Source: https://humanfealty.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/the-discrimination-is-affirmed/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:26:02+00:00

Document:
LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Bureau of Finance and Administration 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington Connecticut on Friday May 8 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room B on Docket No. 0811-N-181-L for the application of Ajmal Mehdi DBA Medics Transportation. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 13b-103 and 4-177 through 182 of the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) Ajmal Mehdi DBA Medics Transportation seeks authorisation to operate four (4) motor vehicles having a passenger seating capacity of ten (10) adults or less in general livery service between all points in Connecticut from headquarters in Bristol. Parties and interveners requiring an interpreter (translator) for this public hearing may make arrangements by contacting the Department of Transportation ‘s Administrative Law Unit at (860) 594-2875 at least five (5) working days prior to the hearing.
The application file on November 10, 2008 with the department of Transportation ( hereinafter “ department”) pursuant to section 13b- 103 of the /Connecticut General statutes, as amended , Ajmal Mehdi d b a Medics Transportation ( Hereinafter “ application”) located at 511 pine street Bristol Connecticut seek authorisation to operate four (4) motor vehicles, having a seating capacity of ten (10) adults or less , in general livery service between all points in Connecticut USA from a headquarters in Bristol CT USA.
Department of transportation failed the application based on our religious belief because when We mentioned that in Human Faith we don’t believe in “ Territory matters for competitiveness “ first come and first serve should be the choice of customers. future is in faster service with technology not based on facts that the territories are divided doesn’t represent American liberty and idea of freedom.
Based on Hearing, fact, Discussion, and witness we feel that conclusions is simply based on Religious Discrimination . We would like to petition the matter to United State Congress, United State Senate and U S Department of Transportation to reopen this application and investigate this case.
2. We believe any kind of negative discrimination such as racism, sexism and religious persecution are crimes against humanity. We cannot endorse sole progression of man from animal as it rejects spiritual evolution. We will respect all human kind.
Ajmal MEHDI v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES et al.
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and SHELDON and SCHALLER, Js.Ajmal Mehdi, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). David L. Kent, human rights attorney, for the appellee (named defendant).
The self-represented plaintiff, Ajmal Mehdi, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal of the decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to dismiss his discrimination complaint.1 We conclude that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our discussion. On August 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint against Thomas Curly/ Associated Press, alleging that he had been denied services based, in part, on his religious beliefs in violation of General Statutes § 46a–64 (a)(1).2 Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the Associated Press had discriminated against him by refusing to publish articles written by the plaintiff regarding his religious beliefs. In response, counsel for the Associated Press submitted a letter stating that the conduct alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint was outside of the statutory mandate of the defendant3 and was protected under the federal and state constitutions and federal and state laws.
The plaintiff then filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court.8 The court held a hearing on March 28, 2012, and issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the appeal on April 2, 2012. The court conducted a de novo review of the defendant’s determination to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. It concluded that a state agency cannot “tell a newspaper what it can or cannot print” and that the defendant “correctly determined ․ that the Associated Press was exempt from a claim of religious discrimination under § 46a–64 (a) where the plaintiff’s complaint alleged a matter reserved for journalistic discretion.” This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth our standard of review. “Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power [of the court] to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong․ A court has subject matter jurisdiction if it has the authority to adjudicate a particular type of legal controversy․ It is a familiar principle that a court which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation․ This concept, however, is not limited to courts. Administrative agencies [such as the defendant] are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves․ We have recognized that [i]t is clear that an administrative body must act strictly within its statutory authority, within constitutional limitations and in a lawful manner․ We ․ note that because [a] determination regarding [an agency’s] subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rweyemamu v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 98 Conn.App. 646, 649–50, 911 A.2d 319 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 911, 916 A.2d 51, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 886, 128 S.Ct. 206, 169 L.Ed.2d 144 (2007).
The Superior Court, in affirming the decision of the defendant, agreed that had the defendant required the Associated Press to publish the materials requested by the plaintiff, such an order would violate the first amendment. The court is correct under Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974), where the United States Supreme Court concluded that a Florida statute requiring newspapers to print a reply from a candidate for elected office if the newspaper had assailed the candidate’s personal character or official record was unconstitutional. Id., at 258. “The clear implication has been that any such compulsion to publish that which reason tells [a newspaper publisher] should not be published is unconstitutional.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 256; see also Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 391, 93 S.Ct. 2553, 37 L.Ed.2d 669 (1973) (court reaffirmed unequivocally protection of editorial judgment and free expression of views); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 n. 18, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed.2013 (1945) (newspaper not required to publish something that in its judgment should not be published).
Justice White’s concurring opinion in Miami Herald Publishing Co. contains language applicable to the present case. “But the balance struck by the [f]irst [a]mendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed ․ [A law requiring publication] runs afoul of the elementary [f]irst [a]mendment proposition that government may not force a newspaper to print copy which, in its journalistic discretion, it chooses to leave on the newsroom floor. Whatever power may reside in government to influence the publishing of certain narrowly circumscribed categories of material ․ we have never thought that the [f]irst [a]mendment permitted public officials to dictate to the press the contents of its news columns or the slant of its editorials.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, supra, 418 U.S. at 260–61. Guided by this first amendment jurisprudence, we conclude that the Superior Court properly rejected the plaintiff’s appeal from the defendant’s dismissal of his discrimination complaint.
1. The plaintiff named Charles Krich and Pekah Wallace, members of the defendant, and Thomas Curley of the Associated Press as defendants in his administrative appeal to the Superior Court. The court granted motions to dismiss these individuals, and they are not parties to this appeal. We therefore refer in this opinion to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as the defendant.
3. The powers and duties of the defendant are set forth in General Statutes §§ 46a–54 and 46a–56.
7. In its brief to this court, the defendant notes that because it would have jurisdiction over the Associated Press had there been a discriminatory publication, it should have dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although we need not address this issue, we note that “[i]t is axiomatic that [w]e may affirm a proper result of the trial court for a different reason.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rafalko v. University of New Haven, 129 Conn.App. 44, 51 n. 3, 19 A.3d 215 (2011); Florian v. Lenge, 91 Conn.App. 268, 281, 880 A.2d 985 (2005); see also Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96, 111, 671 A.2d 349 (1996) (if evidence supports only one conclusion as matter of law, then result should be affirmed even where there is error). Under the first amendment’s protection of editorial discretion by the press, the defendant properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.
8. See General Statutes § 4–183.

References: v. 
 § 46
 § 46
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4