Preview
UWY-CV-21-5028294 SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON
ETAL. APRIL 15, 2024
MOTION TO POSTPONE PROCEEDINGS ON TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Town Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is largely addressed
to acts of Town of Redding Police Department defendants and the First Selectman
resulting in Plaintiff's arrest regarding matters pertaining to her goats, which were
seized on March 10, 2021 by the state Department of Agriculture personnel.
On March 7, 2024, a judge of the Superior Court, Hon. Maximino Medina,
granted Plaintiff's application for accelerated rehabilitation whereby all pending
criminal charges would be dismissed following a probationary period of 30 days
hence, assuming her compliance with two conditions set by the Court, namely, no
new arrests and no interactions with an animal control officer during the thirty-
day period. The 30* day following March 7, 2024 expired on April 6, 2024. As of
April 8, 2024, Plaintiff had fully complied with such conditions and the criminal
charges were dismissed by virtue of operation of law within 30 days of March 7,
2024.
However, Judge Medina acted on March 8, 2024 to vacate his March 7, 2024
order granting accelerated rehabilitation (“AR”) to enable “victims” in the matter
to appear at a hearing he set for May 14, 2024 to address the Court concerning
the March y, 2024 order granting accelerated rehabilitation.
The state’s attorney had represented to Judge Medina on March 7, 2024 as
follows: that his office had satisfied legal conditions regarding notification to
“victims.” A copy of the transcript of his statement during such proceedings is
attached hereto.
On April 5, 2024 a different state’s attorney filed a motion to vacate Judge
Medina’s order granting AR on grounds the state’s attorney had been asked by
Redding town counsel Steven Stafstrom to do so to permit “victims” to address
Judge Medina on the application. He did not name any of the prospective
“victims” otherthan First Selectman Julia Pemberton, defendant herein. The
state’s attorney made no substantive offer of proof. At the same time, he
asserted that Plaintiff was completely blameless in this matter regarding notice to
“victims” and to the extent there had been a mistake it was a mistake committed
by the Office of the State’s Attorney, which oversees many AR resolutions ona
daily basis. The state’s attorney had provided notice to the office of the attorney
general, which did not object to the granting of the accelerated rehabilitation
program on the terms offered to Plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, Plaintiff is compelled to act on her appellate and
due process rights to reinstate the order granting the AR program issued at the
Danbury Superior Court, GA3. Case law establishes that there is only one
legitimate basis for terminating an order granting AR: failure to comply with any
conditions set. Plaintiff has fully complied with all conditions set.
A significant and substantial deprivation of Plaintiff's due process rights has
occurred and threatens to worsen.
Given Judge Medina’s proper and lawful grant of AR to Plaintiff on the terms
he created and her unchallenged fulfillment of the conditions set by the Court, as
a matter of law, Plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits of the program, including
dismissal of all criminal charges, thereby giving rise to the need of Plaintiff to
revise the complaint in this matter to insert allegations of dismissal of the criminal
charges and other substantial factual revisions. Participation in an AR program is
not evidence of guilt and has no probative value on issues of guilt. AFSCME
Council 4 Local 1565 v. Department of Correction, 298 Conn. 824, 827 (2010).
Plaintiff promptly ordered an expedited transcript of the April 8, 2024
proceedings before Judge Medina but owing to a health emergency by the court
reporter it was not delivered to plaintiff until nearly 5 PM on April 14, 2024,
affording Plaintiff inadequate time to file necessary motions‘n this matter in
advance of the scheduled hearing for April 15, 2024.
Due considerations of fundamental justice and due process compel Plaintiff
therefore to move that proceedings on the motion for summary judgment be
stayed forthwith pending the outcome of proceedings before Judge Medina as
2
above stated on May 16, 2024. Plaintiff anticipates that on such date Judge
Medina will take steps to dismiss the criminal charges in accordance with law and
Plaintiff may then proceed to revise the complaint to reflect the current status of
the facts.
Plaintiff represents that the state’s attorney assumed full responsibility for the
acts in this matter concerning notice to “victims” in an AR proceeding under the
facts of this case, as the attached transcript makes clear. The state’s attorney
emailed to Plaintiff to such effect on April 5, 2024. Such emails are attached
hereto.
Attention to these matters, and the legal research required to respond to
protect her fundamental rights, have substantially delayed Plaintiff in her
preparations for the hearing scheduled in this matter for April 15, 2024.
Plaintiff respectfully represents that she seeks the relief set forth herein to
avoid a gross miscarriage of justice.
Finally, Plaintiff represents that Attorney Stafstrom should be disqualified from
representation in this matter and in the matter of “victims” as set forth
hereinabove due to his questionable role on March 9, 2021, the day before the
goat seizure in which he made a fraudulent offer to Plaintiff regarding an
arrangement whereby the Town of Redding would finance the private transport
of the goats to Stoney Brook Farm, Inc. (“SBF”), a 501(c)(3) animal sanctuary for
rehoming, which SBF agreed to. See attached emails. He acted without proper
authority and his offer was fraudulent because at the time he proffered the offer
he was well aware and assisted in arranging for the seizure of all the goats the
following morning as he was privy to and an architect of the planned transfer and
had participated in the matter of the application to a judicial authority to issue a
search and seizure warrant to such effect on March 9, 2021.
THE PLAINTIFF .
Nan rton
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510/NancyBurtonCT@aol.co
3
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically to all
counsel of record on April 15, 2024.
