intent to deceive was not established by the prior administrative Re-determination, the preponderance of evidence presented at trial compels the conclusion that the Debtor intended to deceive the UIA when he misrepresented his employment status to the Agency through his MARVIN certifications. The Sixth Circuit has previously held that “a debtor’s intention — or lack thereof — must be determined by the totali ty of the circumstances.” In re Rembert, 141 F.3d at 282. In this case, the Debtor certified for unemployment benefits through MARVIN for 102 weeks. Each time, he was asked if he was working; each time, he answered, “no.” .The repeated and on-going nature of the Debtor’s misrepresentations suggest that he intended to mislead the Agency. See In re Yuppa, 2013 WL 4854479 at *4 (<HOLDING>) (citing In re O’Brien, 110 B.R. at 31-32;
holding that a rico plaintiff must allege at a minimum the time place and content of the alleged misrepresentations on which he or she relied the fraudulent scheme the fraudulent intent of the defendants and the injury resulting from the fraud holding that repeated misrepresentations of employment status when applying for benefits are sufficient to prove fraudulent intent holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent holding defendant equitably estopped where it made fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiff that he would receive share of commissions