Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ETAL. : AUGUST 26, 2021
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff submits herewith her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Strike
filed on behalf of the “Town of Redding’ defendants‘ dated August 5, 2021. Practice
Book §10-40.
The motion requests that the Court strike Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen from Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint (“120) filed on June 14, 2021.
The Motion to Strike is without merit and should be denied for the reasons as set
forth hereinbelow.
Factual Background
This unprecedented case arises from unprecedented facts.
Defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons motivated
state and municipal agents and authorities to procure a search and seizure warrant
under contrived and false pretenses and without probable cause to (a) invade Plaintiff's
private home and steal valuable personal items from her home while it was unoccupied?
and being readied for sale® and (b) seize plaintiff's healthy, happy and robust goats in
‘ Defendants Town of Redding, Julia Pemberton (Redding First Selectman), Redding
Police Chief Mark O'Donnell, Redding Police Department, Redding Building Department
collectively self-identify as the “Redding Defendants.”
? Plaintiff vacated her home of 36 years early in 2021 because of justified fears for her
personal safety and security.
$ Plaintiff had informed the Redding Zoning Commission in her application for Land
Management Plan on April 30, 2019 that she planned to place her home on the market
for sale once she had succeeded in locating good “forever” homes for her goats. See
attached letter to Redding Zoning Commission. As of March 10, 2021, Plaintiff had
located good “forever homes’ for all her goats and was in the process of transporting
1violation of Plaintiff's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment fundamental rights and
otherwise in clear violation of law and deliberately subject them to cruelty, abuse
neglect, mistreatment and the death of at least six goats under the guise of promoting
animal welfare; and (c) conduct searches of Plaintiff's private home by Town of Redding
administrative personnel without requisite administrative search warrants in clear
violation of the Fourth Amendment according to 50-year-old U.S. Supreme Court
precedents that have withstood the test of time.
Near-identical circumstances existed in 2017-18 when the Connecticut Department
of Agriculture investigated an anonymous complaint about plaintiff's goats and
dismissed the complaint after Mary Jane Lis, DVM, then-state veterinarian, visited the
Property and finding that Plaintiff's goats were healthy and well cared for, with ample
food and water. If anything, the conditions on March 10, 2021 were even better as
Plaintiff had added a large new shelter, reconstructed other shelters and was serving
the goats pure spring water she bottled at the source rather than the well water she had
provided previously which may have contained impurities from road salts deposited by
the Town of Redding Highway Department. The defendants should thereby all be
collaterally estopped from pursuing their 2021 abuses as there was no evidence that the
goats or their conditions had changed for the worse since 2018.
As has recently become known, this unprecedented abuse of Plaintiff, her goats and
the public interest in the safety and well-being of domesticated animals in Connecticut
was plotted and contrived by the defendants (during the peak of the COVID-19
pandemic while the State of Connecticut was under a declared state of emergency
(9147), and Plaintiff was subject to an identified heightened risk of death or injury from
exposure to COVID-19 due to her age) to facilitate Defendant Mason's sale of his
property at 146 Cross Highway in Redding, Connecticut for $1,375 million on or about
July 2021 — a windfall sale that tripled his purchase price in 2010 for $354,000.
Defendant Mason was able to achieve illegally what he could not achieve legally: the
arrest of Plaintiff on April 16, 2021 on bogus charges of animal cruelty, the removal of
her healthy, well-cared-for goats — participants in the pro bono publico First
Amendment-protected Mothers Milk Project (www.MothersMilkProject.org) - from her
Property and the imposition of a condition allowing her release from police custody that
she be prohibited from keeping animals at her property across the street from the
Mason property at 147 Cross Highway. This latter condition was imposed by and
through the offices of the State’s Attorney for the State of Connecticut and the state’s
them to animal sanctuaries and private individuals she had identified as being suitable.
Indeed, she had arranged to transport twelve goats to an animal sanctuary the weekend
prior to the illegal seizure but winter weather conditions — snow and ice — had forced a
delay. The twelve goats instead were seized by the state and are in state confinement:
2Judicial Department through the offices of Hon. Robert A. D'Andrea’ in violation of
Plaintiff's fundamental Constitutional rights without probable cause.
Additionally, Defendant Mason and his co-defendants Carmody and Gibbons were
able to achieve immunity from prosecution for their misconduct toward Plaintiff and
mistreatment of Plaintiff's goats, including acts of animal cruelty when, on April 30,
2020, he deliberately and methodically caused some of plaintiff's goats to stampede in a
panic from his property onto the road — Cross Highway — as he blew on an air horn,
having been instructed in the use of it by his neighbors, Defendants Carmody and
Gibbons, residents of 135 Cross Highway adjacent to Plaintiff's property.
Defendant Mason’s real estate agent boasted publicly in a mass mailing following
the July 2021 sale that the sale of Mason’s property had gone through “smoothly” — ani
obvious reference to how Plaintiff's arrest on bogus charges, the illegal seizure of her
goats, and the state-initiated deprivation of Plaintiff's right to keep an animal or animals,
on her property had cleared the way for the sale by providing official assurances to the
prospective buyer(s) that, regardless of Plaintiff's fundamental Constitutional and other
tights, Plaintiff's goats would not be returning to 147 Cross Highway, an obvious
condition of the sale.5
The Redding Defendants all participated in this illegal and abusive scheme.
They and co-Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons participated in assisting the
State Defendants to procure a search and seizure warrant to search Plaintiff's home
with no reasonable expectation set forth nor remotely contemplated that such a search
would lead to evidence of a crime, a prerequisite for such a warrant. State v.
DeChamplain, 179 Conn. 522, 528-29; State v. Arpin, 188 Conn. 183, 193 (1982). If the
invaders found evidence of a crime inside Plaintiff's home, no evidence of a crime was
ever identified. Rather, the illegal warrant was obtained as a tool of harassment, to
terrorize and humiliate plaintiff and had nothing whatsoever to do with goats or goat
welfare other than to achieve the illegal goal of ridding Plaintiff's property of goats and
other animals forever to facilitate Defendant Mason’s sale of his property at the peak of
the pandemic real estate boom.
4 Judge D’Andrea had previously been designated to preside over the civil case of
Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation, Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S, a breach of contract
action brought to seek enforcement of a contract by which Animal Nation, Inc., agreed
to assist Plaintiff in locating and transferring all but nine of Plaintiff's goats to good
homes which would provide good care, safety and security for the duration of the goats’
natural lives, as well as to provide the goats with free veterinary care and assist Plaintiff
with maintenance of her goat facilities and fencing. Second Amended Complaint If] 26-
28.
5 Pending is Plaintiff's request to engage in limited discovery of the circumstances and
conditions of the said sale.Similarly, the warrant to seize all of Plaintiffs goats and the ensuing execution of the
warrant was a pure abuse of Constitutional dimension.
After four days spent spying on Plaintiff and her goats from behind a pane of glass,®
the State and Town defendants who participated still had no information or cause
justifying the goats’ seizure. Notwithstanding the statements set forth in her Order of
Temporary Care and Custody dated April 9, 2021, the unrebutted evidence established
in an abbreviated, error-beset hearing before Judge Susan Quinn Cobb in Jeremiah
Dunn v. 65 Goats et al, HHD-CV-21-6139702, Plaintiff's goats have always been well
fed and were always provided with copious amounts of water. Their shelters were more
than adequate for their protection and were constantly being strengthened and
upgraded. The goats visited veterinarians as appropriate and whenever directed to do
so by state or town agents, as all Defendants were aware. The goats’ hooves were
regularly trimmed by an experienced goat hoof-trimmer. Their caretaker and owner,
Plaintiff, attended them and cared for them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in all
weather conditions. She successfully attended breech births which would have proved
fatal to the nanny goats without her assistance. She nursed an adult buck through his
rehabilitation following surgery for a broken leg after he was head-butted by his twin
brother in the dead of a snowy winter. Plaintiff's goats all had ample space for
exercising and pasture grazing, as DOAG agent Tanya Wescovich testified They were
securely fenced in, as Defendant Dellarocco testified he observed when he visited the
property in December 2020 and trespassed on the grounds. The goats enjoyed social
relations with one another. The goats were happy and they thrived under Plaintiff's care
and attention in a zone of safety, good care and security.
In fact, Plaintiffs goats were so well cared for that the state and town agents
struggled to contrive reasons for their unprecedented seizure of 65 healthy, well-cared4
for goats without visible health or medical conditions. Thus, one DOAG agent testified
that one goat had to be carried because she could not stand up. If such agent had been
allowed to discuss the goat’s mobility with her caretaker, the Plaintiff. she would have
learned that the goat was perfectly capable of standing but simply refused to cooperate
and stand for these unfriendly intruders who were obviously interfering with their lives
for no good reason. Being unfamiliar with goats, she did not credit them for their keen
intelligence. If the agent had allowed Plaintiff to approach the goat, whom Plaintiff knew
well and who was particularly favored by Plaintiff, she would have observed the goat
° As Plaintiff's property fronts on Cross Highway, a much-travelled road, and no fence or
other obstruction blocks the view of Plaintiff's goats, and the state and municipal agents
frequently trespassed on Plaintiff's property to gaze at the goats, it is unclear why they.
resorted to paramilitary surveillance, with drones and satellite technology, other than to!
fill an unnatural need on the part of Defendant Dellarocco to mount a paramilitary-styla
invasion. The Hartford Courant has reported that he was forced to resign as girls’
soccer coach at Old Saybrook High Schoo! because of publicity surrounding his practice
of viewing depictions of child pornography on the Internet during work hours. Second
Amended Complaint 958.happily trotting away from her on all fours as fast as she could. The state witnesses
were so desperate to settle upon a worthy-seeming excuse for seizing the healthy goats
that they faulted Plaintiff for having a few empty plastic jugs on her property because,
they theorized, the goats might chew on them, although the state witnesses did not
Observe goats chewing on the jugs, nor has Plaintiff. When they belatedly reported to
Plaintiff during a court proceeding that one of her pregnant goats had died in their
custody unattended for 17 hours straight the night before, they admitted the goat had
not displayed any medical issues until after she was seized a month earlier. Although
they faulted Plaintiff for what they referred to as a “manure’ accumulation in some areas
of some of their shelters, because they were forbidden by Defendant Dellarocco from
speaking to Plaintiff during the paramilitary operation about the goats’ medical care,
social histories, medical histories and hoof-trimming schedules or any other subject,
they were unaware that what they mistook for manure was in fact a healthy combination
of pine shavings for bedding, hay and pasture grasses as well as occasional goat
droppings. Douglas Hartline, Town of Redding Health Officer, who visited the property
by appointment on July 28, 2021, examined the material in the adult male shelter and
Pronounced it as having become soil, soon to be “wonderful compost material, very;
valuable.” With some turning and aeration, he said, “I'll consider that pile to be
wonderful, useful gardening material and all set to go.””
Indeed, the conditions at Plaintiff's property as of March 10, 2021 had been
improved in comparison with the conditions found as of June 15, 2018, the date the
then-state veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, inspected Plaintiff's property and all of her
goats and pronounced that Plaintiff's goats were “in good condition and well cared for’
and that Plaintiff was appropriately maintaining and upgrading their shelters. Second
Amended Complaint {| 129-30. During his testimony in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et
al., HHD-CV-21-6139702, Defendant Dellarocco professed unawareness of the prior
investigation by Dr. Lis and its conclusions.
The state should be collaterally estopped from pursuing a duplicative, harassing
investigation of plaintiffs goats.
7 Remarks presented in July 29, 20221 proceedings before the Connecticut Department
of Public Health, Transcript, pages 17-19. Mr. Hartline further stated that he was “very
satisfied” with the care by which Plaintiff had corrected the desecration and vandalism
of the goat burial sites by the Defendants during their March 10, 2021 operation, when)
they left them open to predators and adverse weather conditions after vandalizing them.
Addressing the issue of Plaintiff's carefully planned and maintained grave sites, Judge
Cobb stated in her April 9, 2021 order: “The defendant [Plaintiff herein] allowed the
property to be riddled with numerous dead and decaying goats.” This statement was not
borne out by the evidence presented nor the truth of the matter nor any personal
observation by Judge Cobb but apparently inserted to feed the spirit of sensationalism
the State and Town and citizen defendants fomented in bad faith.
5Indeed, Plaintiff's care of her goats far exceeded the care being provided by the
State of Connecticut confinement. Apparently out of shame, embarrassment and
concerns about financial liability, the State has withheld vast stores of pertinent records
of the care of her goats from Plaintiff and the presiding judge of the Hartford Superior
Court has denied all efforts by Plaintiff to inspect her goats and the conditions of their
confinement despite the disturbing revelations that have surfaced. Nevertheless,
according to available evidence, Plaintiff's goats are poorly fed, have little or no
opportunity for exercising, lack adequate medical care and are left unattended for
continuous stretches of time for 17 hours each day. As stated, while unattended, one of
Plaintiff's goats died in state confinement a month after her seizure. She was pregnant,
with three unborn kids. There is no doubt that she suffered horribly. Plaintiff never left a
pregnant goat approaching labor suffer unattended and die. On countless occasions,
Plaintiff spent wintry nights with her beloved goats while they were in labor and
frequently assisted when needed. A goat nearing labor with three unborn kids is at high
risk of death or injury if left unattended; to knowingly leave such a goat unattended for
17 hours at a time as she is nearing childbirth is an act of deliberate cruelty and neglect.
Similarly, a breech birth is a fatal affliction if a pregnant goat does not receive human
assistance. In State “care,” a one-day old baby goat born weeks after the seizure died
of severe hydration — the only one among Plaintiff's goats to have suffered from
identified dehydration. At seizure, not a single goat was identified as being dehydrated.
Another nanny goat suffered a spontaneous abortion, believed to be related to stress
during her unhappy state confinement.
More recently, the State Defendants ignored recommendations of the Town of East
Lyme, where the goats are confined, to evacuate to a safer inland location during
Hurricane Henri. According to August 19 and 20, 2021 memos by Jeremiah Dunn,
DOAG chief animal control officer, many of Plaintiff's goats were moved from a barn
considered unsafe for the impending hurricane event; initially, only one attendant was
assigned to cover for all the animals in confinement during the hurricane, which was
predicted to be the first hurricane to make landfall in Connecticut in 30 years.
In State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App., 237 (2018), the Appellate Court set the standard
of goat care that justifies and necessitates a seizure by the State of Connecticut: when
a goat has a “body score of one,” as assessed onsite by a veterinarian (in Hear! it was
Dr. Lis, then-state veterinarian, who pronounced Plaintiff's goats as “in good condition
with food and water available”), the goat is deemed to have been mistreated to a degree
constituting animal cruelty. (“The body score is a visual score on a scale of one to five
that assesses the health of an individual goat - a goat that receives a score of one is
very thin and emaciated and a score of five would be assigned to an obese goat.”)
It is essential to know and understand that the State Defendants did not check for
nor assign “body scores’ of Plaintiff's goats prior to seizing them and removing them
from Plaintiffs property. Rather, their modus operandum was to perform an
unannounced (to Plaintiff but well known in advance to the news media and many
others, including Town of Redding residents, who were informed via the Internet of the
planned closing of Cross Highway to traffic during the morning of March 10, 2021) raid
without probable cause. Removing all the goats from Plaintiff's care would make for a
6much splashier news media circus as well as significantly interfere with Plaintiff's known
plans to transfer her goats in the coming days to willing and suitable goat sanctuaries
and private individuals.
Many of the Hearl goats were at death's door when seized; they were not under the
care of a veterinarian (as were Plaintiff's); appeared to be depressed (unlike Plaintiff's
active and contented goats); were dull and lifeless, with head bowed down (unlike
Plaintiff's spirited goats); were fed second-cut hay of lower quality than the first-cut hay
Plaintiff provided to her goats; exhibited signs of cold stress and shivering (unlike
Plaintiff's goats which had thick, lustrous fur which kept them warm); many too weak to
stand (unlike Plaintiff's goats, all active and vibrant); not receiving adequate food or,
water (unlike Plaintiffs goats which were well-fed and well-watered).®
8 In her April,9, 2021 Order, Judge Cobb stated: “The defendant [Plaintiff herein] failed
to provide the goats’ [sic] with adequate food or water.” (Page 3) This is a preposterous
falsehood utterly at odds with the evidence presented and the truth of the matter. First,
there was no evidence that Plaintiff failed to provide the goats with adequate food or
water, only evidence to the contrary. For example, Judge Cobb was familiar with
Plaintiff's exhibit of invoices over the latest three-year period from Benedict's, a farm-
supply market, showing Plaintiffs expenditure of $73,000 for weekly grain and hay
deliveries. Plaintiff testified that she frequently purchased additional feed and hay if
needed. Plaintiff fed the entirety of the purchased feed and hay to her goats. As a result,
they were healthy, active, robust, well-fed, of a healthy weight and presented the very
appearance of good health. The then-state veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVM, attested to
the fact that Plaintiff habitually and without exception fed her goats plentiful quantities of
food and water, as she reported in her June 15, 2018 investigation report, which Judge:
Cobb accepted into evidence as a full exhibit over the State Defendants’ objection but
apparently ignored. Judge Cobb omits from her Order the fact that, while DOAG agent
Tanya Wescovich testified that she did not observe Plaintiff feed water to her goats
during two brief “surveillance” intervals, Ms. Wescovich also testified that officers of the
Defendant Redding Police Department did observe Plaintiff providing her goats with
water. While there is no evidence to the contrary that Plaintiff kept her goats well-fed
with grain, hay and water, Judge Cobb’s Order also does not take into account the fact
that most of Plaintiff's goats (80%) were free to graze the 3.6-acre property in all
seasons. Thereby, they supplemented their already-adequate diet with plentiful nutrient-
rich, organic meadow vegetation, apple trees, cherry trees, lilac bushes, birch trees and
especially maple trees and their favored leaves, most of which highly nutritious
foodstuffs are not available to commercially-raised goats in Connecticut. The adult
males which were enclosed by separate fencing also enjoyed such supplements as,
were harvested and hand-fed to them by Plaintiff. Far from being under-fed, Plaintiff's
goats had access to and enjoyed the most nutritious diet available. With regard to
water, Plaintiff provided her goats with copious amounts of pure spring water hand-
bottled at the source. Their buckets were replenished frequently throughout the day in
all varieties of weather, even snowstorms.The State application for search and seizure warrant in this case was a sham: its
purpose was to contrive bogus reasons to remove Plaintiff's goats by official
governmental dictate for the principal purpose of - it has now been revealed — enabling
Defendant David Philip Mason to quickly sell his property and score a windfall profit at
the cost of wresting Plaintiff's fundamental rights from her. Other than needing some
hoof-trimming, of plaintiff's 65 goats not a single one is identified individually as having a
health or medical issue; none should not be seized by the State of Connecticut and
consigned to be slaughtered or otherwise subjected to cruelty and abuse. For this
reason alone the State lacked cause, let alone probable cause, to seize all or any of
them. Indeed, the only evidence presented by the leader of the raid, Defendant
DellaRocco, regarding 10 kid goats was that they should not have been subject to
seizure since there was nothing wrong with any of them whatsoever. Judge Cobb
ignored this evidence.°The raid was a shocking abuse of arbitrary, unchecked power by
the State and the Town of Redding defendants, subjecting the participants to liability for
their malice, wantonness and intent to injure. Personal liability by the municipal
employees is justified under these facts. Kowalczyk v. New Milford Board of Education,
2005 WL 3662880 (Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, No. CV0440008065S
(2005).
Because the search and seizure application and subsequent execution lacked
probable cause and was submitted by non-credible individuals based on misinformation
provided by non-credible individuals wno had made an undisclosed deal with the State
Defendants to obtain immunity from prosecution by cooperating with the State/Town|
Defendants’ bad-faith plans, it violated Plaintiff's fundamental Fourth Amendment
protections.
Because Town of Redding employees invaded Plaintiff's private home without
requisite municipal warrants, and exigent circumstances were not presented, their
invasion was a clear-cut violation of the Fourth Amendment fundamental right to privacy
in one’s own home.
° Strangely, Judge Cobb's order faults Plaintiff for not using a hose system, although
Plaintiff was denied sufficient time at the abbreviated, technology-challenged hearing to
explain. A hose system is useless in winter, when water freezes inside a hose and
ruptures the hose. The Order makes no attempt to explain how a hose system for
delivering water to the goats is somehow superior to the method employed by Plaintiff]
that is, transporting pure spring water recently collected to the goats by wagon and by
hand, nor how the use or non-use of a hose system has any bearing on animal cruelty.
Judge Cobb's strange observation about a water hose simply underscores (a) her
unfamiliarity with agricultural practices and challenges; and (b) her frequent stretches to
tweak out potential areas by which to criticize and malign Plaintiff's unfailingly devoted,
hard work to provide the best care possible to her goats in the absence of evidence to
the contrary.
oreProceedings in the case of Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al. are in a preliminary
phase; a hearing on a heightened standard of evidence on the State Defendants’
request for a permanent order has yet to take place.
Judge Cobb’s April 9, 2021 Order is not supported by the evidence and reflects
ignorance of goat behavior consistent with and reflective of DOAG witnesses’ ignorance
of goat behavior.'° It is intended to embarrass Plaintiff for improper purposes. The Order
is subject to pending motions for reargument and to vacate and other challenges. It was
issued in violation of due process safeguards and reflects prejudicial favoritism toward
the State parties.'' The standard applied is “reasonable cause,” a standard which will be
replaced by a more stringent standard once a full hearing ensues on a permanent order
as requested by the State. The State continues to treat the goats abominably while
denying Plaintiff the opportunity to visit them and inspect their care and condition. She
and the goats are suffering from extreme distress due to the State’s cruel and illegal
behavior.
Contrary to the Town Defendants’ statement, Judge Cobb did not order Plaintiff to
Telinquish ownership of her goats: the order was to post a bond or relinquish ownership.
Plaintiff has posted a bond. In fact, Plaintiff filed her “Motion to Relinquish Ownership of
Her Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Sanctuaries and Individuals
10 The leader of the raid, Defendant Dellarocco, admitted his lack of experience and
familiarity with goats; nowhere in his testimony did he recite any prior experience with
goats, as he undertook to put them in harm’s way in bad faith with no probable cause.
‘t Examples abound. Plaintiff's request for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to
Defendant Dellarocco was rejected by the Court on the basis of assurances by Mathew
Levine, Assistant Attorney General, that the State Defendants would provide all that
was requested in the subpoena with the exception of privileged materials. Yet under
questioning at the hearing which ensued, Mr. Dellarocco testified he knew nothing about
a subpoena and he could not produce materials sought through the subpoena, to
Plaintiff's grave prejudice. The records sought but withheld under such false pretenses
by Mr. Levine had and have potential to clearly compel a decision in the case in
Plaintiff's favor. While allowing the State Defendants a significant expansion of time to
present their case, Judge Cobb severely restricted Plaintiff in her presentation and did
not allow Plaintiff sufficient time to make her case. As the hearing was ordered for
defendant (Plaintiff herein) to show cause why Defendant’s application should not be
granted, Plaintiff was entitled to go first with her presentation. The State Defendants)
maneuvered to deny her this opportunity, to her great prejudice. Judge Cobb’s Order is
absent citations to judicially-proscribed standards of goat care and without such
standards the Order is arbitrary and capricious. Judge Cobb relied on Mr. Levine’s
report to her that the goats were “OK” in state custody as though he were a qualified
witness, which he was not, where, within the week, Plaintiffs goat died pregnant with
three kid goats while unattended for a 17-hour period at the Niantic facility. By refusing
to consider Plaintiff's Motion to Suppress grounded in her Fourth Amendment
challenge, Judge Cobb fatally undermined Plaintiff's rights and doomed her decision to
be wrongful and without support in the record.. Many other examples abound!
9Identified by Defendant’ on April 16, 2021 (“Entry #142.00), fully four months ago. The
requested relinquishment would promote animal welfare and avoid costs and liabilities
to the State of Connecticut. Although Plaintiff herein has reclaimed the motion, it has not
been calendared for consideration.
Contrary to the impression left by several of the Defendants, Judge Cobb did not
adjudicate the issue of the legality of the search and seizure application and warrant.
The record establishes with clarity that she refused to adjudicate the issue and it has
not to date been adjudicated. Nor does the April 9, 2021 Order substitute for such an
adjudication: the proceedings were deeply flawed and considered on a very loose
“reasonable cause” standard, far less than the standard required for adjudication of a
fundamental Constitutional right as will be required in the second phase of the
proceedings.
The Town Defendants refer to the doctrine of collateral estoppel in their
memorandum but they do not pursue it and it is deemed abandoned.
10Legal Argument
The Town Defendants’ motion to strike contests the legal sufficiency of the
allegations of the complaint (Counts One and Three — Fourteen) to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, Practice Book §10-39(a).
A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and requires no
factual findings by the trial court. Town of Plainville v. Almost Home Animal Rescue &
Shelter, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 55, 63 (2018); Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves,
262 Conn. 480, 498 (2003); Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281
Conn. 277 (2007). A motion to strike admits all facts well-pleaded; it does not admit
legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings. Binkowski
v. Board of Education of City of New Haven, 180 Conn. App. 580, 585 (2018). In
determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant's motion to strike,
all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken
as admitted. Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318 (2006). The Court must
“construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency.”
Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117 (2006). “If any facts
provable under the express and implied allegations in the plaintiffs complaint support a
cause of action . . . the complaint is not vulnerable to a motion to strike.” Bouchard v.
People’s Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 471 (1991). Thus, if facts provable in the complaint
would support a cause oif action, the motion to strike must be denied. Larobina v.
McDonald, 274 Conn. 394, 400 (2005).
First Count — Cruelty to Animals
Defendants argue there is no established right to assert a private cause of action for
animal cruelty in Connecticut.
Plaintiff asserts that the State of Connecticut recognizes “private causes of action”
against a veterinarian under such legal theories as negligence, gross negligence,
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff here is entitled to prevail on her °
claims of animal cruelty but under a different name.
In this matter, the Town Defendants set the stage for and cooperated in flagrant
violation of Plaintiff's fundamental Fourth Amendment rights by participating actively in
an illegal search and seizure application and operation, by invading her private home
without probable cause and with malice — on the part of the health, building and fire
personnel — who lacked a requisite administrative warrant, by failing to protect Plaintiff
from harassment and disorderly conduct by her neighbors and providing them with
immunity from prosecution.
11These unlawful acts of the Town Defendants promoted the commission of acts of
cruelty to Plaintiff's goats which Plaintiff witnessed as a bystander and owner and as a
consequence suffered extreme distress. Where a plaintiff is a witness, as here, to acts!
of cruelty to animals, as when she observed Defendant Gibbons kicking one of her baby
goats away from the shared stone wall dividing his property from plaintiff's (Amended
Complaint at 46b) and when plaintiff observed Defendant Mason deliberately
stampeding plaintiff's goats into the road to cause them death or severe injury.
These acts occurred with the Defendant Gibbons’ and Mason’s understanding that
they would be provided with immunity from prosecution by the Redding Defendants.
The Town Defendants are unable to provide a citation on point to support their
opinion that animal cruelty is a public ill that should be exclusively enforced by the
government and not private individuals.
There are two obvious errors in this thinking: (1) Plaintiff is not seeking to enforce
animal protection but rather seeks the goats’ immediate release from the tortuous
conditions of state custody and damages for the harm done to her goats by defendants’
conduct; and (2) The Town Defendants have established by virtue of their cooperation,
encouragement and collusion with co-Defendants in repeated acts of cruelty to the
goats and their confinement under deplorable conditions which lack appropriate
nutrition, are overcrowded and lack of opportunity for exercising and physical
stimulation — that they are not fit nor qualified nor motivated to protect human-
dependent domesticated animals from human abuses.
The theory behind animal protection statutes is that (especially) domesticated
animals incapable of protecting themselves from abusive humans require special
protections.
For instance, veterinarian malpractice theories allow for recovery of monetary
damages for death or harm to one’s animal in acts which seem cruel: A veterinarian is
liable for cruelty that results in death or suffering by an animal.
Here, plaintiff filed complaints with the Redding Police Department and the
Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture alleging animal cruelty by Defendant
Mason when he chased some of plaintiff's goats toward his front yard into the road with
the use of an air horn to panic the goat, intending to cause them injury or death.
Mason's account of this incident in his Special Motion to Dismiss and supporting
Affidavit is mistaken, as the photographs Plaintiff attached to her opposition papers
establish. He chased the goats into the road and continued walking toward the front of
his property where he joined Defendant Gibbons. From his vantage point, he clearly
observed the goats stampeding into the road.
Neither the Redding Police nor Commissioner of Agriculture bothered to investigate
plaintiff's serious and truthful claims that Defendant Mason engaged in cruelty to
animals when he chased plaintiff's goats in a stampeding frenzy across the road
12obviously intending to cause them death or serious injury. Defendant Dellarocco initially
assured plaintiff the police lacked probable cause to arrest her for the dangerous
stampede brought on by Defendant Mason's crazed behavior. But after making a deal
with Defendant Carmody to use her outbuilding window to spy on plaintiff in exchange
for not investigating her for goat abuse, harassment, disorderly conduct and other
crimes, he made up a lie that the telephone number the Redding Police confirmed was
hers did not belong to her. Amended Complaint {f] 65-69.
The Redding Defendants accepted Defendant Mason’s version of the April 30,
2020 events although it is false and contrived.
This is a case of a compelling need for the Court to step in under the ancient
doctrine of “Ubi jus, ibi remedium’ — that is, “where there is a right there is a remedy,” or
one should be fashioned. Brickley v. Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19,
1998).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized that it possesses the inherent
power to recognize new tort causes of action, whether derived from statutory provisiori
or rooted in the common law. Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23 (1998). For example, the
Supreme Court created a damages action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act for violations of Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. Mead v. Burns, 199
Conn. 651, 663 (1986); it recognized a tort of wrongful discharge in Sheets v. Teddy's
Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 480 (1980).
Connecticut's animal protection statutes contemplate that the state and local law
enforcement will be at the forefront protecting animal welfare when it is demonstrated
herein that it is not up to the task.
Therefore, this Court should recognize the Redding Defendants’ failures by
extending the legislature's assumed protection of animals to those with an unquestioned
commitment to protect animals. Accordingly, there is an implied right of action allowing
damages and injunctions to protect animals from cruelty and abuse.
“Our Supreme Court has noted that there exists a presumption in Connecticut that
private enforcement does not exist unless expressly provided in a statute... . Our
Supreme Court has also recognized that a plaintiff may overcome that presumption but
that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that such an action is created
implicitly in the statute.” Gawlik v. Malloy, No. CV 185043126, 2019 WL 3021829, at'
*3(Conn. Super Ct. May 31, 2019)(quoting Massey v. Town of Branford, 119 Conn. App.
453, 463 (2010).
Here, Plaintiff, a private party, is not seeking to enforce criminal statutes. In fact,
the conduct leading to seizure of the goats was initiated by means of a civil suit
pursuant to a civil statute.
13Third Count — Invasion of Privacy
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome Redding Defendants’ motion to strike
under the standards set forth in 3 Restatement (Second), Torts §652B, p. 378 (1977),
which provides:
“[o]ne who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or
seclusion of another, or his [her] private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the
other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.”
The Redding Defendants impermissibly intruded upon Plaintiff's right to solitude or
seclusion when they committed the following acts:
(1) They surveilled Plaintiff and her property in bad faith without proper cause for four
days for 24 hours per day; although the surveillance was conducted assertedly
pursuant to a signed warrant, the warrant was legally invalid because it was
obtained without probable cause or a valid showing of probable cause by
applicants and informers who were not credible and provided false information
with malice and in bad faith and did so with the intention of publicizing their
videos and other recorded information, all for improper purposes; such intrusion
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person who has an expectation of
privacy on his/her property.
(2) They pursued Plaintiff by a satellite invasion as she went about her daily affairs,
including attending a medical appointment and obtaining water from a natural
spring with the intention of publicizing their videos and other recorded
information, all for improper purposes; such intrusion would be highly offensive
to a reasonable person
(3) They invaded her private home, where she possessed a fundamental
Constitutional right to privacy, and rifled through her personal things in her
absence and without notice after procuring an invalid search warrant without
probable cause in bad faith.
(4) The Town of Redding health, building and fire marshal personnel invaded her
private home, where she possessed a fundamental Constitutional right to
privacy, without a requisite administrative search warrant, in her absence and
without notice and absent exigent circumstances; such intrusion was blatantly
violative of the Fourth Amendment and would be highly offensive and
intolerable to a reasonable person.
(5) The Town of Redding Defendants provided knowingly false information to the
news media in a press release that stated that Plaintiff was arrested because of
an incident in which one of her goats was “severely injured,” when in fact such
information was false and they had no cause to believe it was true. Their intention
was to subject Plaintiff to widespread public humiliation and severe distress.
Such conduct was an intrusion of her privacy constituting false light invasion of
privacy that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
14(6) The Redding Defendants assisted in raiding Plaintiff's property and stealing her
goats and removing them to a facility where conditions are deplorable,
overcrowded and harmful to their health and welfare, under the authority of a
search and seizure warrant obtained through fraud, bad faith and false
statements and bereft of probable cause by sources and warrant applicants who
lack credibility. Such conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person}
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike.
Count Four — Harassment
The Redding Defendants engaged in harassment of Plaintiff by invading her property,
seizing her goats, invading her home and ordering her off her property during the
seizure operation, all pursuant to a search and seizure warrant issued under false
pretenses by non-credible applicants and sources in bad faith, with malice and without
probable cause. Certain municipal employees in the health, building and fire marshal
departments invaded plaintiff's home without requisite administrative warrants in the
absence of exigent circumstances in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and its Connecticut corollary.
The Redding Defendants assert that Connecticut law does not recognize a civil
cause of action for harassment, citing several Superior Court decisions.
If so, the conduct complained of may be pursued under another name, such as
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As with the claim of animal cruelty, the Court is invited to fashion a suitable remedy.
This is a case of a compelling need for the Court to step in under the ancient
doctrine of “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” — that is, “where there is a right there is a remedy,” or
one should be fashioned. Brickley v. Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19,
1998).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized that it possesses the inherent
power to recognize new tort causes of action, whether derived from statutory provision,
or rooted in the common law. Binette v. Sabo, supra. For example, the Supreme Court
created a damages action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for,
violations of Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. Mead v. Burns, supra; it
recognized a tort of wrongful discharge in Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc. supra.
Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike.
asCount Five - Elder Abuse
The Redding Defendants, in cooperation and coordination with the State Defendants
and Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons, subjected Plaintiff to the abuses set
forth in the complaint to exploit her vulnerability as an elderly person and cause her}
egregious injury. An example is exposing her frequently and deliberately to members
of the Redding Police Department during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic
when at least two members of the Redding Police Department tested positive for the
disease and the Redding Police Department headquarters had to be shut down due to
the highly contagious nature of the disease}
Here there can be no doubt that when Defendant Dellarocco perceived Plaintiff's
fatigue and apparent frailty as she rested while doing goat chores in a snow cover 1-2
feet deep, aware of her age, rather than displaying empathy he ramped up his
harassment and cruelty and illegal spying operation alongside complicit members of the
Redding Police Department and targeted Plaintiff for non-existent goat abuse.
Dellarocco wrote of his observation of Plaintiff's apparent fatigue in his application for a
search and seizure warrant, apparently intending to cause the Plaintiff, as an elderly
person, to suffer extreme and greatly fatiguing distress at the unlawful invasion of her
privacy and home and seizure of her goats for no good reason. He was aided and
abetted at every step by the Redding Defendants.
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike.
The Redding Defendants assert that Connecticut law “does not recognize” a civil
cause of action for elder abuse, citing several Superior Court decisions.
The axiom “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” should be applied to fashion a remedy. Brickley v.
Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19, 1998)
See related discussions supra in Cruelty to Animals and Harassment claims.
If so, the conduct complained of may be pursued under another name, such as
intentional infliction of emotional distress, as set forth hereinabove in the arguments"
regarding animal cruelty and harassment claims.
Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike.
Count Six — Illegal Search and Seizure
Plaintiff has set forth in the Second Amended Complaint the two elements identified
as essential by the Town Defendants to maintain a claim brought under 42 U.S.C.
§1983. The conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of
state law (here, the Town Defendants) and their conduct deprived Plaintiff of rights,
16privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
(here, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Town Defendants argue they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity,
which generally requires a resolution of disputed facts, inappropriate on a motion to
strike.
Historically, an officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where
clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
.. This inquiry turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in
light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. Pearson v.
Vallahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009)!
However, the Town Defendants’ search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment,
as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint at Paragraphs 110-116. The rules were
clearly established as of March 10, 2021, the date of the seizure, to prohibit a search
and seizure undertaken without probable cause. Here, the Redding defendants lacked
probable cause to surveil the Plaintiff and her property and their surveillance was clearly
established in the law to be forbidden in such absence of probable cause.
Similarly, their seizure and assistance with seizure of Plaintiff's goats occurred in the
absence of probable cause. Most egregiously, their search of Plaintiff's private home, in
her absence, without notice or consent, subjecting her personal papers and effects to
invasion, was without probable cause according to prevailing concepts of Fourth
Amendment law clearly established on March 10, 2021.
Clearly, the Redding Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and they can
be held personally liable for their wanton, willful and malicious misconduct.
Moreover, the State of Connecticut significantly limited police immunity in civil rights
lawsuits when Governor Lamont signed into law HB 6004 in July 2020 providing that “no
police officer, acting alone or in conspiracy with another shall deprive any person or
class of persons” of their rights enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution’s Declaration
of Rights.
Moreover, the Town of Redding Defendants who are employed by the health and
building departments clearly violated the Fourth Amendment when they invaded
Plaintiff's private home on March 10, 2021 without requisite administrative search
warrants, For more than fifty (50) years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Camara
v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, and See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, both decided on
June 5, 1967, it has been clearly established law that a warrantless invasion of a private
home is an invasion of fundamental Constitutional rights absent extreme circumstances
which do not exist here. Here, agents and employees of the Town of Redding, without a
warrant, without Plaintiff's consent, in her absence and without prior notice to her,
invaded her private home and searched its contents, and photographed its contents for
purposes of distributing photographs of its contents to the public during the March 10,
172021 operation. In addition, during the illegal invasion of her home, one or more of the
participants stole items of personal property belonging to Plaintiff, including items of
great value which were irreplaceable. Plaintiff cannot know for sure whether the search
encompassed her thousands of pages of records and documents subject to the
unwaivable attorney-client privilege which Plaintiff had transferred to her home out of
storage temporarily.
The search and seizure warrant was procured to search Plaintiffs home with no
reasonable expectation set forth nor remotely contemplated that such a search would
lead to evidence of a crime, a prerequisite for such a warrant. State v. DeCha
Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. : OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON : ETAL. : AUGUST 26, 2021 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO TOWN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE Plaintiff submits herewith her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Strike filed on behalf of the “Town of Redding’ defendants‘ dated August 5, 2021. Practice Book §10-40. The motion requests that the Court strike Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“120) filed on June 14, 2021. The Motion to Strike is without merit and should be denied for the reasons as set forth hereinbelow. Factual Background This unprecedented case arises from unprecedented facts. Defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons motivated state and municipal agents and authorities to procure a search and seizure warrant under contrived and false pretenses and without probable cause to (a) invade Plaintiff's private home and steal valuable personal items from her home while it was unoccupied? and being readied for sale® and (b) seize plaintiff's healthy, happy and robust goats in ‘ Defendants Town of Redding, Julia Pemberton (Redding First Selectman), Redding Police Chief Mark O'Donnell, Redding Police Department, Redding Building Department collectively self-identify as the “Redding Defendants.” ? Plaintiff vacated her home of 36 years early in 2021 because of justified fears for her personal safety and security. $ Plaintiff had informed the Redding Zoning Commission in her application for Land Management Plan on April 30, 2019 that she planned to place her home on the market for sale once she had succeeded in locating good “forever” homes for her goats. See attached letter to Redding Zoning Commission. As of March 10, 2021, Plaintiff had located good “forever homes’ for all her goats and was in the process of transporting 1violation of Plaintiff's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment fundamental rights and otherwise in clear violation of law and deliberately subject them to cruelty, abuse neglect, mistreatment and the death of at least six goats under the guise of promoting animal welfare; and (c) conduct searches of Plaintiff's private home by Town of Redding administrative personnel without requisite administrative search warrants in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment according to 50-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedents that have withstood the test of time. Near-identical circumstances existed in 2017-18 when the Connecticut Department of Agriculture investigated an anonymous complaint about plaintiff's goats and dismissed the complaint after Mary Jane Lis, DVM, then-state veterinarian, visited the Property and finding that Plaintiff's goats were healthy and well cared for, with ample food and water. If anything, the conditions on March 10, 2021 were even better as Plaintiff had added a large new shelter, reconstructed other shelters and was serving the goats pure spring water she bottled at the source rather than the well water she had provided previously which may have contained impurities from road salts deposited by the Town of Redding Highway Department. The defendants should thereby all be collaterally estopped from pursuing their 2021 abuses as there was no evidence that the goats or their conditions had changed for the worse since 2018. As has recently become known, this unprecedented abuse of Plaintiff, her goats and the public interest in the safety and well-being of domesticated animals in Connecticut was plotted and contrived by the defendants (during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic while the State of Connecticut was under a declared state of emergency (9147), and Plaintiff was subject to an identified heightened risk of death or injury from exposure to COVID-19 due to her age) to facilitate Defendant Mason's sale of his property at 146 Cross Highway in Redding, Connecticut for $1,375 million on or about July 2021 — a windfall sale that tripled his purchase price in 2010 for $354,000. Defendant Mason was able to achieve illegally what he could not achieve legally: the arrest of Plaintiff on April 16, 2021 on bogus charges of animal cruelty, the removal of her healthy, well-cared-for goats — participants in the pro bono publico First Amendment-protected Mothers Milk Project (www.MothersMilkProject.org) - from her Property and the imposition of a condition allowing her release from police custody that she be prohibited from keeping animals at her property across the street from the Mason property at 147 Cross Highway. This latter condition was imposed by and through the offices of the State’s Attorney for the State of Connecticut and the state’s them to animal sanctuaries and private individuals she had identified as being suitable. Indeed, she had arranged to transport twelve goats to an animal sanctuary the weekend prior to the illegal seizure but winter weather conditions — snow and ice — had forced a delay. The twelve goats instead were seized by the state and are in state confinement: 2Judicial Department through the offices of Hon. Robert A. D'Andrea’ in violation of Plaintiff's fundamental Constitutional rights without probable cause. Additionally, Defendant Mason and his co-defendants Carmody and Gibbons were able to achieve immunity from prosecution for their misconduct toward Plaintiff and mistreatment of Plaintiff's goats, including acts of animal cruelty when, on April 30, 2020, he deliberately and methodically caused some of plaintiff's goats to stampede in a panic from his property onto the road — Cross Highway — as he blew on an air horn, having been instructed in the use of it by his neighbors, Defendants Carmody and Gibbons, residents of 135 Cross Highway adjacent to Plaintiff's property. Defendant Mason’s real estate agent boasted publicly in a mass mailing following the July 2021 sale that the sale of Mason’s property had gone through “smoothly” — ani obvious reference to how Plaintiff's arrest on bogus charges, the illegal seizure of her goats, and the state-initiated deprivation of Plaintiff's right to keep an animal or animals, on her property had cleared the way for the sale by providing official assurances to the prospective buyer(s) that, regardless of Plaintiff's fundamental Constitutional and other tights, Plaintiff's goats would not be returning to 147 Cross Highway, an obvious condition of the sale.5 The Redding Defendants all participated in this illegal and abusive scheme. They and co-Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons participated in assisting the State Defendants to procure a search and seizure warrant to search Plaintiff's home with no reasonable expectation set forth nor remotely contemplated that such a search would lead to evidence of a crime, a prerequisite for such a warrant. State v. DeChamplain, 179 Conn. 522, 528-29; State v. Arpin, 188 Conn. 183, 193 (1982). If the invaders found evidence of a crime inside Plaintiff's home, no evidence of a crime was ever identified. Rather, the illegal warrant was obtained as a tool of harassment, to terrorize and humiliate plaintiff and had nothing whatsoever to do with goats or goat welfare other than to achieve the illegal goal of ridding Plaintiff's property of goats and other animals forever to facilitate Defendant Mason’s sale of his property at the peak of the pandemic real estate boom. 4 Judge D’Andrea had previously been designated to preside over the civil case of Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation, Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S, a breach of contract action brought to seek enforcement of a contract by which Animal Nation, Inc., agreed to assist Plaintiff in locating and transferring all but nine of Plaintiff's goats to good homes which would provide good care, safety and security for the duration of the goats’ natural lives, as well as to provide the goats with free veterinary care and assist Plaintiff with maintenance of her goat facilities and fencing. Second Amended Complaint If] 26- 28. 5 Pending is Plaintiff's request to engage in limited discovery of the circumstances and conditions of the said sale.Similarly, the warrant to seize all of Plaintiffs goats and the ensuing execution of the warrant was a pure abuse of Constitutional dimension. After four days spent spying on Plaintiff and her goats from behind a pane of glass,® the State and Town defendants who participated still had no information or cause justifying the goats’ seizure. Notwithstanding the statements set forth in her Order of Temporary Care and Custody dated April 9, 2021, the unrebutted evidence established in an abbreviated, error-beset hearing before Judge Susan Quinn Cobb in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al, HHD-CV-21-6139702, Plaintiff's goats have always been well fed and were always provided with copious amounts of water. Their shelters were more than adequate for their protection and were constantly being strengthened and upgraded. The goats visited veterinarians as appropriate and whenever directed to do so by state or town agents, as all Defendants were aware. The goats’ hooves were regularly trimmed by an experienced goat hoof-trimmer. Their caretaker and owner, Plaintiff, attended them and cared for them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in all weather conditions. She successfully attended breech births which would have proved fatal to the nanny goats without her assistance. She nursed an adult buck through his rehabilitation following surgery for a broken leg after he was head-butted by his twin brother in the dead of a snowy winter. Plaintiff's goats all had ample space for exercising and pasture grazing, as DOAG agent Tanya Wescovich testified They were securely fenced in, as Defendant Dellarocco testified he observed when he visited the property in December 2020 and trespassed on the grounds. The goats enjoyed social relations with one another. The goats were happy and they thrived under Plaintiff's care and attention in a zone of safety, good care and security. In fact, Plaintiffs goats were so well cared for that the state and town agents struggled to contrive reasons for their unprecedented seizure of 65 healthy, well-cared4 for goats without visible health or medical conditions. Thus, one DOAG agent testified that one goat had to be carried because she could not stand up. If such agent had been allowed to discuss the goat’s mobility with her caretaker, the Plaintiff. she would have learned that the goat was perfectly capable of standing but simply refused to cooperate and stand for these unfriendly intruders who were obviously interfering with their lives for no good reason. Being unfamiliar with goats, she did not credit them for their keen intelligence. If the agent had allowed Plaintiff to approach the goat, whom Plaintiff knew well and who was particularly favored by Plaintiff, she would have observed the goat ° As Plaintiff's property fronts on Cross Highway, a much-travelled road, and no fence or other obstruction blocks the view of Plaintiff's goats, and the state and municipal agents frequently trespassed on Plaintiff's property to gaze at the goats, it is unclear why they. resorted to paramilitary surveillance, with drones and satellite technology, other than to! fill an unnatural need on the part of Defendant Dellarocco to mount a paramilitary-styla invasion. The Hartford Courant has reported that he was forced to resign as girls’ soccer coach at Old Saybrook High Schoo! because of publicity surrounding his practice of viewing depictions of child pornography on the Internet during work hours. Second Amended Complaint 958.happily trotting away from her on all fours as fast as she could. The state witnesses were so desperate to settle upon a worthy-seeming excuse for seizing the healthy goats that they faulted Plaintiff for having a few empty plastic jugs on her property because, they theorized, the goats might chew on them, although the state witnesses did not Observe goats chewing on the jugs, nor has Plaintiff. When they belatedly reported to Plaintiff during a court proceeding that one of her pregnant goats had died in their custody unattended for 17 hours straight the night before, they admitted the goat had not displayed any medical issues until after she was seized a month earlier. Although they faulted Plaintiff for what they referred to as a “manure’ accumulation in some areas of some of their shelters, because they were forbidden by Defendant Dellarocco from speaking to Plaintiff during the paramilitary operation about the goats’ medical care, social histories, medical histories and hoof-trimming schedules or any other subject, they were unaware that what they mistook for manure was in fact a healthy combination of pine shavings for bedding, hay and pasture grasses as well as occasional goat droppings. Douglas Hartline, Town of Redding Health Officer, who visited the property by appointment on July 28, 2021, examined the material in the adult male shelter and Pronounced it as having become soil, soon to be “wonderful compost material, very; valuable.” With some turning and aeration, he said, “I'll consider that pile to be wonderful, useful gardening material and all set to go.”” Indeed, the conditions at Plaintiff's property as of March 10, 2021 had been improved in comparison with the conditions found as of June 15, 2018, the date the then-state veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, inspected Plaintiff's property and all of her goats and pronounced that Plaintiff's goats were “in good condition and well cared for’ and that Plaintiff was appropriately maintaining and upgrading their shelters. Second Amended Complaint {| 129-30. During his testimony in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702, Defendant Dellarocco professed unawareness of the prior investigation by Dr. Lis and its conclusions. The state should be collaterally estopped from pursuing a duplicative, harassing investigation of plaintiffs goats. 7 Remarks presented in July 29, 20221 proceedings before the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Transcript, pages 17-19. Mr. Hartline further stated that he was “very satisfied” with the care by which Plaintiff had corrected the desecration and vandalism of the goat burial sites by the Defendants during their March 10, 2021 operation, when) they left them open to predators and adverse weather conditions after vandalizing them. Addressing the issue of Plaintiff's carefully planned and maintained grave sites, Judge Cobb stated in her April 9, 2021 order: “The defendant [Plaintiff herein] allowed the property to be riddled with numerous dead and decaying goats.” This statement was not borne out by the evidence presented nor the truth of the matter nor any personal observation by Judge Cobb but apparently inserted to feed the spirit of sensationalism the State and Town and citizen defendants fomented in bad faith. 5Indeed, Plaintiff's care of her goats far exceeded the care being provided by the State of Connecticut confinement. Apparently out of shame, embarrassment and concerns about financial liability, the State has withheld vast stores of pertinent records of the care of her goats from Plaintiff and the presiding judge of the Hartford Superior Court has denied all efforts by Plaintiff to inspect her goats and the conditions of their confinement despite the disturbing revelations that have surfaced. Nevertheless, according to available evidence, Plaintiff's goats are poorly fed, have little or no opportunity for exercising, lack adequate medical care and are left unattended for continuous stretches of time for 17 hours each day. As stated, while unattended, one of Plaintiff's goats died in state confinement a month after her seizure. She was pregnant, with three unborn kids. There is no doubt that she suffered horribly. Plaintiff never left a pregnant goat approaching labor suffer unattended and die. On countless occasions, Plaintiff spent wintry nights with her beloved goats while they were in labor and frequently assisted when needed. A goat nearing labor with three unborn kids is at high risk of death or injury if left unattended; to knowingly leave such a goat unattended for 17 hours at a time as she is nearing childbirth is an act of deliberate cruelty and neglect. Similarly, a breech birth is a fatal affliction if a pregnant goat does not receive human assistance. In State “care,” a one-day old baby goat born weeks after the seizure died of severe hydration — the only one among Plaintiff's goats to have suffered from identified dehydration. At seizure, not a single goat was identified as being dehydrated. Another nanny goat suffered a spontaneous abortion, believed to be related to stress during her unhappy state confinement. More recently, the State Defendants ignored recommendations of the Town of East Lyme, where the goats are confined, to evacuate to a safer inland location during Hurricane Henri. According to August 19 and 20, 2021 memos by Jeremiah Dunn, DOAG chief animal control officer, many of Plaintiff's goats were moved from a barn considered unsafe for the impending hurricane event; initially, only one attendant was assigned to cover for all the animals in confinement during the hurricane, which was predicted to be the first hurricane to make landfall in Connecticut in 30 years. In State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App., 237 (2018), the Appellate Court set the standard of goat care that justifies and necessitates a seizure by the State of Connecticut: when a goat has a “body score of one,” as assessed onsite by a veterinarian (in Hear! it was Dr. Lis, then-state veterinarian, who pronounced Plaintiff's goats as “in good condition with food and water available”), the goat is deemed to have been mistreated to a degree constituting animal cruelty. (“The body score is a visual score on a scale of one to five that assesses the health of an individual goat - a goat that receives a score of one is very thin and emaciated and a score of five would be assigned to an obese goat.”) It is essential to know and understand that the State Defendants did not check for nor assign “body scores’ of Plaintiff's goats prior to seizing them and removing them from Plaintiffs property. Rather, their modus operandum was to perform an unannounced (to Plaintiff but well known in advance to the news media and many others, including Town of Redding residents, who were informed via the Internet of the planned closing of Cross Highway to traffic during the morning of March 10, 2021) raid without probable cause. Removing all the goats from Plaintiff's care would make for a 6much splashier news media circus as well as significantly interfere with Plaintiff's known plans to transfer her goats in the coming days to willing and suitable goat sanctuaries and private individuals. Many of the Hearl goats were at death's door when seized; they were not under the care of a veterinarian (as were Plaintiff's); appeared to be depressed (unlike Plaintiff's active and contented goats); were dull and lifeless, with head bowed down (unlike Plaintiff's spirited goats); were fed second-cut hay of lower quality than the first-cut hay Plaintiff provided to her goats; exhibited signs of cold stress and shivering (unlike Plaintiff's goats which had thick, lustrous fur which kept them warm); many too weak to stand (unlike Plaintiff's goats, all active and vibrant); not receiving adequate food or, water (unlike Plaintiffs goats which were well-fed and well-watered).® 8 In her April,9, 2021 Order, Judge Cobb stated: “The defendant [Plaintiff herein] failed to provide the goats’ [sic] with adequate food or water.” (Page 3) This is a preposterous falsehood utterly at odds with the evidence presented and the truth of the matter. First, there was no evidence that Plaintiff failed to provide the goats with adequate food or water, only evidence to the contrary. For example, Judge Cobb was familiar with Plaintiff's exhibit of invoices over the latest three-year period from Benedict's, a farm- supply market, showing Plaintiffs expenditure of $73,000 for weekly grain and hay deliveries. Plaintiff testified that she frequently purchased additional feed and hay if needed. Plaintiff fed the entirety of the purchased feed and hay to her goats. As a result, they were healthy, active, robust, well-fed, of a healthy weight and presented the very appearance of good health. The then-state veterinarian Mary Jane Lis, DVM, attested to the fact that Plaintiff habitually and without exception fed her goats plentiful quantities of food and water, as she reported in her June 15, 2018 investigation report, which Judge: Cobb accepted into evidence as a full exhibit over the State Defendants’ objection but apparently ignored. Judge Cobb omits from her Order the fact that, while DOAG agent Tanya Wescovich testified that she did not observe Plaintiff feed water to her goats during two brief “surveillance” intervals, Ms. Wescovich also testified that officers of the Defendant Redding Police Department did observe Plaintiff providing her goats with water. While there is no evidence to the contrary that Plaintiff kept her goats well-fed with grain, hay and water, Judge Cobb’s Order also does not take into account the fact that most of Plaintiff's goats (80%) were free to graze the 3.6-acre property in all seasons. Thereby, they supplemented their already-adequate diet with plentiful nutrient- rich, organic meadow vegetation, apple trees, cherry trees, lilac bushes, birch trees and especially maple trees and their favored leaves, most of which highly nutritious foodstuffs are not available to commercially-raised goats in Connecticut. The adult males which were enclosed by separate fencing also enjoyed such supplements as, were harvested and hand-fed to them by Plaintiff. Far from being under-fed, Plaintiff's goats had access to and enjoyed the most nutritious diet available. With regard to water, Plaintiff provided her goats with copious amounts of pure spring water hand- bottled at the source. Their buckets were replenished frequently throughout the day in all varieties of weather, even snowstorms.The State application for search and seizure warrant in this case was a sham: its purpose was to contrive bogus reasons to remove Plaintiff's goats by official governmental dictate for the principal purpose of - it has now been revealed — enabling Defendant David Philip Mason to quickly sell his property and score a windfall profit at the cost of wresting Plaintiff's fundamental rights from her. Other than needing some hoof-trimming, of plaintiff's 65 goats not a single one is identified individually as having a health or medical issue; none should not be seized by the State of Connecticut and consigned to be slaughtered or otherwise subjected to cruelty and abuse. For this reason alone the State lacked cause, let alone probable cause, to seize all or any of them. Indeed, the only evidence presented by the leader of the raid, Defendant DellaRocco, regarding 10 kid goats was that they should not have been subject to seizure since there was nothing wrong with any of them whatsoever. Judge Cobb ignored this evidence.°The raid was a shocking abuse of arbitrary, unchecked power by the State and the Town of Redding defendants, subjecting the participants to liability for their malice, wantonness and intent to injure. Personal liability by the municipal employees is justified under these facts. Kowalczyk v. New Milford Board of Education, 2005 WL 3662880 (Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, No. CV0440008065S (2005). Because the search and seizure application and subsequent execution lacked probable cause and was submitted by non-credible individuals based on misinformation provided by non-credible individuals wno had made an undisclosed deal with the State Defendants to obtain immunity from prosecution by cooperating with the State/Town| Defendants’ bad-faith plans, it violated Plaintiff's fundamental Fourth Amendment protections. Because Town of Redding employees invaded Plaintiff's private home without requisite municipal warrants, and exigent circumstances were not presented, their invasion was a clear-cut violation of the Fourth Amendment fundamental right to privacy in one’s own home. ° Strangely, Judge Cobb's order faults Plaintiff for not using a hose system, although Plaintiff was denied sufficient time at the abbreviated, technology-challenged hearing to explain. A hose system is useless in winter, when water freezes inside a hose and ruptures the hose. The Order makes no attempt to explain how a hose system for delivering water to the goats is somehow superior to the method employed by Plaintiff] that is, transporting pure spring water recently collected to the goats by wagon and by hand, nor how the use or non-use of a hose system has any bearing on animal cruelty. Judge Cobb's strange observation about a water hose simply underscores (a) her unfamiliarity with agricultural practices and challenges; and (b) her frequent stretches to tweak out potential areas by which to criticize and malign Plaintiff's unfailingly devoted, hard work to provide the best care possible to her goats in the absence of evidence to the contrary. oreProceedings in the case of Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al. are in a preliminary phase; a hearing on a heightened standard of evidence on the State Defendants’ request for a permanent order has yet to take place. Judge Cobb’s April 9, 2021 Order is not supported by the evidence and reflects ignorance of goat behavior consistent with and reflective of DOAG witnesses’ ignorance of goat behavior.'° It is intended to embarrass Plaintiff for improper purposes. The Order is subject to pending motions for reargument and to vacate and other challenges. It was issued in violation of due process safeguards and reflects prejudicial favoritism toward the State parties.'' The standard applied is “reasonable cause,” a standard which will be replaced by a more stringent standard once a full hearing ensues on a permanent order as requested by the State. The State continues to treat the goats abominably while denying Plaintiff the opportunity to visit them and inspect their care and condition. She and the goats are suffering from extreme distress due to the State’s cruel and illegal behavior. Contrary to the Town Defendants’ statement, Judge Cobb did not order Plaintiff to Telinquish ownership of her goats: the order was to post a bond or relinquish ownership. Plaintiff has posted a bond. In fact, Plaintiff filed her “Motion to Relinquish Ownership of Her Goats for Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Sanctuaries and Individuals 10 The leader of the raid, Defendant Dellarocco, admitted his lack of experience and familiarity with goats; nowhere in his testimony did he recite any prior experience with goats, as he undertook to put them in harm’s way in bad faith with no probable cause. ‘t Examples abound. Plaintiff's request for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to Defendant Dellarocco was rejected by the Court on the basis of assurances by Mathew Levine, Assistant Attorney General, that the State Defendants would provide all that was requested in the subpoena with the exception of privileged materials. Yet under questioning at the hearing which ensued, Mr. Dellarocco testified he knew nothing about a subpoena and he could not produce materials sought through the subpoena, to Plaintiff's grave prejudice. The records sought but withheld under such false pretenses by Mr. Levine had and have potential to clearly compel a decision in the case in Plaintiff's favor. While allowing the State Defendants a significant expansion of time to present their case, Judge Cobb severely restricted Plaintiff in her presentation and did not allow Plaintiff sufficient time to make her case. As the hearing was ordered for defendant (Plaintiff herein) to show cause why Defendant’s application should not be granted, Plaintiff was entitled to go first with her presentation. The State Defendants) maneuvered to deny her this opportunity, to her great prejudice. Judge Cobb’s Order is absent citations to judicially-proscribed standards of goat care and without such standards the Order is arbitrary and capricious. Judge Cobb relied on Mr. Levine’s report to her that the goats were “OK” in state custody as though he were a qualified witness, which he was not, where, within the week, Plaintiffs goat died pregnant with three kid goats while unattended for a 17-hour period at the Niantic facility. By refusing to consider Plaintiff's Motion to Suppress grounded in her Fourth Amendment challenge, Judge Cobb fatally undermined Plaintiff's rights and doomed her decision to be wrongful and without support in the record.. Many other examples abound! 9Identified by Defendant’ on April 16, 2021 (“Entry #142.00), fully four months ago. The requested relinquishment would promote animal welfare and avoid costs and liabilities to the State of Connecticut. Although Plaintiff herein has reclaimed the motion, it has not been calendared for consideration. Contrary to the impression left by several of the Defendants, Judge Cobb did not adjudicate the issue of the legality of the search and seizure application and warrant. The record establishes with clarity that she refused to adjudicate the issue and it has not to date been adjudicated. Nor does the April 9, 2021 Order substitute for such an adjudication: the proceedings were deeply flawed and considered on a very loose “reasonable cause” standard, far less than the standard required for adjudication of a fundamental Constitutional right as will be required in the second phase of the proceedings. The Town Defendants refer to the doctrine of collateral estoppel in their memorandum but they do not pursue it and it is deemed abandoned. 10Legal Argument The Town Defendants’ motion to strike contests the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint (Counts One and Three — Fourteen) to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Practice Book §10-39(a). A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and requires no factual findings by the trial court. Town of Plainville v. Almost Home Animal Rescue & Shelter, Inc., 182 Conn. App. 55, 63 (2018); Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498 (2003); Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277 (2007). A motion to strike admits all facts well-pleaded; it does not admit legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings. Binkowski v. Board of Education of City of New Haven, 180 Conn. App. 580, 585 (2018). In determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant's motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted. Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318 (2006). The Court must “construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency.” Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117 (2006). “If any facts provable under the express and implied allegations in the plaintiffs complaint support a cause of action . . . the complaint is not vulnerable to a motion to strike.” Bouchard v. People’s Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 471 (1991). Thus, if facts provable in the complaint would support a cause oif action, the motion to strike must be denied. Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394, 400 (2005). First Count — Cruelty to Animals Defendants argue there is no established right to assert a private cause of action for animal cruelty in Connecticut. Plaintiff asserts that the State of Connecticut recognizes “private causes of action” against a veterinarian under such legal theories as negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff here is entitled to prevail on her ° claims of animal cruelty but under a different name. In this matter, the Town Defendants set the stage for and cooperated in flagrant violation of Plaintiff's fundamental Fourth Amendment rights by participating actively in an illegal search and seizure application and operation, by invading her private home without probable cause and with malice — on the part of the health, building and fire personnel — who lacked a requisite administrative warrant, by failing to protect Plaintiff from harassment and disorderly conduct by her neighbors and providing them with immunity from prosecution. 11These unlawful acts of the Town Defendants promoted the commission of acts of cruelty to Plaintiff's goats which Plaintiff witnessed as a bystander and owner and as a consequence suffered extreme distress. Where a plaintiff is a witness, as here, to acts! of cruelty to animals, as when she observed Defendant Gibbons kicking one of her baby goats away from the shared stone wall dividing his property from plaintiff's (Amended Complaint at 46b) and when plaintiff observed Defendant Mason deliberately stampeding plaintiff's goats into the road to cause them death or severe injury. These acts occurred with the Defendant Gibbons’ and Mason’s understanding that they would be provided with immunity from prosecution by the Redding Defendants. The Town Defendants are unable to provide a citation on point to support their opinion that animal cruelty is a public ill that should be exclusively enforced by the government and not private individuals. There are two obvious errors in this thinking: (1) Plaintiff is not seeking to enforce animal protection but rather seeks the goats’ immediate release from the tortuous conditions of state custody and damages for the harm done to her goats by defendants’ conduct; and (2) The Town Defendants have established by virtue of their cooperation, encouragement and collusion with co-Defendants in repeated acts of cruelty to the goats and their confinement under deplorable conditions which lack appropriate nutrition, are overcrowded and lack of opportunity for exercising and physical stimulation — that they are not fit nor qualified nor motivated to protect human- dependent domesticated animals from human abuses. The theory behind animal protection statutes is that (especially) domesticated animals incapable of protecting themselves from abusive humans require special protections. For instance, veterinarian malpractice theories allow for recovery of monetary damages for death or harm to one’s animal in acts which seem cruel: A veterinarian is liable for cruelty that results in death or suffering by an animal. Here, plaintiff filed complaints with the Redding Police Department and the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture alleging animal cruelty by Defendant Mason when he chased some of plaintiff's goats toward his front yard into the road with the use of an air horn to panic the goat, intending to cause them injury or death. Mason's account of this incident in his Special Motion to Dismiss and supporting Affidavit is mistaken, as the photographs Plaintiff attached to her opposition papers establish. He chased the goats into the road and continued walking toward the front of his property where he joined Defendant Gibbons. From his vantage point, he clearly observed the goats stampeding into the road. Neither the Redding Police nor Commissioner of Agriculture bothered to investigate plaintiff's serious and truthful claims that Defendant Mason engaged in cruelty to animals when he chased plaintiff's goats in a stampeding frenzy across the road 12obviously intending to cause them death or serious injury. Defendant Dellarocco initially assured plaintiff the police lacked probable cause to arrest her for the dangerous stampede brought on by Defendant Mason's crazed behavior. But after making a deal with Defendant Carmody to use her outbuilding window to spy on plaintiff in exchange for not investigating her for goat abuse, harassment, disorderly conduct and other crimes, he made up a lie that the telephone number the Redding Police confirmed was hers did not belong to her. Amended Complaint {f] 65-69. The Redding Defendants accepted Defendant Mason’s version of the April 30, 2020 events although it is false and contrived. This is a case of a compelling need for the Court to step in under the ancient doctrine of “Ubi jus, ibi remedium’ — that is, “where there is a right there is a remedy,” or one should be fashioned. Brickley v. Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19, 1998). The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized that it possesses the inherent power to recognize new tort causes of action, whether derived from statutory provisiori or rooted in the common law. Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23 (1998). For example, the Supreme Court created a damages action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for violations of Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651, 663 (1986); it recognized a tort of wrongful discharge in Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 480 (1980). Connecticut's animal protection statutes contemplate that the state and local law enforcement will be at the forefront protecting animal welfare when it is demonstrated herein that it is not up to the task. Therefore, this Court should recognize the Redding Defendants’ failures by extending the legislature's assumed protection of animals to those with an unquestioned commitment to protect animals. Accordingly, there is an implied right of action allowing damages and injunctions to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. “Our Supreme Court has noted that there exists a presumption in Connecticut that private enforcement does not exist unless expressly provided in a statute... . Our Supreme Court has also recognized that a plaintiff may overcome that presumption but that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that such an action is created implicitly in the statute.” Gawlik v. Malloy, No. CV 185043126, 2019 WL 3021829, at' *3(Conn. Super Ct. May 31, 2019)(quoting Massey v. Town of Branford, 119 Conn. App. 453, 463 (2010). Here, Plaintiff, a private party, is not seeking to enforce criminal statutes. In fact, the conduct leading to seizure of the goats was initiated by means of a civil suit pursuant to a civil statute. 13Third Count — Invasion of Privacy Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome Redding Defendants’ motion to strike under the standards set forth in 3 Restatement (Second), Torts §652B, p. 378 (1977), which provides: “[o]ne who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another, or his [her] private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” The Redding Defendants impermissibly intruded upon Plaintiff's right to solitude or seclusion when they committed the following acts: (1) They surveilled Plaintiff and her property in bad faith without proper cause for four days for 24 hours per day; although the surveillance was conducted assertedly pursuant to a signed warrant, the warrant was legally invalid because it was obtained without probable cause or a valid showing of probable cause by applicants and informers who were not credible and provided false information with malice and in bad faith and did so with the intention of publicizing their videos and other recorded information, all for improper purposes; such intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person who has an expectation of privacy on his/her property. (2) They pursued Plaintiff by a satellite invasion as she went about her daily affairs, including attending a medical appointment and obtaining water from a natural spring with the intention of publicizing their videos and other recorded information, all for improper purposes; such intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (3) They invaded her private home, where she possessed a fundamental Constitutional right to privacy, and rifled through her personal things in her absence and without notice after procuring an invalid search warrant without probable cause in bad faith. (4) The Town of Redding health, building and fire marshal personnel invaded her private home, where she possessed a fundamental Constitutional right to privacy, without a requisite administrative search warrant, in her absence and without notice and absent exigent circumstances; such intrusion was blatantly violative of the Fourth Amendment and would be highly offensive and intolerable to a reasonable person. (5) The Town of Redding Defendants provided knowingly false information to the news media in a press release that stated that Plaintiff was arrested because of an incident in which one of her goats was “severely injured,” when in fact such information was false and they had no cause to believe it was true. Their intention was to subject Plaintiff to widespread public humiliation and severe distress. Such conduct was an intrusion of her privacy constituting false light invasion of privacy that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 14(6) The Redding Defendants assisted in raiding Plaintiff's property and stealing her goats and removing them to a facility where conditions are deplorable, overcrowded and harmful to their health and welfare, under the authority of a search and seizure warrant obtained through fraud, bad faith and false statements and bereft of probable cause by sources and warrant applicants who lack credibility. Such conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person} Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike. Count Four — Harassment The Redding Defendants engaged in harassment of Plaintiff by invading her property, seizing her goats, invading her home and ordering her off her property during the seizure operation, all pursuant to a search and seizure warrant issued under false pretenses by non-credible applicants and sources in bad faith, with malice and without probable cause. Certain municipal employees in the health, building and fire marshal departments invaded plaintiff's home without requisite administrative warrants in the absence of exigent circumstances in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its Connecticut corollary. The Redding Defendants assert that Connecticut law does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment, citing several Superior Court decisions. If so, the conduct complained of may be pursued under another name, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. As with the claim of animal cruelty, the Court is invited to fashion a suitable remedy. This is a case of a compelling need for the Court to step in under the ancient doctrine of “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” — that is, “where there is a right there is a remedy,” or one should be fashioned. Brickley v. Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19, 1998). The Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized that it possesses the inherent power to recognize new tort causes of action, whether derived from statutory provision, or rooted in the common law. Binette v. Sabo, supra. For example, the Supreme Court created a damages action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for, violations of Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. Mead v. Burns, supra; it recognized a tort of wrongful discharge in Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc. supra. Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike. asCount Five - Elder Abuse The Redding Defendants, in cooperation and coordination with the State Defendants and Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons, subjected Plaintiff to the abuses set forth in the complaint to exploit her vulnerability as an elderly person and cause her} egregious injury. An example is exposing her frequently and deliberately to members of the Redding Police Department during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when at least two members of the Redding Police Department tested positive for the disease and the Redding Police Department headquarters had to be shut down due to the highly contagious nature of the disease} Here there can be no doubt that when Defendant Dellarocco perceived Plaintiff's fatigue and apparent frailty as she rested while doing goat chores in a snow cover 1-2 feet deep, aware of her age, rather than displaying empathy he ramped up his harassment and cruelty and illegal spying operation alongside complicit members of the Redding Police Department and targeted Plaintiff for non-existent goat abuse. Dellarocco wrote of his observation of Plaintiff's apparent fatigue in his application for a search and seizure warrant, apparently intending to cause the Plaintiff, as an elderly person, to suffer extreme and greatly fatiguing distress at the unlawful invasion of her privacy and home and seizure of her goats for no good reason. He was aided and abetted at every step by the Redding Defendants. Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike. The Redding Defendants assert that Connecticut law “does not recognize” a civil cause of action for elder abuse, citing several Superior Court decisions. The axiom “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” should be applied to fashion a remedy. Brickley v. Waste Management, 1998 WL 85240 (Feb. 19, 1998) See related discussions supra in Cruelty to Animals and Harassment claims. If so, the conduct complained of may be pursued under another name, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, as set forth hereinabove in the arguments" regarding animal cruelty and harassment claims. Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome the motion to strike. Count Six — Illegal Search and Seizure Plaintiff has set forth in the Second Amended Complaint the two elements identified as essential by the Town Defendants to maintain a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law (here, the Town Defendants) and their conduct deprived Plaintiff of rights, 16privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (here, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. The Town Defendants argue they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which generally requires a resolution of disputed facts, inappropriate on a motion to strike. Historically, an officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. .. This inquiry turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. Pearson v. Vallahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009)! However, the Town Defendants’ search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint at Paragraphs 110-116. The rules were clearly established as of March 10, 2021, the date of the seizure, to prohibit a search and seizure undertaken without probable cause. Here, the Redding defendants lacked probable cause to surveil the Plaintiff and her property and their surveillance was clearly established in the law to be forbidden in such absence of probable cause. Similarly, their seizure and assistance with seizure of Plaintiff's goats occurred in the absence of probable cause. Most egregiously, their search of Plaintiff's private home, in her absence, without notice or consent, subjecting her personal papers and effects to invasion, was without probable cause according to prevailing concepts of Fourth Amendment law clearly established on March 10, 2021. Clearly, the Redding Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and they can be held personally liable for their wanton, willful and malicious misconduct. Moreover, the State of Connecticut significantly limited police immunity in civil rights lawsuits when Governor Lamont signed into law HB 6004 in July 2020 providing that “no police officer, acting alone or in conspiracy with another shall deprive any person or class of persons” of their rights enshrined in the Connecticut Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. Moreover, the Town of Redding Defendants who are employed by the health and building departments clearly violated the Fourth Amendment when they invaded Plaintiff's private home on March 10, 2021 without requisite administrative search warrants, For more than fifty (50) years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, and See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, both decided on June 5, 1967, it has been clearly established law that a warrantless invasion of a private home is an invasion of fundamental Constitutional rights absent extreme circumstances which do not exist here. Here, agents and employees of the Town of Redding, without a warrant, without Plaintiff's consent, in her absence and without prior notice to her, invaded her private home and searched its contents, and photographed its contents for purposes of distributing photographs of its contents to the public during the March 10, 172021 operation. In addition, during the illegal invasion of her home, one or more of the participants stole items of personal property belonging to Plaintiff, including items of great value which were irreplaceable. Plaintiff cannot know for sure whether the search encompassed her thousands of pages of records and documents subject to the unwaivable attorney-client privilege which Plaintiff had transferred to her home out of storage temporarily. The search and seizure warrant was procured to search Plaintiffs home with no reasonable expectation set forth nor remotely contemplated that such a search would lead to evidence of a crime, a prerequisite for such a warrant. State v. DeCha