THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS 10TH CIRCUIT – DISTRICT DIVISION – DERRY

Docket No. 473-2016-CV-00124

Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

NOW COMES Paul Maravelias (hereinafter, “Defendant”), on behalf of himself and those

similarly situated, and respectfully submits the within Motion for Clarification pursuant to U.S.

CONST., Amend. XIV, and N.H. CONST., Pt. I., Art. 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15. Maravelias

respectfully demands this Court apply the law equally at all times and not discriminate against

certain subjectively disliked individuals. In support thereof Maravelias states the following:

I. MARAVELIAS AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED ARE INESCPABABLY

CONFUSED BY THIS COURT’S MIXED SIGNALS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES
VIABLE AND MERITORIOUS SUBSTANCE FOR CIVIL STALKING
PROTECTIVE ORDER RELIEF UNDER RSA 633:3-A

1. On 3/8/19, this Court granted a request to extend a stalking protective order

because the Defendant allegedly made “offensive and hateful” “statements” in public (on the

“internet”) to third-parties. See 3/8/19 Order. The Court reasoned that this behavior proves

“hostility” towards Plaintiff, therefore showing “legitimate concern” for her “safety” and that

such “fear for her safety” is “reasonable” because of the “offensive” statements in public.

1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 2. On 12/8/17, Paul Maravelias filed a Stalking Petition against David DePamphilis.

This Court held hearings thereon in February 2018. Maravelias alleged and corroborated that

David not only engaged in extreme offensive and hateful statements in public (which were also

defamatory, calling Maravelias a “sexual predator” and “piece of shit stalker”), but also

participated in incitative bullying/harassment posts on the internet, directed specifically to

Maravelias, containing vulgar gestures and instrumentalizing his daughter’s new boyfriend

which, situationally and in-context, could incite a violent or disorderly response.

3. Judge John J. Coughlin not only denied Maravelias’s Stalking Petition but even

forced Maravelias to pay DePamphilis over $9,000 in attorney’s fees, claiming that Maravelias’s

Petition was “patently unreasonable” and that Maravelias provided “no credible evidence” for his

accusations.1 See 5/11/18 Order in 473-2017-CV-00150. Maravelias then appealed. The biased,

activist, bad-faith Supreme Court refused to reverse. See NHSC Case No. 2018-0376.

II. BECAUSE OF THIS COURT’S INCONSISTENT APPLICATIONS OF THE

LAW, ALL POTENTIAL STALKING VICTIMS HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER
THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A STALKING PETITION AND
MUST FEAR PUNITIVE, ARBITRARY ORDERS TO PAY THEIR POTENTIAL
STALKERS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF THEY DO NOT PREVAIL

4. This Court must clarify whether proving a defendant made “offensive and hateful

statements in public” to “disparage” a plaintiff is a viable cause of action for claims to civil

protective order relief under RSA 633:3-a.

5. When Maravelias filed a Stalking Petition, alleging this same element and indeed

far more, and ultimately proved this element and far more, Judge John J. Coughlin committed

1
This Court’s finding surpassed insanity, since Maravelias provided witness testimony and even physical screenshot
evidence proving his allegation(s) beyond any and all doubt, regardless of whether they raised to the level of
stalking.

2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
extortionary judicial abuse against Maravelias by blindly declaring the petition “patently

unreasonable”.

6. “A claim is patently unreasonable when it is commenced, prolonged, required, or

defended without any reasonable basis in the facts provable by evidence or any reasonable claim

in the law as it is, or as it might arguably be held to be.” Glick v. Naess, 142 N.H. 172 (1998).

7. Here, it is irrelevant whether the parties’ claims against each other of “offensive

and hateful” comments, between the two stalking cases, are factually true. The instant question is

purely legal: if there is a “reasonable claim” in the law for a contention, it cannot be “patently

unreasonable”. See Glick, supra.

8. In one stalking case, Maravelias alleged David DePamphilis made offensive and

hateful statements to disparage Maravelias in public (and much worse). This Court issued an

Order on 5/11/18 (Coughlin, J) pronouncing the said allegation “patently unreasonable”: i.e., an

allegation which, even if proven true, is not an actionable contention for relief for RSA 633:3-a

stalking orders, requiring a “course of conduct” placing a person in fear of their “personal safety”

and permitting extension similarly only when there is ongoing concern for a plaintiff’s “safety”.

Compare RSA 633:3-a, III-a. with RSA 633:3-a, III-c.

9. But here, the Court’s recent extension 3/8/19 Order granted stalking order relief

based solely upon a finding that a defendant made “hateful and offensive” statements in public.

III. ABSENT CLARIFICATION AND RETROACTIVE CORRECTION, THE

COURT’S INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF RSA 633:3-A VIOLATES
CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS AND CHILLS THE
ABILITY OF STALKING VICTIMS TO PETITION FOR RELIEF

10. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST, Amend. XIV. See also N.H. CONST, Pt. I, Art. 2, “All

men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and

defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of

seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged

by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.”

11. There is a class of citizens whose stalking order petitions have been denied and

another class whose petitions have been granted.

12. There is a class of citizens who have been ordered to pay attorney’s fees under the

exception to the regular American rule that each party pays their own fees: the “patently

unreasonable” contention exception. See LaMontagne Builders v. Bowman Brook Purchase

Group, 150 N.H. 270, 276 (2003).

13. There is a class of citizens who have not been ordered to pay attorney’s fees,

when requested by an opposing party under the “patently unreasonable” exception.

14. Further, Maravelias himself is individually entitled to 14th Amendment Equal

Protection rights according the U.S. Supreme Court’s established “class of one” of doctrine

which applies even in civil suits for money damages where no “fundamental rights” are at stake,

as they are here in the context of a restraining order. See generally Araiza, W.D., 2013.

