Preview
X06-UWY-CV21-5028294-S SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY
Vv.
DAVID P. MASON FEBRUARY 15, 2024
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO TOWN DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff files her objection herewith to the Town Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.
I Introduction
The essence of the Town Defendants’ motion for summary judgment indeed the
essence of their conduct giving rise to this matter in the first place - is epitomized in the,
second sentence of their motion, to wit:
Plaintiff, Nancy Burton, is a prolific pro se litigator with a history of engaging in
vexatious litigation.1
The thought ends there. Not a single example of “vexatious litigation’ is offered. The
presumed takeaway is that Plaintiff initiated and/or pursued “vexatious litigation.” To the
contrary, Paragraphs 2 through 23 of the Complaint set forth a few examples of pro
bono publico litigation and actions undertaken in her professional life, particularly in
Redding. The list is abbreviated. It omits to mention the appeal Plaintiff successfully
brought to the Connecticut Supreme Court which had an unprecedented result: on the
afternoon following oral argument of the appeal, the chief clerk of the Supreme Court
telephoned Plaintiff to inform her that the Supreme Court had moments earlier issued
an order for her African-American teenaged pro bono client to be released immediately
from state custody.? It also omits to mention the many actions Plaintiff brought,
successfully against Town of Redding agencies and personnel when they acted outside
the law, such as when Plaintiff won a Superior Court decision ordering then-First
Selectman Mary Anne Guitar to convene a town meeting pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
§7-1 to consider whether to appoint a committee to study whether the town should
consider establishing a “Mark Twain Historic District” to include the estate the
celebrated writer once owned on Mark Twain Lane. That Plaintiff had to jump through
complicated legal hoops to achieve that simple-sounding victory is suggestive of the
unique legal challenges she surmounted in pursuit of the public interest in the Town of
1 A legal action brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary.
2 The young man’s name, although a matter of public record, is being withheld from this
filing to protect his privacy.
Redding. The present litigation is symptomatic of the vexatious litigation the Town
Defendants and others have pursued against Plaintiff.
I. Factual Background
A. First Selectman Julia Pemberton
In November 2013, Ms. Pemberton was first elected to serve as Redding First
Selectman. In November 2013; she ran uncontested to serve a sixth two-year term,
winning 1,156 votes.
During this entire period of time, she never accepted a single one of Plaintiff's
multiple offers to either meet to discuss Plaintiff's goats, the Mothers Milk Project, nor
allowed Plaintiff to make a presentation at the Redding Town Hall or in a public meeting
room. Yet behind the scenes, by telephone and email communications and in person,
she coordinated the conspiracy to seize the goats and to surveil, invade and search
Plaintiffs property and invade Plaintiffs privacy and to engage with the news media,
state and municipal officials and Redding residents. See, e.g., Exhibit TK.
Aware that Plaintiff owned property at 147 Cross Highway, and that Plaintiff had
played a principal role in designation of Cross Highway as a town-designated scenic
road, upon information and belief, she gave official authorization to Frontier
Communications of America, Inc., to carry out a massive pruning of 16 of Plaintiff's
scenic trees in March 2023 in flagrant breech of professional arborist and legal
standards, causing them major harm and physical distress. Nancy Burton v. Frontier
Communications of America, Inc., DBD-CV-24-5020284-S. She did so without
attempting to make any contact with Plaintiff - who she knew would object - and without
notice to Plaintiff, wno was absent when the work was carried out. These facts are
symptomatic of Ms. Pemberton’s malice toward Plaintiff and disregard for her rights,
over a significant period of time.
With regard to the March 10, 2021 search and seizure operation carried out on
Plaintiff's property, a principal subject of this motion, Ms. Pemberton directed and
spearheaded the strategy impressed upon her by, principally, Elinore Carmody,
Plaintiff's next-door neighbor. Ms. Pemberton took pains to obscure and conceal her
active behind-the-scene role to aid Carmody in achieving her objectives. She
deliberately kept her emails to a minimum so they could not be obtained by Plaintiff
through Freedom of Information Act searches. She frequently communicated with Ms.
Carmody, then-State Sen. Will Haskell and other participants in this conspiracy to obtain
and share information about the progress of the “secret” campaign to invade and search
Plaintiff's home and to remove her goats, She deliberately withheld all plans from
Plaintiff. She never offered to help until March 9, 2021, when she delivered an offer per
town counsel Steven Stafstrom to have the Board of Selectmen fund a transfer of the
goats to a respected animal sanctuary forthwith. The offer came too late as the Town
and state Defendants were already proceeding apace to seize the goats and transport,
them to the state’s goat purgatory in East Lyme, Connecticut.
Town Counsel Steven Stafstrom carried out Ms. Pemberton’s objectives. On March
9, 2021, town counsel Steven Stafstrom communicated the offer, by telephone and
email, to Plaintiff wnereby he would coordinate an immediate transfer of all except nine
of Plaintiff's goats, from Plaintiff's property to Stoney Brook Farm Animal Sanctuary,
Inc., a 501( c)(3) animal sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut. Under the
proposal, Ms. Pemberton and the Board of Selectman would assume the financial costs
of the transfer and various incidental improvements to the sanctuary. In exchange,
Plaintiff would withdraw two pending lawsuits against the Town of Redding concerning
the town. Plaintiff readily agreed to these terms, being completely unaware at that time
of the elaborate plans then underway on the very same day, March 9, 2021, by state
and municipal authorities to obtain a search and seizure warrant, invade and search
Plaintiff's home and transfer all the goats to the York prison for women located in East
Lyme, Connecticut. Immediately on receiving Mr. Stafstrom’s offer, Plaintiff telephoned
Rosa Buonomo, president and owner of the Stoney Brook Farm animal facility and
obtained her approval for the transfer and the conditions of the transfer. Thereupon,
Plaintiff and Mr. Stafstrom finalized preparation of a trial status form as ordered due by
the morning of March 9, 2021 by Hon. Barbara Bellis, who was presiding over the two
cases. Early on the morning of March10, 2021, Plaintiff received a telephone call
informing her that a surprise raid of her property was underway. Plaintiff arrived on the
scene where she observed Ms. Pemberton presiding over conversations with members
of the news media. Ms, Pemberton stood by as the goats were cruelly hauled toward
large animal carriers, baby goats having been separated from mothers. The scene was
swarming with police, state employees and others. The goats were deprived of food and
water. Plaintiff was ordered by Redding police to remain outdoors while they searched
her house. Items of her personal property of great value were stolen during this time.
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff emailed a letter to the three members of the Board of
Selectmen the following day regarding the Stafstrom offer of March 9, 2010. None ever
responded. The correspondence is attached. Exhibit TK. Neither Ms. Pemberton nor the
other two Selectmen responded to Plaintiff's correspondence. These facts and the other
facts alleged in the complaint support a finding that the Town Defendants, most
particularly Ms. Pemberton, Mr. Stafstrom and Police Chief O’Donnell, engaged in a
fraudulent conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her property, her civil rights and her First
Amendment rights, and engaged in the tortious acts identified in the complaint.
B. Police Chief Mark O’Donnell
Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons made it a practice to harangue, harass,
threaten and gesticulate toward Plaintiff in an offensive manner, as documented in the
attached correspondence. Exhibit .Plaintiff appealed to various police officers to inform
Chief O’Donnell of these frightening and criminal activities and to investigate and arrest
them. The police officers who got back to Plaintiff told her that Chief O’Donnell told them
3
that he would not investigate and there would be no arrest of Carmody nor Gibbons,
although what they communicated were the equivalents of death threats and threats of
violence nor would he authorize them to investigate and arrest either of them for their
obviously criminal misconduct. These communications are set forth in Exhibit TK.
Chief O’Donnell and Ms. Pemberton shared a close, mutually supportive partnership.
Even after the shocking and horrendous events immediately preceding the untimely
death of Peter Valenti on April 11, 2016, and the accusations that then-Capt.O’Donnell
had the opportunity to but did not cut the rope that was strangling Mr. Valenti, a Redding
resident and single father of an infant son, and thereby potentially save his life, and that
then-Capt. O’Donnell's “gross negligence,” as alleged in the complaint filed against him
by the Valenti family, was a substantial factor in causing the injuries of and resulting
death of Peter Valenti,? and shocking accusations that he had violated
numerous/obvious standards of fundamental police conduct and the Redding code of
police behavior, First Selectman Pemberton took the inexplicable step of promoting the
Captain to the top position in the Police Department — that of Chief of Police, the
position he has held to the present time.
C. Town of Redding
Various employees of the Town of Redding, by personally participating in the four-
day intrusive surveillance of herself, her goats and her property, by arresting her without
probable cause and the other lawless acts alleged in the complaint violated her rights.
UL. Legal Argument
A. The Search and Seizure Warrant (Exhibit H) Was Issued in the Absence of
Probable Cause
In their motion for summary judgment, the Town Defendants repeatedly toss away
legitimate challenges to the Defendants’ conduct by presuming — without actually ever
addressing — the factual and legal deficiencies of the search and seizure warrant. But
because the application and warrant are bereft of long-recognized, mandatory
requirements, the warrant is bereft of legal authority and lacks probable cause. The
invasion of Plaintiff's home and theft of her goats were undertaken without probable
cause. All acts undertaken pursuant to the warrant are accordingly outside the
protection of the law as there was an absence of probable cause. The blatant
deficiencies in the application and warrant are as follows:
1. Judge D’Andrea was not a neutral magistrate.
3 Complaint, PeterJ. Valenti Jr., v. ... Mark O’Donnell (Ret. Date October 31, 2017)
4
The motion assumes neutrality but does not substantiate neutrality.
As the Town Defendants acknowledge (Memorandum of Law, page 27), “Ordinarily,
an arrest or search pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate is presumed
reasonable because such warrants may issue only upon a showing of probable cause.”
Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2007. Thus, even if probable cause is
established, the warrant forfeits its validity if the issuing magistrate is not neutral.
Further, as the Town Defendants recite (Memorandum of Law, page 28): wy .. .a police
officer who relies on good faith on a warrant issued by a neutral and detached
magistrate upon a finding of probable cause is presumptively shielded by qualified
immunity/” Simms v. Village of Albion, 115 F.3d 1098, 1106 (2d Cir.1997).
In either case — assuming probable cause and assuming qualified immunity - neither
protection is available if the magistrate was not neutral or not detached.
As Plaintiff has set forth at pages 3-4 of her Memorandum of Law, Judge D’Andrea,
with all due respect, was a far cry from a neutral, detached magistrate.
2. To be valid and able to support probable cause, the warrant applicant — here,
Animal Control Officer Charles Della Rocco - far from possessing impeccable
credibility, as required of a warrant applicant, is a notorious prevaricator with a
criminal history. These personal traits are revealed in the public records of his
arrests for forgery and perjury. These particular crimes bespeak the dishonest
nature of an individual inclined to treat others unfairly. Shockingly, DellaRocco
revealed his service as a police officer assigned to protect the security of the
justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court in the warrant application, including
the years served in that position (Exhibit H, page 3), the application
deliberately excludes any and all facts of his arrests (although they were
widely reported in the Connecticut news media at the time) and such facts are
of a unique character that requires their disclosure for a search and seizure
warrant application due to the sensitive nature of a state-sponsored invasion
of and state seizure of private property. By withholding the facts of his criminal
background, DellaRocco disqualified himself as a warrant applicant and
obliterated any valid claim to probable cause. Similarly, his legal counsel,
assistant attorney generals Matthew Levine and Daniel Salton, in subsequent
proceedings in this matter before Hon. Susan B. Cobb, also also concealed
and suppressed his criminal history.
The warrant applicant, DellaRocco, is a notorious misogynist who was forced
to resign from his paid position as Old Saybrook High School girls’ soccer
coach amidst a scandal, widely covered by the Connecticut news media,
which exposed his while-on-the-job viewing of online pornography. As an
established misogynist, DellaRocco lacked neutrality and fundamental respect
for Plaintiff and her rights. By withholding the facts of his disqualifying
misogyny, DellaRocco disqualified himself as a warrant applicant and
obliterated any valid claim to probable cause. His comments in the warrant
applicant are frequently disrespectful and misogynistic.
DellaRocco deliberately withheld other facts concerning his primary informant,
Elinore Carmody, Plaintiff's next-door-neighbor, from the warrant application
which, if revealed, would have compelled Judge D’Andrea to deny the
application, including the following:
a Carmody had threatened death and violence against Plaintiff and her goats
and, when Plaintiff requested that the Chief of Police, Defendant Mark
O'Donnell, investigate and arrest her, he refused without good cause.
DellaRocco was aware of these facts, which disqualified Carmody from
serving as a primary informant supporting the warrant.
Carmody had texted death threats to Plaintiff using a cell phone number
which a member of the Redding Police Department confirmed was the
number of Carmody’s cell phone; despite Plaintiffs request to Police Chief
O'Donnell, the Redding Police Chief refused to investigate; when Plaintiff
filed a similar complaint with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture,
DellaRocco was assigned to investigate it. DerllaRocco dismissed the
complaint, claiming falsely that the cell phone number which Plaintiff had
provided did not match with Carmody’s number, which was a blatant
falsehood which DellaRocco used as an excuse not to investigate
Carmody, and thereby protect her as his primary source who provided the
use of her garage and driveway to carry out his special four-day
“surveillance” of Plaintiff, a blatant tit-for-tat tradeoff.
Material facts were withheld from the application which, had they been
disclosed, would have compelled the judge to reject the warrant; these facts
include the systematic and deliberate cruelty and abuse of the animals in its
care at the Department of Agriculture’s York women’s prison, including
depriving the animals of human care seven days a week between the hours of
4:30 PM and 8:30 A.M. seven days a week; provision of fresh air, recreation,
water, grazing opportunities. The cruel conditions and inadequate care would
lead to the avoidable deaths of many of Plaintiffs goats and unnecessary
suffering by all. Had DellaRocco disclosed these facts — of which he was fully
aware - in the warrant applicant, Judge D’Andrea would have been compelled
to deny the application.
The state’s head veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, had visited Plaintiff's
property and evaluated all the goats, the facilities and the conditions of the
goats’ care and interviewed Plaintiff at length in response to a complaint by
neighbor Elinore Carmody and others and dismissed the neighbors’ complaint
on June 15, 2018, finding “At the end of this investigation, all goats on the
property appear to be in good condition with food and water available.”
DellaRocco was aware of this report but he withheld it from Judge D’Andrea in
order to prejudice Judge D’Andrea against Plaintiff. Some of the goats were
due to have their hooves trimmed and manure shoveled from their shelters, as
6
Dr, Lis noted in her report, but nevertheless Dr. Lis did not deem such facts to
require seizure of the goats. Plaintiff subsequently had the goats’ hooves
regularly trimmed and manure regularly shoveled. Neither factor provided
factual or lawful cause for seizure of the goats. Dr. Lis authorized seizure of
Michael Hear!’s goats (State v. Michael Hearl) that scored low body
conditions: in contrast, in Dr. Lis’ inspection, all of Plaintiff's goats scored at
the highest level; by dismissing the Carmody complaint, she deemed the
goats were well cared form proving Plaintiff with prima facie proof of her good
care pursuant to the Connecticut Right to Farm Law. 9-341. Plaintiff continued
to provide excellent care to the goats, including providing veterinary care as
appropriate, as DellaRocco was aware.
Following Dr. Lis’ inspection, Plaintiff made numerous enhancements to the
goat shelters although not requested to do so by Dr. Lis, followed a regular
routine of engaging professional farriers to trim all the goats’ hooves on a
rotating schedule. The outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic temporarily
disrupted the hoof-trimming scheduling as social interactions among humans
were discouraged.
Redding Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca inspected the shelter
enhancements and stated under oath as follows on October 7, 2019 that “what
was built was adequate for the number of goats being sheltered at that time.”
Exhibit. The number of goats remained at a constant figure while Plaintiff
provided constant updates and improvements to the goat shelters.
At all times pertinent, three to four times every week, Plaintiff drove to a
mountain spring in Litchfield County renowned for the purity of its water and
filled 100-120 gallon jugs; this was the principal source of the water provided
to the goats as they favored it and they preferred it to any other water source
and it promoted good health. Upon her return, Plaintiff distributed the water to
water buckets at each of the goat feeding stations. There was a brief period of
several days in January-February 2021 when Plaintiffs water and feeding
schedules were off as she was on a critical deadline to research, prepare and
file legal papers in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Nancy Burton v.
Department of Environmental Protection and Dominion Nuclear Connecticut,
$C20466. Nevertheless, Plaintiff continued to travel to the spring three to four
times a week on a different schedule beginning very early in the morning to fill
100-120 gallon jugs. This period coincided with the time period when state and
municipal officers engaged in what they called a “four-day surveillance” of the
property which was apparently coordinated by the two representatives of the
Office of the Attorney General, Matthew Levine and Daniel Salton, who
opposed Plaintiff in argument of the litigation before the Supreme Court.
Although said Levine and Salton were closely involved in preparation of the
warrant application and the seizure, they withheld these facts from DellaRocco
and Judge D’Andrea.
10.At all times pertinent, Plaintiff arranged for weekly deliveries to her home of
sufficient bales of top-quality first-cut hay and top-quality grain from Benedict's
farm supply in Monroe, Connecticut. She supplemented these provisions as
needed.
11. As needed and at all times pertinent, Plaintiff engaged the services of a highly
skilled and experienced Connecticut-licensed veterinarian; she took great
pride in taking excellent care of all her goats.
12. The warrant application is otherwise completely lacking in facts to support
probable cause to seize the goats.
13. The warrant sought to invade Plaintiff's home to seize certain personal
property, such as photographs and veterinarian records. This was a ruse to
provide the appearance of justification to invade Plaintiffs home, which was
only intended to embarrass her: the State and Town defendants had had full
opportunity to photograph the goats and they frequently did so. In addition, the
State and Town Defendants had cooperated in obtaining and sharing copies
of the goats’ veterinarian records. The veterinarian records established that
Plaintiff was an excellent caretaker of her goats and she sought veterinarian
assistance as appropriate.
B. The Invasion of Privacy Claims Counts Two and Eleven Are Legally and
Factually Substantiated
Plaintiff has alleged and will prove that Defendants Pemberton and O'Donnell were
personally involved in the actions upon which she premises her invasion of privacy
claims.
The Defendants caused Plaintiff's arrest knowing that David Philip Mason was the
individual responsible for chasing the goats into the road by debliberately panicking
them by blowing his air horn when she was not even present. The noise alerted her as
to the activities occurring. The Redding police never questioned Plaintiff about this
incident and refused to hear her side of it. When Plaintiff related the facts to Animal
Control Office DellaRocco, he agreed with her that, assuming the facts she recited were
true, there was no probable cause for her arrest. The Town of Redding had previously
ordered Plaintiff to remove the fence she had erected to keep the goats away from the
road on grounds of aesthetics.
The Defendants’ claims to avoid liability are without merit.
From the outset, the Defendants miscast the facts and disparaged Plaintiff to the
public and the news media when in fact this entire matter arose out of Plaintiff's
devotion to the goats, her good care of the goats and their sacrifice of Plaintiff's rights to
put an end to Carmody’s baseless, annoying complaints and harassment of Plaintiff.
C. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Claims (Counts Three, Four and Five) Survive
Summary Judgment as to all the Town Defendants
The facts and arguments set forth above in Section A are incorporated herein. The
essence of these claims is that the warrant and the ensuing search and seizure
occurred without probable cause.
Regarding Defendants’ argument that municipal liability under 1983 attaches where
and only where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among
various alternatives by city policymakers (page 24). Unfortunately, the Town Defendants
eschewed the rational, sane alternative of assisting Plaintiff in transfer of the goats to
the sanctuary and assuming the costs of transport. Accordingly, 1983 liability attaches,
Here the Town Defendants were presented with a choice by town counsel Stafstrom
to continue to harass Plaintiff or follow a rational, sane course of being supportive of
Plaintiff and assisting in her reasonable plan to transfer her goats — all but nine - toa
qualified animal sanctuary which was willing to accept them and care for the: Stoney
Brook Farm Animal Sanctuary, Inc. See Exhibit .
Accordingly, the search and seizure were not legally permissible as a matter of
law.
D. HED and NIED Claims against Town and Defendant O’Donnell
In her complaint, this objection, her memorandum of law and affidavits, Plaintiff has
established material facts precluding summary judgment. These material facts all
derive, directly and indirectly, from the facts and circumstances from which the Court
must conclude that the warrant was issued without probable cause.
E. Conversion
As the Town Defendants concede, the absence of probable cause is a bar to their
conversion argument. Regarding the items of valuable and irreplaceable personal
property not identified in the warrant, the theft of these items was simply that: theft. The
Defendants have set forth no valid defense to theft nor legal argument. The dastardly
act remains a theft.
F. Spoliation
Regarding the milk sample, the only available course by which the Town Defendants
may avoid liability on this count is to produce credible evidence that Plaintiff provided
them with written authorization in advance to dispose of the milk sample if they so
chose. Otherwise, they were lawfully compelled to return it or retain it.
G. Deprivation of Rights and Privileges
Plaintiff repleaded this allegation to the extent that she inserted an allegation that the
Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to violate her rights in a manner violative of
Sec. 52- 571a. The Town Defendants engaged in the forbidden conduct in concert with
Elinore Carmody and others by failing to take the legally required steps to stop Carmody
from making credible threats to physically harm Plaintiff and her goats. These threats
are documented in the proffered exhibits. The facts are not in dispute.
9
THE PLAINTIFF
Nancy Bu
14 S Highway
Redding CT 06986
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically on February
15, 2024.
10
Preview
X06-UWY-CV21-5028294-S SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY Vv. DAVID P. MASON FEBRUARY 15, 2024 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff files her objection herewith to the Town Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. I Introduction The essence of the Town Defendants’ motion for summary judgment indeed the essence of their conduct giving rise to this matter in the first place - is epitomized in the, second sentence of their motion, to wit: Plaintiff, Nancy Burton, is a prolific pro se litigator with a history of engaging in vexatious litigation.1 The thought ends there. Not a single example of “vexatious litigation’ is offered. The presumed takeaway is that Plaintiff initiated and/or pursued “vexatious litigation.” To the contrary, Paragraphs 2 through 23 of the Complaint set forth a few examples of pro bono publico litigation and actions undertaken in her professional life, particularly in Redding. The list is abbreviated. It omits to mention the appeal Plaintiff successfully brought to the Connecticut Supreme Court which had an unprecedented result: on the afternoon following oral argument of the appeal, the chief clerk of the Supreme Court telephoned Plaintiff to inform her that the Supreme Court had moments earlier issued an order for her African-American teenaged pro bono client to be released immediately from state custody.? It also omits to mention the many actions Plaintiff brought, successfully against Town of Redding agencies and personnel when they acted outside the law, such as when Plaintiff won a Superior Court decision ordering then-First Selectman Mary Anne Guitar to convene a town meeting pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-1 to consider whether to appoint a committee to study whether the town should consider establishing a “Mark Twain Historic District” to include the estate the celebrated writer once owned on Mark Twain Lane. That Plaintiff had to jump through complicated legal hoops to achieve that simple-sounding victory is suggestive of the unique legal challenges she surmounted in pursuit of the public interest in the Town of 1 A legal action brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. 2 The young man’s name, although a matter of public record, is being withheld from this filing to protect his privacy. Redding. The present litigation is symptomatic of the vexatious litigation the Town Defendants and others have pursued against Plaintiff. I. Factual Background A. First Selectman Julia Pemberton In November 2013, Ms. Pemberton was first elected to serve as Redding First Selectman. In November 2013; she ran uncontested to serve a sixth two-year term, winning 1,156 votes. During this entire period of time, she never accepted a single one of Plaintiff's multiple offers to either meet to discuss Plaintiff's goats, the Mothers Milk Project, nor allowed Plaintiff to make a presentation at the Redding Town Hall or in a public meeting room. Yet behind the scenes, by telephone and email communications and in person, she coordinated the conspiracy to seize the goats and to surveil, invade and search Plaintiffs property and invade Plaintiffs privacy and to engage with the news media, state and municipal officials and Redding residents. See, e.g., Exhibit TK. Aware that Plaintiff owned property at 147 Cross Highway, and that Plaintiff had played a principal role in designation of Cross Highway as a town-designated scenic road, upon information and belief, she gave official authorization to Frontier Communications of America, Inc., to carry out a massive pruning of 16 of Plaintiff's scenic trees in March 2023 in flagrant breech of professional arborist and legal standards, causing them major harm and physical distress. Nancy Burton v. Frontier Communications of America, Inc., DBD-CV-24-5020284-S. She did so without attempting to make any contact with Plaintiff - who she knew would object - and without notice to Plaintiff, wno was absent when the work was carried out. These facts are symptomatic of Ms. Pemberton’s malice toward Plaintiff and disregard for her rights, over a significant period of time. With regard to the March 10, 2021 search and seizure operation carried out on Plaintiff's property, a principal subject of this motion, Ms. Pemberton directed and spearheaded the strategy impressed upon her by, principally, Elinore Carmody, Plaintiff's next-door neighbor. Ms. Pemberton took pains to obscure and conceal her active behind-the-scene role to aid Carmody in achieving her objectives. She deliberately kept her emails to a minimum so they could not be obtained by Plaintiff through Freedom of Information Act searches. She frequently communicated with Ms. Carmody, then-State Sen. Will Haskell and other participants in this conspiracy to obtain and share information about the progress of the “secret” campaign to invade and search Plaintiff's home and to remove her goats, She deliberately withheld all plans from Plaintiff. She never offered to help until March 9, 2021, when she delivered an offer per town counsel Steven Stafstrom to have the Board of Selectmen fund a transfer of the goats to a respected animal sanctuary forthwith. The offer came too late as the Town and state Defendants were already proceeding apace to seize the goats and transport, them to the state’s goat purgatory in East Lyme, Connecticut. Town Counsel Steven Stafstrom carried out Ms. Pemberton’s objectives. On March 9, 2021, town counsel Steven Stafstrom communicated the offer, by telephone and email, to Plaintiff wnereby he would coordinate an immediate transfer of all except nine of Plaintiff's goats, from Plaintiff's property to Stoney Brook Farm Animal Sanctuary, Inc., a 501( c)(3) animal sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut. Under the proposal, Ms. Pemberton and the Board of Selectman would assume the financial costs of the transfer and various incidental improvements to the sanctuary. In exchange, Plaintiff would withdraw two pending lawsuits against the Town of Redding concerning the town. Plaintiff readily agreed to these terms, being completely unaware at that time of the elaborate plans then underway on the very same day, March 9, 2021, by state and municipal authorities to obtain a search and seizure warrant, invade and search Plaintiff's home and transfer all the goats to the York prison for women located in East Lyme, Connecticut. Immediately on receiving Mr. Stafstrom’s offer, Plaintiff telephoned Rosa Buonomo, president and owner of the Stoney Brook Farm animal facility and obtained her approval for the transfer and the conditions of the transfer. Thereupon, Plaintiff and Mr. Stafstrom finalized preparation of a trial status form as ordered due by the morning of March 9, 2021 by Hon. Barbara Bellis, who was presiding over the two cases. Early on the morning of March10, 2021, Plaintiff received a telephone call informing her that a surprise raid of her property was underway. Plaintiff arrived on the scene where she observed Ms. Pemberton presiding over conversations with members of the news media. Ms, Pemberton stood by as the goats were cruelly hauled toward large animal carriers, baby goats having been separated from mothers. The scene was swarming with police, state employees and others. The goats were deprived of food and water. Plaintiff was ordered by Redding police to remain outdoors while they searched her house. Items of her personal property of great value were stolen during this time. On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff emailed a letter to the three members of the Board of Selectmen the following day regarding the Stafstrom offer of March 9, 2010. None ever responded. The correspondence is attached. Exhibit TK. Neither Ms. Pemberton nor the other two Selectmen responded to Plaintiff's correspondence. These facts and the other facts alleged in the complaint support a finding that the Town Defendants, most particularly Ms. Pemberton, Mr. Stafstrom and Police Chief O’Donnell, engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her property, her civil rights and her First Amendment rights, and engaged in the tortious acts identified in the complaint. B. Police Chief Mark O’Donnell Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons made it a practice to harangue, harass, threaten and gesticulate toward Plaintiff in an offensive manner, as documented in the attached correspondence. Exhibit .Plaintiff appealed to various police officers to inform Chief O’Donnell of these frightening and criminal activities and to investigate and arrest them. The police officers who got back to Plaintiff told her that Chief O’Donnell told them 3 that he would not investigate and there would be no arrest of Carmody nor Gibbons, although what they communicated were the equivalents of death threats and threats of violence nor would he authorize them to investigate and arrest either of them for their obviously criminal misconduct. These communications are set forth in Exhibit TK. Chief O’Donnell and Ms. Pemberton shared a close, mutually supportive partnership. Even after the shocking and horrendous events immediately preceding the untimely death of Peter Valenti on April 11, 2016, and the accusations that then-Capt.O’Donnell had the opportunity to but did not cut the rope that was strangling Mr. Valenti, a Redding resident and single father of an infant son, and thereby potentially save his life, and that then-Capt. O’Donnell's “gross negligence,” as alleged in the complaint filed against him by the Valenti family, was a substantial factor in causing the injuries of and resulting death of Peter Valenti,? and shocking accusations that he had violated numerous/obvious standards of fundamental police conduct and the Redding code of police behavior, First Selectman Pemberton took the inexplicable step of promoting the Captain to the top position in the Police Department — that of Chief of Police, the position he has held to the present time. C. Town of Redding Various employees of the Town of Redding, by personally participating in the four- day intrusive surveillance of herself, her goats and her property, by arresting her without probable cause and the other lawless acts alleged in the complaint violated her rights. UL. Legal Argument A. The Search and Seizure Warrant (Exhibit H) Was Issued in the Absence of Probable Cause In their motion for summary judgment, the Town Defendants repeatedly toss away legitimate challenges to the Defendants’ conduct by presuming — without actually ever addressing — the factual and legal deficiencies of the search and seizure warrant. But because the application and warrant are bereft of long-recognized, mandatory requirements, the warrant is bereft of legal authority and lacks probable cause. The invasion of Plaintiff's home and theft of her goats were undertaken without probable cause. All acts undertaken pursuant to the warrant are accordingly outside the protection of the law as there was an absence of probable cause. The blatant deficiencies in the application and warrant are as follows: 1. Judge D’Andrea was not a neutral magistrate. 3 Complaint, PeterJ. Valenti Jr., v. ... Mark O’Donnell (Ret. Date October 31, 2017) 4 The motion assumes neutrality but does not substantiate neutrality. As the Town Defendants acknowledge (Memorandum of Law, page 27), “Ordinarily, an arrest or search pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate is presumed reasonable because such warrants may issue only upon a showing of probable cause.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2007. Thus, even if probable cause is established, the warrant forfeits its validity if the issuing magistrate is not neutral. Further, as the Town Defendants recite (Memorandum of Law, page 28): wy .. .a police officer who relies on good faith on a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon a finding of probable cause is presumptively shielded by qualified immunity/” Simms v. Village of Albion, 115 F.3d 1098, 1106 (2d Cir.1997). In either case — assuming probable cause and assuming qualified immunity - neither protection is available if the magistrate was not neutral or not detached. As Plaintiff has set forth at pages 3-4 of her Memorandum of Law, Judge D’Andrea, with all due respect, was a far cry from a neutral, detached magistrate. 2. To be valid and able to support probable cause, the warrant applicant — here, Animal Control Officer Charles Della Rocco - far from possessing impeccable credibility, as required of a warrant applicant, is a notorious prevaricator with a criminal history. These personal traits are revealed in the public records of his arrests for forgery and perjury. These particular crimes bespeak the dishonest nature of an individual inclined to treat others unfairly. Shockingly, DellaRocco revealed his service as a police officer assigned to protect the security of the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court in the warrant application, including the years served in that position (Exhibit H, page 3), the application deliberately excludes any and all facts of his arrests (although they were widely reported in the Connecticut news media at the time) and such facts are of a unique character that requires their disclosure for a search and seizure warrant application due to the sensitive nature of a state-sponsored invasion of and state seizure of private property. By withholding the facts of his criminal background, DellaRocco disqualified himself as a warrant applicant and obliterated any valid claim to probable cause. Similarly, his legal counsel, assistant attorney generals Matthew Levine and Daniel Salton, in subsequent proceedings in this matter before Hon. Susan B. Cobb, also also concealed and suppressed his criminal history. The warrant applicant, DellaRocco, is a notorious misogynist who was forced to resign from his paid position as Old Saybrook High School girls’ soccer coach amidst a scandal, widely covered by the Connecticut news media, which exposed his while-on-the-job viewing of online pornography. As an established misogynist, DellaRocco lacked neutrality and fundamental respect for Plaintiff and her rights. By withholding the facts of his disqualifying misogyny, DellaRocco disqualified himself as a warrant applicant and obliterated any valid claim to probable cause. His comments in the warrant applicant are frequently disrespectful and misogynistic. DellaRocco deliberately withheld other facts concerning his primary informant, Elinore Carmody, Plaintiff's next-door-neighbor, from the warrant application which, if revealed, would have compelled Judge D’Andrea to deny the application, including the following: a Carmody had threatened death and violence against Plaintiff and her goats and, when Plaintiff requested that the Chief of Police, Defendant Mark O'Donnell, investigate and arrest her, he refused without good cause. DellaRocco was aware of these facts, which disqualified Carmody from serving as a primary informant supporting the warrant. Carmody had texted death threats to Plaintiff using a cell phone number which a member of the Redding Police Department confirmed was the number of Carmody’s cell phone; despite Plaintiffs request to Police Chief O'Donnell, the Redding Police Chief refused to investigate; when Plaintiff filed a similar complaint with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, DellaRocco was assigned to investigate it. DerllaRocco dismissed the complaint, claiming falsely that the cell phone number which Plaintiff had provided did not match with Carmody’s number, which was a blatant falsehood which DellaRocco used as an excuse not to investigate Carmody, and thereby protect her as his primary source who provided the use of her garage and driveway to carry out his special four-day “surveillance” of Plaintiff, a blatant tit-for-tat tradeoff. Material facts were withheld from the application which, had they been disclosed, would have compelled the judge to reject the warrant; these facts include the systematic and deliberate cruelty and abuse of the animals in its care at the Department of Agriculture’s York women’s prison, including depriving the animals of human care seven days a week between the hours of 4:30 PM and 8:30 A.M. seven days a week; provision of fresh air, recreation, water, grazing opportunities. The cruel conditions and inadequate care would lead to the avoidable deaths of many of Plaintiffs goats and unnecessary suffering by all. Had DellaRocco disclosed these facts — of which he was fully aware - in the warrant applicant, Judge D’Andrea would have been compelled to deny the application. The state’s head veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, had visited Plaintiff's property and evaluated all the goats, the facilities and the conditions of the goats’ care and interviewed Plaintiff at length in response to a complaint by neighbor Elinore Carmody and others and dismissed the neighbors’ complaint on June 15, 2018, finding “At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food and water available.” DellaRocco was aware of this report but he withheld it from Judge D’Andrea in order to prejudice Judge D’Andrea against Plaintiff. Some of the goats were due to have their hooves trimmed and manure shoveled from their shelters, as 6 Dr, Lis noted in her report, but nevertheless Dr. Lis did not deem such facts to require seizure of the goats. Plaintiff subsequently had the goats’ hooves regularly trimmed and manure regularly shoveled. Neither factor provided factual or lawful cause for seizure of the goats. Dr. Lis authorized seizure of Michael Hear!’s goats (State v. Michael Hearl) that scored low body conditions: in contrast, in Dr. Lis’ inspection, all of Plaintiff's goats scored at the highest level; by dismissing the Carmody complaint, she deemed the goats were well cared form proving Plaintiff with prima facie proof of her good care pursuant to the Connecticut Right to Farm Law. 9-341. Plaintiff continued to provide excellent care to the goats, including providing veterinary care as appropriate, as DellaRocco was aware. Following Dr. Lis’ inspection, Plaintiff made numerous enhancements to the goat shelters although not requested to do so by Dr. Lis, followed a regular routine of engaging professional farriers to trim all the goats’ hooves on a rotating schedule. The outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic temporarily disrupted the hoof-trimming scheduling as social interactions among humans were discouraged. Redding Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca inspected the shelter enhancements and stated under oath as follows on October 7, 2019 that “what was built was adequate for the number of goats being sheltered at that time.” Exhibit. The number of goats remained at a constant figure while Plaintiff provided constant updates and improvements to the goat shelters. At all times pertinent, three to four times every week, Plaintiff drove to a mountain spring in Litchfield County renowned for the purity of its water and filled 100-120 gallon jugs; this was the principal source of the water provided to the goats as they favored it and they preferred it to any other water source and it promoted good health. Upon her return, Plaintiff distributed the water to water buckets at each of the goat feeding stations. There was a brief period of several days in January-February 2021 when Plaintiffs water and feeding schedules were off as she was on a critical deadline to research, prepare and file legal papers in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Nancy Burton v. Department of Environmental Protection and Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, $C20466. Nevertheless, Plaintiff continued to travel to the spring three to four times a week on a different schedule beginning very early in the morning to fill 100-120 gallon jugs. This period coincided with the time period when state and municipal officers engaged in what they called a “four-day surveillance” of the property which was apparently coordinated by the two representatives of the Office of the Attorney General, Matthew Levine and Daniel Salton, who opposed Plaintiff in argument of the litigation before the Supreme Court. Although said Levine and Salton were closely involved in preparation of the warrant application and the seizure, they withheld these facts from DellaRocco and Judge D’Andrea. 10.At all times pertinent, Plaintiff arranged for weekly deliveries to her home of sufficient bales of top-quality first-cut hay and top-quality grain from Benedict's farm supply in Monroe, Connecticut. She supplemented these provisions as needed. 11. As needed and at all times pertinent, Plaintiff engaged the services of a highly skilled and experienced Connecticut-licensed veterinarian; she took great pride in taking excellent care of all her goats. 12. The warrant application is otherwise completely lacking in facts to support probable cause to seize the goats. 13. The warrant sought to invade Plaintiff's home to seize certain personal property, such as photographs and veterinarian records. This was a ruse to provide the appearance of justification to invade Plaintiffs home, which was only intended to embarrass her: the State and Town defendants had had full opportunity to photograph the goats and they frequently did so. In addition, the State and Town Defendants had cooperated in obtaining and sharing copies of the goats’ veterinarian records. The veterinarian records established that Plaintiff was an excellent caretaker of her goats and she sought veterinarian assistance as appropriate. B. The Invasion of Privacy Claims Counts Two and Eleven Are Legally and Factually Substantiated Plaintiff has alleged and will prove that Defendants Pemberton and O'Donnell were personally involved in the actions upon which she premises her invasion of privacy claims. The Defendants caused Plaintiff's arrest knowing that David Philip Mason was the individual responsible for chasing the goats into the road by debliberately panicking them by blowing his air horn when she was not even present. The noise alerted her as to the activities occurring. The Redding police never questioned Plaintiff about this incident and refused to hear her side of it. When Plaintiff related the facts to Animal Control Office DellaRocco, he agreed with her that, assuming the facts she recited were true, there was no probable cause for her arrest. The Town of Redding had previously ordered Plaintiff to remove the fence she had erected to keep the goats away from the road on grounds of aesthetics. The Defendants’ claims to avoid liability are without merit. From the outset, the Defendants miscast the facts and disparaged Plaintiff to the public and the news media when in fact this entire matter arose out of Plaintiff's devotion to the goats, her good care of the goats and their sacrifice of Plaintiff's rights to put an end to Carmody’s baseless, annoying complaints and harassment of Plaintiff. C. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Claims (Counts Three, Four and Five) Survive Summary Judgment as to all the Town Defendants The facts and arguments set forth above in Section A are incorporated herein. The essence of these claims is that the warrant and the ensuing search and seizure occurred without probable cause. Regarding Defendants’ argument that municipal liability under 1983 attaches where and only where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by city policymakers (page 24). Unfortunately, the Town Defendants eschewed the rational, sane alternative of assisting Plaintiff in transfer of the goats to the sanctuary and assuming the costs of transport. Accordingly, 1983 liability attaches, Here the Town Defendants were presented with a choice by town counsel Stafstrom to continue to harass Plaintiff or follow a rational, sane course of being supportive of Plaintiff and assisting in her reasonable plan to transfer her goats — all but nine - toa qualified animal sanctuary which was willing to accept them and care for the: Stoney Brook Farm Animal Sanctuary, Inc. See Exhibit . Accordingly, the search and seizure were not legally permissible as a matter of law. D. HED and NIED Claims against Town and Defendant O’Donnell In her complaint, this objection, her memorandum of law and affidavits, Plaintiff has established material facts precluding summary judgment. These material facts all derive, directly and indirectly, from the facts and circumstances from which the Court must conclude that the warrant was issued without probable cause. E. Conversion As the Town Defendants concede, the absence of probable cause is a bar to their conversion argument. Regarding the items of valuable and irreplaceable personal property not identified in the warrant, the theft of these items was simply that: theft. The Defendants have set forth no valid defense to theft nor legal argument. The dastardly act remains a theft. F. Spoliation Regarding the milk sample, the only available course by which the Town Defendants may avoid liability on this count is to produce credible evidence that Plaintiff provided them with written authorization in advance to dispose of the milk sample if they so chose. Otherwise, they were lawfully compelled to return it or retain it. G. Deprivation of Rights and Privileges Plaintiff repleaded this allegation to the extent that she inserted an allegation that the Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to violate her rights in a manner violative of Sec. 52- 571a. The Town Defendants engaged in the forbidden conduct in concert with Elinore Carmody and others by failing to take the legally required steps to stop Carmody from making credible threats to physically harm Plaintiff and her goats. These threats are documented in the proffered exhibits. The facts are not in dispute. 9 THE PLAINTIFF Nancy Bu 14 S Highway Redding CT 06986 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically on February 15, 2024. 10