EQUAL PROTECTION Not For All of US

The argument is not a complaint about racism., as far as the plaintiff is concerned. Racism is merely a product of the actions of public officials that refused to treat Black people as white people that become injured as a result of their guard duties. Racism is the result or a reflection of the beliefs that the public officials are beholding. The argument of the plaintiff relates to Equal Protection. The result of which is the equal protection not being extended to the plaintiff. It is a result of bigoted, bias and racist acts conducted by the defendants. The larger part of the equal protection argument is the fact that the standard of pension rights that should be extended to the plaintiff are the same as those extended to non injured workers. And similarly situated injured Caucasian workers whom are accorded equal protection under the laws. The standard of equal protection accorded white people relates to non injured corrections officers, as they are allowed to be credited with service until their date of Hazardous Duty retirement. White public officials dont think that Black injured officers similarly situated are entitled to the same benefits. The hazardous duty retirement example of Michael Cozzolino is merely a form or format which points out the administrative process that should have applied to the plaintiff equally as it did in the instance of Michael Cozzolino, especially when the plaintiff designed the plan in 1995 before Mr. Cozzolino applied for benefits. What is most important is that corrections officers that perform their duties for twenty years and then decide to retire with a hazardous duty pension are allowed to pursuant to the law. Unfortunately, as a corrections officer, I did not have a choice in not going through that door. I was actually ordered by my superior officer into harms way as an attempt to save lives. Other officers in other facilities or buildings were not required to perform those type duties that day and in turn did not become physically unable as determined by Workers Compensation physicians, plaintiff physicians, defense counsel physicians. As not being able to continue to perform the duties of a corrections officer as a result of the hazards inherent in the job. All one has to do to understand my arguments is to refer to the original federal and workers compensation complaints, along with the various correspondences sent to Connecticut state officials regarding SEBAC. The state public officials were aware of these fraudulent events conducted by government officials, to include the foreclosure of my home and the eventual torching by fire of the property.