issue in the case before us is byzantine in its complexity, but from the morass of dependent clauses one may distill the following: If one is discharged for misconduct, in general, one loses one’s rights to unemployment compensation for six weeks, unless one is discharged (among other things) for theft or larceny in connection with one's work, in which case one is disqualified from receiving any unemployment compensation benefits until one has found a new job and worked for thirty days in covered employment. 205 W.Va. at 202, 517 S.E.2d at 299 (footnote and citation omitted). 3 . See W. Va.Code § 61-6-16 (1923) (Repl.Vol. 2000). 4 . See W. Va.Code § 61-6-18 (1969) (Repl.Vol. 2000). 5 . See W. Va.Code § 61-3-53 (1998) (Repl.Vol. 2000). 6 .See Summers, 205 W.Va. at 202, 517 S.E.2d at 299 (<HOLDING>). However, in the context of proving fraud, for
holding that the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the movant holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence holding that burden is upon employer to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that claimant committed act in question holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant