FILE NO. 3:10cv1471(MRK)



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 of Appeals, First Circuit, United States District Court in Rhode island rulings on the Evictions Act retained jurisdiction in matters involving contracts between state employees and the State of Rhode Island. The cases are entitled National Education Association Rhode Island v. Retirement Board of Rhode Island Employee Retirement Systems et. Al., cited in court as, 890 F. Supp 1143 (1995) and 972 F. 100 (1997). The Court of Appeals case is cited as 172 F. 3d 22 (1999). In a 1990 case involving the cities of East Providence and Warwick, Hoffman v. City of 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 an amendment that adversely affects an individual who has satisfied the age 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 Rights of individuals.

“Artificial reductions” as stated in Attachment D of the 2011 State of Connecticut/SEBAC Agreement gives rise to Equal Protection, Contract, Property, and Due Process violations. “Artificial Reductions”, being “artificial” could qualify as a “Bill of Attainder” or as any mechanism, as it is “artificial”. The laws therefore themselves can be artificial as to allow for “artificial reductions”.
''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and 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 pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what 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 and ambiguous 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 in recent rulings regarding SEBAC v. John Rowland {3:03-cv-00221-AVC}. The court found in SBEAC v. Rowland that the legislature and executive branch had the right to layoff employees it didn’t opinion on the merits of the legislature or the executive branch as having the right to artificially or otherwise reduce the employee staffing levels as it relates 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 thus restricts the contractual relationship provided for in Connecticut General Statutes 5142(a), 5-169(i), and Article 10 Section 1, as well as various Amendments to the United States Constitution. The language within the contract between the State of Connecticut and SEBAC is ambiguous and violates plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. 5-142(a) entitlements are accrued pension liabilities. They are entitlements created in statute, are mandatory, not

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 with OPM Attorney Linda Yelmini, now of the State Office of the Comptroller Retirement Division, Referenced in the State of Connecticut/ SEBAC 1995 Contract:
Pension Funding a. The parties agree that as of the June 30, 1995 actuarial valuation, the actuarial value of assets shall be reset to the market value of assets with a phase-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 valuation method will reduce the unfunded accrued liability. This reduction shall be funded over 36 years based on the level percentage of payroll amortization method and present period. This reduction in funding shall be used to reduce the level of contribution otherwise resulting from the June 30, 1995 valuation (and future valuations) and the funding policy now in place pursuant to the existing agreements between the parties. The initial year's reduction 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 four fiscal years: Fiscal Year 1996-97 S152,000,000 1997-98 S164,150,000*

The “unfunded pension liability” referenced in SEBAC 1995 relates to the “artificial reduction” of The Negro pension benefits. During the time preceding Caucasian officer Cozzolino pension determination, the aforementioned “artificial reductions” demonstrates the reductions referencing Negroes and not Caucasians as the Negro, Plaintiff Anthony McKnight pension was as stated “artificially reduced” as represented or contained in the fiscal 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 be deemed to retire, until he elects to retire”. The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut in Trinkley v. State of Connecticut and Jones v. State of Connecticut outlined these benefits as mandatory, separate and distinct benefits from “disability retirement” {Chapter 66} or “workers compensation” {Chapter


568}. As it relates to “artificial reductions” for example: ”workers compensation” is an ambiguous phrase at best, as “workers compensation” benefits are chapter 568 and discretionary, while 5-142(a) pension benefits are mandatory, where Chapter 66 pension benefits are negotiable. The 5-142(a) pension entitlements are the only pension benefits among the three which are set by “statute”, therefore being an entitlement qualified for by the beneficiaries, the only requirement for the pension benefit was established by law as mandatory and qualified as an “Election” for the injured employee and not an election that escheats to the State. In Jones v, State of Connecticut, and Trinkley v. State of Connecticut it is clarified by the State Supreme/Appellate Courts. The statute 5-142(a), and 5-169(i) gives that right to the injured employee, white or black. These benefits cannot be “artificially reduced”, they are and were “Fraudulently” reduced. {See 395cv00962 RNC}. At no time has the defendant, State of Connecticut presented any material in any proceeding which qualified for “retirement” “election”. At no time has the State of Connecticut petition for the revocation or reduction of this pension as C.G.S. 110a provides. The State of Connecticut has “artificially reduced” plaintiff’s pension benefits using approximately five different “artificial” separation of service dates{1993 April 26Department of Corrections, Dianne Pierpont Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix C, 1993 September 19- Medical Primary Physicians Report Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix D, 1993 December Discontinuation of Healthcare benefits Department of Administrative Services/Department of Corrections Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix E, 1994- Linda Fowler Correspondence DOC Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix D, 2009 Retirement Division-Workers Compensation- Comptrollers Office Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix B, Department of Corrections Mitch Drabik 1995 Correspondence Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix D.} The service dates on the separation form presented at the Delaney hearing has “artificial” service dates as the hearing itself is an attempt at “artificially reducing“ plaintiff benefits. The representation by defendant counsel regarding resignation as opposed to the plaintiffs’ statutory entitlement to retire at his election and to obtain credit for service is


another attempt at “artificial reductions“ and substantially reduces plaintiff pension entitlements. As stated in The Constitution of the United States: “….The validity of the public debt…….., authorized by law, ……..including debts incurred for payment of Pensions…….. shall not be questioned.” {Claimant‘s Amended Complaint Appendix E, Occupational Injury Report and Executive Order 38} However, in the matter regarding similarly situated Negro Corrections Officers, the Caucasian injured officers whom are unable to return to duty, like Michael Cozzolino of the State Department of Corrections, are allowed the privilege or right to “elect” pension benefits that are not “artificially reduced“ or “questioned.” The Defendant State of Connecticut has never presented any material or stated facts nor was it ever claimed that it was in the best interest of the public and state government that White injured officers similarly situated as Negroes should receive their pension benefits while the injured Negro Officer should not receive his pension benefits. For all of the reasons stated in defense counsels’ objection brief relating to rearguing issues; the defendant State of Connecticut should not be allowed to change its’ position. Where the law requires a trial and petition for felony or treason conviction by the Attorney General Office by which a reduction or revocation of pension entitlements may occur. The State of Connecticut has never argued this position and should be barred from doing so now. “Artificial Reductions”, can only be discretionary, which is provided for and protected within Chapter 568 of the Connecticut General Statutes within the jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Commission, and the were defendants’ claim for sovereign immunity lies. However, 5-142(a) pension benefits are Chapter 65 entitlements and does not allow for defendant sovereign immunity claims of discretion as these pension entitlements are mandated by statute and the sole election of the plaintiff, and must be removed or revoked by the Superior Court upon petition by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. In the alternate, and if it is later to be the position of the defendant State of Connecticut, the plaintiff requests of this court to take judicial notice of the date of the statute C.G.S. 110a., revoking or reducing pensions, as it was instituted in reference to


State of Connecticut v. Perez. The date of the enactment and eventual prosecution using such statute: (1). post dates the plaintiff’s eligibility retirement date which is being withheld by the defendant State of Connecticut. (2). fails to process the plaintiffs’ requested statutory retirement application(s). Although Chapter 66 allows for limited immunity, as those property benefits are negotiated and allowed to fluctuate, the benefits established in 5-142(a) can only be removed through statutory “due process” and is only allowable prior to the establishment of pension benefits. The defendant at no time stated nor determined that the plaintiff Retired as required by law: (1). There was no negotiated pension or voluntary agreement entered into by the parties. (2). The refusal of Defendant Retirement Commission to retire the plaintiff as did the commission similarly situated Caucasian officers violates plaintiffs’ constitutional rights pursuant to The Equal Protection Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10: The Contract Clause, as the pension entitlements are established by statute and therefore are not subject to “artificial reductions” under the language of the State of Connecticut 2011/SEBAC. The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states in relevant part: “…No state shall …….pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts……” The Fourteenth Amendment in relevant part: Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section 4: “…The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for

payment of pensions …………., for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Equal Rights Under The Law {1983}: “… All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties,…….” The plaintiff has proven irreparable harm: 1. By defendants “artificially reducing” plaintiffs’ pension benefits, the defendants violated plaintiffs pension entitlements. Plaintiffs‘ admission and tuition to Shaw Divinity was suspended indefinitely since 1994-5. {395cv00962 RNC} 2. The “artificial reductions”, violated plaintiffs’ pension and property rights of which caused the foreclosure of property owned by the plaintiff at 152 Lamberton Street, New Haven, Connecticut. {395cv00962 RNC} 3. Irreparable harm is currently being done to the family of the plaintiff. The “artificial reductions” violated the pension entitlement rights granted by statute, which would allow plaintiff the opportunity to tend to his mother whom is dying of cancer. These violations by defendant may also be considered cruel and unusual punishment for the individual reporting such violations in 1995 against the then Rowland Administration. {395cv00962 RNC} 4. 395cv00962 RNC was filed on May 9, 1995. The defendant State of Connecticut, knowingly issued an “artificial”, fraudulent “SEPARATION OF STATE SERVICE” Form on May 23, 1995. It does not meet the standard of “retirement” required by law. In the following, the plaintiff presents to the this court, actual, quantifiable “artificial reductions” as they take place during the minutes of the Retirement Commission Meetings. This is only an attempt to explain that which appears not cognizable, the pains and sufferings of Negros caused by certain members in public offices whom are allowed to violate such Negro rights.. The very same defendant public official Attorney Yelmini in the October 15, 2009, Minutes, is the same Attorney Yelmini that instituted the “artificial reductions” in the


1995{See Below}; {See OPEB Unfunded Pension Liabilities and Executive Order 38 Plaintiffs‘ Appendix ‘J‘} The State of Connecticut/SEBAC agreement as it relates to “Unfunded Accrued Pension Liabilities“ or “5-142(a) entitlement pensions. The same Former State Comptroller Nancy Wyman is the current Lt. Governor. Former State Representative Michael Lawlor, Labor Management Committee(1995) responsible for drafting the language in the 1995 State of Connecticut/Sebac Agreement is currently Office of Policy Management Deputy for Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman. While Mark Ojakian responsible along with Attorney Yelmini for the current 2011 State of Connecticut/Sebac “artificial reductions” is formerly Deputy Comptroller in the Retirement Division issuing the August 2009, Helen Kemp letter {See Plaintiffs‘ ‘B‘, Helen Kemp Letter }. The phrase “passed away” is used when referencing “artificial reductions” through attrition as mentioned by former OPM Deputy Commissioner Michael Cicchetti in the Executive Order 38 OPEB Report {Plaintiff Amended Complaint Append. J}. In either instance, the Negro does not receive his pension benefits. In both the language of Michael Cicchetti, and Attorney Yelmini, the “artificial reductions” are coded as “leaves of absences”, referring to unlawful terminations by the State Officials of injured Negroes: (1). The plaintiff having not been notified until 2009 of the separation from state service form. (2). The separation could not be seen as a layoff, as there where never any notices issued to plaintiff in regards to layoff. (3). The separation as indicated by DOC personnel required medical documentation not presented in plaintiffs‘ personnel files nor into evidence at any hearing. The OPEB Commission’s objective was primarily to deal with or find solutions to the problems created in the “artificial reductions” or unfunded pension liabilities created with SEBAC 1995. The reductions are artificial in nature because it refers to the unlawful decrease in pension obligations to injured Negro beneficiaries as opposed to Caucasians similarly situated. The plaintiff in this instant matter petitioned the State Employees Retirement


Commission for the very same Hazardous Duty Pension that Michael Cozzolino received. The Commission refused to process the plaintiffs’ request, referring the plaintiff to the Department of Corrections, Administrative Services, and Workers Compensation Commission whom are not required to process the Negro “Retirement” Application. {See Plaintiff Amend Complaint Append B} Also, as indicated within the following “Chairman’s Report” contained within the Retirement Commission Minutes of Meeting, a motion is being indicated as being filed in Federal Court. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction in the instant complaint to issue Writs, and Orders of Injunctions contrary to defense counsel’s petition and in favor of the plaintiff.
MINUTES OF MEETING STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 October 15, 2009 Ms. Yelmini asked: “ if we ever close out the cases that are waiting for further information or do we just carry them on the books forever.” Mr. Casella asked: “if there was a way to send out letters to the folks who have files pending to see if they are still interested in pursuing the matter, or if they have retired or passed away. This might clear up some of the backlog of old files.” Jeanne Kopek said: “it was certainly something the division could consider.” Linda Yelmini asked: “if there was a definition for what would be a reasonable amount for a claim and or appeal. Some times folks leave their claims sitting for twenty years before they take any action. This will be looked into by the Regulations Subcommittee.” CHAIRMAN'S REPORT “To clarify information from my report last month, a motion to reopen has been filed in the Federal Court………..”

For all of the foregoing reasons listed in this plaintiffs’ response and all of the filed motions for injunctive relief; the plaintiff respectfully requests the granting of all plaintiff motions and orders. The plaintiff respectfully requests this court issue and order and ruling finding : (1). Attachment “D” of The Revised 2011 Agreement Between State of Connecticut and State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) Signed by Daniel E. Livingston, Chief Negotiator, Sebac and Mark E. Ojakian, Chief Negotiator, State of Connecticut, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the General Statutes of the state of


BY:__________________ Anthony McKnight Sr. P. O. Box 304 West Haven, Conn. 06516 Tel: (203) 675-7722 Email: AnthonyMcKnightSr@gmail.com

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent via First Class US Mail to Asst. Attorney General Maura Murphy Osborne at 55 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 On this _______Day of September 2011. BY:__________________ Anthony McKnight Sr.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful