Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

State of Connecticut Supreme Court

Anthony McKnight Sr. April 19, 2012 Plaintiff V State of Connecticut Department of Corrections, et. Al. Defendant

Date:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1.) The defendant, State of Connecticut public officials, were negligent in their fiduciary obligations created through plaintiffs entitlements to 5-142(a) benefits {As enacted 1993}. The defendants unlawfully terminated plaintiffs employment. 2.) The Malfeasance on behalf of the defendant State of Connecticut was the proximate cause of plaintiffs loss of property and other liberties and rights guaranteed plaintiff pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and its Statutes and the laws of the State of Connecticut. 3.) The Defendant State of Connecticut violated the plaintiffs civil and statutory rights when public officials Terminated the Plaintiff while the plaintiff was out of work due to inmate related, hazardous duty, work compensable injuries. Background 1.) The plaintiff, an African American, was hired by the defendant state of Connecticut in a Hazardous Duty capacity on April 3, 1987{See Appendix , } 2.) The plaintiff suffered career ending disabilities on April 26, 1993 where it was determined by defendant, and plaintiff physicians that the plaintiff was, in fact, no longer able to perform the duties of a corrections officer due to the injuries suffered during an altercation with dangerous inmates while in the employ of the defendant state of Connecticut. Department of Corrections. {See Appendix , Miles 3.) Unlike similarly situated injured Caucasian Corrections Officers, the plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by the defendant state of Connecticut, while absent from work due to his inmate related, work compensable injuries, {See termination doc letters etc} 4.) The plaintiff contends that the Defendant State of Connecticut/SEBAC

Agreements(IV,V,2011) violated plaintiffs rights as it fosters and promotes discrimination through fraud and artificial reductions of African American Corrections Officers Disability Compensation Entitlements through the its unfunded policies carried out by its agencies. 5.) The Connecticut Legislature on March 6, has approved the ambiguity and fraudulent language in Attachments D and H the Agreement in favor of the defendant public officials which violates African American Corrections Officers Civil Rights to Equal Protections of the Law as it relates to those benefits received by white corrections officers similarly situated.. Recent Developments concerning the issues since last arguments in this case. State of Connecticut/ SEBAC 2011 Agreement Attachment D and H signed into law during the 2012 February Legislative Session.

QUESTIONS INVOLVED The Connecticut Appellate Court Dismissed and Remanded this issue to the defendant Department of Corrections/Workers Compensation Commission, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Administrative Services. The issue having never been properly disposed of lends itself to review by this Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut. The recent admissions and/or affirmations specifically regarding the Connecticut General Statutes, 5-142(a){1993} and those benefits and stipulations in the recent SEBAC Agreement, specifically Attachments D and H. Review by this cou rt is necessary in resolving the permissibility specifically to the issues in Attachment D of that Agreement as it relates to Disability Compensation Benefits and Constitutional/Civil Rights Violations of Plaintiff . We ask the court to consider The united States Supreme Court Rulingin In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), which. Overturned the earlier Plessey v Ferguson ruling by the Court. The Court basically decided that racial segregation is unconstitutional. The separate but equal doctrine encoded in the black laws, Jim Crow laws of the south violated the constitutional and fourteenth amendment rights of individuals to the equal protection of the laws. The Civil Rights ACT of 1964 soon followed.. These artificial reductions in African American benefits similarly violates the injured African American Corrections Officers constitutional rights to equal protections of the law. The Disability Retirement offered by the defendant State of Connecticut does not equal to the benefits offered to similarly situated white corrections officers. *This agreement certifies and equates to fraud as stated in CGS 31-290(c).

*The loss of property belonging to the plaintiff is a actual loss of life and liberty that the entitlements seek to avoid, as these are designated through the mandate of the statute and is not in the discretion of the Workers Compensation commissioner nor is it apart of the Workers Compensation ACT. *Artificial Adjustments by the state in violation of the statute also creates artificial and unnecessary liens on plaintiffs property creating a decrease to plaintiffs station in life. *Artificial reductions negates the application of law as it relates to 31-284, 5-169(I), and 5-142(a){1993}, etc. *By virtue of 31-290 the benefits in 5-142 are not subject to fraud or artificial reductions. The opinion of the court 733 decision case. States that the statutes within the Act avail themselves to 142 recipients for the sake of administrative efficiency or redundancy.

Respectfully submitted,

By:_______________________________ Anthony McKnight Sr.., M.P.A, M.S. P.O Box 304 West Haven CT 06516 Email: Anthonymcknightsr@gmail.com Telephone: 203-675-7722

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed via U.S. Mail to Attorney for the Defendant, Asst. Attorney General Maura Murphy-Osborne, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06460. This ____ Day of April 2012.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen