THE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL,

SUPERIOR COURT

SS.

Edward C. Furlong, III

And Starbrite Leasing, Inc'
V,

Garland
Town of Bartlett, Bartlett water Precinct and Selectman Douglas
Docket No. 212-201 5-CV-0001 0

NowCoMEstheDefendants,TownofBartlettandSelectmanDougiasGarland'inhis
u'Town"), by and
Bartlett (colrectively, the
official capacity as forner Selectman for the Town of

PLLC, and respectfully submits this

through therr attorneys, Donahue, Tucker & ciandella,
as
dated February 75,2015' The Town states
Supplement to the'fown's Motion to Dismiss

foliows:
Summarlr
1

exhibits in supporl of the outstanding

The Town respectfully submits two separate

MotiontoDismissfiledbytheTownonFebruary25,20i^5'Thefirstisarecordofthecriminal
proceedingin200gwherebythePlaintiffEdwardFurlongwascriminallyprosecutedfor'and
ultirnatelypledguiltyto,criminaltrespasswithinthesubjectareaoftheinstantlawsuit.Tlrese
the 2009 criminal prosecutiorl cleariy serves
materiais are submitted for two purposes: first,

as

in connection with the Plaintiff Furlong's alleged

an additionai case where res jucricalaattaches
proceeding materiais are subrnitted to
right to use the subject area. Secondiy, these criminal
novel
that he is experiencing some lnannel of
refute the suggestion by the Plaintiff Furlong

- ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DONAIIUE, TUCKER & CIA.I.IDELI,A' PLLC8OO-566'0505
WWW'DTCUIIYERS'COM

OFFICES

IN

EXETER, PORTSMOUTH AND MEREDITH' NBW }IAMPSHIRE

in 2009, the Plaintiff Furlong was

harassment or preludice at the hands of Town offrcials:
he now alleges he has a legal basrs to
cnminaily charged and convicted for the very trespass that

cary out. As

to his behavior' and

such, the Plaintiff Furlong was well aware of the repercussions

arising out of his recent trespass'

cannot suggest he is suffering fiom present mistreatment

z.

plaintiff Furlong's most recent lawsuit agarnst Gene

The Town also submits the

This pleading underscores the necessity of

Cirandler, in his capacity as Selectman for the Town'
would, at once' allow the Plaintiff
institutrng some manner of gatekeeping provisions that
to the Town for defending repeated actions
Furlong access to the Court, but ensure the prejudice
manner of cash deposit to satisfy the Town's
is mitigated by vrrtue of a bond, surety or some
repetitious litigatton'
attorney's f'ees, costs and expetlses incurred in defending

A.

2009 Criminal Proceedings

3.AssetfofihinExhibitA,onoraboutDecember20,2008'thePlaintiffFurlong
precinct's property in the very area that is the subject of the
encroached onto the Bartlett Water
and the access to the White Mountain National
instant lawsuit, nartely, the "Ballfieid Road"
Forest.

4.

of the Bartlett Police

A crirninal complaint was filed by chief connif.ey

in
The Plaintiff Furiongwas represented by counsel
Department on January 3,2009 fortrespass.
that matter.

5.

guilty to criminai trespass'

on or about May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff Furlong pled

for that crlme'

and was fined and assessed a penalty assessment

- ATTORNEYS AT I.AW
DONAHUE, TUCKER & CIATiIDELLA, PLLC
800'566'0506 ' WM'DTCUWYERS'COM

OFFICES

IN

EXETER, PORTSMOIIIH AND MEREDITH' NEW HAMPSHIRE

6.

in connectton wltn
The plaintiff Furlong could have asserted his current claims

the Plaintiff Furlong already arose

that cnminal proceeding. Most, if not all, of the complaints of

by the date of the Plea, MaY 6,2009'

7.

Dismiss' res
As such, and for the reasons set forth in the Town'S Motion to

right of
judicata completely bars the Plaintiff Furlong's arguments relative to his alleged

access

precinct property. Similarry, the praintiff Furrong had every right to

over the Bartrett water
was a result of some manner
assert the suggestron that the 2009 criminal prosecution

of

This was not done' and the Plaintiff

harassment arising out of Town officials' alleged malice'

with tire instant matter'

Furlong is thus barred from suggesting that in connection

8.

of guilt completely
Further, the Plaintiff Furlong's guilty piea and finding

prosecutions are a furlherance of l-ris perceived

undermines the suggestion that current cnminal
to this court's
harassment, or otherwise constitute a willful disregard

order' The PlaintifT

knew full well that his actions constituted

Furlong, by vrrtue of his guilty plea and conviction,

for same' Rather than accede to such

crirninai behavror, and that he wouid be prosecuted
to brazeniy trespass on the Barllett Water
circumstances, the plaintiffFurlong chose instead
fence in 2015, thus subjecting him to the very
Precinct property and destroy the boundary

criminal prosecution that ultimately accrued'

g,Worse'andassuggestedinconnectionwiththeTorvn'sMotionfor
pleadings and ex parte request for a TRO are
Reconsideratron of the'IRO, the Plaintiff Furlong's
The plaintiff Furrong's failure to advise
utterly devoid of any mention of this prior conviction.

DONAHUE, TUCKER & CIAIiIDEI,LA, PLLC OFFTCES

IN

EXETER, PORTSMOINH

ND

MEREDTTH' NEW

ATTORNEYS

HAMPSHIRE 8OO'566-0506

AT

I,AW

WWW'DTCNWYERS'COM

the need for

the Court of these circumstances, especially in an ex parte proceeding, underscore

prophylactic measures to avoid a reculrence of the Plaintiff Furlong's behavior'

B.

et
The piaintiff Furions's new case docketed Starbright Leasing et al. v'Gene Chandler
al. Carroll Countv Superior Court Docket No' 212-2015-CV-0032'

10.

latest
Submitted herewith as Exhibit B are the Plaintiff Furlong's pleadings in his

case against the

11.

Town's officials.

recitation
In general, the allegations contained in the above-captioned matter are a

tirat the Defendant

of the aliegations contained in this case, except for the general suggestion
Gene Chandler

,,abetted,, the behavior of the Town of Bartlett, and therefore should be removed

as a select board member and a member of the

N.H. House of Representattves.

Plaintiff Furlong alleges in this new matter'

IZ.

lt is unclear what

13.

cognizable claim upon

The Town respectfully submits that this new case posits no

causes of action the

set forth in prior cases'

which relief can be granted, but rather is a recitation of bald allegations

and, in several cases,

The pleading is rife with unsubstantiated innuendo, oontradictions
clemonstrabl e falsehoods.

|4,ThenewcaseunderscorestheneedforgatekeepingmeasurestoensuletheTown
need not def-end itself against clearly repetitious
case, as

litigation. The matters alleged in the instant

filing' havebeen dealt with

well as those contained in the plaintiff Furlong's most recent

the Town' worse' the Plaintiff

in no fewer than three prior cases that were resolved in favor of

alleges at his outset that Mr' Chandler is being

For example. the plaintiff Furlong's Complaint bombastioally
Vara A bricf telephone call to Asslstant Attorney
crimiually investrgated by Assistant Attorney General James
absolutely no basis in fact or reality'
General Vara qutckly revealed that this allegatron has
,

DONAHUE, TUCKER
OFFICES

IN

EXETER, PORTSMOUM

& CIN{IDELI,A, PLLC MEREDITH, NEW ITAMPSHIRE

8OO

ATTORNEYS

566-0506

AT

IJAW

WWII.DTCLAWYERS.COM

date, attempted
as of this
has.
Furlong
g th"
inv olvrn

;:*: ":

cases
eight (8)
than
ferver
no
issues in
to raise these

ffi
;:-.'
-. ;:::"'.r"*

of defending
the expense
shouider
not
Town need
ensure that the

est

for gatekeepin

g measures

to

repetitive lidgation'

against the
l6.TheTownthereforerespectfullyrequeststhatthisHonorableCourtissueanotder
he levels a ciaim
whrch
in
future litigation
plaintiff Furrong, in any

a litigation
n'Iust provrde
agents'
or
officers
precinct, their employees,
water
Bartiett
do not
Town, the
those matters
if
Defendants
to such
of $20,000.00 payable
amount
the
in
cash
bond or
Plaintiff
In that fashion' the
judgment.
for summary
dismiss or a motion
su^,ive a motlon to
but r'viii ensure
petitioning the court'
by
redress
prohibited from seeking
Furlong wi' not be
pay to
precinct will not repeatedly
water
Bartiett
the
that the Town and
some level of assurance

srating that the

dcfend thc saure action'

court:
that this Honorable
requests
respectfully
*HEREF.RE,, the Town

A.DissolvetheTemporaryRestrainingorderissuedbrthisCourtaSrequestedrnthc
Town's Nlotion for Reconsideratton;

B.Dismissthtscasewithprejudice,asrequesteciir-rtheTol,r'n'S\4otiontoDistrlrss.

C.orderthatthebondpostedbythePlaintiffFurlongbesun.enderedtotheTown,as
Motion to Dismiss;
requested in the Town's

D.

by the Town tn connection

measures as requestecl
gatekeeping
institute
or
install

withtheTown,sMotiontoDismisssuchtlratthePlaintiffFurlongmustpror,ide
SomeffIanneroflitigationbondordepositSoffIemannerofsuretywiththeCoutl