STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS SIJPERIOR COURT

Case No: 212-2015-CV-000 1 0

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 andthrough 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 forInjunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages" dated January 28,2015.

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

Statement of "Indisputable" Material Facts

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

2. Exhibit no: 2, Selectmen meeting minutes where Gene Chandler states thatthe 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: 3, Meeting minutes where Chandler states nothing will go across

road.

4. Exhibit no: 4, Meeting minutes where selectman Chandler states: "it all can

be undone, nothing is permanent."

5. Exhibit no: 5, Annette Libby deposition "single page" ....paragraph...states

she dropped the rocks to block.6. Exhibit no: 6, Selectmen meeting minutes where a violation of

constitutionally protected properly rights were denied a 30 day extension.

7. A TAA is drafted on February 13, 2015 through the selectmen's office with anunscrupulous lawyer, after the tort of September November 2008 (blockade); strategicallyundermining (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 ownermust now prove these rights with a lawyer who see's an opportunity for himself? Petitionerthinks not. Petitioner was federally protected by the Constitution;but for some reason theseprotections weren't triggered by anyone; but that does not preclude there unshakable, rocksolid protections, to enjoy these all to fundamental constitutional provisions, one must nothave to advance there interpretations during the instant, tortious offense (that isimpractical), but can elicit them when they are known to exist, Petitioners have justrecently in the spring of 2012 realize these protections. No torlious acts by and throughcorrupt officials can find shelter amongst the likes of res judicata and/or estoppel. Thosepreclusions are applicable in many litigation, but simply put, do not apply here in this caseinvolving 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 constitutionalsignificance; 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 speakof that were not afforded them by Defendant selectman. Defendant's can not use a resjudicata or estoppel claim when there are constitutionally protected property rightsimbedded, and involved. This is a tortious travesty in official corruption, but moreover injudicial inaccuracy involving this very complex case that should not have been dismisseddue to these preposterous claims of res judicata. Petitioners had to bow down fromasserting there constitutional protected rights to fair hearing and inherent, unshakableproperty rights when the police were called to paciSz the selectmen's need for revengeagainst Petitioner's own acts of merely enjoying life's pleasures and having two competingbusinesses to the selectman Garland. Arresting Petitioner 3 times in as many weeks andthen Bartlett police chief Janet Champlin brings in a friend from the Carroll Countysheriff's Office to arrest Petitioner Furlong a 4th time. Please see case no: 201-2015-cv-00053, "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 horrendouscorruption

8. Petitioner prays that they do not have to seek Federal Court for these all tooapparent judicial oversights, with the utmost respect to this Honorable Court. Petitionerprays 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) andit's many protections through it's sub-chapters of same. also see; Bell v. Milwaukee 746 E2d 1205 (1984\and Southwest Airlines Co. v. Tbxas International Airlines Jnc., 546 E2d84 (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 judicstawhere consumer's due process rights were violated...,,

9. Petitioner Furlong would like to steer the Honorable Court's attention to Exhibitno: 7, U.S. District Court Rule 65 (b) Certification Petitioner's former attorney RandalCooper 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" wasnot something that was ever an issue: In the winter months, the Bartlett Water Precinctwould borrow a snowmobile from Lil'Man when the)z needed to check out the water towerthat was located 4 miles up the trails, and would take "laps" around the field before theythemselves 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 prescribedeasements 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 ofmoney on this expert opinion on what is a class vi roadway by Expert Mr. Paul Alfano; andthat report can be seen in the 357 page appendix attached to the within case bearing case no212-2015-cv-00010 and as exhibit l. Attorney Cooper certainly 'didn't want to believe'itwas a road or he would of filed an emergency TRO like this Petitioner did. The HonorableJudge Houran did not have the "new evidence" of the 357 page appendix when he ruled; hebased his decision on the face of the TAA s language that it was valid, on it's skin; but thisagreement was poisoned underneath it's (TAA) skin; because underneath the skin lie rocksolid constitutionally protected property laws the selectmen had no business violating inthe instant. Petitioner now offers "new," inefutable proof that these two selectmen havedirty 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 Bartlettpolice 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 havethe 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'svaluable time if Petitioners were just drawing at straws. Petitioners have solid, irrefutableevidence. You can not establish a res judicata preclusion "after" constitutional violationshave been triggered prior or otherwise.

12. There is no statute of limitation on proving a roadway. And this roadway hasbeen used through adverse possession, and by the public since the year 1896. AttorneyCooper was found to have a severe conflict of interest by an impaneled jury in superiorcourt, Strafford County. Selectmen Chandler and Garland have both of their signatures onthe TAA and Plaintiff's have irrefutable evidence to a civil conspiracy while perpetratingtwo 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'ssubmitted. For the sake of argument, Plaintiff's enumerates the reasons why the TAA isinvalid 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 Petitionersconstitutionally protected due process rights to property were triggered, the tort involving a second tort tofluster Petitioners; and the bogus "cease and desist" issue on the Petitioner's cabin renovation (selectmendenying 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 therecord Exhibit no. l: Objection Motion former attorney Cooper filed on behalf of his client Edward Furlongand Lil'Man Snowmobile. This Shed's Light on this mess and coruption Petitioner is still currentlysuffering from. Petitioner has audio of a selectmen meeting dated April 3Oth 2013 that still puts formerselectman 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 finalruling on within case no. 212-2015-cv-00010. This is the same selectman mind set Petitioner's have beendealing with since 2008. Petitioner never was afforded any due process with his elected offlcials ( the twoselectmen, 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 afterthe last act that has a direct connection with a previous tortious act at the start of the new violation. Therewill be absolutely no miss leading the court like the defendant's have repeatedly done through attomeyChris Hilson's representation of the defendants. Petitioner realizes he has an obligation to protect hisclient's best interest but Petitioner's believe attorney Hilson is forgetting this is a case of officialcorruptionand therefore he is obligated under the rules of professional conduct to inform his clients, specifically, ofthe limits to deception that can legally be employed in a judicial forum. Hilson is not well read on thecomplaint lodged against his clients ( Petitioner believes attorney Hilson is guessing what might becontained in two large complaints that Petitioner's filed); His duty is to tell, apprise these two official clientselectmen that they should step down as selectman concerning Petitioner and his businesses and to advancean alternate appointed selectman (which is standard procedure) to hear any case that the Petitioner has as atax paying citizen. See Exhibit no 2 attached: Tax abatement application submitted by Petitioners. Theyhave not stepped down. This is in violation to the "Jury Standard" per N.H. RSA 673:14 and N.H. RSA500-A:12

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

c. The TAA, if read (verbatim) page 1 paragraph 5, it states : "The Town has beengranted a license (past tense) to use and occupy the Subject Property by the Precinct for apublic recreation purpose." Now please see selectman's Gene Chandler's Interrogatoriestaken after the TAA was signed as seen in Exhibit no. 5 of the 357 page appendix that wassubmitted 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 Townof Bartlett and the Bartlett Water Precinct to authorize the Town of Bartlett control over thefield area, LET ALONE THE CLASS VI ROAD. Now please see Exhibit no. 7 qttschedselectmen meeting minutes where selectman Gene Chandler states "*hy the precinctdoesn't just give it (ball field) to the town." All this evidence and much more is in the 357page 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 viroadway. This is a huge violation acting under color of law,...Your Honorable Court. I amstating here that the exhibits (357 appendix) that were entered into the Court and attachedto "Petition for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages" dated February 2,2015spells out the corruption and duplicity through depositions and interrogatories tocorroborate 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 HugeConflict of Interest that has now been dwarfed by the more serious allegations by thesePetitioners. 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 arealso in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and l8 U.S.C. 241 "Conspiracy to Deprive Citizens ofRights."

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 generalpublic is seen driving on this road, Petitioners have a solid case, if this roadway stays in theunauthorized 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 the357 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 thedisquailification of selectman Gene Chandler, here in this court. Petitioner will show thisHonorable Court then the hard evidence to corroborate Bartlett selectman Chandler'smalfeasance in office; at the very least, a disqualification pertaining to Petitioners and theirrefutable evidence to support the elements to fraud and conspiracy perpetrated by theDefendants in their individual official capacities.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORB, Petitioners pray that this Honorable Court can see through this verycomplicated and intricate case; and the many aforementioned, constitutional violations ofdue process (enhanced) against Petitioners, that have been lost somewhere, or intertwinedwith these proceedings here, in this judicial forum, and this has to be remedied by thisHonorable 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 Honorablepresiding JD, scrutinize Petitioner's constitutional claims, in that his constitutionallyprotected due process rights were violated prior to the formulation of res judicata, postFebruary 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: StarbriteI-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 forwardedfirst 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 HAMPSHIRECARROLL, 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: