Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ETAL. : OCTOBER 7, 2021
PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED SUPERSEDING
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS
DAVID PHILIP MASON, ELINORE CARMODY AND DENNIS GIBBONS
In accordance with the scheduling orders of the Court, Plaintiff submits herewith her
Corrected Superseding Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Special Motions to
Dismiss (Entry #18) filed on behalf of Special Defendants David Mason, Elinore!
Carmody and Dennis Gibbons pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a," following
receipt of their responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production.2
Special Defendant Mason argues that Plaintiff's allegations against him “are based
on” his exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition the government and right of
association under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State
of Connecticut in connection with a matter of public concern” and therefore the action
should be dismissed.
Similarly, Special Defendants Carmody and Gibbons argue that “the complaint
alleges conduct that is protected by their rights of free speech, right of association and
right to petition the government on a matter of public concern.”
Special Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbins further argue that dismissal is
warranted because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate probable cause that she will prevail on
the merits of her Second Amended Complaint.
‘ Plaintiff's Corrected Superseding Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants
David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons Special Motions to Dismiss
incorporates all Plaintiff's prior filings and pleadings in this case and in the case of State
of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702-S; it
supersedes Plaintiff's Memoranda of Law in Opposition to Defendants
Mason/Carmody/Gibbons’ Special Motions to Dismiss dated June 10, 2021.
2 See Defendant Mason “Notice of Compliance (Entry #194.00 filed on September 17,
2021 and Defendants Carmody and Gibbons’ Notice of Compliance (Entry #197.00),
both filed on September 17, 2021.The Special Defendants’ arguments are without merit; their motions must be
dismissed.
The Special Defendants’ motions are transparently frivolous and intended to cause
unnecessary delay and should be denied in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-
196a(f)(2) (“If the court denies a special motion to dismiss under this section, the court
shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the party opposing
such special motion to dismiss.”).
The Special Defendants have failed to set forth a scintilla of evidence, let alone
made an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the complaint is
based on their exercise of their rights, or even that plaintiff was aware that defendants
were acting on their rights as they now assert, in a manner within the scope of the
statute, which provides in part as follows:
§52-196a(b): “In any civil action in which a party files a complaint, counterclaim or
cross claim against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party’s exercise of
its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the
Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a
matter of public concern, such opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the
complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.”
§52-196a(e)(3): “The court shall grant a special motion to dismiss if the moving party
makes an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the opposing party’s
complaint, counterclaim or cross claim is based on the moving party’s exercise of its
right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association, under the
Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a
matter of public concern, unless the party that brought the complaint, counterclaim or
cross claim sets forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint,
counterclaim and demonstrates to the court that there is probable cause, considering all
valid defenses, that the party will prevail on the merits of the complaint, counterclaim or
cross claim.”
Thus, the Special Defendants utterly fail to make any showing whatsoever that the
complaint “is “based on” defendants’ exercise of their right of free speech, right to
petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United
States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern.”
Indeed, the Special Defendants fail to identify a single allegation in the 130-
paragraph complaint? that they assert entitles them to the special protection of the
3 This Memorandum of Law is premised on the assumption that the operative complaint
for the purposes of the Special Motions to Dismiss is the Amended Complaint filed on
June 10, 2021, the date of the Special Motions. Plaintiff notes that no objections were
filed to her proposed Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court's ruling
2statute. Without identifying a single qualifying allegation in the complaint, the
Defendants have failed at making an “initial showing, by a preponderance of the
evidence,” as the statute requires, to avoid denial of the special motion to dismiss.
Special Defendants have offered no satisfactory evidence that the complaint “is based
on” the stated criteria; therefore, the motion must fail and plaintiff suffers no burden “tol
demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses,
that the party will prevail on the merits of the complaint.”* Absent meeting that burden,
the burden does not shift to plaintiff.
Nor did they, in their June 10, 2021 Special Motions to Dismiss, make any credible
showing triggering application of the statute.
The operative phrase is “is based on” and it is key to operation of the statute.
In recognition of the fact that their Special Motions to Dismiss set forth no evidence
that the complaint is “based on” Special Defendants’ exercise of the Constitutional rights
of free speech, association and right to petition the government, Plaintiff filed a request
to engage in limited discovery on such point. Such request was granted in part.>
Subsequently Special Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons filed responses to
Plaintiff's discovery requests as permitted by the Court.
As directed by the Court, Plaintiff submits herewith her corrected, superseding
memorandum in opposition to the Special Motions to Dismiss incorporating her,
responses to the information set forth in the Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories as allowed by the Court.
Nevertheless, without waiving such objection as set forth above, Plaintiff sets forth
with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint by means of this
Memorandum of Law and attached Affidavit and Exhibits Parts and thereby
demonstrates to the Court, considering all valid defenses, that there is probable cause
that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the complaint and therefore the special motions
to dismiss must be denied. It is noted that defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons do
not address plaintiffs counts alleging false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress nor conversion as alleged in the
Amended Complaint, nor do they address plaintiffs counts alleging intentional spoliation
setting a deadline for objections of June 22, 2012, and it should hence be considered
the operative complaint in this matter going forward. Practice Book §10-60.
4 Plaintiff sought to obtain such information by means of her Motion to Engage in
Limited Discovery (#128.00) dated July 2, 2021, followed by her Proposed Special
Requests for Interrogatories and Production (#129.00) dated July 6, 2021, but the
motion was denied subject to possibly being reconsidered at a later date.
5 Without articulation or explanation, the Court disallowed Plaintiffs requests as
concerning asserted rights of free speech and association.
3of evidence, deprivation of equal rights and privileges nor invasion of privacy — intrusion,
as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
Corrected Superseding Memorandum responding to Special Defendants’
responses to Limited Interrogatories
“Matter of Public Concern”
In their Interrogatory responses, the Special Defendants reveal in detail, perhaps
unwittingly, why they cannot establish that Plaintiff's goats qualify as “a matter of public
concern” pursuant to §52-196a as a matter of fact and law. Any “matter of public
concern” had to have pre-existed the Defendants’ involvement and had to have derived
from activities instigated by individuals other than the Defendants. This requirement is
implicit in the statute. For purposes of this unique statute, the “rights” of free speech, to
petition the government and to associate all assume a pre-existing matter of public
concern. Thus, for example, the statute defines a right of free speech as
“communicating, or conduct furthering communication, in a public forum on a matter of
public concern.” (Emphasis added.) The “matter of public concern” need already have,
been identified in the public’s mind and understood to be a “matter of public concern.”
Similarly, the statute defines the right to petition the government as meaning
“communication in connection with an issue under consideration,” that is, already
“under consideration or review’ by a governmental body.
Put another way, defendants asserting a §52-196a motion to dismiss cannot
themselves contrive to invent or create the requisite “matter of public concern” by (a)
assembling knowingly and recklessly false allegations and (b) being unable to assert
truthfully that the “public” referenced in “matter of public concern” consists of anyone
other than the proponent of the “matter of public concern.”
Here, Defendant Carmody assembled a group of people consisting of herself
(principally), her publicist (co-defendant Susan Winters), her husband (co-defendant
Gibbons) and neighbor (co-defendant Mason) who shared her dislike of goats. These
four individuals together do not constitute the “public” within the meaning of §52-196a
as the term “public concern’ is referenced. At best, their concern is a “private” concern.
Second, their allegations about Plaintiff's goats are malicious and knowingly and
recklessly false: The unsupported charges that Plaintiff's goats were underfed,
dehydrated, without veterinary care and residing in neglected shelters were contrived to
be salacious and sensational and feed the imaginations of an audience ignorant of the
ways of goats that relies on social media for information. These charges were all
disproved in the Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al. temporary hearing on March 30, 2021
and April 8, 2021 before Hon. Susan Quinn Cobb, not only by Plaintiff and her witness,
a goat expert, but by the state witnesses themselves.Here, Defendant Carmody is unable to identify that any individual other than herself
and her immediate circle of three individuals shared her dislike of the goats nor that any
community-wide sympathies predated her one-woman campaign to agitate and incite
community angst against the goats. Carmody set out to exploit her own personal dislike
of Plaintiff's goats to try to ignite public hysteria which she hoped would drive state and
local officials to take outrageous, illegal and contemptible actions against the goats’
welfare and drive them from their homes.
Carmody’s failure to expand her network to encompass more than four individuals
was not for lack of effort.
She sought and attained notoriety for the subject by feeding sensationalism to the
news media and passing irresponsible reports along to gullible public officials who had
no actual knowledge or experience with goats and who were swept along by the illusion
Carmody created that hers was a community, publicly-backed “matter of public concern.
These gullible public officials never spoke with Plaintiff about her goats, never asked
to be introduced to them, never asked to visit her property. These gullible public officials
— Bryan Hurlburt, Agriculture Commissioner, State Senator Will Haskell and Redding
First Selectman Julia Pemberton — allowed themselves to be bullied by Carmody into
committing outrageous acts of lawlessness and animal cruelty. In common with Ms.
Carmody, neither Commissioner Hurlburt nor State Senator Haskell nor First Selectman
Pemberton is identified in any of the Carmody communications which she disclosed as
having possessed any knowledge or experience with goats or as having made any
attempt to communicate with Plaintiff about her goats nor visit the goats on her property.
The one individual it would have made sense to contact with concerns about the
goats was Dr. Mary Jane Lis - the state veterinarian who already was very familiar with
Plaintiff's goats — and the complaining neighbors whose unfounded complaints she had
dismissed after several visits to Plaintiff's property to inspect her goats and facilities.
See Exhibit 1.
But Dr. Lis’s name does not appear on any of the emails or social media posts
Defendant Carmody was responsible for.
Carmody’s Interrogatory responses tell the story: She contrived with co-Defendant
Susan Winters to post an article on social media rife with false and defamatory
statements and passages,° asserting that Plaintiff's goats were underfed, dehydrated,
uncared for and led dismal lives. Neither Carmody nor Winters identified anything from
their backgrounds that suggested they might have been qualified to make such
assessments. Nor had either been on Plaintiff's property. Nor had either ever spoken
with Plaintiff about any aspect of the goats or their care. Both were aware that the State
Veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, had visited Plaintiff's property on multiple occasions,
examined all her goats, investigated their care, feeding, watering and sheltering and on
® See Exhibit 39 (“Goats: an ongoing issue . . .”)
5June 15, 2018 dismissed the complaint brought by Carmody and her immediate circle
on June 15, 2018. :
Yet, neither in her motion to dismiss, affidavit supporting her motion to dismiss, nor
her responses to Plaintiffs Limited Interrogatories, has she identified a single member
of the community who shared her dislike of the goats and determination to eradicate
them. This result was not for lack of effort. Carmody’s “Guest Editorial’ which she
posted on social media on September 27, 2020 (Exhibit 6) appeals to the Redding
community to rise up in unison for the following purpose:
Please show your support by commenting on the Real Redding 411 Facebook
page https://www.facebook.com/...1415.../permalink/2851717565148461/. We
will take the comments and incorporate them verbatim in a letter to go to the
offices of the powers who can make a difference.
The Town, the State, and most immediately the Danbury Court system need to
hear our voices. The ruling to uphold enforcement of the Cease & Desist is sitting
under Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massaro who needs to be reminded of the urgency
of the situation.”
As her responses to the Interrogatories reveal, Defendant Carmody set out to
defame Plaintiff, physically harm her goats, mislead governmental officials and the
entire community and impermissibly apply extraordinary improper pressure on judges of
the Superior Court in attempts to serve her self-interest and cruel disregard for Plaintiff's
rights and the health and safety of her goats, as well as to undermine and defeat
Plaintiff's public-interest objectives: Mothers Milk Project, launched for no reason other}
than to protect the public health and safety through the collection and analysis of goat
milk.
Defendant Carmody’s production of emails and other documents, which she selected
as responsive to the Interrogatories, chart the entire shocking path of this out-of-control
individual possessed with a malicious drive to destroy Plaintiff's goats® to accomplish
the result she sought, disregarding the rights of Plaintiff.
As she declared to DOAG Commissioner Hurlburt and State Senator Will Haskell,
neither of whom had heard of Carmody? before she unleashed her outpourings of
venom and vitriol on them:
7 Plaintiff has queried authorities of the Danbury Superior Court as to whether Ms.
Carmody has submitted other materials from herself or others to the Superior Court for
the Judicial District of Danbury (Exhibit 32) but has received no response as of this
writing.
8 See Plaintif’s complaint to the Redding Police, attachment “A” to Exhibit 9.
% The entrée she exploited was a distant-in-time connection with the short-lived
magazine “George.” With a background in merchandise sales, Carmody introduced
herself to the Redding community in her “Guest Editorial” as a former publisher of
6Her pitch — See Exhibit 6 - her social media “Guest Editorial” posted on September
27, 2020 - was that joining her call to eradicate Plaintiff's goats would be seen as
something John F. Kennedy, Jr. — to some, America’s “golden boy” - would approve of.
Carmody gloated of her success with members of the underside of the news media
in an email to DOAG Commissioner Hurlburt. (July 31, 2020 email from Carmody to Mr.
Hurlburt and Ms. Pemberton, Exhibit 31):
“| 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!”
Carmody was the instigator of her single-minded campaign to create “a matter of
public concern, but with no show of public support. She clamored if the goats made.
sounds at mating time, while such sounds are normal for goats and permissible under
Connecticut's “right-to-farm.” The goats did not produce odors, but if they did they were
protected by the same law. Commissioner Hurlburt was not moved by facts or the law:
he was dictated to by an abrasive individual who spoke only for her interests. She
cannot hide behind §52-196a.
Other than Defendant Susan Winters, masquerading as a journalist, none of the
materials produced by either identified a single other member of a “public” supposedly
concerned about Plaintiff's goats. From the springboard of Winters’ inaugural hate
screed, infused with ignorance about the goats — “Goats — An Ongoing Story...”
(Exhibit 39) and its follow-up on August 9, 2020 (Exhibit 35), Carmody tried but failed to
enlist the community to manifest their “concern.”
Yet she and Winters reported that their campaign of one + publicist was having the
real intended result: swaying the judiciary. See Exhibit 35 (“The information [in the
August 9, 2020 posting] caught the attention of the courts and a hearing on some of the
motions has been scheduled for August 12. . . .”)
Although Carmody tried hard to enlist others to join a campaign to petition members,
of the judiciary to rule against Plaintiff and her goats,'° exhibiting contempt for the
George magazine, confident that most people do not know that a magazine publisher's
role is to sell advertising, in George’s case, a lot of liquor advertising. Her job
description did not encompass the editorial side of the magazine, but she kept that part
to herself.
10 See Exhibit 6 reference to Hon. Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, who denied the Town of
Redding motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim on October 2, 2020 in
NancyBurton v. Julia Pemberton, DBD-CV-19-5015276S, which is the subject of
Carmody’s plea in her “Guest Editorial’ posted on September 27, 2020, five days
7authority and dignity of the Court - apparently it was one person and one person only
rabblerousing to the judiciary but trying to give the impression of a community-wide
public uprising against the goats, namely, Elinore Carmody.
The truth is — and always will be — that the goats were nothing like how Carmody
described them.
As of the date the Department of Agriculture/Town of Redding illegally seized
Plaintiffs goats, the goats had long since ceased their ramblings off her property and
remained confined within sturdy goat-proof fencing. Defendant DellaRocco testified to
such effect in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah v. 65 Goats et al.
Each other allegation of the Guest Editorial and the Winters article concerning the
goats, their condition and care, is provably false.
Memorandum as Regarding Special Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses
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 begins by stating that
he sent a letter to First Selectman Julia Pemberton on or about September 15, 2017
expressing his concern that Plaintiffs goats were allowed to “roam freely’ on her
property. This is not completely correct. Long before that date, and subsequent thereto,
Plaintiff had installed and constantly replaced and repaired fencing to confine the goats
to Plaintiff's property. With such qualification, it was correct to say that Plaintiff's goats
were able to enjoy freedom to graze wherever they liked within her 3.6-acre property;
they maintained robust good health through such exercise, freedom of socialize with
their peers and have access to a wide abundance of vegetation — leaves, trees, bushes,
pasture grasses — which served their nutritional and digestive needs. Many people
delighted in the freedom the goats enjoyed and expressed their delight to Plaintiff.
earlier. When Redding Town Counsel Steven Stafstrom unilaterally withdrew the Town's
counterclaim on March 15, 2021. (Exhibit 41)
8On occasion, some goats took to visiting neighbors’ properties. Plaintiff responded
by strengthening and expanding her fencing and engaging an “animal rescue”
organization (“Animal Nation, Inc.) to assist her in strengthening the fencing,
maintaining the shelters, providing veterinary care and other services in exchange for
finding “good forever” homes for many of the goats pursuant to a contract with Plaintiff.
Although Plaintiff loved all her goats — all of which were born on her property — she
was intent on expanding her pro bono publico “Mothers Milk Project” by adopting out
many goats to new owners interested in joining the campaign to sample goat milk for
the presence of radioactivity released continuously by nuclear power plants, a particular
danger to women and young and gestating children.
Early in 2018, Animal Nation breached the contract and stopped assisting Plaintiff in
finding good homes for many of her goats.
Eventually, Plaintiff located an excellent, suitable animal sanctuary located in
Harwinton, Connecticut (SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.) which offered to adopt as many of
Plaintiff's goats as she was trying to re-home, at no cost to the State of Connecticut.
The sanctuary took in several dozen of Plaintiff's goats on the path to reducing the herd
to nine goats, the number permitted as-of-right by local zoning, as Plaintiff applied for a
land management plan to permit the temporary keeping of more goats on her property
until the number diminished to nine. Plaintiff is opposed to the slaughter and
mistreatment of animals as a matter of religious and moral conviction.
Mr. Mason states that, apparently beginning in April 2020, some goats began
wandering across the road and onto his property. This took place — if it did, as Mr.
Mason never once notified Plaintiff of his observations nor complained to Plaintiff nor
has he ever, including up to the present, provided Plaintiff with any photographic or
video documentation supporting his claims — at a period of time coinciding with the
COVID-19 outbreak when there was little to no traffic on the road, in contrast with
previously “normal” conditions, schools and business were closed, and the goats may
have taken the sudden prevailing quietude as a signal that it was OK to cross the road,
while it was not.
Mr. Mason identified various dates in April 2020 — near the onset of the COVID-19
outbreak - and later in the year when he states he observed some of Plaintiff's goats
crossing the road onto his property. Yet Plaintiff - who maintained a home occupation
and rarely left her home except to go on goat errands — never once observed her goats
crossing the road and heading onto Mr. Mason's property, with one exception. Nor does
Mr. Mason state in his filings that he ever notified Plaintiff nor complained to her about
goats crossing the road onto his property. However, Plaintiff was alerted by the,
annoying sound of an air horn on April 30, 2020 to rush to the road, the direction the
sound was coming from, and observe a group of her goats stampeding in a frenzy from
Mr. Mason's property to the road as he was pursuing them while blowing his air horn,indifferent to the obvious dangers. Additional details are set forth in the complaint,
particularly paragraphs 48-69.
In response the Interrogatories, Mr. Mason identifies numerous occasions beginning
in April 2020 when he asserts that goats crossed the road to his property. The last goat
siting he notes occurred on his property on August 23, 2020 and August 27 is the last
date he records when he claims to have observed a goat on the street-side of Plaintiff's
fence although not in the road.
As stated, 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 toward and across the road with the
aid of his air horn, Mr. Mason never once brought a single one of such alleged incidents
to Plaintiffs attention, never mentioned a single one to her, never discussed a single
one with her, never mailed nor emailed her about a single one and never complained to
her about any of them. Plaintiff, as set forth in her Affidavit hereto, did not observe a
single one of these alleged incidents except the April 30, 2020 incident in which, alerted
by the air horn Defendant Mason was blowing, Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff had never previously observed him chasing the goats, she had not previously
observed them on his property, and she 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 and deer were known to frequent the area for browsing and have been
photographed by Plaintiff doing so.
However, on several occasions during this period, members of the Redding Police
Department, usually in the company of Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca, entered
Plaintiff's property and stated that the goats had been observed on “your neighbor's,
property.” When Plaintiff 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 two police officers had
been identified as infected with the coronavirus - frequently he or they responded with a
question such as “Don’t you know who your neighbors are?” Plaintiff invariably
answered that she needed to know which of her four (4) adjoining neighbors they were
referring to so that she could make repairs to existing fencing as appropriate. Wher|
Plaintiff asked to see photographs if any were available, her request was denied by the
police officers except on one occasion. The police officers issued infraction tickets,
usually in the amount of $75, which plaintiff paid, with two exceptions, although she had
no personal knowledge of whether or not the goats had been on the Mason property.
On the two occasions when she challenged issuance of the infraction tickets, the
Redding police had been particularly unhelpful and obstinate in refusing to provide
details of goat activity despite her requests — the police admittedly did not observe the
10goats but relied on the statements of Defendant Mason, such as which neighbor's
property had allegedly been violated. Those infraction notices are pending. Plaintiff 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 she was served with an infraction notice, which were far fewer in
number than the number of occasions when Mr. Mason has asserted the goats came
onto his property, until receiving Defendant Mason’s Interrogatory responses dated
September 17, 2021. Plaintiff 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 she paid all such fines except for two, when, as Plaintiff recalls, the police officers
refused to disclose to her 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 Plaintiff requested so that she could quickly repair any
such breach in the fencing. Some passersby called complaint in to the police when
goats were “near” the road but not “in the road,” i.e., grazing on leaves and grass.
Defendant Carmody implored drivers to make complaints to the police “to help me build
my case.” On multiple occasions, when Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff to identify and locate a breach
in the fencing through which a goat had allegedly escaped, so she could fix it. The
fenced area is quite large and the goats were free to graze anywhere within the fenced
area.
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 fenced area 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.
11ae 4
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 previously revealed to Plaintiff — his
decision) 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 — his decision) nor participating in an interview by an
unidentified “investigator” with the State Department of Agriculture (perhaps Mary Jane
Lis, DVM, See her June 15, 2018 investigation report bearing Mr. Mason’s name as a
complainant (Exhibit 1, 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 institution a
lawsuit against him for acts which he had deliberately concealed from her and virtually
all of which she was unaware of until after the suit was brought and Defendant Mason
responded to these Interrogatories five months later.
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 plaintiffs 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 in a
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 thereafter. Although
Defendant Mason states he videotaped the aftermath of the incident and he identified
an “injured goat” in the video (which video he has 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 resulted from the April 30, 2020 incident. The Redding Police and
State's Attorney, in their responses to Plaintiffs requests for discovery, have not
produced any evidence of a goat having been injured in the incident. See Exhibit 5.
Regarding an “injured goat,” Mr. Mason apparently references Paragraph 50 of the
Second Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleges that “none of Plaintiff's goats was
injured during the incident.” However, even accepting the truth of plaintiff's statement
(see Exhibit B), such fact does not absolve Defendant Mason of Plaintiff's claim of
animal cruelty; furthermore, the Redding Police arrested Plaintiff — not Defendant
Mason - on a charge of animal cruelty allegedly evidenced by a goat injured during the
incident as a direct result of its having panicked while being pursued in a frenzied
stampede instigated by Mr. Mason and his air horn.
Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states:
12“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...”
Plaintiff's Response: Prior to Plaintiffs 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,
2020. See Exhibit 6. Defendant Animal Control Officer Charles DellaRocco 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. In his response to Interrogatory
No. 18, he denied ever speaking with Mr. DellaRocco, the search-and-seizure affiant
who, his credibility on the line, procured warrants to seize Plaintiff's goats, invade her
home, cause her to be arrested on flimsy, made-up charges and is suspected by
Plaintiff as being the individual who rifled through her personal effects during his home
invasion on March 30, 2021 and stole irreplaceable and valuable items.
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 for such incident, 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 nor was an animal injured.
Within a short time following the April 30, 2020 incident, Plaintiff relocated one of her
adult male goats which had been involved in the April 30 incident to a good “forever”
home, believing he may have led the stampede across the road because of his “alpha
goat” tendencies. However, prior to April 2020, Plaintiff had not been aware of an
instance when one of her goats crossed the road. They frequently walked toward the
toad as they were highly attracted to the stand of maple trees on Plaintiff's property|
near the road (maple leaves in the fall being one of their most favored foods), as well as
the stone wall, where poison ivy (another goat favorite) flourished, as well as the stone
wall itself, a playground for the younger goats where they jumped from stone to stone
and kept their hooves well manicured.
While before, the goats had not been known to cross the road, all seemed to
change at the outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic c. early Spring 2020 when the State of
Connecticut was in a declared state of emergency with schools and work sites closed:
traffic virtually stopped on Cross Highway, which in non-COVID times is well-trafficked.
It seems that the goats detected this radical change and perceived it was now safe to
be on the road; or perhaps one alpha goat perceived the road safe for crossing and
began to cross, followed by others. Plaintiff, while being at home at 147 Cross Highway
for virtually the entire day and night, was highly attuned to the goats’ habits 24/7 except
13
Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. : OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON : ETAL. : OCTOBER 7, 2021 PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED SUPERSEDING MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DAVID PHILIP MASON, ELINORE CARMODY AND DENNIS GIBBONS In accordance with the scheduling orders of the Court, Plaintiff submits herewith her Corrected Superseding Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Special Motions to Dismiss (Entry #18) filed on behalf of Special Defendants David Mason, Elinore! Carmody and Dennis Gibbons pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a," following receipt of their responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production.2 Special Defendant Mason argues that Plaintiff's allegations against him “are based on” his exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition the government and right of association under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut in connection with a matter of public concern” and therefore the action should be dismissed. Similarly, Special Defendants Carmody and Gibbons argue that “the complaint alleges conduct that is protected by their rights of free speech, right of association and right to petition the government on a matter of public concern.” Special Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbins further argue that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate probable cause that she will prevail on the merits of her Second Amended Complaint. ‘ Plaintiff's Corrected Superseding Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons Special Motions to Dismiss incorporates all Plaintiff's prior filings and pleadings in this case and in the case of State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702-S; it supersedes Plaintiff's Memoranda of Law in Opposition to Defendants Mason/Carmody/Gibbons’ Special Motions to Dismiss dated June 10, 2021. 2 See Defendant Mason “Notice of Compliance (Entry #194.00 filed on September 17, 2021 and Defendants Carmody and Gibbons’ Notice of Compliance (Entry #197.00), both filed on September 17, 2021.The Special Defendants’ arguments are without merit; their motions must be dismissed. The Special Defendants’ motions are transparently frivolous and intended to cause unnecessary delay and should be denied in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §52- 196a(f)(2) (“If the court denies a special motion to dismiss under this section, the court shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the party opposing such special motion to dismiss.”). The Special Defendants have failed to set forth a scintilla of evidence, let alone made an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the complaint is based on their exercise of their rights, or even that plaintiff was aware that defendants were acting on their rights as they now assert, in a manner within the scope of the statute, which provides in part as follows: §52-196a(b): “In any civil action in which a party files a complaint, counterclaim or cross claim against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party’s exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern, such opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.” §52-196a(e)(3): “The court shall grant a special motion to dismiss if the moving party makes an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the opposing party’s complaint, counterclaim or cross claim is based on the moving party’s exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association, under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern, unless the party that brought the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim sets forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, counterclaim and demonstrates to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses, that the party will prevail on the merits of the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.” Thus, the Special Defendants utterly fail to make any showing whatsoever that the complaint “is “based on” defendants’ exercise of their right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern.” Indeed, the Special Defendants fail to identify a single allegation in the 130- paragraph complaint? that they assert entitles them to the special protection of the 3 This Memorandum of Law is premised on the assumption that the operative complaint for the purposes of the Special Motions to Dismiss is the Amended Complaint filed on June 10, 2021, the date of the Special Motions. Plaintiff notes that no objections were filed to her proposed Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court's ruling 2statute. Without identifying a single qualifying allegation in the complaint, the Defendants have failed at making an “initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence,” as the statute requires, to avoid denial of the special motion to dismiss. Special Defendants have offered no satisfactory evidence that the complaint “is based on” the stated criteria; therefore, the motion must fail and plaintiff suffers no burden “tol demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses, that the party will prevail on the merits of the complaint.”* Absent meeting that burden, the burden does not shift to plaintiff. Nor did they, in their June 10, 2021 Special Motions to Dismiss, make any credible showing triggering application of the statute. The operative phrase is “is based on” and it is key to operation of the statute. In recognition of the fact that their Special Motions to Dismiss set forth no evidence that the complaint is “based on” Special Defendants’ exercise of the Constitutional rights of free speech, association and right to petition the government, Plaintiff filed a request to engage in limited discovery on such point. Such request was granted in part.> Subsequently Special Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons filed responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests as permitted by the Court. As directed by the Court, Plaintiff submits herewith her corrected, superseding memorandum in opposition to the Special Motions to Dismiss incorporating her, responses to the information set forth in the Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories as allowed by the Court. Nevertheless, without waiving such objection as set forth above, Plaintiff sets forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint by means of this Memorandum of Law and attached Affidavit and Exhibits Parts and thereby demonstrates to the Court, considering all valid defenses, that there is probable cause that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the complaint and therefore the special motions to dismiss must be denied. It is noted that defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons do not address plaintiffs counts alleging false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress nor conversion as alleged in the Amended Complaint, nor do they address plaintiffs counts alleging intentional spoliation setting a deadline for objections of June 22, 2012, and it should hence be considered the operative complaint in this matter going forward. Practice Book §10-60. 4 Plaintiff sought to obtain such information by means of her Motion to Engage in Limited Discovery (#128.00) dated July 2, 2021, followed by her Proposed Special Requests for Interrogatories and Production (#129.00) dated July 6, 2021, but the motion was denied subject to possibly being reconsidered at a later date. 5 Without articulation or explanation, the Court disallowed Plaintiffs requests as concerning asserted rights of free speech and association. 3of evidence, deprivation of equal rights and privileges nor invasion of privacy — intrusion, as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. Corrected Superseding Memorandum responding to Special Defendants’ responses to Limited Interrogatories “Matter of Public Concern” In their Interrogatory responses, the Special Defendants reveal in detail, perhaps unwittingly, why they cannot establish that Plaintiff's goats qualify as “a matter of public concern” pursuant to §52-196a as a matter of fact and law. Any “matter of public concern” had to have pre-existed the Defendants’ involvement and had to have derived from activities instigated by individuals other than the Defendants. This requirement is implicit in the statute. For purposes of this unique statute, the “rights” of free speech, to petition the government and to associate all assume a pre-existing matter of public concern. Thus, for example, the statute defines a right of free speech as “communicating, or conduct furthering communication, in a public forum on a matter of public concern.” (Emphasis added.) The “matter of public concern” need already have, been identified in the public’s mind and understood to be a “matter of public concern.” Similarly, the statute defines the right to petition the government as meaning “communication in connection with an issue under consideration,” that is, already “under consideration or review’ by a governmental body. Put another way, defendants asserting a §52-196a motion to dismiss cannot themselves contrive to invent or create the requisite “matter of public concern” by (a) assembling knowingly and recklessly false allegations and (b) being unable to assert truthfully that the “public” referenced in “matter of public concern” consists of anyone other than the proponent of the “matter of public concern.” Here, Defendant Carmody assembled a group of people consisting of herself (principally), her publicist (co-defendant Susan Winters), her husband (co-defendant Gibbons) and neighbor (co-defendant Mason) who shared her dislike of goats. These four individuals together do not constitute the “public” within the meaning of §52-196a as the term “public concern’ is referenced. At best, their concern is a “private” concern. Second, their allegations about Plaintiff's goats are malicious and knowingly and recklessly false: The unsupported charges that Plaintiff's goats were underfed, dehydrated, without veterinary care and residing in neglected shelters were contrived to be salacious and sensational and feed the imaginations of an audience ignorant of the ways of goats that relies on social media for information. These charges were all disproved in the Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al. temporary hearing on March 30, 2021 and April 8, 2021 before Hon. Susan Quinn Cobb, not only by Plaintiff and her witness, a goat expert, but by the state witnesses themselves.Here, Defendant Carmody is unable to identify that any individual other than herself and her immediate circle of three individuals shared her dislike of the goats nor that any community-wide sympathies predated her one-woman campaign to agitate and incite community angst against the goats. Carmody set out to exploit her own personal dislike of Plaintiff's goats to try to ignite public hysteria which she hoped would drive state and local officials to take outrageous, illegal and contemptible actions against the goats’ welfare and drive them from their homes. Carmody’s failure to expand her network to encompass more than four individuals was not for lack of effort. She sought and attained notoriety for the subject by feeding sensationalism to the news media and passing irresponsible reports along to gullible public officials who had no actual knowledge or experience with goats and who were swept along by the illusion Carmody created that hers was a community, publicly-backed “matter of public concern. These gullible public officials never spoke with Plaintiff about her goats, never asked to be introduced to them, never asked to visit her property. These gullible public officials — Bryan Hurlburt, Agriculture Commissioner, State Senator Will Haskell and Redding First Selectman Julia Pemberton — allowed themselves to be bullied by Carmody into committing outrageous acts of lawlessness and animal cruelty. In common with Ms. Carmody, neither Commissioner Hurlburt nor State Senator Haskell nor First Selectman Pemberton is identified in any of the Carmody communications which she disclosed as having possessed any knowledge or experience with goats or as having made any attempt to communicate with Plaintiff about her goats nor visit the goats on her property. The one individual it would have made sense to contact with concerns about the goats was Dr. Mary Jane Lis - the state veterinarian who already was very familiar with Plaintiff's goats — and the complaining neighbors whose unfounded complaints she had dismissed after several visits to Plaintiff's property to inspect her goats and facilities. See Exhibit 1. But Dr. Lis’s name does not appear on any of the emails or social media posts Defendant Carmody was responsible for. Carmody’s Interrogatory responses tell the story: She contrived with co-Defendant Susan Winters to post an article on social media rife with false and defamatory statements and passages,° asserting that Plaintiff's goats were underfed, dehydrated, uncared for and led dismal lives. Neither Carmody nor Winters identified anything from their backgrounds that suggested they might have been qualified to make such assessments. Nor had either been on Plaintiff's property. Nor had either ever spoken with Plaintiff about any aspect of the goats or their care. Both were aware that the State Veterinarian, Mary Jane Lis, DVM, had visited Plaintiff's property on multiple occasions, examined all her goats, investigated their care, feeding, watering and sheltering and on ® See Exhibit 39 (“Goats: an ongoing issue . . .”) 5June 15, 2018 dismissed the complaint brought by Carmody and her immediate circle on June 15, 2018. : Yet, neither in her motion to dismiss, affidavit supporting her motion to dismiss, nor her responses to Plaintiffs Limited Interrogatories, has she identified a single member of the community who shared her dislike of the goats and determination to eradicate them. This result was not for lack of effort. Carmody’s “Guest Editorial’ which she posted on social media on September 27, 2020 (Exhibit 6) appeals to the Redding community to rise up in unison for the following purpose: Please show your support by commenting on the Real Redding 411 Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/...1415.../permalink/2851717565148461/. We will take the comments and incorporate them verbatim in a letter to go to the offices of the powers who can make a difference. The Town, the State, and most immediately the Danbury Court system need to hear our voices. The ruling to uphold enforcement of the Cease & Desist is sitting under Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massaro who needs to be reminded of the urgency of the situation.” As her responses to the Interrogatories reveal, Defendant Carmody set out to defame Plaintiff, physically harm her goats, mislead governmental officials and the entire community and impermissibly apply extraordinary improper pressure on judges of the Superior Court in attempts to serve her self-interest and cruel disregard for Plaintiff's rights and the health and safety of her goats, as well as to undermine and defeat Plaintiff's public-interest objectives: Mothers Milk Project, launched for no reason other} than to protect the public health and safety through the collection and analysis of goat milk. Defendant Carmody’s production of emails and other documents, which she selected as responsive to the Interrogatories, chart the entire shocking path of this out-of-control individual possessed with a malicious drive to destroy Plaintiff's goats® to accomplish the result she sought, disregarding the rights of Plaintiff. As she declared to DOAG Commissioner Hurlburt and State Senator Will Haskell, neither of whom had heard of Carmody? before she unleashed her outpourings of venom and vitriol on them: 7 Plaintiff has queried authorities of the Danbury Superior Court as to whether Ms. Carmody has submitted other materials from herself or others to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury (Exhibit 32) but has received no response as of this writing. 8 See Plaintif’s complaint to the Redding Police, attachment “A” to Exhibit 9. % The entrée she exploited was a distant-in-time connection with the short-lived magazine “George.” With a background in merchandise sales, Carmody introduced herself to the Redding community in her “Guest Editorial” as a former publisher of 6Her pitch — See Exhibit 6 - her social media “Guest Editorial” posted on September 27, 2020 - was that joining her call to eradicate Plaintiff's goats would be seen as something John F. Kennedy, Jr. — to some, America’s “golden boy” - would approve of. Carmody gloated of her success with members of the underside of the news media in an email to DOAG Commissioner Hurlburt. (July 31, 2020 email from Carmody to Mr. Hurlburt and Ms. Pemberton, Exhibit 31): “| 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!” Carmody was the instigator of her single-minded campaign to create “a matter of public concern, but with no show of public support. She clamored if the goats made. sounds at mating time, while such sounds are normal for goats and permissible under Connecticut's “right-to-farm.” The goats did not produce odors, but if they did they were protected by the same law. Commissioner Hurlburt was not moved by facts or the law: he was dictated to by an abrasive individual who spoke only for her interests. She cannot hide behind §52-196a. Other than Defendant Susan Winters, masquerading as a journalist, none of the materials produced by either identified a single other member of a “public” supposedly concerned about Plaintiff's goats. From the springboard of Winters’ inaugural hate screed, infused with ignorance about the goats — “Goats — An Ongoing Story...” (Exhibit 39) and its follow-up on August 9, 2020 (Exhibit 35), Carmody tried but failed to enlist the community to manifest their “concern.” Yet she and Winters reported that their campaign of one + publicist was having the real intended result: swaying the judiciary. See Exhibit 35 (“The information [in the August 9, 2020 posting] caught the attention of the courts and a hearing on some of the motions has been scheduled for August 12. . . .”) Although Carmody tried hard to enlist others to join a campaign to petition members, of the judiciary to rule against Plaintiff and her goats,'° exhibiting contempt for the George magazine, confident that most people do not know that a magazine publisher's role is to sell advertising, in George’s case, a lot of liquor advertising. Her job description did not encompass the editorial side of the magazine, but she kept that part to herself. 10 See Exhibit 6 reference to Hon. Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, who denied the Town of Redding motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim on October 2, 2020 in NancyBurton v. Julia Pemberton, DBD-CV-19-5015276S, which is the subject of Carmody’s plea in her “Guest Editorial’ posted on September 27, 2020, five days 7authority and dignity of the Court - apparently it was one person and one person only rabblerousing to the judiciary but trying to give the impression of a community-wide public uprising against the goats, namely, Elinore Carmody. The truth is — and always will be — that the goats were nothing like how Carmody described them. As of the date the Department of Agriculture/Town of Redding illegally seized Plaintiffs goats, the goats had long since ceased their ramblings off her property and remained confined within sturdy goat-proof fencing. Defendant DellaRocco testified to such effect in State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah v. 65 Goats et al. Each other allegation of the Guest Editorial and the Winters article concerning the goats, their condition and care, is provably false. Memorandum as Regarding Special Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses 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 begins by stating that he sent a letter to First Selectman Julia Pemberton on or about September 15, 2017 expressing his concern that Plaintiffs goats were allowed to “roam freely’ on her property. This is not completely correct. Long before that date, and subsequent thereto, Plaintiff had installed and constantly replaced and repaired fencing to confine the goats to Plaintiff's property. With such qualification, it was correct to say that Plaintiff's goats were able to enjoy freedom to graze wherever they liked within her 3.6-acre property; they maintained robust good health through such exercise, freedom of socialize with their peers and have access to a wide abundance of vegetation — leaves, trees, bushes, pasture grasses — which served their nutritional and digestive needs. Many people delighted in the freedom the goats enjoyed and expressed their delight to Plaintiff. earlier. When Redding Town Counsel Steven Stafstrom unilaterally withdrew the Town's counterclaim on March 15, 2021. (Exhibit 41) 8On occasion, some goats took to visiting neighbors’ properties. Plaintiff responded by strengthening and expanding her fencing and engaging an “animal rescue” organization (“Animal Nation, Inc.) to assist her in strengthening the fencing, maintaining the shelters, providing veterinary care and other services in exchange for finding “good forever” homes for many of the goats pursuant to a contract with Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff loved all her goats — all of which were born on her property — she was intent on expanding her pro bono publico “Mothers Milk Project” by adopting out many goats to new owners interested in joining the campaign to sample goat milk for the presence of radioactivity released continuously by nuclear power plants, a particular danger to women and young and gestating children. Early in 2018, Animal Nation breached the contract and stopped assisting Plaintiff in finding good homes for many of her goats. Eventually, Plaintiff located an excellent, suitable animal sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut (SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.) which offered to adopt as many of Plaintiff's goats as she was trying to re-home, at no cost to the State of Connecticut. The sanctuary took in several dozen of Plaintiff's goats on the path to reducing the herd to nine goats, the number permitted as-of-right by local zoning, as Plaintiff applied for a land management plan to permit the temporary keeping of more goats on her property until the number diminished to nine. Plaintiff is opposed to the slaughter and mistreatment of animals as a matter of religious and moral conviction. Mr. Mason states that, apparently beginning in April 2020, some goats began wandering across the road and onto his property. This took place — if it did, as Mr. Mason never once notified Plaintiff of his observations nor complained to Plaintiff nor has he ever, including up to the present, provided Plaintiff with any photographic or video documentation supporting his claims — at a period of time coinciding with the COVID-19 outbreak when there was little to no traffic on the road, in contrast with previously “normal” conditions, schools and business were closed, and the goats may have taken the sudden prevailing quietude as a signal that it was OK to cross the road, while it was not. Mr. Mason identified various dates in April 2020 — near the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak - and later in the year when he states he observed some of Plaintiff's goats crossing the road onto his property. Yet Plaintiff - who maintained a home occupation and rarely left her home except to go on goat errands — never once observed her goats crossing the road and heading onto Mr. Mason's property, with one exception. Nor does Mr. Mason state in his filings that he ever notified Plaintiff nor complained to her about goats crossing the road onto his property. However, Plaintiff was alerted by the, annoying sound of an air horn on April 30, 2020 to rush to the road, the direction the sound was coming from, and observe a group of her goats stampeding in a frenzy from Mr. Mason's property to the road as he was pursuing them while blowing his air horn,indifferent to the obvious dangers. Additional details are set forth in the complaint, particularly paragraphs 48-69. In response the Interrogatories, Mr. Mason identifies numerous occasions beginning in April 2020 when he asserts that goats crossed the road to his property. The last goat siting he notes occurred on his property on August 23, 2020 and August 27 is the last date he records when he claims to have observed a goat on the street-side of Plaintiff's fence although not in the road. As stated, 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 toward and across the road with the aid of his air horn, Mr. Mason never once brought a single one of such alleged incidents to Plaintiffs attention, never mentioned a single one to her, never discussed a single one with her, never mailed nor emailed her about a single one and never complained to her about any of them. Plaintiff, as set forth in her Affidavit hereto, did not observe a single one of these alleged incidents except the April 30, 2020 incident in which, alerted by the air horn Defendant Mason was blowing, Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff had never previously observed him chasing the goats, she had not previously observed them on his property, and she 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 and deer were known to frequent the area for browsing and have been photographed by Plaintiff doing so. However, on several occasions during this period, members of the Redding Police Department, usually in the company of Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca, entered Plaintiff's property and stated that the goats had been observed on “your neighbor's, property.” When Plaintiff 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 two police officers had been identified as infected with the coronavirus - frequently he or they responded with a question such as “Don’t you know who your neighbors are?” Plaintiff invariably answered that she needed to know which of her four (4) adjoining neighbors they were referring to so that she could make repairs to existing fencing as appropriate. Wher| Plaintiff asked to see photographs if any were available, her request was denied by the police officers except on one occasion. The police officers issued infraction tickets, usually in the amount of $75, which plaintiff paid, with two exceptions, although she had no personal knowledge of whether or not the goats had been on the Mason property. On the two occasions when she challenged issuance of the infraction tickets, the Redding police had been particularly unhelpful and obstinate in refusing to provide details of goat activity despite her requests — the police admittedly did not observe the 10goats but relied on the statements of Defendant Mason, such as which neighbor's property had allegedly been violated. Those infraction notices are pending. Plaintiff 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 she was served with an infraction notice, which were far fewer in number than the number of occasions when Mr. Mason has asserted the goats came onto his property, until receiving Defendant Mason’s Interrogatory responses dated September 17, 2021. Plaintiff 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 she paid all such fines except for two, when, as Plaintiff recalls, the police officers refused to disclose to her 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 Plaintiff requested so that she could quickly repair any such breach in the fencing. Some passersby called complaint in to the police when goats were “near” the road but not “in the road,” i.e., grazing on leaves and grass. Defendant Carmody implored drivers to make complaints to the police “to help me build my case.” On multiple occasions, when Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff to identify and locate a breach in the fencing through which a goat had allegedly escaped, so she could fix it. The fenced area is quite large and the goats were free to graze anywhere within the fenced area. 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 fenced area 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. 11ae 4 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 previously revealed to Plaintiff — his decision) 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 — his decision) nor participating in an interview by an unidentified “investigator” with the State Department of Agriculture (perhaps Mary Jane Lis, DVM, See her June 15, 2018 investigation report bearing Mr. Mason’s name as a complainant (Exhibit 1, 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 institution a lawsuit against him for acts which he had deliberately concealed from her and virtually all of which she was unaware of until after the suit was brought and Defendant Mason responded to these Interrogatories five months later. 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 plaintiffs 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 in a 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 thereafter. Although Defendant Mason states he videotaped the aftermath of the incident and he identified an “injured goat” in the video (which video he has 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 resulted from the April 30, 2020 incident. The Redding Police and State's Attorney, in their responses to Plaintiffs requests for discovery, have not produced any evidence of a goat having been injured in the incident. See Exhibit 5. Regarding an “injured goat,” Mr. Mason apparently references Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleges that “none of Plaintiff's goats was injured during the incident.” However, even accepting the truth of plaintiff's statement (see Exhibit B), such fact does not absolve Defendant Mason of Plaintiff's claim of animal cruelty; furthermore, the Redding Police arrested Plaintiff — not Defendant Mason - on a charge of animal cruelty allegedly evidenced by a goat injured during the incident as a direct result of its having panicked while being pursued in a frenzied stampede instigated by Mr. Mason and his air horn. Further in his response to Interrogatory 10, Defendant Mason states: 12“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...” Plaintiff's Response: Prior to Plaintiffs 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, 2020. See Exhibit 6. Defendant Animal Control Officer Charles DellaRocco 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. In his response to Interrogatory No. 18, he denied ever speaking with Mr. DellaRocco, the search-and-seizure affiant who, his credibility on the line, procured warrants to seize Plaintiff's goats, invade her home, cause her to be arrested on flimsy, made-up charges and is suspected by Plaintiff as being the individual who rifled through her personal effects during his home invasion on March 30, 2021 and stole irreplaceable and valuable items. 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 for such incident, 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 nor was an animal injured. Within a short time following the April 30, 2020 incident, Plaintiff relocated one of her adult male goats which had been involved in the April 30 incident to a good “forever” home, believing he may have led the stampede across the road because of his “alpha goat” tendencies. However, prior to April 2020, Plaintiff had not been aware of an instance when one of her goats crossed the road. They frequently walked toward the toad as they were highly attracted to the stand of maple trees on Plaintiff's property| near the road (maple leaves in the fall being one of their most favored foods), as well as the stone wall, where poison ivy (another goat favorite) flourished, as well as the stone wall itself, a playground for the younger goats where they jumped from stone to stone and kept their hooves well manicured. While before, the goats had not been known to cross the road, all seemed to change at the outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic c. early Spring 2020 when the State of Connecticut was in a declared state of emergency with schools and work sites closed: traffic virtually stopped on Cross Highway, which in non-COVID times is well-trafficked. It seems that the goats detected this radical change and perceived it was now safe to be on the road; or perhaps one alpha goat perceived the road safe for crossing and began to cross, followed by others. Plaintiff, while being at home at 147 Cross Highway for virtually the entire day and night, was highly attuned to the goats’ habits 24/7 except 13