—_—
Ica
From: nancyburtonct@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:34 AM
To: firstselectman@townofreddingct.org; mytopstonecpa@optonline.net; Maria
Thompson
Subject: "Global Goat Settlement:
Nancy Burton
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
203-313-1510
NancyBurtonC T@aol.com
March 11, 2021
Julia Pemberton
First Selectman
firstselectman@townofreddingct.org
Margaret O'Donnell
Selectman
mytopstonecpa@optonline.net
Michael Thompson
Selectman
mthompson@grsm.com
Dear Members of the Redding Board of Selectmen:
This letter responds to the invitation extended to me by Redding Town Counsel
Steven Stafstrom in the course of a telephone conference call he and | engaged in on
Tuesday, March 9, 2021. This letter serves as notification that | accept the offer.
The teleconference was initiated in preparation for a remote proceeding scheduled to
take place on March 10, 2021 at 9 AM before Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Bellis as
an “initial status conference” in two matters | have brought to the Superior Court, Nancy
Burton v. Redding Zoning Commission, UWY-CV-195027712-S (“Zoning”), and Nancy
Burton v. Julia Pemberton, UWY-CV-195027713-S (“Pemberton”). Both cases concern
goats maintained on my property as participants in the Mothers Milk Project, a public-
interest, not-for-profit project to sample and analyse goat milk for the presence of
radioisotopes routinely released by nuclear power plants.
During the conversation, | happened to mention to Mr. Stafstrom that | had rented a
truck over the previous weekend to transport twelve goats from my property to new
homes with the assistance of Rosa Buonomo, president of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.
(“Stony Brook Farm”), a 501(c)(3) not-for profit animal sanctuary with a facility located in
Harwinton, Connecticut. | explained that | had been devoting much time and attention
over several years to relocate all but nine of the goats to good “forever” homes. | further
explained that | had had to postpone the scheduled March 7 transfer because my
property was still covered in ice which posed a danger to myself, the goats and the
three people | had hired to assist me with the transfer.
Mr. Stafstrom interrupted me to ask if it would be helpful if the Town of Redding were
to cover the cost of the truck rental. | did not hesitate to say “Yes.” Mr. Stafstrom then
ventured that the Town’s financial assistance to cover the entire cost of relocating all but
nine of my goats to the Harwinton facility, which was willing to adopt them all, would be
money much better spent than money spent on the costs of taking Zoning and
Pemberton to trial. | agreed. | further explained that various Redding residents and | had
initiated a fundraising drive to finance the move but were still quite far from the goal. |
was told by Ms. Buonomo that once the funds were made available, the goat transfer
could take place within two short weeks.
Mr. Stafstrom asked for the name of the sanctuary and | replied that | would be happy
to provide it after obtaining Ms. Buonomo’s assent. | contacted her and she agreed to
accept the offer and she extended an invitation to the Board of Selectmen and other
town representatives to visit the sanctuary.
Mr. Stafstrom then asked if | would draft a proposal which he would submit to the
Redding Board of Selectmen with his strong endorsement. We discussed how suchi
contribution by the Town of Redding would cover all the costs of relocation, including
constructing shelters and setting up fencing, drilling a well, hiring construction workers
and covering all other costs to make the move possible.
| am in the process of preparing the proposal and will present it to Mr. Stafstrom
shortly.
| look forward to working with you to achieve the “global settlement” Mr. Stafstrom
has initiated
Sincerely,
/s/ Nancy Burton
RE: “Global Goat Settlement
Stafstrom, Steven J.
From:sstafstrom@pullcom.com
To:nancyburtonct@aol.com
CeJulia Pemberton,mytopstonecpa@optonline.net,Michael Thompson
Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:08 AM
Ms. Burton,
As you are aware, |represent the Town and the Zoning Commission respectively in the actions you
reference below. As the Town and the Zoning Commission are represented parties, | ask that all
communications directed to the Town and Zoning Commission officials, agents or employees, including to
the Board of Selectmen, regarding these matters to go through me.
Furthermore, please me reminded that any and all discussion you and | had on March Sth are covered by
the evidentiary exclusion of Connecticut Code of Evidence Sec. 4-8 and otherwise should be treated as
confidential.
Thank you.
Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY LLC
203 330 2266 . sstafstrom@pullcom.com
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT'S DESIGNEE, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION
THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE
(1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203)
330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO NOT
DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS.
DO3D-CR21-019175058S SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT G.A. #3
v AT DANBURY, CONNECTICUT
NANCY BURTON MARCH 7, 2024
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAXIMINO MEDINA, JUDGE
APPEARANCES ::
“Representing the State of Connecticut:
ATTORNEY MATTHEW G. KNOPF
Office of the State’s Attorney
14G White Street
Danbury, Connecticut 06810
Representing the Defendant:
NANCY BURTON
Self-Represented Litigant
Recorded By:
Peter M. Klick
Transcribed By:
Stephanie Charboneau
Official Court Reporter
14 WestRiver Street
Milford, Connecticut 06460
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, court is in
session on Thursday, March 7th, 2024, in Courtroom 6,
specifically on the matter of State versus Burton.
Mrs. Burton?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please, come forward.
May I have appearance of counsel for the State,
please?
ATTY. KNOPF: Good morning, Your Honor. Attorney
10 Matthew Knopf for the State.
11 THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.
12 And may I have the defendant’s appearance,
13 please?
14 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Nancy Burton, I’m the
15 defendant.
16 THE COURT: Good morning to you.
17 THE DEFENDANT: Good morning.
18 THE COURT: The Court acknowledges that this
19 matter, docket number 200190471 and docket number 21-
20 0191750 appear on today’s calendar for purposes of
21 commencement of jury selection, in anticipation of a
22 trial. If those events go forward, they will be
23 before Judge Stango, not myself.
24 The record may reflect that I have previously
25 presided over on-the-record attempts to resolve this
26 matter with a disposition, short of a jury trial.
27 Those efforts occurred in the years 2021 and 2022,
based on my notes. I think the last time I was
involved in this matter with Ms. Burton and the State
was September of 2022.
ATTY. KNOPF: That’s what I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Obviously, the fact that we are all
here this morning means that we were not successful
back in 2021 and 2022 in reaching such a disposition.
I have not discussed, with either the defendant or
with the State, my purpose in taking the Bench here
10 this morning. I am going to disclose that
11 simultaneously to both parties this morning and
12 provide you with my thoughts.
13 So, I invite both of you to please take a seat.
14 Thank you for the courtesy.
15 This Court is powerless to give anyone advice or
16 to give anyone instructions in terms of the charges.
17 So, I cannot instruct the State. I cannot advise or
18 control the defendant. Both the State and defense
19 have the right to proceed to trial, if that is what
20 they wish to do, or if that is what they have
21 concluded is unavoidable.
22 However, I believe that there is a disposition
23 that can be reached in this matter that is consistent
24 with justice, and that would eliminate the necessity
25 of a jury trial, and everything that comes with it,
26 whether you consider all of the things that come with
27 it positives or negatives.
These charges - - these cases have been pending
for years now. Ms. Burton has appeared in court, as
far as I know, in each of these cases on every date
that she was required to be here. If there was a
communication problem or a scheduling snafu somewhere
along the way, which could have happened over the
past four years or so, it was never of a purposeful
nature. So, as far as I can tell, the Defendant
stands before the Court. today having fulfilled her
10 responsibilities in that regard.
11 Second, as far as I know, there have been no new
12 charges brought against Ms. Burton relating to any
13 problems between herself and any municipal officials
14 or relating to any allegations of any cruelty to any
15 animals anywhere. The Court is not unaware that Ms.
16 Burton is a litigant in other matters and reserves
17 her rights. So, when I say no problems between
18 herself and any officials, I don’t mean to cast a
19 blind eye to the fact that she is asserting claims,
20 and those issues are not before me. She is pursuing
21 those claims and issues via lawful process.
22 ‘Based on those two points and my familiarity
23 with the matter, frequently in pretrial discussions
24 in criminal matters involving attorneys for the
25 defense and State’s Attorney, the State will make a
26 proposal, or the Court will make an offer. That’s
27 where we are today. The Court wishes to
simultaneously propose a disposition to both the
State of Connecticut and to Ms. Burton, to see if
there’s interest on both sides in pursing it on this
basis.
The Court sees that there are other individuals
in the courtroom. Are there any individuals who
consider themselves aligned with victims in this
case?
ATTY. KNOPF: Your Honor, I know that at all
10 court appearances members of Desmond’s Army have been
11 present because they wish to be kept aware. There
12 aren’t any specially appointed attorneys in this
13 matter, in terms of the goats.
14 THE COURT: Right.
15 ATTY. KNOPF: And the members of the Attorney
16 General’s Office are not present today.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
18 This is what the Court is thinking. Presently,
19 the files include quite a few individual counts of
20 alleged violations of 53-247(a). The Court’s offer,
21 if that’s the word you want to use, or suggestion, if
22 that sounds better to you, is as follows:
23 The State would be asked to consider and
24 exercise its discretion to file a replacement
25 Information with only one count of violating 53-
26 247(a). I see that there’s an alleged violation of
27 22-365, as well.
The defendant would file an application for
Accelerated Rehabilitation. The State can exercise
its discretion to leave the disposition of that
application to the Court, and neither object nor
support the application.
In advance, the Court would repeat what it said
earlier, which is that I think it is of significant
importance to acknowledge the number of years that
have gone by with no new charges, no new problems,
10 with complete cooperation by defendant with the
11 judicial system and process.
12 Therefore, in the event that the application for
13 Accelerated Rehabilitation were granted, all of those
14 years would be taken into account in setting the
15 probationary period. Under the statute, the Court
16 could order probation for as long as two years.
17 Speaking hypothetically here where the cases have
18 already been pending for twice as long as that, it
19 would seem to me that a probation period measured in
20 days, not years, is something that would be
21 consistent with the interest of justice in this
:
22 matter.
23 During the Accelerated Rehabilitation
24 proceedings that would occur, following a brief
25 description by the State of its view of the facts
26 that led to the charges being brought, defense would
27 be given an opportunity to put on the record her view
of the facts. ‘Again, it’s not a trial, so the court
is not looking for either side to take hours here.
But I’m aware of both parties, and I know that they
are very capablé of succinctly setting forth clearly
their respective views.
So, Ms. Burton, you should know that the process
would allow you to put your view of the facts on the
record. The Court would then enter an order granting
or denying the Accelerated Rehabilitation
10 application.
11 So, again, speaking hypothetically, under this
12 approach, Ms. Burton, if the State were willing to
13 amend, instead of picking a jury and going to trial,
14 which is your right, you can pursue this alternative
15 disposition, which assuming the granting of the
16 application, a probation period numbered in days, and
17 the expiration of that probation period in a matter
18 of days without any superseding events, the charges
19 that you are facing and that would be the subject of
20 the disposition would be dismissed. No need for a
21 trial. No need to pick a jury. No need to run the
22 risks associated with that. No need to spend who
23 knows how many of the next few weeks here at the
24 Danbury Courthouse.
25 No disposition is ever perfect, but I believe
26 this disposition that I’m suggesting is fair, under
27 the totality of the circumstances of these two docket
numbers.
Again, the Court cannot compel the State to go
along. The Court cannot compel defense to go along.
But the Court does have an appropriate role to play
in docket management and in trying to assist the
State and defendants in reaching a fair and just
resolution, under all of the circumstances. I have
concluded - -
And again, if this case does not get resolved
10 and it goes to trial, both sides get a fresh start
11 before a different judge, so my views will not affect
12 that process in any way. But my view is that the
13 proposed disposition that I have outlined here today
14 on the record is one that is extremely fair to both
15 sides, completely practical, and one that deserves
16 very, very serious consideration.
17 I’1l begin with the State.
18 ATTY. KNOPF: Yes. Good morning, again, Your
19 Honor.
20 Your Honor, I do wish to note two things. The
21 first is that the State’s offer has always been A.R.,
1
22 and that those conditions are always set by the
23 Court.
24 In this case, Your Honor, the State had been
25 looking for a condition on the previous court dates
26 that Ms. Burton surrender the goats. However, since
27 that last court date, Your Honor, the Court in
Waterbury, Judge Bellis, did order and grant the
State’s case to take custody of all of the goats.
Therefore, the State doesn’t have any reason to ask
for that condition any longer, as the goats are in -
- now, and have been for a while, in State custody.
Second, Your Honor, the A.R. application does
not require that the State make any changes to any of
the charges. All of the charges are misdemeanors.
Not just the case with sixty-five counts, but all of
10 the other cases. And then, there are a number of
11 infraction cases. All of which the State would agree
12 can be covered by a single application.
13 Your Honor, the State, based on the defendant
14 complying with conditions of release, mainly no new
15 arrests for, now since March of 2021, the State has
16 no problem leaving the application to the discretion
17 of the Court.
18 The State would be recommending to the Court, of
19 course, condition, as it did in its previous
20 hearings. The State would be recommending that the
21 defendant not possess any animals for the duration of
22 the probation. And the State would be recommending no
23 threatening, harassing, interfering, or stalking the
24 members of the Department of Agriculture, including
25 their representatives, which would be the Attorney
26 General’s Office, or their investigators.
27 These are recommendations the State would make.
The State was looking for a two-year period of those
conditions. However, the State acknowledges that any
conditions are solely within the discretion of the
Court, and that the Court is, in the end, the
determining factor in what is appropriate or not, in
terms of those conditions.
The State does not have any objections to any
A.R. applications. And based upon the defendant’s no
new arrests in, essentially, three years, Your Honor,
10 the State is also happy to leave the determination of
11 the application within the Court’s discretion.
12 It is an appropriate program. I understand Ms.
13 Burton has used the program in the past. However, it
14 has been considerably longer than ten years, which
15 will allow her to apply again.
16 Your Honor, you know, the State takes this case
17 with all seriousness. The State is ready to proceed
18 to trial, if necessary. But the State is also
19 acknowledging that Ms. Burton is eligible for the
20 program, that the terms of the program are solely and
21 squarely in the Court’s discretion. And the State no
22 longer really has any reason to ask for what was
23 likely the most contentious request, which was the
24 surrendering of the goats. That has been taken care
25 of by the Civil Court.
26 So, I don’t have anything else to add, Your
27 Honor, other than the State is in agreement and has
10
been in agreement that this program, for whatever
duration, is likely the appropriate avenue for us to
continue down this road.
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
Ms. Burton, you now have an opportunity to not
only tell me what you’re thinking, but to, by virtue
of the invocation of the A.R. Statute, end this and
be free of these cases, the charges, and these
proceedings. Would you like to take advantage of
10 that opportunity, ma’am?
11 THE DEFENDANT: I certainly would, Your Honor,
12 but not without expressing great thanks to the Court
13 for its consideration, as it has been expressing here
14 today, and also all of these numerous occasions in
15 the past - -
16 THE COURT: You’ re welcome.
17 THE DEFENDANT: - - when we’ve had opportunities
18 to have communications. Thank you very much, Your
19 Honor.
20 THE COURT: You’re welcome.
21 THE DEFENDANT: Very much appreciated.
22 THE COURT: Well, then that means that there’s a
23 certain amount of paperwork that you have to fill in
24 for the application for the form, the A.R. We
25 frequently do these in two stages.
26 I’ll ask the State whether it sees any problem
27 in, basically, collapsing them into one stage and
11
doing it today.
ATTY. KNOPF: Your Honor, I will inquire with
the Office of Adult Probation if they can quickly
review the file today. I don’t believe there will be
any statements from the Department of Agriculture,
but I’1l certainly give them a heads up. So, I think
that while it may take a little bit this morning, I
think it’s doable.
THE COURT: All right. So, let’s do this. I
10 realize you are not done yet, so I'll come right back
11 to you, Ms. Burton.
12 Courtroom 6 is needed for - - there were
13 multiple cases that were brought in today for jury
14 selection and Judge Stango is ready to take the Bench
15 and begin that process on a different case. So, that
16 will allow for the space and time for these inquiries
17 to be made.
18 And I would ask Ms. Burton to remain in
19 attendance. Obviously, she has to do the paperwork.
20 But I didn’t mean to cut you off, Ms. Burton. Is
21 there anything else you wish to say at this point?
22 THE DEFENDANT: yés.
23 THE COURT: You’ re going to have an opportunity
24 to say more later.
25 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I do have
26 several questions. I am new to this process and there
27 are certain complexities. So, if I could just run
12
those questions by Your Honor?
THE COURT: You can feel free to ask. There are
certain questions the Court is allowed to answer, and
others that I can’t. But I won’t know until I hear
them, so take a shot.
THE DEFENDANT: Right. Okay. Initially, at the
outset of this proceeding, Your Honor stated that one
of the - - proposal would include a compression of
all of the existing counts into one count.
10 THE COURT: That was a suggestion. I did not
11 hear a yes to that, but I assume that counsel will
12 confer with others in his office to see if that is
13 possible. That is controlled by the State. But at the
14 same time, counsel for the State did say that the
15 A.R. umbrella, if you will, will cover everything, so
16 that the dismissal, assuming all of the conditions
17 are satisfied with, would apply to everything.
18 THE DEFENDANT: I see.
19 THE COURT: Next question.
20 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. There is a - - I’m sorry.
21 I’m here on short notice, Your Honor. I' just got an
‘
22 email yesterday to be here, and I’m not quite fully
23 up to speed. And I’ve recently argued before the
24 Appellate Court earlier this week in a related case,
25 so I need a moment to sort things out, if you don’t
26 mind.
27 THE COURT: No, I understand. And you
Preview
UWY-CV-21-5028294 SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON ETAL. APRIL 15, 2024 MOTION TO POSTPONE PROCEEDINGS ON TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Town Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is largely addressed to acts of Town of Redding Police Department defendants and the First Selectman resulting in Plaintiff's arrest regarding matters pertaining to her goats, which were seized on March 10, 2021 by the state Department of Agriculture personnel. On March 7, 2024, a judge of the Superior Court, Hon. Maximino Medina, granted Plaintiff's application for accelerated rehabilitation whereby all pending criminal charges would be dismissed following a probationary period of 30 days hence, assuming her compliance with two conditions set by the Court, namely, no new arrests and no interactions with an animal control officer during the thirty- day period. The 30* day following March 7, 2024 expired on April 6, 2024. As of April 8, 2024, Plaintiff had fully complied with such conditions and the criminal charges were dismissed by virtue of operation of law within 30 days of March 7, 2024. However, Judge Medina acted on March 8, 2024 to vacate his March 7, 2024 order granting accelerated rehabilitation (“AR”) to enable “victims” in the matter to appear at a hearing he set for May 14, 2024 to address the Court concerning the March y, 2024 order granting accelerated rehabilitation. The state’s attorney had represented to Judge Medina on March 7, 2024 as follows: that his office had satisfied legal conditions regarding notification to “victims.” A copy of the transcript of his statement during such proceedings is attached hereto. On April 5, 2024 a different state’s attorney filed a motion to vacate Judge Medina’s order granting AR on grounds the state’s attorney had been asked by Redding town counsel Steven Stafstrom to do so to permit “victims” to address Judge Medina on the application. He did not name any of the prospective “victims” otherthan First Selectman Julia Pemberton, defendant herein. The state’s attorney made no substantive offer of proof. At the same time, he asserted that Plaintiff was completely blameless in this matter regarding notice to “victims” and to the extent there had been a mistake it was a mistake committed by the Office of the State’s Attorney, which oversees many AR resolutions ona daily basis. The state’s attorney had provided notice to the office of the attorney general, which did not object to the granting of the accelerated rehabilitation program on the terms offered to Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff is compelled to act on her appellate and due process rights to reinstate the order granting the AR program issued at the Danbury Superior Court, GA3. Case law establishes that there is only one legitimate basis for terminating an order granting AR: failure to comply with any conditions set. Plaintiff has fully complied with all conditions set. A significant and substantial deprivation of Plaintiff's due process rights has occurred and threatens to worsen. Given Judge Medina’s proper and lawful grant of AR to Plaintiff on the terms he created and her unchallenged fulfillment of the conditions set by the Court, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits of the program, including dismissal of all criminal charges, thereby giving rise to the need of Plaintiff to revise the complaint in this matter to insert allegations of dismissal of the criminal charges and other substantial factual revisions. Participation in an AR program is not evidence of guilt and has no probative value on issues of guilt. AFSCME Council 4 Local 1565 v. Department of Correction, 298 Conn. 824, 827 (2010). Plaintiff promptly ordered an expedited transcript of the April 8, 2024 proceedings before Judge Medina but owing to a health emergency by the court reporter it was not delivered to plaintiff until nearly 5 PM on April 14, 2024, affording Plaintiff inadequate time to file necessary motions‘n this matter in advance of the scheduled hearing for April 15, 2024. Due considerations of fundamental justice and due process compel Plaintiff therefore to move that proceedings on the motion for summary judgment be stayed forthwith pending the outcome of proceedings before Judge Medina as 2 above stated on May 16, 2024. Plaintiff anticipates that on such date Judge Medina will take steps to dismiss the criminal charges in accordance with law and Plaintiff may then proceed to revise the complaint to reflect the current status of the facts. Plaintiff represents that the state’s attorney assumed full responsibility for the acts in this matter concerning notice to “victims” in an AR proceeding under the facts of this case, as the attached transcript makes clear. The state’s attorney emailed to Plaintiff to such effect on April 5, 2024. Such emails are attached hereto. Attention to these matters, and the legal research required to respond to protect her fundamental rights, have substantially delayed Plaintiff in her preparations for the hearing scheduled in this matter for April 15, 2024. Plaintiff respectfully represents that she seeks the relief set forth herein to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice. Finally, Plaintiff represents that Attorney Stafstrom should be disqualified from representation in this matter and in the matter of “victims” as set forth hereinabove due to his questionable role on March 9, 2021, the day before the goat seizure in which he made a fraudulent offer to Plaintiff regarding an arrangement whereby the Town of Redding would finance the private transport of the goats to Stoney Brook Farm, Inc. (“SBF”), a 501(c)(3) animal sanctuary for rehoming, which SBF agreed to. See attached emails. He acted without proper authority and his offer was fraudulent because at the time he proffered the offer he was well aware and assisted in arranging for the seizure of all the goats the following morning as he was privy to and an architect of the planned transfer and had participated in the matter of the application to a judicial authority to issue a search and seizure warrant to such effect on March 9, 2021. THE PLAINTIFF . Nan rton 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510/NancyBurtonCT@aol.co 3 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically to all counsel of record on April 15, 2024. —_— Ica From: nancyburtonct@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:34 AM To: firstselectman@townofreddingct.org; mytopstonecpa@optonline.net; Maria Thompson Subject: "Global Goat Settlement: Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonC T@aol.com March 11, 2021 Julia Pemberton First Selectman firstselectman@townofreddingct.org Margaret O'Donnell Selectman mytopstonecpa@optonline.net Michael Thompson Selectman mthompson@grsm.com Dear Members of the Redding Board of Selectmen: This letter responds to the invitation extended to me by Redding Town Counsel Steven Stafstrom in the course of a telephone conference call he and | engaged in on Tuesday, March 9, 2021. This letter serves as notification that | accept the offer. The teleconference was initiated in preparation for a remote proceeding scheduled to take place on March 10, 2021 at 9 AM before Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Bellis as an “initial status conference” in two matters | have brought to the Superior Court, Nancy Burton v. Redding Zoning Commission, UWY-CV-195027712-S (“Zoning”), and Nancy Burton v. Julia Pemberton, UWY-CV-195027713-S (“Pemberton”). Both cases concern goats maintained on my property as participants in the Mothers Milk Project, a public- interest, not-for-profit project to sample and analyse goat milk for the presence of radioisotopes routinely released by nuclear power plants. During the conversation, | happened to mention to Mr. Stafstrom that | had rented a truck over the previous weekend to transport twelve goats from my property to new homes with the assistance of Rosa Buonomo, president of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. (“Stony Brook Farm”), a 501(c)(3) not-for profit animal sanctuary with a facility located in Harwinton, Connecticut. | explained that | had been devoting much time and attention over several years to relocate all but nine of the goats to good “forever” homes. | further explained that | had had to postpone the scheduled March 7 transfer because my property was still covered in ice which posed a danger to myself, the goats and the three people | had hired to assist me with the transfer. Mr. Stafstrom interrupted me to ask if it would be helpful if the Town of Redding were to cover the cost of the truck rental. | did not hesitate to say “Yes.” Mr. Stafstrom then ventured that the Town’s financial assistance to cover the entire cost of relocating all but nine of my goats to the Harwinton facility, which was willing to adopt them all, would be money much better spent than money spent on the costs of taking Zoning and Pemberton to trial. | agreed. | further explained that various Redding residents and | had initiated a fundraising drive to finance the move but were still quite far from the goal. | was told by Ms. Buonomo that once the funds were made available, the goat transfer could take place within two short weeks. Mr. Stafstrom asked for the name of the sanctuary and | replied that | would be happy to provide it after obtaining Ms. Buonomo’s assent. | contacted her and she agreed to accept the offer and she extended an invitation to the Board of Selectmen and other town representatives to visit the sanctuary. Mr. Stafstrom then asked if | would draft a proposal which he would submit to the Redding Board of Selectmen with his strong endorsement. We discussed how suchi contribution by the Town of Redding would cover all the costs of relocation, including constructing shelters and setting up fencing, drilling a well, hiring construction workers and covering all other costs to make the move possible. | am in the process of preparing the proposal and will present it to Mr. Stafstrom shortly. | look forward to working with you to achieve the “global settlement” Mr. Stafstrom has initiated Sincerely, /s/ Nancy Burton RE: “Global Goat Settlement Stafstrom, Steven J. From:sstafstrom@pullcom.com To:nancyburtonct@aol.com CeJulia Pemberton,mytopstonecpa@optonline.net,Michael Thompson Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:08 AM Ms. Burton, As you are aware, |represent the Town and the Zoning Commission respectively in the actions you reference below. As the Town and the Zoning Commission are represented parties, | ask that all communications directed to the Town and Zoning Commission officials, agents or employees, including to the Board of Selectmen, regarding these matters to go through me. Furthermore, please me reminded that any and all discussion you and | had on March Sth are covered by the evidentiary exclusion of Connecticut Code of Evidence Sec. 4-8 and otherwise should be treated as confidential. Thank you. Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY LLC 203 330 2266 . sstafstrom@pullcom.com THIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT'S DESIGNEE, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203) 330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO NOT DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS. DO3D-CR21-019175058S SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT G.A. #3 v AT DANBURY, CONNECTICUT NANCY BURTON MARCH 7, 2024 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAXIMINO MEDINA, JUDGE APPEARANCES :: “Representing the State of Connecticut: ATTORNEY MATTHEW G. KNOPF Office of the State’s Attorney 14G White Street Danbury, Connecticut 06810 Representing the Defendant: NANCY BURTON Self-Represented Litigant Recorded By: Peter M. Klick Transcribed By: Stephanie Charboneau Official Court Reporter 14 WestRiver Street Milford, Connecticut 06460 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, court is in session on Thursday, March 7th, 2024, in Courtroom 6, specifically on the matter of State versus Burton. Mrs. Burton? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please, come forward. May I have appearance of counsel for the State, please? ATTY. KNOPF: Good morning, Your Honor. Attorney 10 Matthew Knopf for the State. 11 THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. 12 And may I have the defendant’s appearance, 13 please? 14 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Nancy Burton, I’m the 15 defendant. 16 THE COURT: Good morning to you. 17 THE DEFENDANT: Good morning. 18 THE COURT: The Court acknowledges that this 19 matter, docket number 200190471 and docket number 21- 20 0191750 appear on today’s calendar for purposes of 21 commencement of jury selection, in anticipation of a 22 trial. If those events go forward, they will be 23 before Judge Stango, not myself. 24 The record may reflect that I have previously 25 presided over on-the-record attempts to resolve this 26 matter with a disposition, short of a jury trial. 27 Those efforts occurred in the years 2021 and 2022, based on my notes. I think the last time I was involved in this matter with Ms. Burton and the State was September of 2022. ATTY. KNOPF: That’s what I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Obviously, the fact that we are all here this morning means that we were not successful back in 2021 and 2022 in reaching such a disposition. I have not discussed, with either the defendant or with the State, my purpose in taking the Bench here 10 this morning. I am going to disclose that 11 simultaneously to both parties this morning and 12 provide you with my thoughts. 13 So, I invite both of you to please take a seat. 14 Thank you for the courtesy. 15 This Court is powerless to give anyone advice or 16 to give anyone instructions in terms of the charges. 17 So, I cannot instruct the State. I cannot advise or 18 control the defendant. Both the State and defense 19 have the right to proceed to trial, if that is what 20 they wish to do, or if that is what they have 21 concluded is unavoidable. 22 However, I believe that there is a disposition 23 that can be reached in this matter that is consistent 24 with justice, and that would eliminate the necessity 25 of a jury trial, and everything that comes with it, 26 whether you consider all of the things that come with 27 it positives or negatives. These charges - - these cases have been pending for years now. Ms. Burton has appeared in court, as far as I know, in each of these cases on every date that she was required to be here. If there was a communication problem or a scheduling snafu somewhere along the way, which could have happened over the past four years or so, it was never of a purposeful nature. So, as far as I can tell, the Defendant stands before the Court. today having fulfilled her 10 responsibilities in that regard. 11 Second, as far as I know, there have been no new 12 charges brought against Ms. Burton relating to any 13 problems between herself and any municipal officials 14 or relating to any allegations of any cruelty to any 15 animals anywhere. The Court is not unaware that Ms. 16 Burton is a litigant in other matters and reserves 17 her rights. So, when I say no problems between 18 herself and any officials, I don’t mean to cast a 19 blind eye to the fact that she is asserting claims, 20 and those issues are not before me. She is pursuing 21 those claims and issues via lawful process. 22 ‘Based on those two points and my familiarity 23 with the matter, frequently in pretrial discussions 24 in criminal matters involving attorneys for the 25 defense and State’s Attorney, the State will make a 26 proposal, or the Court will make an offer. That’s 27 where we are today. The Court wishes to simultaneously propose a disposition to both the State of Connecticut and to Ms. Burton, to see if there’s interest on both sides in pursing it on this basis. The Court sees that there are other individuals in the courtroom. Are there any individuals who consider themselves aligned with victims in this case? ATTY. KNOPF: Your Honor, I know that at all 10 court appearances members of Desmond’s Army have been 11 present because they wish to be kept aware. There 12 aren’t any specially appointed attorneys in this 13 matter, in terms of the goats. 14 THE COURT: Right. 15 ATTY. KNOPF: And the members of the Attorney 16 General’s Office are not present today. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 18 This is what the Court is thinking. Presently, 19 the files include quite a few individual counts of 20 alleged violations of 53-247(a). The Court’s offer, 21 if that’s the word you want to use, or suggestion, if 22 that sounds better to you, is as follows: 23 The State would be asked to consider and 24 exercise its discretion to file a replacement 25 Information with only one count of violating 53- 26 247(a). I see that there’s an alleged violation of 27 22-365, as well. The defendant would file an application for Accelerated Rehabilitation. The State can exercise its discretion to leave the disposition of that application to the Court, and neither object nor support the application. In advance, the Court would repeat what it said earlier, which is that I think it is of significant importance to acknowledge the number of years that have gone by with no new charges, no new problems, 10 with complete cooperation by defendant with the 11 judicial system and process. 12 Therefore, in the event that the application for 13 Accelerated Rehabilitation were granted, all of those 14 years would be taken into account in setting the 15 probationary period. Under the statute, the Court 16 could order probation for as long as two years. 17 Speaking hypothetically here where the cases have 18 already been pending for twice as long as that, it 19 would seem to me that a probation period measured in 20 days, not years, is something that would be 21 consistent with the interest of justice in this : 22 matter. 23 During the Accelerated Rehabilitation 24 proceedings that would occur, following a brief 25 description by the State of its view of the facts 26 that led to the charges being brought, defense would 27 be given an opportunity to put on the record her view of the facts. ‘Again, it’s not a trial, so the court is not looking for either side to take hours here. But I’m aware of both parties, and I know that they are very capablé of succinctly setting forth clearly their respective views. So, Ms. Burton, you should know that the process would allow you to put your view of the facts on the record. The Court would then enter an order granting or denying the Accelerated Rehabilitation 10 application. 11 So, again, speaking hypothetically, under this 12 approach, Ms. Burton, if the State were willing to 13 amend, instead of picking a jury and going to trial, 14 which is your right, you can pursue this alternative 15 disposition, which assuming the granting of the 16 application, a probation period numbered in days, and 17 the expiration of that probation period in a matter 18 of days without any superseding events, the charges 19 that you are facing and that would be the subject of 20 the disposition would be dismissed. No need for a 21 trial. No need to pick a jury. No need to run the 22 risks associated with that. No need to spend who 23 knows how many of the next few weeks here at the 24 Danbury Courthouse. 25 No disposition is ever perfect, but I believe 26 this disposition that I’m suggesting is fair, under 27 the totality of the circumstances of these two docket numbers. Again, the Court cannot compel the State to go along. The Court cannot compel defense to go along. But the Court does have an appropriate role to play in docket management and in trying to assist the State and defendants in reaching a fair and just resolution, under all of the circumstances. I have concluded - - And again, if this case does not get resolved 10 and it goes to trial, both sides get a fresh start 11 before a different judge, so my views will not affect 12 that process in any way. But my view is that the 13 proposed disposition that I have outlined here today 14 on the record is one that is extremely fair to both 15 sides, completely practical, and one that deserves 16 very, very serious consideration. 17 I’1l begin with the State. 18 ATTY. KNOPF: Yes. Good morning, again, Your 19 Honor. 20 Your Honor, I do wish to note two things. The 21 first is that the State’s offer has always been A.R., 1 22 and that those conditions are always set by the 23 Court. 24 In this case, Your Honor, the State had been 25 looking for a condition on the previous court dates 26 that Ms. Burton surrender the goats. However, since 27 that last court date, Your Honor, the Court in Waterbury, Judge Bellis, did order and grant the State’s case to take custody of all of the goats. Therefore, the State doesn’t have any reason to ask for that condition any longer, as the goats are in - - now, and have been for a while, in State custody. Second, Your Honor, the A.R. application does not require that the State make any changes to any of the charges. All of the charges are misdemeanors. Not just the case with sixty-five counts, but all of 10 the other cases. And then, there are a number of 11 infraction cases. All of which the State would agree 12 can be covered by a single application. 13 Your Honor, the State, based on the defendant 14 complying with conditions of release, mainly no new 15 arrests for, now since March of 2021, the State has 16 no problem leaving the application to the discretion 17 of the Court. 18 The State would be recommending to the Court, of 19 course, condition, as it did in its previous 20 hearings. The State would be recommending that the 21 defendant not possess any animals for the duration of 22 the probation. And the State would be recommending no 23 threatening, harassing, interfering, or stalking the 24 members of the Department of Agriculture, including 25 their representatives, which would be the Attorney 26 General’s Office, or their investigators. 27 These are recommendations the State would make. The State was looking for a two-year period of those conditions. However, the State acknowledges that any conditions are solely within the discretion of the Court, and that the Court is, in the end, the determining factor in what is appropriate or not, in terms of those conditions. The State does not have any objections to any A.R. applications. And based upon the defendant’s no new arrests in, essentially, three years, Your Honor, 10 the State is also happy to leave the determination of 11 the application within the Court’s discretion. 12 It is an appropriate program. I understand Ms. 13 Burton has used the program in the past. However, it 14 has been considerably longer than ten years, which 15 will allow her to apply again. 16 Your Honor, you know, the State takes this case 17 with all seriousness. The State is ready to proceed 18 to trial, if necessary. But the State is also 19 acknowledging that Ms. Burton is eligible for the 20 program, that the terms of the program are solely and 21 squarely in the Court’s discretion. And the State no 22 longer really has any reason to ask for what was 23 likely the most contentious request, which was the 24 surrendering of the goats. That has been taken care 25 of by the Civil Court. 26 So, I don’t have anything else to add, Your 27 Honor, other than the State is in agreement and has 10 been in agreement that this program, for whatever duration, is likely the appropriate avenue for us to continue down this road. THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Ms. Burton, you now have an opportunity to not only tell me what you’re thinking, but to, by virtue of the invocation of the A.R. Statute, end this and be free of these cases, the charges, and these proceedings. Would you like to take advantage of 10 that opportunity, ma’am? 11 THE DEFENDANT: I certainly would, Your Honor, 12 but not without expressing great thanks to the Court 13 for its consideration, as it has been expressing here 14 today, and also all of these numerous occasions in 15 the past - - 16 THE COURT: You’ re welcome. 17 THE DEFENDANT: - - when we’ve had opportunities 18 to have communications. Thank you very much, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: You’re welcome. 21 THE DEFENDANT: Very much appreciated. 22 THE COURT: Well, then that means that there’s a 23 certain amount of paperwork that you have to fill in 24 for the application for the form, the A.R. We 25 frequently do these in two stages. 26 I’ll ask the State whether it sees any problem 27 in, basically, collapsing them into one stage and 11 doing it today. ATTY. KNOPF: Your Honor, I will inquire with the Office of Adult Probation if they can quickly review the file today. I don’t believe there will be any statements from the Department of Agriculture, but I’1l certainly give them a heads up. So, I think that while it may take a little bit this morning, I think it’s doable. THE COURT: All right. So, let’s do this. I 10 realize you are not done yet, so I'll come right back 11 to you, Ms. Burton. 12 Courtroom 6 is needed for - - there were 13 multiple cases that were brought in today for jury 14 selection and Judge Stango is ready to take the Bench 15 and begin that process on a different case. So, that 16 will allow for the space and time for these inquiries 17 to be made. 18 And I would ask Ms. Burton to remain in 19 attendance. Obviously, she has to do the paperwork. 20 But I didn’t mean to cut you off, Ms. Burton. Is 21 there anything else you wish to say at this point? 22 THE DEFENDANT: yés. 23 THE COURT: You’ re going to have an opportunity 24 to say more later. 25 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I do have 26 several questions. I am new to this process and there 27 are certain complexities. So, if I could just run 12 those questions by Your Honor? THE COURT: You can feel free to ask. There are certain questions the Court is allowed to answer, and others that I can’t. But I won’t know until I hear them, so take a shot. THE DEFENDANT: Right. Okay. Initially, at the outset of this proceeding, Your Honor stated that one of the - - proposal would include a compression of all of the existing counts into one count. 10 THE COURT: That was a suggestion. I did not 11 hear a yes to that, but I assume that counsel will 12 confer with others in his office to see if that is 13 possible. That is controlled by the State. But at the 14 same time, counsel for the State did say that the 15 A.R. umbrella, if you will, will cover everything, so 16 that the dismissal, assuming all of the conditions 17 are satisfied with, would apply to everything. 18 THE DEFENDANT: I see. 19 THE COURT: Next question. 20 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. There is a - - I’m sorry. 21 I’m here on short notice, Your Honor. I' just got an ‘ 22 email yesterday to be here, and I’m not quite fully 23 up to speed. And I’ve recently argued before the 24 Appellate Court earlier this week in a related case, 25 so I need a moment to sort things out, if you don’t 26 mind. 27 THE COURT: No, I understand. And you