Sunteți pe pagina 1din 296

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

2018 TERM

Case No. 2018-0483

CHRISTINA DEPAMPHILIS

Plaintiff-Appellee

vs. PAUL MARAVELIAS

Defendant-Appellant

RULE 7 MANDATORY APPEAL OF STALKING FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION

From 10 th Circuit Court – District Division – Derry

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT

Submitted by Defendant,

Paul J. Maravelias 34 Mockingbird Hill Rd Windham, NH 03087 paul@paulmarv.com

603-475-3305

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

6

TEXT OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

9

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

12

STATEMENT OF FACTS

17

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

30

ARGUMENT

31

I. RSA 633:3-A, III-C. IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FACIALLY AND AS-APPLIED

31

A. The “Safety and Well-Being” Language of 633:3-a, III-

c. is Overbroad

31

i. The Statute Regulates and Burdens Protected Speech

 

32

1.

Maravelias’s 12/10/17 Email to Mrs. Smith is

Protected Speech

34

2.

Maravelias’s 11/2/2017 Response to Attorney

Brown is Protected

Speech

34

3.

The March 2017 Nasty Letter to David

DePamphilis

35

ii. The Statute Triggers Strict Scrutiny

35

1.

The Regulation is Content-Based

36

PAUL MARAVELIAS

2

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

2. The Regulation Isolates Disfavored Speakers and is

Not Viewpoint-Neutral

36

3.

Forum Analysis

37

iii. The Statute Fails Even Intermediate Scrutiny

38

1. Tailoring Analysis

38

2. The Governmental Interest Served is not

“Compelling”

42

3.

Alternative Channels

43

B. The “Safety and Well-Being” Language of 633:3-a, III-

c. is Impermissibly Vague

43

 

i. Semantic Vagueness

43

ii. Syntactic Vagueness

44

II. WHERE CHRISTINA DEPAMPHILIS INCITATIVELY BULLIED PAUL MARAVELIAS ON HER SOCIAL MEDIA AFTER LAUGHIBLY LYING ABOUT HAVING “FEAR” OF HIM, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF “REASONABLE FEAR” WAS INSUFFICIENT

46

III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN UNSUSTAINABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE STALKING ORDER EXTENSION

46

A.

Good Cause for Stalking Order Extension was Not

Shown by a Preponderance of Evidence

46

PAUL MARAVELIAS

3

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

B. The Trial Court Made Honest Verbal Comments at Trial

Proving its Subsequent Written Order was Shamefully

49

Disingenuous

IV. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MARAVELIAS’S

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

51

A. Reversal is the Necessary Remedy to the Trial Court’s

Blatant Violation of the “30 Days” Hearing Requirement

of 633:3-a, III-c

51

B. The Trial Court Illegally Limited Defendant’s

Guaranteed Right to Videotape the Entire Public Hearing

52

C. The Trial Court Violated the Statutory Advance Notice

Requirement and/or Other Substantive Due Process Rights

 

53

i. “Obsession” and the 6/8/18 Surprise-Photographs- Exhibit

53

ii. Ignored Motion to Dismiss

53

V. JOHN J. COUGHLIN, THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE, COMMITTED A RAMPANT SPREE OF BIASED AND UNJUST CONDUCT AGAINST MARAVELIAS, BEING LARGELY UNACCOUNTABLE TO AUTHORITY,

SINCE HE RETIRED DAYS LATER

54

VI.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR EXTENDED PROTECTIVE ORDERS

54

A.The Trial Court Transgressed Constitutional Rights and

Unsustainably Exercised Discretion

56

PAUL MARAVELIAS

4

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

B. John J. Coughlin Personally Committed a Class B Criminal Felony Violation of 641:5, I.(B) in Granting Plaintiff’s Obscurantist Assault Against Maravelias’s Public Freedom of Expression

CONCLUSION

PRAYER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

APPENDIX

57

58

60

61

PAUL MARAVELIAS

5

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Appeal of Martino, 138 N.H. 612 (1994)

52

Doyle v. Comm’r, N.H. Dep’t. of Resources & Economic Dev., 163 N.H.

215,221 (2012)

32,

38

Kenison v. Dubois, 152 N.H. 448,451,879 A.2d 1161 (2005)

32

MacPherson v. Weiner, 158 N.H. 6,10 (2008)

40,

49

McCarthy v. Wheeler, 152 N.H. 643,645 (2005)

33,

51, 52

State v. Allard, 148 N.H. 702 A.2d 506,510 (2002)

38

State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. A.2d 1253 (2004)

33

State v. MacElman, 154 N.H. 304,307 (2006)

31,

32, 33

State v. Porelle, 149 N.H. 420 (2003)

33

State v. Zidel, 156 N.H. 684, 686 (2008)

34

Stewart v. Murdock, (2015-0448)

42

COMMOMWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012)

37

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

American Legion Post 7 of Durham, N.C. v. City of Durham, 239 F.3d 601,607 (4 th Cir. 2001)

34,

35

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal. 535 U.S. 234, 245 (2002)

38

PAUL MARAVELIAS

6

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Boos v. Berry, 485 U.S. 312,322 (1988)

35

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)

33

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 882,883 (2010).36, 37

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

34

Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (2014)

38

Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524,540 (1989)

41

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703,732 (2000)

43

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 129 S.Ct. 1125,172 L.Ed.2d

853 (2009)

37

Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62,74 (1990)

40

Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of Mendon, 769 F.3d 61,73 (1 st Cir.

