╨╧рб▒с>■  ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ¤   ■   ■      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Root Entry        ▓Zд Ю╤д└O╣2║РaBYе╔?└CONTENTS     xCompObj            VSPELLING            8■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ew years ago. At this point, it is not relevant to consider which  side I took on that issue -only to note that my case (SC03-2420) was denied by a 4-3 split vote by the Florida Supreme Court, which did markedly better than then Gov. Jeb Bush s case (SC04-925), who was denied 7-0 before the same court and at the same stage of rehearing. Also, you can find my short, 5-page Petition for Cert before the US Supreme Court, in which I appealed *this* case. While the nation s high court did not accept my case for review, that was not a surprise, and this gave me a chance to work out the kinks in this case if I ever have to file a suit in Federal Court for Civil Rights violations -which were numerous here. OK, first, I d like to address the false or fraudulent misrepresentation: Some have suggested that since it was not regarding the  initial separation, this can not be considered, but see the enclosed copy of the State Law here: There is no requirement that it be restricted to the initial separation. Referring to page R:023 of the record, please note the last paragraph, in which Mr. Fox asked Grisel X. Robaina, one of your adjudicators, to make me aware of a job offer. This was an obvious attempt to pretend there was a job offer, but it was not a  true job offer -since Mr. Watts was not notified until many months later (see page R:021 of the record). This constitutes a false or fraudulent misrepresentation under the law. This misrepresentation was by postal letter, and dated  Wednesday, April 18, 2007, but it was not time stamped until  Jun. 15, 2007 3:13PM. (See top, left corner of page.) This would, legally, give your agency until June 15, 2009 to re-determine this determination if you so desire. At this point, let me just pause to express my reaction here: ACHNKWKS x°vTEXTTEXT@WFDPPFDPPZFDPPFDPP\FDPCFDPC^FDPCFDPC`FDPCFDPCbSTSHSTSHdSTSHSTSHd2SYIDSYIDPdSGP SGP ddINK INK hdBTEPPLC ld BTECPLC Мd(FONTFONT┤dfTOKNPLC eцSTRSPLC g:PRNTWNPR:g FRAMFRAMRtВTITLTITL╘t(s case (SC04Wednesday, March 11, 2009 Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) Attn: Will McTier, UC Region Administrator - Will.McTier@awi.state.fl.us P.O. Box 5706 (2660 W. Oakland Park Blvd.) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310-5706 (OAKLAND PARK FL 33311-1334) Phone: (954) 677-5750 / (954) 677-5509 Fax: (954) 730-2658 / (954) 677-5504 Dear Will: Re: AWI.Redetermination Adjudication Dept U.A.C. No. 07-05307 Docket No. 2007-27757U Gordon Wayne Watts, S.S. No. [ REDACTED ] Thank you for speaking with me on the phone this past Friday, March 28, 2008. As you recall, after I told you of how this particular case was handled, you agreed with me that you believe it was done wrongly. Since your office is permitted to do a redetermination, your word here alone that you agree that it was wrongly determined should suffice to allow it to be re-determined without any further inquiry or use of AWI employee man-hours. However, to make your job a little easier, I am including the pertinent facts. Caveat: A thorough review of the file might result in some AWI employee overtime, as there were many violations. Enclosed are the claims receipt and online claims affidavit, showing that this claim was active up to at least 03/25/2008. Redeterminations are allowed for up to 1 year from the last day of benefit (3-25-08), according to Florida Statute 443.151(3)(c), for error -or new evidence or information discovered after the prior determination. Additionally, redetermination may be made within 2 years after a false or fraudulent misrepresentation. Since it is not a well known fact that I, a layperson, am knowledgeable or experienced about legal issues, please see the enclosed ruling in regards to my recent lawsuit in the Terri Schiavo case that I brought before the Florida Supreme Court a flthough it may be  unprofessional for me to express anger or emotion at the matter, I am, after all, human, and your agency appeared to be in cooperation with the employers on this fraudulent point -or, at the very least, unconcerned about the law being violated here. (A violation of this state law may also violate federal civil rights.) Alright, next, the redetermination that you agreed I was owed when we spoke may be made up to one year after the last day of benefit (3-25-08), which would be Wednesday, 25 March 2009, 2 weeks from now --for error -or new evidence or information discovered after the prior determination. Let s look at these more closely. First, regarding  error, there is no legal requirement under this law that it be based on  newly discovered evidence or information -just that it be error. For a thorough treatment of the many errors which occurred in this case, please [see] the  Initial Brief of the Appellant ON THE MERITS, which was styled IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. This court never reviewed the merits, for procedural reasons (and wrongly so, I believe), and this brief is the one which is somewhat lengthy -but it was  complete at the date of publication, and, other than a few typos subsequently discovered, correct. Please note, however, that when reviewing  Argument IV regarding Rosemary Wild s denial of Cross-Examination, that there is a relevancy to this that was stated in Arg.III on page 10, the prior page. This disjunction was due to problems aligning the tables citations with the pages, and I didn t want to disturb the  page order, but if you simply  read through the brief, from beginning to end, slowly, this disjunction will not be a problem. There were other issues covered in the JURISDICTIONAL brief before the same state court -and in the subsequent brief before the US Supreme Court, issues relating to the laws and rules that the higher courts violated, but, to my knowledge, nothing  new was presented to these higher courts regarding the merits -the issues you would be reviewing, so you are not missing anything if you  skim past these items. Furthermore, let s look at Redeterminations allowed for new evidence or information discovered after the prior determination: First, please note that Mr. Watts (myself, speaking in the 3rd person) went looking for a job on approximately 319 occasions, according to the job search records which I was required to keep. Since I didn t stop looking for a job until my eligibility ran out, this info was not available when initially making my case. The point here, Will, is that even though Fox portrayed me as not really serious about work, this was patently false -as shown by actions which speak louder than words. If you chose to call these people, they may or may not remember me, as it was a while back, but I lie not. (Remember: I could probably make more money if I gave up my quest for justice here -and just  got a job, but I hate dishonesty at any level.) Also, I would like to point out that I got a chance to speak with your adjudicator, Grisel X. Robaina, and I asked her why she ruled the way she did. She replied that she really wanted to rule in my favour, but she said that even *if* I were telling the truth about the very distant job offer (as opposed to the story that Fox gave about a local job transfer offer), nonetheless, the  distant job that Fox offered me was, according to Grisel s boss, whom she asked for permission, was about the same distance as the job that Grisel, herself, works. OK, after hearing this, I was no longer angry with Grisel, since I feel she made an honest effort to afford me my rights, but there was a major gaffe on Grisel s part, Will -and neither she, nor her supervisor, caught it. Did you catch the problem here? Even though her boss was right to point out that my so-called  job-offer was about the same distance (about 60-mile round trip) as Grisel was working at the time, the disparity is that Grisel was probably not paid very close to minimum wage, like myself. Did you see that pay scale on R:023 of the record? Mr. Fox rightly admits that he only paid me $7.60 per hour, and the supposed $7.98 per hour offer was never made to me when the supposed transfer was mentioned. When, I ask you, would you *ever* work a daily 60-mile round trip for $7.60 per hour? Could you honestly look her boss in the face and tell him/her that you would have driven this far for this little? Honestly. (So, the  job offer was not  adjacent, as Atty. Spencer Cohn noted.) Also, please take a look at the letter I sent to my supervisor over being cheated on my pay -and the subsequent  Payroll Adjustment Check Stub. While I am certainly grateful for the correction here, they resisted very strongly for a very long time, leading me to question their credibility -and isn t credibility important here, or have we lost our moors and standards? Additionally, a co-worker who used to work for Fox Protective has just recently chastised me for not contacting *him* to testify in the hearing I had -as he wanted to testify to some as-yet unknown aspects of Fox Protective s unsavory character, probably with first-hand eyewitness testimony of examples. His name, if you chose to contact him, is Robert W. Hartung, and you can verify through appropriate channels, that he is indeed a state-licensed security guard. He may be contacted at either www.RobertHartung.com or at his cell phone: (863) 944-2294. This testimony constitutes newly discovered information under the law. After having spoken with Attorney John Kunberger (UAC, STE 101, Rhyne Bldg, 2740 Centerview Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32399-4151, Ph: 850-487-2685), I am told by him that in order for the re-determination to be made, even if your dept sees it my way, as we both agreed, that your dept would still have to petition the last body to have heard the  merits of the case, and, in this case, that would be the UAC, the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Hopefully, enough time has lapsed that they have new people in there who will not violate the rules as the past lot did. OK, hopefully the  Unemployment Comp extension the President recently signed into law can actually do some good -as I am very, very deeply in college loan debt, which I hope to post haste repay. Lastly, although I have already mentioned it in my court brief before Florida s highest court, the disrespect towards my father, in which your colleagues in the UAC called my father a liar when he claimed he could not take off an hour for the hearing, is ***very*** unsettling to me!! I am very glad that I am not hot-tempered, but my even temperament makes this no less inappropriate (and illegal) behaviour. OK, I have discharged my duty in this matter. Please remember that, according to Atty. Kunberger, both your dept and his must have reviewed and approved my case by the end of the Mar 25 deadline for it to have legal effect in re-determination. Please also approve me for the With kind regard, I am Sincerely, (Or the June 15, 2009 deadline following attorneys fees: if you see the fraud or Hearing: $100.oo (myself) _Gordon Wayne Watts________ misrepresentation. --G.W.) Reimbursement for paying Atty. S. Cohn Gordon Wayne Watts - Gww1210@aol.com for UAC appeal: $200.oo www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com UAC appeal: $200.oo (myself) 821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113 Re-Determination: $200.oo (myself) ___ PH: (863) 688-9880 TOTAL = $700.oo ($500.oo acting as my own attorney. $200.oo reimbursement for my prior atty.) we both agreed, that your dept would still have to petition the last body to have heard the  meF46ВjьДЖЬЮжи╢ ╕ Ъ Ь Т Ф КМшъАВк м ь"ю"2#4#p$r$b+d+Ъ.Ь.Ш/Ъ/22`5b5о9░9м;о;КAМArDtDZI\I┬M─MLONOВRДRlT4UкURVъV~W XАXY@Y╪╪(2В"'(К а█)█ @╖S ╖)6В▄о░КОЮвдЬ ╕ ╞ . X Z Ц JRv~К%%&%Д%,Ж,00l;к;TH~HъSTlTвTЁ▐Ё─Ё▓ЁЪ~ЪhЁTЁ▐ЁTЁ>Ё,Ё,Ё,Ё,Ё▐Ё,ЁЁ,Ё─ЁTЁ■  "ое" ."  "PSS"  "PS"  "PS"  "PS"  "PS" ."А "PS" ."А "PS" ."А "°|"  "PS" ."  "PS"  "PS"  вTмTоTЎT2U4UhUjUzUиUкU▄UрUтUVVVPVRVЮVаV╩VшVъVWWLWRWxW|W~W╢W Xц╓┬░ацМа░аvf88f░fvfЄ╓ЄvЄ╓Є╓Єfvf "PS" ."  "PS" 4 "И╢" $К ." . "И╢" $К  "PS"  "ое" ."   "рМ"  "рМ"  " ."  "PS"  "ое"   "ое" ."  XXXZXАX▄ж▓ZЦ─"mailto:Will.McTier@awi.state.fl.ushttp://www.RobertHartung.com/mailto:Gww1210@aol.com http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com/http://www.GordonWatts.com/ Ю+ " " "д°├ь╚XXЧFХwpАCanon MP620 series Printer (Co Ь╘▀Бd¤ ╘BJDM @ннVT$m,А`Oj,А`OjVT$m,АvЇ`Oj,АvЇ,АvЇ`OjXXDRAFTSample 1'dVT$mVT$mУ@      VT$mч    чCanon MP620 series Printer (Co ▄╘▀Бъ od¤ Letter29╪═5winspoolCanon MP620 series Printer (Copy 1)USB002F   "да"аzЩ"pЇh"$c"Ё` "Ё``""A.":   "да"pЇh"$c"Ё` "Ё``"."Redetermination.wps(" _" _" _" __ ("  ." . "И╢" $К  "PS"  "ое" ."   "рМ"  "рМ"  " ."  "PS"  "ое"   "ое" ." °    DOP DOP №t(■      ▓Zд Ю╤д└O╣2║Quill96 Story Group Class    Ї9▓qy╣2║y╣2║y╣2║Б╣2║Шy╣2║Я