PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREDJUDICE

STATE OF

NEWHAM PSHIRE

Carroll County, SS SUPERIOR COURT

March 3, 2015

Case no. 212-2015-CV-00010

Starbrite Leasing, Inc., et al

V.

Town of Bartlett and Bartlett Water Precinct

PTJAINTIFF,S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT,S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREDJUDICE

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and Edward Charles Furlong

lll, in the above captioned matter, and respectfully request that this Honorable

Court deny Defendant's (Selectman, Doug Garland's "Town of Bartlett") Motion

to Dismiss. Based on "material facts" and "matters of LaW" sworn to by affidavit

from Plaintiffs, and filed and docketed as (The Appendix) to this case, which

highlights and enumerates to this Court, conclusive, factual rebuttal elements

against Defendant's erroneous claims, this was submitted 012-L3-15, to this

Honorable Court, and is attached to the within case. ln further support thereof,

Plaintiff's states the following:

Introduction No.1

I can proceed two ways with this Motion to Object to Defendant's motion to

dismiss; I can write some long "my side of the story" type deal with some

controlling law interspersed; scream fowl on constitutional grounds, perhaps, that

wouldn't do me, or my financial injuries any good. Justice nright know,'..where

"due process" went, in regardS to the Defendant's instant, tortious act,

blockading Plaintiff's two businesses for 6 years. And it would do little good to go

down that path. lt would complicate the Jurist mind who hiad to read all the

material associated with this case. Of course, all the facts rrrrill be told. The

plaintiffs are in possession of a complete, overwhelming, catalogued, cache of

evidence. That's what has happened here. Cooper turned a mole hill into a

mountain. All I am left to tear down this mountain is a small shovel, big evidence

and tons of will power. I believe I have the 3 core elements to support a "gross

negligence" cause of action,...by a lying official. I will come in the "back door" on

this one.I have a I2OO page transcript from Cooper's trial. Guilty for the Conflict in regards

to having me sign the TAA agreement, in regards to the LiJ' Man Snowmobile, and

not Starbrite Leasing, lnc. see Exhibit K.

When Judge Houran had this, case no., 08-E-0160, filed then by counsel, Randal

Cooper, for Lil' Man Snowmobile Rentals, lnc., Judge Houran, didn't know

anything about the corruption of Doug Garland, or Cooper's own conflict. Had he

known the facts, as they are today, known, it would have been more probable

than not that he would have ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, and vacated the TAA.

At that time, Plaintiffs were confused how to proceed, to get relief from the

courts, this is when Cooper did an about face, and retired to Mexico, leaving

Plaintiffs in the lurch, and at a much, much more precarious spot, then before.

Without Counsel. And, in Houran's order, dated 12-10-2009....exhibit J. ; theHonorable Judge refers to the class vi roadway as a "pathway"; Well,... that's

understandable, I suppose, yet erroneous;... as we all know, as seen in all the

pictures of the road, submitted , hitherto; this is clearly a road and not a pathway.

But former attornev Cooper set the stage for all that: He used that "same

language" in his briefs and I called him on it. ltold him: "Randy, please stop

referring to the class vi road as I am "going over the ballfield". I told him that

would elicit children playing in the minds of the folks (jurist) trying this case and; l

told Cooper that would prejudice the Judge or Jurors to some degree. He would

simply shrug. sge Exhibit F. Cooper did not want a declaratory judgment forplaintiff, yet,... left one brief , docketed with no "emergency relief sought after". I

wanted to share this with the Court. See exhibit H. Cooper makes a mountain

from a mole hill, for his benefit, and not his clients. He brought all these thirdparties (DRED, USDA, everyone, they had nothing to do with a (town class vi

roadway). Cooper deliberately brought in these other government agencies to

allow for a more complicated scenario; that would help justify an added expense

to his billing me. All he had to do was file a TRO until the case could get heard on

it's merits. He deliberately worked against my best interest, so it was easy for

Garland to get away with the instant tort, that finally,...financially, crippled

Plaintiffs businesses. Then, on a separate "card"; selectman Garland gets me onyet another financial salvo; Through his planning Board chair, and seat in theselectmen's office, issued a "Cease and Desist"; that's cost Plaintiff's their life'ssaving of 366,000.00. Oh Yes. I would direct this Courts attention towww.bdrtlettcorruption.webs.com to see first hand, the pestilence, delivered by

Garland, the Selectman representative to the Planning Board.Supreme Court is blinded by their own rules, reviewing only trial court evidence.That's their job; just to review trial court "record". Nothing a litigant can do ifthere is corruption attached, the Supreme Court has that case, but as far as theirjob, is not to uproot corruption that is attached to it, but no way to get itremoved. Yes Garland's signature is on that document (Cease and Desist case no,

2014-cv-00063) too. lf I get the TAA "Vacated" ; is what I need here, in SuperiorCourt, then I might have a chance to get the Supreme Court Justice (Hicks,

honorable) some intervention on that case; however, that case is as corrupt as

what we're dealing with here. Garland has really thought this out. Here is the suitthat Judge Houran tossed. See Exhibit G, I was so fed up at that point, ( I had

deposed the whole crew at town hall, I had 52000.00 into that case). I had tomuster everything up to file a reconsideration. Please. See exhibit M

When Cooper represented me on that case he left when it was in the appellatestage, just out from the final judgment for the Plaintiff's, in our favor, that was in

the (3'd District (Ajbee, P.). lt surprised me , that the Defendant, Town--Doug

Garland, ordered the town's attorney to take that menial "cabin case" (Garland

contrived to hurt Plaintiffs even more) from the lower Court to the Supreme

Court, at the tax payers expense; and then getting a remand and then a default.Wow, no justice for the Plaintiffs. See www.bortlettcorruption.webs.com Town's

attorney seeking blood money--fines, totaling more than 366,000.00. They are

trving to get me to pav attornev's fees fgr all the expense to defend Defendant.Garland. So they are telling the Supreme Court through their legal briefs that366,000.00 represents a fine for the small cabin. But what the town's attorney isnot telling the Supreme Court is that some of the fine will help pay for the othercases Plaintiffs have brought,..."defending corruption isn't cheap", Plaintiffs

fighting for the lives; trying to save their businesses and reputations. The Plaintiffs

are suffering collateral damage besides a tarnished reputation. The cabin is noteven worth a third of that 5356,000.00 sum of money. ls this Honorable Court

sensing a pattern yet. Please see exhibit E (Plaintiff's Supreme Court brief).

Plaintiffs initially won the cabin case, but on appeal the Garland got a victory in

Supreme Court and the case got remanded back, over turned in part, and that'swhen I got literally dragged over the coals. The town got a default judgment fromme because attorney Cooper never forwarded the opposing counsels briefs to me

to rebut. And then of course, the Plaintiff, Edward C. Furlong lll (me) had to have

emergency quintuple by-pass surgery June 18th 2012. See exhibit M. L

Defendant's Counsel says he sees some language in some of my briefs that lookquite similar to lPlaintiff's] former attorney's briefs and language; well ves, l'mnot a grandstander, pro se, litigant. l'm fighting for my (expletive) life and others, I

am learning to litigate against one corrupt official ( a monster), that has his

attorney being paid,...with my tax dollars. This is crazy, l'm hoping to see new lightat the end of what has been a long, dark tunnel of Official Corruption; let's get

this eradicated. See exhibit / ( selectman Chandler trvins to appease Plaintiff)

This motion will be the most important Document in my entire life, I am certain.

Or perhaps it will be the accompanying, much shorter motion, titled: "Motion toVacate Temporary Access Agreement" or (TAA) based on New Evidence" ofOfficial Corruption. I told Randy to get Garland to step down, and Cooper wouldjust say he didn't want to "stir the pot". As unorthodox as this Motion might

appear, its intent, is to enlighten this Honorable Court to what is judicially

obscure, but none the less, judicially incorrect as well. And,...the otherwisewanton and malicious acts perpetrated against the Plaintiffs by the defendants, is

unconscionable, and Plaintiff's need money damages to cure. This is an ongoing

Tort against the Plaintiffs, and financial damages are ongoing.

SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS FOR THE HONORABLE COURT

a. Whether the Honorable Court can see what has happened here. These few

cases that Defendants bring as part of their motion to dismiss, in essence, is a

god-send to Plaintiffs. Are you kidding me, I ask myself, this shows the Court

exactly what's going on with the Plaintiffs ongoing plight. This "pool of writtenlegal briefs": Plaintiff trying to sue for damages, is just tha|...A citizen fighting

corruption. And corruption is a tough nut to crack. Those briefs were written by a

desperate man to hang on to what he worked so hard for; what most would

consider a "crdme puff of a business" (snowmobile rentals) is absolutely right;

Plaintiffs businesses were extremely profitable, and carried a certain amount of

prestige, too, as the Plaintiffs will be able to show through Expert testimony.Those briefs were written by, Edward C. Furlong, for Lil' Man Snowmobile, lncand Starbrite Leasing, lnc., out of desperation. After Plaintiff's attorney made his

retirement escape to Mexico, as seen in Exhibit H, Plaintiff's "case" is moredifficult to litigate now, indeed, Plaintiff, is still unwinding the mess Cooper left.

b. Whether the Honorable Court can vacate an agreement based on newcompelling, evidence? See Gorland Video L, then see poqe 9 in Garlond'sdeposition: lie # 1. Then please see paae 2L in Garland's deposition where Garlanddidn't authorize Stephen Libby....". Now please see Stephen Libby's letter exhibitM,i : Garland lie 2,...at the request of the Selectmen..." Now see Annette Libbv's

deposition exhibit B, where she too admits to blocking Plaintiff's ingress on paqe

6. lines L4-17. ond then reod paae 31.

c. Whether attorney Coopers guilt by "Jury Verdict" in Strafford County

,superior Court, and Selectman, Doug Garlands, lies, (dirty hands) is guilty, lying

while under oath and connected "DIRECTLY" to the instant, (intentional) Tortback in the fall of 2008 in regards to the placing the boulders to block Plaintiff'singress, is enough "new concrete evidence" for the Superior Court to revisit this"slight" befallen the Plaintiffs and Vacate the temporary access agreement or(TAA). Subject Matter Jurisdiction is proper here, in Carroll County SuperiorCourt.

d. Whether Plaintiff's rights to a certain, and distinct, class vi road located on theeast side to Plaintiff's Historical Lodging property is restricted to agreements thatspeak of a (that are ambiguous on their face) certain trial that goes from A, to, B,

to C, then to D on a map like seen as Exhibit m,3, of the temporary access

agreement or TAA ? Or are there restrictions, too, of who can travel a public way

along a class vi road? What are the abutter rights to a class vi roadway, that'sbeen discontinued subject to gates and bars? Or what are the prescribed

easement rights of the abutters?

e. Can any of these basic, fundamental rights that were Plaintiffs in thebeginning, originallv, be bargained away; brought against Plaintiffs to prove;

because the selectman used the police to reverse the "burden of proof on

Plaintiffs, to enjoy such a traveled way?

f.

g.

h.

Whether the Court would consider repetitive law suits by the Plaintiff as an

act of a desperate man trying to save what is his, or a man trying to achievesomething?

Whether a documented history of corruption by official (s) in the town ofBartlett affords any credence to the Plaintiff's claims. See exhibit D. JonTanquay, Gene Chandler, Bob snow....

Whether this case has slipped through the cracks due to Randall Cooper orDoug garland, Planning Board Member. Judge Houron, that ruled on an

agreement these two individuals in their capacities as attorney and planningboard member, repectively, Cooper and Garland were primary "drafters," orthe architects, to the TAA, and the "main signers", besides plaintiff, to thatdocument. Judge Houran recused himself from the Cooper case, and undersuperior court rule 38., a Judge doesn't have to disclose the reasons.

Whether the third selectman, Jon Tanquay, by not signing the TAA, makes theTAA invalid with just two signatures on it, with Doug Garland's signatureremoved, makes the TAA worth only the paper it's printed on. lnvalid, lacking

a 2/3's vote, leaving only Gene Chandler's signature? He's crooked too see

exhibit D .

Whether Selectman, Garland, had an arbitrary right to block, or not toblock, a prescribed easement, relevant to the Plaintiff's property, and lying

east to the Plaintiff's property. And whether using Stephen Libby, who has

no training in surveying, helped Garland further his other tort against

Plaintiff, involving a cabin on Plaintiff's property, that Planning Board ,

Doug Garland, also did not step down from, even after Plaintiff'srequested repeatedly. See meeting minutes exhibit M. 45 Wisutskie v,

Molouin. 88 N.H. 242

k. Whether the fact that Defendant, Doug Garland, who is a Planning

Board member/selectman, is permitted under law to advertise his "Bear

Notch Ski Touring Rental Center, LLC in the bodv language that comprisesthe "Town's Master Plan"? This advertising, "through" the Town's MasterPlan, on pages 5 and then again on 13. This is a serious violation of ethics

J.

behavior, or lack thereof. see Master Plon for the town of Bartlett, NewHampshire. Exhibit C. page 5 and 13.

| . Whether the Court has sensed a pattern yet in Councilman, Garland'sbehavior?

Whether the Selectman, or Planning Board member, Doug Garland, had theright to coordinate efforts with another, (Annette Libby) to hurt my twobusinesses? Bartlett recreation director, Annette Libby, and Doug Garland,through their, respective, oaths of office, whether as planning boardmember or selectman or recreation director; Garland lied, Libby has

deposition also corroborates the serious lie; Well the lie was used to coverup a tort by Defendants; and closed a vital life-artery off to Plaintiff'sconcerns, without a warrant article, gated and locked a road, a class vi

roadway, then logs, boulders as evidenced by these Plaintiffs?. See AnnetteLibbv's deposition Exhibit B.

v. Whether or not the "jury standard" which applies to all Planning Boardmembers would be subject under see Pdnos v. Hdrkis. 729 N.H. 597 (7987J

to set aside a verdict, order from the court or temporary agreements wheresuch agreements were imbued with corruption.

Whether res judicata or is a relevant theory/defense in this case? None ofthe 3 elements rise to res judicata here, and they have not been met by

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's will move this Honorable Court to havethe TAA vacated, once and for all.

n. Whether the Honorable Court is cognizant of a second "ballfield" locatednext to the public school: (Josiah Bartlett Elementary), and a third ballfield, located off what is known to locals as: "Westside Road".

This is the "primary ballfield" to the other two ball fields. And the precinct

ball field, was, as stated by Bert George: "....no one's interested in it the fieldanymore..." see Bert George (water precinct commissioner statement)Exhibit M.6.

Introduction No.2

t. I have to tell it like it is. This is gone on too far, Your Honor, I can't hold outmuch longer. This is a huge cover up. Garland, has dirty hands on me andmy businesses. This Court is my only hope for justice.

After re-reading Defendant Counsel's Motion to Dismiss I have to say, itappears that Defendant Counsel has relied on what other people (ie.,Selectman Garland) have told him about the certain lawsuit's Plaintiffsfiled, fighting against the rogue (tortfeasor) selectman, Garland, and hisinstant tort because there are (many false claims) that defendantCounsel is offering to this Court for review. I want to highlight and pointthese false claims out now:

a. Defendant's Counsel offers this Honorable Court Falsehoods. This is notfair at all. lf I can direct the Honorable Court's attention to DefendantCounsel's number (9) in his motion states..." to reinstate and gainaccess over the Water Precinct property...." Defendant's Counsel is

again, has been either mislead or misinformed. Here again is the 75'spur trial that is separate from the class vi roadway, that lies behind thePlaintiff's property and to the "south side" as is the case with the road,lies to the east; that which separates precinct field and Plaintiff'shistorical lodging property. This spur trail and separate road as shownin Plaintiff's exhibit VIDEO #. 2; that this case talks about. Also, so thereis no more room for doub! Plaintiffs submit video # 2 showing each ofthe two trails and the road: This is the trail (75' spur) see exhibit m 7ond m Ta,still photograph, with Terry Miller standing there with thepee coat and white dapper gloves. Plaintiffs tried to use this 75' spurtrail when selectman Garland and Annette Libby decided to close theclass vi road off without warrant article to block Plaintiff's twobusinesses. Plaintiffs' businesses depended on ingress/egress alongthat road, and the property has been using it as such since 1986, as

seen in exhibit no. m 8.9.L0.LL,t2 and to shut down Plaintiff'sbusinesses, or certainly impede it.

b. court's note: if a person, or lawyer, is claiming res judicata; they mustabide by the elements of those sacred doctrines by citing correct and"duplicate litigation" that's been heard, on the merits, that wouldapply.These cases don't apply. Here the Defendant counsel does not"explicitly" state what the "exact" nature of res judicata is he's claimingbut instead, misleads the court with erroneous descriptions of thematerial submitted, lacking accuracy.

c. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is actually beneficial to thePlaintiffs, because it chronologically encapsulates the horrendous,ongoing plight to secure the rights of the Plaintiff's,...over the class viroadway that's been attached to the Plaintiffs Historic Lodging propertysince 1896,...property for well over 100 years. See exhibit m.i.i.Plaintiffs, for sake of posterity, and the well-fare of the Plaintiffs, willmove this Honorable Court with a Motion to Vacate the documenttitled: "Temporary Access Agreement", based on the new evidence ofcorruption, when the hearing on Wednesday, March 4,20t4, at L0:00am, convenes.

Note: I am claiming no rights to the 75' spur trail; to set aside any confusion;that trail I am claiming no rights to, I didn't have the authorization from theNational Forest as referred to in case no., 10-cv-03-SM, in U.S. DistrictCourt. Selectman Garland's action on closing the class vi, east of thePlaintiffs propert, left Plaintiffs no other alternative but to find other waysto the forest floor along it's beautiful woods trails and roads. I had to bendrules to accommodate the volume of business I was doing then, whenGarland decided to destroy me. I admit I was not permitted under a permitto traverse the 75' spur trail. I did receive a few citations through the US

District Court.

2. For sake of argument, that the " Temporary Access Agreement" or (TAA) is notrelated to these Plaintiff's or the Plaintiff's 'within case', aside from this Pro Se

litigant, Counsel to Plaintiff; a remote alternative would be, to drop my namefrom the with-in case and just Leave Starbrite Leasing. That's the last alternative;other than that I move to vacate the taa based on official corruption with specialcircumstances, that aggravate the corruption. But let's take a look: let's justexamine the TAA on its face, title states Lil' Man Snowmobile Rentals, et al v.

Bartlett Water Precinct and Town of Bartlett. Clearly that's not Starbrite Leasing.will direct the Courts attention to the meat and potatoes "part" on the TAA, lineNo: Four: Exhibit m.2

TAA No: ( 4 )...."license for the public to cross the south west corner of itpropertv..."and ,,," as shown on exhibit m,2 of the TAA (at the back part of TAA).

Now if the Courts sees already one discrepancy because the exhibit "1-" isactually an " A" .

TAA No: (S)..."from any claims, causes of actions and damages which thePlaintiffs. Collectively or individually, have had up to the date of the execution ofthis Agreement related to the Plaintiffs' business <[note, the singular]...."TAA No: 6 This addresses the liability protection the Town and Precinct, nothingbinding or relevant to the with-in case. lronically enough,...they're worried aboutconcerning third party claims from Lil' Man customers.

Note: Your Honor, the Court, this TAA, or whatever one wishes to call it, hasnothing to do with the Removal of a Planning Board Member, Doug Garland or hisselectman chair. The TAA states nothing about Boulders/Logs or Revenge fencingand the violation of closing down a class vi roadway without warrant article. I justthink Defendant's counsel is trying to pull a fast one here. Funny thing is, he has

not mentioned his client as having any thing to do with being corrupt or even aconflict of interest, nothing; yet a black and white lie is not good enough. But it is.

Note for the Honorable Court: referencing the class vi roadway, if bouldersblocking Plaintiff's access were never dropped, a TAA wouldn't exist.

These claims Plaintiff present under case no., 212-2015-CV-00010 were filed onFebruary l.3th 2015 and that surpasses the date of the TAA of February 13, 2009.

Plaintiff is suing Doug Garland and the Town and the Bartlett Water Precinctfor the instant offense of blocking my cabin rentals; the prior suits were foranother corporate entity.

Note: I would like the Honorable Court to consider the Defendant Counsel'sunethical behavior, Chris Hilson, Esquire, for contempt and citeMr. Hilson for purposely shielding his client's blatant corruption.

L0

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and Edward Charles Furlong lllrespectfully request that this Honorable Court Denv Defendant's Motion toDismiss with Prejudice , and Gront Plgintiffs Petitions now before this HonorableCourt to Remove Doug Garland from his Official Office and to Declare the class viroad, as such, to allow Plaintiff's to get on with their respective lives and business.Order any statutory fines (to the fullest extent, allowed by law) now; Pertaining tothe Defendant's non-compliance with the Court's order dated February 13,20!5,and titled: "Motion for Temporary Restraining order" (TRo). see exhibit M,5 fordate stamp verification of non-compliance, and

a. Order any further relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Starbrite Leasing, Inc.

By its Counsel:Dated: March 2,20ts

Respectfu I ly su bm itted,

Edward Charles Furlong lll, Pro Se

PO Box 447Bartlett, NH. 03812ecfu rlons 1958 @ gma i l. co m

CERTIFICATION

I here certify that a copy of the within motion has been sent this day3nd of March, 20L5, and has been forwarded to William Scott, Counselfor the Defendants, Doug Garland, and for the Town of Bartlett.

Edward C. Furlong lll, Pro Se

T1

VERIFICATION

I Edward C. Furlong lll, individually and as President of StarbriteLeasing, lnc., do hereby declare that I have read the foregoing Motionand know of the contents thereof. with respect to the mattersregarding Plaintiffs, Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and myself, Edward C.

Furlong lll, and the Defendants, Planning Board Member/selectmanRepresentative, Doug Garland, The Town of Bartlett (by and throughDoug Garland), Bartlett water Precinct; The class vi roadway, east ofthe Plaintiff's property, unethical behavior by Chris Hilson, attorney forDoug Garland, related to his inability to acknowledge his clients hugeconflict of Interest and dirty hands, attached to Supreme Court caseno.20t4-cv-00063, and the same is true to my knowledge except tothose matters that are alleged on information and belief; as to thosematters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 3'd

day of February,20L5, in North Conway, Carroll County, NewHampshire.

Edward C. Furlong lll, Pro Se

President: Starbrite Leasing, lnc.STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS

Personally appeared before me on this day of March 3,2015, Edward C.

Furlong lll, individually and as President of Starbrite Leasing, Inc., and under oathaffirmed that the above was the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Notary Public/Justice of the Peace

My Commission expires:

t2

13