42

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502

2014)

41,

U.S. 105 (1991)

33

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2664 (2011)

36

Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1,4 (1949)

35

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,658,114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994)

37

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 791 (1989)

38

Constitutional Provisions

First Amendment to the Federal Constitution

32,

33, 34, 36

Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution

32

New Hampshire Constitution Part I, Article 22

32,

38

PAUL MARAVELIAS

7

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Statutes

M.G.L. 258E §3(d)

 

45

M.G.L. 265 §43

45

RSA 173-B in genere

32

RSA 173-B:3

53

RSA 633:3-a in genere

 

32,

42

RSA 633:3-a, III-a

38,

40, 41, 42

RSA

633:3-a,

III-c

passim

RSA 641:5, I.(B)

 

57

New Hampshire Rules of the Circuit Court - District Division

 

Circuit Court Rule 1.4

 

52

Academic Literature

 

Newberg and Waldman, 2012

(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-can-change-your-

 

brain/201208/the-most-dangerous-word-in-the-world)

 

39

Rook, K.S. (1984)

 

39

PAUL MARAVELIAS

8

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

TEXT OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

Statutes

RSA 633:3-a

A223

RSA

173-B:3

A226

RSA 641:5

A227

M.G.L. 258E § 3

A227

M.G.L. 265 § 43

A227

New Hampshire Court Rules

Circuit Court Rule 1.4

A229

PAUL MARAVELIAS

9

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Is RSA 633:3-a, III-c. constitutional?

(T302;A48,A50,A162-163,A99-100) 1

2. Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Christina DePamphilis had “reasonable fear” of Maravelias?

(T307,471,478,479,485,486;A43,46,118)

3. Did the trial court commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion and/or an error of law in granting Plaintiff’s motion to extend stalking order and/or her 7/2/18 post-trial motion for expanded protective orders?

(A43,44,45,47,50,158,118,186)

4. Did the trial court violate Respondent’s procedural and/or substantive due process rights?

1 T = Consecutively-numbered transcripts of May-June 2018 trial court Hearing. A = Appendix herewith. Example format: (Tx:y-z,a-b;A10-20) where y-z reference lines on transcript page x and a-b reference whole consecutive transcript pages.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

10

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

(T5-7,9:1-3,484:17-18,487-489;A48-50,63-65,111-114)

5. Did Judge John J. Coughlin commit a rampant pre-retirement spree

of unjust conduct marked by hostile prejudicial bias against

Maravelias and reflexive, typhlotic rejection of all his arguments,

quidquid sint?

(A45,51,115-126); Plain-error; Supreme Court Justices as supervisory judges per Rule 54 and Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.12 (B)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

11

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Overture This appeal is a righteous young man’s exasperated plea for justice. Maravelias apologizes in advance to this Honorable Court for wherever he may fail in this legal brief to restrain his understandable righteous indignation. He recites here a breviloquent case-summary with the bare minimum of necessary facts, relegating further facts into the following section.

DePamphilis’s December 2016 Delusions In December 2016, David DePamphilis got angry with Paul Maravelias. Paul had asked-out David’s daughter to dinner on 12/12/16. (T27,276-277) Paul Maravelias never once spoke to or communicated with her ever after that day. (T27,28,35-36,451:17-18) On 12/23/16, after 11 days of frightening, harassing conduct by David DePamphilis discussed in the related case (2018-0376), Maravelias texted David DePamphilis to “stop harassing [Maravelias’s] parents please”. (A197) As a result of this text, David texted Paul’s parents the same night, promising, “that’s the last straw”. (A186,198) Five days thereafter, on 12/28/16, Maravelias was served a Stalking Temporary Order of Protection. But DePamphilis’s daughter Christina, nominally, had filed a “stalking petition” against Maravelias (473-2016-CV-124). Maravelias hadn’t interacted with her once since 12/12/16 weeks prior (T226:15,27,28,35-36,451:17-18), the first and only time Maravelias expressed an interest in her.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

12

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

The Legal Abuse Begins Outraged, Maravelias expedited the hearing and boldly appeared pro se as a legally untrained, falsely accused 21-year-old college student. (T64) His innocence and rhetorical skills were no match for the polished legal scheming of Jerome Blanchard, DePamphilis’s first attorney-henchman.

Tyrant I: Robert S. Stephen The DePamphilis actors got their stalking order on 2/7/17. It was Judge Robert S. Stephen who granted this stalking petition against a dignified and level-headed gentleman named Paul Maravelias. (A40)

The Censored Exculpatory Audio Recording Maravelias happened to have a sentimental audio recording of his 12/12/16 dinner-date-proposal exchange, proving his gentlemanly verbal appropriateness. (T276;A98) After Christina DePamphilis lied under oath about what Maravelias had said, to make him sound like a “creepy” or socially deficient person, Maravelias was disallowed to play his exculpatory recording in court. (T277) Robert S. Stephen defied Maravelias’s every vociferous assertion to the contrary, falsely claiming in his Orwellian Order that Maravelias had mentioned the “age of consent” while asking-out David’s 16-year-old daughter! (A40)

The First Arrest David DePamphilis complained to the police about Maravelias’s suppressed recording after abusing Maravelias with a falsified restraining order. Robert S. Stephen approved search warrants and Windham PD raided Maravelias’s Windham home and Dartmouth dorm room on 4/6/17,

PAUL MARAVELIAS

13

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

whisking-away all Maravelias’s digital property in toto (cellphones, PCs, USB-drives, etc). The police-state arrested Maravelias on 6/13/17 for “wiretapping” (RSA 570-A): the crime of pressing a button on your smartphone outdoors to voice record yourself the first time you ask out a girl in your life, with the intention of sharing it with her, and later wanting to play it to disprove contemptible false accusations. (T43,443)

The Futile Appeal Maravelias was an economics major and a bright kid. But, he had no idea what “issue preservation” was. He didn’t know he had 10 days to preserve legal arguments in a motion for reconsideration. (T63:25) Once he hired a top-notch attorney to appeal the ridiculous stalking order (2017- 139), it was apparently too late. This Court was compelled to affirm, declining to review the appeal’s substance because its arguments were unpreserved.

The Second Arrest Maravelias emailed his beloved Windham High School mentor and civics teacher, Mrs. Smith, on 12/10/17. (A91) Alas: Mrs. Smith runs the WHS National Honor Society chapter. Maravelias attached evidence of Christina DePamphilis’s legal falsification and substance-abuse crimes, which disqualify her from ongoing NHS membership. (T419;A91-92) Now Greg Iworsky, the WHS WPD resource officer, had married Heather Newell, WPD’s prosecutor. Heather and another small, third-rate WPD officer-tyrant caught wind of Maravelias’s private email to a public employee. They pleasured themselves by arresting Maravelias on 12/15/17

PAUL MARAVELIAS

14

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

for “stalking” DePamphilis’s daughter, whom Maravelias hadn’t seen for almost a year nor knew even still existed. (T331,336-337)

They threw Maravelias in jail, purposely on a Friday night. Maravelias had just bought his family a Christmas tree and was planning to decorate it with his two siblings. An obese fat-acceptance-feminist nurse at Rockingham County Jail forced Maravelias into solitary confinement after he politely mentioned he’d be doing a three-day fast until the Monday arraignment, so the jail didn’t need to waste food he wouldn’t eat. Rapists and murderers inside the same jail enjoyed a bed to sleep on that night. Heather Iworsky vitriolically slandered Maravelias at arraignment before Tyrant I. They held the bizarre, illogical charge over Maravelias for as long as they could, dropping it months thereafter in late May 2018.

(T331,337,384:9-12;A37)

The Extension After repeated mid-order acts of cruel bullying, harassment, and indeed stalking against Paul Maravelias (T278-280,299,307) (see also 2018-0376), the relentless DePamphilis actors motioned the court on 1/5/18 to extend their precious “stalking order” another year to February 2019. (A72) Judge Sharon DeVries granted the preliminary extension on 1/12/18. (A10) The trial court scheduled a hearing for 2/15/18 on Maravelias’s objection thereto, 34 days after 1/12/18, and actually gave Maravelias his first opportunity to proceed with the hearing on 2/20/18. (A222,151)

Tyrant II: John J. Coughlin There was in those days a judge named John J. Coughlin.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

15

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Now John was presiding at Derry, fulfilling the last-days of his career:

for the extension case was transferred thither from Salem after Judge Stephen’s recusal. A three-day hearing commenced 5/3/18 and finished 6/8/18. Judge John J. Coughlin granted the stalking order extension on 6/15/18. (A1)

Coughlin’s Career-Capstone Summer 2018 Orders against Maravelias It came to pass that John J. Coughlin authored a written finding with said Order. (A2) Before retiring on 9/5/18, Judge Coughlin also granted DePamphilis’s post-trial motion requesting even more severe restrictions on Maravelias’s public free-speech rights (A7), terrified that Maravelias could expose the character of David DePamphilis’s perjuring (T275:25,370;A21,24,28,189,192,201), substance-abusing (T60,364,371- 372,418,450;A18,84,167), bullying (T299:3,301:13,307:2-4,339,346- 347,371,476,483;A11,13,43,118), harassing (T164:21, T299:3,482:25,485;A43,49,91), stalking (T70:10;A61-62,166), physically unrecognizable (T353-355;A46¶20), lying (T275:25,340:21,368:12,483:25;A62,91,187,189), law-breaking (T421:18,A167-196), “independent” (T74:14,233:8) daughter Christina.

This appeal follows.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

16

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

STATEMENT OF FACTS

David DePamphilis begat a daughter in 2000: Christina DePamphilis (“Plaintiff-Appellee”), a high school senior turning 18 in a few days.

