SEBAC 2011 Injunction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Anthony McKnight Sr. File No. 3:10cv1471(MRK) Plaintiff,

v. Date: August 8, 2011STATE OF CONNECTICUT ET., AL. Defendants,

Plaintiff Motion For Injunctive Relief FromState of Connecticut/State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition Revised

July 22, 2011 Agreement

The Plaintiff, Anthony McKnight Sr., Pro Se and pursuant to applicable rules of Federal

rules of Civil Procedure, files this, an emergency motion for injunctive relief against the

defendant, State of Connecticut and its agents as listed in the complaint/amended

complaint.

This motion for injunction relief is filed on behalf of every Black, Negro, African

American, Nigger or any other population or class of state employees that will be adversely

affected by the ratification and passing into law of the 2011 State of Connecticut/SEBAC

Agreement signed on July 22, 2011 by Mark Ojakian, Chief Negotiator, representing the

Office of the Governor for the State of Connecticut and Daniel Livingston, Chief Negotiator

for SEBAC. The contract violates petitioners’ Constitutional and Civil Rights. Non

represented, this petition for injunction is filed in conjunction with and supplements the

original amended complaint.

In Memory of Martin Luther King. Jr.

The contract relates to represented and non represented union and non union employees,

requiring those effected to have been retired by October 2, 2011. The plaintiff contends that

the defendant intentionally targeted injured negro employees for termination and other

artificial reductions violating the plaintiffs rights under the Equal Protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.“

The Allowance of the ratification of such a contract violates the Contract Clause and

Section 4 of 14th. The passage of this ’automatically’ by the legislature impedes the rights of

the plaintiff and all Negro employees (Linda Fowler’s definition of similarly situated

employees referred to injured Negro workers, See Appendix of Commissioner Miles decision

of defendant’s response to plaintiffs’ Complaint.) In pertinent Part: The validity of the

public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for

payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,

shall not be questioned.

The debt incurred by the State of Connecticut is a pension liability relating to a legitimate

public interest, authorized by Connecticut General Statute. This, barring Eleventh

Amendment immunity claims. The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law

that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies to state legislation.

The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

“…. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Equal Rights Under The Law


“… 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, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

Make and enforce contracts

“Make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and

termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions

of the contractual relationship.

Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental

discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

The contract is a well organized subtle agreement which reflects the essence of malicious

conduct adopted by the current administration from the previous two administrations.

Although the current administration had the ability to solve the issue before the court with

the passing of the following legislation enacted as stated in Senate Bill 1239:

Sec. 13 (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management may transfer amounts appropriated for Personal Services in sections 1 to 10, inclusive, of this act from agencies to the Reserve for Salary Adjustments account, upon approval of the Finance Advisory Committee to reflect a more accurate impact of collective bargaining and related costs.

(b) The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management may transfer funds appropriated in section 1 of this act, for Reserve of Salary Adjustments, upon approval of the Finance Advisory Committee, to any agency in any appropriate fund to give effect to salary increases, other employee benefits related to staff reductions including accrual payments, achievement of agency general personal services reductions, or any other personal services adjustments authorized by this act, any other act or any other applicable provision


of the general statutes.

instead the current administration chose to conspire and continue the racketeering, fraud and

biasness and racism.

INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 et seq.) was an early piece of such

legislation. Section 1983 of the act, passed when Ku Klux Klan violence was widespread,

created a federal remedy, namely money damages, for individuals whose constitutional rights

had been violated by state officials. Although this statute has been influential and frequently

litigated, no relief will be granted under it unless "state action" can be demonstrated.

The courts have recognized it is “settled principle that government employment, in the

absence of legislation, can be revoked at the will of the appointing officer.” McElroy, 367 U.

S., at 896. However in the instant matter, the legislative statutes require that the black

employee does not have his employment revoked, just as the Caucasian officer(s) was not

involuntarily and constructively discharged.

The term, "state action," refers to a discriminatory act committed by a government official

or agent. Such action may be taken by a legislative, executive, judicial, or administrative

body, or some other person or entity acting under "color of law." Section 1983 does not apply

to wholly private or nongovernmental conduct. If action is taken by a private individual

cloaked with some measure of state authority, courts will find State Action if one of four tests

is satisfied:

(1) public function test—state action is found where the government has delegated its traditional responsibilities, such as police protection, to a private party or agency;

(2) nexus test—state action is found where there is a sufficiently close


connection between the government and a private actor, such as where the state owns or leases property on which private discrimination occurs;

(3) state compulsion test—state action is found where the government coerces or significantly encourages private conduct, such as where federal regulations require private railways to conduct urinalysis after accidents;

(4) joint action test—state action is found where the government is a willful participant in discrimination by a private actor.

In the instant matter, State Action,. malfeasance exists through all four tests. The

“artificial reduction” of Negro benefits, essentially keeping separate accounting practices for

separate classes of people in public accounting must be illegal or dishonest activity especially

by a public official or a corporation.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

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 and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The State of Connecticut/SEBAC 2011 Contract Agreement directly violates Sections one

and four of the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to black Corrections Officers injured

while suppressing inmate insurrection.


Equal protection requires that the government treat all similarly situated people alike; Harlen Associates v. Inc. vill. Of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494,499(2d Cir. 2001). Thus, “to successfully assert an equal protection challenge, petitioners must first establish that the two classes at issue are similarly situated.“ Yen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 f.3d 143, 158(2d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must show that they are “similarly situated in all material respects to the individuals with whom they seek to compare {themselves}.” Graham v. Long Island Railroad, 230 f.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 200).

The word “All” includes Negro employees in the class of individuals eligible for

entitlements. Secondly, the provision in the statute is mandatory and not to the discretion of

the Workers Compensation Commission as it relates to budgetary reductions at the expense

of the Negro.(Section 4 of 14th Amend.)

The following Section of an Act concerning the Biennium Budget allows the fraudulent

and discriminatory contract agreement to become law. Section 165 states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 12 of Public Act 12-6, section 5-278 of the Connecticut General Statute and joint rule 31 of the joint rules of the senate and house of representative for the 2011-2012 legislative term. If the General assembly does not call itself into special session in accordance with this subsection, said agreement and any appendices filed with said agreement shall be deemed approved by the General Assembly.”

The provisions being allowed in SEBAC 2011 is the very same insurance fraud

methodology which brought about the conviction and incarceration of the former governor

John Rowland. This agreement attempts to legitimatize the fraud. {See Anthony McKnight

v State of Connecticut 1995, United States v. John Rowland}

The Connecticut General Statutes 31-51m. 4-61dd Prohibited Employer Activity From

retaliatory discharge:

“…Cannot discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize because employee or his/her representative reports a violation or suspected violation or requested an investigation, hearing, or inquiry or if public employee reports to a public body concerning unethical practices,


mismanagement, or abuse of authority, unless employee knows such report is false.”

However, when plaintiff filed the original federal complaint in 1995, The former governor

John Rowland, Attorney General Blumenthal, Department of Corrections, State Legislative

Judiciary Committee, Office of Chief States Attorney formed a joint task force to discredit

and destroy the plaintiff also see SEBAC V John Rowland et. Al.,

13th amendmentSection 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th amend“………………But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

{The “Discharge” in terms of penalty is for being a “Black” injured worker. “Leaves and Absences” as referred to in Attachment D, entitled “Covered Earnings” relates to targeted terminations of injured Black Corrections Officers as in the instant matter, “Workers Compensation”, artificial reductions, or slave labor, working for nothing, or for the “White Man”}

As in the instant matter, the “artificial reductions” caused the loss of property and family of

the Plaintiff..

To “artificially reduce” may be deemed as constructing a Fraud, as this agreement is based

on the acts, omissions and concealments of the agreeing individuals, of which the SEBAC is

representing thousands of individuals who place a trust in the representation not to be

defrauded, nor conspire to commit fraud. The other party to the contract, the state of


Connecticut, therefore is at a conflict of interests as it cannot protect the rights of the

employee citizens of the state through such a contract.

Where a principal can establish both a fiduciary duty {Connecticut State Rep. Betts June

6, 2011 Amendment B Argument HB6652} and a breach of that duty, through violation of the

above rules, the court may find that the benefit gained by the fiduciary should be returned to

the principal because it would be unconscionable to allow the fiduciary to retain the benefit.

This would be the case unless it can be shown by the State of Connecticut and SEBAC

that there was full disclosure of the conflict of interest or profit and that the principal fully

accepted and freely consented to the fiduciary’s course of action (this full disclosure of the

fraud to reduce African American officers benefits is hidden in an appendix to the agreement

‘in the normal acceptable way or course of doing business’). Discrimination and Fraud

should not be a way of doing government business.

Moreover the phrase: “Because compensation may be artificially reduced, for

example as a result of leaves or absence on Workers Compensation, the appropriate

year’s compensation will be substituted for any year when the compensation is

artificially reduced,” adopts and incorporates the same fraudulent and criminal deviations

from the law that former governor Rowland was found in violation of. The same Judiciary

Members, Commissioners, etc are the very same officials that implemented the Rowland

agenda, they are now adopted into the Malloy administration as a subsystem.

STATE SENATE AND HOUSE BILL IMPLIMENTERS 6651 AND 6652

The savings spoken of by State Representative Cafero is derived from hour 4, and Minute

35 of the video as he refers to removal of the debt and unfunded liabilities the agreement


will artificially reduce from the liability balance of the budget. The suggestion that

Representative Cafero is speaking of as a concession is the “write-off” of the negotiated

savings that cannot be identified. from hour 4, minute 42 to hour 4, minute 45. It involves a

secretive negotiated quid pro quo, totaling one point six billion.

Audit deficiencies in contracts being: “in the best interest of the state” is argued against by

State Rep Giuliani from hour 4 , minute 44- to hour 4, minute 48. While at hour 8, and

minute 38 through hour 8 and minute 42 State Representatives Rigsby and Betts attempt to

prevent the wrongdoing.

Senator Suzio at hour 5, and minute 30 on June 1, 2011 during the Senate session called it

”….. fraud.” The court can compare this agreement in accounting practice to that used by the

Comptroller at hour five through five thirty, “misleading” referring to noncompliance to

GAAP. Senator McLachlan also questioned the affect on Government Accountability to no

avail.

Although Senator Harp is the Co-Chair on the Appropriations and a member of the

Governor’s Financial Advisory Board(In statute), and proposes the Modified Accrual Section

26 and opposes any amendments, she insists on not knowing the intention of the governor’s

agenda with SEBAC {See Governor Malloy May 13, 2011 Statement of Agreement,

Injunction Attachment G}.

Modified Principles of Accounting can only mask the real budget. Mislead the public.

Distorts budget, mask deficit, inflate surplus,(See Injunction Attachment A: Comptroller

Lembo’s April 5, and 18, 2011 Letters)

This modified accrual basis of accountability in the SEBAC 2011 Agreement directly

undermines the mandatory entitlements in Connecticut General Statutes 5-142(a), 5-169(i),


and 5-257(a) and removes the mandatory execution of duties by government employees. In

essence circumventing and undermining the judicial process.

The concealment of the first tentative agreement Signed on May 18, 2011 by the two

parties also violates the contract clause, as details were not made known to the affected

principles until July after voting.

House Amendment ‘B’ was defeated requiring a review of the agreement. State

Representative Couto voiced concern that the agreement would become law without the

review of the legislative voting on the agreement. As State Representative Carter Stated at

hour 8 and minute 44: “The bill is a blank check.” At hour 8 and minute 45 State

Representative Walker moved to reject the amendment seeking review of the State of

Connecticut/SEBAC 2011 Agreement by the State House of Representatives. Representative

Betts at hour 6 and 40 minute thru- hour 6 and 44 minutes and 30 seconds was concerned

with the language of the contract as it related to the legislatures obligations and Compliance

with the house of representatives fiduciary responsibilities. The neglect of the Malloy

Administration, The General Assembly, and Courts in honoring the law is primary underlying

factors which results in the Malfeasance and corrupt government activities was first

documented in the Federal Complaint filed by plaintiff in Anthony McKnight v. State of

Connecticut(1995).

During the House Session, State Chief Negotiator Mr. Mark Ojakian can be seen during

the house session as overlord to State Rep. Walker as he directs and controls the session from

over the shoulder of the state representative Walker for Malloy Administration in particular

at Hour 4, and minute 49 to hour 4 and minute 50. This alliance is obvious throughout the

session and as State Senator Harp, Representative Walker is Co-Chair of the House


Appropriations Committee and is member of the Malloy Administrations Financial Advisory

Committee {See Injunction Attachment G}. Unlike the statement by Senator Harp during

debate with Senator Suzio: “No committee determined that any fraud occurred“, the

language in both contract and bills introduced signifies not only fraud but also a conspiracy

to cover-up the fraud and knowledge of the fraudulent behavior. The relationship with

Senator Harp and the Malloy Administration is solidified within Section 165 of the

Implementer Legislation when it references “appropriations” and “Office of Policy and

Management.”

The surplus money referred to is actually “artificially reduced” entitlement benefits from

Attachment D of the State of Connecticut/SEBAC agreement. They are re-appropriated

defrauded funds from the State’s unfunded pension liabilities. One of the many concerns and

objections to the agreement by the house of representative members is the Office of Fiscal

Analysis can not determine where the savings are coming from.

Collective Bargaining allowed the under funding of pension liability for years using the

criminal methodology of the Rowland Administration. The SEBAC agreement shows the

Intent of the Malloy Administration not to fund pension liabilities as the adoption of the

agreement validates and confirms the corrupt practices of the past. This agreement forgives

the pension liability Retroactively, with the blessing of SEBAC, creating greater

unpredictability and accountability for unfunded pension liabilities.

The Proper Accounting Techniques are being used by the Comptroller’s

Office. Therefore, the accounting used in reference to this agreement is fraudulent, as stated

in supporting legislation, “modified”, fake, illusionary, as indicated in the Act concerning the

budget Senate Bill 6651 Section (26), and Senate Bill 6652 Section (77).


Senate Bill 6651 In Pertinent Parts:

(1) "Accrual basis" means the basis upon which, in transactions thereon, revenues are accounted for when earned or due, even though not collected, and expenditures are accounted for as soon as liabilities are incurred, whether paid or not;

(26) "Modified accrual" means a basis of accounting where revenues are recognized when earned only so long as they are collectible within the period or soon enough afterward to be used to pay liabilities of that period and expenditures are recognized in the period in which they were incurred and would normally be liquidated

Sec. 77. Subsection (a) of section 31-71b of the general statutes, as amended by section 34 of house bill 6651 of the current session, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, each employer, or the agent or representative of an employer, shall pay weekly all moneys due each employee on a regular pay day, designated in advance by the employer, in cash, by negotiable checks or, upon an employee's written request, by credit to such employee's account in any bank that has agreed with the employer to accept such wage deposits.

(2) Unless otherwise requested by the recipient, the Comptroller shall, as soon as is practicable, pay all wages due each state employee, as defined in section 5-196, by electronic direct deposit to such employee's account in any bank, Connecticut credit union or federal credit union that has agreed with the Comptroller to accept such wage deposits.

Sec. 165. (Effective from passage) (a) Not later than five calendar days after the agreement between the state and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, signed by both parties on May 27, 2011, is filed with the clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, or June 30, 2011, whichever occurs first, the General Assembly may call itself into special session for the purpose of approving said agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12 of public act 11-6, section 5-278 of the general statutes and joint rule 31 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives for the 2011-12 legislative term, if the General Assembly does not call itself into special session in accordance with this subsection, said agreement and any appendices filed with said agreement shall be deemed approved by the General


Assembly.

Subsection (a) of this section, except that terms concerning wages for employees of the legislative branch shall be applied by the Joint Committee on Legislative Management in accordance with subsection (e) of this section. On or before June 30, 2011, the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall submit a plan to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations and the budgets of state agencies detailing how the terms of said agreement will apply to non represented classified and unclassified officers and employees. On or before June 30, 2011, the Chief Court Administrator and the Executive Director of Legislative Management shall submit a plan to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations and the budgets of state agencies detailing how the terms of said agreement will apply to non represented classified and unclassified officers and employees of the Judicial Department and the legislative branch.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes and except as provided in subsections (c), (d) and (e) of this section, the Commissioner of Administrative Services and the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall apply terms comparable to those contained in the agreement described in subsection (a) of this section to all non represented classified and unclassified officers and employees upon approval of said agreement in accordance with. ((d) On or before August 1, 2011, and notwithstanding the provisions of sections 45a-75, 46b-233, 51-12 and 51-47, the Chief Court Administrator or the judges of the Supreme Court shall consider and implement changes to longevity payments and wages for officers and employees of the Judicial Department comparable to the longevity and wage payment provisions of the agreement described in subsection (a) of this section. Nothing in this subsection shall apply said wage provisions to any such officers or employees whose wages are established by statute.

This contract removes the impediment that former Governor Rowland faced in dealing

with insurance fraud etc.. This agreement allows current governor Malloy to implement the

previous administrations fraud tactics with the blessings of the legislature and union without

any risk of the same criminal convictions, as this agreements gives the governor permission

to create and maintain a criminal scheme. As through the SEBAC V ROWLAND {See


Injunction Attachment E} complaint which since has been removed, through the passage of

the budget implementers in conjunction with SEBAC 2011. It will allow unilateral,

capricious and arbitrary acts to be committed by the governor, which punishes objectors and

rewards supporters. This method is not based on the law or merit but on the discretion of

those in charge within the administration, the subsystem which can covertly violate with

malicious intent and wanton disregard for the constitutional and civil rights of the afflicted

employee(S).

The entitlements and pension of the petitioner is not only established by Connecticut

General Statute 5-142(a), 5-169(i), and 5-257(a) it is supported by Connecticut Attorney

General Blumenthal prior to the implementation of the Rowland/Lawlor Workers

Compensation insurance fraud scheme which the agreement seeks to criminally validate and

certify. The benefit principles of his opinion only apply to White People and those in league

with the administrative policy goal of adopting and not correcting the Rowland Era

mistakes.. (See Injunction Attachment D: Attorney General 1990 Opinion) In relevant part,

Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment states In pertinent part:

{“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”}

The Black Officers in this matter were actually in the performance of his guard duties

when ordered to help in the suppression of a uprising in the correctional facility {See

Injunction Attachment J, Plaintiff Amended Complaint Attachment Incident Report}. Each

officer was terminated per the new agreement and have not received the pension benefits of

Caucasians. The Connecticut Statutes specifically references pensions and benefits along


with those liabilities to the state authorized by law.

However, as the same members that created the fraud are also the members of

government that have the duty to investigate the fraud; making any protection of the

petitioner rights by the state of Connecticut impossible. {Please See Federal Civil complaint

McKnight v. State of Connecticut 1995.}

Relevant part: “No State shall……..pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law

impairing the Obligation of contracts”

As in the matter of McKnight v. State of Conn.(1995), and the instant complaint,

Commissioners have knowingly defrauded injured Negro workers specifically as a matter of

their appointments to judge. In the testimony submitted {The Commissioner Delaney and

Miles Transcripts, Plaintiff Amended Complaint ‘K’}, White People are giving preferential

treatment as it relates to benefits issued directly by the Union negotiators Sal Luciano, and

State Negotiators Yelmini, and Ojakian, {See Attached Injunctive ‘C’ Retirement

Commission Meeting record}

{Note: individuals receiving their benefits are all white and three are giving excessive discretionary benefits, while in the case of the Negro, none received the benefits required by Law. The benefits received by the Caucasian were not required by the law, yet they received overly generous benefits.}

The “similarly situated “ class of individuals referred to in the Fowler testimony in the

commissioner Miles decision referred to “similarly situated” black officers, as being

terminated and having the benefits artificially reduced {See Injunction Attachment H}.

Similarly situated didn’t apply to the white officers because they were giving their

mandatory statutory benefits, and excess. The similar class exists in the fact that White

Corrections Officers as Black Corrections Officers worked together and received similar


injuries. However, Black people are not giving mandatory statutory benefits,

Commissioners appointed by the governor are obligated per their appointment to order

“artificial benefits” to the Negro. {See fraudulent check and other fraudulent documents

Injunction Attachment B, Plaintiff Amend Complaint C and D}. These “leaves or

absences” are actually terminations or “artificial reductions” of Injured Negro employees

entitled benefits when they are out of work due to work compensable injuries. It directly

violates the Connecticut General Statutes, The Contract Clause, and Section 4 of the

Fourteenth Amendment {See Plaintiffs Executive Order 38 Injunction Attachment I}

The Delaney decision, a product of the Rowland fraud methods, artificially reduces and

eliminates the entitlement of the Negro employee because the commissioners take away the

right established by law for the injured Negro to “ELECT” benefits most advantageous to his

position as is in the case of injured white corrections officers. Michael Cozening a similarly

situated corrections officer received his pension, while the plaintiff, a black officer receives

“artificially reduced” Food Stamps. {See Department of Social Services Food Stamp

Determination Letter: Injunction Attachment H}. Both the Miles and Delaney decisions

takes away the Liberty of the Negro to choose. Which is a First Amendment Violation of the

Constitution. Constructive fraud, or discharge, Discrimination, artificial adjustments-when

it is based on acts, omissions or concealments are considered fraudulent and gives one an

advantage against the other because such conduct, demands redress for reasons of public

policy.

The fraudulent activities of Governor Rowland were implemented with then Judiciary Co-

Chairs Lawlor and McDonald and are actualized and adopted by the Present Malloy

Administration as a subsystem being “artificially“, as stated, and fraudulently implemented,


impeding the rights of the Negro to make a “choice” merely because the person is Negro, or

not Caucasian.

Within the “State of Connecticut/SEBAC Agreement, Attachment ‘D’”

{Injunctive attachment F}. Statutory Changes with Respect to Caps in Covered Earnings

which takes effect on July 1, 2014 states as follows :

Section 5-192(z) (c). “Covered earnings” means the annual salary, as defined in subsection(h) of section 5-154, received by a member in a year,…………… Current practice in those units where all overtime is presumed mandatory for this purpose shall be maintained. Because compensation may be artificially reduced, for example as a result of leaves or absence on Workers Compensation, the appropriate year’s compensation will be substituted for any year when the compensation is artificially reduced.”

The contract through the Connecticut General Statutes require that the entitlements be

paid to “all” employees at a bi-weekly or monthly bases. It also requires that the accrual

liabilities be resolved on an accrual accounting bases and not on an artificial/fraudulent

“modified accrual” practice. However, this does not happen for the Negro. The white people

get the accurate accounting while the Negro receives artificial accounting.

{Lembo letter: Injunction Attachment ’A” }

As a state law, the agreement would interfere with the rights of the plaintiff and state

employees. A Breach of duty clearly exist on both parties to the agreement. Unless the

fiduciary can show there was full disclosure of the conflict of interest (Sebac v Rowland ) or

profit and that the principal fully accepted and freely consented to the fiduciary’s course of

action. The plaintiff does not consent.

It is within the resolve of the SEBAC argument in SEBAC v ROWLAND that the

interests of the Negro Employees are not considered in the agreement as in the instant


complaint of Anthony McKnight v. State of Connecticut. Artificial or fraudulent benefits

only relate to the Negro and not the Caucasians.

{Constructive fraud Discharge/Discrimination/artificial adjustments}-when it is based on

acts, omissions or concealments considered fraudulent and that gives one an advantage

against the other because such conduct, demands redress for reasons of public policy.

Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this court issue an order and ruling finding:

(1). The Contract: 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 on JULY 22, 2011, is in violation of the Constitutional and Civil Rights of

the plaintiff as provided for in The Constitution of The United States of America and

the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut.

BY:__________________Anthony McKnight Sr.P. O. Box 304


West Haven, Conn. 06516Tel: (203) 675-7722 Email: [email protected]


Documents

SEBAC 2011 Injunction