STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL. SS SUPERIOR COURT

Case No: 212-2015-CV-0001 0

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

v.

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

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROOF OF ROADWAY(request for hearing)

NOW COMES , Starbrite Leasing, Inc' and Edward Charles Furlong III, by and

through, as President, for Starbrite Leasing, [nc., and Pro Se Counsel,, for Petitioners'

(hereafter, Petitioners) and in his Pro Se capacity request this Honorable Court review and

rule on Petitioner's "Emergency Petition Pertaining to a Class VI Roadway" (formal proof

of highway), dated January 28th,2015 and May 14th,2015.

From the outset, Plaintiffs want to thank this Honorable Court profusely, for taking

the time out to "read Plaintiff's many briefs," and volumes of evidence.

Rule:89RSA 259: 125

Summarv of Statements and Facts

1 . Petitioner's wish to introdu ce Exhibit 1,2,3 and 4 attached; these are people

who represent the general public who have leased a snowmobile or walked into the offices

of Starbrite Leasing and Lil man Snowmobile rental, or walked or drove down the class vi

roadway previously, and their individual signatures were obtained.

Z. This form that these people signed was done in the winter of 200912010. This

happened regarding the use of a 7 5' spur trial that exits on the south side boundary on

petitioner's property because the selectmen, Chandler and selectman Garland ordered the

blockade along the class vi roadway assisted by selectmen employee Annette Libby and

.,road agent.,Travis Chick, at that same time. So these people who are the general public

signed this petition out of anger over this inconvenience not being permitted to travel the

class vi road and were forced way out back of Petitioners property to use a 75' spur trial'

So these people were hurt by the illegal discontinuance of a class vi road and/or prescribed

commercial easement. And there is no res judicata on these statutory entities: a roadway

and dirty selectmen. So to put Petitioner back to the beginning, indeed Petitioners had

property rights, but were told by the selectmen that Petitioners had no rights by way of a

poti..-un, Uut they told the petitioners to sign this thing called a TAA. with Petitioner

ior1n". unscrupulous lawyer, it was signed in an l lth hour deal; but no there was no

compensation to the petitioners because they had rights prior to it's signing; but there are

many unscrupulous problems that exist with the TAA's mere existence. Petitioners, ifindeld they had constitutionally protected property rights prior to the signing of that bogus

TAA (and Fetitioner is not going io cite case law here) than we are speaking of fundamental

constitutional protected properly rights that were denied Petitioners and this Honorable

Court knows this fact of law. Than "Huston" we have some serious violations here

committed by Defendants.

3. This class vi roadway is a matter of law and has nothing to do with what is

called a TAA or temporary access agreement and/or a res judicata claim by defendants.

Nothing in the]AA reference, u .oud*ay but a trail on exhibit A that goes from "point a, b,

c and then d." Petitioners.s might have spoke of their rights to a roadway and did have that cause of action in a 2008

suit attorney Cooper filed but it was never supported by an argument or formal hearing

because attorney Cooper "non-suited" the case, you can not non-suit what is statutory: a

class vi road; There is no res judicata or estoppel, it does not apply in this instance' Plaintiff

never found out statute law protecting roadways and prescribed easements existed until the

reporl was finished by petitioner second attorney and Exert, Paul Alfano in the fall of 2012'

Aitorney Cooper certainly didn't believe it was a road or he would of filed an emergency

TRO like this petitioner did. So attorney Cooper puts that as a cause of action but no TRO

fbr temporary relief, instead he pulls an 11th hour on his client (Petitioners) and it gets

signed. The Honorable Judge Houron did not have the "new evidence" of the 357 page

aplpendix when he ruled; he based his decision on the language in the TAA that it is a valid

agreement. He did not have a motion for "Formal Proof of a Highway." He did not have the

new evidence that supports a disqualification on both these two selectmen. Now Petitioner

has this evidence. petitioner, *orlld not be wasting this Honorable Coutl's valuable time ifpetitioners were just hopeful. Petitioners have solid, irrefutable evidence. This Court must

view the several videos submitted for impeachment evidence purposes only, than cross

reference all the exhibits in the Petition with the 357 page appendix.

4. 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 ju.y in superior

"orrrt, 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 lntention Torts. All this evidence is in the large Appendix submitted on February 2nd,

Z0lS 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 body, in it's entirety:

a. The tort of the blockade happened in November of 2008; the TAA was not signed (under

duress) until February 13,2009.

b. There was no vote by the town to ratily 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 disqualifu 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 ofBartlett control over the field area, LET ALONE THE CLASS VI ROAD. Now please see

Exhibit no. 7 sttached selectmen meeting minutes where selectman Gene Chandler states

-hothing is going across road." All this evidence and much more is in the 357 page appendix attached to

the original Petition dated February 2,2015

d. Selectmen used police intimidation to coerce Plaintiffs to "seek a burden" (reversing the

burden) of provingthis long sianding Historical ingress/egress and class vi roadway. This is ahuge

violation acting under color of law, Your Honorable Court. I am stating here that the exhibits (356

appendix) that were entered into the Court and attached to "Petition for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

und Du-uges" dated February 2,2015 spells out the corruption and duplicity through depositions and

interrogatories to corroborate at the very least disqualification of both selectmen, Your Honorable Court.

That being the case then a TAA is invalid

e. If petitioner are permitted by this Flonorable Court to present it's arguments as to why these

two selectmen should be sanctioned; then by this the Court will see for at the very least a disqualification of

these two rogue selectmen; and the Huge Conflict of Interest regarding these Petitioners. And let the

petitioner's state right here that the acts of these two selectmen are "terrestrially beyond" anything

"improper."

5. Petitioner enters Exhibit no. 5 attached: Expert Damage Report by Dr. Author

Kenison, PhD., emeritus, though his damage report was prepared for the Lil'ManSnowmobile Rental; notwithstanding, the Honorable Court has found in it's last Order

dated May I 1,2015 that Lil' Man and Starbrite Leasing are in privity with one another;

than Petitioners assume that this Honorable Court can "extrapolate" from this report for

damages pertaining to Plaintiff Starbrite leasing. Exhibit no. 6 attached is Dr. Author

Kenisons curriculum vitae.

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

public throughway, see Exhibit 1 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: no licence, no authority, no town vote

and the town's documented corruption pertaining to the two selectmen through the 357

page appendix.

7 . On June 4th,2015 Petitioner's have a hearing for the disquailification ofselectman Gene Chandler, here in this court. Petitioner will show this Honorable Court then

the hard evidence to corroborate Bartlett selectman Chandler's, at the very least,

disqualification pertaining to Petitioners.

PRAYE,RS

WHEREFORE, Citing Superior Court rule 89 Plaintiffs request relief in the form ofa ruling pertaining to a class vi roadway. Plaintiff also wants a ruling on Doug Garland's

disqualification or removal based on the Petition and 356 page appendix, attached.

Plaintiff's hereby request this Honorable Court Grant Plaintiff's relief sought and

a. Stay Courts Order dated May 1 lrth,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: Mav 18th.2015

Edward C. Furlong [ll, Pro Se

by and through, as Counsel,and as it's President for: Starbrite

Leasing, Inc.,PO Box 447 Bartlett, NH 03812

Certificate of Service

I herby certifu that a copy of the foregoing Motion has this 1 8th day of May, 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. Furlong III, Pro Se

VERIFICATION

I, Edward C. Furlong, III, individually, and as President for Starbrite Leasing, Inc., do hereby

declare that I have read the forgoing "Emergency Motion fbr Formal Proof of Highway" and know of the

contents thereof. With respect to the matters regarding Plaintiffs, Edward C. Furlong III, 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 18th, day of May, 2015' in North Conway, Canoll

County, New Hampshire.

Edward C. Furlong III, Individually and,

as President of Starbrite Leasing, lnc'

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRECARROLL, SS

personally appeared before me, on this day of May 18th, 2015, Edward C. Furlong, IIl,

individually and, as President of Starbrite Leasing, lnc., 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: