Preview
X06-UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON =
ETAL. : JULY 11, 2022
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DAVID PHILIP MASON
Plaintiff objects herewith to Defendant David Philip's Motion to Strike (#347.00),
which requests that the Court strike Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten
and Eleven of the Fifth Amended Complaint. With regard to each Count, Mr. Mason
argues that each fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
Plaintiff argues to the contrary with regard to each claim and each count.
The “Background” section of the motion to strike is replete with factual errors, even
when it cites to specific paragraphs of the complaint. For example, Plaintiff does not
allege in Paragraph 50 - or even elsewhere - of the Fifth Amended Complaint that
Redding animal control officer Michael DeLuca “searched the Plaintiff's home for a goat
reportedly hit by a vehicle.” If he did so, he conducted an unconstitutional search
without a warrant, a serious invasion of Plaintiff's rights. Regardless, he found no goats
inhabiting Plaintiff's home. The accusation bespeaks a poisonous disregard for Ms.
Burton, her private property and her rights.
The “Background Section” refers to Paragraph 70 when it states animal control
officer Charles Della Rocca observed Plaintiffs property from across the street. In fact,
he testified that he observed it from the next-door-neighbor’s property, belonging to
Carmody-Gibbons. Since he observed nothing untoward, and he was under orders to
find or leave or contrive something untoward, he and co-conspirators from the
Department of Agriculture and Redding police squandered — by their claim — four days
at full pay “surveilling” Plaintiff's property. Having found nothing untoward they were left
to contrive false claims and unfounded speculation to achieve their wrongful objective:
to concoct a case against Ms. Burton. Having found nothing that would suggest any
lapse of care of the goats, they should have retreated to some other location elsewhere
in the state where actual animal abuse was being carried out, such as the Department's
own animal facility on the York prison grounds. They were unable to identify a single
goat experiencing neglect or cruelty or imminent harm. Their failure to do so was a fataldefect rendering their case subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
given the clear language of the statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-329a(c).
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading to set forth a claim
upon which relief may be granted; no factual findings by the Court are required. Sullivan
v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117 (2006). In ruling on a motion
to strike, the Court is limited to the allegations of the complaint.” Ventres v. Goodspeed
Airport, LLC, 275 Conn. 105, 154 (2005).
ARGUMENT
A. Counts Two and Eleven Allege Viable Causes of Action for Invasion of
Privacy
1. Unusual intrusion upon seclusion
Mason asserts that
Plaintiff makes no specific allegation that he invaded her right to privacy. For
example, the Plaintiff does not allege that Mr. Mason participated in the alleged
four-day continuous surveillance of the Plaintiff and her property in March 2021.
To the contrary, Mason’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy is implicit throughout the
complaint. For example, Mason overlooks that in Paragraph 46, Mason is included by
name; subsection 46d alleges as follows:
d. Enlisting neighbors, including defendant Mason and others in the Town of
Redding to participate in a hate campaign using social media to spread false and
malicious information about plaintiff and the goats.
Spreading false and malicious information about another via social media is on its
face the commission of the tort of invasion of privacy — unusual intrusion upon
seclusion.
Mason also overlooks the allegations in paragraph 93 that he and others engaged in
a widespread and multi-faceted civil conspiracy by which he and they deliberately
intruded upon Plaintiff's seclusion.
These allegations more than suffice to set forth a viable cause of action in invasion
of privacy.
Additionally, Mason was later identified as one of the “anonymous” complainants
which led to the investigation by then-state veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVD (Complaint
Paragraphs 29-30) which she dismissed as unfounded.
2. Unreasonable publicity given to her private life.
2The unreasonable publicity given to Plaintiff's private life enjoys no protection
whatsoever as it is knowingly false and inflammatory and thus is of no legitimate
concern to the public. Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn.
107, 127-128 (1982). For example, the accusation by ignorant and malicious neighbors
that the goats were malnourished was entirely false and proven to be false at the
hearing before Judge Cobb. For example, when animal control officer DellaRocco was
asked at hearing how much hay Plaintiff fed her goats, his complete answer was:
“They're not my goats.” His testimony was a disaffirmation that the goats were
malnourished as he knew they were not and there was no other testimony nor evidence
to the contrary. To the extent that Judge Cobb may have ruled otherwise without
evidence and otherwise for no proper reason, her ruling is subject to correction on
appeal when the host of slurs, falsehoods and innuendos in her decision will be
corrected. Similarly, the Department of Agriculture knew and approved of animal burials
onsite during the 2018 Lis inspection. Such burials are entirely lawful. The Department
of Agriculture made no effort to inquire as to the cause of any goat deaths but simply
wanted to create inflammatory messaging. In fact, cancer and birth defects caused
multiple deaths. Katie the Goat died of a lethal cancer after grazing on grass near the
Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford; the plant is notorious for planned and
unplanned radiation releases to the air which end up in grass and garden vegetation
and cause cancer and other dread diseases, particularly among women and children.
Licensed veterinarian malpractice with fatal results - such as bungling a commonplace
injection — occurred multiple times. The Department never asked Plaintiff about the
causes of goat deaths; it should have asked, given its legal responsibility for the health
and welfare of Connecticut livestock.
The complaint suffices to set forth a viable cause of action against Mason in invasion
of privacy — unreasonable publicity.
3. False Light Invasion of Privacy
Mason’s statements to the police after he recklessly and wrongfully chased the goats
into the road intending that they be killed or maimed were incomplete, contrived and
false, yet were released widely by the co-conspirator Redding Police Chief O’Donnell
without having performed an adequate investigation. Paragraphs 48-54. The
communications falsely targeted Ms. Burton and constitute a false light invasion of
privacy.
The illegal search of Plaintiff's property on March 10, 2021 resulted inter alia from
Masons participation with the co-conspirators in fomenting a false, scurrilous false-light-
invasion-of-privacy campaign.
The complaint suffices to set forth a viable cause of action against Mason in invasion
of privacy -m false light invasion of privacy.B. Count Three Alleges a Viable Illegal Search and Seizure Claim
The motion argues: “In fact, the Plaintiff does not allege that Mason did anything
other than report a crime.” (page 12) That statement is completely untrue and reflects a
failure to read the complaint. He was hardly the complaining witness entitled to qualified
immunity
The complaint alleges Mason was a willful participant in joint conspiracy with the
state and its agents and others and thus he acted under color of state law; a viable
illegal search-and-seizure claim is set forth.
The complaint satisfies a 1983 conspiracy claim against Mason: (1) an agreement
between a state actor and Mason; (2) acting in concert to inflict an unconstitutional
injury; and (3) an overt act in furtherance of that goal causing damages. Ciambriello v.
County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324 (2d Cir. 2002).
Mason’s error is his failure to come face-to-face with the fact that he was a wilful co-
conspirator in the entire search-and-seizure operation and thus he is responsible for all
the harm which came about as a consequence.
Mason was a willing and vocal member of the conspiracy team: he communicated
with the co-conspirators; he attended co-conspirators’ ZOOM meetings; when called
upon, he lied about his misconduct and reckless endangerment of Plaintiff's goats and
refused to admit responsibility for his misdeeds to the police or to the public.
These wilful acts preclude his being excused on the flimsy, false grounds that all he
did was report a crime, omitting to acknowledge that he was the criminal at fault.
The Court must reject Mason’s inclusion of extracts of Judge Cobb’s April 9, 2021
order (pages 10-11) as it is an impermissible means to interject allegations outside the
complaint with no opportunity afforded to Plaintiff to identify and correct falsehoods even
if apparent in the record of the case. Furthermore, the Order is not a final decision but a
temporary decision following upon a preliminary hearing on a relaxed standard of proof
favoring the Department and therefore it is subject to correction and reversal after a full
hearing and/or appeal. Moreover, the decision is not supported by the facts or the law.
Mason’s statement: “There is no evidence that the Plaintiff can produce that would
mandate a different outcome” is simply speculative, fanciful and false. To the contrary,
the result of a full and complete hearing on the proper standard of evidence would favor
Plaintiff and correct the knowing falsehoods.
The complaint asserts Mason committed a crime when, pursuant to a plan
strategized in advance by the co-conspirators he chased goats he had deliberately
panicked into the road in order to kill or maim them, and that he knew his co-
conspirators would immunize him from criminal prosecution and instead deliberately
and unlawfully charge Plaintiff with the crimes.Regarding the search and seizure warrant, Plaintiff was not allowed to challenge it
at the hearing before Judge Cobb. As it is based on false and fraudulent information,
and the affiant Charles DellaRocco is a notorious larcenist, forgerer, prevaricator and
misogynist fatally lacking essential credibility to prepare and sign the document, and
because he deliberately omitted facts known to be necessary for a truthful probable
cause evaluation, it will be rejected when the opportunity presents itself and the entire
search and seizure operation will be pronounced a corrupt and illegal exercise.
C. Count Four for Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 Is Not Barred Because Mr.
Mason Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity
Plaintiff incorporates herein her objections as to the alleged insuffiency of Count
Three.
Mason's conduct contributed to Ms. Burton’s loss of due process and First
Amendment liberties: His pre-planned, malicious, illegal acts resulted in Ms. Burton’s
deprivation of property and invasion of her home absent due process protections such
as a mandatory hearing and prior notice; his pre-planned, malicious, illegal acts
deprived her of her First-Amendment liberties to carry out her Mothers Milk Project and
thereby petition the government for a redress of grievances. Without the progeny of
Katie the Goat to carry on the milk collection and analysis, the vital public-interest
project was sabotaged..
Based on these facts, evidencing his criminal propensity and actions, Mason is not
entitled to qualified immunity.
D. Count Six Alleges a Viable Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; The Count Adequately Alleges Extreme and Outrageous
Conduct by Mr. Mason.
The complaint adequately alleges that:
1. Mason intended to inflict emotional distress or should have known that
emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct when, pursuant to a
conspiracy with the co-defendants, he chased Plaintiff's goats into the road in
a panic, intending that they be killed or maimed, and then lied about the
incident to the police in a pathetic effort to shift the blame to Plaintiff; and
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous because it was the result of a pre-
planned conspiracy with the police and other town officials that, if successful,
would have caused death or severe injury to the goats as well as the traveling
public, thereby constituting the crime inter alia of animal cruelty; the element of
“extreme and outrageous” is evidenced in the plotting by Mason and his co-
conspirator state actors and private citizens to bring about the death and injury
of innocent goats and endanger the traveling public for the purpose of setting
Plaintiff up for arrest and prosecution for their extreme and unconscionableconduct equivalent to a lynching, shifting the blame to Plaintiff despite her
innocence. Their dastardly conduct was the definition of extreme and
outrageous conduct not permissible in a civilized society.
3. Mason’s conduct was the cause of Plaintiff's distress insofar as she witnessed
Mason's crimes of cruelty, realizing they resulted from an intentional
conspiracy intended to cause her goats and herself grave and lasting harm
and suffering; and
4. The emotional distress sustained by Plaintiff was severe and continues to
cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme distress including sleeplessness, nightmares
and extreme sorrow.
As the complaint sufficiently alleges the facts necessary to support the cause of
action, the motion to strike fails.
E. Count Seven Alleges a Viable Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Mason’s Conduct Was Unreasonable and It Created an Unreasonable Risk of
Foreseeable Harm
The Complaint adequately alleges a viable cause of action for negligent infliction of
emotional distress because Mason’s conduct was unreasonable; it resulted from a
criminal and civil conspiracy to kill or maim the goats and the driving public and the
conduct created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm resulting from malice and
determination to kill or maim Plaintiff's goats. Not only was Mason’s conduct
unreasonable, it was utterly crazed. No normal person in his right mind would do such a
thing without tight guarantees from police authorities that he would get away with it
unpunished and an innocent party, Plaintiff, would be charged with his crime.
As the complaint sufficiently alleges the facts necessary to support the cause of
action, the motion to strike fails.
F. Count Eight Alleges a Viable Claim for Conversion
The central error of Mason’s argument is the assumption that lawless conduct will go
unpunished if public servants bereft of integrity knowingly ignore or break the law, as
here, confident that they will get away with it because of a breakdown of law in their
society.
Most law-abiding people in a civilized authority know that they cannot plot and take
steps with others to seize control of another’s property without the owner's consent.
Nothing about the seizure of Plaintiff's goats comes within the protection of the law.
Mason claims to have acted within the protection of the law, but any law he relied on
was the “law” of outlaws: abusers of the law including co-conspirator public servants
6who act with malicious purposes to break the law. Mason’s role as a co-conspirator was
critical to the scheme carried out by state and municipal officials to break the law by
stealing Plaintiff's property.
A search and seizure warrant is invalid and can confer no legal title when issued
under false pretenses to an applicant — here, Charles DellaRocco, a practiced larcenist.
Under a system of laws which are enforced equally by persons of honor and
integrity, Mason’s execrable conduct as a cog in the chain of misconduct leading to the
lawless seizure of Plaintiff's goats without her consent and without probable cause,
without prior notice or hearing, as set forth in the complaint, cannot be tolerated nor be
deemed defensible.
Mason’s objection to Count Eight is without merit.
G. Count Ten Alleges a Viable Claim for Deprivation of Equal Rights and
Privileges
As well as Carmody and Gibbons, Mason was immunized by his co-defendants and
others from prosecution for his unlawful acts including chasing Plaintiff's goats in full-
speed panic across the road with intent to cause them death or serious injury, with the
understanding among the co-conspirators that Ms. Burton would be prosecuted for his
crimes and that their acts would result in unlawful seizure of Plaintiff's goats, invasion of
her home and theft of her property.
Mason’s use of force — driving Plaintiff's terrified goats into the road ina
predator/prey fury in Plaintiff's presence — meets the standard for application of Conn.
Gen. Stat. §52-57 1a.
Thereby the Plaintiff has alleged a viable claim for deprivation of equal rights and
privileges under Count Ten.
THE PLAINTIFF
Lh 2
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.comCERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant
to Practice Book §10-13 on July 11, 2022 to the following and all counsel of
tecord as follows:
Matthew Levine. Esq.
Jonathan Harding, Esq.
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford CT 06106
Matthew.Levine@ct.aov/Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov
James Tallberg, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B
Rocky Hill CT 06067
JTallbera@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Philip Newbury, Esq.
Howd & Ludorf LLC
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford CT 06114
Michael Riseberg, Esq.
53 State Street
Boston MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/CParise@rubinrudman.com/
DStanhill@rubinrudman.com
Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLP
900 Main Street South
Southport CT 06488
aahrens@melicklaw.com
Dan Ba
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
X06-UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. : OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON = ETAL. : JULY 11, 2022 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DAVID PHILIP MASON Plaintiff objects herewith to Defendant David Philip's Motion to Strike (#347.00), which requests that the Court strike Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten and Eleven of the Fifth Amended Complaint. With regard to each Count, Mr. Mason argues that each fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Plaintiff argues to the contrary with regard to each claim and each count. The “Background” section of the motion to strike is replete with factual errors, even when it cites to specific paragraphs of the complaint. For example, Plaintiff does not allege in Paragraph 50 - or even elsewhere - of the Fifth Amended Complaint that Redding animal control officer Michael DeLuca “searched the Plaintiff's home for a goat reportedly hit by a vehicle.” If he did so, he conducted an unconstitutional search without a warrant, a serious invasion of Plaintiff's rights. Regardless, he found no goats inhabiting Plaintiff's home. The accusation bespeaks a poisonous disregard for Ms. Burton, her private property and her rights. The “Background Section” refers to Paragraph 70 when it states animal control officer Charles Della Rocca observed Plaintiffs property from across the street. In fact, he testified that he observed it from the next-door-neighbor’s property, belonging to Carmody-Gibbons. Since he observed nothing untoward, and he was under orders to find or leave or contrive something untoward, he and co-conspirators from the Department of Agriculture and Redding police squandered — by their claim — four days at full pay “surveilling” Plaintiff's property. Having found nothing untoward they were left to contrive false claims and unfounded speculation to achieve their wrongful objective: to concoct a case against Ms. Burton. Having found nothing that would suggest any lapse of care of the goats, they should have retreated to some other location elsewhere in the state where actual animal abuse was being carried out, such as the Department's own animal facility on the York prison grounds. They were unable to identify a single goat experiencing neglect or cruelty or imminent harm. Their failure to do so was a fataldefect rendering their case subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given the clear language of the statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-329a(c). LEGAL STANDARD A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted; no factual findings by the Court are required. Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117 (2006). In ruling on a motion to strike, the Court is limited to the allegations of the complaint.” Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 275 Conn. 105, 154 (2005). ARGUMENT A. Counts Two and Eleven Allege Viable Causes of Action for Invasion of Privacy 1. Unusual intrusion upon seclusion Mason asserts that Plaintiff makes no specific allegation that he invaded her right to privacy. For example, the Plaintiff does not allege that Mr. Mason participated in the alleged four-day continuous surveillance of the Plaintiff and her property in March 2021. To the contrary, Mason’s invasion of Plaintiff's privacy is implicit throughout the complaint. For example, Mason overlooks that in Paragraph 46, Mason is included by name; subsection 46d alleges as follows: d. Enlisting neighbors, including defendant Mason and others in the Town of Redding to participate in a hate campaign using social media to spread false and malicious information about plaintiff and the goats. Spreading false and malicious information about another via social media is on its face the commission of the tort of invasion of privacy — unusual intrusion upon seclusion. Mason also overlooks the allegations in paragraph 93 that he and others engaged in a widespread and multi-faceted civil conspiracy by which he and they deliberately intruded upon Plaintiff's seclusion. These allegations more than suffice to set forth a viable cause of action in invasion of privacy. Additionally, Mason was later identified as one of the “anonymous” complainants which led to the investigation by then-state veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVD (Complaint Paragraphs 29-30) which she dismissed as unfounded. 2. Unreasonable publicity given to her private life. 2The unreasonable publicity given to Plaintiff's private life enjoys no protection whatsoever as it is knowingly false and inflammatory and thus is of no legitimate concern to the public. Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 127-128 (1982). For example, the accusation by ignorant and malicious neighbors that the goats were malnourished was entirely false and proven to be false at the hearing before Judge Cobb. For example, when animal control officer DellaRocco was asked at hearing how much hay Plaintiff fed her goats, his complete answer was: “They're not my goats.” His testimony was a disaffirmation that the goats were malnourished as he knew they were not and there was no other testimony nor evidence to the contrary. To the extent that Judge Cobb may have ruled otherwise without evidence and otherwise for no proper reason, her ruling is subject to correction on appeal when the host of slurs, falsehoods and innuendos in her decision will be corrected. Similarly, the Department of Agriculture knew and approved of animal burials onsite during the 2018 Lis inspection. Such burials are entirely lawful. The Department of Agriculture made no effort to inquire as to the cause of any goat deaths but simply wanted to create inflammatory messaging. In fact, cancer and birth defects caused multiple deaths. Katie the Goat died of a lethal cancer after grazing on grass near the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford; the plant is notorious for planned and unplanned radiation releases to the air which end up in grass and garden vegetation and cause cancer and other dread diseases, particularly among women and children. Licensed veterinarian malpractice with fatal results - such as bungling a commonplace injection — occurred multiple times. The Department never asked Plaintiff about the causes of goat deaths; it should have asked, given its legal responsibility for the health and welfare of Connecticut livestock. The complaint suffices to set forth a viable cause of action against Mason in invasion of privacy — unreasonable publicity. 3. False Light Invasion of Privacy Mason’s statements to the police after he recklessly and wrongfully chased the goats into the road intending that they be killed or maimed were incomplete, contrived and false, yet were released widely by the co-conspirator Redding Police Chief O’Donnell without having performed an adequate investigation. Paragraphs 48-54. The communications falsely targeted Ms. Burton and constitute a false light invasion of privacy. The illegal search of Plaintiff's property on March 10, 2021 resulted inter alia from Masons participation with the co-conspirators in fomenting a false, scurrilous false-light- invasion-of-privacy campaign. The complaint suffices to set forth a viable cause of action against Mason in invasion of privacy -m false light invasion of privacy.B. Count Three Alleges a Viable Illegal Search and Seizure Claim The motion argues: “In fact, the Plaintiff does not allege that Mason did anything other than report a crime.” (page 12) That statement is completely untrue and reflects a failure to read the complaint. He was hardly the complaining witness entitled to qualified immunity The complaint alleges Mason was a willful participant in joint conspiracy with the state and its agents and others and thus he acted under color of state law; a viable illegal search-and-seizure claim is set forth. The complaint satisfies a 1983 conspiracy claim against Mason: (1) an agreement between a state actor and Mason; (2) acting in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act in furtherance of that goal causing damages. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324 (2d Cir. 2002). Mason’s error is his failure to come face-to-face with the fact that he was a wilful co- conspirator in the entire search-and-seizure operation and thus he is responsible for all the harm which came about as a consequence. Mason was a willing and vocal member of the conspiracy team: he communicated with the co-conspirators; he attended co-conspirators’ ZOOM meetings; when called upon, he lied about his misconduct and reckless endangerment of Plaintiff's goats and refused to admit responsibility for his misdeeds to the police or to the public. These wilful acts preclude his being excused on the flimsy, false grounds that all he did was report a crime, omitting to acknowledge that he was the criminal at fault. The Court must reject Mason’s inclusion of extracts of Judge Cobb’s April 9, 2021 order (pages 10-11) as it is an impermissible means to interject allegations outside the complaint with no opportunity afforded to Plaintiff to identify and correct falsehoods even if apparent in the record of the case. Furthermore, the Order is not a final decision but a temporary decision following upon a preliminary hearing on a relaxed standard of proof favoring the Department and therefore it is subject to correction and reversal after a full hearing and/or appeal. Moreover, the decision is not supported by the facts or the law. Mason’s statement: “There is no evidence that the Plaintiff can produce that would mandate a different outcome” is simply speculative, fanciful and false. To the contrary, the result of a full and complete hearing on the proper standard of evidence would favor Plaintiff and correct the knowing falsehoods. The complaint asserts Mason committed a crime when, pursuant to a plan strategized in advance by the co-conspirators he chased goats he had deliberately panicked into the road in order to kill or maim them, and that he knew his co- conspirators would immunize him from criminal prosecution and instead deliberately and unlawfully charge Plaintiff with the crimes.Regarding the search and seizure warrant, Plaintiff was not allowed to challenge it at the hearing before Judge Cobb. As it is based on false and fraudulent information, and the affiant Charles DellaRocco is a notorious larcenist, forgerer, prevaricator and misogynist fatally lacking essential credibility to prepare and sign the document, and because he deliberately omitted facts known to be necessary for a truthful probable cause evaluation, it will be rejected when the opportunity presents itself and the entire search and seizure operation will be pronounced a corrupt and illegal exercise. C. Count Four for Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 Is Not Barred Because Mr. Mason Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Plaintiff incorporates herein her objections as to the alleged insuffiency of Count Three. Mason's conduct contributed to Ms. Burton’s loss of due process and First Amendment liberties: His pre-planned, malicious, illegal acts resulted in Ms. Burton’s deprivation of property and invasion of her home absent due process protections such as a mandatory hearing and prior notice; his pre-planned, malicious, illegal acts deprived her of her First-Amendment liberties to carry out her Mothers Milk Project and thereby petition the government for a redress of grievances. Without the progeny of Katie the Goat to carry on the milk collection and analysis, the vital public-interest project was sabotaged.. Based on these facts, evidencing his criminal propensity and actions, Mason is not entitled to qualified immunity. D. Count Six Alleges a Viable Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; The Count Adequately Alleges Extreme and Outrageous Conduct by Mr. Mason. The complaint adequately alleges that: 1. Mason intended to inflict emotional distress or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct when, pursuant to a conspiracy with the co-defendants, he chased Plaintiff's goats into the road in a panic, intending that they be killed or maimed, and then lied about the incident to the police in a pathetic effort to shift the blame to Plaintiff; and 2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous because it was the result of a pre- planned conspiracy with the police and other town officials that, if successful, would have caused death or severe injury to the goats as well as the traveling public, thereby constituting the crime inter alia of animal cruelty; the element of “extreme and outrageous” is evidenced in the plotting by Mason and his co- conspirator state actors and private citizens to bring about the death and injury of innocent goats and endanger the traveling public for the purpose of setting Plaintiff up for arrest and prosecution for their extreme and unconscionableconduct equivalent to a lynching, shifting the blame to Plaintiff despite her innocence. Their dastardly conduct was the definition of extreme and outrageous conduct not permissible in a civilized society. 3. Mason’s conduct was the cause of Plaintiff's distress insofar as she witnessed Mason's crimes of cruelty, realizing they resulted from an intentional conspiracy intended to cause her goats and herself grave and lasting harm and suffering; and 4. The emotional distress sustained by Plaintiff was severe and continues to cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme distress including sleeplessness, nightmares and extreme sorrow. As the complaint sufficiently alleges the facts necessary to support the cause of action, the motion to strike fails. E. Count Seven Alleges a Viable Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Mason’s Conduct Was Unreasonable and It Created an Unreasonable Risk of Foreseeable Harm The Complaint adequately alleges a viable cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because Mason’s conduct was unreasonable; it resulted from a criminal and civil conspiracy to kill or maim the goats and the driving public and the conduct created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm resulting from malice and determination to kill or maim Plaintiff's goats. Not only was Mason’s conduct unreasonable, it was utterly crazed. No normal person in his right mind would do such a thing without tight guarantees from police authorities that he would get away with it unpunished and an innocent party, Plaintiff, would be charged with his crime. As the complaint sufficiently alleges the facts necessary to support the cause of action, the motion to strike fails. F. Count Eight Alleges a Viable Claim for Conversion The central error of Mason’s argument is the assumption that lawless conduct will go unpunished if public servants bereft of integrity knowingly ignore or break the law, as here, confident that they will get away with it because of a breakdown of law in their society. Most law-abiding people in a civilized authority know that they cannot plot and take steps with others to seize control of another’s property without the owner's consent. Nothing about the seizure of Plaintiff's goats comes within the protection of the law. Mason claims to have acted within the protection of the law, but any law he relied on was the “law” of outlaws: abusers of the law including co-conspirator public servants 6who act with malicious purposes to break the law. Mason’s role as a co-conspirator was critical to the scheme carried out by state and municipal officials to break the law by stealing Plaintiff's property. A search and seizure warrant is invalid and can confer no legal title when issued under false pretenses to an applicant — here, Charles DellaRocco, a practiced larcenist. Under a system of laws which are enforced equally by persons of honor and integrity, Mason’s execrable conduct as a cog in the chain of misconduct leading to the lawless seizure of Plaintiff's goats without her consent and without probable cause, without prior notice or hearing, as set forth in the complaint, cannot be tolerated nor be deemed defensible. Mason’s objection to Count Eight is without merit. G. Count Ten Alleges a Viable Claim for Deprivation of Equal Rights and Privileges As well as Carmody and Gibbons, Mason was immunized by his co-defendants and others from prosecution for his unlawful acts including chasing Plaintiff's goats in full- speed panic across the road with intent to cause them death or serious injury, with the understanding among the co-conspirators that Ms. Burton would be prosecuted for his crimes and that their acts would result in unlawful seizure of Plaintiff's goats, invasion of her home and theft of her property. Mason’s use of force — driving Plaintiff's terrified goats into the road ina predator/prey fury in Plaintiff's presence — meets the standard for application of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-57 1a. Thereby the Plaintiff has alleged a viable claim for deprivation of equal rights and privileges under Count Ten. THE PLAINTIFF Lh 2 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.comCERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant to Practice Book §10-13 on July 11, 2022 to the following and all counsel of tecord as follows: Matthew Levine. Esq. Jonathan Harding, Esq. 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Matthew.Levine@ct.aov/Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov James Tallberg, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B Rocky Hill CT 06067 JTallbera@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Philip Newbury, Esq. Howd & Ludorf LLC 65 Wethersfield Ave. Hartford CT 06114 Michael Riseberg, Esq. 53 State Street Boston MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/CParise@rubinrudman.com/ DStanhill@rubinrudman.com Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq. Melick & Porter, LLP 900 Main Street South Southport CT 06488 aahrens@melicklaw.com Dan Ba