Preview
EXHIBIT M
Series of five photographs taken on April
30, 2021 by Nancy Burton including several
depicting plaintiff's goats stampeding
toward the road as they are pursued by
David Philip Mason and his air horn.Defendant Exhibit 63-JJ
Series of five photographs taken on April 30, 2020
depicting David Philip Mason with his air horn
chasing goats in an uncontrolled stampede off his
property onto the road (Cross Highway)
i— Goats being pursued by David Philip Mason
ii— David Philip Mason pursuing goats in stampede
toward road
iii - David Philip Mason, holding air horn in right
hand, heading in westerly direction from his property
across land permanently protected as open space
as a result of Nancy Burton’s environmental activism
with funding by the Redding Land Trust
iv — David Philip Mason joining up with Dennis
Gibbon at stone wall on south side of Cross
Highway across land permanently protected as open
space as a result of Nancy Burton’s environmental
activism with funding by the Redding Land Trust
v - Elinor Carmody staring out at Burton property
from her adjoining property-¢~~
[|EXHIBIT N
Plaintiff's Motion to Suppress dated April 8,
2021 in State of Connecticut ex rel.
Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-
21-6139702-S and order of Judge David
Sheridan dated April 8, 202.te 4
HHD-cv2i -6139702-S : SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
SIXTY-FIVE GOATS :
NANCY BURTON : April 8, 2021
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED UNDER AN
ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE ee
The defendant, Nancy Burton, moves to suppress evidence seized illegally pursuant ~
to a search warrant procured under false pretenses by Charles DellaRocco, an animal
control officer with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and for immediate return
and release of property seized illegally, namely, 65 goats, pursuant to such defective
search warrant and for dismissal of this case.
In support of this motion, defendant represents as follows:
1. On March 9, 2021, said DellaRocco appeared before Hon. Robert A. D'Andrea, a
judge of the Superior Court, at the Danbury Superior Court seeking his approval
of a search and seizure warrant to inter alia seize all the goats belonging to
defendant, Nancy Burton, on her property at 147 Cross Highway in Redding,
Connecticut.
2. Atall times pertigent to this motion, Judge D'Andrea has been assigned to the
civil suit instituted by defendant on June 3, 2019, Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation
Inc. et al., DBD-19-5015207-S, in which it is alleged that Animal Nation, Inc.
breached a contract with defendant to find homes for all but nine of her goats,
tepair and maintain fences and structures on her property and provide
veterinarian care for the goats.
3. Upon information and belief, said DellaRocco presented Judge D'Andrea with
what purported to be an affidavit bearing DellaRocco’s signature, signed under
oath, purporting to set forth facts asserting sufficient and lawful cause for
issuance of the warrant.
4. On or about May 2020, Judge D'Andrea had previously signed a warrant for
defendant's arrest on a charge of animal cruelty.
5. Such arrest was sought by the Redding Police Department after David Phitip
Mason, of 146 Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut, utilizing an air horn and in
concert with the Redding Police Department and Elinore Carmody and Dennis
Gibbons, his neighbors, blew the air horn thereby creating a loud and raucous
noise which caused goats on Mason’s property to panic and stampede as they
were being recklessly pursued by Mason directly toward and across Cross
Highway to defendant's property.
netoF
6. The Redding Police Department recklessly presented false and inflammatory
information in their affidavit, including that one of defendant’s goats was “severely
injured” in the incident during a collision with a motor vehicle.
7. The Chief of Redding Police, Mark O'Donnell, widely circulated in a press release
to statewide news media the knowingly false report that one of defendant's goats
was “severely injured” in the incident; a report to such effect appeared on the
front page of the Danbury News-Times, which has a wide circulation in the area.
8. The apparent intent of Police Chief O'Donnell was to defame and otherwise injure
defendant and her relations with the Redding community, where she has resided
for 35 years and made significant pro bono contributions including inter alia
permanent protection of ecologically sensitive lands and scenic vistas.
9. To date, although the state's attorney assigned to Danbury maintains the arrest
prosecution as an active case, the prosecuting attorney has acknowledged to
defendant that no evidence has been presented of any goat injured, let alone
“severely injured,” in the incident.
10.On or about November 30, 2020, defendant filed a police complaint seeking the
arrest and prosecution of said Mason, Carmody and Gibbon for their deliberate
and wanton act of animal cruelty, planned and coordinated with the Redding
Police Department, in which said Mason chased the goats in a stampede across
the road with the specific intent of killing or injuring all or some of them.
11.Upon information and belief, the Redding Police Department has taken no action
on defendant's complaint.
12.On November 30, 2020, defendant forwarded the complaint to Bryan Hurlburt,
Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Agriculture demanding an
investigation of her serious charges of deliberate and wanton animal cruelty by
Mason, Carmody and Gibbon.
13. According to said DellaRocco, he was assigned to investigate the complaint in
December 2020.
14.On December 10, 2020, DellaRocco appeared unannounced at defendant's
property in the company of two officers of the Redding Police Department and a
representative of DOAG.
15.He told defendant his sole purpose in visiting her was to investigate her complaint
to Commissioner Hurlburt concerning the April 30, 2020 incident, of which he
appeared to be completely unfamiliar.
16. Out of earshot pf the two Redding Police officers and the DOAG representative
who had accompanied him, defendant related the facts and circumstances of the
Apri! 30, 2020 incident in which Mason had recklessly chased her goats into the
toad in a stampede with the aid of an air horn. -
17.DellRocco told defendant then and there that if the facts were as defendant
presented them, the Town of Redding and State of Connecticut lacked probable
cause for her arrest in such incident.
18. In response to a defendant’s communication to DellaRocco on December 11,
2020, DellaRocco emailed back as follows: “I did say that your version of events onhey
April 30, 2020 did not constitute probable cause to charge you with animal cruelty . . .”
See emails attached hereto.
18. At no time during the December 10 visit did DellaRocco inform defendant that he
intended to testify falsely under oath that defendant's complaint regarding Mason,
Carmody and Gibbon was “unfounded,” as he testified in the instant case on March 30,
2021.
19. Indeed, in his activities and statements since December 10, 2020, DellaRocco
has established himself to be an individual chronically prone to recklessly
communicating falsehoods in this matter for the apparent purpose of maliciously
Causing injury to defendant and her goats.
20. Accordingly, DellaRocco’s affirmations under oath to procure a search and
seizure warrant in this case are highly suspect.
21. More particularly, Della Rocco stated in the application for search and seizure
warrant as follows:
A. Paragraph 1: He attributes the “facts and circumstances” deriving in part from
“prudent and credible witnesses” but the affidavit does not name nor otherwise identify
them; if the undisclosed witnesses are Carmody, Gibbon or Mason, these individuals
have recklessly and maliciously communicated falsehoods about defendant and the
goats and have committed criminal acts against defendant and the goats, including
threatening to have them killed; they are entirely untrustworthy as witnesses to the
affidavit in this matter. Moreover, the Redding Police Department and its Chief are
hardly credible and trustworthy witnesses in this matter as they are responsible for
falsely arresting defendant over the April 30, 2020 incident and disseminating
defamatory falsehoods recklessly to the news media. The affidavit does not identify
what individuals provided information relied on by DellaRocca; it is therefore inherently
untrustworthy. If a source was Lia Alba, she is a donor to Animal Nation, Inc. and has
been known to be notoriously unreliable and not credible, prone to disseminating
malicious falsehoods in the community.
B. Paragraph 3: “The Redding Police Department has at least one hundred and
twenty plus (120+) complaints since 2007.” This statement is entitled to no weight in
support of a probable cause finding because the status of alleged complaints does not
equate to “complaints filed, investigated and prosecuted.” The Police Department did
not pursue the vast majority.
C, Paragraph 3: “On April 30, 2020, Redding Police Department investigated a motor
vehicle accident involving a car vs. goat. The goat sustained injury.” The statement “The
goat sustained injury.” is a knowing falsehood recklessly relied upon as a material fact
supporting the affidavit. The Redding Police have acknowledged they have no éredible
evidence of an injured goat. Della Rocca testified to such effect on March 30, 2021.Se 4
D. Paragraph 3: “The Connecticut Department of Agriculture Animal Control Unit has
had at least five complaints since 2017 all making reference to the conditions and the
large amount of goats on the property.” This statement is entitled to no weight. That a
complaint may have been filed has no probable cause value. For example, an
anonymous complaint filed in 2017 led to an investigation that concluded that the goats
were in a good state of health and well fed and watered. Moreover, defendant has
pursued legal actions and zoning applications to protect her rights to maintain the goats
while she had endeavored conscientiously since before 2017 to find good homes for
‘most of them. Prior to DellaRocco’s application for the search and seizure warrant, he,
DOAG and the Town of Redding were all well aware that defendant was in the process
of moving all but nine of her goats to identified animal sanctuaries when the illegal
seizure based on a recklessly false warrant application by DellaRocco occurred.
E. Paragraph 4: Defendant took this goat to a licensed veterinarian who treated her
and she made a complete recovery virtually overnight, as DOAG was fully aware ;
months before DellaRocco applied for the search and seizure warrant. This assertion
does not support probable cause, its inclusion in the warrant application is equivalent to
a recklessly false assertion since the conditions stated were known to be no longer
applicable and therefore irrelevant.
F. Paragraph 5: Defendant did not make any of the statements attributed to her in
Paragraph’5. Defendant did take the goat to a licensed veterinarian months before
DellaRocco submitted the warrant application. The veterinarian Pronounced her healthy
and in good condition except for a limping leg for which there was no practicable
available treatment other than anti-inflammatory medication, which defendant
administered. The application states defendant had had to “change her feed.” That
statement is faise and recklessly made. Before and after the veterinarian check-up,
defendant fed the goat, per veterinarian recommendation, and as she had already been
doing, large helpings of food in the absence of competition from other goats.
G. Paragraph 8: Observations on February 3 led to 4-day 24-hour surveillance:
defendant was observed feeding 10 goats a small amount of hay, he was unable to see
any water containers, the goats were hungry, defendant was slow and sat down having
walked in snow deeper than one foot in heavy boots. These “observations” are ‘
meaningless and provide no support for the issuance of a warrant to seize 65 goats
from their home. The limited assertions are recklessly presented as they add up to
nothing. Obviously, over the course of a day the 10 goats were fed and watered
appropriately. The remaining 55 goats are not even mentioned.
H. Paragraph 12: The reported “findings” lend no support to probable cause: goats
were due for hoof-trimming as they were trimmed on a rotating basis; it is not efficient to
remove manure with a snow-and-ice cover of 1- to 2-feet in depth with snowstorms
recurring frequently as they did in the winter of 2020-2021: the ground was frozen and
this chore is best undertaken when the ground thaws. “Constant” water freezes
constantly in cold winter weather; it is difficult to refill a bucket with fresh water when the
=yo. 4
bucket is full of ice. The solution is frequent refills of water less than a bucket-full and/or
application of hot water to melt ice, although goats love licking ice, too. The reported
observations of water by the Redding Police Department and DOAG are not supported
by documentation or videotapes and are false and incomplete and thus inadequate to
establish probable cause. In addition, water is and was available from multiple sources
and most of the water buckets could not be seen from the vantage point of the
surveillance window. Similarly, structures and their occupants could not be seen from
the surveillance window; two shelters were being actively upgraded and repaired. The
roof of the barn shed has not “collapsed” and the goats used multiple locations for
Shelter in locations not visible from the surveillance window.
Conclusion: The affidavit is replete with false, fanciful and ridiculous, non-sensical
assertions recklessly made which do not establish probable cause. At the worst, 10
goats are due for hoof-trimming, which is on schedule to be done. Fifty-five goats seized
pursuant to the warrant were not identified to be in need of hoof-trimming or anything
else.; regardless, they were on schedule for hoof-trimming. No credible cause is
presented whatsoever for the extreme, unnecessary and cruel removal of 55 goats from
their home; the sneak removal was a criminal act of animal abuse and Cruelty at the
hand of the State of Connecticut which requires immediate investigation. Indeed, 12
goats had been scheduled to be moved to a reputable animal sanctuary the very
weekend before the warrant application was filed, as DellaRocco knew; the rest were
soon to follow, at no cost to the State of Connecticut and with the defendant's complete
endorsement.
The affidavit is replete with knowing and reckless falsity. The requisite Fourth
Amendment finding of probable cause presupposes that it is a truthful showing. This
affidavit reeks with falsity and bad faith from beginning to end. It does not support lawful
issuance of the search and seizure warrant in any respect. See, e.g., Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). No proper purpose has been served by this dastardly
act.
Defendant has hereinabove made a substantial preliminary showing that false
statements knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth were .
included and a material omission made — that the goats were scheduled to be re-homed
forthwith to a reputable animal sanctuary(ies) and that in the meantime their care and
conditions were sufficient to assure their good health and happiness — and the false or
omitted information would be necessary to the finding of probable cause.
A probable cause hearing need be scheduled without delay after which the entire
warrant need be stricken and the goats returned immediately to their owner the
defendant for re-homing at Stoney Brook Farm Animal Rescue, Inc., 96 Swimming Hole
Road, Harwinton CT, and any other reputable animal rescue sanctuaries of defendant's
choosing, and this case dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and all other
actions and orders issued as a consequence of evidence obtained in the illegal search
and seizure warrant be stricken and suppressed and the warrant voided.
THE DEFENDANT
Nancy Bufton
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby
ordered: GRANTED/DENIED
BY THE COURT
ee
JUDGE/CLERK
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a Copy of the foregoing was electronically delivered on this date to
all counsel of record.
LSD —-Keep as New
Reply
Reply Ali
Forward
Delete
Spam
More
RE: Redding Goats
Mon, Dec 14, 2020 11:01 am
DellaRocco, Charles (Charles. DellaRocco@ct.gov)To:you + 1 more Details
Good morning Ms. Burton:
| have reached out to both subjects of both your complaints by phone and | am awaiting
responses from them. To conduct a proper investigation | need to meet and speak with both
these individuals.
| did say that your version of the events on April 30, 2020 did not constitute probable cause to
charge you with animal cruelty but there are two sides to every story. | explained that | know
nothing about that case nor any other cases that you are involved in, and it was because of this
that the Connecticut Department of Agriculture Animal Control Unit assigned me to investigate
your complaints. | am not familiar enough with past arrests/convictions from our department so
[ cannot comment on Attorney Briggs’ statement.
As for the disposition of your case with the State of Connecticut. | am not the person to discuss
this with, that is a conversation you may want to have with the State’s Attorney.
If you remember | told you that | will be upfront with you and [ will not play games. | am open
and honest and that my objective was to investigate your complaints. During our discussion you
mentioned to me that you were interested the thinning of your herd. | had a few questions about
the conditions of some of the goats and that both of us need to work together to accomplish
what you would like and what | was assigned to do. With that in mind, you told me that you
would allow Dr. Lis and myself onto the property to check out your herd and we made a
tentative date for December 17, 2020 (weather permitting). Dr. Lis is not available on that day
and it appears that a snow storm is forecasted as well. Can you please tell me of another day
that might be good?
Sincerely,Charles A. DellaRocco
State Anima! Control Officer
CT Department of Agriculture
(860)819-1107
From: nancyburtonct@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:58 PM
To: DellaRocco, Charles ; Nancy Burton
Subject: Redding Goats
EXTERNALEWAIL: This emiail:originated from outside of the organization, Do not click any links or open.any
a ienits unless you trust the'sender arid know the content is safe. . oe
Hello Mr. DellaRocco:
Please update as to the status of your investigation of my complaints.
You stated yesterday that my conduct on April 30, 2030, as | detailed it, did not
Constitute “animal cruelty" and Mr. Mason's conduct was, at the least, out of line.
According to Carole Briggs of your office, Connecticut has never previously
attempted to prosecute an animal owner when an unhinged neighbor recklessly and
deliberately pursued goats with an air horn leading them to stampede in a panic across
a public road.
Therefore, as a demonstration of good faith as we attempt to rehome goats to good
homes, please confirm that the State of Connecticut has agreed to drop its
charges against me.
Please let me know on Monday.
Very truly yours,
Nancy BurtonORDER 419022
DOCKET NO: HHDCV216139702S SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT EX REL, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
JEREMIAH DUNN, CHIEF AT HARTFORD
V.
SIXTY-FIVE GOATS Et Al 4/28/2021
ORDER
ORDER REGARDING:
04/08/2021 134.00 MOTION FOR ORDER
The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
ORDER: OFF
Short Calendar Results Automated Mailing (SCRAM) Notice was sent on the underlying motion.
419022°
Judge: JANE § SCHOLL
This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical
(pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section LE. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services
Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the
Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
HHDCV216139702S 4/28/2021 Page | of 1EXHIBIT O
Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion to
Suppress and for Return of Property Seized
Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for
Dismissal of This Case dated April 26, 2021
in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah
Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-
6139702-S and order of Judge David
Sheridan dated April 8, 202.HHD-CV21-6139702-S : SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
SIXTY-FIVE GOATS :
NANCY BURTON : APRIL 26, 2021
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS
AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED UNDER AN ILLEGAL SEARCH
WARRANT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE
Defendant Nancy Burton supplements her Motion to Suppress (#134.00) dated April
8, 2021 as follows:
1. The Affidavit and Application for Search and Seizure Warrant dated March 9, 2021
are legally and factually fatally defective for the following reasons:
a. The statements are not supported by individually identified witnesses, as
Constitutionally required. No witnesses are identified by name nor is information
set forth from which their credibility may be judged. The application and affidavit
are therefore inherently unreliable and must be disregarded for purposes of
providing a factual or legal basis for issuance of the warrant. It does not suffice as
a matter of fact or law for the applicants to characterize unidentified witnesses as
“credible” without providing a basis for such characterization.
b. The affidavit and application state that said documents are “stated” in part from
“information received from other officers acting in their official capacity, from
official department and police reports and statements made by prudent and
credible witnesses.” As not one such “officer” is personally identified nor the
basis for a credibility determination presented, such attribution is legally and
factually entirely insufficient to support either the affidavit or application. To the
contrary, to the extent that the affidavit and application rely for the factual and/or
legal sufficiency of the affidavit and application on the credibility of members of
the Redding Police Department - again, unnamed or otherwise unidentified ~ the
opposite attribution of “no credibility” is the case given the disturbing historical
record of Redding Police Department/members’ - albeit not all Redding Police
Department members’ — manifesting misconduct, dishonesty and abuse of their
power. Examples include failing to rescue an individual from suicide, failing to
perform an adequate investigation of the apparent murder of a Black Redding
lawyer and implausibly labeling his death under mysterious circumstances a
suicide, and failing to take proper action on complaints by defendant ofharassment and acts of cruelty and abuse of her goats by Redding residents
Elinore Carmody, Dennis Gibbon, David Philip Mason and others.
c. Heightened standards are required where, as here, the application seeks to
invade defendant's most Constitutionally precious zone of privacy — her home -
where she has a Constitutionally-protected right to be free from frivolous and
illegal search and seizure and neither the application nor affidavit sets forth an
iota of a factual basis to justify such a repugnant invasion.
d. Upon information and belief, pursuant to such factually and legally inadequate
affidavit and application to achieve an unlawful purpose, certain objects of great
personal value were stolen by one or more participants in the raid, which was
carried out under the personal direction and supervision of Charles DellaRocco,
an animal control officer not legally authorized to perform such a role.
e. Although the affidavit and application attribute information set forth to “other
officers acting in their official capacity,” none is individually named nor is his/her
position identified; any and all information attributed to such anonymous
supposed witnesses must be rejected.
f. Likewise, “official department and police reports” are not individually identified nor
can they legally form the basis for attributed Credibility set forth; therefore, any
and all information attributed to such anonymous supposed witnesses must be
tejected.
g. Likewise, “prudent and credible witnesses” are not identified nor is any basis
for determination of credibility set forth. Therefore, any and all information
attributed to such anonymous supposed witnesses must be rejected.
h. The application and affidavit are on their face frivolous: their principal reliance on
a perceived need for hoof trimming on the part of an unstated number of goats,
none of which was individually identified, is frivolous, particularly in light of the
fact that plaintiff's application, if granted, would allow for the most serious
invasion of defendant's sacred privacy interests — the invasion of her home -
without any factual basis other than to harass.
i. Therefore, the admissible facts and governing law require exclusion of reliance
on statements and documents other than presented by Charles DellaRocco and
Tanya Wescovich, who co-signed the affidavit and application for warrant.
themselves and documents they may have produced based on personal
observation,
j. However, as it cannot be discerned what information of that set forth is thereby
stricken from the affidavit and application, the entire document must be stricken,
the warrant nullified, the fruits of the illegal search and seizure suppressed.’
k. Moreover, any and all statements attributed to Charles DellaRocco in the affidavit
and application must be excluded because Mr. DellaRocco is untrustworthy,
dishonest, duplicitous and of low moral character. Examples overwhelm and
include (1) his forced resignation as coach of the girls’ soccer team in Old
Saybrook following disclosures of while-on-duty viewings of online pornography;
(2) his statements to the operator of a reputable 501(c)(3) animal sanctuary that
— bored hie ners ny © tus statements in the affidavit”
tobe able to extn ees nis Paeaity to lie and distort the truth, from dang
be le rand of defendant's boots from a far. ‘di
misidentified the brand) to claimin, vee gente 8
t ig that he could observe h i
faraway locations when the , yenow ee
a é goats’ hooves were obscured by snow: his
sete wise weeny areerting that defendant refused to meet with then-
‘ ary Jane Lis, DVM (belied by defendant’ i i
chains to the contrary), his ignoran: i i DellaRoce eae email
r t A ice of goat behavior (Mr. DellaR it
Provide evidence that before ming ii if ' ts goate here
\ , becoming involved with defendant's goats
ever previously made the acquaintance Of a goat)(for example, he ater ped
good health rather than the contra it
1 r ry. Mr. DellaRoce: if
dishonesty in all his dealings with defendant. ® ewenced bad faith and
a ine event that the affidavit and application rely upon Tanya Wescovich her
ents, too, suffer from the same factual and legal defects as set forth herein
“Upon complaint on oath b is
Ip t Y any state’s attorney or assista ‘
by’any two credible Persons . . .” (Emphasis added.) ni state's atorney or
. Neither Mr. DellaRocco nor Ms. Wescovich provided evidence that either is a
credible complainant: ibility: i
demon ; the law does not Presume credibility: it must be
. Charles DellaRocco, the first-named signatory of the Affidavit and Application for
Search and Seizure Warrant dated M is
¢ izure larch 9, 2021, is not a“ i ”
thus is Statutorily disqualified from serving as its applicant, Sroaible Person” and
. In the absence of evidence to such effect, Ms. Wescovich cannot be presumed
credible within the Meaning of the statute:
‘ ; to the contrary, given her articulat
ignorance of goat needs and behavior as testified to by her in this case, trom the
. Accordingly, the warrant was issued without mandatory qualifying complainant
statements and it is therefore a legat nullity.2. On its face, the Affidavit and Application Search and Seizure Warrant is a
“criminal” form to be used in a “criminal” case; its use in the present civil case to
seize defendant's goats as evidence in the civil case is contrary to law and
therefore the present motion should be granted.
Multiple contradictions and inconsistences have recurred in this case regarding the
court's consideration of defendant's Motion to Suppress and for Return of Property
Seized Under an illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case filed on April
8, 2021.
When defendant insisted that the motion be considered prior to further proceedings
on April 8, 2021 — given the nature of defendant's fundamental due process rights to
be protected from deliberate illegal invasion by the state — the trial court (Cobb, J.)
summarily rejected defendant's request as follows:
With respect to your [Ms. Burton's] motion to suppress, this is a civil proceeding,
it's not a criminal proceeding. Your motion will be taken up in due course, but not
tight now.
By precluding consideration of the Motion to Suppress — which if granted would
necessitate the dismissal of this case — the trial court committed clear error and
denied defendant fundamental Constitutional protections. The fact is that this civil
case was activated by a judge’s signature on a Connecticut Judicial Department
Official form bearing the identification numberJD-CR-61 — “CR” standing for “criminal.”
The judge’s signature cleared the way for an unauthorized agent of the state to invade
defendant's home without cause and to steal her property, stranding her without a
legal remedy which is available under law. Thereby, the trial court evaded defendant's
Constitutional challenge and insulated the perpetrators of this unconstitutional abuse
from necessary challenge.
These egregious errors need be addressed and corrected, to the fullest extent
possible, immediately.
The state’s objection to this motion (#137) is incorrect and misleading.
It falsely creates the impression that the courts have uniformly ruled that a party:
may not mount a challenge to an illegal search and seizure except in a criminal
proceeding. The state cites no authority to such effect. Defendant is unaware of any
judicial authority to such effect.
In fact, defendant's challenge, as presented in her Motion to Suppress, is
permissible as well as urgent. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that when an
unauthorized agent of the state breaks into one's home without having produced a
scintilla of a cause for such break-in — as is the case here — that the victim of such
outrageous state misconduct is without legal recourse because a form used by thestate to perform its obviously unlawful deed bears the title “JD-CR-61.” Plaintiff would
have this court adopt this ruse.
The state has been engaged in abominable misconduct because its unauthorized
agent pretended to be a super power with super eyesight who could take a
measurement from a remote location of a goat hoof buried in the snow and apply this
measurement as a ruse to steal 65 goats, none individually identified, from the home
where they were well loved, exceptionally well cared for, where they were assured of
a safe and secure life and where they contributed pro bono to the public health and
welfare by means of a project that samples goat milk for radioactivity that shouldn't be
there and which the state refuses to sample.
The super-agent conflated a bogus hoof measurement to fuel a malicious campaign
of goat hysteria.
This behavior would have ended had the super-agent asked one simple three-part
question of the owner and caretaker of the goats: (1) when are the goats due for hoof-
trimming; (2) when are the goats due for spring muck-out and repairs to their shelters;
and (3) when are the goats moving to the safe and secure animal sanctuaries which
have offered to adopt them.
The state was too afraid of the answers to ask: the answers — “Immediately” to
Nos. 1 and 2, “Two months ago” to No. 3 — would have put an end to the state’s
abuse and cruelty of the goats and terror tactics.
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion to Suppress and For Return of
Property Seized Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case must
be granted forthwith.
THE DEFENDANT
Ae
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.comORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby ordered GRANTED/DENIED.
BY THE COURT
JUDGE/CLERK
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically to the following
immediately upon e-filing:
Matthew Levine, Esq.
Matthew.Levine@ct.gov
Jonathan Harding, Esq.
Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov 3ORDER 431199
DOCKET NO: HHDCV216139702S SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT EX REL, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
JEREMIAH DUNN, CHIEF AT HARTFORD
Vv.
SIXTY-FIVE GOATS Et Al 5/10/2021
ORDER
ORDER REGARDING:
04/26/2021 160.00 MOTION FOR ORDER
The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
ORDER: OFF
Pending a decision on motions #138 and #139. The motion may be reclaimed after the decisions are
rendered.
Judicial Notice (IDNO) was sent regarding this order.
431199
Judge: DAVID M SHERIDAN
This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical
(pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section -E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services
Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the
Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
HHDCV216139702S 5/10/2021 Page | of 1
Preview
EXHIBIT M Series of five photographs taken on April 30, 2021 by Nancy Burton including several depicting plaintiff's goats stampeding toward the road as they are pursued by David Philip Mason and his air horn.Defendant Exhibit 63-JJ Series of five photographs taken on April 30, 2020 depicting David Philip Mason with his air horn chasing goats in an uncontrolled stampede off his property onto the road (Cross Highway) i— Goats being pursued by David Philip Mason ii— David Philip Mason pursuing goats in stampede toward road iii - David Philip Mason, holding air horn in right hand, heading in westerly direction from his property across land permanently protected as open space as a result of Nancy Burton’s environmental activism with funding by the Redding Land Trust iv — David Philip Mason joining up with Dennis Gibbon at stone wall on south side of Cross Highway across land permanently protected as open space as a result of Nancy Burton’s environmental activism with funding by the Redding Land Trust v - Elinor Carmody staring out at Burton property from her adjoining property-¢~~ [|EXHIBIT N Plaintiff's Motion to Suppress dated April 8, 2021 in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV- 21-6139702-S and order of Judge David Sheridan dated April 8, 202.te 4 HHD-cv2i -6139702-S : SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT : STATE OF CONNECTICUT Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD SIXTY-FIVE GOATS : NANCY BURTON : April 8, 2021 MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED UNDER AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE ee The defendant, Nancy Burton, moves to suppress evidence seized illegally pursuant ~ to a search warrant procured under false pretenses by Charles DellaRocco, an animal control officer with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and for immediate return and release of property seized illegally, namely, 65 goats, pursuant to such defective search warrant and for dismissal of this case. In support of this motion, defendant represents as follows: 1. On March 9, 2021, said DellaRocco appeared before Hon. Robert A. D'Andrea, a judge of the Superior Court, at the Danbury Superior Court seeking his approval of a search and seizure warrant to inter alia seize all the goats belonging to defendant, Nancy Burton, on her property at 147 Cross Highway in Redding, Connecticut. 2. Atall times pertigent to this motion, Judge D'Andrea has been assigned to the civil suit instituted by defendant on June 3, 2019, Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation Inc. et al., DBD-19-5015207-S, in which it is alleged that Animal Nation, Inc. breached a contract with defendant to find homes for all but nine of her goats, tepair and maintain fences and structures on her property and provide veterinarian care for the goats. 3. Upon information and belief, said DellaRocco presented Judge D'Andrea with what purported to be an affidavit bearing DellaRocco’s signature, signed under oath, purporting to set forth facts asserting sufficient and lawful cause for issuance of the warrant. 4. On or about May 2020, Judge D'Andrea had previously signed a warrant for defendant's arrest on a charge of animal cruelty. 5. Such arrest was sought by the Redding Police Department after David Phitip Mason, of 146 Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut, utilizing an air horn and in concert with the Redding Police Department and Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons, his neighbors, blew the air horn thereby creating a loud and raucous noise which caused goats on Mason’s property to panic and stampede as they were being recklessly pursued by Mason directly toward and across Cross Highway to defendant's property. netoF 6. The Redding Police Department recklessly presented false and inflammatory information in their affidavit, including that one of defendant’s goats was “severely injured” in the incident during a collision with a motor vehicle. 7. The Chief of Redding Police, Mark O'Donnell, widely circulated in a press release to statewide news media the knowingly false report that one of defendant's goats was “severely injured” in the incident; a report to such effect appeared on the front page of the Danbury News-Times, which has a wide circulation in the area. 8. The apparent intent of Police Chief O'Donnell was to defame and otherwise injure defendant and her relations with the Redding community, where she has resided for 35 years and made significant pro bono contributions including inter alia permanent protection of ecologically sensitive lands and scenic vistas. 9. To date, although the state's attorney assigned to Danbury maintains the arrest prosecution as an active case, the prosecuting attorney has acknowledged to defendant that no evidence has been presented of any goat injured, let alone “severely injured,” in the incident. 10.On or about November 30, 2020, defendant filed a police complaint seeking the arrest and prosecution of said Mason, Carmody and Gibbon for their deliberate and wanton act of animal cruelty, planned and coordinated with the Redding Police Department, in which said Mason chased the goats in a stampede across the road with the specific intent of killing or injuring all or some of them. 11.Upon information and belief, the Redding Police Department has taken no action on defendant's complaint. 12.On November 30, 2020, defendant forwarded the complaint to Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Agriculture demanding an investigation of her serious charges of deliberate and wanton animal cruelty by Mason, Carmody and Gibbon. 13. According to said DellaRocco, he was assigned to investigate the complaint in December 2020. 14.On December 10, 2020, DellaRocco appeared unannounced at defendant's property in the company of two officers of the Redding Police Department and a representative of DOAG. 15.He told defendant his sole purpose in visiting her was to investigate her complaint to Commissioner Hurlburt concerning the April 30, 2020 incident, of which he appeared to be completely unfamiliar. 16. Out of earshot pf the two Redding Police officers and the DOAG representative who had accompanied him, defendant related the facts and circumstances of the Apri! 30, 2020 incident in which Mason had recklessly chased her goats into the toad in a stampede with the aid of an air horn. - 17.DellRocco told defendant then and there that if the facts were as defendant presented them, the Town of Redding and State of Connecticut lacked probable cause for her arrest in such incident. 18. In response to a defendant’s communication to DellaRocco on December 11, 2020, DellaRocco emailed back as follows: “I did say that your version of events onhey April 30, 2020 did not constitute probable cause to charge you with animal cruelty . . .” See emails attached hereto. 18. At no time during the December 10 visit did DellaRocco inform defendant that he intended to testify falsely under oath that defendant's complaint regarding Mason, Carmody and Gibbon was “unfounded,” as he testified in the instant case on March 30, 2021. 19. Indeed, in his activities and statements since December 10, 2020, DellaRocco has established himself to be an individual chronically prone to recklessly communicating falsehoods in this matter for the apparent purpose of maliciously Causing injury to defendant and her goats. 20. Accordingly, DellaRocco’s affirmations under oath to procure a search and seizure warrant in this case are highly suspect. 21. More particularly, Della Rocco stated in the application for search and seizure warrant as follows: A. Paragraph 1: He attributes the “facts and circumstances” deriving in part from “prudent and credible witnesses” but the affidavit does not name nor otherwise identify them; if the undisclosed witnesses are Carmody, Gibbon or Mason, these individuals have recklessly and maliciously communicated falsehoods about defendant and the goats and have committed criminal acts against defendant and the goats, including threatening to have them killed; they are entirely untrustworthy as witnesses to the affidavit in this matter. Moreover, the Redding Police Department and its Chief are hardly credible and trustworthy witnesses in this matter as they are responsible for falsely arresting defendant over the April 30, 2020 incident and disseminating defamatory falsehoods recklessly to the news media. The affidavit does not identify what individuals provided information relied on by DellaRocca; it is therefore inherently untrustworthy. If a source was Lia Alba, she is a donor to Animal Nation, Inc. and has been known to be notoriously unreliable and not credible, prone to disseminating malicious falsehoods in the community. B. Paragraph 3: “The Redding Police Department has at least one hundred and twenty plus (120+) complaints since 2007.” This statement is entitled to no weight in support of a probable cause finding because the status of alleged complaints does not equate to “complaints filed, investigated and prosecuted.” The Police Department did not pursue the vast majority. C, Paragraph 3: “On April 30, 2020, Redding Police Department investigated a motor vehicle accident involving a car vs. goat. The goat sustained injury.” The statement “The goat sustained injury.” is a knowing falsehood recklessly relied upon as a material fact supporting the affidavit. The Redding Police have acknowledged they have no éredible evidence of an injured goat. Della Rocca testified to such effect on March 30, 2021.Se 4 D. Paragraph 3: “The Connecticut Department of Agriculture Animal Control Unit has had at least five complaints since 2017 all making reference to the conditions and the large amount of goats on the property.” This statement is entitled to no weight. That a complaint may have been filed has no probable cause value. For example, an anonymous complaint filed in 2017 led to an investigation that concluded that the goats were in a good state of health and well fed and watered. Moreover, defendant has pursued legal actions and zoning applications to protect her rights to maintain the goats while she had endeavored conscientiously since before 2017 to find good homes for ‘most of them. Prior to DellaRocco’s application for the search and seizure warrant, he, DOAG and the Town of Redding were all well aware that defendant was in the process of moving all but nine of her goats to identified animal sanctuaries when the illegal seizure based on a recklessly false warrant application by DellaRocco occurred. E. Paragraph 4: Defendant took this goat to a licensed veterinarian who treated her and she made a complete recovery virtually overnight, as DOAG was fully aware ; months before DellaRocco applied for the search and seizure warrant. This assertion does not support probable cause, its inclusion in the warrant application is equivalent to a recklessly false assertion since the conditions stated were known to be no longer applicable and therefore irrelevant. F. Paragraph 5: Defendant did not make any of the statements attributed to her in Paragraph’5. Defendant did take the goat to a licensed veterinarian months before DellaRocco submitted the warrant application. The veterinarian Pronounced her healthy and in good condition except for a limping leg for which there was no practicable available treatment other than anti-inflammatory medication, which defendant administered. The application states defendant had had to “change her feed.” That statement is faise and recklessly made. Before and after the veterinarian check-up, defendant fed the goat, per veterinarian recommendation, and as she had already been doing, large helpings of food in the absence of competition from other goats. G. Paragraph 8: Observations on February 3 led to 4-day 24-hour surveillance: defendant was observed feeding 10 goats a small amount of hay, he was unable to see any water containers, the goats were hungry, defendant was slow and sat down having walked in snow deeper than one foot in heavy boots. These “observations” are ‘ meaningless and provide no support for the issuance of a warrant to seize 65 goats from their home. The limited assertions are recklessly presented as they add up to nothing. Obviously, over the course of a day the 10 goats were fed and watered appropriately. The remaining 55 goats are not even mentioned. H. Paragraph 12: The reported “findings” lend no support to probable cause: goats were due for hoof-trimming as they were trimmed on a rotating basis; it is not efficient to remove manure with a snow-and-ice cover of 1- to 2-feet in depth with snowstorms recurring frequently as they did in the winter of 2020-2021: the ground was frozen and this chore is best undertaken when the ground thaws. “Constant” water freezes constantly in cold winter weather; it is difficult to refill a bucket with fresh water when the =yo. 4 bucket is full of ice. The solution is frequent refills of water less than a bucket-full and/or application of hot water to melt ice, although goats love licking ice, too. The reported observations of water by the Redding Police Department and DOAG are not supported by documentation or videotapes and are false and incomplete and thus inadequate to establish probable cause. In addition, water is and was available from multiple sources and most of the water buckets could not be seen from the vantage point of the surveillance window. Similarly, structures and their occupants could not be seen from the surveillance window; two shelters were being actively upgraded and repaired. The roof of the barn shed has not “collapsed” and the goats used multiple locations for Shelter in locations not visible from the surveillance window. Conclusion: The affidavit is replete with false, fanciful and ridiculous, non-sensical assertions recklessly made which do not establish probable cause. At the worst, 10 goats are due for hoof-trimming, which is on schedule to be done. Fifty-five goats seized pursuant to the warrant were not identified to be in need of hoof-trimming or anything else.; regardless, they were on schedule for hoof-trimming. No credible cause is presented whatsoever for the extreme, unnecessary and cruel removal of 55 goats from their home; the sneak removal was a criminal act of animal abuse and Cruelty at the hand of the State of Connecticut which requires immediate investigation. Indeed, 12 goats had been scheduled to be moved to a reputable animal sanctuary the very weekend before the warrant application was filed, as DellaRocco knew; the rest were soon to follow, at no cost to the State of Connecticut and with the defendant's complete endorsement. The affidavit is replete with knowing and reckless falsity. The requisite Fourth Amendment finding of probable cause presupposes that it is a truthful showing. This affidavit reeks with falsity and bad faith from beginning to end. It does not support lawful issuance of the search and seizure warrant in any respect. See, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). No proper purpose has been served by this dastardly act. Defendant has hereinabove made a substantial preliminary showing that false statements knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth were . included and a material omission made — that the goats were scheduled to be re-homed forthwith to a reputable animal sanctuary(ies) and that in the meantime their care and conditions were sufficient to assure their good health and happiness — and the false or omitted information would be necessary to the finding of probable cause. A probable cause hearing need be scheduled without delay after which the entire warrant need be stricken and the goats returned immediately to their owner the defendant for re-homing at Stoney Brook Farm Animal Rescue, Inc., 96 Swimming Hole Road, Harwinton CT, and any other reputable animal rescue sanctuaries of defendant's choosing, and this case dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and all other actions and orders issued as a consequence of evidence obtained in the illegal search and seizure warrant be stricken and suppressed and the warrant voided. THE DEFENDANT Nancy Bufton 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com ORDER The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby ordered: GRANTED/DENIED BY THE COURT ee JUDGE/CLERK CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a Copy of the foregoing was electronically delivered on this date to all counsel of record. LSD —-Keep as New Reply Reply Ali Forward Delete Spam More RE: Redding Goats Mon, Dec 14, 2020 11:01 am DellaRocco, Charles (Charles. DellaRocco@ct.gov)To:you + 1 more Details Good morning Ms. Burton: | have reached out to both subjects of both your complaints by phone and | am awaiting responses from them. To conduct a proper investigation | need to meet and speak with both these individuals. | did say that your version of the events on April 30, 2020 did not constitute probable cause to charge you with animal cruelty but there are two sides to every story. | explained that | know nothing about that case nor any other cases that you are involved in, and it was because of this that the Connecticut Department of Agriculture Animal Control Unit assigned me to investigate your complaints. | am not familiar enough with past arrests/convictions from our department so [ cannot comment on Attorney Briggs’ statement. As for the disposition of your case with the State of Connecticut. | am not the person to discuss this with, that is a conversation you may want to have with the State’s Attorney. If you remember | told you that | will be upfront with you and [ will not play games. | am open and honest and that my objective was to investigate your complaints. During our discussion you mentioned to me that you were interested the thinning of your herd. | had a few questions about the conditions of some of the goats and that both of us need to work together to accomplish what you would like and what | was assigned to do. With that in mind, you told me that you would allow Dr. Lis and myself onto the property to check out your herd and we made a tentative date for December 17, 2020 (weather permitting). Dr. Lis is not available on that day and it appears that a snow storm is forecasted as well. Can you please tell me of another day that might be good? Sincerely,Charles A. DellaRocco State Anima! Control Officer CT Department of Agriculture (860)819-1107 From: nancyburtonct@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:58 PM To: DellaRocco, Charles ; Nancy Burton Subject: Redding Goats EXTERNALEWAIL: This emiail:originated from outside of the organization, Do not click any links or open.any a ienits unless you trust the'sender arid know the content is safe. . oe Hello Mr. DellaRocco: Please update as to the status of your investigation of my complaints. You stated yesterday that my conduct on April 30, 2030, as | detailed it, did not Constitute “animal cruelty" and Mr. Mason's conduct was, at the least, out of line. According to Carole Briggs of your office, Connecticut has never previously attempted to prosecute an animal owner when an unhinged neighbor recklessly and deliberately pursued goats with an air horn leading them to stampede in a panic across a public road. Therefore, as a demonstration of good faith as we attempt to rehome goats to good homes, please confirm that the State of Connecticut has agreed to drop its charges against me. Please let me know on Monday. Very truly yours, Nancy BurtonORDER 419022 DOCKET NO: HHDCV216139702S SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT EX REL, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD JEREMIAH DUNN, CHIEF AT HARTFORD V. SIXTY-FIVE GOATS Et Al 4/28/2021 ORDER ORDER REGARDING: 04/08/2021 134.00 MOTION FOR ORDER The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: OFF Short Calendar Results Automated Mailing (SCRAM) Notice was sent on the underlying motion. 419022° Judge: JANE § SCHOLL This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical (pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section LE. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4. HHDCV216139702S 4/28/2021 Page | of 1EXHIBIT O Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion to Suppress and for Return of Property Seized Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case dated April 26, 2021 in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21- 6139702-S and order of Judge David Sheridan dated April 8, 202.HHD-CV21-6139702-S : SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT : STATE OF CONNECTICUT Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD SIXTY-FIVE GOATS : NANCY BURTON : APRIL 26, 2021 SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED UNDER AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE Defendant Nancy Burton supplements her Motion to Suppress (#134.00) dated April 8, 2021 as follows: 1. The Affidavit and Application for Search and Seizure Warrant dated March 9, 2021 are legally and factually fatally defective for the following reasons: a. The statements are not supported by individually identified witnesses, as Constitutionally required. No witnesses are identified by name nor is information set forth from which their credibility may be judged. The application and affidavit are therefore inherently unreliable and must be disregarded for purposes of providing a factual or legal basis for issuance of the warrant. It does not suffice as a matter of fact or law for the applicants to characterize unidentified witnesses as “credible” without providing a basis for such characterization. b. The affidavit and application state that said documents are “stated” in part from “information received from other officers acting in their official capacity, from official department and police reports and statements made by prudent and credible witnesses.” As not one such “officer” is personally identified nor the basis for a credibility determination presented, such attribution is legally and factually entirely insufficient to support either the affidavit or application. To the contrary, to the extent that the affidavit and application rely for the factual and/or legal sufficiency of the affidavit and application on the credibility of members of the Redding Police Department - again, unnamed or otherwise unidentified ~ the opposite attribution of “no credibility” is the case given the disturbing historical record of Redding Police Department/members’ - albeit not all Redding Police Department members’ — manifesting misconduct, dishonesty and abuse of their power. Examples include failing to rescue an individual from suicide, failing to perform an adequate investigation of the apparent murder of a Black Redding lawyer and implausibly labeling his death under mysterious circumstances a suicide, and failing to take proper action on complaints by defendant ofharassment and acts of cruelty and abuse of her goats by Redding residents Elinore Carmody, Dennis Gibbon, David Philip Mason and others. c. Heightened standards are required where, as here, the application seeks to invade defendant's most Constitutionally precious zone of privacy — her home - where she has a Constitutionally-protected right to be free from frivolous and illegal search and seizure and neither the application nor affidavit sets forth an iota of a factual basis to justify such a repugnant invasion. d. Upon information and belief, pursuant to such factually and legally inadequate affidavit and application to achieve an unlawful purpose, certain objects of great personal value were stolen by one or more participants in the raid, which was carried out under the personal direction and supervision of Charles DellaRocco, an animal control officer not legally authorized to perform such a role. e. Although the affidavit and application attribute information set forth to “other officers acting in their official capacity,” none is individually named nor is his/her position identified; any and all information attributed to such anonymous supposed witnesses must be rejected. f. Likewise, “official department and police reports” are not individually identified nor can they legally form the basis for attributed Credibility set forth; therefore, any and all information attributed to such anonymous supposed witnesses must be tejected. g. Likewise, “prudent and credible witnesses” are not identified nor is any basis for determination of credibility set forth. Therefore, any and all information attributed to such anonymous supposed witnesses must be rejected. h. The application and affidavit are on their face frivolous: their principal reliance on a perceived need for hoof trimming on the part of an unstated number of goats, none of which was individually identified, is frivolous, particularly in light of the fact that plaintiff's application, if granted, would allow for the most serious invasion of defendant's sacred privacy interests — the invasion of her home - without any factual basis other than to harass. i. Therefore, the admissible facts and governing law require exclusion of reliance on statements and documents other than presented by Charles DellaRocco and Tanya Wescovich, who co-signed the affidavit and application for warrant. themselves and documents they may have produced based on personal observation, j. However, as it cannot be discerned what information of that set forth is thereby stricken from the affidavit and application, the entire document must be stricken, the warrant nullified, the fruits of the illegal search and seizure suppressed.’ k. Moreover, any and all statements attributed to Charles DellaRocco in the affidavit and application must be excluded because Mr. DellaRocco is untrustworthy, dishonest, duplicitous and of low moral character. Examples overwhelm and include (1) his forced resignation as coach of the girls’ soccer team in Old Saybrook following disclosures of while-on-duty viewings of online pornography; (2) his statements to the operator of a reputable 501(c)(3) animal sanctuary that — bored hie ners ny © tus statements in the affidavit” tobe able to extn ees nis Paeaity to lie and distort the truth, from dang be le rand of defendant's boots from a far. ‘di misidentified the brand) to claimin, vee gente 8 t ig that he could observe h i faraway locations when the , yenow ee a é goats’ hooves were obscured by snow: his sete wise weeny areerting that defendant refused to meet with then- ‘ ary Jane Lis, DVM (belied by defendant’ i i chains to the contrary), his ignoran: i i DellaRoce eae email r t A ice of goat behavior (Mr. DellaR it Provide evidence that before ming ii if ' ts goate here \ , becoming involved with defendant's goats ever previously made the acquaintance Of a goat)(for example, he ater ped good health rather than the contra it 1 r ry. Mr. DellaRoce: if dishonesty in all his dealings with defendant. ® ewenced bad faith and a ine event that the affidavit and application rely upon Tanya Wescovich her ents, too, suffer from the same factual and legal defects as set forth herein “Upon complaint on oath b is Ip t Y any state’s attorney or assista ‘ by’any two credible Persons . . .” (Emphasis added.) ni state's atorney or . Neither Mr. DellaRocco nor Ms. Wescovich provided evidence that either is a credible complainant: ibility: i demon ; the law does not Presume credibility: it must be . Charles DellaRocco, the first-named signatory of the Affidavit and Application for Search and Seizure Warrant dated M is ¢ izure larch 9, 2021, is not a“ i ” thus is Statutorily disqualified from serving as its applicant, Sroaible Person” and . In the absence of evidence to such effect, Ms. Wescovich cannot be presumed credible within the Meaning of the statute: ‘ ; to the contrary, given her articulat ignorance of goat needs and behavior as testified to by her in this case, trom the . Accordingly, the warrant was issued without mandatory qualifying complainant statements and it is therefore a legat nullity.2. On its face, the Affidavit and Application Search and Seizure Warrant is a “criminal” form to be used in a “criminal” case; its use in the present civil case to seize defendant's goats as evidence in the civil case is contrary to law and therefore the present motion should be granted. Multiple contradictions and inconsistences have recurred in this case regarding the court's consideration of defendant's Motion to Suppress and for Return of Property Seized Under an illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case filed on April 8, 2021. When defendant insisted that the motion be considered prior to further proceedings on April 8, 2021 — given the nature of defendant's fundamental due process rights to be protected from deliberate illegal invasion by the state — the trial court (Cobb, J.) summarily rejected defendant's request as follows: With respect to your [Ms. Burton's] motion to suppress, this is a civil proceeding, it's not a criminal proceeding. Your motion will be taken up in due course, but not tight now. By precluding consideration of the Motion to Suppress — which if granted would necessitate the dismissal of this case — the trial court committed clear error and denied defendant fundamental Constitutional protections. The fact is that this civil case was activated by a judge’s signature on a Connecticut Judicial Department Official form bearing the identification numberJD-CR-61 — “CR” standing for “criminal.” The judge’s signature cleared the way for an unauthorized agent of the state to invade defendant's home without cause and to steal her property, stranding her without a legal remedy which is available under law. Thereby, the trial court evaded defendant's Constitutional challenge and insulated the perpetrators of this unconstitutional abuse from necessary challenge. These egregious errors need be addressed and corrected, to the fullest extent possible, immediately. The state’s objection to this motion (#137) is incorrect and misleading. It falsely creates the impression that the courts have uniformly ruled that a party: may not mount a challenge to an illegal search and seizure except in a criminal proceeding. The state cites no authority to such effect. Defendant is unaware of any judicial authority to such effect. In fact, defendant's challenge, as presented in her Motion to Suppress, is permissible as well as urgent. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that when an unauthorized agent of the state breaks into one's home without having produced a scintilla of a cause for such break-in — as is the case here — that the victim of such outrageous state misconduct is without legal recourse because a form used by thestate to perform its obviously unlawful deed bears the title “JD-CR-61.” Plaintiff would have this court adopt this ruse. The state has been engaged in abominable misconduct because its unauthorized agent pretended to be a super power with super eyesight who could take a measurement from a remote location of a goat hoof buried in the snow and apply this measurement as a ruse to steal 65 goats, none individually identified, from the home where they were well loved, exceptionally well cared for, where they were assured of a safe and secure life and where they contributed pro bono to the public health and welfare by means of a project that samples goat milk for radioactivity that shouldn't be there and which the state refuses to sample. The super-agent conflated a bogus hoof measurement to fuel a malicious campaign of goat hysteria. This behavior would have ended had the super-agent asked one simple three-part question of the owner and caretaker of the goats: (1) when are the goats due for hoof- trimming; (2) when are the goats due for spring muck-out and repairs to their shelters; and (3) when are the goats moving to the safe and secure animal sanctuaries which have offered to adopt them. The state was too afraid of the answers to ask: the answers — “Immediately” to Nos. 1 and 2, “Two months ago” to No. 3 — would have put an end to the state’s abuse and cruelty of the goats and terror tactics. Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion to Suppress and For Return of Property Seized Under an Illegal Search Warrant and for Dismissal of This Case must be granted forthwith. THE DEFENDANT Ae 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.comORDER The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby ordered GRANTED/DENIED. BY THE COURT JUDGE/CLERK CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically to the following immediately upon e-filing: Matthew Levine, Esq. Matthew.Levine@ct.gov Jonathan Harding, Esq. Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov 3ORDER 431199 DOCKET NO: HHDCV216139702S SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT EX REL, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD JEREMIAH DUNN, CHIEF AT HARTFORD Vv. SIXTY-FIVE GOATS Et Al 5/10/2021 ORDER ORDER REGARDING: 04/26/2021 160.00 MOTION FOR ORDER The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: OFF Pending a decision on motions #138 and #139. The motion may be reclaimed after the decisions are rendered. Judicial Notice (IDNO) was sent regarding this order. 431199 Judge: DAVID M SHERIDAN This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical (pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section -E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4. HHDCV216139702S 5/10/2021 Page | of 1