STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL,

SIJPERIOR COURT

SS

Case

No: 212-2015-CV-000

Starbrite Leasing,lnc., and Edward C. Furlong III

V.

Town of Bartlett, et al and Bartlett Water Precinct. et al.

MOTION TO ''RECONSIDER'' COURT'S ORDER DATED MAY 11.2015

_(tequest for hearing)

NOW COMES , Starbrite Leasing, Inc, and Edward Charles Furlong III, by and
through as President for Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and Pro Se counsel for Petitioners,
(hereafter, Petitioners) and in his Pro Se capacity request this Honorable Court to
RECONSIDER Court's order dated May I 1,2015 denying Petitioner's "Petition for
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages" dated January 28,2015.

From the outset, Plaintiff's want to thank this Honorable Court generously, for taking the
time out to "read Plaintiff's many briefs," and volumes of evidence.

Statement of "Indisputable" Material Facts

1

2.

Exhibit no: 1, Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' redress dated May 1 1,2015.

Exhibit no: 2,

Selectmen meeting minutes where Gene Chandler states that

the Water Precinct "should give the town the field." Also, former Precinct commissioner,
Bert George, states: "there is little interest in the field."

3.

Exhibit no:

4.

Exhibit no:

4,

5.

Exhibit no:

5,

3,

Meeting minutes where Chandler states nothing will go across

road.

Meeting minutes where selectman Chandler states: "it all can

be undone, nothing is permanent."
Annette Libby deposition "single page" ....paragraph...states

she dropped the rocks to block.

Exhibit no:
Selectmen meeting minutes where a violation
constitutionally protected properly rights were denied a 30 day extension.

6.

6,

of

7.

A TAA is drafted on February 13, 2015 through the selectmen's office with an
unscrupulous lawyer, after the tort of September November 2008 (blockade); strategically
undermining (blowing out) existing property rights as they pertain to due process of law,
the Petitioner had these rights "imbedded" until the instant blockade. A property owner
must now prove these rights with a lawyer who see's an opportunity for himself? Petitioner
thinks not. Petitioner was federally protected by the Constitution;but for some reason these
protections weren't triggered by anyone; but that does not preclude there unshakable, rock
solid protections, to enjoy these all to fundamental constitutional provisions, one must not
have to advance there interpretations during the instant, tortious offense (that is
impractical), but can elicit them when they are known to exist, Petitioners have just
recently in the spring of 2012 realize these protections. No torlious acts by and through
corrupt officials can find shelter amongst the likes of res judicata and/or estoppel. Those
preclusions are applicable in many litigation, but simply put, do not apply here in this case
involving acts comitted under color qf law while in q(ficial capaci\). Any Immunity,
including a res judicata claim, or estopell does not negate a violation of constitutional
significance; Petitioner again ask this Honorable Court to stay it's order dated May I l,
2015 until these findings may shedlight on these constitution provision Petitioner's speak
of that were not afforded them by Defendant selectman. Defendant's can not use a res
judicata or estoppel claim when there are constitutionally protected property rights
imbedded, and involved. This is a tortious travesty in official corruption, but moreover in
judicial inaccuracy involving this very complex case that should not have been dismissed
due to these preposterous claims of res judicata. Petitioners had to bow down from
asserting there constitutional protected rights to fair hearing and inherent, unshakable
property rights when the police were called to paciSz the selectmen's need for revenge
against Petitioner's own acts of merely enjoying life's pleasures and having two competing
businesses to the selectman Garland. Arresting Petitioner 3 times in as many weeks and
then Bartlett police chief Janet Champlin brings in a friend from the Carroll County
sheriff's Office to arrest Petitioner Furlong a 4th time. Please see case no: 201-2015-cv00053, "Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial." Petitioner had to build a grass roots 501 C
(3) not-for-profit company: www.shedlight.us (est., 2009) to fight this horrendous
corruption

8.

Petitioner prays that they do not have to seek Federal Court for these all too
apparent judicial oversights, with the utmost respect to this Honorable Court. Petitioner
prays that this Honorable Court will address these violations of due process law, guaranteed

by our shining constitutional protections as they are guaranteed under U.S.C. 42 (1983) and
it's many protections through it's sub-chapters of same. also see; Bell v. Milwaukee 746 E
2d 1205 (1984\and Southwest Airlines Co. v. Tbxas International Airlines Jnc., 546 E2d
84 (19771

a.

Brown v. Ticor Title Ins.. Co., 982 E 2d 386:

"... consumer's anti trust uction against title insurers wus not barred by res judicsta
where consumer's due process rights were violated...,,

9.

Petitioner Furlong would like to steer the Honorable Court's attention to Exhibit
no: 7, U.S. District Court Rule 65 (b) Certification Petitioner's former attorney Randal
Cooper filed on Petitioner's behalf;..."whether Cooper meant well is debated." see page 1
paragraph a and b.

10. Now again, Petitioner's

state here in this brief that the use of the "field area" was
not something that was ever an issue: In the winter months, the Bartlett Water Precinct
would borrow a snowmobile from Lil'Man when the)z needed to check out the water tower
that was located 4 miles up the trails, and would take "laps" around the field before they
themselves headed up, See Exhibit no: I and 2 video and pictures enclosed in Petitioner's
"Motion to Stay" and court's order dated May 18, 2015.

11.

Plaintiff never found out statute law protecting roadwalzs and prescribed
easements existed until the report was finished blr Petitioner's second attornelz and Exert.
Mr. Paul Alfano in the fall of 2012. Petitioner spent an exorbitant ($25,000.00) amount of
money on this expert opinion on what is a class vi roadway by Expert Mr. Paul Alfano; and
that report can be seen in the 357 page appendix attached to the within case bearing case no
212-2015-cv-00010 and as exhibit l. Attorney Cooper certainly 'didn't want to believe'it
was a road or he would of filed an emergency TRO like this Petitioner did. The Honorable
Judge Houran did not have the "new evidence" of the 357 page appendix when he ruled; he
based his decision on the face of the TAA s language that it was valid, on it's skin; but this
agreement was poisoned underneath it's (TAA) skin; because underneath the skin lie rock
solid constitutionally protected property laws the selectmen had no business violating in
the instant. Petitioner now offers "new," inefutable proof that these two selectmen have
dirty hands on this Petitioner. The Honorable Judge Houran did not have a motion for
"Formal Proof of a Highway. Petitioner was intimidated andlor coerced by the Bartlett
police department to prove a roadway or prescribed easement existed, contrary to N.H.
RSA ." also see: Mahonev & a, v. Tbwn of Canterburv 638 N.H. (2003) He did not have
the new evidence that supports a disqualification on both these two rogue selectmen. Now

Petitioner's have this evidence. Petitioner's would not be wasting this Honorable Court's
valuable time if Petitioners were just drawing at straws. Petitioners have solid, irrefutable
evidence. You can not establish a res judicata preclusion "after" constitutional violations
have been triggered prior or otherwise.

12. There is no statute of limitation on proving a roadway.

And this roadway has

been used through adverse possession, and by the public since the year 1896. Attorney
Cooper was found to have a severe conflict of interest by an impaneled jury in superior
court, Strafford County. Selectmen Chandler and Garland have both of their signatures on
the TAA and Plaintiff's have irrefutable evidence to a civil conspiracy while perpetrating
two Intention Torts. All this evidence is in the large Appendix submitted on February 2nd,
20I5 and exhibited throughout the Petition and many subsequent motions Plaintiff's
submitted. For the sake of argument, Plaintiff's enumerates the reasons why the TAA is
invalid on it's face and bodv. in it's entiretv:
J

a. The tort of the blockade happened in November of 2008 along with violations of Petitioners
constitutionally protected due process rights to property were triggered, the tort involving a second tort to
fluster Petitioners; and the bogus "cease and desist" issue on the Petitioner's cabin renovation (selectmen
denying 3 separate building permit request, hello) and now Plaintiff (case no: 212-2015-cv-00053), for a
$362,000.00 fraudulent endeavor by these two Bartlett selectmen; the TAA was not signed (under duress)
until February 13,2009 with one unscrupulous lawyer and two corrupt selectmen. Petitioner enters into the
record Exhibit no. l: Objection Motion former attorney Cooper filed on behalf of his client Edward Furlong
and Lil'Man Snowmobile. This Shed's Light on this mess and coruption Petitioner is still currently
suffering from. Petitioner has audio of a selectmen meeting dated April 3Oth 2013 that still puts former
selectman Doug Garland and selectman Chandler in the mix, denying Petitioner access to the selectmen
"Table" because of ongoing litigation. Petitioner would like to introduce all this evidence before a final
ruling on within case no. 212-2015-cv-00010. This is the same selectman mind set Petitioner's have been
dealing with since 2008. Petitioner never was afforded any due process with his elected offlcials ( the two
selectmen, Chandler and former selectman Garland). Petitioner states here that the statute of limitation have
"tolled, time again" since the first tort; however, the statute of limitations begins to start ticking again after
the last act that has a direct connection with a previous tortious act at the start of the new violation. There
will be absolutely no miss leading the court like the defendant's have repeatedly done through attomey
Chris Hilson's representation of the defendants. Petitioner realizes he has an obligation to protect his
client's best interest but Petitioner's believe attorney Hilson is forgetting this is a case of officialcorruption
and therefore he is obligated under the rules of professional conduct to inform his clients, specifically, of
the limits to deception that can legally be employed in a judicial forum. Hilson is not well read on the
complaint lodged against his clients ( Petitioner believes attorney Hilson is guessing what might be
contained in two large complaints that Petitioner's filed); His duty is to tell, apprise these two official client
selectmen that they should step down as selectman concerning Petitioner and his businesses and to advance
an alternate appointed selectman (which is standard procedure) to hear any case that the Petitioner has as a
tax paying citizen. See Exhibit no 2 attached: Tax abatement application submitted by Petitioners. They
have not stepped down. This is in violation to the "Jury Standard" per N.H. RSA 673:14 and N.H. RSA
500-A:12

b.

There was no vote by the town to ratify or authorize a lease or license between the town of
Bartlett selectmen and the Bartlett Water Precinct (see Gene Chandler's Interrogatories in the 356 page
Appendix attached to the within Petition.

c.

The TAA, if read (verbatim) page 1 paragraph 5, it states : "The Town has been
granted a license (past tense) to use and occupy the Subject Property by the Precinct for a
public recreation purpose." Now please see selectman's Gene Chandler's Interrogatories
taken after the TAA was signed as seen in Exhibit no. 5 of the 357 page appendix that was
submitted though a separate Petition, same case, to impeach or disqualify Doug Garland.
Here selectman Chandler, emphatically states there is no license or lease between the Town
of Bartlett and the Bartlett Water Precinct to authorize the Town of Bartlett control over the
field area, LET ALONE THE CLASS VI ROAD. Now please see Exhibit no. 7 qttsched
selectmen meeting minutes where selectman Gene Chandler states "*hy the precinct
doesn't just give it (ball field) to the town." All this evidence and much more is in the 357
page appendix, and the appendix attached to case no. 212-2015-cv-00032: Furlong v.
Chandler and that is attached to that original Petition dated April 1,2015

d.

Selectmen used police intimidation to coerce Plaintiffs to "seek a burden"

(reversing the burden) of proving this long standing Historical ingress/egress and class vi
roadway. This is a huge violation acting under color of law,...Your Honorable Court. I am
stating here that the exhibits (357 appendix) that were entered into the Court and attached
to "Petition for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages" dated February 2,2015
spells out the corruption and duplicity through depositions and interrogatories to
corroborate at the very least, a disqualification of both selectmen,..Your Honorable Court.
That being the case then a TAA is invalid. Which should be the case.

e. If Petitioners are permitted by this Honorable Court to present it's arguments as

to why these two selectmen should be severely sanctioned; then by this, the Court will see
for itself, at the very least, a disqualification of these two rogue selectmen; and the Huge
Conflict of Interest that has now been dwarfed by the more serious allegations by these
Petitioners. And let the Petitioner's state right here that the acts of these two selectmen are
"outside their respective duties while acting under color of law." These two selectmen are
also in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and l8 U.S.C. 241 "Conspiracy to Deprive Citizens of
Rights."

14.

Petitioner wants to show that, excluding any preclusionary elements regarding a

public throughway, see Exhibit I video in the 357 page appendix. In this video the general
public is seen driving on this road, Petitioners have a solid case, if this roadway stays in the
unauthorized control of the Bartlett Selectmen than with no licence. no authoritv. no town

vote and the town's documented corruption pertaining to the two selectmen through the
357 page appendix, and the second appendix submitted to case 212-201 5-cv-00032.

15.

On July 3rd, 2015 Petitioner's have a pre trial scheduling conference for the
disquailification of selectman Gene Chandler, here in this court. Petitioner will show this
Honorable Court then the hard evidence to corroborate Bartlett selectman Chandler's
malfeasance in office; at the very least, a disqualification pertaining to Petitioners and the
irrefutable evidence to support the elements to fraud and conspiracy perpetrated by the
Defendants in their individual official capacities.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORB, Petitioners pray that this Honorable Court can see through this very
complicated and intricate case; and the many aforementioned, constitutional violations of
due process (enhanced) against Petitioners, that have been lost somewhere, or intertwined
with these proceedings here, in this judicial forum, and this has to be remedied by this
Honorable Court. These selectmen have choked off Petitioner's life blood, Due Process;
Petitioner's request relief in the form that this Honorable Court, and it's Honorable
presiding JD, scrutinize Petitioner's constitutional claims, in that his constitutionally
protected due process rights were violated prior to the formulation of res judicata, post
February 13th, 2009, or of the signing of what is known as a TAA.
a. Stay Courts Order dated May I Lth,2015 pending a final hearing on the merits.

b. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 5th,2015

Edward C. Furlong III, Pro Se

by and through, as Counsel,
and as it's President for: Starbrite
I-easing, Inc.,
PO Box 447 Bartlett. NH 03812

Certificate of Service
I herby certifu that a copy of the foregoing Motion has this 5th day of June, 2015, been forwarded
first class mail, postage prepaid, to Chris Hilson, Bill Scott, Peter Malia and Mathew Cairns, respectively,
Counsel for the Defendants.

Edward C. Furlons

III.

Pro Se

VERIFICATION
I, Edward C. Furlong, III, individually, and as President fbr Starbrite Leasing, Inc.. do hereby
declare that I have read the forgoing "Motion to Reconsider Courts Order" and know of the contents

thereof. With respect to the matters regarding Plaintiffs, Edward C. Furlong

lll,

Starbrite Leasing, the same

is true to my knowledge except to those matters that are alleged on information and belief; as to those
matters, I believe them to be true.

I, Edward C. Furlong III, declare under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 5th, day of June, 2015, in North Conway, Carroll

County, New Hampshire.

Edward C. Furlong III, Individually and,

as President of Starbrite l,easing, Inc.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS
Personally appeared before me, on this day of June 5th, 2015, Edward C. Furlong,

Ill, individually

and, as President of Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and under oath affirmed that the above was the truth to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

Notary Public/Justice of the Peace
My Commission Expires: