EDD Denies Benefits Corporate Officers Who Also Serve as Employees

[jvaski]

Question is ........does one file a writ of mandate within the 6 months time period ......or wait to se if they pursue an overpayment down the line ??

[jvaski]

UPDATE 3-3-2011, With a few hours help from an attorney - I have assembled a Petition for Writ of Mandate and filed it with the Superior Court.
EDD is now represented by the Attorney General's Office - Dept of Justice - Calif. Their deputy attorney has contacted me - and we are set for our Case Management Conference next month.
At the trial - I will need to prove the EDD Appeals Board Judge used "prejudicial abuse of discretion or findings not supported by evidence" to win my case. I believe I have supporting evidence to prove both, and it will depend on my ability to represent myself and my case. Wish me luck people.....I have spent countless weeks preparing for this conclusion.

[jvaski]

Follow-up on my case that went before the Super Court Judge here in Lake Tahoe, Ca .
The judge filed a tentative rulling denying my Writ of Mandate before ever hearing my case presentation.....but subsequently allowed argument a week leter.
My argument was that the EDD CUIC Code Section 1252 clearly defined the term "unemployed" , and I met the criteria for the definition. I also argued spreading wages over the year they claimed I was continulously employed as corp officer was erroueous becuase the language clearly states "wages spread over the period of employment" ( which there was none )
I explained the tax auditor had literally fabricated his report that I had "continuously performed duties as corp officer throughout the year and taken corp distributions"
I provided the court evidence in the form of my Corporate checking activity which clearly proved lack of any "employment" , and also provided two previous similar cases where EDD lost to corporate officers who they originally deemed "always continuously employed doing corporate duties for the corporation" while they were looking for work. The Judge stated the two cases weren't applicable ( he wouldn't review them ) and admitted that I was clearly "without work or income " but decided I was "technically employed as a corporate officer continuosly " simply because EDD determined that. The judge went on to state " many indivuals incorporate to collect unemployment benefits under the corporate shell" ......which to me clearly show extreme bias and prejudice towards anyone collecting unemployment. ( especially a corporate officer who is a contractor )
This case was clearly predetermined and biased thoughout the entire process ....and I suggested to the judge that all through the process my significant evidense was purposely denied and overlooked .
The California justice system is pitiful and jaded !!

Next, I expect the EDD tax auditor to provide an overpayment letter stating I am to repay all benefits approved by them and payed out .................

So California Contractors and Corporate Officers - it is clear the REQUIRED Unemployment Benefits payments to the state are CLEARLY not collectable if they want to FABRICATE "employment status" for you !!!!!!!!

[jvaski]

To follow-up.....Both the EDD Tax Auditor and Appeals Board purposely mis-intrepreted their own CUIC Codes language to fabricate an "employment" status against me because they clearly do not want a Corporate Officer collecting unemployment benefits - regardless of proven "unemploymnet" status under CUIC Section 1252.
In short, You can legally be the Officer of your S-Corp , and the Sole Employee - and be "legally required" to pay into the unemployment system, but you are not eligable toe receive benefits "technically" because "YOU are alwways employed doing corporate duties for the corporation" REGARDLESS if you can prove otherwise.
The Superior court judge tentatively ruled against me before hearing my case .....and made a statement "People incorporate purely for the purposes of collecting uVigilante Maine Coons
loynent under the corporate shell" ........it is a statement that is truly as biased as it is erroneous !
I will be filing a complaint against this Superior Judge with the Calif Commission of Judicial Performance for his clearly biased statements, actions, and failure to recognize my compelling evidence presented to the court.

[jvaski]

Bringing this story up to date - After this rediculously biased Superior Court decision in Tahoe - the case was then brought before the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento. The Appeals Court agreed the Superior Court failed to judge on it's disgression of the evidence and "remanded " the case back before the Superior Court. They also cited the two previous parallel law cases I presented as evidence as "applicable" and stated that I had a "vested right to collect unemployment benefits" etc. I had the remanded case removed from the same Tahoe Judge and had it heard in Cameron Park, Ca. The Superior Court Judge in Cameron Park heard the case and again completely failed to consider any of the evidence and my witness testimony. His ruling was completely biased and inaccurate in it's entirety - endless ranting and raving of topics unrelated to the hearing. He stated in his ruling " this court must assume he structured the form of his business as a corporation because of certain benefits he perceived that business form had to offer" ( suggesting I Incorporated specifically to receive unemployment benefits )........... Obviously the two Superior Judges know each other - the first judge made a similar comment.
I will again take this before the Appeals Court in Sac - if I am allowed - due the willful bias and purposeful refusal to consider evidence. It's astounding that Superior Court Judges remain on the bench when they are obviously extremely biased and wilfully prejudiced. I filed a complaint against the first Judge with the Dept of Judicial Performance in SFO - only to realize they protect their own................

- - - Updated - - -

Just a note here, when the Appeals Court "remands" a case back before the Superior Court it is because that court failed to hear the case properly. The "Opinion" written by the Appeals Court spells out what the mistake was and specifies "specific instructions" on how the Superior Court is to re-hear the case. The Superior Court is supposed to follow those specified instructions and recognize any other recommendations within the Opinion for consideration in the rehearing.