx’s records, fraud on the courts and the violation of several dozen other Federal Statutes, Codes and Federal Rules of Evidence, and other Ohio Revised and Administrative codes. As will be shown in this Motion to Compel with Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Jury Demand that follows, DJTMR and MJMRM and the Honorable Judge L and the Honorable Judge W from the MCCPC conspired in affirming the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“UCRC”).The officers of the courts are not taking into consideration, the ODJFS Inter-Office Communication (Plaintiff’s Exhibit II)with the State Seal of Ohio on it. This memo from the Ohio Office of Unemployment Compensation Redetermination Section to the UCRCdated November 5, 2008, stating “Original Appeal Document(s) not available. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit II ), and the other substantially overwhelming reliable, probative and substantive physical evidence /documents/exhibits clearly disputing the Director, the HO’s, and the Judge(s), decisions. “Pleadings in this case are being filed by the plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991).” Fontaine v. Peitz, 291 S.C. 536, 354 S.E. 2d 565(1987) (“an abuse of discretion occurs when a factual ruling is without evidentiary support”). Turner v. Madison Correctional Institution (Aug. 19, 1992), Clark App. No. 2863, unreported, 1992 WL 206647. “Reliable” evidence is dependable, that is, it can be confidently trusted. In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. “Probative” evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. “Substantial” evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value. The Counsel of Mr. Xxxxxxx wishes for the District Court to be put on Judicial Notice that Mr. Xxxxxxx has in his possession, evidence that clearly disputes the ODJFS Inter- Office Memo stating “Original Appeal Documents not available” before the date of Nov. 5, 2008 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit II) which MJMRM threw out with prejudice in his final decision and warning to Mr. Xxxxxxx. But Mr. Xxxxxxx disagrees with any decision that does not allow states evidence to be presented when that evidence purely disputes that which is represented as fact by the ODJFS, and stated as fact by the OSAAG’s Brief defending the fact and the presentment of evidence. Under Evid. R. 201 the Ohio Department of Unemployment Seal cannot be disputed. Then Mr. Xxxxxxx’s thirty pages of documents (Plaintiff’s Evidence III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,VIV) clearly disputing the date of the ODJFS Inter-office memo must clearly be presented, under Evidentiary Rule 103(A)(2), 104(B), 201(A)(B)(D)(E)), 401, 402 and 902(1)(2)(4). Mr. Xxxxxxx’s evidence clearly denies the evidence of the Director’s and the OSAAG’s Statements of Fact, and the ODJFS evidence of “Original Appeal Documents not available”(Plaintiff’s Evidence II), and the statement of “the Employer filed a timely appeal.” (Plaintiff’s Evidence X), and the statement “Employer told “Mr. Xxxxxxx” that it would attempt to provide”, (Plaintiff’s Evidence XI). SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: Mr. Xxxxxxx states that Federal Courts are empowered to hear cases brought to them which are within the judicial power of the United States as defined in the United States Constitution and as further granted to them by the Act of Congress. Mr. Xxxxxxxx states that under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) “obstruction of justice” “intimidation”, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 “aiding in the permission of the fraud”, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 “to give evidence”, and “enforce contract”, O.R.C. § 2913.42 Tampering with records, O.R.C. § 2913.01 Theft and fraud and the violation of 18 § U.S.C. 1001(a), the concealing of Mr. Xxxxxxx’s record(s), and/or documents/evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)” Conspiracy to Interfere with Mr. Xxxxxxx’s Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Action for Neglect to Prevent, and in the strict violation of other Federal, and State laws not mentioned here, and in the egregious violation of several different Federal Rules of Evidence laws. Also in the conspiracy and domestic terrorist attack on the hard working citizens of Ohio to conceal the misuse of a Presidentially Funded Federal Emergency loan 42 U.S.C. 5122 . 18 U.S.C. § 1341 …scheme or artifice to defraud…, … by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). Jurisdictional Issues: It is proper for this District Court to take Jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person. See Title 28 Section 1343 (1)(2)(3)(4) . 18 U.S.C. § 371 “conspiracy and/or collusion” If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 § U.S.C. 1001(a) it states that “Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined, under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the… 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, …..alter, give away, … or procure for unlawful use any …..counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier….., or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing,…. If the violation … involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 18 § U.S.C. 1346 For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 28 USC § 1331 – Federal question – The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions…. 28 USC § 1339 – Postal matters – The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising…relating to the postal service. 28 USC § 1343 – Civil rights and elective franchise (a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1)To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2)To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3)To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4)To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) & (3)” Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, ….; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Action for Neglect to Prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; …. As you can see I did have a little grasp of what I was doing, just not the credentials. I know that any fraud against the United States does not have a time period and can be brought back into court for redress. Here is the calculation that the ODJFS uses for fraud. 2 penalty weeks for every week claimed, plus 14% compounded monthly, so if the ODJFS fraudulently denied my benefits for at least four years, then my take on this is they owe me over 21 million dollars. My allowed benefit amount was $310 a week. I actually fought for six years, stopped in 2013. Would like to take it back up. Can you help. .

Rate and Write a Review on Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

Sending

Be an Informed Consumer

An informed consumer is capable of making sensible decisions, gains insight about a business prior to an interaction or transaction. Our newsletter provides resources and information that informs you, the consumer. of such things as consumer rights and protection.