Paul Maravelias (“Defendant-Appellant”) is a 23-year-old author and recent college graduate who is presently employed as a software engineer. (A42) He’s had an unusual experience stemming from the first time he ever asked a girl on a date. Maravelias does not drink alcohol, consume illegal drugs, or commit perjury to abuse those who showed him kindness and respect. (A43) He believes he differs from Christina DePamphilis in these regards. (A43)

Social Pretext to December 2016 Both parties are Windham residents and were good friends before David DePamphilis’s direful December 2016 devolution into the legal abuser of Paul Maravelias. (T274,275;A98,102) David and his daughter came to Maravelias’s house on 6/18/2016 for a family party. (T275:24,276) David was “smoking cigars” with Maravelias’s dad (T38,39): this was the last time Maravelias saw Christina DePamphilis prior to the 12/12/16 dinner-invitation. During cross-examination, Christina struggled to justify her coming over Paul’s house mere months before calling him a “stalker” with dramatic retellings of being “scared” by him since 2013. (T39)

The December 2016 Origin of the Stalking Petition Maravelias needs not belabor the details of his 12/12/16 birthday- exchange with DePamphilis’s daughter, by now reviewed ad nauseum in

PAUL MARAVELIAS

17

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

both appellate cases. According to laborious design, Maravelias invited her to dinner with an outlandish sports-car, which she said was “very sweet”. 2 (A98) But DePamphilis’s wife clarified her daughter perceived Maravelias as “a nice friend”. He left once rejected, saying, “I respect your feelings” and “have a beautiful Christmas”. (T278:4;A98) There was not a hint of impropriety, the slightest indication the daughter felt “scared”, nor the most remote semblance of “stalking” whatsoever. (A98,31) In fact, Christina DePamphilis had invited Maravelias back to her house on 12/12/16 for this interaction, after he first came to the door and her mommy was in the shower. (T157:21-158:12;A31) Maravelias, ever the gentleman, awaited Mrs. DePamphilis.

Nor does Maravelias re-explain the history of David DePamphilis’s subsequent December 2016 course of explosive, threatening, harassing, profane, and frightening conduct against him and his parents – likewise detailed in the related appeal (See 2018-0376).

The undeniable fact is Paul Maravelias had a normal family friends relationship to Christina DePamphilis (T275) and transitory romantic attraction which manifested in a cute birthday dinner date proposal and ostentatious stunt with a fancy car. The undeniable fact is “she” filed a stalking petition 16 days after Maravelias’s final contact with her, after her

2 By 2018, DePamphilis falsely portrayed Maravelias as some “spoiled rich kid”, and John Coughlin “ordered” Maravelias to pay his abuser “9,000 dollars” which Maravelias didn’t “even have … in his bank account”, still paying off “2016 taxes”. (T332)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

18

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

father was angered by Maravelias’s challenging David DePamphilis’s emotionally and verbally abusive antagonism.

Foolhardy Falsity: The Original Stalking Petition The stalking petition dreamed up a host of absurd, malicious dramatizations of history against Maravelias. He was falsely accused of having “grabbed [her] arm” at “cheer practice” three years prior in 2013 (A150). It is telling that even in David’s December 2016 telephonic tirades, where he accused Maravelias to his face of everything short of raping the Sabine women, David never mentioned this alleged “arm-grabbing” incident with his daughter nor the word “stalking” whatsoever.

Appellant bores-not this Court by reviewing similar defamatory drivel from DePamphilis’s original stalking petition. A neurotic admixture of [paraphrasing] “I think he hacked into my Twitter account” (T174:13), “he was looking at me in his backyard” (T185:11), “he tried to talk to me at the Turkey Trot once and I was scared” (A39) and similar cringeworthy absurdities sustained the witch-hunt against Maravelias, an innocent suitor.

Judge Robert S. Stephen Slanders Maravelias a “Stalker” On 2/7/17, Judge Robert S. Stephen confirmed once-more the reputation he had already earned himself within the New Hampshire legal community is deserved. Stephen granted the stalking petition, issuing an Order against Maravelias scribbled in barely-legible chicken-scratching penmanship. (A40) Judge Stephen opened his Order accusing that the “Defendant has been obsessed with the Defendant”. (A40)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

19

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

After failing to remember way back from law school the word “Plaintiff”, Judge Stephen accused Maravelias’s stalking course of conduct was based in two acts: that Maravelias

1) “drove [David’s daughter] home and attempted to drop the other person off first” in 2013, and

2) “waited until she turned 16 which he referred to as the ‘age of consent’ to her mother, offered [sic] her a brand new mazzaretti [sic]”.

(A40)

Paul Maravelias humbly demands this Court and anyone reading this document meditate upon the disturbing fact that the above two reasons are why a New Hampshire family court judge labeled Maravelias a “stalker”.

In recklessly libeling Maravelias, Judge Stephen only memorialized his own incompetence: in 2013, David DePamphilis himself had asked Paul Maravelias to give his daughter a ride home from a restaurant they were at, as a favor. (T286:21-13) If Paul Maravelias had truly been perceived as a “stalker”, David DePamphilis would not have explicitly consigned his own daughter into Maravelias’s vehicle, volunteering Maravelias to serve as Mr. DePamphilis’s own filial spedizione chauffeur! (T287)

Secondly, Maravelias never “referred” to the young woman’s birthday as her “age of consent”. (T101:20,370:11,484:5,484:12,487:4;A29,31,98,106,192) Only a perverse tyrant fully divorced from the most elementary tenets of justice would dare

PAUL MARAVELIAS

20

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

to judicially shove words into a good young man’s mouth 3 never spoken,

which said-young-man categorically denied ever speaking

(T101:20,370:11,484:5,484:12,487:4), and for which he assertively offered

indisputable physical evidence (his audio recording) as proof. Maravelias

lawfully played this audio recording for his parents on 10/21/17 in

Vermont; they testified in letters to the contents: that Maravelias never once

said anything remotely close to the disturbing “age of consent” comment

DePamphilis falsely accused. (A28-32) Further, the lie that Maravelias had

said this appeared nowhere in the stalking petition. (T489:14,491:6,492:7)

A stalking order thus exists against Maravelias because of a disprovable lie

that wasn’t even noticed in the petition.

Hypocrisy and Harassment: Christina DePamphilis’s Middle-Finger Post Against Maravelias with her New 21-Year-Old Boyfriend

Having secured their falsified restraining order, the savage

DePamphilis actors escalated their psychological terrorism against Paul

Maravelias to a new level. On 6/19/17, Christina posted a picture on her

public social-media showing her new college-age boyfriend Matthew

LaLiberte making challenging comments against “P M”. (T79-82;A13)

Then, on 6/21/17 at 9:13pm, she posted a picture showing David

DePamphilis, herself, and her boyfriend standing together and middle-

fingering the camera, with the caption, “Did Dartmouth teach you how to

do this? [middle-finger emoji]” (T69,70,72-77;A11), which she confessed

3 Hurtfully, Judge Stephen’s libelous order-text in this regard appears as Mr. Maravelias’s first public Google search result, being cited in this Court’s 7/28/17 Order in 2017-0139

PAUL MARAVELIAS

21

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

was obviously targeted at Maravelias. (T74,76) This was days after she got

Maravelias arrested on 6/13/17 for trying to defend himself against her

false stalking accusations with his censored cell-phone voice recording.

(T349) She and her father were rubbing-in the all their legal abuse while

taunting Maravelias with Christina’s new 21-year-old (T146,147) boyfriend

– Maravelias’s age – endeavoring to create an even more provocative

aspect of jealousy. (T476)

Weeks prior, Christina DePamphilis had whined under-oath she was

“scared” of Maravelias and “afraid” “to set him off” – that “it’s like

walking on eggshells with him” (T67:10-11) – to get the stalking order she

later unsuccessfully baited him into violating. (T232:10-13)

Christina DePamphilis’s “Tipsytina69” Activities: A Rare Flash of Honesty

In summer 2017, outraged female entities within the campus of

Windham youth supplied Maravelias with Christina DePamphilis’s

postings on her legally-public Instagram account she named “tipsytina69”,

a reference to drunken oral intercourse. (T239:16,359) These exhibits were

referenced frequently at hearing. They showed Christina DePamphilis was

quite beyond her green-age of 16 years: she would alcoholically

(T60,364;A18,167) and narcotically (T450:21;A167) intoxicate herself, and

brag about how far she and her 21-year-old boyfriend would displace the

bed during sexual intercourse, whereupon Christina visually emphasized in

red ink that the intercourse kinetically translated their bed over two feet

from the wall. (A221,159) Maravelias argued these posts contradicted the

deceptive “young-and-innocent” optics DePamphilis had falsely conjured

PAUL MARAVELIAS

22

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

against Maravelias to win a “stalking” order, that they undermine her

dubious professions of “fear”, and that great irony exists in light of older-

Maravelias’s comparatively rectitudinous lifestyle.

Liar Caught Red-Handed: Maravelias’s May 2018 Cross-Examination of Christina DePamphilis

Maravelias cross-examined DePamphilis at the 5/3/18 and 5/4/18

hearings.

On 5/3/18, Christina DePamphilis confessed that Maravelias has never

attempted to interact with her since December 2016. (T27:18) Maravelias

asked, “Please tell this Court the last time you were stalked by me.”

(T28:18-19) Christina memorably responded, “I continue to being [sic]

stalked every day.” (T28:20)

Christina said she believes Maravelias making any in-public comment

she would consider defamatory is an instance of “stalking” her. (T34)

When asked how she could possibly sustain her burden that Maravelias

“threat[ens]” her “personal safety”, she responded: “You just don’t stop…

[pause] you continue to… [pause] to send letters threatening to ruin my

career”, referencing Maravelias’s single November 2017 reply to David

DePamphilis’s outrageous legal bluff-threat letter to Maravelias. (T46:22-

24)

Paul Maravelias asked Christina DePamphilis: “Isn’t there a difference

between stalking, and people speaking their free minds about your actions

and accusations against them?” (T57:16-18) Christina slipped and tellingly

replied, “you can’t do that when I have a stalking order against you.”

PAUL MARAVELIAS

23

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

(T57:19-20) Christina clarified Maravelias’s third-party self-defensive speech-acts disagreeing with her stalking accusations are themselves further acts “stalking”, because he is “further talking about me [her]”. (T58)

Maravelias challenged David DePamphilis’s daughter to name one single incident he had actually stalked her. (T59) She replied, “such as my eighth-grade graduation”. (T59:14) Maravelias then asked if she considered his “casually coming up to [her] [at Maravelias’s sibling’s graduation] and saying ‘hey, congratulations’” in 2015 to be “stalking”. Christina DePamphilis failed to answer the question; she turned to the Court and defeatedly opined, “he has a way of misinterpretating [sic] situations”.

(T59:17)

Christina DePamphilis lied multiple times: e.g., she first claimed she “was the only one” “who knew” her harassing 6/21/17 middle-fingers post was directed at Maravelias. (T72:16-17) Later, she admitted she “and [her] [five-years-older] boyfriend” also knew. (T79:23-24) Another lie about the post was noted: initially, she claimed it was just to “let [Maravelias] know” that she knew he was viewing her page. (T70:15) Then Maravelias pulled- out her 6/19/17 post which had already identified him. (T77:12-14,79:3-

7,79:21-24)

Some of Christina DePamphilis’s vile lies were exposed spectacularly. Maravelias played a cell-phone video for the trial court his younger sister happened to be taking at the 11/28/2013 Windham Turkey Trot walk-run event. Christina had alleged in her stalking petition and while testifying that Maravelias “came up to her” at this event and “tried to talk to [her]”,

PAUL MARAVELIAS

24

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

making her “scared”. (T220:3-9;A38,39) Coincidentally, the video captured this whole interaction 4 : Christina DePamphilis had actually noticed Maravelias from across the crowd along with his sister, walked over to him with a premeditated intention to find him shared by Maravelias’s sister (T215:15-17, Video 0:47-1:24), and interrupted Maravelias’s conversation with his friends, assertively exclaiming “Hi Paul!” (Video at 1:24) Christina was even wearing a sweatshirt with the name of Maravelias’s college on it and tried to win his approval by boasting, “I’m promoting your college!” (Video at 1:28) Yet in her petition, this whole exchange was dramatized into a delusional canard of Maravelias “stalking” DePamphilis!

(A39)

Christina DePamphilis’s Inaffidable Imaginations In a frantic scurry of subsequent damage-control, Christina DePamphilis further evidenced her lack of credibility – whether from lying or deficient memory. She asserted Maravelias’s sister had said the words “will you come see him with me” in the video she’d just watched. (T222) Maravelias corrected her, since his sister never spoke those words (Video at 0:47), but Christina DePamphilis was so confident in her false, revisionist memory that she challenged Maravelias, “you can replay it”. (T223) Maravelias later argued that if she could “so extraordinarily contort and misremember something that she observed five minutes prior, imagine, just imagine [her stalking accusations from up to] three years prior”. (T343:1-9)

4 Appellant has uploaded the video to YouTube, currently in private (unlisted) mode, for this Court to access: https://youtu.be/EAawoOcFGVg

PAUL MARAVELIAS

25

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

The telling Turkey Trot video elicited another indication of the teenage-girl-Plaintiff’s capacity for creative, reconstructive memory – the component of her falsity not begotten of willful lying. She was convicted Maravelias had mentioned somewhere in the record he “had a friend” take the 2013 Turkey-Trot video, which his sister incidentally happened to take. (T218,219) Maravelias later reminded he’d never said anything like this anywhere, despite Christina DePamphilis’s steadfast certainty otherwise. (T341,342) That Christina DePamphilis testified falsely to a highly specific representation while firmly convicted of the truth thereof will be undeniable when she inevitably fails in her opposing brief to cite where in the “transcripts” Maravelias said that which she had a vivid though false memory of him saying. (T219)

Christina DePamphilis also testified she “has suspicions” Maravelias “flew a remote-controlled surveillance drone” to her “bedroom window” during the stalking order. (T171) Her basis was that, one night, she “was seeing lights in [her] window” around “12:30” (T171), but when she “would open the window … nothing was there” (T172). She believed since Maravelias “was the valedictorian” and “went to an Ivy League school” he could have been “smart” enough to do this (T173,175), although she never saw any such flying device (T181). She also checked to ensure Maravelias had not installed “very microscopic” “hidden cameras” in her bedroom.

(T194)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

26

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Motion to Extend Allegation #1: Maravelias Was Mean on 11/2/17 in Replying to Attorney Brown’s Threatening Letter

DePamphilis’s Motion to Extend the stalking order accurately alleged

Maravelias had made offensive communications to third-parties. (A72) In

replying to an outrageous legal threat by David DePamphilis, Maravelias

had responded to Attorney Brown that Christina was an “ugly and

disreputable whore”. (T409;A48,89) Deterring a lawsuit, Maravelias

asserted his right to publicize Christina’s social-media-documented acts of

lawlessness, which could “ruin her academic and professional career”, if

David sued him. Despite DePamphilis further “pursuing Maravelias

legally”, Maravelias never followed-through with the lawful retaliation he

mentioned only when provoked by DePamphilis’s threatening letter.

(T415:7)

Motion to Extend Allegation #2: Maravelias Wrote a Private Email to His Own WHS Teacher

As mentioned supra, Maravelias emailed on 12/10/17 his close mentor,

Mrs. Smith, who runs the NHS chapter. (A91) Maravelias CC’d three

others of his close mentors; he did not communicate to the Plaintiff, nor to

any of her friends or family members. (A91)

Motion to Extend Allegation #3: Maravelias Had Communications with the Author of a Nasty Letter Sent to David DePamphilis in March 2017

Maravelias did not write the nasty March 2017 letter but “knew about

it”. (T393;A17) A “girl from Windham” wrote David DePamphilis the

letter, purporting to be a “friend” of Maravelias. (A76) The author attacked

David DePamphilis for legally abusing Maravelias. (A76) In Maravelias’s

impolite 11/2/17 response letter to Attorney Brown, Maravelias corrected

PAUL MARAVELIAS

27

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

DePamphilis’s false speculation that Maravelias was the author of the March 2017 letter:

“Unlike the author, I had known in March that David’s wild daughter had already been fucked raw by the man in secret at David’s beach house in February, days before her ‘confirmation mass’ at my church.” (A88)

In responding to Attorney Brown’s vexatious legal threat, Maravelias’s words were unwise and regrettably blunt. However, they were both truthful and notable in proving Maravelias did not write the nasty March letter – the author of which forewarned of a potential sexual relationship as an overarching theme of her letter. I.e., the author was ignorant of what was happening between DePamphilis’s barely-16-year-old daughter and her college-age boyfriend. If Maravelias had written this letter, surely he would have alluded to this salacious gossip of which the author was apparently unaware.

Maravelias’s Self-Defense in the Extension Hearing Maravelias elucidated that none the motion-to-extend accusations, true or false, pertained to “stalking” the Plaintiff. (T476) Maravelias testified a confirmed trial-court-level clerical error had given him the false impression the stalking order had been vacated, during which time Maravelias did not contact the Plaintiff whatsoever. (T475) Maravelias had filed two trial-court motions: 1) a wrongly-denied motion for discovery (A110), and 2) a motion to dismiss (A107), given the original order’s basis upon an unnoticed allegation, arguing that due-process is again violated by extending such an order. Judge Coughlin utterly ignored the motion to dismiss; he never

PAUL MARAVELIAS

28

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

issued a ruling on it whatsoever, nor addressed its legal arguments anywhere. (A49-50)

Judge John J. Coughlin’s Orders On 6/15/18, after hearing all the facts propounded hereinabove, John Coughlin composed an Order extending the stalking order. The full libel- text of Judge Coughlin’s emetic judicial terrorism is appended. (A2) Then DePamphilis motioned for extremified injunctive terms against Maravelias on 7/2/18. (A152) John Coughlin predictably scribbled-off his seven-word approval. (A7) Ostensibly insulted by Maravelias’s ten-page Motion for Reconsideration, John Coughlin scribbled “denied” and retired on 9/5/18.

(A3)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

29

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Where the continued stalking order is birthed of unconstitutional law, abuse of discretion, revisionist memory, criminal falsification, violation of due process, and judicial misconduct (A115), Judge Coughlin’s 2018 Orders should be vacated, and the entire original stalking order retroactively annulled ab initio.

Maravelias should get his freedom and reputation back. Between the parties, finally, should be peace.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

30

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

ARGUMENT

I. RSA 633:3-A, III-C. IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FACIALLY AND AS-APPLIED

Questions of constitutional law receive de novo review. State v.

MacElman, 154 N.H. 304,307 (2006).

A. The “Safety and Well-Being” Language of 633:3-a, III-c. is Overbroad

RSA 633:3-a provides at III-c.,

“Any order … may be extended by order of the court upon a motion by the plaintiff, showing good cause, with notice to the defendant, for one year after the expiration of the first order and thereafter each extension may be for up to 5 years, upon the request of the plaintiff and at the discretion of the court. The court shall review the order, and each renewal thereof and shall grant such relief as may be necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the plaintiff. …”

Here, the statute can be reasonably interpreted to permit extension upon

a showing of “good-cause” that a plaintiff’s “well-being” primarily would

be jeopardized without extending the protective order, even if concern for

“safety” is minimal. Any other reading is impossibly tautological, as a

threat to an individual’s “safety” is also a threat to their “well-being”. The

PAUL MARAVELIAS

31

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

legislature could have omitted the word “well-being”, but intentionally appended it after “safety”.

Neither RSA 633:3-a nor RSA 173-B define the term “well-being”; thus, dictionary reference is appropriate. See Doyle v. Comm’r, N.H. Dep’t. of Resources & Economic Dev., 163 N.H. 215,221 (2012). On review, this Court ascribes “the plain and ordinary meaning to regulatory text”. Kenison v. Dubois, 152 N.H. 448,451,879 A.2d 1161 (2005). The Oxford English Dictionary defines “well-being” as “the state of being comfortable, healthy or happy.” 5

Insofar as the trial court found Maravelias’s specifics acts of speech jeopardized the comfort, health, or happiness (“well-being”) or “safety” of the Plaintiff and therefore granted the extension, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the state constitution, as-applied and, concerning the “fundamental right” of free speech, facially. See MacElman at 307.

i. The Statute Regulates and Burdens Protected Speech

By operation of the “safety and well-being” language of 633:3-a, III-c., the trial court extended a stalking order on the basis of Maravelias’s acts of speech. Since civil stalking orders criminalize possession of firearms and prohibit defendants from communicating directly or indirectly to plaintiffs, the statute restricts constitutional rights. Further, the stalking statute

PAUL MARAVELIAS

32

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

“implicates the fundamental right to freedom of movement”. State v.

