Does the deprivation of unemployment benefits based on a charge of 'misconduct connected to the work' when the only issue the employer disputed was 'voluntary leaving' violate due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW As was the situation for Josef K in Kafka’s The Trial NIDOL's Appeals Tribunal proceedings are Inquisitorial typical of the type of proceedings employed by autocratic governments. ; Actions against claimants are commenced by an accusation — the identity of the entity originating the accusation, its pleadings, and its secret documents faxed to the Tribunal are customarily withheld from a claimant’s discovery. Petitioner received a Notice in the mail from NJDOL shortly after filing his claim for UI benefits on April 26" 2010 accusing him of “misconduct connected to the work” without ' _ specifying the entity leveling it. Just as was the situation with Josef K Petitioner learned that the charge of “misconduct connected to the work” of unknown origin has unconstitutional “stickiness” attached to it: it survives initial claims hearings even when the charge is dismissed : and often follows a claimant around for years and requires a Tribunal agent to physically remove it from your case file. The penalty imposed has a Draconian effect and the initial “refund” can cause a loss of the ability to pay the premiums on COBRA health insurances and disqualifies you from future UI claims such as EB and training programs (ABT). Just as was the case with the character Josef K in Kafka’s “The Trial” Petitioner was forbidden from learning the identity of the unknown accuser. When Petitioner tried to discover the source of "the accusation [ Interrogatories 1-6 App. infra 126a127a ]. Admissions Requests #20 #22 App. infra 148a ] he was told by the Respondents that they had “already produced” that information to him when indeed they had not. When Petitioner appealed to the Magistrate Judge that the Respondents’ attorney had not produced the requested information as to what -i y entity or person originated the accusation against him Petitioner was told by the Magistrate that his request is “moot” because the Respondents’ attorney “is an officer of the court” and . of course officers of the court do not lie. An initial hearing was held on the charge of unknown origin and was dismissed because the employer “had no answer to our detailed questions” about the misconduct charge and benefits granted — but this information was withheld from Petitioner. Relieved and believing it all must have been a mistake Petitioner just like “K” soon learned his acquittal was only an “ostensible acquittal” and several weeks weeks later Petitioner received another Notice in the mail notifying him that not only was Petitioner fired for misconduct -but that Petitioner also quit voluntarily having “abandoned his job”. Unbeknownst to Petitioner his employer had sent a protest letter to the Tribunal requesting an appeal because Petitioner was the moving party in the separation having “abandoned his job” not showing up for work some 21 days after the employer had told Petitioner not to report for work anymore. Another hearing was held and secret documents including the employer’s attendance record for Petitioner were sent to the Tribunal without Petitioner’s knowledge. At the Tribunal hearing Petitioner’s employer testified from the secret documents and a secret “call-out sheet” that the employer “just printed out” in the middle of the telephone proceedings. The Inquisitor then proceeded.to drill Petitioner to get him to attest to the information the employer had just testified to based on the secret documents. A guilty decision that Petitioner had been fired for misconduct was rendered based on the information in the secret call-out sheet and secret attendance record : that Petitioner was fired for misconduct. Just as was the case with Josef K Petitioner was not a ; -ii : made aware of his accuser’s pleadings until after a conviction has been reached by the Tribunal: “The employer contends that the claimant voluntarily left the job without good cause attributable to the work. There were no other issues disputed by the appellant employer” [ App. inf