Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
310CV1471 Injunction

310CV1471 Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 306|Likes:
Published by URBNAnthony.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANTHONY MCKNIGHT SR. Plaintiff, v.

FILE NO. 3:10cv1471(MRK)

DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET. AL. Defendant,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM STATE OF CONNECTICUT/SEBAC REVISED JULY 22, 2011 AGREEMENT

In response to defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. This federal court has Jurisdiction in the instant matter as The United States Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANTHONY MCKNIGHT SR. Plaintiff, v.

FILE NO. 3:10cv1471(MRK)

DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET. AL. Defendant,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM STATE OF CONNECTICUT/SEBAC REVISED JULY 22, 2011 AGREEMENT

In response to defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. This federal court has Jurisdiction in the instant matter as The United States Court

More info:

Published by: URBNAnthony.com on Sep 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/13/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ANTHONY MCKNIGHT SR. FILE NO. 3:10cv1471(MRK)Plaintiff,v.DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET. AL.
 
Defendant,
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM STATE OFCONNECTICUT/SEBAC REVISED JULY 22, 2011 AGREEMENT 
In response to defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. Thisfederal court has Jurisdiction in the instant matter as The United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit, United States District Court in Rhode island rulings on the Evictions Actretained jurisdiction in matters involving contracts between state employees and the Stateof Rhode Island
 . The cases are entitled National Education Association Rhode Island 
v
 . Retirement Board of Rhode Island Employee Retirement Systems et. Al.,
 
cited incourt as, 890 F. Supp 1143 (1995) and 972 F. 100 (1997). The Court of Appeals case iscited as 172 F. 3d 22 (1999).
In a 1990 case involving the cities of East Providence and Warwick, Hoffman v. Cityof Warwick, the federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said that “non-contractual benefits” not yet received were not legally protected property:
“It is unclear whether the legislature can pass and lawfully enforce anamendment that adversely affects an individual who has satisfied theage and years-in-service requirement, but has not yet retired,” 
It must therefore stand to reason that contractual benefits received are legally protected property. However, “Artificial Reductions” may now supersede the Constitutional Rightsof individuals.
1
 
“Artificial reductions” as stated in Attachment D of the 2011 State of Connecticut/SEBAC Agreement gives rise to Equal Protection, Contract, Property, andDue Process violations. “Artificial Reductions”, being “artificial” could qualify as a “Billof Attainder” or as any mechanism, as it is “artificial”. The laws therefore themselvescan be artificial as to allow for “artificial reductions”.
''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capitalpunishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treasonand felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of painsand penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy,pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms andguards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within itsreach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in allsuch cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what maybe properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely bywhat it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.''
Judicial acts or decisions may not avail themselves to review by the courts. However,legislative acts or laws are reviewable. The term “artificial reductions” is vague andambiguous and may yield to vast interpretations without the benefit of reason or rationale by the legislative, executive, judiciary and quasi judiciary elements of government,eliminating the balance of powers.While in Connecticut, United States District Court- Hartford held jurisdiction inrecent rulings regarding SEBAC v. John Rowland {3:03-cv-00221-AVC}. The courtfound in SBEAC v. Rowland that the legislature and executive branch had the right tolayoff employees it didn’t opinion on the merits of the legislature or the executive branchas having the right to artificially or otherwise reduce the employee staffing levels as itrelates to those employees entitled to pension benefits pursuant to 5-142(a) or 5169(i) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
 
The 2011 contract agreement has become law, and thusrestricts the contractual relationship provided for in Connecticut General Statutes 5-142(a), 5-169(i), and Article 10 Section 1, as well as various Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution.The language within the contract between the State of Connecticut and SEBAC isambiguous and violates plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. 5-142(a) entitlements areaccrued pension liabilities. They are entitlements created in statute, are mandatory, not
2
 
discretionary. The plaintiff was subsequently separated from state service as a result of exposing these violations in May 1995. {See
395cv00962 RNC
McKnight v State of Connecticut 1995}.
The following are “artificial reductions” signed by then Labor Negotiator withOPM Attorney Linda Yelmini, now of the State Office of the ComptrollerRetirement Division, Referenced in the State of Connecticut/ SEBAC 1995 Contract:
Pension Fundinga. The parties agree that as of the June 30, 1995 actuarial valuation, theactuarial value of assets shall be reset to the market value of assets with aphase-in to the five year average asset method over the ensuing four years.The increase in asset value as a result of this restart of the asset valuationmethod will reduce the unfunded accrued liability. This reduction shall befunded over 36 years based on the level percentage of payroll amortizationmethod and present period. This reduction in funding shall be used toreduce the level of contribution otherwise resulting from the June 30, 1995valuation (and future valuations) and the funding policy now in placepursuant to the existing agreements between the parties. The initial year'sreduction in contribution shall apply to 1996-1997.b. The employer's contributions to the State Employees Retirement System("SERS") for unfunded accrued liability shall be as follows for the next fourfiscal years:Fiscal Year 1996-97 S152,000,0001997-98 S164,150,000*
 
The “unfunded pension liability” referenced in SEBAC 1995 relates to the “artificialreduction” of The Negro pension benefits. During the time preceding Caucasian officer Cozzolino pension determination, the aforementioned “artificial reductions” demonstratesthe reductions referencing Negroes and not Caucasians as the Negro, Plaintiff AnthonyMcKnight pension was as stated “artificially reduced” as represented or contained in thefiscal year statement.These entitlements referenced in Connecticut General Statute 5-169(i) states in pertinent part:
If a member qualifies for “disability compensation” pursuant to C.G.S.5-142(a){Chapter 65}
he shall be credited with service hereunder and shall not bedeemed to retire, until he elects to retire”.
The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut in Trinkley v. State of Connecticut andJones v. State of Connecticut outlined these benefits as mandatory, separate and distinct benefits from “disability retirement” {Chapter 66} or “workers compensation” {Chapter 
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->