EXIBIT #3 ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE

gynecomastia

EXIBIT #3 ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO REMAND OR REVERSE

**CONTACT DAWN NARET' AND LINK TO OTHER WEB SITES:**

MAIL: P.O. BOX 2315, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
USA 15230-2315

EMAIL:
dnaret@gmail.com
Reply2dn@gmail.com
dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk

WEB SITES:
http://www.subatomicquantumhumor.blogspot.com "SUB ATOMIC QUANTUM HUMOR"
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”


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 #5 LETTERS TO PA STATE ATTY MACAREVICH AND PROTHONOTARY

gynecomastia

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.)

Open Letter To Dan Onorato - (TO VIEW ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, CONTINUE TO SCROLL DOWN)

Dawn Naret'
P.O. Box 2315
Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315

4-5-07

Dan Onorato, County Executive Director

I tried to forward you a copy of a very important article, but this contact system would not accept the size of it. Please read my copy of it A.S.A.P. at:
http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com/

This is not a typical letter to the Executive Director of County Government. It is being sent to you, for your protection. There is about to arrive, a stirring of angry demonstrations and revolts against violations of Constitutional Rights and discriminations against smokers.

It would be beneficial to you and your staff to read this very informative article and familiarize yourself with all of the valuable information, that could help you have clear confidence, to support smokers in the "Burn the Smoking Ban" conflict.

I realize that you could feel more obligation to support the preferences, of what you imagine, to be the majority of the constituent opinion. However, the majority often has cross-over voters, as you are aware.

If you are not able to influence the County "steam-rollers" to cease discrimination and abuse, and to get these illegal laws and policies completely off the books, in Pittsburgh City and County, you could very well witness a prime example of "Majority Leverage" going bad.

You are possibly not aware of just how illegal and discriminatory this new ban is and every rule or policy that tries to dictate the activity and choice of a consumer who is using a legal product, is an illegal policy.

And just as illegal and discriminatory is the on-going practice of loading unassociated taxes onto tobacco products, "where smokers have to pay to provide increased funding, but non-smokers do not contribute".

I guarantee you, that 100% of the smoking voters will turn on any politician who supports the continuance of these abusive dictates and practices. Their numbers may be considered the minority, but the non-smoking majority may not approve of everything on your record, and could be crossing-over to the smokers' side, at least on a general election debate. So, you cannot have a guarantee that their majority over smokers is a clear sailing majority acceptance of the ban and the continued abuses against the smokers.

A more appropriate and definitely more legal philosophy and policy toward non-smokers demands, would be the "if you don't like it leave..." practice, advised for theaters of "XXX" rated film rights and porn shops in unwelcoming neighborhoods.

How have these unsavory businesses survived?? Remember? it was because of their Constitutional Right to choose and exist. Are we expected to have any LESS democratic democracy protection extended to honorable, working, citizens, who just happen to smoke cigarettes, a legal product to consume?

The Honorable Judge, requires that you contact him and officially withdraw requests for dictatorial smoking bans, limitations, restrictions, prohibiting/monitoring policies, laws, rules, discriminations, prejudices, as well as; harassment and obstruction practices, within your offices and illegal housing and employment discrimination being encouraged, by your office, based on erroneous assumption of freedom to permit, conduct or support these violations of constitutional rights of smokers.

Regards,
Dawn Naret'

"FUEL CELLS FOR ABOUT 2 BUCKS A GALLON"

Fuel Cells for about 2 bucks a gallon
Author: Dawn Naret'
"Fuel cells for about 2 bucks a gallon". That's a joke, but the current theories and experimentation into alternative utilization of expanded media's for staple resources and originations to the constantly evolving epiphanies of virtual airborne and electronic transmission modes of nuclearized molicules of fossil fuels and more recently developed synthetic vapors of expandable dissapation and compressable combustibility are still unable to trojectorize at a viably specific velocity or within the confines of determined radical limits. We are standing on the threshold of a WARP 3 jump in technical evolution, but still wavering on basic human weaknesses of info sharing and respectful restrictive cooperation between research groups. Hopefully, our force will not diseminate before the power is on in the atmospheric caldrens of these new endeavers. -
Dawn Naret' - reply2dn@gmail.com

--
A woman who strives to be equal to a man.....is NOT working up to her capability !!!