Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON
ETAL. JULY 12, 2021
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DAVID
P HILIP MASON,eee eee
SaaS ELINORE
eranCARMODY ANP
AND Ser
DENNIS SIP
GIBBONS
NS
AFFIDAVIT OF NANCY BURTON
1, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows:
lam missing the following exhibits: Dr. Lis 2018 report
1 | am 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 Motions to Dismiss of Defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody
and Dennis Gibbons dated June 10, 2021 and being filed contemporaneously
herewith.
| am the plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
lam the author of the Amended Complaint dated June 10, 2021 as filed in this
case.
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.
am 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.
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.
| 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 986) 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.
9. | own and resided on property located at 147 Cross Highway in Redding,
Connecticut for thirty-six (36) years until early this year.
10. During such period, | was an excellent neighbor contributing to the neighborhood
and community in such ways as initiating a successful citizen drive to designate
Cross Highway a scenic road; initiating and pursuing successful pro bono publico
campaigns which have permanently preserved as open space three singularly
scenic landscapes abutting and across the street from the defendant David Philip
Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons properties and which significantly
enhance the value of their properties; | successfully initiated a pro bono publico
campaign pursuant to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act which led to
the disbanding of the Town of Redding “Tech Team,” consisting of the town
planner, town sanitarian and town engineer, which had met with land developers
in secret, denying public access to its meetings, to expedite action on land-use
applications but which led to abuse of public oversight; | initiated a campaign for
appointment of a statutory study committee to study the prospect of creation of a
Mark Twain Historic District in recognition of the fact that Mark Twain chose to
make Redding his last home in a neighborhood of beautiful historic homes and
landscapes: when the First Selectman rejected the petition on a specious and
technical ground, | succeeded in my first case as a Connecticut lawyer in
reversing the Selectman’s decision.
11. Paragraph 10 above consists of only a partial list of my contributions to the civic
welfare of Redding.
12. These and many other accomplishments in the public interest did not sit well with
certain Redding authorities; when | ran as Green Party candidate for a seat in the
state legislature, | observed the then-chairman of the Redding Zoning
Commission illegally taking down my campaign signs as lawfully posted within
the town with the slogan “Clean Air Clean Water Clean Government” days before
the election. | succeeded in obtaining relief through a Superior Court action
although the sign episode diverted me from the campaign.
13.Although | practiced primarily public interest pro bono publico law for some
twenty years, | was ordered disbarred from the practice of law for five years for
legitimate and necessary judicial whistleblowing undertaken in the public interest;
the order prohibited my reinstatement unless | agreed to recant truthful
statements about a cultural climate and acts of gender discrimination at the
Danbury Superior Court; as the underlying proceedings were underway | was
also told by the disciplinary officer handling the matter that the “charges” against
me would be dropped if | withdrew my truthful statements. | chose not to commit
perjury. During 20 years of legal practice in Connecticut, | was never the subject
of a grievance complaint by a client.
Be
14, One of my initiatives as a practicing attorney was, on behalf of various
environmental organizations and on a pro bono publico basis, instituting a suit in
1999, Fish Unlimited v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., during which Hon. Judge
Robert J. Hale issued a temporary restraining order at my request which kept
Millstone Unit 2 nuclear reactor in shutdown status for 10 days during the peak
period of indigenous Niantic River winter flounder annual migration to Niantic Bay
to avoid their unnecessary destruction by means of the plant's intake structure
suction. Fish Unlimited, 1999 Conn. Super. Court 10103, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 239.
The decision remains unprecedented. Then-Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal, per then-Assistant Attorney General Matthew Levine, participated in
the case on the side of Millstone as attorney for the then-Department of
Environmental Protection, which opposed the temporary restraining order
application. Mr. Levine is lead representative of the Office of Attorney General in
this action as well as Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats.
15. During the period of time when | participated in proceedings on the Millstone
application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for renewal of its forty-
year operating license, the State of Connecticut per Mr. Blumenthal advocated for
Millstone license renewal while it devoted substantial time and resources to
advocate against renewal of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (“Indian Point’)
operating license. Indian Point is located in New York State. As of April 1, 2021,
Indian Point has been shut down permanently due in part to Mr. Blumenthal’s
participation. The key determinant factor in the Indian Point permanent shutdown
was an order by New York State that Indian Point convert to a closed-cycle
cooling system, a conversion Mr. Blumenthal and his office diligently advocated
for. In the case of Millstone, Mr. Blumenthal and DEP advocated against
conversion to a closed cooling system. | participated in the DEP proceedings on
the issue which resulted in issuance of a decision by the Connecticut Supreme
Court in Nancy Burton v. Regina McCarthy, SC 20466, denying my Motion for
Reconsideration en banc filed on February 8, 2021 after its dismissal of my
appeal, thereby allowing Millstone to continue to operate for an indefinite period
with its environmentally damaging “once-through” cooling system.
16. During the Millstone relicensing proceedings in 1998, | was provided with
information about Katie the Goat, who grazed five miles downwind from Millstone
and produced milk dangerously contaminated with carcinogenic radioisotopes
which, once ingested, are linked to disease and death.
17. From this introduction, | adopted Katie the Goat and co-founded the Mothers Milk
Project (www.MothersMilkProject.org), the only known one of its kind, which
samples goat and human milk for analysis of radioisotope concentration for the.
purpose of creating a scientific data base of radiologically-contaminated goat and
human milk collected within various radii of nuclear power plants.
18. Although Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(‘DEEP’) is required by law to monitor the environment for radioactivity releases
by nuclear power plants, in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-135(a)(4), it
no longer does so, claiming there are no available goats within ten (10) miles of
Millstone, an arbitrary distance set with no basis in the law or facts of the matter.
19.1 adopted Katie the Goat, continued the goat milk sampling program in Redding
and received laboratory analysis establishing contamination of some samples
with strontium-90 and strontium-89 concentrations at levels which present a
public health risk, particularly to women and children.
20.As Katie arrived pregnant and | adopted two additional goats, eventually the goat
population expanded on my property.
21.A controversy developed over the goats. See Amended Complaint J] 24-34.
22. The Redding Pilot, Redding’s weekly community newspaper, published an article
containing false and misleading information about the goats, including the
exaggerated miscount by a DOAG animal control officer of some 100 goats on
the property when there were approximately 50.
23. Nevertheless, the exaggerated miscount stuck in people’s minds and not long
afterward the Redding Pilot went out of business and shut down; since then,
Redding has been without a community newspaper and the availability of the
Pilot's “Letters to the Editor” pages and fairly responsible journalism as fora for
members of the community to keep the record straight on matters of public
concern; now there is only social media lacking journalistic standards of integrity
and truthfulness.
24. A “goat hysteria” took hold in the community and misinformation rooted in
ignorance of goat behavior spread; at the same time, dozens and dozens, if not
hundreds, of people stopped by plaintiff's property on a daily basis to watch the
goats frolicking and grazing and to express their joy and appreciation to plaintiff.
25. In the midst of the “goat hysteria, Mary Lis, DVM, in the company of a DOAG staff
member, visited plaintiffs property in response to an anonymous complaint;
together they inspected plaintiffs property, goats and the goats’ accommodations
and closed their investigation in June 2018 with a written report stating: “At the
time of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition
with food and water available.” Amended Complaint If] 29-30.
26. At the suggested of the town animal control officer, plaintiff hired two laborers on
or about 2012 to construct additional wooden shelters in enclosed fencing; when
the work was complete the animal control officer pronounced the shelters as
suitable and sufficient for the number of goats on the property which, at the time,
was in the neighborhood of 50-60. See Affidavit of Michael DeLuca. Since Mr.
DeLuca’s visit in 2012, | have created a huge corralled area with a new shelter on
the westernmost side of my property as well as refurbished and/or rebuilt the
three shelters constructed in 2012, in addition to making additional repairs to the
central “garden” shelter. The latter two shelters are not visible from the
“surveillance window’ on the Carmody/Gibbons outbuilding from which defendant
Charles Dellarocco spied on me in February and March 2021.
27.| have conscientiously since 2017 and even before endeavored to find good
homes for all but nine of my goats — nine being the maximum number allowed
under the Redding Zoning Regulations without the need to apply for a zoning
permit — while | filed a Land Management Plan seeking approval allowing me to
keep more than nine goats on the property. Amended Complaint 26-28, 31-34.
28. Since 2017, | have been engaged in numerous court cases regarding the goats.
29. These include an appeal from a cease and desist order which led to the case of
Nancy Burton v. Julia Pemberton, UWY-CV-19-5027713-S. (‘Pemberton’).
30. In Pemberton, the Town of Redding sought injunctive and other relief in a
counterclaim; however, its summary judgment motion was denied as to the
request for injunctive and other relief as the Court (Brazzel-Massaro, J.) ruled
that issues of fact material to the motion for summary judgment were in dispute.
See Judgment in Part, #155.00. More particularly, Judge Brazzel-Massaro ruled
the facts in dispute as to whether my keeping of more than nine goats was a
“willful” zoning violation given the enumerated acts identified by me to diminish
the herd.
31. Thereafter, Steven Stafstrom, newly-appointed Redding town counsel,
peremptorily withdrew the counterclaim without notice to me and without costs.
32. The Amended Complaint {]46 sets forth acts of animal cruelty, harassment,
defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional and negligent infliction of emotion
distress on plaintiff, myself, on the part of defendants Mason, Carmody and
Gibbons; none of these is a Constitutionally protected activity within the scope of
Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a.
33. Perhaps the most glaring and extreme example is cited in 46k as follows:
On August 19, 2020, Carmody anonymously texted the following message to
plaintiff at 8:13 PM: “Are you actually aware of how much you are abusing these
goats? They are screaming and desperate. You should be ashamed. But you will
pay. With their lives. You are a fucking nightmare.” (Emphasis added.)
34. In her ignorance, defendant Carmody was unaware that noises the goats were
making were a sign of the goats’ robust good health: male goats make such
sounds when females are in their twice-yearly breeding period which typically
lasts a day or several days at most; as Connecticut is a “right-to-farm” state,
Connecticut property owners are allowed to keep male goats that make noises
twice a year.
35. In this example, defendant Carmody committed the criminal act of harassment;
the defendants do not argue that committing such a crime is within the scope of
Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a.
36. Defendants Carmody and Winters made a false and defamatory utterance on
social media when they asserted that plaintiff “uses the law to break the law.”
37. Similarly, defendant Mason committed the crime of animal cruelty when he
deliberately stampeded plaintiff's goats into the road on April 30, 2021 with the
use of his air horn, intending that the goats be killed or injured, as defendant
Gibbons stood by with a smirk on his face. See Exhibit Photos TK.(The goats
being stampeded appear in the photographs, which were taken by plaintiff, as a
blur because they were stampeding so fast off the Mason property onto the road.
This conduct, too, falls outside the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a.
(Amended Complaint 948-52)
38. Similarly, screaming obscenities at plaintiff as she went about her private affairs,
thereby committing the crime of disorderly conduct (Amended Complaint 46h)
falls outside the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a.
39. Engaging in 24-hour surveillance of plaintiff and her property is an actionable
invasion of privacy, as is posting a video of a family member of the plaintiff by his
car parked on plaintiff's property on YouTube, as defendant Carmody apparently
did, such video having apparently been taken by an animal control officer in the
course of his supposed investigation; such conduct falls outside the scope of
Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a.
40. Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons attach the Affidavit in support of
search and seizure warrant of defendant Dellarocco in an apparent attempt to
support their motion to dismiss. The affidavit, application and warrant suffer from
the fatal lack of credibility of defendant Dellarocco — apart from the numerous
falsehoods it contains, as plaintiff has identified in her Motion to Suppress in
Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats - who, assigned to investigate plaintiff's complaint to
DOAG Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt, failed to do so with the pathetic, false
excuse that defendant's phone number identified in plaintiff's complaint did not
match up with defendant's actual phone number. In contrast, the Redding police
officer who investigated plaintiff's complaint had no problem verifying that the
texter tested on defendant Carmody’s phone and that Defendant Carmody
admitted to him that she had sent the text although she later regretted having
done so. Similarly, defendant Dellarocco’s credibility is revealed to be fatally
lacking by virtue of his written statement that it would be “inappropriate” for him to
investigate defendant Mason’s conduct in the April 30, 2020 stampeding incident,
despite his earlier statement that he believed the state lacked probable cause to
arrest plaintiff for animal cruelty as a consequence of defendant Mason
stampeding her goats into the road. See Amended Complaint 954-69, 74-79.
And see Exhibit D attached to Amended Complaint.
4 Defendants Carmody and Gibbons attach a listing of charges of animal cruelty
concerning the 65 goats illegally seized from plaintiff's property on March 10,
2021. Plaintiff denies each and every charge. Not a single one of plaintiff's goats
is identified identified with individuality with the existence of any condition
bringing that goat within the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §53-247, as required by
the case of State v. Hearl. The Case Detail of Jeremy Dunn v. 65 Goats is replete
with plaintiffs filings, all as to which plaintiff swears as to the truth of in this
Affidavit, which develop and set forth the truth of the matter, which is that the
State of Connecticut entirely lacked cause/probable cause to seize plaintiff's
goats.
42. For example, DOAG and plaintiff's witnesses and exhibits in Jeremy Dunn v. 65
Goats all establish that under plaintiff's care the goats were all well fed, well
watered, well sheltered, with visits with licensed veterinarians as appropriate, and
lived lives of safety, security and contentment until the state seizure.
43. Similarly, plaintiff's filings and evidence presented by DOAG and plaintiff in
Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats establish that Mr. Dunn and DOAG staff are
themselves responsible for ongoing severe goat abuse by overcrowding them,
depriving them of outdoor recreation and foraging opportunities, apparently
depriving them of needed nutrition and water and leaving them unattended 17
hours of the day — 71 per cent of the time — even in the case of pregnant goats
which may be prone to breech births which are fatal without timely and trained
human intervention. See attached Exhibits TK.
44. Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons, perhaps inadvertently, reveal in their
motions and attachments facts about their apparently extensive interactions with
the Town and State defendants in this case — facts and circumstances previously
unknown to plaintiff. That the three defendants accuse plaintiff of basing her
complaint in large part on such interactions which they have heretofore kept
secret, and which they also claim are privileged, exposes the fallacy and utter
lack of merit of their theory underlying their motions to dismiss that plaintiff
retaliated against them for conduct concerning which they concealed from plaintiff
to attain anonymity. This state of affairs reinforces plaintiff's previously-filed
motion to engage in limited discovery in this matter.
45. The cases brought against plaintiff assertedly in the interests of furtherance of
protection of animal welfare are a sham behind which is a dastardly campaign to
subject plaintiff's goats to cruelty and abuse as a means of political and
governmental retaliation of plaintiff for her public interest work and to cause her
humiliation and expense.
46. Defendants identify goat burials as a matter of concern. A DOAG animal control
officer who visited plaintiff's property assured her it was permissible to bury
deceased goats on her property. Bruce Sherman, then director of animal control
for GOAG, told the Hartford Courant on this subject for an article published on
March 28, 1999, “When it comes to disposing an animal carcass, you just want to
do it within a reasonable amount of time.” When DOAG agents raided plaintiff's
property on March 10, 2021, some of them, led by defendant Dellarocco,
vandalized and desecrated goat burial sites illegally. At the time of the seizure,
the ground was still ice- and snow-covered and the ground was frozen; thus,
burial spaces could not be dug. In the intervening time, shortly after the illegal
raid, the burials have been completed.
47.With regard to deaths of goats, mortality is inevitable. Katie the Goat died tumors
which invaded her chest after years of faultless exposure to Millstone
radioactivity. Katie gave birth to kids with birth defects. Several of plaintiff's goats
have given birth to kids with disabling birth defects linked to radiation exposure
and genetic mutations. Over the years, goats have died from acts of veterinarian
malpractice. Once defendants’ campaign of malicious defamation attracted
attention, plaintiff's property was frequently vandalized by unwelcome
trespassers.
48. Defendant Dellarocco testified in Dunn v. 65 Goats that when he visited plaintiff's
property he observed that the goats were entirely secured by perimeter and other
fencing. Earlier in 2021, prior to the March 10, 2021 illegal seizure, plaintiff's
fence facing Cross Highway was vandalized on four separate occasions,
providing routes of escape to plaintiff's goats. The Redding Planning
Commission, with the assent of the zoning enforcement officer, had previously
ordered plaintiff to remove the fencing she had installed facing Cross Highway on
grounds Cross Highway is a designated scenic road (Plaintiff was aware of this:
she initiated the designation process.)
49. During the course of proceedings in Dunn v. 65 Goats, DOAG and the Office of
the Attorney General have presented knowingly false misstatements to the Court
without fear of recourse and they have obstructed plaintiff's earnest efforts to
obtain information about her goats, their well-being or otherwise, the conditions of
their confinement and many, many other issues, as to which she is legally entitled
as defendant in the case.
50. Rosa Buonomo, plaintiff's witness and a goat expert who is highly regarded by
DOAG animal control officers across the state,, testified in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65
Goats that she has visited plaintiff's property and goat shelters and found them
suitable in all respects for caring for 65 goats, that she inspected plaintiff's goats
and appeared in good health, that no goat showed signs of not being well fed and
watered, and that plaintiff's property provided them with sufficient space for
recreation and foraging.
51 Ms. Buonomo is president of Stoney Brook Farm Animal Rescue, Inc., a 501(c
)(3) animal sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut, and that she is willing
and able to take in all of plaintiff's goats and so informed DOAG representatives,
including defendant Dellarocco, and the Town of Redding prior to the March 10,
2021 illegal seizure.
52. Plaintiff is very familiar with Ms. Buonomo’s facilities and staff and believes she
would provide excellent care of plaintiffs goats, or find them equivalent homes,
so that they could be certain to live out their natural lives in peace and security
under good and devoted care.
53.Ms. Buonomo had made plans to transfer 12 goats to her sanctuary the weekend
before the seizure but dangerous weather conditions forced a postponement.
54. Plaintiff has also been notified by a goat sanctuary, Goats of Anarchy, that it is
willing to take in, through a goat-placement network, as many goats as plaintiff
may wish to adopt out to her.
55. Plaintiff has also identified various qualified individuals eager to adopt some of
plaintiff's goats and provide them with quality and lasting care.
56. The DOAG is under no legal obligation to find good homes for animals
relinquished to its custody and many are destined for auction and slaughter.
57. Plaintiff is opposed to goat slaughter based on her moral and religious
convictions.
58. In April 2021, plaintiff filed a motion in Dunn v. 65 Goats to immediately relinquish
her goats to such above-identified facilities and individuals but, to date, despite
reclaiming such motion, it has not been acted on by the Court; if the motion were
granted, it would spare expense to the State of Connecticut and the goats would
be assured of superior care as compared with the cruelty and abuse they,
presently endure in state temporary custody.
59. Defendant Dellarocco noted in his affidavit in support of the search and seizure
warrant that he observed that plaintiff appeared fatigued and fragile when he
observed her on February 3, 2021 while she was tending to the goats in wintry
weather and her property was buried in 1-2 feet of snow.
60. DOAG agent Tanya Wescovich testified in Dunn v. 65 Goats that none of the
goats were seized because of their health or medical conditions or lack of
availability of food or water or foraging and recreation opportunities. She testified
that in her view some of the shelters on plaintiff's property were in need of
attention. She further testified that when she joined defendant Dellarocco in
surveillance of plaintiff and her property, from the vantage point of the
surveillance window she could not observe three of plaintiff's six shelters. She
also testified under questioning by Judge Cobb that plaintiff's 3.6-acre property
was sufficient for care and management of 65 goats.
61 | believe that Mr. Dunn and defendant Dellarocco, in complicity with defendant
Redding Police officers, had me under satellite surveillance when I was obtaining
water for the goats and when | was attending a hospital. appointment in the
spring of 2021 and at other times.
62. Defendant DOAG and its agents lacked probable cause to invade my home on
March 10, 2021, as they had absolutely no cause to believe they would find
evidence of criminality in my home, as they did not. Their stated reasons to
invade my home were a travesty. It is my belief that once inside my home, one or
more of such unauthorized agents or other individuals disrupted my private
papers and valuables and stole several irreplaceable items of great value to me.
The items have not yet been returned.
63. The despicable, illegal and unconscionable actions of the defendants in this
matter have forced me from my home, ruined three years of my life and caused
serious medical issues as well as enduring heartbreak over their cruelty, brutality
and abuse of my blameless goats.
64.1 believe the Special Motions to Dismiss are meritless and frivolous and should
be dismissed forthwith:
QATH
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12!" day of July, 2021
Clerk/Notary Publi¢
aa
a
eg a ine,
“ap Logion Dyaiey ov a(50/].a)
» mA
oe ey
at
E eB
a
=
=
=>
~~
nn,
fox aA
Cee, we
~
Preview
(X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON ETAL. JULY 12, 2021 PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS DAVID P HILIP MASON,eee eee SaaS ELINORE eranCARMODY ANP AND Ser DENNIS SIP GIBBONS NS AFFIDAVIT OF NANCY BURTON 1, Nancy Burton, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows: lam missing the following exhibits: Dr. Lis 2018 report 1 | am 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 Motions to Dismiss of Defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons dated June 10, 2021 and being filed contemporaneously herewith. | am the plaintiff in the above-captioned action. lam the author of the Amended Complaint dated June 10, 2021 as filed in this case. 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. am 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. 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. | 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 986) 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. 9. | own and resided on property located at 147 Cross Highway in Redding, Connecticut for thirty-six (36) years until early this year. 10. During such period, | was an excellent neighbor contributing to the neighborhood and community in such ways as initiating a successful citizen drive to designate Cross Highway a scenic road; initiating and pursuing successful pro bono publico campaigns which have permanently preserved as open space three singularly scenic landscapes abutting and across the street from the defendant David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons properties and which significantly enhance the value of their properties; | successfully initiated a pro bono publico campaign pursuant to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act which led to the disbanding of the Town of Redding “Tech Team,” consisting of the town planner, town sanitarian and town engineer, which had met with land developers in secret, denying public access to its meetings, to expedite action on land-use applications but which led to abuse of public oversight; | initiated a campaign for appointment of a statutory study committee to study the prospect of creation of a Mark Twain Historic District in recognition of the fact that Mark Twain chose to make Redding his last home in a neighborhood of beautiful historic homes and landscapes: when the First Selectman rejected the petition on a specious and technical ground, | succeeded in my first case as a Connecticut lawyer in reversing the Selectman’s decision. 11. Paragraph 10 above consists of only a partial list of my contributions to the civic welfare of Redding. 12. These and many other accomplishments in the public interest did not sit well with certain Redding authorities; when | ran as Green Party candidate for a seat in the state legislature, | observed the then-chairman of the Redding Zoning Commission illegally taking down my campaign signs as lawfully posted within the town with the slogan “Clean Air Clean Water Clean Government” days before the election. | succeeded in obtaining relief through a Superior Court action although the sign episode diverted me from the campaign. 13.Although | practiced primarily public interest pro bono publico law for some twenty years, | was ordered disbarred from the practice of law for five years for legitimate and necessary judicial whistleblowing undertaken in the public interest; the order prohibited my reinstatement unless | agreed to recant truthful statements about a cultural climate and acts of gender discrimination at the Danbury Superior Court; as the underlying proceedings were underway | was also told by the disciplinary officer handling the matter that the “charges” against me would be dropped if | withdrew my truthful statements. | chose not to commit perjury. During 20 years of legal practice in Connecticut, | was never the subject of a grievance complaint by a client. Be 14, One of my initiatives as a practicing attorney was, on behalf of various environmental organizations and on a pro bono publico basis, instituting a suit in 1999, Fish Unlimited v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., during which Hon. Judge Robert J. Hale issued a temporary restraining order at my request which kept Millstone Unit 2 nuclear reactor in shutdown status for 10 days during the peak period of indigenous Niantic River winter flounder annual migration to Niantic Bay to avoid their unnecessary destruction by means of the plant's intake structure suction. Fish Unlimited, 1999 Conn. Super. Court 10103, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 239. The decision remains unprecedented. Then-Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, per then-Assistant Attorney General Matthew Levine, participated in the case on the side of Millstone as attorney for the then-Department of Environmental Protection, which opposed the temporary restraining order application. Mr. Levine is lead representative of the Office of Attorney General in this action as well as Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats. 15. During the period of time when | participated in proceedings on the Millstone application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for renewal of its forty- year operating license, the State of Connecticut per Mr. Blumenthal advocated for Millstone license renewal while it devoted substantial time and resources to advocate against renewal of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (“Indian Point’) operating license. Indian Point is located in New York State. As of April 1, 2021, Indian Point has been shut down permanently due in part to Mr. Blumenthal’s participation. The key determinant factor in the Indian Point permanent shutdown was an order by New York State that Indian Point convert to a closed-cycle cooling system, a conversion Mr. Blumenthal and his office diligently advocated for. In the case of Millstone, Mr. Blumenthal and DEP advocated against conversion to a closed cooling system. | participated in the DEP proceedings on the issue which resulted in issuance of a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Nancy Burton v. Regina McCarthy, SC 20466, denying my Motion for Reconsideration en banc filed on February 8, 2021 after its dismissal of my appeal, thereby allowing Millstone to continue to operate for an indefinite period with its environmentally damaging “once-through” cooling system. 16. During the Millstone relicensing proceedings in 1998, | was provided with information about Katie the Goat, who grazed five miles downwind from Millstone and produced milk dangerously contaminated with carcinogenic radioisotopes which, once ingested, are linked to disease and death. 17. From this introduction, | adopted Katie the Goat and co-founded the Mothers Milk Project (www.MothersMilkProject.org), the only known one of its kind, which samples goat and human milk for analysis of radioisotope concentration for the. purpose of creating a scientific data base of radiologically-contaminated goat and human milk collected within various radii of nuclear power plants. 18. Although Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (‘DEEP’) is required by law to monitor the environment for radioactivity releases by nuclear power plants, in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-135(a)(4), it no longer does so, claiming there are no available goats within ten (10) miles of Millstone, an arbitrary distance set with no basis in the law or facts of the matter. 19.1 adopted Katie the Goat, continued the goat milk sampling program in Redding and received laboratory analysis establishing contamination of some samples with strontium-90 and strontium-89 concentrations at levels which present a public health risk, particularly to women and children. 20.As Katie arrived pregnant and | adopted two additional goats, eventually the goat population expanded on my property. 21.A controversy developed over the goats. See Amended Complaint J] 24-34. 22. The Redding Pilot, Redding’s weekly community newspaper, published an article containing false and misleading information about the goats, including the exaggerated miscount by a DOAG animal control officer of some 100 goats on the property when there were approximately 50. 23. Nevertheless, the exaggerated miscount stuck in people’s minds and not long afterward the Redding Pilot went out of business and shut down; since then, Redding has been without a community newspaper and the availability of the Pilot's “Letters to the Editor” pages and fairly responsible journalism as fora for members of the community to keep the record straight on matters of public concern; now there is only social media lacking journalistic standards of integrity and truthfulness. 24. A “goat hysteria” took hold in the community and misinformation rooted in ignorance of goat behavior spread; at the same time, dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of people stopped by plaintiff's property on a daily basis to watch the goats frolicking and grazing and to express their joy and appreciation to plaintiff. 25. In the midst of the “goat hysteria, Mary Lis, DVM, in the company of a DOAG staff member, visited plaintiffs property in response to an anonymous complaint; together they inspected plaintiffs property, goats and the goats’ accommodations and closed their investigation in June 2018 with a written report stating: “At the time of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food and water available.” Amended Complaint If] 29-30. 26. At the suggested of the town animal control officer, plaintiff hired two laborers on or about 2012 to construct additional wooden shelters in enclosed fencing; when the work was complete the animal control officer pronounced the shelters as suitable and sufficient for the number of goats on the property which, at the time, was in the neighborhood of 50-60. See Affidavit of Michael DeLuca. Since Mr. DeLuca’s visit in 2012, | have created a huge corralled area with a new shelter on the westernmost side of my property as well as refurbished and/or rebuilt the three shelters constructed in 2012, in addition to making additional repairs to the central “garden” shelter. The latter two shelters are not visible from the “surveillance window’ on the Carmody/Gibbons outbuilding from which defendant Charles Dellarocco spied on me in February and March 2021. 27.| have conscientiously since 2017 and even before endeavored to find good homes for all but nine of my goats — nine being the maximum number allowed under the Redding Zoning Regulations without the need to apply for a zoning permit — while | filed a Land Management Plan seeking approval allowing me to keep more than nine goats on the property. Amended Complaint 26-28, 31-34. 28. Since 2017, | have been engaged in numerous court cases regarding the goats. 29. These include an appeal from a cease and desist order which led to the case of Nancy Burton v. Julia Pemberton, UWY-CV-19-5027713-S. (‘Pemberton’). 30. In Pemberton, the Town of Redding sought injunctive and other relief in a counterclaim; however, its summary judgment motion was denied as to the request for injunctive and other relief as the Court (Brazzel-Massaro, J.) ruled that issues of fact material to the motion for summary judgment were in dispute. See Judgment in Part, #155.00. More particularly, Judge Brazzel-Massaro ruled the facts in dispute as to whether my keeping of more than nine goats was a “willful” zoning violation given the enumerated acts identified by me to diminish the herd. 31. Thereafter, Steven Stafstrom, newly-appointed Redding town counsel, peremptorily withdrew the counterclaim without notice to me and without costs. 32. The Amended Complaint {]46 sets forth acts of animal cruelty, harassment, defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional and negligent infliction of emotion distress on plaintiff, myself, on the part of defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons; none of these is a Constitutionally protected activity within the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a. 33. Perhaps the most glaring and extreme example is cited in 46k as follows: On August 19, 2020, Carmody anonymously texted the following message to plaintiff at 8:13 PM: “Are you actually aware of how much you are abusing these goats? They are screaming and desperate. You should be ashamed. But you will pay. With their lives. You are a fucking nightmare.” (Emphasis added.) 34. In her ignorance, defendant Carmody was unaware that noises the goats were making were a sign of the goats’ robust good health: male goats make such sounds when females are in their twice-yearly breeding period which typically lasts a day or several days at most; as Connecticut is a “right-to-farm” state, Connecticut property owners are allowed to keep male goats that make noises twice a year. 35. In this example, defendant Carmody committed the criminal act of harassment; the defendants do not argue that committing such a crime is within the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a. 36. Defendants Carmody and Winters made a false and defamatory utterance on social media when they asserted that plaintiff “uses the law to break the law.” 37. Similarly, defendant Mason committed the crime of animal cruelty when he deliberately stampeded plaintiff's goats into the road on April 30, 2021 with the use of his air horn, intending that the goats be killed or injured, as defendant Gibbons stood by with a smirk on his face. See Exhibit Photos TK.(The goats being stampeded appear in the photographs, which were taken by plaintiff, as a blur because they were stampeding so fast off the Mason property onto the road. This conduct, too, falls outside the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a. (Amended Complaint 948-52) 38. Similarly, screaming obscenities at plaintiff as she went about her private affairs, thereby committing the crime of disorderly conduct (Amended Complaint 46h) falls outside the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a. 39. Engaging in 24-hour surveillance of plaintiff and her property is an actionable invasion of privacy, as is posting a video of a family member of the plaintiff by his car parked on plaintiff's property on YouTube, as defendant Carmody apparently did, such video having apparently been taken by an animal control officer in the course of his supposed investigation; such conduct falls outside the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-196a. 40. Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons attach the Affidavit in support of search and seizure warrant of defendant Dellarocco in an apparent attempt to support their motion to dismiss. The affidavit, application and warrant suffer from the fatal lack of credibility of defendant Dellarocco — apart from the numerous falsehoods it contains, as plaintiff has identified in her Motion to Suppress in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats - who, assigned to investigate plaintiff's complaint to DOAG Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt, failed to do so with the pathetic, false excuse that defendant's phone number identified in plaintiff's complaint did not match up with defendant's actual phone number. In contrast, the Redding police officer who investigated plaintiff's complaint had no problem verifying that the texter tested on defendant Carmody’s phone and that Defendant Carmody admitted to him that she had sent the text although she later regretted having done so. Similarly, defendant Dellarocco’s credibility is revealed to be fatally lacking by virtue of his written statement that it would be “inappropriate” for him to investigate defendant Mason’s conduct in the April 30, 2020 stampeding incident, despite his earlier statement that he believed the state lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff for animal cruelty as a consequence of defendant Mason stampeding her goats into the road. See Amended Complaint 954-69, 74-79. And see Exhibit D attached to Amended Complaint. 4 Defendants Carmody and Gibbons attach a listing of charges of animal cruelty concerning the 65 goats illegally seized from plaintiff's property on March 10, 2021. Plaintiff denies each and every charge. Not a single one of plaintiff's goats is identified identified with individuality with the existence of any condition bringing that goat within the scope of Conn. Gen. Stat. §53-247, as required by the case of State v. Hearl. The Case Detail of Jeremy Dunn v. 65 Goats is replete with plaintiffs filings, all as to which plaintiff swears as to the truth of in this Affidavit, which develop and set forth the truth of the matter, which is that the State of Connecticut entirely lacked cause/probable cause to seize plaintiff's goats. 42. For example, DOAG and plaintiff's witnesses and exhibits in Jeremy Dunn v. 65 Goats all establish that under plaintiff's care the goats were all well fed, well watered, well sheltered, with visits with licensed veterinarians as appropriate, and lived lives of safety, security and contentment until the state seizure. 43. Similarly, plaintiff's filings and evidence presented by DOAG and plaintiff in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats establish that Mr. Dunn and DOAG staff are themselves responsible for ongoing severe goat abuse by overcrowding them, depriving them of outdoor recreation and foraging opportunities, apparently depriving them of needed nutrition and water and leaving them unattended 17 hours of the day — 71 per cent of the time — even in the case of pregnant goats which may be prone to breech births which are fatal without timely and trained human intervention. See attached Exhibits TK. 44. Defendants Mason, Carmody and Gibbons, perhaps inadvertently, reveal in their motions and attachments facts about their apparently extensive interactions with the Town and State defendants in this case — facts and circumstances previously unknown to plaintiff. That the three defendants accuse plaintiff of basing her complaint in large part on such interactions which they have heretofore kept secret, and which they also claim are privileged, exposes the fallacy and utter lack of merit of their theory underlying their motions to dismiss that plaintiff retaliated against them for conduct concerning which they concealed from plaintiff to attain anonymity. This state of affairs reinforces plaintiff's previously-filed motion to engage in limited discovery in this matter. 45. The cases brought against plaintiff assertedly in the interests of furtherance of protection of animal welfare are a sham behind which is a dastardly campaign to subject plaintiff's goats to cruelty and abuse as a means of political and governmental retaliation of plaintiff for her public interest work and to cause her humiliation and expense. 46. Defendants identify goat burials as a matter of concern. A DOAG animal control officer who visited plaintiff's property assured her it was permissible to bury deceased goats on her property. Bruce Sherman, then director of animal control for GOAG, told the Hartford Courant on this subject for an article published on March 28, 1999, “When it comes to disposing an animal carcass, you just want to do it within a reasonable amount of time.” When DOAG agents raided plaintiff's property on March 10, 2021, some of them, led by defendant Dellarocco, vandalized and desecrated goat burial sites illegally. At the time of the seizure, the ground was still ice- and snow-covered and the ground was frozen; thus, burial spaces could not be dug. In the intervening time, shortly after the illegal raid, the burials have been completed. 47.With regard to deaths of goats, mortality is inevitable. Katie the Goat died tumors which invaded her chest after years of faultless exposure to Millstone radioactivity. Katie gave birth to kids with birth defects. Several of plaintiff's goats have given birth to kids with disabling birth defects linked to radiation exposure and genetic mutations. Over the years, goats have died from acts of veterinarian malpractice. Once defendants’ campaign of malicious defamation attracted attention, plaintiff's property was frequently vandalized by unwelcome trespassers. 48. Defendant Dellarocco testified in Dunn v. 65 Goats that when he visited plaintiff's property he observed that the goats were entirely secured by perimeter and other fencing. Earlier in 2021, prior to the March 10, 2021 illegal seizure, plaintiff's fence facing Cross Highway was vandalized on four separate occasions, providing routes of escape to plaintiff's goats. The Redding Planning Commission, with the assent of the zoning enforcement officer, had previously ordered plaintiff to remove the fencing she had installed facing Cross Highway on grounds Cross Highway is a designated scenic road (Plaintiff was aware of this: she initiated the designation process.) 49. During the course of proceedings in Dunn v. 65 Goats, DOAG and the Office of the Attorney General have presented knowingly false misstatements to the Court without fear of recourse and they have obstructed plaintiff's earnest efforts to obtain information about her goats, their well-being or otherwise, the conditions of their confinement and many, many other issues, as to which she is legally entitled as defendant in the case. 50. Rosa Buonomo, plaintiff's witness and a goat expert who is highly regarded by DOAG animal control officers across the state,, testified in Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats that she has visited plaintiff's property and goat shelters and found them suitable in all respects for caring for 65 goats, that she inspected plaintiff's goats and appeared in good health, that no goat showed signs of not being well fed and watered, and that plaintiff's property provided them with sufficient space for recreation and foraging. 51 Ms. Buonomo is president of Stoney Brook Farm Animal Rescue, Inc., a 501(c )(3) animal sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut, and that she is willing and able to take in all of plaintiff's goats and so informed DOAG representatives, including defendant Dellarocco, and the Town of Redding prior to the March 10, 2021 illegal seizure. 52. Plaintiff is very familiar with Ms. Buonomo’s facilities and staff and believes she would provide excellent care of plaintiffs goats, or find them equivalent homes, so that they could be certain to live out their natural lives in peace and security under good and devoted care. 53.Ms. Buonomo had made plans to transfer 12 goats to her sanctuary the weekend before the seizure but dangerous weather conditions forced a postponement. 54. Plaintiff has also been notified by a goat sanctuary, Goats of Anarchy, that it is willing to take in, through a goat-placement network, as many goats as plaintiff may wish to adopt out to her. 55. Plaintiff has also identified various qualified individuals eager to adopt some of plaintiff's goats and provide them with quality and lasting care. 56. The DOAG is under no legal obligation to find good homes for animals relinquished to its custody and many are destined for auction and slaughter. 57. Plaintiff is opposed to goat slaughter based on her moral and religious convictions. 58. In April 2021, plaintiff filed a motion in Dunn v. 65 Goats to immediately relinquish her goats to such above-identified facilities and individuals but, to date, despite reclaiming such motion, it has not been acted on by the Court; if the motion were granted, it would spare expense to the State of Connecticut and the goats would be assured of superior care as compared with the cruelty and abuse they, presently endure in state temporary custody. 59. Defendant Dellarocco noted in his affidavit in support of the search and seizure warrant that he observed that plaintiff appeared fatigued and fragile when he observed her on February 3, 2021 while she was tending to the goats in wintry weather and her property was buried in 1-2 feet of snow. 60. DOAG agent Tanya Wescovich testified in Dunn v. 65 Goats that none of the goats were seized because of their health or medical conditions or lack of availability of food or water or foraging and recreation opportunities. She testified that in her view some of the shelters on plaintiff's property were in need of attention. She further testified that when she joined defendant Dellarocco in surveillance of plaintiff and her property, from the vantage point of the surveillance window she could not observe three of plaintiff's six shelters. She also testified under questioning by Judge Cobb that plaintiff's 3.6-acre property was sufficient for care and management of 65 goats. 61 | believe that Mr. Dunn and defendant Dellarocco, in complicity with defendant Redding Police officers, had me under satellite surveillance when I was obtaining water for the goats and when | was attending a hospital. appointment in the spring of 2021 and at other times. 62. Defendant DOAG and its agents lacked probable cause to invade my home on March 10, 2021, as they had absolutely no cause to believe they would find evidence of criminality in my home, as they did not. Their stated reasons to invade my home were a travesty. It is my belief that once inside my home, one or more of such unauthorized agents or other individuals disrupted my private papers and valuables and stole several irreplaceable items of great value to me. The items have not yet been returned. 63. The despicable, illegal and unconscionable actions of the defendants in this matter have forced me from my home, ruined three years of my life and caused serious medical issues as well as enduring heartbreak over their cruelty, brutality and abuse of my blameless goats. 64.1 believe the Special Motions to Dismiss are meritless and frivolous and should be dismissed forthwith: QATH STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12!" day of July, 2021 Clerk/Notary Publi¢ aa a eg a ine, “ap Logion Dyaiey ov a(50/].a) » mA oe ey at E eB a = = => ~~ nn, fox aA Cee, we ~