Preview
UWY-CV-5028TK SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY
Vv COMPLEX LITIGATION
DAVID PHILIP MASON OCTOBER 31, 2023
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
CARMODY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AR
Plaintiff Nancy Burton files herewith her Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant Carmody Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Defendant Carmody with regard to the First Count (Defamation) of the
Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint.
This motion is addressed to the operative allegations in Count one as
follows:
The First Count alleges in Paragraph 45 as follows:
Defendant Carmody and Ms. Winters have widely and publicly
circulated and published false and defamatory screeds targeting
plaintiff, accusing her falsely inter alia of ‘using the law to break the
law’; although plaintiff timely demanded retraction of the false and
offensive publications, neither Carmody nor Winters complied.
Paragraph 46e alleges:
Prior to the Zoning Commission’s issuance of the cease and desist
order, said Mason, Carmody, Gibbons and others took to
harassing plaintiff and interfering with her ability to carry out her
objective to rehome most of her goats in the following ways,
among others... e. Instigating publication of defamatory
falsehoods about plaintiff and the goats as published on online
media channels operated by Susan Winters to incite negativity
and malice and discourage goat adoptions.
1
In her own motion for summary judgment dated August 21, 2023
Carmody’s counsel, Philip T. Newbury, Jr. mistakenly asserts that these
allegations pertain exclusively to one article entitled “Goats: An
Ongoing Issue,” which is attached to the Plaintiffs Affidavit as Exhibit B
This statement is incorrect insofar as this motion also pertains to an
article titled “Guest Editorial” with Ms. Carmody’s byline and is dated
September 20, 2022 as appeared on the social media platform Hello
Redding. This article, too is replete with defamation. The article iis
attached to Plaintiff’s Affidavit as Exhibit A.
In addition, Ms. Carmody’s publication of defamatory accusations
concerning Plaintiff and her goats has led to the creation of many
progeny of her article and many defamatory repercussions spinning off
from the “Guest Editorial” as well as her communications with others
including former State Senator Will Haskell. Mr. Haskell is not a party to
this suit but his damaging and reckless falsehoods, many set forth
herein, help complete the picture of how Carmody set about vilifying
Plaintiff recklessly and it caught on like a pandemic. In a calculation of
damages, these attacks on Plaintiff's character and reputation will add
to the total damages assessment as consequences of Carmody’s own
malice. See the accompanying Affidavit for a fuller presentation of this
Issue
These “Haskell et al” progeny are useful in identifying how
Defendant Carmody’s original defamatory publication has spawned
equally — or worse - false and hateful examples of defamation targeting
Plaintiff and her goats and revealing the harmful effects of defamation
as loose-lipped and false and malicious gossip which is also actionable
as defamation, spawned as a consequence of the original defamation
and is a component of the damages assessment.
While she attempts to dissociate herself from the defamation as
appears in the article entitled “Goats: An Ongoing Issue,” in fact Ms
Carmody is the source of most if not all of the malicious falsehoods
2
Factual Background
On or about September 20, 2017, Defendant Elinore Carmody joined
with certain neighbors in filing a complaint against Plaintiff with the
Connecticut Department of Agriculture regarding the goats she cared
for at her property at 147 Cross Highway in Redding.
The complaint was initiated by Defendant Elinore Carmody and
Coleen Griffin, an attorney then with Howd & Ludorf (the law firm
which represents Carmody in this matter as well as the Defendant
Redding Police Department, a Defendant herein, in this and a separate
unrelated matter). Griffin, who lived in Redding at the time, had a
vendetta against Plaintiff because Plaintiff's black Labrador dog was not
neutered although he was not required by law to be neutered.
Both Carmody and Griffin bore a grudge against Plaintiff and both
acted with malice when they filed the complaint. Neither possessed
knowledge of goats — their requirements and care - nor experience in
caring for goats. Their goal was extermination of the goats.
Their self-righteous pursuit of the goats’ extermination was wrong-
headed from the outset, as the property in question — 147 Cross
Highway — is located in a farming/residential zone where Plaintiff is
allowed to keep nine goats as-of-right according to a zoning formula
based on ownership of land, and more than nine with the approval of a
zoning land management plan.
The Griffin/Carmody complaint was referred to Mary Jane Lis, DVM,
the state veterinarian, who is particularly knowledgeable in the matter
of goats and their care as she herself kept goats and had great love and
respect for them.
Between 2017 and 2018, Dr. Lis made two visits to Plaintiff’s
property to evaluate her goats and her care of the goats. Plaintiff
answered all of her questions and tried to be helpful. The
3
Griffin/Carmody complaint was withheld from Plaintiff and considered
confidential while it was pending. On June 15, 2018, Dr. Lis released her
Investigation Report. The two-page document (“Lis Report”) is attached
hereto as Exhibit C.1 It concludes:
At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property appear
to be in good condition with food and water available.
Carmody’s name and address appear on the Lis Report. Upon
information and belief, Carmody received a copy of the Lis Report when
it was released on June 15, 2018 and she is therefore chargeable with
knowledge of its contents from that date forward, less time for mailing
and delivery. Ms. Carmody’s knowledge of the contents of the Lis
Report as of c. June 15, 2018, and the dismissal of her complaint by Dr.
Lis, are factors implicated in Plaintiff’s analysis of Ms. Carmody’s malice
and the recklessness of her defamatory statements as issues in libel law
analysis insofar as Ms. Carmody was fully aware of the reckless falsity
of her remarks. There is no higher authority in the arena of animal
health and care than the chief veterinarian of the state, and at the time
in question that was Dr. Lis. In comparison, Ms. Carmody is a lay person
with no identified nor claimed familiarity nor expertise with the health
and care of goats. In this arena, Dr. Lis’ word is gospel.
Moreover, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-341 (Connecticut’s
“right-to-farm” law), the Lis investigation and Investigation Report
provide Plaintiff with prima facie evidence that her goat operation
follows accepted agricultural practices and requires successful rebuttal
by Ms. Carmody before Ms. Carmody could lawfully proceed against
Plaintiff with her false and baseless accusations. Yet Ms. Carmody never
+ Plaintiff attaches to Exhibit A the pleading she filed in the related case of State
of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., UWY-CV21-6064254-S,
presently pending on appeal! to the Appellate Court, AC 45710, entitled “Affidavit
in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Procedural and Substantive
Due Process” (Entry #TK) to correct errors of fact set forth in the Lis Investigation
Report.
rebutted the prima facie findings of the Lis Report as required by the
sdtatute, and her failure to do so invalidated her subsequent attacks
against Ms. Burton and her care of the goats.
That statute. §19a-341, requires anyone mounting a challenge to a
qualifying agricultural operation on nuisance grounds such as noise or
odor, as Defendant Carmody did subsequent to the release of the Lis
report, is required to formally present sufficient evidence to refute the
prima facie evidence to the contrary — presumably at a confrontational
court hearing — before proceeding further against the agricultural
operation. The law imposes a barrier to those who would thoughtlessly
and without a proper basis file a harassing, defamatory complaint
against a farmer or other person engaged in animal keeping. It is a
mechanism to protect caretakers of farm animals such as Plaintiff from
harassment by others. Defendant Carmody bypassed the requirements
of §19a-341 and ignored them. The Department of Agriculture itself
failed and neglected to enforce the law. These factors are inseparable
from the issues pertaining to Plaintiff's defamation claims.
Following issuance of the Lis Investigation Report, Defendant
Carmody never pursued a court action to present a legal case that was
capable of overcoming the prima facie presumptions. Thus, Carmody’s
harassment of Plaintiff, including her many acts of defamation and
strident appeals to the Department of Agriculture staff, and
encouraging others, such as then-State Sen. Will Haskell, to do so as
well, occurred in violation of §19a-341 and thwarted its mandate and
its purpose.
Thereby, Carmody thwarted the law by challenging and frustrating
Plaintiff’s right to keep goats by harassing Plaintiff with a continuous
stream of false, sensational and defamatory insults, including false
accusations that the goats were underfed, deprived of water and
confined in unsuitable shelters, and by causing a continuous stream of
complaints to descend on the Commissioner of the Department of
Agriculture like a plague.
Plaintiff has identified many, not all, of Carmody’s defamatory
statements in her foregoing sworn Affidavit.
This brief references and adopts such statements and Plaintiff’s
refutation of them as though set forth herein.
The purpose of this brief is to set forth the standards of review
required to permit the count in defamation to be determined in
Plaintiff’s favor as a matter of law without a trial.
Legal Argument
A. Standard for Granting Summary Judgment
In accordance with Practice Book §17-44 et seq., Plaintiff moves the
court to render summary judgment on count one of the amended
complaint dated April 12, 2022 in her favor.
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and
any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Practice Book §17-49.
The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the
absence of any genuine issue of material facts which, as a matter of
substantive law, entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law.
A material fact is a fact which will make a difference in the result of
the case. A party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its
adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact
together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue.
The party opposing the motion must provide an evidentiary foundation
to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209 (2000).
B.Defamation is the publication, by oral utterance or written
utterance, of a falsehood which is harmful to another’s reputation
and standing in the community.
If the defamation is uttered recklessly, with knowledge of its falsity,
as occurred here, enhanced damages are available. The underlying
rationale for an action in defamation is to protect an individual’s right
to one’s good reputation from false accusations. Truth is a complete
defense.
C. Carmody uttered defamatory statements in writing in at least
two publications which appeared on an online platform called
“Hello Redding” and orally and in writing to others, including
importantly former State Senator Will Haskell.
1. Ms. Carmody published a “Guest Editorial” on
September 27, 2020 on “Hello Redding.” A copy
appears in the Appendix hereto as Exhibit A. As
set forth with particularity in the Affidavit, this
article is replete with defamatory content
including the following: (Plaintiff’s rebuttal is in
parenthesis here and in the accompanying
Affidavit.)
“inadequate fencing Burton has thrown up”
(Denied by Connecticut Animal Control Officer Charles DellaRocco who
testified in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al,
X06-UWY-CV21-6064254-S on March 30, 2021, Transcript page 78, Brief
page 23, “Can your goats leave your property? | would say no. Is your
property fenced in to where the goats can’t get out? It appears that
way.” Thus, the fencing was suitable for its intended purpose, the
opposite of being “inadequate.”)
“The conditions these goats live under is appalling. They lack adequate
shelter.”
(Statement by Redding animal control officer Michael DeLuca in his
Affidavit
Testimony of Rosa Buonomo, April 8, 2021)
“Many appear to be dehydrated”
(Testimony by Goat Expert Rosa Buonomo, President, Stoney Brook
Animal Rescue Sanctuary, Inc., Transcript, April 8, 2021, page TK
Some goats “have severe, painful deformities”
(Testimony of Rosa Buonomo)
Two goats were born with congenital defects, not a fault of Plaintiff,
who took them to her vet who said nothing could be done except to
provide extra care, which Plaintiff provided.)
“They forage to supplement their inadequate feeding”
Goats “forage” because it is their nature, even if they are full and
adequately fed, as were Plaintiff's goats. If the goats did not forage,
there would be cause for concern. Their foraging for leaves and wild
vegetation keeps their unique digestive systems — their rumen —
healthy. Plus, they love the taste of sweet maple leaves.
“and hydration” (None of the goats exhibited signs of dehydration,
namely, fatigue, drooping eyes, listlessness
Testimony of goat expert Rosa Buonomo, April 8, 2021, Transcript
pages TK)
“As it is unlikely they have any veterinary care”
(To the contrary, Plaintiff took all her goats that needed veterinary care
to a trusted veterinarian who specialized in goats.)
“malignant situation” (definition of malignant: deliberately causing
distress)
(The goats were demonstrably happy and healthy and enjoyed
frolicking on 3.6 acres of Plaintiffs open land and having copious
amounts of feed, hay, water and wild vegetation.)
“Burton’s ridiculous appeals”
(Ms. Burton exercised her rights in the judicial system, which include
her right to appeal to correct a faulty decision.)
“menace” (definition: evil)
(Plaintiffs Mothers Milk Project is a rare and wonderful example of an
individual's (i.e., Ms. Burton’scontribution to the public health and
welfare; the goats led a joyous life contributing to that
accomplishment.)
“dozens of innocent goats ... suffer every day”
(The goats lived joyous lives with copious food, water, hay, exercise,
companionship, comfortable shelters, veterinarian care, a loving full-
time caretaker.)
“urgency of the situation”
(Judge Brazzel-Masseero did not bow to Carmody’s harassing
communications to the court clerks and instead ruled in Ms. Burton’s
favor and denied the “relief” Carmody sought. See Affidavit, Exhibit TK.)
Conclusion: The defamatory statements uttered by Ms. Carmody in her
“Guest Editorial” are readily exposed and understood to be outright
false rather than “substantially true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App.
283 (2008)
Ms. Carmody fails to identify this article nor address it in any way in
her motion for summary judgment as if it did not exist, yet it is one of
the two principal examples of her defamation against Plaintiff.
Ms. Carmody has thereby waived objection to any finding that this
article does not contain actionable defamation against Ms. Burton; as
to this article, therefore, summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor is
mandated.
2. An article entitled TK appeared on the “Hello
Redding” online platform on TK with defamatory
content contributed by Ms. Carmody. A copy
appears in the Appendix hereto as Exhibit B. As
set forth with particularity in the Affidavit, this
article is replete with defamatory content.
Conclusion: The defamatory statements contained in this article are
”
readily understood to be outright false rather than “substantially true.
Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008)
3. Letter of former State Senator Will Haskell to
Agriculture Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt dated
January 28, 2021 is replete with defamation
communicated to him by Ms. Carmody.
Conclusion: The defamatory statements contained in this article
are readily understood to be outright false rather than “substantially
true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008)
The defamatory content in this letter is properly attributable to Ms.
Carmody, given Mr. Haskell’s statement that TK [all comments from
Carmody.
The letter appears as Exhibit TK appended to Plaintiff's Affidavit
accompanying this Memorandum of Law and Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Among the false and defamatory passages in this letter are the
following (rebuttal in parenthesis):
“semi-feral goats”
10
(This is intended to be a criticism of the fact that, unlike most
commercially raised goats which are confined to close quarters and
have little freedom to cavort in the outdoors, Plaintiffs goats were
favored in that Plaintiff allowed the goats the use of her 3.6 acres of
land for them to roam, graze, play, cavort and be happy. However, they
were hardly “feral” or “semi-feral” because they were fenced in and
relied on Plaintiff to provide their grain, hay, water and shelter, In fact,
they were obviously domesticated and neither “feral” nar “semi-feral.”)
“rescuing these animals”
(This phrase connotes a need for the goats to be “rescued” when the
comment is intended to motivate Commissioner Hurlburt to do the
opposite of “rescue,” that is, seize and imprison and kill these animals
and deprive them of life. To recommend that the goats be “rescued”
implies in a defamatory way that their lives are threatened while cared
for by Ms. Burton when the opposite is the case.)
“numbering more than 100”
(By his own admission in his deposition, Sen. Haskell made one 30-
minute visit to the Carmody property in January 2020 during which he
counted 24 goats on Plaintiffs property. There were no more than 65
goats on the property. Sen. Haskell testified at his deposition that
virtually all the information he had about the goats with which to
formulate his letter and for other purposes came directly from Ms.
Carmody. She is thereby answerable for the defamatory passages in
this letter. Calling out “more than 100” is defamatory because it
connotes a clear excess of goats such as to give rise to cancerns and
suggesting they were out of control, which they were not.)
“Many of these goats show signs of malnourishment and neglect.”
(In truth, none of the goats showed signs of malnourishment and
neglect; Sen. Haskell did not speak from his own observation as he
admitted several times in his deposition that he knew nothing about
11
goats nor their care. These words came from Ms. Carmody’s mouth and
they are clearly outright false and defamatory and uttered with malice
as Sen. Haskell had personal knowledge of only 24 goats and admitted
he knew nothing about goat care or health. Pertinent excerpts from his
deposition are attached to Plaintiff's Affidavit.)
“| have visited the property and spoken with neighbors on multiple
occasions.”
(This is clearly a false statement because Sen. Haskell never visited “the
property”(namely, Ms. Burton’s property). He does not admit that his
source is Ms. Carmody rather than his own personal observation.)
“| share their concern about the wellbeing of the goats.”
(This is a false and defamatory statement as Sen. Haskell admitted he
could not be a credible judge of the wellbeing of goats as he knew
nothing about goats.)
“State intervention is necessary, and | hope that your team will take
immediate action.”
(There was no need for “state intervention” as the matter was before
the Connecticut state courts where Plaintiff was protecting her rights.
Ms. Carmody wanted a “state intervention” outside the parameters of
lawful conduct. That is exactly what occurred: an anarchic and
depraved scene of brutality materialized when Plaintiff's goats were
forcibly removed from Ms. Burton’s property: just what Carmody was
striving for. The Department of Agriculture had no lawful reason to
seize the goats largely due to the fact that one of the state officers
charged with the seizure admitted under oath that the goats were not
seized due to any medical issues nor being insufficiently fed. The actual
fact is they were seized without the mandatory identification of a single
individual goat as being neglected nor cruelly treated. This was a
transparently unlawful invasion by an unmonitored state agency.)
12
The Haskell letter references a medical term denoting a disease
common among goats. He terms it “an alarming development.” These
scare tactics are consistent with the examples of defamation cited here.
(State veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVM, was aware of this disease
during her inspection of 2018 after which she dismissed the Carmody
complaint. This is not “an alarming development.” It was a fact well
known by the state’s own veterinarian, Dr. Lis. Perhaps Sen. Haskell was
alarmed because Ms. Carmody spoke of it in exaggerated, alarming
terms to motivate him to take decisive action against the goats. In this
spirit, the comment is clearly defamatory.)
In conclusion, the defamatory statements cited above as uttered
uttered by Carmody — and as repeated to a multitude of others by Sen.
Haskell and Ms. Winters are readily understood to be outright false
rather than “substantially true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283
(2008). Thus, they are all actionable libel.
D. The doctrine of collateral estoppel as a defense by Ms.
Carmody is unavailing.
Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion bars the relitigation of an
issue when that issue was actually litigated “fully and fairly” and
necessarily determined in a prior action.
The doctrine is not available here because the doctrine must be
specially pleaded. Red Buff Rita, Inc. v. Moutinho, 151 Conn. App.
549, 557 (2014). Ms. Carmody did not specially plead the doctrine of
collateral estoppel; therefore her reliance on the doctrine is barred
because it is deemed waived.
Moreover, for an issue to be subject to collateral estoppel, it
must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action, it must
have been actually decided and the decision must have been
necessary to the judgment. Linden Condominium Ass’n., Inc. v.
McKenna, 247 Conn. 575, 596 (1999).
13
The issues being decided must be identical to those considered in
the prior proceeding. Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799,
812-13 (1997). Although in her various defamatory tirades, Carmody
focused on the condition of the goats (albeit without proper cause),
Judge Cobb initially attempted to focus the hearing on the condition
of the goats until she was stopped by the statement of animal
control officer Tanya Wescovich, who stated the goats were not
seized because of medical conditions nor the goats’ medical histories
but rather because of unspecified and unarticulated generalized
“conditions.” Judge Cobb was nonplused that the goats were seized
in the absence of physical manifestations of negligent nor cruel care.
au
Wescowich admitted that neither the goats condition” nor “care”
triggered the goat seizure. Indeed, Judge Cobb’s disbelief is at the
essence of why the state was out of line in seizing the goats for no
good reason and contrary to the statute. See discussion in Ms.
