Preview
X06-UWY-CV21-5028294-S SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY
Vv.
DAVID P. MASON FEBRUARY 26, 2024
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST IN SUPPORT OF HER OBJECTION
TO TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Letter from Redding Planning Commission to Nancy Burton (January 23,
2018)
2 Email exchange between Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell (October 9,
2020)
3 “The nuclear-safety debate hits home” (Stamford Advocate, January 19,
2011)
4 Transcript State of Connecticut v. Charles Della Rocco, MO9M-CRO9-
0189217S (August 13, 2010) °
5 Transcript State of Connecticut v. Charles Della Della Rocco, MO9M-
CRO9-0189217S (May 13, 2011)
6 Nancy Burton v. Julia Pemberton et al, DBD-CV-19-5015276-S 4
Affidavit of Michael DeLuca, Animal Control Officer (October 7, 2019)
7 Investigation Report (CT Department of Agriculture, Mary Jane Lis,
DVM, State Veterinarian)(June 15, 2018)(2 pages); State of Connecticut v.
65 Goats et al, XO6-UWY-CV21-6064254-S (March 22, 2022) Affidavit of
Nancy Burton in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide
Procedural and Substantive Due Process (5 pages)
8 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (August 20, 2020)
9 State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al, XO6-UWY-CV21-6064254-S (April
16, 2021) Motion to Vacate
10 Email from Charles DellaRocco to Nancy Burton and Mary Jane Lis
DVM (December 14, 2020)
11 Poster (WANTED: Good Homes for Goats”)
12 Nancy Burton v. Department of Environmental Protection;
Commissioner of Environmental Protection SC20466; January 21, 2021,
page one of opinion
13 Nancy Burton v. Department of Environmental Protection SC20466
ORDER (February 23, 2021
14 Email from Will Haskell to Elinore Carmody (June 3, 2020)
15 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (August 20, 2020)
16 Email Exchange between Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell (October 9,
2020)(Carmody to Haskell 7:38 AM; Haskell to Carmody 11:14 AM)
17 Email from Steven Stafstrom to Nancy Burton and Redding Selectmen
Pemberton, O’Donnell, Thompson (March 11, 2021, 9:08 AM)
18 Letter emailed by Nancy Burton to Redding Selectmen Pemberton,
O'Donnell, Thompson (March 11, 2021, 7:33 AM)(“Global Goat
Settlement’)
19 Three Letters delivered By Hand by Nancy Burton to Police Chief Mark
O’Donnell (August 26, 2020, September 30, 2020, November 30, 2020)
20 Exchange of emails between Nancy Burton and Carole Briggs
December 2, 2020
21 Exchange of Emails between Nancy Burton and Steven Stafstrom
(March 9, 2021 at 3:21 PM and March 9, 2021 at 6:47 PM)
22 Department of Agriculture Internal Communications from Charles
DellaRocco concerning complaint by Nancy Burton concerning Elinore
Carmody 12/10/2020, 12/14/2020, 2/16/2021, 2/17/21
23 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (May 29, 2020)
24 Email from Julia Pemberton to Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell
(January 27, 2021)
25 Letter from Will Haskell to Commissioner Brian Hurlburt (January 25,
2021)
ns ~S
Nm
YF
2,
Kedding Planning Commissio.. +
P.O. Box 1028
Redding Center, Connecticut 06875-1028
-
Ve PF Cor iaicr a
January 23, 2018
Wiaa hon
Ms. Nancy Burton
147 Cross Highway
Redding, CT 06896
Dear Ms. Burton,
We have been aware for some time now of your problems managing
your ever-expanding goat
herd and are aware that you are trying to tectify the situation to the
satisfaction of the Town and
your neighbors. For this reason, we have exercised restraint until
now in adding to the pressures
placed upon you.
Nonetheless, we feel at this time we should go on record with
you that the orange plastic fence
and supporting posts that you have erected along Cross Highway is in violati
on of the Scenic
Road Ordinance,
We therefore direct that the fence be removed within the next 30 days.
If you would like to discuss your plans, we can be reached through the
Land Use Coordinator,
Jo-an Brooks at 203-938-3721
Sincerely,
t
Webbe,
Toby Welles, Chairman, Redding Planning Commission
A
Camee
{
ai
‘eee mmm
Pr
Click to Download
:
1 IMG_1612.mov ‘
Obytes ‘
Elinore
Cabana US Sales Director
917 796 1894
Sent from my IPhone
Efinore Fri, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:38 AM
To: "Sen. Haskall, Will"
Cc: "Romanowiez, Alexander”
HI Will,
and Julia, Pemberton about this yesterday. Steve Stafgtrom, the Town lawyer, Is tying to, dial’
4 spoke to the prosacutor
property.
you keeping the pressure on the State as | think it's starting to trickle down. | am curious about
1 would really appreciate
the reaction you recelved (or lack thereof) from Tong's office?
Thanks and let me know. Good fuck in November. | think you are going to win. Best, Elinore
Efinore Carmi
Cabana US Sales Director
917 796 1894
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct8, 2020, at 11:21 AM, Sen. Haskell, Will wrote:
[Quoted
text hidden]
Sen. Haskell, Wil! Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM
To: Ellnore
Co: "Romanowicz, Alexander* Tepair the barn and shelters Bur ton has plans in place to remove
for the goats, and to continue with regul lat the
‘a8 recommen by de
Dr, dLis the goats be Segregat hoof trim ming
by sex
edto prevent unwanted . It
ere unable to determine the exact number At tho time of the vi ‘wo
a the property. Ms. Burton of go at
on the sprop erty. It is estima that
d that she will I continue to work with Animal Natite on
d are approximately 30 to 50 goats
te goat herd and that she would like to get the number of goats in her to find for most of
care down to approximately 5 to 10
goats.
ONCLUSION: At the end 0 [ils favest
igaton , all goats onthe property appear tobe
vailable. in good condition with food und water
OFFICERS ASSIGNED
*
ERS
©)
SIGNATURE,
PBET 1.0. NUMBER
K9-4
Revised ot-18-2002
26
Se
X06-UWY-CV-21-6064254-S : SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT
EX REL. JEREMIAH DUNN OF HARTFORD
Vv.
65 GOATS
ETAL. MARCH 22, 2022
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
1, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows:
1am above the age of eighteen (18) years and | believe in the obligation of an
oath.
I reside at 147 Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut.
| am named defendant in the above-referenced action
| submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide
© Procedural and Substantive Due Process (“Motion”) and Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Procedural and Substantive
Due Process (“Memorandum”), both being filed contemporaneously herewith.
The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion and Memorandum are based on my
personal knowledge, observations and belief and are true to the best of mi
knowledge, information and belief. y
| devote this “Paragraph No. 6” to comment on and correct false and misleading
statements contained in the Connecticut Department of Agriculture investigation
Report dated June 15, 2018 (“Report”), which is appended to the Motion and
referenced in the Motion and Memorandum as Exhibit B. The Report was
released without providing me an opportunity to correct false and misleading
statements.1
11 — “Summary” — Colette Griffin is an attorney with the law firm which represents
the Redding Police Department as defendants in a pending wrongful death and *
wrongful cover-up suit. She is a self-branded “animal activist’ who for years bore
a grudge and malice toward me because my friendly black Labrador pet dog
named “Bear” was not castrated; for years, Griffin harassed me and made up lies
* The Report has been redacted pursuant to Practice Book §4-7 and upon order of the
C Court. Defendant has taken the liberty to enumerate sequentially each paragraph in the
Report for ease of reference in this Affidavit.
269
about me because my goats were not castrated, being oblivious to the fact that
the Mothers Milk Project which | co-founded requires pairings of males and
females to produce goat milk. It was never explained what Griffin may have
meant by “disabled” in reference to any of the goats. Her apparent statement that
some of my goats were “living in the house” is a ridiculous lie.
2 — As to “EVIDENCE,” these materials have not been provided to defendant.
{4 - Many of the comments made by Ms. Peet are false or present distorted, ill-
informed conclusions drawn with a view toward maligning defendant without
affording her an opportunity to respond or rebut. The statement “Ms. Burton
would not provide an accurate number of goats on the property” suggests that I
tefused to answer when in fact (a) | did not have a current count and (b) as is
obvious from the report Ms. Peet frequently entered the property in my absence
and had multiple opportunities to count the goats. Actually, defendant did provide
the name of “who her veterinarian was.” Another false statement is that ! would
not identify where the goats were from; in fact | did - 120 Dayton Road,
Waterford, Connecticut - beginning with Katie the Goat. The goat count by Ms.
Peet was inflated and inaccurate. The Report inflates the “manure” depth, which
she did not closely examine. The “dog kennels” were all 10’ X 10’ X 10’, not the
dimensions of “4 feet by 8 feet” recited by Peet. Several layers of expensive
heavy-duty tarp were effective windbarriers; they also retained heat well,
particularly when they were occupied by goats giving off their own body heat
within the confined space. Peet's estimate of manure depth was an exaggeration
and she made no attempt to examine or measure its contents: hay and shavings
were lavishly scattered in these areas for moisture absorption and comfort and
sanitation. The statement “The bodies of the goats appeared to be in good
condition” is an accurate and truthful statement. Alll the goats were regularly
cared for by professional hoof-trimmers; some goats’ hooves grow faster than
others. The use of the plural “goats” referring to “distended knee joints’ is
inaccurate; one elderly goat had a knee issue and she was being skilfully treated
by a native American herbalist/masseur. If any goats had “swollen udders on only
one side,” this condition may result from a single birth. Any such goats were
“milked out” by defendant on an “as-needed” basis. When Peet and Ms. Hall said
they noticed a goat not standing, they said the goat could not walk. However, as
if on cue, the goat got up and walked a few paces toward them. He walked very
well. As Ms. Peet and Ms. Hall apparently did not know, goats do not chew cud
all the time — particularly when they are being disturbed by humans or when they
are walking. As the two DOAG employees were looking to come up with any
reason to suggest the goats were not well treated, they made such observations
in ignorance of ordinary. goat behavior. The.comment about “corral panels’ failing
to keep the goats enclosed is completely false: they are 100 per cent effective
\ nor did the two observe any goat “escapees.” Regarding “woven wire” fencing,
264
defendant does not know what the Report is referring to, nor did the two DOAG
CO personnel bring up the subject with defendant. Although the Report states that
“Ms. Burton never called and refused to cooperate in providing that information,”
their statement is a complete and deliberate lie. In fact, Ms. Burton did exactly
what she was asked to do: she made an appointment for the goat to be looked at
by a veterinarian and left his name and the appointment information on Ms.
Peet's answering machine before the close of business that day. Ms. Burton,
contrary to the Report, was fully cooperative. The untruthfulness of the Report in
so many respects is certainly disturbing as it evidences a bad-faith approach by
two state actors determined to make false accusations about Ms. Burton and her
care of the goats. It is noted that the 9/20/17 visit by Ms. Peet and Ms. Hall
occurred without advance notice nor appointment.
{16 Again, on 11/2/17, Ms. Peet, accompanied by Officer Gregan, arrived without
an appointment.
{7 Pursuant to a scheduled appointment, State Veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DNM,
visited Ms. Burton and the goats in the company of Ms. Peet on December 15,
2017. They were joined by representatives of Animal Nation, Inc., which had
entered into a contract with Ms. Burton to place most of Ms. Burton’s goats in
verified “forever homes.” However, when Animal Nation, Inc. breached the
contract and refused to perform its contractual obligations, which included
© providing free veterinary care, fencing improvements and other services, Ms.
Burton filed suit in the Danbury Superior Court, Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation,!
Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S. The case is pending. The Report documents that
“manure [had been] removed from the sheds” since Ms. Peet's last visit.
19 The Report states that “ear tags were left in Ms. Burton’s Jeep on her property
per her original request.” This statement is correct as to the ear tags being left,
but as to where they were left, Ms. Burton expressly directed Ms. Peet not to
access her Jeep nor trespass on her property in her absence but rather to send
them in the mail. Obviously, Ms. Peet disregarded her instructions.
111 Dr. Lis returned with Ms. Peet for a scheduled visit on June 8, 2018. The
statements “All goats appeared to be in good body condition with food and water
available” and “Ms. Burton has plans in place to remove the manure accumulated
over the winter, repair the barn and shelters for the goats, and to continue with
regular hoof trimming” are all true. With regard to the statement by Dr. Lis that
she recommended that “the goats be segregated by sex to prevent unwanted
breedings,” Ms. Burton did segregate the goats by sex. The Report states that “At
the time of the visit, we were unable to determine the exact number of goats on
the property’; however, in no way did Ms. Burton cause any interference in their
C
+
efforts to count the number of goats as both were free to roam the entire
261
property. The statement "Ms. Burton stated that she will continue to work with
Animal Nation to find appropriate homes for most of the goat herd and that she
would like to get the number of goats in her care down to approximately 5 to 10
goats" is accurate except with respect to the number of goats Ms. Burton
referenced; her memory is that she gave the number as “fewer than 10.”
{12 The statement “At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property
appear to be in good condition with food and water available” is correct.
26)
C
‘O QATH
Wan BB. ~urton
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ss: Stamford
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22"¢ day of March, 2022
Deon “Me tges
Notary Public7
My commission expires: O 4 (20 be
26k
“oN c
™M Gmail Elinore Carmody
FW: Re: GOATS REDDING
Elinore Carmody Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM
To: "Sen. Haskell, Will”
Hi Will,
Thanks for getting back. | appreciate the update but really have to ask exactly what progress is being made with Steve Stafstrom and the State
Attorney. Are they obtaining a search warrant’
And how is the pressure working on the State De partment of Agriculture? Are they preparing to come and seize the goats? Because, honestly,
that Is the only progress that is helpful or that | care about.
Sorry but | have heard too many platitudes about this situation and nothin ig has changed. It only grows worse avery day. You can well imagine
my despair at this point. Thanks and kindly advise. Best, Elinore
Elinore Carmody
Cabana Magazine
917 796 1894
HHD-CV21-6139702-S SUPERIOR COURT
( .
STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
SIXTY-FIVE GOATS
NANCY BURTON April 16, 2021
MOTION FOR TO VACATE
The defendant, Nancy Burton, moves to vacate the Order of Temporary Care and
Custody (# 136) issued by the court (Cobb, J) dated April 9, 2021.
Introduction
The Order purports to vest the temporary care and custody of 65 goats she owns in
the State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (‘DOAG”) pursuant to authority set
forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-329a.
The order purports to rely on evidence presented at remote hearings conducted on
March 30, 2021 and April 8, 2021; however, the hearing was devoid of credible and
televant evidence in support of the order yet replete with overwhelming evidence to the
contrary; the order fails to present a scintilla of legal authority in its support whereas
existing legal authority compels a contrary result.
Moreover, the order reveals an astonishing ignorance of basic facts of nature,
customary goat behavior and indicia of goat health while it sentences the goats, even if
only temporarily, to a confinement at odds with basic well-known tenets of humane
treatment of animals and requisite veterinary practices, thereby consigning the order to
a unique category of cases brought and pursued by authorities of the state for no proper
purpose but as a pretext to serve bad-faith ulterior motives and designs. In this case, it
is obvious that this case was brought not to improve the lot of defendant's goats as
claimed by DOAG -— the goats thrived in an atmosphere of joy, respect and freedom -
but to subject the goats to inhumane and cruel mistreatment in retaliation for their
owner's well-known and First-Amendment-protected decades-long judicial
whistleblowing and anti-nuclear activism. The most extreme example of deliberate
animal abuse and cruelty known by defendant to have occurred to date in this matter
has been the cruel unattended reported death of Coco the Goat on April 7, 2021 after
she had been forcibly removed from the comfort and security of her home and confined
in DOAG custody for 28 long days. Coco's tragic story is told at
www.MothballMillstone.org.
45a,
ARGUMENT REQUESTED
A correct decision should have opened the doors to a full judicial and extra-judicial
investigation of the practices of the DOAG, the conditions at its Niantic facility and the
DOAG's reckless disregard for the health, safety and security of defendant's goats
during their illegal confiscation and confinement by DOAG.
Instead, at each opportunity presented by defendant to the Court to expose the
misconduct and inhumane practices of DOAG, the Court has suppressed the
information and manifested an intent to bury hopes of an inquest.
At the far end of extremism to facilitate an intended result, the court committed
reversible error when it summarily and without explanation ignored and disregarded —
buried - defendant’s Motion to Suppress (#134.00) filed on April 8, 2021, as offered
insistently by defendant, and precluded it from consideration at the hearing which
resulted in the issuance of the order which is challenged by this motion.
The Motion to Suppress exposes the acts of DOAG, in its pursuit of a search-and-
seizure warrant, as being violative of one of the most fundamental of Constitutional
protections — the right to be free of Constitutionally defective invasions of home and
private property occasioned by deliberately false and contrived accusations by the state.
Such error necessitated the revocation and dismissal of the search warrant and removal
of the subjects of the warrant — defendant's goats — from use by the state as evidence.
No goats, no case.
Contemporaneously herewith, defendant has filed the Motion to Relinquish
— Ownership of Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Rescue Facilities and
Individuals as Identified by Defendant. As DOAG was fully aware prior to its illegal
March 10, 2021 seizure of defendant's goats, defendant had already made
arrangements with a reputable and qualified animal rescue organization, registered as a
§501(c)(3) charity, to adopt her goats and provide a good home for them for the -
duration of their natural lives. Other reputable organizations and individuals have come
forward offering to adopt defendant's goats and provide them with good homes. These
goats should not be taken off to auction and inevitable slaughter, DOAG's ultimate goal.
The Motion to Relinquish Ownership of Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified
Animal Rescue Facilities and Individuals as Identified by Defendant should be granted
forthwith and the goats transferred from DOAG custody immediately.
The remainder of this motion addresses the errors of fact set forth in the Order of
Temporary Care and Custody. A memorandum of law in support of this motion is being
filed separately shortly.
:
E
Errors of Fact Set Forth in the Order of Temporary CaCare and
and CCustody
The errors of fact in the order will be addressed in the s quence in which they
are
Presented:
The defendant neglected the goats and treated them cruelly in a numbe
r of ways,
including:
2h
The defendant did not properly maintain the hooves of many of the goats, allowing
( the hooves to grow too long which impacted their mobility.
This statement is not supported by the evidence and it fatally lacks individuality.
The requirement of “Individuality” — that is, addressing each animal separately as an
“individual” - is thoroughly addressed in the controlling case of State v. Hearl, 182 Conn.
237 (2018). Animal cruelty charges must be supported on an individualized basis or
they fail. This controlling precedent has application to all the issues addressed herein.
The order does not identify a single goat individually by DOAG-assigned number nor
provide a time frame, in part because DOAG presented no evidence as to either other
‘han the general statement that “every four months” is a reasonable interval. The DOAG
witness presented no evidence that any of defendant's goats went longer than four
months between hoof-trimmings. DOAG presented no evidence of the frequency of
hoof-trimming by defendant and her helpers. DOAG presented no evidence of a specific
individual experiencing a mobility issue in which it offered proof that a hoof issue was at
the root of the experience other than some other reason, such as an experience of
being butted by another goat.
To the contrary, the evidence presented is that the goats regularly received the
attention to their hooves that was required by the regular attentions of an individual
hired by defendant to attend to their hooves. The evidence includes a recent
photograph of an individual hired to maintain the goats’ hooves engaged in that act on
~. defendant's property with one of the goats.
Goats’ hooves do not grow at the same pace; hoof growth may be faster in one goat
than another. Testimony of Rosa Buonomo, experienced caretaker of many goats.
Some may require it frequently, others rarely. The needs vary also according to the
terrain the goats are exposed to. Goats that have opportunities to sharpen their hooves
on rocks, ledges and other such surfaces need human hoof-trimming less than those
who do not. It's a question of individuality. Defendant testified that she had her goats’
hooves trimmed on a regular rotating basis.
Crucially, plaintiff failed and neglected to identify a single goat! with an elongated
hoof, nor did it present evidence about when each goat had had its hooves trimmed
most recently. One DOAG witness testified that four months would be a reasonable
interval, but she had no evidence to present that any goat had gone untrimmed for
longer than that period.
DOAG witness Charle DellaRocco testified that he could observe the length of
hooves of the 10 goats sheltering in the red-corral shelter from the vantage point of the
“surveillance window” where he acknowledged he spied on defendant. That testimony
‘ Although defendant offered to provide DOAG with her goats’ names, so they could call
C out to them by their accustomed names durin: ig their temporary custody, but DOAG
ignored her offer.
FS ©
lacked a trace of credibility. Defendant presented photographs? showing the distance
between DellaRocco's vantage point and the hooves of the goats in that shelter. The
photographs are in evidence. At the time of his surveillance, he admitted there was a
snow cover over a foot deep. He could not conceivably see the hooves as he described
in his testimony from that distance during a period of deep snow cover.
The defendant did not maintain the property or the shelters in that she did not
remove manure that accumulated on the property and inside the shelters... .
This statement is not supported by the evidence and it fatally lacks individuality.
The evidence, to the contrary, is that defendant did maintain the property and the
shelters. For example, defendant testified about the elongated and deep compost area
where she had had the spoils of manure removal collected, running nearly the entire
length of the shelter at the far western side of the property. DOAG witnesses professed
no familiarity with such large and plainly visible compost pile. No time frame is given in
the order or in the DOAG evidence. The DOAG witnesses’ observations were made
over a very short pericd of time as the harsh winter conditions — deep snow over ice —
were only beginning to recede. DOAG witness Tanya Wescovich testified that three
large shelter areas for the goats — the northern green corral shelter, the iarge central
garden shelter and the far-west corral-enclosed shelter — were not visible from the
“surveillance window’ vantage point and that from that location she could not assess
food, water and shelter availability at those locations which served as shelters for the
goats. The DOAG witnesses never asked defendant what her spring cleaning schedule
was, although defendant frequently referred to it. Frozen, compacted materials can be
much more efficiently removed when the spring thaw arrives; anyone with any
experience in nature, gardening, lawn maintenance and construction knows this.
Many of the goats seized by the State had manure caked into their fur and were
missing significant areas of fur on their coats.
Missing from this accusation are answers to these questions: How many? Which
ones? For how long? What was defendant's goat-grooming schedule? What is a
“significant area of fur’? What was the cause of fur loss as to each individual so
identified? Injury, genetics, nutrition? What was defendant doing to address such issue?
DOAG provided no evidence to address these questions, as required by the statute and
case law. The law requires individuality.
The defendant failed to provide the goats with adequate food or water.
This blatantly false accusation is completely contrary to the credible and obvious,
unrebutted evidence — the defendant's testimony, her photographs of grain and hay
deliveries and supplemental provisions she purchased; the evidence plaintiff provide
d
2 This motion will shortly be superseded with a m ‘otion which provides exhibit
numbers
4B A,
and transcript pages where cited herein.
C about defendant's weekly $400+ grain and feed bill. Most of all, the photographs of the
goats taken contemporaneously with their seizure belie this absurd claim: the goats are
shown to be uniformly robust, well-furred, vigorous, bright-eyed and behaving like goats
all measures of their well-fed, well-watered care. DOAG did not identify a single goat
manifesting the symptoms of dehydration identified by goat expert Rosa Buonomo:
sunken eyes, fatigue, et.
Many of the goats were underweight.
This accusation is completely without evidentiary support. It is another false
accusation belied by a single glance at each of the photographs taken by DOAG of
each goat at the time of seizure. What did each goat weigh? When was each weighed?
What should the weight have been? Why was it not more? Many factors can affect the
weight of a goat — genetics, activity level, natural competitiveness. The evidence
presented by defendant was that all the goats had more than enough to eat; they were
fully fed two or more times per day and most supplemented commercial feed and store-
bought hay with meadow grasses, favored weeds, leaves, tree bark. They love licking
ice and eating snow. Goat caregivers know this. Goats are very discriminating eaters:
they only eat what they like. The goats in the red corral ate from enough platters so that
there were two goats to a platter and the food was thereby equitably distributed so that
each goat had a full opportunity to be fully nourished.
- Also photographs depict many empty and dry food and water containers on the
— property.
This accusation is particularly startling for its display of ignorance about feeding
animals (or people): when the eaters are finished and sated, they leave their plates
empty. The plates do not stay full if the animals have eaten their food. In this case,
defendant followed her usual custom on March 9, 2021 and fed all the goats their dinner
~ hay, grain and water. DOAG agents arrived in the morning at approximately 8 AM
before the goats had had their breakfast — hay, grain and water. In the ordinary course,
the goats were usually fed their breakfast at around 9 AM. This pathetically weak
accusation simply serves as yet another example of ignorance of goat habits and
feeding requirements and defendant's perfectly acceptable methods of feeding the
goats. This is not evidence of any oversight on defendant's part: When the DOAG
agents arrived, they interfered with the goats’ breakfast and did not allow defendant to
feed the goats their hay, grain and water. If the containers had been full that might have
suggested a problem: it would have shown goats’ lack of appetite and failure to eat their
dinner the night before, a sign of poor health and cause for concem.
Certain of the buckets of the [water] bucket appeared to have had water in them but
the water had frozen due to the freezing temperatures.
Defendant does not dispute that freezing temperatures have-a tendency to freeze
water. This is a well-known fact not subject to dispute. That is why defendant, as she
testified, provided water to the buckets at numerous points throughout the day or
7?&
poured boiling water into the buckets if water had frozen overnight. Defendant testified
that she had to attend a 9 AM remote hearing before Judge Barbara Bellis the moming
of the seizure when DOAG staff made their observations about frozen water; obviously,
it was her intent to provide plenty of water after the conclusion of the 9 AM proceeding.
if she was ever late because of other obligations, defendant testified that she more than
made up for it by giving extra helpings of everything to all the goats. That's how they
stayed so healthy and happy.
When state investigators conducted a surveillance of the property over a two-day
period, one noted she did not see the defendant provide any food or water at any time.
Defendant categorically disputes this obvious falsehood. The investigator must have
fallen asleep or looked the other way or taken a bathroom break. The investigator
presented no videotape recording of the time frame. No time interval is provided. It did
not happen. it never happened. The goats never went without regular food and water
and plenty of it. The best proof is their robust state of health, high activity level, bright
eyes, good fur, behaving like goats. The DOAG agents observed these conditions and
testified falsely.
Plaintiff presented no evidence that they observed any of the indicia of dehydration —
as identified by defendant's witness Ms. Buonomo, a goat expert - in any of the goats.
When the defendant did provide water to the goats, she did not use a hose
C: system, but rather purchased plastic gallon water bottles. The amount of water
Provided to the goats from these water bottles was insufficient. Also, the
defendant then allowed empty plastic water bottles to be left around the property,
where the goats had access and could chew on them.
Defendant testified that she had cared for goats since 2008, not counting the
several-year period when the family kept goats as the children were growing up. She
was well-accustomed to tending to goats’ needs. She had used a hose system in the
past but found that during the winter the hoses froze and were of no use; and that
otherwise it was more efficient to load a wagon with 10 jugs at a time to fill the buckets.
This is not evidence of animal abuse. She did not re-fill buckets that were full but
throughout the year she replenished water regularly throughout the day.
Furthermore, to repeat for emphasis, plaintiff presented no evidence that they
observed any of the indicia of dehydration ~ as identified by defendant's witness Ms.
Buonomo, a goat expert - in any of the goats.
Neither plaintiff nor defendant has ever observed a goat on defendant's property
chewing on a plastic jug: this is beyond ludicrous.
The defendant did not provide the goats with proper or adequate shelter. The
-number of shelters located on the property were limited and sufficient to
accommodate only about thirty-five goats, not the sixty-five living on the property.
{n addition, the shelters were decrepit and missing walls and parts of ceilings. As
1S |
a result, many of the shelters failed to provide proper protection for the animals
from the rain, snow, cold, wind and other inclement weather.
These statements are contrary to the credible evidence and otherwise have no
evidentiary support. The evidence is that defendant provided the goats with adequate
and proper shelter. Except for the goats in the green and red corral areas, each goat
was given the freedom to select a shelter over a wide area. The goats used a variety of
shelters at different times for shelter. Defendant provided photographs into evidence to
make this point. All were safely accommodated in shelters, year-round. The DOAG
presented no evidence that any individual goat was not adequately accommodated.
DOAG made no observations of a single goat shivering or showing any physical effects
from cold weather. The shelters were due and scheduled for refurbishment come spring
after the ground thawed and the snow and ice receded. Defendant testified about and
presented photographs of a workman attending to structure repairs and maintenance.
He came to the property, as defendant testified, once or twice a week, sometimes more
frequently, to carry out maintenance chores as well as perform hoof-trimming. A DOAG
witness testified that she was unaware that two large fenced areas were ordinarily used
by goats for shelter. On a weekly basis, year-round, the shelters were maintained and
upgraded by defendant's helpers. Following a DOAG visit in 2018 in which DOAG
representatives pronounced the goats in good health and well fed, and prior to and
including the illegal March 10, 2021 raid, no DOAG representative ever contacted
defendant regarding the condition of the shelters or to make criticisms or to recommend
-
C tepairs and maintenance. Whenever a DOAG representative made a request, such as
to take a particular goat to the vet, defendant unfailingly complied. There is no evidence
to the contrary.
The defendant allowed the property to be riddled with numerous dead and
decaying goats.
This statement is not supported by any credible evidence. The language is selected
to sensationalize the fact that animals, like people, eventually die and something has to
be done with their remains. Defendant disposed of the remains of deceased goats
correctly. DOAG presented no evidence to the contrary. Defendant has had goats on
her property since 2008 — thirteen years — not counting goats from her children’s
childhood. In Connecticut, one is allowed to dispose of pet remains on their property. A
problem arose when DellaRocco set out to vandalize, desecrate and disturb graves and
leave them in a disturbed state vulnerable to predators and inclement weather.
Defendant was within her rights; DellaRocco was a vandal.
The defendant allowed at least one goat to die on the property without proper care
or treatment nor did she provide the goat with a proper or humane death.
This statement provides no credible evidence in support of plaintiff's case.
Defendant had nothing whatsoever to do with the goat's death, nor did the plaintiff so
-
¢ allege. The plaintiff has to date not identified a cause of death and has not ruled out a
tD
vandal creeping onto defendant's property, as vandals have in the past, to make
mischief. Defendant was away from her property in preparation for a court-ordered
hearing at the time. The plaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever linking defendant to
this suspicious death. The statement by the court suggesting an animal owner is under
some legal obligation to provide an animal “with a proper or humane death” are without
definition or legal authority and absurd in this situation where, to date, DOAG has not
identified a cause of the goat's death. All defendant knows about this death is that it
occurred when she was off the property during a period of time when plaintiff was
commencing preparations for a court-mandated hearing scheduled for 9 AM that
morning and DOAG was commencing its illegal raid.
1. Since the goats were seized by the State on March 10, 202tand have been in the
State's custody, one goat has died. . . all needed human intervention to survive
Coco (“#6 to the state”) was healthy, happy and at peace with her children and
extended family on March 9, 2021. On March 10, 2021, her would was turned upside-
down by reckless abuse by the state, which ignored defendant's pleas to share Coco’s
medical and social histories and medications. That is veterinarian malpractice, not
defendant’s fault. The court is wrong to place the blame for Coco's lonesome and cruel
death on her devoted caretaker. DOAG witnesses provided no evidence what “human
intervention” was needed or provided to newborn goats she has never been allowed to
meet or inspect. Nor did DOAG provide any evidence that defendant was in any way
responsible for what may or may not have been in a state of need for human
s intervention, when the obvious first question to ask is why did DOAG traumatize the
goats and particularly those close to giving birth by putting them through the terrifying
experience of forcibly removing them from their home where they were safe and secure
and confining then in a facility which, it were suitable, DOAG would want to invite
visitors to see how well it cared for pregnant goats. Pregnant human mothers are known
to miscarry and lose underweight, premature babies when exposed to trauma during
their pregnancies. That DOAG has consistently resisted and opposed defendant's
efforts to inspect the facility and assess the condition of her goats strongly suggests
DOAG has something to hide.
These statements provide no credible evidence supporting plaintiff's case. Nor is the
professed “need for human intervention” explained. Were there inadequacies in the
DOAG sheltering arrangements; were the pregnant does malnourished while in state
custody? Were they left unattended, as Coca was? The complete lack of evidence of
any of these issues renders the finding of no value and lacking credibility.
The court finds that while in the defendant's care, the sixty-five goats were in
imminent harm . . . [Emphasis added]
There is no credible evidence to support this contrived accusa
tion; indeed, if the
State considered the goats in “imminent harm” when it Starte
d to investigate an
October
2020 anonymous complaint, why did it not move at that
time to seize the goats? Why
Bf
>
did it wait six months if each goat was in “imminent harm"? The Redding animal control
officer visited the property on numerous occasions and viewed the goats and the
property without restriction. He apparently did not consider a single goat to be in
“imminent harm” during any of those visits because he never mentioned it. The fact is
that he observed a herd of beautiful and well-kept and well-nourished goats enjoying
nature. :
The answer is simple, the state seized the goats on a false pretext to harm
defendant. By harming defendant, plaintiff has recklessly abused the goats and
committed animal cruelty regarding the goats. The goats are subject to imminent harm
in state custody.
— —- -—£anelusion__ __ - —
The Order for Temporary Care and Custody lacks factual or legal basis.
The Motion to Vacate should be granted forthwith.
THE DEFENDA|
Bera
147 Cross Highway
a
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313.1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
HZ)
e RE: Redding Goats
Mon, Dec 14, 2020 11:01 am
DellaRocco, Charles Charles.DellaRocco@ct.govHide —. —_—--
Tonancyburtonct@aol.com nancyburtonct@aol.com
Cc Lis, Mary Mar
Preview
X06-UWY-CV21-5028294-S SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY Vv. DAVID P. MASON FEBRUARY 26, 2024 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST IN SUPPORT OF HER OBJECTION TO TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Letter from Redding Planning Commission to Nancy Burton (January 23, 2018) 2 Email exchange between Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell (October 9, 2020) 3 “The nuclear-safety debate hits home” (Stamford Advocate, January 19, 2011) 4 Transcript State of Connecticut v. Charles Della Rocco, MO9M-CRO9- 0189217S (August 13, 2010) ° 5 Transcript State of Connecticut v. Charles Della Della Rocco, MO9M- CRO9-0189217S (May 13, 2011) 6 Nancy Burton v. Julia Pemberton et al, DBD-CV-19-5015276-S 4 Affidavit of Michael DeLuca, Animal Control Officer (October 7, 2019) 7 Investigation Report (CT Department of Agriculture, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, State Veterinarian)(June 15, 2018)(2 pages); State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al, XO6-UWY-CV21-6064254-S (March 22, 2022) Affidavit of Nancy Burton in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Procedural and Substantive Due Process (5 pages) 8 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (August 20, 2020) 9 State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al, XO6-UWY-CV21-6064254-S (April 16, 2021) Motion to Vacate 10 Email from Charles DellaRocco to Nancy Burton and Mary Jane Lis DVM (December 14, 2020) 11 Poster (WANTED: Good Homes for Goats”) 12 Nancy Burton v. Department of Environmental Protection; Commissioner of Environmental Protection SC20466; January 21, 2021, page one of opinion 13 Nancy Burton v. Department of Environmental Protection SC20466 ORDER (February 23, 2021 14 Email from Will Haskell to Elinore Carmody (June 3, 2020) 15 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (August 20, 2020) 16 Email Exchange between Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell (October 9, 2020)(Carmody to Haskell 7:38 AM; Haskell to Carmody 11:14 AM) 17 Email from Steven Stafstrom to Nancy Burton and Redding Selectmen Pemberton, O’Donnell, Thompson (March 11, 2021, 9:08 AM) 18 Letter emailed by Nancy Burton to Redding Selectmen Pemberton, O'Donnell, Thompson (March 11, 2021, 7:33 AM)(“Global Goat Settlement’) 19 Three Letters delivered By Hand by Nancy Burton to Police Chief Mark O’Donnell (August 26, 2020, September 30, 2020, November 30, 2020) 20 Exchange of emails between Nancy Burton and Carole Briggs December 2, 2020 21 Exchange of Emails between Nancy Burton and Steven Stafstrom (March 9, 2021 at 3:21 PM and March 9, 2021 at 6:47 PM) 22 Department of Agriculture Internal Communications from Charles DellaRocco concerning complaint by Nancy Burton concerning Elinore Carmody 12/10/2020, 12/14/2020, 2/16/2021, 2/17/21 23 Email from Elinore Carmody to Will Haskell (May 29, 2020) 24 Email from Julia Pemberton to Elinore Carmody and Will Haskell (January 27, 2021) 25 Letter from Will Haskell to Commissioner Brian Hurlburt (January 25, 2021) ns ~S Nm YF 2, Kedding Planning Commissio.. + P.O. Box 1028 Redding Center, Connecticut 06875-1028 - Ve PF Cor iaicr a January 23, 2018 Wiaa hon Ms. Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding, CT 06896 Dear Ms. Burton, We have been aware for some time now of your problems managing your ever-expanding goat herd and are aware that you are trying to tectify the situation to the satisfaction of the Town and your neighbors. For this reason, we have exercised restraint until now in adding to the pressures placed upon you. Nonetheless, we feel at this time we should go on record with you that the orange plastic fence and supporting posts that you have erected along Cross Highway is in violati on of the Scenic Road Ordinance, We therefore direct that the fence be removed within the next 30 days. If you would like to discuss your plans, we can be reached through the Land Use Coordinator, Jo-an Brooks at 203-938-3721 Sincerely, t Webbe, Toby Welles, Chairman, Redding Planning Commission A Camee { ai ‘eee mmm Pr Click to Download : 1 IMG_1612.mov ‘ Obytes ‘ Elinore Cabana US Sales Director 917 796 1894 Sent from my IPhone Efinore Fri, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:38 AM To: "Sen. Haskall, Will" Cc: "Romanowiez, Alexander” HI Will, and Julia, Pemberton about this yesterday. Steve Stafgtrom, the Town lawyer, Is tying to, dial’ 4 spoke to the prosacutor property. you keeping the pressure on the State as | think it's starting to trickle down. | am curious about 1 would really appreciate the reaction you recelved (or lack thereof) from Tong's office? Thanks and let me know. Good fuck in November. | think you are going to win. Best, Elinore Efinore Carmi Cabana US Sales Director 917 796 1894 Sent from my iPhone On Oct8, 2020, at 11:21 AM, Sen. Haskell, Will wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Sen. Haskell, Wil! Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM To: Ellnore Co: "Romanowicz, Alexander* Tepair the barn and shelters Bur ton has plans in place to remove for the goats, and to continue with regul lat the ‘a8 recommen by de Dr, dLis the goats be Segregat hoof trim ming by sex edto prevent unwanted . It ere unable to determine the exact number At tho time of the vi ‘wo a the property. Ms. Burton of go at on the sprop erty. It is estima that d that she will I continue to work with Animal Natite on d are approximately 30 to 50 goats te goat herd and that she would like to get the number of goats in her to find for most of care down to approximately 5 to 10 goats. ONCLUSION: At the end 0 [ils favest igaton , all goats onthe property appear tobe vailable. in good condition with food und water OFFICERS ASSIGNED * ERS ©) SIGNATURE, PBET 1.0. NUMBER K9-4 Revised ot-18-2002 26 Se X06-UWY-CV-21-6064254-S : SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT EX REL. JEREMIAH DUNN OF HARTFORD Vv. 65 GOATS ETAL. MARCH 22, 2022 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 1, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows: 1am above the age of eighteen (18) years and | believe in the obligation of an oath. I reside at 147 Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut. | am named defendant in the above-referenced action | submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide © Procedural and Substantive Due Process (“Motion”) and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Procedural and Substantive Due Process (“Memorandum”), both being filed contemporaneously herewith. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion and Memorandum are based on my personal knowledge, observations and belief and are true to the best of mi knowledge, information and belief. y | devote this “Paragraph No. 6” to comment on and correct false and misleading statements contained in the Connecticut Department of Agriculture investigation Report dated June 15, 2018 (“Report”), which is appended to the Motion and referenced in the Motion and Memorandum as Exhibit B. The Report was released without providing me an opportunity to correct false and misleading statements.1 11 — “Summary” — Colette Griffin is an attorney with the law firm which represents the Redding Police Department as defendants in a pending wrongful death and * wrongful cover-up suit. She is a self-branded “animal activist’ who for years bore a grudge and malice toward me because my friendly black Labrador pet dog named “Bear” was not castrated; for years, Griffin harassed me and made up lies * The Report has been redacted pursuant to Practice Book §4-7 and upon order of the C Court. Defendant has taken the liberty to enumerate sequentially each paragraph in the Report for ease of reference in this Affidavit. 269 about me because my goats were not castrated, being oblivious to the fact that the Mothers Milk Project which | co-founded requires pairings of males and females to produce goat milk. It was never explained what Griffin may have meant by “disabled” in reference to any of the goats. Her apparent statement that some of my goats were “living in the house” is a ridiculous lie. 2 — As to “EVIDENCE,” these materials have not been provided to defendant. {4 - Many of the comments made by Ms. Peet are false or present distorted, ill- informed conclusions drawn with a view toward maligning defendant without affording her an opportunity to respond or rebut. The statement “Ms. Burton would not provide an accurate number of goats on the property” suggests that I tefused to answer when in fact (a) | did not have a current count and (b) as is obvious from the report Ms. Peet frequently entered the property in my absence and had multiple opportunities to count the goats. Actually, defendant did provide the name of “who her veterinarian was.” Another false statement is that ! would not identify where the goats were from; in fact | did - 120 Dayton Road, Waterford, Connecticut - beginning with Katie the Goat. The goat count by Ms. Peet was inflated and inaccurate. The Report inflates the “manure” depth, which she did not closely examine. The “dog kennels” were all 10’ X 10’ X 10’, not the dimensions of “4 feet by 8 feet” recited by Peet. Several layers of expensive heavy-duty tarp were effective windbarriers; they also retained heat well, particularly when they were occupied by goats giving off their own body heat within the confined space. Peet's estimate of manure depth was an exaggeration and she made no attempt to examine or measure its contents: hay and shavings were lavishly scattered in these areas for moisture absorption and comfort and sanitation. The statement “The bodies of the goats appeared to be in good condition” is an accurate and truthful statement. Alll the goats were regularly cared for by professional hoof-trimmers; some goats’ hooves grow faster than others. The use of the plural “goats” referring to “distended knee joints’ is inaccurate; one elderly goat had a knee issue and she was being skilfully treated by a native American herbalist/masseur. If any goats had “swollen udders on only one side,” this condition may result from a single birth. Any such goats were “milked out” by defendant on an “as-needed” basis. When Peet and Ms. Hall said they noticed a goat not standing, they said the goat could not walk. However, as if on cue, the goat got up and walked a few paces toward them. He walked very well. As Ms. Peet and Ms. Hall apparently did not know, goats do not chew cud all the time — particularly when they are being disturbed by humans or when they are walking. As the two DOAG employees were looking to come up with any reason to suggest the goats were not well treated, they made such observations in ignorance of ordinary. goat behavior. The.comment about “corral panels’ failing to keep the goats enclosed is completely false: they are 100 per cent effective \ nor did the two observe any goat “escapees.” Regarding “woven wire” fencing, 264 defendant does not know what the Report is referring to, nor did the two DOAG CO personnel bring up the subject with defendant. Although the Report states that “Ms. Burton never called and refused to cooperate in providing that information,” their statement is a complete and deliberate lie. In fact, Ms. Burton did exactly what she was asked to do: she made an appointment for the goat to be looked at by a veterinarian and left his name and the appointment information on Ms. Peet's answering machine before the close of business that day. Ms. Burton, contrary to the Report, was fully cooperative. The untruthfulness of the Report in so many respects is certainly disturbing as it evidences a bad-faith approach by two state actors determined to make false accusations about Ms. Burton and her care of the goats. It is noted that the 9/20/17 visit by Ms. Peet and Ms. Hall occurred without advance notice nor appointment. {16 Again, on 11/2/17, Ms. Peet, accompanied by Officer Gregan, arrived without an appointment. {7 Pursuant to a scheduled appointment, State Veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DNM, visited Ms. Burton and the goats in the company of Ms. Peet on December 15, 2017. They were joined by representatives of Animal Nation, Inc., which had entered into a contract with Ms. Burton to place most of Ms. Burton’s goats in verified “forever homes.” However, when Animal Nation, Inc. breached the contract and refused to perform its contractual obligations, which included © providing free veterinary care, fencing improvements and other services, Ms. Burton filed suit in the Danbury Superior Court, Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation,! Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S. The case is pending. The Report documents that “manure [had been] removed from the sheds” since Ms. Peet's last visit. 19 The Report states that “ear tags were left in Ms. Burton’s Jeep on her property per her original request.” This statement is correct as to the ear tags being left, but as to where they were left, Ms. Burton expressly directed Ms. Peet not to access her Jeep nor trespass on her property in her absence but rather to send them in the mail. Obviously, Ms. Peet disregarded her instructions. 111 Dr. Lis returned with Ms. Peet for a scheduled visit on June 8, 2018. The statements “All goats appeared to be in good body condition with food and water available” and “Ms. Burton has plans in place to remove the manure accumulated over the winter, repair the barn and shelters for the goats, and to continue with regular hoof trimming” are all true. With regard to the statement by Dr. Lis that she recommended that “the goats be segregated by sex to prevent unwanted breedings,” Ms. Burton did segregate the goats by sex. The Report states that “At the time of the visit, we were unable to determine the exact number of goats on the property’; however, in no way did Ms. Burton cause any interference in their C + efforts to count the number of goats as both were free to roam the entire 261 property. The statement "Ms. Burton stated that she will continue to work with Animal Nation to find appropriate homes for most of the goat herd and that she would like to get the number of goats in her care down to approximately 5 to 10 goats" is accurate except with respect to the number of goats Ms. Burton referenced; her memory is that she gave the number as “fewer than 10.” {12 The statement “At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food and water available” is correct. 26) C ‘O QATH Wan BB. ~urton STATE OF CONNECTICUT ss: Stamford COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22"¢ day of March, 2022 Deon “Me tges Notary Public7 My commission expires: O 4 (20 be 26k “oN c ™M Gmail Elinore Carmody FW: Re: GOATS REDDING Elinore Carmody Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM To: "Sen. Haskell, Will” Hi Will, Thanks for getting back. | appreciate the update but really have to ask exactly what progress is being made with Steve Stafstrom and the State Attorney. Are they obtaining a search warrant’ And how is the pressure working on the State De partment of Agriculture? Are they preparing to come and seize the goats? Because, honestly, that Is the only progress that is helpful or that | care about. Sorry but | have heard too many platitudes about this situation and nothin ig has changed. It only grows worse avery day. You can well imagine my despair at this point. Thanks and kindly advise. Best, Elinore Elinore Carmody Cabana Magazine 917 796 1894 HHD-CV21-6139702-S SUPERIOR COURT ( . STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATE OF CONNECTICUT Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD SIXTY-FIVE GOATS NANCY BURTON April 16, 2021 MOTION FOR TO VACATE The defendant, Nancy Burton, moves to vacate the Order of Temporary Care and Custody (# 136) issued by the court (Cobb, J) dated April 9, 2021. Introduction The Order purports to vest the temporary care and custody of 65 goats she owns in the State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (‘DOAG”) pursuant to authority set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-329a. The order purports to rely on evidence presented at remote hearings conducted on March 30, 2021 and April 8, 2021; however, the hearing was devoid of credible and televant evidence in support of the order yet replete with overwhelming evidence to the contrary; the order fails to present a scintilla of legal authority in its support whereas existing legal authority compels a contrary result. Moreover, the order reveals an astonishing ignorance of basic facts of nature, customary goat behavior and indicia of goat health while it sentences the goats, even if only temporarily, to a confinement at odds with basic well-known tenets of humane treatment of animals and requisite veterinary practices, thereby consigning the order to a unique category of cases brought and pursued by authorities of the state for no proper purpose but as a pretext to serve bad-faith ulterior motives and designs. In this case, it is obvious that this case was brought not to improve the lot of defendant's goats as claimed by DOAG -— the goats thrived in an atmosphere of joy, respect and freedom - but to subject the goats to inhumane and cruel mistreatment in retaliation for their owner's well-known and First-Amendment-protected decades-long judicial whistleblowing and anti-nuclear activism. The most extreme example of deliberate animal abuse and cruelty known by defendant to have occurred to date in this matter has been the cruel unattended reported death of Coco the Goat on April 7, 2021 after she had been forcibly removed from the comfort and security of her home and confined in DOAG custody for 28 long days. Coco's tragic story is told at www.MothballMillstone.org. 45a, ARGUMENT REQUESTED A correct decision should have opened the doors to a full judicial and extra-judicial investigation of the practices of the DOAG, the conditions at its Niantic facility and the DOAG's reckless disregard for the health, safety and security of defendant's goats during their illegal confiscation and confinement by DOAG. Instead, at each opportunity presented by defendant to the Court to expose the misconduct and inhumane practices of DOAG, the Court has suppressed the information and manifested an intent to bury hopes of an inquest. At the far end of extremism to facilitate an intended result, the court committed reversible error when it summarily and without explanation ignored and disregarded — buried - defendant’s Motion to Suppress (#134.00) filed on April 8, 2021, as offered insistently by defendant, and precluded it from consideration at the hearing which resulted in the issuance of the order which is challenged by this motion. The Motion to Suppress exposes the acts of DOAG, in its pursuit of a search-and- seizure warrant, as being violative of one of the most fundamental of Constitutional protections — the right to be free of Constitutionally defective invasions of home and private property occasioned by deliberately false and contrived accusations by the state. Such error necessitated the revocation and dismissal of the search warrant and removal of the subjects of the warrant — defendant's goats — from use by the state as evidence. No goats, no case. Contemporaneously herewith, defendant has filed the Motion to Relinquish — Ownership of Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Rescue Facilities and Individuals as Identified by Defendant. As DOAG was fully aware prior to its illegal March 10, 2021 seizure of defendant's goats, defendant had already made arrangements with a reputable and qualified animal rescue organization, registered as a §501(c)(3) charity, to adopt her goats and provide a good home for them for the - duration of their natural lives. Other reputable organizations and individuals have come forward offering to adopt defendant's goats and provide them with good homes. These goats should not be taken off to auction and inevitable slaughter, DOAG's ultimate goal. The Motion to Relinquish Ownership of Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Rescue Facilities and Individuals as Identified by Defendant should be granted forthwith and the goats transferred from DOAG custody immediately. The remainder of this motion addresses the errors of fact set forth in the Order of Temporary Care and Custody. A memorandum of law in support of this motion is being filed separately shortly. : E Errors of Fact Set Forth in the Order of Temporary CaCare and and CCustody The errors of fact in the order will be addressed in the s quence in which they are Presented: The defendant neglected the goats and treated them cruelly in a numbe r of ways, including: 2h The defendant did not properly maintain the hooves of many of the goats, allowing ( the hooves to grow too long which impacted their mobility. This statement is not supported by the evidence and it fatally lacks individuality. The requirement of “Individuality” — that is, addressing each animal separately as an “individual” - is thoroughly addressed in the controlling case of State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. 237 (2018). Animal cruelty charges must be supported on an individualized basis or they fail. This controlling precedent has application to all the issues addressed herein. The order does not identify a single goat individually by DOAG-assigned number nor provide a time frame, in part because DOAG presented no evidence as to either other ‘han the general statement that “every four months” is a reasonable interval. The DOAG witness presented no evidence that any of defendant's goats went longer than four months between hoof-trimmings. DOAG presented no evidence of the frequency of hoof-trimming by defendant and her helpers. DOAG presented no evidence of a specific individual experiencing a mobility issue in which it offered proof that a hoof issue was at the root of the experience other than some other reason, such as an experience of being butted by another goat. To the contrary, the evidence presented is that the goats regularly received the attention to their hooves that was required by the regular attentions of an individual hired by defendant to attend to their hooves. The evidence includes a recent photograph of an individual hired to maintain the goats’ hooves engaged in that act on ~. defendant's property with one of the goats. Goats’ hooves do not grow at the same pace; hoof growth may be faster in one goat than another. Testimony of Rosa Buonomo, experienced caretaker of many goats. Some may require it frequently, others rarely. The needs vary also according to the terrain the goats are exposed to. Goats that have opportunities to sharpen their hooves on rocks, ledges and other such surfaces need human hoof-trimming less than those who do not. It's a question of individuality. Defendant testified that she had her goats’ hooves trimmed on a regular rotating basis. Crucially, plaintiff failed and neglected to identify a single goat! with an elongated hoof, nor did it present evidence about when each goat had had its hooves trimmed most recently. One DOAG witness testified that four months would be a reasonable interval, but she had no evidence to present that any goat had gone untrimmed for longer than that period. DOAG witness Charle DellaRocco testified that he could observe the length of hooves of the 10 goats sheltering in the red-corral shelter from the vantage point of the “surveillance window” where he acknowledged he spied on defendant. That testimony ‘ Although defendant offered to provide DOAG with her goats’ names, so they could call C out to them by their accustomed names durin: ig their temporary custody, but DOAG ignored her offer. FS © lacked a trace of credibility. Defendant presented photographs? showing the distance between DellaRocco's vantage point and the hooves of the goats in that shelter. The photographs are in evidence. At the time of his surveillance, he admitted there was a snow cover over a foot deep. He could not conceivably see the hooves as he described in his testimony from that distance during a period of deep snow cover. The defendant did not maintain the property or the shelters in that she did not remove manure that accumulated on the property and inside the shelters... . This statement is not supported by the evidence and it fatally lacks individuality. The evidence, to the contrary, is that defendant did maintain the property and the shelters. For example, defendant testified about the elongated and deep compost area where she had had the spoils of manure removal collected, running nearly the entire length of the shelter at the far western side of the property. DOAG witnesses professed no familiarity with such large and plainly visible compost pile. No time frame is given in the order or in the DOAG evidence. The DOAG witnesses’ observations were made over a very short pericd of time as the harsh winter conditions — deep snow over ice — were only beginning to recede. DOAG witness Tanya Wescovich testified that three large shelter areas for the goats — the northern green corral shelter, the iarge central garden shelter and the far-west corral-enclosed shelter — were not visible from the “surveillance window’ vantage point and that from that location she could not assess food, water and shelter availability at those locations which served as shelters for the goats. The DOAG witnesses never asked defendant what her spring cleaning schedule was, although defendant frequently referred to it. Frozen, compacted materials can be much more efficiently removed when the spring thaw arrives; anyone with any experience in nature, gardening, lawn maintenance and construction knows this. Many of the goats seized by the State had manure caked into their fur and were missing significant areas of fur on their coats. Missing from this accusation are answers to these questions: How many? Which ones? For how long? What was defendant's goat-grooming schedule? What is a “significant area of fur’? What was the cause of fur loss as to each individual so identified? Injury, genetics, nutrition? What was defendant doing to address such issue? DOAG provided no evidence to address these questions, as required by the statute and case law. The law requires individuality. The defendant failed to provide the goats with adequate food or water. This blatantly false accusation is completely contrary to the credible and obvious, unrebutted evidence — the defendant's testimony, her photographs of grain and hay deliveries and supplemental provisions she purchased; the evidence plaintiff provide d 2 This motion will shortly be superseded with a m ‘otion which provides exhibit numbers 4B A, and transcript pages where cited herein. C about defendant's weekly $400+ grain and feed bill. Most of all, the photographs of the goats taken contemporaneously with their seizure belie this absurd claim: the goats are shown to be uniformly robust, well-furred, vigorous, bright-eyed and behaving like goats all measures of their well-fed, well-watered care. DOAG did not identify a single goat manifesting the symptoms of dehydration identified by goat expert Rosa Buonomo: sunken eyes, fatigue, et. Many of the goats were underweight. This accusation is completely without evidentiary support. It is another false accusation belied by a single glance at each of the photographs taken by DOAG of each goat at the time of seizure. What did each goat weigh? When was each weighed? What should the weight have been? Why was it not more? Many factors can affect the weight of a goat — genetics, activity level, natural competitiveness. The evidence presented by defendant was that all the goats had more than enough to eat; they were fully fed two or more times per day and most supplemented commercial feed and store- bought hay with meadow grasses, favored weeds, leaves, tree bark. They love licking ice and eating snow. Goat caregivers know this. Goats are very discriminating eaters: they only eat what they like. The goats in the red corral ate from enough platters so that there were two goats to a platter and the food was thereby equitably distributed so that each goat had a full opportunity to be fully nourished. - Also photographs depict many empty and dry food and water containers on the — property. This accusation is particularly startling for its display of ignorance about feeding animals (or people): when the eaters are finished and sated, they leave their plates empty. The plates do not stay full if the animals have eaten their food. In this case, defendant followed her usual custom on March 9, 2021 and fed all the goats their dinner ~ hay, grain and water. DOAG agents arrived in the morning at approximately 8 AM before the goats had had their breakfast — hay, grain and water. In the ordinary course, the goats were usually fed their breakfast at around 9 AM. This pathetically weak accusation simply serves as yet another example of ignorance of goat habits and feeding requirements and defendant's perfectly acceptable methods of feeding the goats. This is not evidence of any oversight on defendant's part: When the DOAG agents arrived, they interfered with the goats’ breakfast and did not allow defendant to feed the goats their hay, grain and water. If the containers had been full that might have suggested a problem: it would have shown goats’ lack of appetite and failure to eat their dinner the night before, a sign of poor health and cause for concem. Certain of the buckets of the [water] bucket appeared to have had water in them but the water had frozen due to the freezing temperatures. Defendant does not dispute that freezing temperatures have-a tendency to freeze water. This is a well-known fact not subject to dispute. That is why defendant, as she testified, provided water to the buckets at numerous points throughout the day or 7?& poured boiling water into the buckets if water had frozen overnight. Defendant testified that she had to attend a 9 AM remote hearing before Judge Barbara Bellis the moming of the seizure when DOAG staff made their observations about frozen water; obviously, it was her intent to provide plenty of water after the conclusion of the 9 AM proceeding. if she was ever late because of other obligations, defendant testified that she more than made up for it by giving extra helpings of everything to all the goats. That's how they stayed so healthy and happy. When state investigators conducted a surveillance of the property over a two-day period, one noted she did not see the defendant provide any food or water at any time. Defendant categorically disputes this obvious falsehood. The investigator must have fallen asleep or looked the other way or taken a bathroom break. The investigator presented no videotape recording of the time frame. No time interval is provided. It did not happen. it never happened. The goats never went without regular food and water and plenty of it. The best proof is their robust state of health, high activity level, bright eyes, good fur, behaving like goats. The DOAG agents observed these conditions and testified falsely. Plaintiff presented no evidence that they observed any of the indicia of dehydration — as identified by defendant's witness Ms. Buonomo, a goat expert - in any of the goats. When the defendant did provide water to the goats, she did not use a hose C: system, but rather purchased plastic gallon water bottles. The amount of water Provided to the goats from these water bottles was insufficient. Also, the defendant then allowed empty plastic water bottles to be left around the property, where the goats had access and could chew on them. Defendant testified that she had cared for goats since 2008, not counting the several-year period when the family kept goats as the children were growing up. She was well-accustomed to tending to goats’ needs. She had used a hose system in the past but found that during the winter the hoses froze and were of no use; and that otherwise it was more efficient to load a wagon with 10 jugs at a time to fill the buckets. This is not evidence of animal abuse. She did not re-fill buckets that were full but throughout the year she replenished water regularly throughout the day. Furthermore, to repeat for emphasis, plaintiff presented no evidence that they observed any of the indicia of dehydration ~ as identified by defendant's witness Ms. Buonomo, a goat expert - in any of the goats. Neither plaintiff nor defendant has ever observed a goat on defendant's property chewing on a plastic jug: this is beyond ludicrous. The defendant did not provide the goats with proper or adequate shelter. The -number of shelters located on the property were limited and sufficient to accommodate only about thirty-five goats, not the sixty-five living on the property. {n addition, the shelters were decrepit and missing walls and parts of ceilings. As 1S | a result, many of the shelters failed to provide proper protection for the animals from the rain, snow, cold, wind and other inclement weather. These statements are contrary to the credible evidence and otherwise have no evidentiary support. The evidence is that defendant provided the goats with adequate and proper shelter. Except for the goats in the green and red corral areas, each goat was given the freedom to select a shelter over a wide area. The goats used a variety of shelters at different times for shelter. Defendant provided photographs into evidence to make this point. All were safely accommodated in shelters, year-round. The DOAG presented no evidence that any individual goat was not adequately accommodated. DOAG made no observations of a single goat shivering or showing any physical effects from cold weather. The shelters were due and scheduled for refurbishment come spring after the ground thawed and the snow and ice receded. Defendant testified about and presented photographs of a workman attending to structure repairs and maintenance. He came to the property, as defendant testified, once or twice a week, sometimes more frequently, to carry out maintenance chores as well as perform hoof-trimming. A DOAG witness testified that she was unaware that two large fenced areas were ordinarily used by goats for shelter. On a weekly basis, year-round, the shelters were maintained and upgraded by defendant's helpers. Following a DOAG visit in 2018 in which DOAG representatives pronounced the goats in good health and well fed, and prior to and including the illegal March 10, 2021 raid, no DOAG representative ever contacted defendant regarding the condition of the shelters or to make criticisms or to recommend - C tepairs and maintenance. Whenever a DOAG representative made a request, such as to take a particular goat to the vet, defendant unfailingly complied. There is no evidence to the contrary. The defendant allowed the property to be riddled with numerous dead and decaying goats. This statement is not supported by any credible evidence. The language is selected to sensationalize the fact that animals, like people, eventually die and something has to be done with their remains. Defendant disposed of the remains of deceased goats correctly. DOAG presented no evidence to the contrary. Defendant has had goats on her property since 2008 — thirteen years — not counting goats from her children’s childhood. In Connecticut, one is allowed to dispose of pet remains on their property. A problem arose when DellaRocco set out to vandalize, desecrate and disturb graves and leave them in a disturbed state vulnerable to predators and inclement weather. Defendant was within her rights; DellaRocco was a vandal. The defendant allowed at least one goat to die on the property without proper care or treatment nor did she provide the goat with a proper or humane death. This statement provides no credible evidence in support of plaintiff's case. Defendant had nothing whatsoever to do with the goat's death, nor did the plaintiff so - ¢ allege. The plaintiff has to date not identified a cause of death and has not ruled out a tD vandal creeping onto defendant's property, as vandals have in the past, to make mischief. Defendant was away from her property in preparation for a court-ordered hearing at the time. The plaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever linking defendant to this suspicious death. The statement by the court suggesting an animal owner is under some legal obligation to provide an animal “with a proper or humane death” are without definition or legal authority and absurd in this situation where, to date, DOAG has not identified a cause of the goat's death. All defendant knows about this death is that it occurred when she was off the property during a period of time when plaintiff was commencing preparations for a court-mandated hearing scheduled for 9 AM that morning and DOAG was commencing its illegal raid. 1. Since the goats were seized by the State on March 10, 202tand have been in the State's custody, one goat has died. . . all needed human intervention to survive Coco (“#6 to the state”) was healthy, happy and at peace with her children and extended family on March 9, 2021. On March 10, 2021, her would was turned upside- down by reckless abuse by the state, which ignored defendant's pleas to share Coco’s medical and social histories and medications. That is veterinarian malpractice, not defendant’s fault. The court is wrong to place the blame for Coco's lonesome and cruel death on her devoted caretaker. DOAG witnesses provided no evidence what “human intervention” was needed or provided to newborn goats she has never been allowed to meet or inspect. Nor did DOAG provide any evidence that defendant was in any way responsible for what may or may not have been in a state of need for human s intervention, when the obvious first question to ask is why did DOAG traumatize the goats and particularly those close to giving birth by putting them through the terrifying experience of forcibly removing them from their home where they were safe and secure and confining then in a facility which, it were suitable, DOAG would want to invite visitors to see how well it cared for pregnant goats. Pregnant human mothers are known to miscarry and lose underweight, premature babies when exposed to trauma during their pregnancies. That DOAG has consistently resisted and opposed defendant's efforts to inspect the facility and assess the condition of her goats strongly suggests DOAG has something to hide. These statements provide no credible evidence supporting plaintiff's case. Nor is the professed “need for human intervention” explained. Were there inadequacies in the DOAG sheltering arrangements; were the pregnant does malnourished while in state custody? Were they left unattended, as Coca was? The complete lack of evidence of any of these issues renders the finding of no value and lacking credibility. The court finds that while in the defendant's care, the sixty-five goats were in imminent harm . . . [Emphasis added] There is no credible evidence to support this contrived accusa tion; indeed, if the State considered the goats in “imminent harm” when it Starte d to investigate an October 2020 anonymous complaint, why did it not move at that time to seize the goats? Why Bf > did it wait six months if each goat was in “imminent harm"? The Redding animal control officer visited the property on numerous occasions and viewed the goats and the property without restriction. He apparently did not consider a single goat to be in “imminent harm” during any of those visits because he never mentioned it. The fact is that he observed a herd of beautiful and well-kept and well-nourished goats enjoying nature. : The answer is simple, the state seized the goats on a false pretext to harm defendant. By harming defendant, plaintiff has recklessly abused the goats and committed animal cruelty regarding the goats. The goats are subject to imminent harm in state custody. — —- -—£anelusion__ __ - — The Order for Temporary Care and Custody lacks factual or legal basis. The Motion to Vacate should be granted forthwith. THE DEFENDA| Bera 147 Cross Highway a Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313.1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com HZ) e RE: Redding Goats Mon, Dec 14, 2020 11:01 am DellaRocco, Charles Charles.DellaRocco@ct.govHide —. —_—-- Tonancyburtonct@aol.com nancyburtonct@aol.com Cc Lis, Mary Mar