STATE NEW HAMPSHIRE OF CARROLL COUNTY, SS NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT Town of Bartlett,New Hampshire

V.

Edward Furlong,III d/b/a Lil'Man SnowmobileRentals Docket No.: o9-CV-oo3 RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF'S OBIECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW HEARING

NOW COMESthe Defendant,Edward F'urlong, proceedingin his Pro Secapacity, and respectfully submits this Response Plaintiffs Objection to the Defendant's to Motion for New Hearing and statesas follows: INTRODUCTION t. This HonorableCourt should grant Defenclant Edward Furlong'sMotion for a New Hearingas he has both good causefor missingthe hearingon January18,zorz and a meritorious defenseto the allegationsmade againsthim by the T'own of Bartlett. z. DefendantEdward Furlong doeshave irrefutableproof supportinghis position,as is seen herein with the attached exhibits. 3. Defendant Edward Furlong should not be required to pay the Town of Bartlett any monies,including the $83.39 that they now move for. Not only doesthe Defendant have good causefor missing the hearing on January 18,zorz,the Town of Bartlett has violated New Hampshire R.S.A.$ 5o7:r5designedto prevent frivolous lawsuits that are "intended to harassor intimidate" from being filed.

4. Defendant Edward Furlong moves that this Honorable Court grant his Motion for a New Hearing, deny the Plaintiffs any monetary judgment and award the S Defendant such costsand feesthat are applicableunder New Hampshire R.S.A. 5o7:r5. ARGUEMENT 5. Attorney Randall Cooper was counselon record for Defendant Edward Furlong at the time that the Town of Bartlett filed its Land Use Citation on December rz, zoo8.

6 . This Court ruled in favor of the Defendant Edward Furlong on August 17,2oo9.
The Town of Bartlett choseto pursue the matter to the New Ilampshire Supreme Court and it was docketed on October tg, zoog and the parties were askedto mediate which the Town of Bartlett opted not to do.
.7

Attorney Cooper withdrew as counselin the SupremeCourt on the matter on January 4,2oto and on fanuary5,2oro Attorney Coopercertifiesthat he servedthis Motion to Withdraw as Mr. Furlong'scounselon the Town of Bartlett's counsel,as seenherein as Exhibit r.

8 . The Town of Bartlett was therefore aware that Attorney Cooper no longer
representedthe Defendant Edward Furlong. 9 . The Order of Notice was sent to Attorney Cooper on July 28, zort. On July 28, zou Attorney Cooper had been resignedas the Defendant'scounsel for a year and a half. The Defendant submits Exhibit z, the pending Complaint againstAttorney Cooper for malpractice against Edward Furlong filed on May 23, 2cl7,2 months

before the Order of Notice for the Hearing on January 18,zorz was mailed to Attorney Cooper. Defendant Edward Furlong has no knowledge of whether or not the Order of Notice was receivedby Attorney Cooper'
10.

If Attorney Cooper did receivethe Order of Notice for the Hearing on Januaryr8, zorz, he did not forward the Order of Notice to the Defendant, Edward Furlong. Nor did Attorney Cooper notiry/the Defendant of said hearing, as seen in attached Exhibit rr, a notarized Affidavit of Edward C Furlong.

ll.

As counsel for the Town of Bartlett was servedAttorney Cooper'sMotion to Withdraw on January5, 2oro they knew that Attorney Cooper no longer representedDefendant Edward Furlong on this land use matter'

12.

It seemslogical that Attorney Cooper receivedthe Court's Order of Notice and realized there had been a clerical error and filed a second Motion to Withdraw the next day.

13. It also seemslogicalthat if the'Iown of Bartlett is really so concernedwith wasting

Attorney Cooper'ssecondMotion to time and money, when it's counselreceived Withdraw on this land use matter the day after the Order went out, they would have taken some measureto ensurethat the Defendant was notified of the hearing, knowing that Attorney Cooper had not representedMr. Furlong in a year and a half.
14.

New Hampshire Circuit Rule r.r requires "good cause"as "justice may require" for this Court to "waive the application of any rule". Through no fault of his own, the Defendant was unaware that there was a hearing taking place on January 18,zotz.

15. New Hampshire R.S.A.$ 526:rstatesthat "a new trial may be granted in any case when through accident, mistake or misfortune justice has not been done and a further hearing would be equitable." 16. "Accident, mistake or misfortune has been defined as something outside of [the Defendant's]control, or something which a reasonablyprudent person would not be expectedto guard against or provide for." LakeviewIlomeownersAssoc' v. Moulton Constr.,4t N.H. 789,79t, 6q A.zd BZ \qr)il.As Defendant Edward Furlong receivedneither the Order of Notice nor Attorney Cooper'ssecond Motion to Withdraw he was completely unaware the hearing on Januaryr8, zorz and could not reasonablyhave been expectedto attencl. 17. Defendant Edward Furlong has a meritorious defenseto the allegationsmade by the Town of Bartlett in the Land Use Citation.Mr. Furlong arguedand continues to arguethat a building permit was nevernecessary. r8. The Defendant filed a Notification Form for Minor Changesto Properfy on November 5, zooS with the Town of Bartlett. This form is for "notification Office of minor changesto property which do not purposesto the Assessor's value. Some examples require a building permit but may changethe assessed would be a change in the type of siding on the house, replacing a roof, changein type of flooring, change in type of heating system or change in insulation". r9. As the Town of Bartlett deemed this insufficient, former counsel for Defendant Edward Furlong filed an additional notification on January8, zoog with the

additional information required by the Bartlett Selectmenas seen herein as Exhibit 3. zo. Exhibit 4, the HonorableJudgeAlbee'sOrder dismissingthe Land Use Citation, states"the property owner [Mr. Furlong] needsto submit more than a rudimentary sketch on the back side of a document and must make a reasonableeffort to supply the information from which a reasoneddetermination can be made whether he requiresa building permit for any portion of the work done". This is done through the Defendant'sformer counselas seen in Flxhibit3' zr. The Defendant, Edward Furlong, did nothing to the existing cabin other than what is explicitly describedin the Notification Form for Minor Changesto Property' zz. The Defendant, Edward Furlong, filed a First Amended Complaint againstthe Town of Bartlett on January 26, zorz in New Hampshire Superior Court and other violation of privary and alleging,among other things, slander,officialoppression, as law, as seenI'rerein Exhibit 5.'fl-reoriginal violation of state due process Complaint was filed on December 27, zott. 23.This Complaint details how the Town of Bartlett and its official representatives violated the defendant'srights in obtaining the information used against him in the Land Use Citation. z4.TheTown of Bartlett allegesthat Mr. Furlong upgraded a "shed" into a "cabin" and for this was required to first obtain a building permit. 25.The Defendant does not dispute that turning a "shed" into a "cabin" would require a building permit but this is not what Mr. Furlong did'

26.The Defendant submits Exhibits 6 and 7 as evidenceof the fact that the cabin in question has alwaysbeen used as a cabin. Exhibits 6 and 7 are brochures from the previous lodging establishmentsand both differentiate between short staysin the "motel rooms" and longer staysin "cottages"' attached with Exhibit 3, was 27. The cabin in question, cabin #3 as seen in the sl<etch built a cabin and had alwaysbeen a cabin. It was, both before and after Mr. Furlong'srenovations,wired for electriciry,plumbing, sewageand even cable' 28.Two times previously the Defendant had built screenedporches onto other existing cabins. Both time the Defendant applied for and receivedbuilding permits as they were required to construct additions onto existing buildings. These building permit applicationsare submitted as Exhibits 8 and 9. 29.As seenin Exhibit 9, Mr. Furlong depictsCabin #3 as Cabin #3 beforethere were any land use issueswith it. states"[i]f it clearlyappearsto the court the action $ 3o. New HampshireR.S.A. 5o7:r5 or any defenseis frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the prevailing parry, then the court...mayaward the amount of costsand attorney's feesincurred by the prevailing party plus $roooto be paid to the prevailing party. The trial judge shall also report such conduct to the supreme court committee on professional conduct" (emphasisadded). with the 3r. The Town of Bartlett has a clear history of harassmentand intimidation The Town of Bartlett Defendant, Edward Furlong, his property and his businesses. and its agents continuously single out Mr. Furlong for abuse.To show this history

of abuse,the Defendant respectfullysubmits Exhibit rz, a Memorandum of Facts and Eventsthat was filed in New Hampshire federal court on October 5, zoro in conjunction with a civil rights complaint. This Memorandum outlines the events of the past ten yearswith regardsto Mr. Furlong and the Town of Bartlett. Pages in the land use issues this action. discuss zo and zr specifically
-1

This Honorable Court ruled on this matter in a clearmanner. The Defendant submitted a detailed sketch which answeredall the questions that the Town of Bartlett had regarding cabin #3. The Town of Bartlett obtained the information Exhibit used in the Land Use Citation in an illegalmanner as seenin Defendant's 5. The Town of Bartlett choseto spendthe money to pursue this matter to the SupremeCourt and then choseto continue to pursuethis matter again in this and intimidation. This is harassment court with no new evidence.

37.DefendantEdward Furlong has been pursuinglegalaction againstthe Town of

Bartlett since they took away his right of way in April 2oog. The'fown is This respondingby pursing this land use issueto the amount of $344,o25.oo. "revenge"lawsuit constitutes harassmentand intimidation and the Town of providedunder New Hampshire R.S.A. 5o7:r5. Bartlettis subjectto the penalties $

34'Attorney feespaid to Mr. Furlong'sformer attorney for work regarding this land
The Defendant is also entitled to receivethe $rooo.oo use matter total $4o83.oo. fee as provided under New Hampshire R.S.A, 5o7:r5. $

WHEREFORE,the Defendant, Edward Furlong, respectfullyrequeststhat this Honorable Court Order as follows: A. Grant the Defendant'sMotion for a New Hearing; and and B. Deny the Town of Bartlett's requestfor $873.39; the Defendantin the amount of C. Order the Town of Bartlettto compensate in in $4o83.oo attorney'sfeesand $rooo.oo civil penaltiesand D. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deemsjust and proper'

lly Respectfu Submitted, Datecl: ;unuuryJ ll tor"

Pro Se Edward C Furlong III 1455 Route 3oz US PO Box 447 Bartlett, NH o38rz

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to I, Edward Furlong, hereby certifli that a true and correct copy of this Response Plaintiffs Objection to Defendant'sMotion for New Hearing has been mailed via the United StatesPostalServicecertified return receipt to opposing counsel at zz5 Water " Street Exeter,NH o3833on this i l-' day of January, 2or2'

lll C Edward Furlong