Burton’s appellate brief exposing the state’s failure to assert
jurisdiction because of its failure to state in simple terms, as the
applicable statute requires, how a single individual goat was treated
with neglect or cruelty. As none of Plaintiff's goats was so treated,
the state had no case. Carmody’s focus was on her mistaken belief
that she and not the court system should decide issues concerning
the goats. The two cases did not address identical issues, a necessary
predicate for collateral estoppel to be applicable.
Moreover, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable
unless the issue has been finally decided and has come to rest.
Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., 173 Conn. App. 630, 649-50
(2017). Obviously because the case of State of Connecticut ex rel.
Jeremiah Dunne v. 65 Goats et al. is the subject of a pending appeal
in which Plaintiff challenges the seizure on numerous grounds, the
issues have not come to rest for purposes of collateral estoppel.
Collateral estoppel is not applicable for the following reasons as
well:
14
1. The proceedings fell short of an actual judicial fact-finding
proceeding because Judge Cobb applied a lesser standard of proof than
is the requirement for a civil trial, that is, preponderance of the
evidence. She stated she applied the standard of “reasonable belief,” a
far more relaxed standard favoring the party whose burden it was to
prove the case, that is, the Department of Agriculture. This was not
necessarily Judge Cobb’s error because the applicable statute, Conn.
Gen. Stat. §22-329a, calls for the lesser standard at the preliminary
proceedings in the case. The case did not proceed beyond the first,
preliminary stage, although Plaintiff fulfilled the statute’s requirement
regarding bonding and therefore was required to hold a second-stage
hearing on the standard civil standard of proof, preponderance of the
evidence. But due to this shortcoming of depriving Plaintiff of her due
process rights under the statute, Plaintiff was deprived of a civil
proceeding on a level playing field; this proceeding necessarily, and
unfairly, favored the State of Connecticut by giving it the benefit of a
lower standard of proof than is the norm, and thus depriving Plaintiff of
a full and fair adjudication. Thereby, Plaintiff lacked the opportunity to
fully and fairly litigate her rights in the prior proceeding.
2. Judge Cobb conducted an unfairly abbreviated proceeding which
prejudiced Plaintiff herein. While she assured the State it could take as
much time as it wanted to put on witnesses, she did not accord
corresponding treatment to Plaintiff. In fact, she cut short Plaintiffs
own testimony before Plaintiff had a full opportunity to complete her
presentation. Plaintiff was accordingly prejudiced; in this respect, the
proceedings were neither full nor fair but fundamentally unfair.
3.Judge Cobb was aware that Plaintiff suffered from significant
technical difficulties because the remote technology repeatedly
malfunctioned. Witnesses’ testimony froze at mid-sentence frequently,
for example, and valuable time was taken away from Plaintiff. These
2 See Plaintiff's Appellate Court Brief, page 23.
15
problems foreshortened further the short time Judge Cobb allowed for
the hearing, rendering it neither full nor fair.
4. Most significantly, Plaintiff has appealed Judge Cobb’s decision to the
Appellate Court, wherein it is pending. AC 45710. Plaintiff's purpose in
pursuing the appeal is to persuade the Appellate Court that the
decision in various key aspects was clearly erroneous because of the
complete absence of evidentiary support in the record, and clear
evidentiary proof which Judge Cobb ignored or rejected prejudicially.
Many of Judge Cobb’s factual findings are entirely without evidentiary
support and/or contrary to the evidence; because of the potential for
the appeal to succeed on these points — such as Plaintiff’s exceptionally
good care of her goats, her provision of ample food? and water and her
visits to veterinarians whenever needed - it would be premature for the
Court sitting in judgment on this motion for summary judgment to rely
on any of Judge Cobb’s findings in her Order. Plaintiff argues that each
and every one of findings in her March 10, 2021 Order was issued
without supporting evidence in the record. Indeed, Plaintiff is seeking
on appeal a decision that will vacate Judge Cobb’s order jn its entirety
and render it nugatory. A nugatory ruling cannot serve as the primary
basis favoring a summary judgment motion, as Defendant Carmody
seeks to do.
3 As one example, when Plaintiff asked the state’s witness, Charles
DellaRocco, his answers were evasive and flippant, such as, when asked
if he knew how much the goats ate on a daily basis of the copious bales
of hay and bags of grain Plaintiff provided, he answered: “No. They’re
not my goats.” Or he responded to the question how much feed was
eaten by replying that he knew how much was delivered but not how
much was eaten. His evasive answers were tantamount to admissions
that the goats had ample opportunity to satisfy their need for grain. See
Plaintiff's Appellate Court brief at page 19.
16
5. Moreover, the tone of the order and the words by which the order is
expressed betray the court’s real fundamental, even embarrassing, lack
of knowledge about goats and simply disregards Plaintiffs presentation
of qualified witnesses and testimony. As one example, Judge Cobb
asked a state witness if goats required human assistance in trimming
their hooves. The witness provided the obvious answer, “Yes.”
Thus, for example, Ms. Carmody’s oft-repeated defamations that the
goats lacked sufficient water are echoed in Judge Cobb’s baseless
accusations about water. Judge Cobb and Ms. Carmody each stated —
Judge Cobb in her decision and Carmody in her online “Guest Column”
that the goats lacked sufficient water. Plaintiff counters these false
accusations with testimony about how she provided the goats with
copious quantities of fresh spring water — superior in quality to her well
water - that she drew from an impeccable source in the Litchfield Hills
four times a week — necessitating a 100-mile trip every other day to
provide the goats with the best water available every day. See Affidavit
filed simultaneously herewith at Pages 6-7. After filling 120 gallon jugs
with fresh spring water she sourced from a spring in the town of
Winsted in Litchfield County four days a week, she loaded the jugs onto
her wagon and went from feeding station to feeding station to feeding
station until all the goats’ buckets were filled and re-filled and re-filled.
Judge Cobb admitted Plaintiffs photograph of her wagon filled with
such water jugs at one of the feeding stations. Ex. M. This activity she
repeated as often as required to replenish the water throughout the
day. Plaintiff's expert, Rosa Buonomo, provided supportive testimony
that Plaintiff served the goats freshly sourced spring water she had
witnessed Plaintiff draw from a spring in Litchfield County. See Exhibit
DD-12, Transcript excerpt from April 8, 2021 hearing before Judge
Cobb. Indeed, that is how the two — Plaintiff and her expert Rosa
Buonomo - first met — at the spring drawing water. The freshly drawn
spring water was superior to the water jn Plaintiff’s well, which was
subject to contamination from road salts applied in the winter by the
17
Redding road crew. The goats loved that water. It gave Plaintiff a great
deal of satisfaction to give the goats such pleasure from the simple act
of drinking clean, pure, healthy freshly drawn spring water. The task
appealed to her mothering and nurturing instincts. As set forth in her
accompanying affidavit, Plaintiff made four or more trips every week to
the Litchfield County spring, each time filling 120 gallons with fresh
spring water. If it was ever necessary to supplement the spring water,
Plaintiff on rare occasions purchased commercially sold spring water
from a grocery store. Doubtless, Ms. Carmody witnessed Plaintiff
unload these jugs every other day from her car and deliver the water to
the goats by means of her wagon in multipletrips, but she never
mentioned these observations.. This method of water sourcing was
admittedly time-consuming but worth the effort to Plaintiff who was
entirely devoted to the goats’ welfare, just as she had been entirely
devoted to her children’s welfare when they were growing up. During
the entire course of the proceedings before Judge Cobb and Judge
Bellis, Plaintiff was never asked where or how she sourced her water
for the goats. Yet Judge Cobb castigated Plaintiff for supposedly
depriving the goats of water with simply no supporting evidence in the
record. Yet there was absolutely no evidence from the Department of
Agriculture that a single goat was dehydrated or exhibited any signs of
dehydration. Plaintiff assumed they were aware of Plaintiff’s every-
other-day trips to the Winsted spring as a police officer from Winsted
followed Plaintiff early one morning at the spring to fill a thermos
bottle himself. Plaintiff had thoughts that the police officer was ona
mission to follow Plaintiff on her water-sourcing stop. The important
point is that there was no evidence presented in Court nor in Ms.
Carmody’s frequent defamatory utterances to substantiate her claim
that the goats were water-deprived nor evidence of any physical
manifestation of dehydration such as Plaintiff’s expert described in her
testimony. None of Plaintiff’s goats was ever dehydrated nor did a
single goat manifest the physical manifestations of dehydration:
18
bloodshot eyes and lethargy, although the state witnesses had ample
Opportunity to observe.
Rather than drawing recognition from Judge Cobb abaut Plaintiff's
obviously high level of devotion to thusly source and provide the goats
with superior water sourced frequently in Litchfield County - four trips
per week at least, 120 gallons per trip -—— certainly better than her well
water which contained levels of road salts, Judge Cobb castigated
Plaintiff for delivering this obviously superior water with so much effort
to the goats as itself an act of animal cruelty.
Judge Cobb’s condemnation of Plaintiff for her obvious exceptional
devotion to the goats should be considered together with her decision
to ignore/disregard the other evidence presented on the subject of
water. Plaintiff’s expert, Rosa Buonomo, was asked to tell the
symptoms of dehydration in a goat — and whether she had observed
such symptoms in Plaintiff's goats. She complied and answered no.
Judge Cobb utterly ignored this testimony, which was not disputed by
any of the state’s witnesses. None testified that they had observed any
symptoms of dehydration in any of Plaintiff's goats at any time.
Reduced or limited activity level is a key indicator of dehydration. None
of the many goat photographs submitted by Plaintiff herein nor the
Department of Agriculture itself depict any goat being restrained in its
activity level. The typical case of dehydration in a farm animal, cited by
Plaintiff in her appellate brief at pages 31-32, has the listless creature
“downed,” unable to get up, with drooping eyes. Nor do any of the
photographs — either those taken by Plaintiff or those taken by state
representatives — betray any other sign of dehydration in Plaintiff's
goats. Plaintiff will prevail on appeal on the non-issue of goat
dehydration.
Nor was any credible evidence presented to Judge Cobb that Plaintiff
abused or neglected her goats.
19
Plaintiff points out that Defendant Carmody made similar
accusations in 2017 when she, with others, filed a complaint with the
Department of Agriculture. In response, as discussed abave, the state’s
veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, twice visited Plaintiff’s property,
evaluated all the goats and interviewed Ms. Burton about her care of
the goats. She ultimately dismissed Ms. Carmody’s complaint. See Ex.
D. Although Judge Cobb admitted the Lis Investigation Report into
evidence as a full exhibit over the state’s objection, and although it
legally served as prima facie evidence that Plaintiff's goat operation
was consistent with appropriate agricultural practice, she ignored it.
6. Finally, in order for collateral estoppel to apply, there must be an
identity of issues, that is, the prior litigation must have resolved the
same legal or factual issue that is present in the second litigation.
Collateral estoppel may be invoked against a party to a prior adversarial
proceeding or against those in privity with that party. Defendant
Carmody does not explain how she is in privity with the Connecticut
Department of Agriculture, nor is she. She cites no example where a
private citizen has been judicially held to be in privity with a state
agency. Her far-fetched claim, if accepted, would break all precedent.
Nor are the issues identical. The principal issue on appeal is whether
the State of Connecticut legally seized and imprisoned 65 goats when it
was unable to file a petition complying with Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-
329a(c) by filing a verified petition in the Superior Court under oath
stating facts of neglect or cruel treatment as to a single identifiable
goat. Carmody herself never identified a single goat that had been
neglected nor treated cruelly; she certainly did not identify 65 goats
individually that had been neglected nor cruelly treated. The
photographs submitted by Plaintiff in support of her motion for
summary judgment betray Ms. Carmody’s false accusations. Defendant
Carmody is not in privity with the state.
E. The defamatory statements cited herein and in the Appendix
are neither literally nor substantially true. Ms. Carmody offers
20
no evidence supporting this argument. While she argues that
the “gist” of her defamations are both literally and
substantially true, she presents not a single example of such
evidence, as required, to support this argument.
Whether Plaintiff is a public or private figure is irrelevant to a
determination of whether Ms. Carmody defamed Plaintiff.
Plaintiff provides compelling proof of the defamation; Ms
Carmody presented no proof. Judge Cobb’s Order is not
evidence for purposes of this case because it is the subject of a
pending appeal brought to vacate the order itself. This court
has no authority to vacate the order; the issue cannot be
decided on the motion for summary judgment.
Carmody fails to note that the doctrine of collateral estoppel
does not apply unless the prior adjudication was finalized. A
decision on appeal, it seems too obvious to repeat, is not a final
judgment as it is subject to being reversed and vacated on
appeal. In this case, it is very likely that it will be because there
was no evidence supporting the various claims now repeated
by Carmody: goats not cared for, not fed, denied water: the
issues are not resolved because all the credible evidence was to
the contrary. While Ms. Carmody states “Unquestionably, the
truth of Ms. Carmody’s statements regarding Ms. Burton’s
supposed abuse and neglect of her goats has already been
established,” the truth or falsity will be decided when the
appeal is decided, but not before.
Defamation is defamation whether or not Plaintiff is deemed
public or private figure
Moreover, although Ms. Carmody argues in her motion for summary
judgment that Plaintiff is a public figure for purposes of this case, she
provides no evidence in support of this claim.
21
At best, she argues that being an author or a politician (which
Plaintiff is not) or an environmental activist automatically translates to
a “public person” for purposes of libel law. Yet she provides no case
law in support of this argument under the facts of this case and, indeed,
the case law argues that merely being an author of a boak ora
politician or environmental activist does not automatically render one a
public figure for purposes of libel law: more is required. Real evidence
is required. Ms. Carmody had not provided a scintilla of real evidence.
The only “evidence” that Ms. Carmody references is a statement
that the Mothers Milk Project, which Plaintiff co-founded, is “highly
publicized.” Yet Defendant Carmody provides no evidentiary support
for this claim. In fact, the contrary is true and her statement is simply
fanciful when actual evidence is required: in fact, the Mothers Milk
Project is less than minimally publicized. It has a website but the
website is rarely visited. Undoubtedly most of the few viewers are the
same individuals who have a stake in this litigation. Again, Ms. Carmody
provides no evidence to support her claim of it being a “highly-
publicized quest.” It simply is not. If it were, presumably Ms. Carmody
would be able to produce evidence to support her claim, such as
numbers of website visits or recent press conferences or speeches. She
has not done so. Without evidence — required on this mation for
summary judgment her argument fails. With no evidence that Plaintiff
meets the criteria for a public figure for purposes of libel law, her
argument fails. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer-
author of many books is not necessarily a public figure far purposes of
libel law. In the complete absence of evidence, Ms. Carmody’s
argument fails.
Because Ms. Carmody uttered her defamatory statements with
“actual malice” and knowledge of their falsity, she acted with reckless
disregard for the truth or falsity of her statements and is held to the
standard for punitive damages.
22
She is charged with knowledge of Dr. Lis’ expert conclusion that the
goats were healthy and neither food- nor water-deprived. She
presented no evidence to the contrary. Her actual malice derives from
her defamatory statements uttered and widely circulated even as she
was well aware of the falsity of her statements. She is answerable in
punitive damages to Plaintiff as a public or private person. Her
defamatory utterances to then- State Sen. Will Haskell were repeated
and multiplied by him at least a thousands-fold according to his
statement in his deposition that he gave interviewed to a great number
of legitimate news gatherers. His defamatory statements to them about
Plaintiff entitled Plaintiff to damages from Carmody as the original
author and communicator of the defamatory remarks.
Because Plaintiff is innocent of any act of abuse or neglect of her
goats, Ms. Carmody cannot conflate her hysteria about goats with a
single fact enabling Ms. Carmody to ruin Plaintiffs reputation with
libelous falsehoods.
H. It is unclear why Ms. Carmody attached search and seizure and
arrest warrants to her affidavit. Plaintiff attaches to her
Exhibits her Motion to Suppress and for Return of Property
Seized Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This
Case (HHD-CV21-6139702-S (State of Connecticut ex rel.
Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al.), April 8, 2021.
Plaintiff supplemented this pleading with others on the related
subject and she claimed and reclaimed the motions but they were
never allowed to be heard nor adjudicated.
The State of Connecticut procured the search warrant under false
pretenses by and through an individual not worthy of credibility
because of his prior arrest record for felonies.
These documents are rife with malicious falsehoods and defamatory
attacks against Plaintiff. The State of Connecticut never identified under
oath a single individual goat as one subjected to neglect nor cruelty by
23
Plaintiff and thereby forfeited jurisdiction. This was its most blatant
fatal and consequential error in the underlying litigation as the state’s
failure to do so compromised the state’s jurisdiction over a single goat.
This issue is a matter Plaintiff has raised and will present on appeal. Ms.
Carmody did not raise this issue in her defamations. She can hardly
argue that there is an identity of issues between Plaintiff’s litigation and
her defamatory conduct.
I Defendant Carmody’s argument that she was motivated by an
“overriding concern [for] the safety and welfare of Ms. Burton’s
goats” is an empty statement not supported by facts.
First, an individual who routinely kicks a baby goat off a stone wall,
as Carmody was prone to do, according to the complaint, is no friend of
baby goats. That is an accusation that follows Defendant Carmody in
this litigation.
Time after time, Plaintiff reached out to Carmody and other
neighbors to support her efforts to rehome goats to qualified animal
sanctuaries; Carmody never once rose to the challenge.
If, as is likely, Carmody perused the Judicial Department website to
read the case files in this and its companion case, State of Connecticut
ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., Carmody is very well aware
that the goats , in being evicted from Plaintiff’s property, were headed
straight to Goat Hell, the goat prison in Niantic. There the goats would
be left unattended by a human caretaker between 4:30 PM and 8:30
AM, even if they were due to give birth to goat triplets. Goat babies
were routinely separated from their mothers and friends. They were
not allowed to run and frolic outside. They never feasted on maple and
apple and birch tree leaves as they did at their Redding home; they
were fed low-grade processed food likely from China. They never slept
nor dreamed in the open air. They never got to taste freshly drawn
spring water sourced in Winsted, Connecticut. They lived in the shadow
of the Millstone nuclear power station, responsible for a sickening
24
death and disease plague in the community, where birth defects are
not at all uncommon. They were unable to behave like goats. They
went from happy and playful to despondent.
Carmody’s protestation that at this late date she is a lover of goats
cannot be stomached. It reeks of falsity,
To the contrary, an animal ending up at the state’s “Large Animal
Barn’ is on a path to hell, where animal cruelty and abuse are the
norm.
There is no evidence that Ms. Carmody investigated to ascertain the
quality of care provided at this facility nor why the death rate was
alarmingly high.
As Plaintiff has established with facts and legal support, she is
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. There is no genuine
issue of material fact that requires a trial; therefore, Plaintiff is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
It is obvious from a cursory reading of her motion that Carmody gave
voice to poisonous, hateful disregard for Plaintiff and the goats. Her
continuous theme that the goats were deprived of food and water is
patently untrue: The Court need just look at the pictures attached to
the Affidavit. Each goat is a specimen goat at the peak of health: no
veterinarian would hesitate to pronounce each one possessed of “good
eyes, good fur, good mobility and energy, acting like a gaat.” Indeed,
Dr. Lis could not have concluded, as she did, that the goats were well
cared for, well fed, sufficient water was available without also
observing that they exhibited “good eyes, good fur, mobility and their
behavior “acting like a goat.”
In her accompanying motion for summary judgment and affidavit in
support of the motion, Plaintiff has established that Defendant
Carmody engaged in actionable defamation with malice.
25
Carmody gave voice to poisonous, hateful disregard for Plaintiff and
the goats. Her continuous theme that the goats were deprived of food
and water is patently untrue: The Court need just look at the pictures
attached to the Affidavit.
Indeed, a chief witness for the Department, animal control officer
Tanya Wescovich who led aspects of the seizure, strenuously denied
Judge Cobb’s query whether the goats were seized due to their physical
condition.
Nor did a single Department of Agriculture witness testify that the
goats were underfed.
Indeed, animal control officer Charles DellaRocco shrugged off any
thought that the goats were underfed when he had the opportunity to
so state but instead he remarked:
“They’re not my goats.”
The photographs — all taken in the fall 2020 period — uniformly
depict well-fed, active, animated, well-fed goats.
Nor did any goat suffer from dehydration.
As to water, as set forth above and in the accompanying Affidavit,
Plaintiff provided the goats every day, several times a day, with pure
water freshly sourced from a Litchfield County spring.
Throughout the proceedings, Plaintiff was never ask
Preview
UWY-CV-5028TK SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY Vv COMPLEX LITIGATION DAVID PHILIP MASON OCTOBER 31, 2023 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO CARMODY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AR Plaintiff Nancy Burton files herewith her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Carmody Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Carmody with regard to the First Count (Defamation) of the Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint. This motion is addressed to the operative allegations in Count one as follows: The First Count alleges in Paragraph 45 as follows: Defendant Carmody and Ms. Winters have widely and publicly circulated and published false and defamatory screeds targeting plaintiff, accusing her falsely inter alia of ‘using the law to break the law’; although plaintiff timely demanded retraction of the false and offensive publications, neither Carmody nor Winters complied. Paragraph 46e alleges: Prior to the Zoning Commission’s issuance of the cease and desist order, said Mason, Carmody, Gibbons and others took to harassing plaintiff and interfering with her ability to carry out her objective to rehome most of her goats in the following ways, among others... e. Instigating publication of defamatory falsehoods about plaintiff and the goats as published on online media channels operated by Susan Winters to incite negativity and malice and discourage goat adoptions. 1 In her own motion for summary judgment dated August 21, 2023 Carmody’s counsel, Philip T. Newbury, Jr. mistakenly asserts that these allegations pertain exclusively to one article entitled “Goats: An Ongoing Issue,” which is attached to the Plaintiffs Affidavit as Exhibit B This statement is incorrect insofar as this motion also pertains to an article titled “Guest Editorial” with Ms. Carmody’s byline and is dated September 20, 2022 as appeared on the social media platform Hello Redding. This article, too is replete with defamation. The article iis attached to Plaintiff’s Affidavit as Exhibit A. In addition, Ms. Carmody’s publication of defamatory accusations concerning Plaintiff and her goats has led to the creation of many progeny of her article and many defamatory repercussions spinning off from the “Guest Editorial” as well as her communications with others including former State Senator Will Haskell. Mr. Haskell is not a party to this suit but his damaging and reckless falsehoods, many set forth herein, help complete the picture of how Carmody set about vilifying Plaintiff recklessly and it caught on like a pandemic. In a calculation of damages, these attacks on Plaintiff's character and reputation will add to the total damages assessment as consequences of Carmody’s own malice. See the accompanying Affidavit for a fuller presentation of this Issue These “Haskell et al” progeny are useful in identifying how Defendant Carmody’s original defamatory publication has spawned equally — or worse - false and hateful examples of defamation targeting Plaintiff and her goats and revealing the harmful effects of defamation as loose-lipped and false and malicious gossip which is also actionable as defamation, spawned as a consequence of the original defamation and is a component of the damages assessment. While she attempts to dissociate herself from the defamation as appears in the article entitled “Goats: An Ongoing Issue,” in fact Ms Carmody is the source of most if not all of the malicious falsehoods 2 Factual Background On or about September 20, 2017, Defendant Elinore Carmody joined with certain neighbors in filing a complaint against Plaintiff with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture regarding the goats she cared for at her property at 147 Cross Highway in Redding. The complaint was initiated by Defendant Elinore Carmody and Coleen Griffin, an attorney then with Howd & Ludorf (the law firm which represents Carmody in this matter as well as the Defendant Redding Police Department, a Defendant herein, in this and a separate unrelated matter). Griffin, who lived in Redding at the time, had a vendetta against Plaintiff because Plaintiff's black Labrador dog was not neutered although he was not required by law to be neutered. Both Carmody and Griffin bore a grudge against Plaintiff and both acted with malice when they filed the complaint. Neither possessed knowledge of goats — their requirements and care - nor experience in caring for goats. Their goal was extermination of the goats. Their self-righteous pursuit of the goats’ extermination was wrong- headed from the outset, as the property in question — 147 Cross Highway — is located in a farming/residential zone where Plaintiff is allowed to keep nine goats as-of-right according to a zoning formula based on ownership of land, and more than nine with the approval of a zoning land management plan. The Griffin/Carmody complaint was referred to Mary Jane Lis, DVM, the state veterinarian, who is particularly knowledgeable in the matter of goats and their care as she herself kept goats and had great love and respect for them. Between 2017 and 2018, Dr. Lis made two visits to Plaintiff’s property to evaluate her goats and her care of the goats. Plaintiff answered all of her questions and tried to be helpful. The 3 Griffin/Carmody complaint was withheld from Plaintiff and considered confidential while it was pending. On June 15, 2018, Dr. Lis released her Investigation Report. The two-page document (“Lis Report”) is attached hereto as Exhibit C.1 It concludes: At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food and water available. Carmody’s name and address appear on the Lis Report. Upon information and belief, Carmody received a copy of the Lis Report when it was released on June 15, 2018 and she is therefore chargeable with knowledge of its contents from that date forward, less time for mailing and delivery. Ms. Carmody’s knowledge of the contents of the Lis Report as of c. June 15, 2018, and the dismissal of her complaint by Dr. Lis, are factors implicated in Plaintiff’s analysis of Ms. Carmody’s malice and the recklessness of her defamatory statements as issues in libel law analysis insofar as Ms. Carmody was fully aware of the reckless falsity of her remarks. There is no higher authority in the arena of animal health and care than the chief veterinarian of the state, and at the time in question that was Dr. Lis. In comparison, Ms. Carmody is a lay person with no identified nor claimed familiarity nor expertise with the health and care of goats. In this arena, Dr. Lis’ word is gospel. Moreover, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-341 (Connecticut’s “right-to-farm” law), the Lis investigation and Investigation Report provide Plaintiff with prima facie evidence that her goat operation follows accepted agricultural practices and requires successful rebuttal by Ms. Carmody before Ms. Carmody could lawfully proceed against Plaintiff with her false and baseless accusations. Yet Ms. Carmody never + Plaintiff attaches to Exhibit A the pleading she filed in the related case of State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., UWY-CV21-6064254-S, presently pending on appeal! to the Appellate Court, AC 45710, entitled “Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Procedural and Substantive Due Process” (Entry #TK) to correct errors of fact set forth in the Lis Investigation Report. rebutted the prima facie findings of the Lis Report as required by the sdtatute, and her failure to do so invalidated her subsequent attacks against Ms. Burton and her care of the goats. That statute. §19a-341, requires anyone mounting a challenge to a qualifying agricultural operation on nuisance grounds such as noise or odor, as Defendant Carmody did subsequent to the release of the Lis report, is required to formally present sufficient evidence to refute the prima facie evidence to the contrary — presumably at a confrontational court hearing — before proceeding further against the agricultural operation. The law imposes a barrier to those who would thoughtlessly and without a proper basis file a harassing, defamatory complaint against a farmer or other person engaged in animal keeping. It is a mechanism to protect caretakers of farm animals such as Plaintiff from harassment by others. Defendant Carmody bypassed the requirements of §19a-341 and ignored them. The Department of Agriculture itself failed and neglected to enforce the law. These factors are inseparable from the issues pertaining to Plaintiff's defamation claims. Following issuance of the Lis Investigation Report, Defendant Carmody never pursued a court action to present a legal case that was capable of overcoming the prima facie presumptions. Thus, Carmody’s harassment of Plaintiff, including her many acts of defamation and strident appeals to the Department of Agriculture staff, and encouraging others, such as then-State Sen. Will Haskell, to do so as well, occurred in violation of §19a-341 and thwarted its mandate and its purpose. Thereby, Carmody thwarted the law by challenging and frustrating Plaintiff’s right to keep goats by harassing Plaintiff with a continuous stream of false, sensational and defamatory insults, including false accusations that the goats were underfed, deprived of water and confined in unsuitable shelters, and by causing a continuous stream of complaints to descend on the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture like a plague. Plaintiff has identified many, not all, of Carmody’s defamatory statements in her foregoing sworn Affidavit. This brief references and adopts such statements and Plaintiff’s refutation of them as though set forth herein. The purpose of this brief is to set forth the standards of review required to permit the count in defamation to be determined in Plaintiff’s favor as a matter of law without a trial. Legal Argument A. Standard for Granting Summary Judgment In accordance with Practice Book §17-44 et seq., Plaintiff moves the court to render summary judgment on count one of the amended complaint dated April 12, 2022 in her favor. Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book §17-49. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material facts which, as a matter of substantive law, entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case. A party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. The party opposing the motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209 (2000). B.Defamation is the publication, by oral utterance or written utterance, of a falsehood which is harmful to another’s reputation and standing in the community. If the defamation is uttered recklessly, with knowledge of its falsity, as occurred here, enhanced damages are available. The underlying rationale for an action in defamation is to protect an individual’s right to one’s good reputation from false accusations. Truth is a complete defense. C. Carmody uttered defamatory statements in writing in at least two publications which appeared on an online platform called “Hello Redding” and orally and in writing to others, including importantly former State Senator Will Haskell. 1. Ms. Carmody published a “Guest Editorial” on September 27, 2020 on “Hello Redding.” A copy appears in the Appendix hereto as Exhibit A. As set forth with particularity in the Affidavit, this article is replete with defamatory content including the following: (Plaintiff’s rebuttal is in parenthesis here and in the accompanying Affidavit.) “inadequate fencing Burton has thrown up” (Denied by Connecticut Animal Control Officer Charles DellaRocco who testified in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al, X06-UWY-CV21-6064254-S on March 30, 2021, Transcript page 78, Brief page 23, “Can your goats leave your property? | would say no. Is your property fenced in to where the goats can’t get out? It appears that way.” Thus, the fencing was suitable for its intended purpose, the opposite of being “inadequate.”) “The conditions these goats live under is appalling. They lack adequate shelter.” (Statement by Redding animal control officer Michael DeLuca in his Affidavit Testimony of Rosa Buonomo, April 8, 2021) “Many appear to be dehydrated” (Testimony by Goat Expert Rosa Buonomo, President, Stoney Brook Animal Rescue Sanctuary, Inc., Transcript, April 8, 2021, page TK Some goats “have severe, painful deformities” (Testimony of Rosa Buonomo) Two goats were born with congenital defects, not a fault of Plaintiff, who took them to her vet who said nothing could be done except to provide extra care, which Plaintiff provided.) “They forage to supplement their inadequate feeding” Goats “forage” because it is their nature, even if they are full and adequately fed, as were Plaintiff's goats. If the goats did not forage, there would be cause for concern. Their foraging for leaves and wild vegetation keeps their unique digestive systems — their rumen — healthy. Plus, they love the taste of sweet maple leaves. “and hydration” (None of the goats exhibited signs of dehydration, namely, fatigue, drooping eyes, listlessness Testimony of goat expert Rosa Buonomo, April 8, 2021, Transcript pages TK) “As it is unlikely they have any veterinary care” (To the contrary, Plaintiff took all her goats that needed veterinary care to a trusted veterinarian who specialized in goats.) “malignant situation” (definition of malignant: deliberately causing distress) (The goats were demonstrably happy and healthy and enjoyed frolicking on 3.6 acres of Plaintiffs open land and having copious amounts of feed, hay, water and wild vegetation.) “Burton’s ridiculous appeals” (Ms. Burton exercised her rights in the judicial system, which include her right to appeal to correct a faulty decision.) “menace” (definition: evil) (Plaintiffs Mothers Milk Project is a rare and wonderful example of an individual's (i.e., Ms. Burton’scontribution to the public health and welfare; the goats led a joyous life contributing to that accomplishment.) “dozens of innocent goats ... suffer every day” (The goats lived joyous lives with copious food, water, hay, exercise, companionship, comfortable shelters, veterinarian care, a loving full- time caretaker.) “urgency of the situation” (Judge Brazzel-Masseero did not bow to Carmody’s harassing communications to the court clerks and instead ruled in Ms. Burton’s favor and denied the “relief” Carmody sought. See Affidavit, Exhibit TK.) Conclusion: The defamatory statements uttered by Ms. Carmody in her “Guest Editorial” are readily exposed and understood to be outright false rather than “substantially true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008) Ms. Carmody fails to identify this article nor address it in any way in her motion for summary judgment as if it did not exist, yet it is one of the two principal examples of her defamation against Plaintiff. Ms. Carmody has thereby waived objection to any finding that this article does not contain actionable defamation against Ms. Burton; as to this article, therefore, summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor is mandated. 2. An article entitled TK appeared on the “Hello Redding” online platform on TK with defamatory content contributed by Ms. Carmody. A copy appears in the Appendix hereto as Exhibit B. As set forth with particularity in the Affidavit, this article is replete with defamatory content. Conclusion: The defamatory statements contained in this article are ” readily understood to be outright false rather than “substantially true. Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008) 3. Letter of former State Senator Will Haskell to Agriculture Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt dated January 28, 2021 is replete with defamation communicated to him by Ms. Carmody. Conclusion: The defamatory statements contained in this article are readily understood to be outright false rather than “substantially true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008) The defamatory content in this letter is properly attributable to Ms. Carmody, given Mr. Haskell’s statement that TK [all comments from Carmody. The letter appears as Exhibit TK appended to Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying this Memorandum of Law and Motion for Summary Judgment. Among the false and defamatory passages in this letter are the following (rebuttal in parenthesis): “semi-feral goats” 10 (This is intended to be a criticism of the fact that, unlike most commercially raised goats which are confined to close quarters and have little freedom to cavort in the outdoors, Plaintiffs goats were favored in that Plaintiff allowed the goats the use of her 3.6 acres of land for them to roam, graze, play, cavort and be happy. However, they were hardly “feral” or “semi-feral” because they were fenced in and relied on Plaintiff to provide their grain, hay, water and shelter, In fact, they were obviously domesticated and neither “feral” nar “semi-feral.”) “rescuing these animals” (This phrase connotes a need for the goats to be “rescued” when the comment is intended to motivate Commissioner Hurlburt to do the opposite of “rescue,” that is, seize and imprison and kill these animals and deprive them of life. To recommend that the goats be “rescued” implies in a defamatory way that their lives are threatened while cared for by Ms. Burton when the opposite is the case.) “numbering more than 100” (By his own admission in his deposition, Sen. Haskell made one 30- minute visit to the Carmody property in January 2020 during which he counted 24 goats on Plaintiffs property. There were no more than 65 goats on the property. Sen. Haskell testified at his deposition that virtually all the information he had about the goats with which to formulate his letter and for other purposes came directly from Ms. Carmody. She is thereby answerable for the defamatory passages in this letter. Calling out “more than 100” is defamatory because it connotes a clear excess of goats such as to give rise to cancerns and suggesting they were out of control, which they were not.) “Many of these goats show signs of malnourishment and neglect.” (In truth, none of the goats showed signs of malnourishment and neglect; Sen. Haskell did not speak from his own observation as he admitted several times in his deposition that he knew nothing about 11 goats nor their care. These words came from Ms. Carmody’s mouth and they are clearly outright false and defamatory and uttered with malice as Sen. Haskell had personal knowledge of only 24 goats and admitted he knew nothing about goat care or health. Pertinent excerpts from his deposition are attached to Plaintiff's Affidavit.) “| have visited the property and spoken with neighbors on multiple occasions.” (This is clearly a false statement because Sen. Haskell never visited “the property”(namely, Ms. Burton’s property). He does not admit that his source is Ms. Carmody rather than his own personal observation.) “| share their concern about the wellbeing of the goats.” (This is a false and defamatory statement as Sen. Haskell admitted he could not be a credible judge of the wellbeing of goats as he knew nothing about goats.) “State intervention is necessary, and | hope that your team will take immediate action.” (There was no need for “state intervention” as the matter was before the Connecticut state courts where Plaintiff was protecting her rights. Ms. Carmody wanted a “state intervention” outside the parameters of lawful conduct. That is exactly what occurred: an anarchic and depraved scene of brutality materialized when Plaintiff's goats were forcibly removed from Ms. Burton’s property: just what Carmody was striving for. The Department of Agriculture had no lawful reason to seize the goats largely due to the fact that one of the state officers charged with the seizure admitted under oath that the goats were not seized due to any medical issues nor being insufficiently fed. The actual fact is they were seized without the mandatory identification of a single individual goat as being neglected nor cruelly treated. This was a transparently unlawful invasion by an unmonitored state agency.) 12 The Haskell letter references a medical term denoting a disease common among goats. He terms it “an alarming development.” These scare tactics are consistent with the examples of defamation cited here. (State veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVM, was aware of this disease during her inspection of 2018 after which she dismissed the Carmody complaint. This is not “an alarming development.” It was a fact well known by the state’s own veterinarian, Dr. Lis. Perhaps Sen. Haskell was alarmed because Ms. Carmody spoke of it in exaggerated, alarming terms to motivate him to take decisive action against the goats. In this spirit, the comment is clearly defamatory.) In conclusion, the defamatory statements cited above as uttered uttered by Carmody — and as repeated to a multitude of others by Sen. Haskell and Ms. Winters are readily understood to be outright false rather than “substantially true.” Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283 (2008). Thus, they are all actionable libel. D. The doctrine of collateral estoppel as a defense by Ms. Carmody is unavailing. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion bars the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated “fully and fairly” and necessarily determined in a prior action. The doctrine is not available here because the doctrine must be specially pleaded. Red Buff Rita, Inc. v. Moutinho, 151 Conn. App. 549, 557 (2014). Ms. Carmody did not specially plead the doctrine of collateral estoppel; therefore her reliance on the doctrine is barred because it is deemed waived. Moreover, for an issue to be subject to collateral estoppel, it must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action, it must have been actually decided and the decision must have been necessary to the judgment. Linden Condominium Ass’n., Inc. v. McKenna, 247 Conn. 575, 596 (1999). 13 The issues being decided must be identical to those considered in the prior proceeding. Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799, 812-13 (1997). Although in her various defamatory tirades, Carmody focused on the condition of the goats (albeit without proper cause), Judge Cobb initially attempted to focus the hearing on the condition of the goats until she was stopped by the statement of animal control officer Tanya Wescovich, who stated the goats were not seized because of medical conditions nor the goats’ medical histories but rather because of unspecified and unarticulated generalized “conditions.” Judge Cobb was nonplused that the goats were seized in the absence of physical manifestations of negligent nor cruel care. au Wescowich admitted that neither the goats condition” nor “care” triggered the goat seizure. Indeed, Judge Cobb’s disbelief is at the essence of why the state was out of line in seizing the goats for no good reason and contrary to the statute. See discussion in Ms. Burton’s appellate brief exposing the state’s failure to assert jurisdiction because of its failure to state in simple terms, as the applicable statute requires, how a single individual goat was treated with neglect or cruelty. As none of Plaintiff's goats was so treated, the state had no case. Carmody’s focus was on her mistaken belief that she and not the court system should decide issues concerning the goats. The two cases did not address identical issues, a necessary predicate for collateral estoppel to be applicable. Moreover, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable unless the issue has been finally decided and has come to rest. Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., 173 Conn. App. 630, 649-50 (2017). Obviously because the case of State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunne v. 65 Goats et al. is the subject of a pending appeal in which Plaintiff challenges the seizure on numerous grounds, the issues have not come to rest for purposes of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel is not applicable for the following reasons as well: 14 1. The proceedings fell short of an actual judicial fact-finding proceeding because Judge Cobb applied a lesser standard of proof than is the requirement for a civil trial, that is, preponderance of the evidence. She stated she applied the standard of “reasonable belief,” a far more relaxed standard favoring the party whose burden it was to prove the case, that is, the Department of Agriculture. This was not necessarily Judge Cobb’s error because the applicable statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-329a, calls for the lesser standard at the preliminary proceedings in the case. The case did not proceed beyond the first, preliminary stage, although Plaintiff fulfilled the statute’s requirement regarding bonding and therefore was required to hold a second-stage hearing on the standard civil standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence. But due to this shortcoming of depriving Plaintiff of her due process rights under the statute, Plaintiff was deprived of a civil proceeding on a level playing field; this proceeding necessarily, and unfairly, favored the State of Connecticut by giving it the benefit of a lower standard of proof than is the norm, and thus depriving Plaintiff of a full and fair adjudication. Thereby, Plaintiff lacked the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate her rights in the prior proceeding. 2. Judge Cobb conducted an unfairly abbreviated proceeding which prejudiced Plaintiff herein. While she assured the State it could take as much time as it wanted to put on witnesses, she did not accord corresponding treatment to Plaintiff. In fact, she cut short Plaintiffs own testimony before Plaintiff had a full opportunity to complete her presentation. Plaintiff was accordingly prejudiced; in this respect, the proceedings were neither full nor fair but fundamentally unfair. 3.Judge Cobb was aware that Plaintiff suffered from significant technical difficulties because the remote technology repeatedly malfunctioned. Witnesses’ testimony froze at mid-sentence frequently, for example, and valuable time was taken away from Plaintiff. These 2 See Plaintiff's Appellate Court Brief, page 23. 15 problems foreshortened further the short time Judge Cobb allowed for the hearing, rendering it neither full nor fair. 4. Most significantly, Plaintiff has appealed Judge Cobb’s decision to the Appellate Court, wherein it is pending. AC 45710. Plaintiff's purpose in pursuing the appeal is to persuade the Appellate Court that the decision in various key aspects was clearly erroneous because of the complete absence of evidentiary support in the record, and clear evidentiary proof which Judge Cobb ignored or rejected prejudicially. Many of Judge Cobb’s factual findings are entirely without evidentiary support and/or contrary to the evidence; because of the potential for the appeal to succeed on these points — such as Plaintiff’s exceptionally good care of her goats, her provision of ample food? and water and her visits to veterinarians whenever needed - it would be premature for the Court sitting in judgment on this motion for summary judgment to rely on any of Judge Cobb’s findings in her Order. Plaintiff argues that each and every one of findings in her March 10, 2021 Order was issued without supporting evidence in the record. Indeed, Plaintiff is seeking on appeal a decision that will vacate Judge Cobb’s order jn its entirety and render it nugatory. A nugatory ruling cannot serve as the primary basis favoring a summary judgment motion, as Defendant Carmody seeks to do. 3 As one example, when Plaintiff asked the state’s witness, Charles DellaRocco, his answers were evasive and flippant, such as, when asked if he knew how much the goats ate on a daily basis of the copious bales of hay and bags of grain Plaintiff provided, he answered: “No. They’re not my goats.” Or he responded to the question how much feed was eaten by replying that he knew how much was delivered but not how much was eaten. His evasive answers were tantamount to admissions that the goats had ample opportunity to satisfy their need for grain. See Plaintiff's Appellate Court brief at page 19. 16 5. Moreover, the tone of the order and the words by which the order is expressed betray the court’s real fundamental, even embarrassing, lack of knowledge about goats and simply disregards Plaintiffs presentation of qualified witnesses and testimony. As one example, Judge Cobb asked a state witness if goats required human assistance in trimming their hooves. The witness provided the obvious answer, “Yes.” Thus, for example, Ms. Carmody’s oft-repeated defamations that the goats lacked sufficient water are echoed in Judge Cobb’s baseless accusations about water. Judge Cobb and Ms. Carmody each stated — Judge Cobb in her decision and Carmody in her online “Guest Column” that the goats lacked sufficient water. Plaintiff counters these false accusations with testimony about how she provided the goats with copious quantities of fresh spring water — superior in quality to her well water - that she drew from an impeccable source in the Litchfield Hills four times a week — necessitating a 100-mile trip every other day to provide the goats with the best water available every day. See Affidavit filed simultaneously herewith at Pages 6-7. After filling 120 gallon jugs with fresh spring water she sourced from a spring in the town of Winsted in Litchfield County four days a week, she loaded the jugs onto her wagon and went from feeding station to feeding station to feeding station until all the goats’ buckets were filled and re-filled and re-filled. Judge Cobb admitted Plaintiffs photograph of her wagon filled with such water jugs at one of the feeding stations. Ex. M. This activity she repeated as often as required to replenish the water throughout the day. Plaintiff's expert, Rosa Buonomo, provided supportive testimony that Plaintiff served the goats freshly sourced spring water she had witnessed Plaintiff draw from a spring in Litchfield County. See Exhibit DD-12, Transcript excerpt from April 8, 2021 hearing before Judge Cobb. Indeed, that is how the two — Plaintiff and her expert Rosa Buonomo - first met — at the spring drawing water. The freshly drawn spring water was superior to the water jn Plaintiff’s well, which was subject to contamination from road salts applied in the winter by the 17 Redding road crew. The goats loved that water. It gave Plaintiff a great deal of satisfaction to give the goats such pleasure from the simple act of drinking clean, pure, healthy freshly drawn spring water. The task appealed to her mothering and nurturing instincts. As set forth in her accompanying affidavit, Plaintiff made four or more trips every week to the Litchfield County spring, each time filling 120 gallons with fresh spring water. If it was ever necessary to supplement the spring water, Plaintiff on rare occasions purchased commercially sold spring water from a grocery store. Doubtless, Ms. Carmody witnessed Plaintiff unload these jugs every other day from her car and deliver the water to the goats by means of her wagon in multipletrips, but she never mentioned these observations.. This method of water sourcing was admittedly time-consuming but worth the effort to Plaintiff who was entirely devoted to the goats’ welfare, just as she had been entirely devoted to her children’s welfare when they were growing up. During the entire course of the proceedings before Judge Cobb and Judge Bellis, Plaintiff was never asked where or how she sourced her water for the goats. Yet Judge Cobb castigated Plaintiff for supposedly depriving the goats of water with simply no supporting evidence in the record. Yet there was absolutely no evidence from the Department of Agriculture that a single goat was dehydrated or exhibited any signs of dehydration. Plaintiff assumed they were aware of Plaintiff’s every- other-day trips to the Winsted spring as a police officer from Winsted followed Plaintiff early one morning at the spring to fill a thermos bottle himself. Plaintiff had thoughts that the police officer was ona mission to follow Plaintiff on her water-sourcing stop. The important point is that there was no evidence presented in Court nor in Ms. Carmody’s frequent defamatory utterances to substantiate her claim that the goats were water-deprived nor evidence of any physical manifestation of dehydration such as Plaintiff’s expert described in her testimony. None of Plaintiff’s goats was ever dehydrated nor did a single goat manifest the physical manifestations of dehydration: 18 bloodshot eyes and lethargy, although the state witnesses had ample Opportunity to observe. Rather than drawing recognition from Judge Cobb abaut Plaintiff's obviously high level of devotion to thusly source and provide the goats with superior water sourced frequently in Litchfield County - four trips per week at least, 120 gallons per trip -—— certainly better than her well water which contained levels of road salts, Judge Cobb castigated Plaintiff for delivering this obviously superior water with so much effort to the goats as itself an act of animal cruelty. Judge Cobb’s condemnation of Plaintiff for her obvious exceptional devotion to the goats should be considered together with her decision to ignore/disregard the other evidence presented on the subject of water. Plaintiff’s expert, Rosa Buonomo, was asked to tell the symptoms of dehydration in a goat — and whether she had observed such symptoms in Plaintiff's goats. She complied and answered no. Judge Cobb utterly ignored this testimony, which was not disputed by any of the state’s witnesses. None testified that they had observed any symptoms of dehydration in any of Plaintiff's goats at any time. Reduced or limited activity level is a key indicator of dehydration. None of the many goat photographs submitted by Plaintiff herein nor the Department of Agriculture itself depict any goat being restrained in its activity level. The typical case of dehydration in a farm animal, cited by Plaintiff in her appellate brief at pages 31-32, has the listless creature “downed,” unable to get up, with drooping eyes. Nor do any of the photographs — either those taken by Plaintiff or those taken by state representatives — betray any other sign of dehydration in Plaintiff's goats. Plaintiff will prevail on appeal on the non-issue of goat dehydration. Nor was any credible evidence presented to Judge Cobb that Plaintiff abused or neglected her goats. 19 Plaintiff points out that Defendant Carmody made similar accusations in 2017 when she, with others, filed a complaint with the Department of Agriculture. In response, as discussed abave, the state’s veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, twice visited Plaintiff’s property, evaluated all the goats and interviewed Ms. Burton about her care of the goats. She ultimately dismissed Ms. Carmody’s complaint. See Ex. D. Although Judge Cobb admitted the Lis Investigation Report into evidence as a full exhibit over the state’s objection, and although it legally served as prima facie evidence that Plaintiff's goat operation was consistent with appropriate agricultural practice, she ignored it. 6. Finally, in order for collateral estoppel to apply, there must be an identity of issues, that is, the prior litigation must have resolved the same legal or factual issue that is present in the second litigation. Collateral estoppel may be invoked against a party to a prior adversarial proceeding or against those in privity with that party. Defendant Carmody does not explain how she is in privity with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, nor is she. She cites no example where a private citizen has been judicially held to be in privity with a state agency. Her far-fetched claim, if accepted, would break all precedent. Nor are the issues identical. The principal issue on appeal is whether the State of Connecticut legally seized and imprisoned 65 goats when it was unable to file a petition complying with Conn. Gen. Stat. §22- 329a(c) by filing a verified petition in the Superior Court under oath stating facts of neglect or cruel treatment as to a single identifiable goat. Carmody herself never identified a single goat that had been neglected nor treated cruelly; she certainly did not identify 65 goats individually that had been neglected nor cruelly treated. The photographs submitted by Plaintiff in support of her motion for summary judgment betray Ms. Carmody’s false accusations. Defendant Carmody is not in privity with the state. E. The defamatory statements cited herein and in the Appendix are neither literally nor substantially true. Ms. Carmody offers 20 no evidence supporting this argument. While she argues that the “gist” of her defamations are both literally and substantially true, she presents not a single example of such evidence, as required, to support this argument. Whether Plaintiff is a public or private figure is irrelevant to a determination of whether Ms. Carmody defamed Plaintiff. Plaintiff provides compelling proof of the defamation; Ms Carmody presented no proof. Judge Cobb’s Order is not evidence for purposes of this case because it is the subject of a pending appeal brought to vacate the order itself. This court has no authority to vacate the order; the issue cannot be decided on the motion for summary judgment. Carmody fails to note that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply unless the prior adjudication was finalized. A decision on appeal, it seems too obvious to repeat, is not a final judgment as it is subject to being reversed and vacated on appeal. In this case, it is very likely that it will be because there was no evidence supporting the various claims now repeated by Carmody: goats not cared for, not fed, denied water: the issues are not resolved because all the credible evidence was to the contrary. While Ms. Carmody states “Unquestionably, the truth of Ms. Carmody’s statements regarding Ms. Burton’s supposed abuse and neglect of her goats has already been established,” the truth or falsity will be decided when the appeal is decided, but not before. Defamation is defamation whether or not Plaintiff is deemed public or private figure Moreover, although Ms. Carmody argues in her motion for summary judgment that Plaintiff is a public figure for purposes of this case, she provides no evidence in support of this claim. 21 At best, she argues that being an author or a politician (which Plaintiff is not) or an environmental activist automatically translates to a “public person” for purposes of libel law. Yet she provides no case law in support of this argument under the facts of this case and, indeed, the case law argues that merely being an author of a boak ora politician or environmental activist does not automatically render one a public figure for purposes of libel law: more is required. Real evidence is required. Ms. Carmody had not provided a scintilla of real evidence. The only “evidence” that Ms. Carmody references is a statement that the Mothers Milk Project, which Plaintiff co-founded, is “highly publicized.” Yet Defendant Carmody provides no evidentiary support for this claim. In fact, the contrary is true and her statement is simply fanciful when actual evidence is required: in fact, the Mothers Milk Project is less than minimally publicized. It has a website but the website is rarely visited. Undoubtedly most of the few viewers are the same individuals who have a stake in this litigation. Again, Ms. Carmody provides no evidence to support her claim of it being a “highly- publicized quest.” It simply is not. If it were, presumably Ms. Carmody would be able to produce evidence to support her claim, such as numbers of website visits or recent press conferences or speeches. She has not done so. Without evidence — required on this mation for summary judgment her argument fails. With no evidence that Plaintiff meets the criteria for a public figure for purposes of libel law, her argument fails. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer- author of many books is not necessarily a public figure far purposes of libel law. In the complete absence of evidence, Ms. Carmody’s argument fails. Because Ms. Carmody uttered her defamatory statements with “actual malice” and knowledge of their falsity, she acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of her statements and is held to the standard for punitive damages. 22 She is charged with knowledge of Dr. Lis’ expert conclusion that the goats were healthy and neither food- nor water-deprived. She presented no evidence to the contrary. Her actual malice derives from her defamatory statements uttered and widely circulated even as she was well aware of the falsity of her statements. She is answerable in punitive damages to Plaintiff as a public or private person. Her defamatory utterances to then- State Sen. Will Haskell were repeated and multiplied by him at least a thousands-fold according to his statement in his deposition that he gave interviewed to a great number of legitimate news gatherers. His defamatory statements to them about Plaintiff entitled Plaintiff to damages from Carmody as the original author and communicator of the defamatory remarks. Because Plaintiff is innocent of any act of abuse or neglect of her goats, Ms. Carmody cannot conflate her hysteria about goats with a single fact enabling Ms. Carmody to ruin Plaintiffs reputation with libelous falsehoods. H. It is unclear why Ms. Carmody attached search and seizure and arrest warrants to her affidavit. Plaintiff attaches to her Exhibits her Motion to Suppress and for Return of Property Seized Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case (HHD-CV21-6139702-S (State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al.), April 8, 2021. Plaintiff supplemented this pleading with others on the related subject and she claimed and reclaimed the motions but they were never allowed to be heard nor adjudicated. The State of Connecticut procured the search warrant under false pretenses by and through an individual not worthy of credibility because of his prior arrest record for felonies. These documents are rife with malicious falsehoods and defamatory attacks against Plaintiff. The State of Connecticut never identified under oath a single individual goat as one subjected to neglect nor cruelty by 23 Plaintiff and thereby forfeited jurisdiction. This was its most blatant fatal and consequential error in the underlying litigation as the state’s failure to do so compromised the state’s jurisdiction over a single goat. This issue is a matter Plaintiff has raised and will present on appeal. Ms. Carmody did not raise this issue in her defamations. She can hardly argue that there is an identity of issues between Plaintiff’s litigation and her defamatory conduct. I Defendant Carmody’s argument that she was motivated by an “overriding concern [for] the safety and welfare of Ms. Burton’s goats” is an empty statement not supported by facts. First, an individual who routinely kicks a baby goat off a stone wall, as Carmody was prone to do, according to the complaint, is no friend of baby goats. That is an accusation that follows Defendant Carmody in this litigation. Time after time, Plaintiff reached out to Carmody and other neighbors to support her efforts to rehome goats to qualified animal sanctuaries; Carmody never once rose to the challenge. If, as is likely, Carmody perused the Judicial Department website to read the case files in this and its companion case, State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., Carmody is very well aware that the goats , in being evicted from Plaintiff’s property, were headed straight to Goat Hell, the goat prison in Niantic. There the goats would be left unattended by a human caretaker between 4:30 PM and 8:30 AM, even if they were due to give birth to goat triplets. Goat babies were routinely separated from their mothers and friends. They were not allowed to run and frolic outside. They never feasted on maple and apple and birch tree leaves as they did at their Redding home; they were fed low-grade processed food likely from China. They never slept nor dreamed in the open air. They never got to taste freshly drawn spring water sourced in Winsted, Connecticut. They lived in the shadow of the Millstone nuclear power station, responsible for a sickening 24 death and disease plague in the community, where birth defects are not at all uncommon. They were unable to behave like goats. They went from happy and playful to despondent. Carmody’s protestation that at this late date she is a lover of goats cannot be stomached. It reeks of falsity, To the contrary, an animal ending up at the state’s “Large Animal Barn’ is on a path to hell, where animal cruelty and abuse are the norm. There is no evidence that Ms. Carmody investigated to ascertain the quality of care provided at this facility nor why the death rate was alarmingly high. As Plaintiff has established with facts and legal support, she is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. There is no genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial; therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is obvious from a cursory reading of her motion that Carmody gave voice to poisonous, hateful disregard for Plaintiff and the goats. Her continuous theme that the goats were deprived of food and water is patently untrue: The Court need just look at the pictures attached to the Affidavit. Each goat is a specimen goat at the peak of health: no veterinarian would hesitate to pronounce each one possessed of “good eyes, good fur, good mobility and energy, acting like a gaat.” Indeed, Dr. Lis could not have concluded, as she did, that the goats were well cared for, well fed, sufficient water was available without also observing that they exhibited “good eyes, good fur, mobility and their behavior “acting like a goat.” In her accompanying motion for summary judgment and affidavit in support of the motion, Plaintiff has established that Defendant Carmody engaged in actionable defamation with malice. 25 Carmody gave voice to poisonous, hateful disregard for Plaintiff and the goats. Her continuous theme that the goats were deprived of food and water is patently untrue: The Court need just look at the pictures attached to the Affidavit. Indeed, a chief witness for the Department, animal control officer Tanya Wescovich who led aspects of the seizure, strenuously denied Judge Cobb’s query whether the goats were seized due to their physical condition. Nor did a single Department of Agriculture witness testify that the goats were underfed. Indeed, animal control officer Charles DellaRocco shrugged off any thought that the goats were underfed when he had the opportunity to so state but instead he remarked: “They’re not my goats.” The photographs — all taken in the fall 2020 period — uniformly depict well-fed, active, animated, well-fed goats. Nor did any goat suffer from dehydration. As to water, as set forth above and in the accompanying Affidavit, Plaintiff provided the goats every day, several times a day, with pure water freshly sourced from a Litchfield County spring. Throughout the proceedings, Plaintiff was never ask