Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ETAL. : OCTOBER 1, 2021
PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SUPERSEDING
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DAVID PHILIP MASON
ELINORE CARMODY AND DENNIS GIBBONS
|, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows:
1. lam above the age of eighteen (18) years and | believe on the obligation of an
oath.
2. | submit this affidavit in support of my Memorandum of Law in Opposition to]
Special Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Susan Winters dated September 1, 2021
and being filed contemporaneously herewith.
3. lam the plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
4. lam the author of the Second Amended Complaint as filed in this case on June
10, 2021.
5. All the facts and statements set forth in the Amended Complaint are based upon
my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they
are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
6. lam the author of this Affidavit, as to which all the facts and statements set forth
are based upon my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and
belief and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
7. lam the author of all pleadings and other documents bearing my signature in this
case, as to which all the facts and statements set forth are based upon my
personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they are
true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; all are incorporated by
reference in this Affidavit.
8. |. am the author of all pleadings and other documents bearing my signature in the
pending case of State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al.
HHD-CV-21-6139702-S (“Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats”), as to which | have asked
this Court to take judicial notice (See Amended Complaint ]86) and as to which
all the facts and statements set forth are based upon my personal knowledge,
investigation, research, observation and belief and they are true to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief; all are incorporated by reference in this
Affidavit.As to: Special Defendant David Mason
The Court limited the discovery allowed to only Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 18.
Answer No. 7
Responding to Interrogatory No. 7, Special Defendant Mason sets forth numerous
dates between April 6, 2020 and April 30 (15) and between May 1 and May 6 (6) and
between June 3 and June 11 (4) and | in July 2020 and 1 in August 2020 on which he
states that some of Plaintiff's goats wandered onto his property. He also noted the date
of August 27, 2020 as a date when he observed one or more of Plaintiff's goats along,
but not on, the road and “outside the ‘fencing’ she had put up.”
With regard to each of these stated incidents involving goats allegedly
entering upon the Mason property, with the sole exception of the April 30, 2020
incident in which he pursued the goats in a frantic stampede with the aid of his
air horn, Mr. Mason never once brought a single one of such alleged incidents to
my attention, never mentioned a single one to me, never discussed a single one
with me, never mailed nor emailed me about a single one and never complained
to me about any of them. | did not observe a single one of these alleged incidents
except the April 30, 2020 incident in which, alerted by the air horn he was blowing, |
rushed in the direction from which the sound was coming and observed Defendant
Mason blowing on his air horn and pursuing numerous goats on his property in a frantic
stampede into the road. | had never previously observed him chasing the goats, | had
not previously observed them on his property, and | was unaware that the goats may
have eaten lower branches of an evergreen tree at the front of the Mason property
because the view to such branches was obscured by the white picket fence on his
property bordering Cross Highway.
However, on several occasions during this period, members of the Redding Police
Department, usually in the company of Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca, entered
my property and stated that the goats had been observed on “your neighbor's property.”
When | asked them to identify which neighbor — this being during the peak period of the
COVID-19 pandemic before vaccinations were available and the Redding Police
Department was closed to the public because, | was told, two police officers had been
identified as suffering with COVID-19 - frequently he or they responded with a question
such as “Don’t you know who your neighbors are?” | answered that | needed to know
which of my four (4) adjoining neighbors they were referring to so that | could make
appropriate repairs to existing fencing as appropriate. When | asked to see photographs
if any were available, my request was denied by the police officers except on one
- occasion. The police officers issued infraction tickets, usually in the amount of $75,
which | paid, with two exceptions, although I had no personal knowledge of whether or
not the goats had been on the Mason property. On the two occasions when | challengedissuance of the infraction tickets, the Redding police had been particularly unhelpful and
obstinate in refusing to provide details of goat activity despite my requests, such as
which neighbor's property had allegedly been violated. Those infraction notices are
pending. | was entirely unaware of all of the alleged incidents recited by Defendant in
his response to Interrogatory Answer No. 7, except for the April 30, 2020 incident and
the alleged incidents for which | was served with an infraction notice, until receiving
Defendant Mason’s Interrogatory responses dated September 17, 2021, with the sole
exception that | was approached on several occasions during the stated period and
handed infraction “tickets,” usually carrying $75 fines, by Michael DeLuca, Redding
Animal Control Officer or other members of the Redding Police Department, and | paid
all such fines except for, | believe, two, when, as | recall, the police officers refused to
disclose to me the name of the owner of the property the goats had allegedly entered
and the location of the apparent opening in the fence through which they had allegedly
passed, information | requested so that | could quickly repair any such breach in the
fencing. On multiple occasions, as | recall, when | asked a Redding police officer who
was issuing such an infraction ticket who the complaining party was, he or they
responded not by identifying the complainant but by asking rhetorically, “Don’t you know
who your neighbors are?” Thereby, they made it difficult for me to identify and locate a
breach in the fencing through which a goat had apparently escaped, so | could fix it. The
fencing is very lengthy.
Between August 23, 2020 and March 10, 2021, the date of the illegal seizure — a
period of 199 days, nearly seven months - no instances of sightings by Defendant
Mason of Plaintiffs goats outside the fencing are reported in his response to
Interrogatory No. 7.
Response to Interrogatory No. 9: Objected to and not answered on grounds of being
“unduly burdensome other than a one-sentence response.
Response to Interrogatory No. 10: “Please provide the facts which lead you to
conclude that the instant suit is based on your alleged exercise of your ‘right to petition
the government’ and/or your ‘right of association.”
In his response to Interrogatory No. 10, Defendant Mason completely fails to provide
a single fact, as requested, leading him to conclude that Plaintiff's suit is “based on” his
alleged exercise of rights to petition the government or right of association.
He does not identify a single sentence in the complaint which makes such a claim,
nor does he provide a single example of a fact supporting a conclusion that the suit is
“based on” his exercise of such petition and association rights.
Nor can he: the complaint does not identify nor take Mr. Mason to task for filing
complaints with the police (none of which he had revealed to Plaintiff) nor his alleged
activities involving “commiserate[ing] and join{ing] with neighbors to encourage the
Town of Redding to enforce the laws” (none of which he had revealed to Plaintiff) nor
participating in an interview by an unidentified “investigator” with the State Departmentof Agriculture (perhaps Mary Jane Lis, DVM, See her June 15, 2018 investigation report
bearing Mr. Mason’s name as a complainant (Exhibit TK, attached hereto), nor
participating in an interview by an unidentified “local journalist’ (possibly Defendant
Susan Winters masquerading as a “journalist’).
Thus, without cause, Defendant Mason falsely accuses Plaintiff of instituting a
lawsuit against him for acts which he had concealed from her and virtually all of which
she was unaware of until after the suit was brought.
Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states:
“2. Although Plaintiff asserts a claim against me for “animal cruelty,” she states
unequivocally in her own words in her own Complaint that “none of plaintiff's goats was
injured during the [April 30, 2020] incident.”
Plaintiff did not personally observe a goat being injured during the incident; from
where she was standing, her view was obscured as goats rushed across the road ina
panic as they were pursued by Defendant Mason. She was ordered by the Redding
Police to search her property for signs of a goat injured in the incident; she complied
with the order and searched her entire property and did not locate any injured goat and
so reported to the police officers. No injured goat materialized. Although Defendant
Mason states he videotap[ed the aftermath of the incident and he identified an “injured
goat” in the video (which has been withheld from Plaintiff), some of the goats did have a
limp from prior altercations with each other which Mr. Mason may have mistaken for
having occurred during the April 30, 2020 incident. The Redding Police and State’s
Attorney, in their responses to Plaintiff's requests for discovery, have not produced any
evidence of a goat having been injured in the incident.
Mr. Mason apparently references Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint,
in which she alleges that “none of plaintiff's goats was injured during the incident.”
However, even assuming the truth of plaintiff's statement, such fact does not absolve
him of plaintiffs claim of animal cruelty; furthermore, the Redding Police arrested
Plaintiff - not Defendant Mason - on a charge of animal cruelty alleged evidenced by 4
goat injured during the incident.
Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states:
“3. In the months before and after the April 30, 2020 incident, Burton never
expressed any concern about my use of an air horn to get her herd of goats off our
respective property . . .”
Prior to Plaintiff's receipt of the Mason Interrogatory Responses, she was unaware
that he had employed an air horn on any occasion other than during the April 30, 2020
incident. Mr. Mason seems to be unaware of the complaint Plaintiff filed with the
Redding Police and the Department of Agriculture seeking an official investigation of his
use of his air horn and his conduct on April 30, 2021. See Exhibit TK. Defendant Animal
Control Officer was assigned to investigate the complaint regarding Mr. Mason!Apparently, he failed to do so, although he informed Plaintiff in person and by email that
he would contact Mr. Mason in the course of his impending investigation. See
Paragraphs 54-69 and Defendant Mason’s Response to Interrogatory No. 18
Plaintiff is personally aware of one incident when some of her goats crossed the road
onto the Mason property not long after April 30, 2020. Plaintiff was issued an infraction
ticket assessing a $75 fee, which she paid. In such incident, she did not observe nor
hear Mr. Mason utilize his air horn nor did she observe that he was aware of the
incident.
Within a short time following the April 30, 2020 incident, Plaintiff relocated one of her
adult male goats to a good “forever” home.
Also immediately following the April 30, 2020 incident Plaintiff obtained estimates,
ranging from $30,000 to $150,000, from two fencing companies for installation of
fencing along the entire perimeter of her property. At the same time, she enlisted
numerous helpers to extend goat-proof fencing where the Town of Redding had ordered
it removed for scenic preservation purposes and to create a goat-proof perimeter
fencing system. Once the installation was complete, the fence was vandalized in four
different locations on four separate occasions, allowing goats to briefly go outside the
fence for a brief time until Plaintiff discovered the deliberate fence breaches and quickly
repaired them. She filed four complaints with the Redding Police. By the third complaint,
a Redding police officer investigated and confirmed the vandalism. After the fourth
complaint, the vandalism stopped.
In paragraph 4, Defendant Mason states in part:
“The Plaintiffs suit is clearly based upon my filing scrupulously documented
complaints with the police regarding her allowing her goats to roam free in the street
and across the street onto my property.”
The striking fallacy of this statement is that, by his own choice, Mr. Mason
deliberately withheld his “[alleged but not produced] scrupulously documented
complaints” from Plaintiff with the result that she was unaware of them, as they were
also withheld by the Redding Police. Necessarily, the Plaintiff did not “base her,
complaint” on such unknown allegations. She based the complaint on the facts set forth
in the complaint, as such were known to her at the time. Accordingly, Defendant Mason
bears an insurmountable challenge to establish that Plaintiff filed a complaint based on
what she did not know because he concealed such information from her.
In paragraph 5, Defendant Mason states that his DOAG interview took place “in 2017
or 2018,” corresponding with the period of time during which Mary Jane Lis, Chief
Veterinarian of the State of Connecticut, thoroughly familiarized herself with Plaintiff, her
property and her goats and dismissed the complaint filed anonymously but whose
names were later revealed to be, inter alia, Mr. Mason and his neighbors, Elinore
Carmody and Dennis Gibbons. See Exhibit TK.Memorandum as Regarding Special Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses
As to: Special Defendants Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons
The Court limited the discovery allowed to only Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 18.
Preliminarily, Plaintiff notes that none of the Special Defendants has asserted a
single fact supporting his or her claim that this case involves a “matter of public
concern” that provides information about any action or step taken by any individual
other than themselves to transform what was a private matter involving neighbors into
the manufactured public spectacle of falsehoods and sensationalism that it now is.
It is noted that Defendant Carmody served as one of Defendant Charles
DellaRocco’s primary “informants” regarding his search and seizure applicant; her
propensity to knowingly and recklessly make false statements legally disqualifies her
from serving as such an informant, as she is not a “credible” informant; moreover, she
was apparently granted immunity from prosecution for her criminal acts of harassment
and other offenses committed against Plaintiff in exchange for inviting and allowing use
of her private property as a “stake-out’ by the Redding Police and state agents. It is,
further noted that she and her husband, Co-Special Defendant Gibbons, are
represented in this matter by the same law firm, Howd & Ludorf, as represents the Town
of Redding Police Department as defendant in other actions, including the case brought
by the Estate of Gugsa Abraham Dabela in which it alleges a cover-up of the apparent
murder in Redding of Mr. Gugsa, a Black lawyer, which the police labeled a suicide after
he was found with a gunshot wound to the back of his head on April 5, 2014.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 7 [“petition government”]
Plaintiff's Response: In common with Defendant Mason, in responding to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories, Defendants Carmody and Gibbons have revealed many alleged
observations, details and documentation which have only been provided to Plaintiff as
of September 17, 2021 — or TK since the case was instituted and filed on April 21, 2021
— a lapse of some five months. The information they have provided in response to the
Interrogatories had previously deliberately withheld by them and Plaintiff was unaware
of most of it as of the time she filed suit. Thus, as with regard to Defendant Mason.
necessarily, the Plaintiff did not “base her complaint’ on such unknown — to her -
allegations. She based the complaint on the facts set forth in the complaint, as such
were known to her at the time. Accordingly, Defendants Carmody and Gibbons bear an
insurmountable challenge to establish that Plaintiff filed a complaint based on what she
did not know because they concealed such information from her, nor that her complaint
should be dismissed as to them pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a because
obviously the complaint was not based on their asserted rights of free speech,
association nor petitioning the government because they withhold what they considered
the pertinent facts from Plaintiff prior to institution of the suit.In the entirety of their responses to Interrogatory No. 7, neither Defendant Carmody
nor Defendant Gibbons states nor suggests that they communicated their concerns
and/or complaints to Plaintiff.
Carmody leaves out/glosses over her “Guest Editorial and attempt to corrupt the
Superior Court
Answer to Interrogatory No. 10 [“petition government” and right of association]
Plaintiff's Response: No true concern for the welfare of the goats: Carmody
threatened to have them killed )(Second Amended Complaint
Right-to-farm state
Carmody never one spoke to me other than “Fuck you!” and “We'll have you arrested!”
and “Killed” But you will pay. With their lives.” Second Amended Complaint, Paragraph
46
Neither particularizes with a single truthful statement — food — dehydration, vet
Gibbons kicked the baby goat
Gibbons told me he would welcome eating them
No encouragement to get them to a sanctuary, no cooperation on fencing
Just piling on the malice and hatred
She does not distinguish between truth and lie
Answer to Interrogatory No. 18
Plaintiff's Response:
Not credible that she doesn't recall a conversation with DellaRocco re my complaint re:
April 30
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Carmody Production of Documents:
Plaintiff lists below statements made by Defendant Carmody in the documents she
provided with her Responses to Interrogatories which are reckless and malicious
falsehoods and which establish her true motivation in this matter: to have the goats
expelled and executed, Plaintiff deprived of her civil and other rights.
1. Email Carmody to Laura Brundage August 25, 2020:“The goats pose a very real health and safety hazard not just to my neighbors and
myself but to the Town of Redding”
“There is no evidence of veterinary care or testing for disease”
“Some of the goats were tested 3 years ago by Animal Nation Rescue and they all
tested positive for C&L disease, an illness that causes absesses on the organs and skin
and can transfer to humans”
Recently a goat was hit on Cross Highway on the way back from my neighbor, Dave
Mason's property totaling the truck’s front bumper.
Yesterday and today there are multiple documented incidents of goats on the road.
1am imploring Judge Pavia to do whatever is necessary on Wednesday to allow a
decision on the long-ago-argued motion for summary judgment to be decided. The
constant intrusion on our well-being and the horrendous living conditions these animals
suffer have become overwhelming. It is a true nightmare. | would sincerely appreciate
whatever you can do to let Judge Pavia know how debilitating Ms. Burton's conduct has
been. If appropriate, | would be more than happy to testify this Wednesday as this
situation is untenable and has deprived me, my husband, our neighbors and ultimately,
the abused animals of the basic right to live peacefully in our community.
| thank you in advance for helping us allow our voices to be heard.
2. Email exchange Jeremiah Dunn to Defendant Elinore Carmody July 27, 2020
and Carmody to Dunn July 27, 2021
3. Complaints to Police: On October 12, 2020 Re: “neighbor” Lia Albo
4. In Complaints to Police Carmody uses Tel. No. 917-796-1894
5. Elinore Carmody — 25 Police Complaints Dates: September 24, 2020 May 6,
2020, June 4 2020, 9/9/20, 7/12/20
Carmody email to Thompson August 10, 2020
Wednesday August 12
Carmody Email to Hurlburt March 12, 2021: “I pray that a swift justice is achieved tpo
prevent Nancy Burton from ever owning another animal for life.
July 31, 2020 Carmody to Hurlburt, Pemberton
“| hope you have seen this by now. (Channel 12) This is just the beginning. Ready for
the NY Post. And PETA. Just getting started. You need to do something. Immediately.
This is not a joke. These goats are screaming and crying as | write this. A disgrace!”OATH
urton
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COU NTY OF FAIRFIELD
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1t day of October, 2021
Clerk/Notary Public a
My commission expires: ¢ 4 ol toCERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum, and attached Affidavit and
Exhibits was electronically delivered on October 1, 2021 to all counsel of record.
A
Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. : OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON : ETAL. : OCTOBER 1, 2021 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SUPERSEDING MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DAVID PHILIP MASON ELINORE CARMODY AND DENNIS GIBBONS |, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows: 1. lam above the age of eighteen (18) years and | believe on the obligation of an oath. 2. | submit this affidavit in support of my Memorandum of Law in Opposition to] Special Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Susan Winters dated September 1, 2021 and being filed contemporaneously herewith. 3. lam the plaintiff in the above-captioned action. 4. lam the author of the Second Amended Complaint as filed in this case on June 10, 2021. 5. All the facts and statements set forth in the Amended Complaint are based upon my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 6. lam the author of this Affidavit, as to which all the facts and statements set forth are based upon my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 7. lam the author of all pleadings and other documents bearing my signature in this case, as to which all the facts and statements set forth are based upon my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; all are incorporated by reference in this Affidavit. 8. |. am the author of all pleadings and other documents bearing my signature in the pending case of State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al. HHD-CV-21-6139702-S (“Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats”), as to which | have asked this Court to take judicial notice (See Amended Complaint ]86) and as to which all the facts and statements set forth are based upon my personal knowledge, investigation, research, observation and belief and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; all are incorporated by reference in this Affidavit.As to: Special Defendant David Mason The Court limited the discovery allowed to only Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 18. Answer No. 7 Responding to Interrogatory No. 7, Special Defendant Mason sets forth numerous dates between April 6, 2020 and April 30 (15) and between May 1 and May 6 (6) and between June 3 and June 11 (4) and | in July 2020 and 1 in August 2020 on which he states that some of Plaintiff's goats wandered onto his property. He also noted the date of August 27, 2020 as a date when he observed one or more of Plaintiff's goats along, but not on, the road and “outside the ‘fencing’ she had put up.” With regard to each of these stated incidents involving goats allegedly entering upon the Mason property, with the sole exception of the April 30, 2020 incident in which he pursued the goats in a frantic stampede with the aid of his air horn, Mr. Mason never once brought a single one of such alleged incidents to my attention, never mentioned a single one to me, never discussed a single one with me, never mailed nor emailed me about a single one and never complained to me about any of them. | did not observe a single one of these alleged incidents except the April 30, 2020 incident in which, alerted by the air horn he was blowing, | rushed in the direction from which the sound was coming and observed Defendant Mason blowing on his air horn and pursuing numerous goats on his property in a frantic stampede into the road. | had never previously observed him chasing the goats, | had not previously observed them on his property, and | was unaware that the goats may have eaten lower branches of an evergreen tree at the front of the Mason property because the view to such branches was obscured by the white picket fence on his property bordering Cross Highway. However, on several occasions during this period, members of the Redding Police Department, usually in the company of Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca, entered my property and stated that the goats had been observed on “your neighbor's property.” When | asked them to identify which neighbor — this being during the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic before vaccinations were available and the Redding Police Department was closed to the public because, | was told, two police officers had been identified as suffering with COVID-19 - frequently he or they responded with a question such as “Don’t you know who your neighbors are?” | answered that | needed to know which of my four (4) adjoining neighbors they were referring to so that | could make appropriate repairs to existing fencing as appropriate. When | asked to see photographs if any were available, my request was denied by the police officers except on one - occasion. The police officers issued infraction tickets, usually in the amount of $75, which | paid, with two exceptions, although I had no personal knowledge of whether or not the goats had been on the Mason property. On the two occasions when | challengedissuance of the infraction tickets, the Redding police had been particularly unhelpful and obstinate in refusing to provide details of goat activity despite my requests, such as which neighbor's property had allegedly been violated. Those infraction notices are pending. | was entirely unaware of all of the alleged incidents recited by Defendant in his response to Interrogatory Answer No. 7, except for the April 30, 2020 incident and the alleged incidents for which | was served with an infraction notice, until receiving Defendant Mason’s Interrogatory responses dated September 17, 2021, with the sole exception that | was approached on several occasions during the stated period and handed infraction “tickets,” usually carrying $75 fines, by Michael DeLuca, Redding Animal Control Officer or other members of the Redding Police Department, and | paid all such fines except for, | believe, two, when, as | recall, the police officers refused to disclose to me the name of the owner of the property the goats had allegedly entered and the location of the apparent opening in the fence through which they had allegedly passed, information | requested so that | could quickly repair any such breach in the fencing. On multiple occasions, as | recall, when | asked a Redding police officer who was issuing such an infraction ticket who the complaining party was, he or they responded not by identifying the complainant but by asking rhetorically, “Don’t you know who your neighbors are?” Thereby, they made it difficult for me to identify and locate a breach in the fencing through which a goat had apparently escaped, so | could fix it. The fencing is very lengthy. Between August 23, 2020 and March 10, 2021, the date of the illegal seizure — a period of 199 days, nearly seven months - no instances of sightings by Defendant Mason of Plaintiffs goats outside the fencing are reported in his response to Interrogatory No. 7. Response to Interrogatory No. 9: Objected to and not answered on grounds of being “unduly burdensome other than a one-sentence response. Response to Interrogatory No. 10: “Please provide the facts which lead you to conclude that the instant suit is based on your alleged exercise of your ‘right to petition the government’ and/or your ‘right of association.” In his response to Interrogatory No. 10, Defendant Mason completely fails to provide a single fact, as requested, leading him to conclude that Plaintiff's suit is “based on” his alleged exercise of rights to petition the government or right of association. He does not identify a single sentence in the complaint which makes such a claim, nor does he provide a single example of a fact supporting a conclusion that the suit is “based on” his exercise of such petition and association rights. Nor can he: the complaint does not identify nor take Mr. Mason to task for filing complaints with the police (none of which he had revealed to Plaintiff) nor his alleged activities involving “commiserate[ing] and join{ing] with neighbors to encourage the Town of Redding to enforce the laws” (none of which he had revealed to Plaintiff) nor participating in an interview by an unidentified “investigator” with the State Departmentof Agriculture (perhaps Mary Jane Lis, DVM, See her June 15, 2018 investigation report bearing Mr. Mason’s name as a complainant (Exhibit TK, attached hereto), nor participating in an interview by an unidentified “local journalist’ (possibly Defendant Susan Winters masquerading as a “journalist’). Thus, without cause, Defendant Mason falsely accuses Plaintiff of instituting a lawsuit against him for acts which he had concealed from her and virtually all of which she was unaware of until after the suit was brought. Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states: “2. Although Plaintiff asserts a claim against me for “animal cruelty,” she states unequivocally in her own words in her own Complaint that “none of plaintiff's goats was injured during the [April 30, 2020] incident.” Plaintiff did not personally observe a goat being injured during the incident; from where she was standing, her view was obscured as goats rushed across the road ina panic as they were pursued by Defendant Mason. She was ordered by the Redding Police to search her property for signs of a goat injured in the incident; she complied with the order and searched her entire property and did not locate any injured goat and so reported to the police officers. No injured goat materialized. Although Defendant Mason states he videotap[ed the aftermath of the incident and he identified an “injured goat” in the video (which has been withheld from Plaintiff), some of the goats did have a limp from prior altercations with each other which Mr. Mason may have mistaken for having occurred during the April 30, 2020 incident. The Redding Police and State’s Attorney, in their responses to Plaintiff's requests for discovery, have not produced any evidence of a goat having been injured in the incident. Mr. Mason apparently references Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint, in which she alleges that “none of plaintiff's goats was injured during the incident.” However, even assuming the truth of plaintiff's statement, such fact does not absolve him of plaintiffs claim of animal cruelty; furthermore, the Redding Police arrested Plaintiff - not Defendant Mason - on a charge of animal cruelty alleged evidenced by 4 goat injured during the incident. Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states: “3. In the months before and after the April 30, 2020 incident, Burton never expressed any concern about my use of an air horn to get her herd of goats off our respective property . . .” Prior to Plaintiff's receipt of the Mason Interrogatory Responses, she was unaware that he had employed an air horn on any occasion other than during the April 30, 2020 incident. Mr. Mason seems to be unaware of the complaint Plaintiff filed with the Redding Police and the Department of Agriculture seeking an official investigation of his use of his air horn and his conduct on April 30, 2021. See Exhibit TK. Defendant Animal Control Officer was assigned to investigate the complaint regarding Mr. Mason!Apparently, he failed to do so, although he informed Plaintiff in person and by email that he would contact Mr. Mason in the course of his impending investigation. See Paragraphs 54-69 and Defendant Mason’s Response to Interrogatory No. 18 Plaintiff is personally aware of one incident when some of her goats crossed the road onto the Mason property not long after April 30, 2020. Plaintiff was issued an infraction ticket assessing a $75 fee, which she paid. In such incident, she did not observe nor hear Mr. Mason utilize his air horn nor did she observe that he was aware of the incident. Within a short time following the April 30, 2020 incident, Plaintiff relocated one of her adult male goats to a good “forever” home. Also immediately following the April 30, 2020 incident Plaintiff obtained estimates, ranging from $30,000 to $150,000, from two fencing companies for installation of fencing along the entire perimeter of her property. At the same time, she enlisted numerous helpers to extend goat-proof fencing where the Town of Redding had ordered it removed for scenic preservation purposes and to create a goat-proof perimeter fencing system. Once the installation was complete, the fence was vandalized in four different locations on four separate occasions, allowing goats to briefly go outside the fence for a brief time until Plaintiff discovered the deliberate fence breaches and quickly repaired them. She filed four complaints with the Redding Police. By the third complaint, a Redding police officer investigated and confirmed the vandalism. After the fourth complaint, the vandalism stopped. In paragraph 4, Defendant Mason states in part: “The Plaintiffs suit is clearly based upon my filing scrupulously documented complaints with the police regarding her allowing her goats to roam free in the street and across the street onto my property.” The striking fallacy of this statement is that, by his own choice, Mr. Mason deliberately withheld his “[alleged but not produced] scrupulously documented complaints” from Plaintiff with the result that she was unaware of them, as they were also withheld by the Redding Police. Necessarily, the Plaintiff did not “base her, complaint” on such unknown allegations. She based the complaint on the facts set forth in the complaint, as such were known to her at the time. Accordingly, Defendant Mason bears an insurmountable challenge to establish that Plaintiff filed a complaint based on what she did not know because he concealed such information from her. In paragraph 5, Defendant Mason states that his DOAG interview took place “in 2017 or 2018,” corresponding with the period of time during which Mary Jane Lis, Chief Veterinarian of the State of Connecticut, thoroughly familiarized herself with Plaintiff, her property and her goats and dismissed the complaint filed anonymously but whose names were later revealed to be, inter alia, Mr. Mason and his neighbors, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons. See Exhibit TK.Memorandum as Regarding Special Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses As to: Special Defendants Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons The Court limited the discovery allowed to only Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 18. Preliminarily, Plaintiff notes that none of the Special Defendants has asserted a single fact supporting his or her claim that this case involves a “matter of public concern” that provides information about any action or step taken by any individual other than themselves to transform what was a private matter involving neighbors into the manufactured public spectacle of falsehoods and sensationalism that it now is. It is noted that Defendant Carmody served as one of Defendant Charles DellaRocco’s primary “informants” regarding his search and seizure applicant; her propensity to knowingly and recklessly make false statements legally disqualifies her from serving as such an informant, as she is not a “credible” informant; moreover, she was apparently granted immunity from prosecution for her criminal acts of harassment and other offenses committed against Plaintiff in exchange for inviting and allowing use of her private property as a “stake-out’ by the Redding Police and state agents. It is, further noted that she and her husband, Co-Special Defendant Gibbons, are represented in this matter by the same law firm, Howd & Ludorf, as represents the Town of Redding Police Department as defendant in other actions, including the case brought by the Estate of Gugsa Abraham Dabela in which it alleges a cover-up of the apparent murder in Redding of Mr. Gugsa, a Black lawyer, which the police labeled a suicide after he was found with a gunshot wound to the back of his head on April 5, 2014. Answer to Interrogatory No. 7 [“petition government”] Plaintiff's Response: In common with Defendant Mason, in responding to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Defendants Carmody and Gibbons have revealed many alleged observations, details and documentation which have only been provided to Plaintiff as of September 17, 2021 — or TK since the case was instituted and filed on April 21, 2021 — a lapse of some five months. The information they have provided in response to the Interrogatories had previously deliberately withheld by them and Plaintiff was unaware of most of it as of the time she filed suit. Thus, as with regard to Defendant Mason. necessarily, the Plaintiff did not “base her complaint’ on such unknown — to her - allegations. She based the complaint on the facts set forth in the complaint, as such were known to her at the time. Accordingly, Defendants Carmody and Gibbons bear an insurmountable challenge to establish that Plaintiff filed a complaint based on what she did not know because they concealed such information from her, nor that her complaint should be dismissed as to them pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a because obviously the complaint was not based on their asserted rights of free speech, association nor petitioning the government because they withhold what they considered the pertinent facts from Plaintiff prior to institution of the suit.In the entirety of their responses to Interrogatory No. 7, neither Defendant Carmody nor Defendant Gibbons states nor suggests that they communicated their concerns and/or complaints to Plaintiff. Carmody leaves out/glosses over her “Guest Editorial and attempt to corrupt the Superior Court Answer to Interrogatory No. 10 [“petition government” and right of association] Plaintiff's Response: No true concern for the welfare of the goats: Carmody threatened to have them killed )(Second Amended Complaint Right-to-farm state Carmody never one spoke to me other than “Fuck you!” and “We'll have you arrested!” and “Killed” But you will pay. With their lives.” Second Amended Complaint, Paragraph 46 Neither particularizes with a single truthful statement — food — dehydration, vet Gibbons kicked the baby goat Gibbons told me he would welcome eating them No encouragement to get them to a sanctuary, no cooperation on fencing Just piling on the malice and hatred She does not distinguish between truth and lie Answer to Interrogatory No. 18 Plaintiff's Response: Not credible that she doesn't recall a conversation with DellaRocco re my complaint re: April 30 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Carmody Production of Documents: Plaintiff lists below statements made by Defendant Carmody in the documents she provided with her Responses to Interrogatories which are reckless and malicious falsehoods and which establish her true motivation in this matter: to have the goats expelled and executed, Plaintiff deprived of her civil and other rights. 1. Email Carmody to Laura Brundage August 25, 2020:“The goats pose a very real health and safety hazard not just to my neighbors and myself but to the Town of Redding” “There is no evidence of veterinary care or testing for disease” “Some of the goats were tested 3 years ago by Animal Nation Rescue and they all tested positive for C&L disease, an illness that causes absesses on the organs and skin and can transfer to humans” Recently a goat was hit on Cross Highway on the way back from my neighbor, Dave Mason's property totaling the truck’s front bumper. Yesterday and today there are multiple documented incidents of goats on the road. 1am imploring Judge Pavia to do whatever is necessary on Wednesday to allow a decision on the long-ago-argued motion for summary judgment to be decided. The constant intrusion on our well-being and the horrendous living conditions these animals suffer have become overwhelming. It is a true nightmare. | would sincerely appreciate whatever you can do to let Judge Pavia know how debilitating Ms. Burton's conduct has been. If appropriate, | would be more than happy to testify this Wednesday as this situation is untenable and has deprived me, my husband, our neighbors and ultimately, the abused animals of the basic right to live peacefully in our community. | thank you in advance for helping us allow our voices to be heard. 2. Email exchange Jeremiah Dunn to Defendant Elinore Carmody July 27, 2020 and Carmody to Dunn July 27, 2021 3. Complaints to Police: On October 12, 2020 Re: “neighbor” Lia Albo 4. In Complaints to Police Carmody uses Tel. No. 917-796-1894 5. Elinore Carmody — 25 Police Complaints Dates: September 24, 2020 May 6, 2020, June 4 2020, 9/9/20, 7/12/20 Carmody email to Thompson August 10, 2020 Wednesday August 12 Carmody Email to Hurlburt March 12, 2021: “I pray that a swift justice is achieved tpo prevent Nancy Burton from ever owning another animal for life. July 31, 2020 Carmody to Hurlburt, Pemberton “| hope you have seen this by now. (Channel 12) This is just the beginning. Ready for the NY Post. And PETA. Just getting started. You need to do something. Immediately. This is not a joke. These goats are screaming and crying as | write this. A disgrace!”OATH urton STATE OF CONNECTICUT COU NTY OF FAIRFIELD Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1t day of October, 2021 Clerk/Notary Public a My commission expires: ¢ 4 ol toCERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum, and attached Affidavit and Exhibits was electronically delivered on October 1, 2021 to all counsel of record. A