“Flunking the class-of-one/failing equal protection.” Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 55, p.435. See also

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000).

4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 15. The Court’s acts against Maravelias in the context of stalking order relief under

RSA 633:3-a are logically incompatible and violate constitutional due process and equal

protection rights:

a) When Maravelias was a civil stalking plaintiff, his allegation that someone made
offensive and hateful comments against him, showing hostility and therefore
reasonable fear, was deemed “patently unreasonable” (i.e., an allegation which even
if true, cannot possibly result in civil protective order relief under RSA 633:3-a).

b) When Maravelias was a civil stalking defendant, the Court granted the stalking
order relief through exact same reasoning it previously rejected in Maravelias’s
petition and deemed “patently unreasonable”, forcing impecunious 22-year-old
Maravelias to pay his alleged-stalker over $9,000 dollars in attorney’s fees.

16. This Court’s orders necessarily either extort Maravelias wrongfully of over

$9,000 dollars or deprive Maravelias of his fundamental constitutional rights through a

wrongfully extended stalking order. Either one or the other must be true: there is no logically

possible way to harmonize this Court’s inconsistent, discriminatory conduct.

IV. THE COURT MUST EITHER DISSOLVE ITS PUNITITVE FEE AWARD
AGAINST MARAVELIAS OR DISSOLVE THE STALKING ORDER
EXTENSION AGAINST MARAVELIAS

17. Equal Protection demands that the Court cannot have it both ways. There have

been zero changes to the applicable statutory or case-law landscapes in the past few months

when the Court took the above-referenced, logically incompatible actions against Maravelias.

18. This Court has original jurisdiction over both actions. Regarding the 5/11/18

punitive fees award against Maravelias, this Court has full authority to reverse it. “A trial court,

however, has the authority to revisit an earlier ruling on a [motion] if it becomes aware that the

5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
ruling may be incorrect.” Route 12 Books Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569, 575 (2003) (in

the context of revisiting a motion to Dismiss).

19. The Supreme Court’s order in 2018-0376 has no preclusive effect as follows in

Paragraphs 20 and 21:

20. First, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction generically does not restrain this

Court from doing the right thing, upon new information, within this Court’s original jurisdiction.

I.e., the Supreme Court acknowledges the trial court’s authority and only acts upon reversible

error – a higher standard than actual error.

21. Second, the Supreme Court did not uphold the fees awards on the “patently

unreasonable” grounds; instead, they upheld it on the “bad-faith” grounds and offered one single

threadbare sentence noting that their “review of the record” caused them to feel Maravelias acted

in bad-faith, with zero specific references or citations whatsoever. The Supreme Court’s obvious

bad-faith, patently unreasonable screw-Maravelias order primarily concerned the other aspect of

that appeal, which were the merits of the stalking order dismissal, not the fees award.

22. Maravelias does not presently seek to relitigate or collaterally attack the dismissal

of his stalking petition, since the legal question of viability of offensive public speech for

stalking orders does not span the substantive fact-based question on the merits of whether David

DePamphilis actually committed such conduct in that particular stalking petition.

23. However, as a matter of law, the baseless fees award predicated upon the

allegation that Maravelias’s theory was “patently unreasonable” – the same exact theory this

Court has recently used to extend a stalking order against Maravelias – must unquestionably be

reversed.

6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
V. CONCLUSION

24. If the Court stands-by its legal reasoning for extending the instant stalking order,

Paul Maravelias plans to file two new Stalking Petitions against both David DePamphilis

and Christina DePamphilis. Such petitions will proceed upon the Court’s own theory of relief

that the DePamphilis’ conduct against Maravelias has met and far-surpassed the communication

of “offensive and hateful” statements disparaging Maravelias in public, and thus a stalking order

shall issue lest the Court openly commit subjective discrimination against Maravelias as clear as

night-and-day, in violation of his 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights.

25. However, since Maravelias was wrongly penalized the first and only time he filed

a stalking petition, falsely accused of “bad-faith” and “patently unreasonable” conduct, he

therefore cautiously seeks this Court’s clarification first. Before filing any stalking petitions,

Maravelias wishes to confirm that alleging “offensive and hateful” statements made in public

shows “hostility” substantiating reasonable safety concern viable for civil stalking relief.

26. Maravelias intends to aggressively pursue this alarming Equal Protection

violation in both state and federal courts if this Court cannot resolve the injustice by either

reversing the stalking order extension or reversing the punitive fees award against Maravelias.

7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 WHEREFORE, Defendant Paul Maravelias respectfully prays this Honorable Court:

I. Grant this Motion;

II. Clarify whether the allegation that a defendant’s public offensive and hateful
communications about a plaintiff cause said plaintiff reasonable fear for purposes
of RSA 633:3-a relief;

III. Depending on the Court’s clarification, either do one of the following:

a. Vacate and reverse its 3/8/19 Order granting extension in this case; or

b. Vacate and reverse its 5/11/18 Order in Paul Maravelias v. David

DePamphilis, 473-2017-CV-00150, forcing Maravelias to pay David
DePamphilis over $9,000 in attorney’s fees predicated upon the legal finding
Maravelias’s “positions” were “patently unreasonable”.

IV. Grant any further relief as may be deemed just and necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,

March 28th, 2019 in propria persona

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Defendant’s Motion for Clarification was
forwarded on this day through USPS Certified Mail to Simon R. Brown, Esq., counsel for the
Petitioner, Christina DePamphilis, P.O. Box 1318, Concord, NH, 03302-1318.

______________________________

March 28th, 2019

8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087