THE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS.SUPERIOR COURT

Edward C. Furlong, IIIAnd Starbrite Leasing, Inc'

V,

Town of Bartlett, Bartlett water Precinct and Selectman Douglas Garland

Docket No. 212-201 5-CV-0001 0

NowCoMEstheDefendants,TownofBartlettandSelectmanDougiasGarland'inhis

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

through therr attorneys, Donahue, Tucker & ciandella, PLLC, and respectfully submits this

Supplement to the'fown's Motion to Dismiss dated February 75,2015' The Town states as

foliows:

Summarlr

1 . The Town respectfully submits two separate exhibits in supporl of the outstanding

MotiontoDismissfiledbytheTownonFebruary25,20i^5'Thefirstisarecordofthecriminal

proceedingin200gwherebythePlaintiffEdwardFurlongwascriminallyprosecutedfor'and

ultirnatelypledguiltyto,criminaltrespasswithinthesubjectareaoftheinstantlawsuit.Tlrese

materiais are submitted for two purposes: first, the 2009 criminal prosecutiorl cleariy serves as

an additionai case where res jucricalaattaches in connection with the Plaintiff Furlong's alleged

right to use the subject area. Secondiy, these criminal proceeding materiais are subrnitted to

refute the suggestion by the Plaintiff Furlong that he is experiencing some lnannel of novel

DONAIIUE, TUCKER & CIA.I.IDELI,A' PLLC - ATTORNEYS AT LAW

OFFICES IN EXETER, PORTSMOUTH AND MEREDITH' NBW }IAMPSHIRE 8OO-566'0505 WWW'DTCUIIYERS'COM

harassment or preludice at the hands of Town offrcials: in 2009, the Plaintiff Furlong was

cnminaily charged and convicted for the very trespass that he now alleges he has a legal basrs to

cary out. As such, the Plaintiff Furlong was well aware of the repercussions to his behavior' and

cannot suggest he is suffering fiom present mistreatment arising out of his recent trespass'

z. The Town also submits the plaintiff Furlong's most recent lawsuit agarnst Gene

Cirandler, in his capacity as Selectman for the Town' This pleading underscores the necessity of

institutrng some manner of gatekeeping provisions that would, at once' allow the Plaintiff

Furlong access to the Court, but ensure the prejudice to the Town for defending repeated actions

is mitigated by vrrtue of a bond, surety or some manner of cash deposit to satisfy the Town's

attorney's f'ees, costs and expetlses incurred in defending repetitious litigatton'

A. 2009 Criminal Proceedings

3.AssetfofihinExhibitA,onoraboutDecember20,2008'thePlaintiffFurlong

encroached onto the Bartlett Water precinct's property in the very area that is the subject of the

instant lawsuit, nartely, the "Ballfieid Road" and the access to the White Mountain National

Forest.

4. A crirninal complaint was filed by chief connif.ey of the Bartlett Police

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

that matter.

5. on or about May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff Furlong pled guilty to criminai trespass'

and was fined and assessed a penalty assessment for that crlme'

DONAHUE, TUCKER & CIATiIDELLA, PLLC - ATTORNEYS AT I.AW

OFFICES IN EXETER, PORTSMOIIIH AND MEREDITH' NEW HAMPSHIRE 800'566'0506 ' WM'DTCUWYERS'COM

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

that cnminal proceeding. Most, if not all, of the complaints of the Plaintiff Furlong already arose

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

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

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

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

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

harassment arising out of Town officials' alleged malice' This was not done' and the Plaintiff

Furlong is thus barred from suggesting that in connection with tire instant matter'

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

undermines the suggestion that current cnminal prosecutions are a furlherance of l-ris perceived

harassment, or otherwise constitute a willful disregard to this court's order' The PlaintifT

Furlong, by vrrtue of his guilty plea and conviction, knew full well that his actions constituted

crirninai behavror, and that he wouid be prosecuted for same' Rather than accede to such

circumstances, the plaintiffFurlong chose instead to brazeniy trespass on the Barllett Water

Precinct property and destroy the boundary fence in 2015, thus subjecting him to the very

criminal prosecution that ultimately accrued'

g,Worse'andassuggestedinconnectionwiththeTorvn'sMotionfor

Reconsideratron of the'IRO, the Plaintiff Furlong's pleadings and ex parte request for a TRO are

utterly devoid of any mention of this prior conviction. The plaintiff Furrong's failure to advise

DONAHUE, TUCKER & CIAIiIDEI,LA, PLLC - ATTORNEYS AT I,AW

OFFTCES IN EXETER, PORTSMOINH ND MEREDTTH' NEW HAMPSHIRE 8OO'566-0506 WWW'DTCNWYERS'COM

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

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

B. The piaintiff Furions's new case docketed Starbright Leasing et al. v'Gene Chandler et

al. Carroll Countv Superior Court Docket No' 212-2015-CV-0032'

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

case against the Town's officials.

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

of the aliegations contained in this case, except for the general suggestion tirat the Defendant

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.

IZ. lt is unclear what causes of action the Plaintiff Furlong alleges in this new matter'

13. The Town respectfully submits that this new case posits no cognizable claim upon

which relief can be granted, but rather is a recitation of bald allegations set forth in prior cases'

The pleading is rife with unsubstantiated innuendo, oontradictions and, in several cases,

clemonstrabl e falsehoods. I

|4,ThenewcaseunderscorestheneedforgatekeepingmeasurestoensuletheTown

need not def-end itself against clearly repetitious litigation. The matters alleged in the instant

case, as well as those contained in the plaintiff Furlong's most recent filing' havebeen dealt with

in no fewer than three prior cases that were resolved in favor of the Town' worse' the Plaintiff

, For example. the plaintiff Furlong's Complaint bombastioally alleges at his outset that Mr' Chandler is being

crimiually investrgated by Assistant Attorney General James Vara A bricf telephone call to Asslstant Attorney

General Vara qutckly revealed that this allegatron has absolutely no basis in fact or reality'

DONAHUE, TUCKER & CIN{IDELI,A, PLLC -OFFICES IN EXETER, PORTSMOUM N MEREDITH, NEW ITAMPSHIRE - 8OO

ATTORNEYS AT IJAW

566-0506 WWII.DTCLAWYERS.COM

Furlong has. as of this date, attempted to raise these issues in no ferver than eight (8) cases

inv olvrn g th" ;:*: ": -. ;:::"'.r"* ;:-.' ffi est for gatekeepin

g measures to

ensure that the Town need not shouider the expense of defending repetitive lidgation'

l6.TheTownthereforerespectfullyrequeststhatthisHonorableCourtissueanotder

srating that the plaintiff Furrong, in any future litigation in whrch he levels a ciaim against the

Town, the Bartiett water precinct, their employees, officers or agents' n'Iust provrde a litigation

bond or cash in the amount of $20,000.00 payable to such Defendants if those matters do not

su^,ive a motlon to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. In that fashion' the Plaintiff

Furlong wi' not be prohibited from seeking redress by petitioning the court' but r'viii ensure

some level of assurance that the Town and the Bartiett water precinct will not repeatedly pay to

dcfend thc saure action'

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

A.DissolvetheTemporaryRestrainingorderissuedbrthisCourtaSrequestedrnthc

Town's Nlotion for Reconsideratton;

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

C.orderthatthebondpostedbythePlaintiffFurlongbesun.enderedtotheTown,as

requested in the Town's Motion to Dismiss;

D. install or institute gatekeeping measures as requestecl by the Town tn connection

withtheTown,sMotiontoDismisssuchtlratthePlaintiffFurlongmustpror,ide

SomeffIanneroflitigationbondordepositSoffIemannerofsuretywiththeCoutl