every opportunity, the department “caretakers” wrongfully designate the
misnomer that their ever-changing “interim regulations” are Federal law and that their administrative law employees are delegated to reside over the denied claimant’s appeal. 1) Reasonable man; 2) the US President; 3) the members of Congress; 4) the “defendants” (government “caretakers”); and 5)the departments’ “solicitors” (office of general counsel – office of inspector general) know that the departments’ unqualified, fraudulent, manipulated, and inaccurate analysis shall not be recognized by any legitimate trier of fact. Consequently, it seems that when claimants or their Congressional representatives object, the department employees suddenly change their focus from denied to reinstated or “approved.” A legitimate trier of fact is mandated to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that are established by the US Supreme Court justices and/or United States Codes.
QUESTION: Who authorized the department employees to believe they are sanctioned to vacate all citizens’ rights and legal precedents and replace them with their personal opinion?
The claimant’s grave medical conditions likely prevent him/her from responding to the department employees’ dictates. In most cases, it would be nearly impossible for the sick worker or survivor (layman) to structure and present a legally defensible brief.
A USDOL’s “Final Adjudication Board (FAB)" employee issued a final decision. The decision reflects that the FAB representatives accepted the recommendation of the unqualified USDOL’s district office employees. Reasonable man could assume that the claimant did not understand the ramifications that were imposed by the department employees. Consequently, the claim was dismissed.
For comparison, I offer an example of the USDOL’s bureaucratic application of concern — malpractice and/or abuse of discretion errors. The “domestic terrorists” inflicted their cruel and unusual punishment. It is likely that the claimant did not understand or approve the health physicist examiner’s dose reconstruction “jargon.” The USDOL employees once again effectively demonstrate how they are “ignorant of the legal ramifications and/or findings of fact before them.” The unqualified department employees’ intent was to invoke their ludicrous opinions in regard to the enforcement of their “interim regulations.”
The claimant’s request for a department hearing was before an assigned USDOL’s Administrative Law Judge employee. It appears that the USDOL employees punished the claimant for not following their RULES (“interim regulations”).