Porelle, 149 N.H. 420 (2003). “It hardly bears mentioning that a restraining

order restrains one’s liberty

v. Wheeler, 152 N.H. 643,645 (2005). In Maravelias’s case, the extended stalking order criminalizes appearing at his own and his sister’s high school, as well as his legitimate automobile passage through one of only two roads connecting his Windham neighborhood to the outer world. Though not a criminal prohibition, the stalking statute undeniably burdened the exercise of Maravelias’s lawful speech through a civil restraining order extension resultant of his lawful speech, as it does in general for all such defendants.

from a number of legal activities.” McCarthy

The ambit of the federal First Amendment surpasses categorical prohibitions and extends to such “statutes attempting to restrict or burden the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973). Cf. State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. A.2d 1253 (2004) at 422-425, applying the same under the state constitution. In New Hampshire, “a statute is void for overbreadth if it attempts to control conduct by means which invade areas of protected freedom.” MacElman at 310. In the context of lawful-speech-related stalking order extension, 633:3-a, III-c. burdens the exercise of protected freedoms. Cf. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991), invalidating a law which imposed merely a “financial disincentive” to certain speech, let alone a stalking order as incapacitating as the one against Maravelias.

Here, the regulated speech is protected. Since constitutionally protected, non-threatening speech to third-parties permits extension under

PAUL MARAVELIAS

33

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

the statute, the statute is overbroad. Facially, the overbroad language of the

statute is not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest in

effecting the cessation of stalking, discussed infra. As applied, Maravelias’s

three acts cited by the trial court and noticed in Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend

are protected, legitimate, lawful speech.

1. Maravelias’s 12/10/17 Email to Mrs. Smith is Protected Speech

An email to a public employee expressing a viewpoint that alleged

criminal actions disqualify a person from said public employee’s honor

society does not fall into any of the recognized exceptions to

constitutionally protected speech. “As a general principle, the First

Amendment bars the government from dictating what we see or read or

speak or hear.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal. 535 U.S. 234, 245 (2002);

see also State v. Zidel, 156 N.H. 684, 686 (2008). Maravelias’s email –

specifically requesting that it not be shared with the Plaintiff – does not fall

into any recognized First-Amendment exception, such as “violence”-

incitation or “obscenity”. Ashcroft at 245; Zidel at 686.

2. Maravelias’s 11/2/2017 Response to Attorney Brown is Protected Speech

Maravelias’s private responsive communication to Attorney Brown

advancing a deterrent legal counterthreat does not constitute any form of

unprotected speech. While Maravelias incorporated a few scattered

profanities, this does not come close to “obscene” speech. Cf. Cohen v.

California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), holding the phrase “fuck the draft”

displayed inside a courthouse as protected. “A function of free speech

PAUL MARAVELIAS

34

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1,4 (1949).

3. The March 2017 Nasty Letter to David DePamphilis

Maravelias did not write the letter (See supra). It was not sent to the Plaintiff. (T14) Maravelias’s private verbal communications with the letter’s author are protected. Further, the letter itself does not contain any obscene content nor fighting-words; it is protected speech regardless of authorship. The US Supreme Court has noted that “citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Berry, 485 U.S. 312,322 (1988).

ii. The Statute Triggers Strict Scrutiny

“The amount of burden on speech needed to trigger First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold matter is minimal.” American Legion Post 7 of Durham, N.C. v. City of Durham, 239 F.3d 601,607 (4 th Cir. 2001). Here, Maravelias’s constitutional rights are manifoldly restricted because of lawful speech. This far-exceeds the threshold of triggering constitutional scrutiny. As the statute implicates “fundamental rights”, intermediate scrutiny in-the-least applies. Further, strict scrutiny is the only valid form review here, since 633:3-a, III-c. is content-based, discriminatory against a disfavored group, and not viewpoint-neutral.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

35

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

1. The Regulation is Content-Based

“The First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny whenever the

government creates ‘a regulation of speech because of disagreement with

the message it conveys.’” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2664

(2011). “The First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain

subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which

may be a means to control content.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election

Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 882,883 (2010).

Facially, that the statute invites courts to evaluate whether a

defendant’s public or third-party speech-acts undermine a plaintiff’s

“happiness” or “comfort” (“well-being”), and is therefore content-based, is

plain. Here, if Maravelias had responded to Attorney Brown on 11/2/17

saying, “in parting ways, I respect David’s daughter”, doubtlessly the

response would not have been used against Maravelias. Likewise, if

Maravelias’s 12/10/17 email to Mrs. Smith had been a generic salutation

email mentioning, “I have some legal problems with Ms. DePamphilis, but

she’s still a great person”, then the ridiculous accusation of “following-up”

on a “threat” within WPD’s baseless charge could not have existed (A37);

the email would be irrelevant to extension.

Therefore, the regulation is content-based, triggering strict scrutiny.

2. The Regulation Isolates Disfavored Speakers and is Not Viewpoint-Neutral

PAUL MARAVELIAS

36

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

The regulation’s lack of content-neutrality closely resembles its lack of viewpoint-neutrality. Whereas Christina DePamphilis’s obscene, incitative (unprotected 6 ) middle-finger post (A11) directed to Maravelias entitled Maravelias to no recourse under the statute, the same statute permitted Maravelias’s non-incitative-nor-obscene (protected) speech in public or to third-parties to motivate stalking order extension. Moreover, the statute’s

viewpoint-discrimination afflicts a certain group (stalking order defendants) doubtlessly “disfavored” by society. See Citizens United, ibid., applying strict-scrutiny review to laws that “disfavors specific speakers”. See also Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,658,114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). “Speaker-based laws demand strict scrutiny

when they reflect the Government’s speakers have to say”. Id.

aversion to what the disfavored

3. Forum Analysis

Maravelias’s 12/10/17 communication to Mrs. Smith’s public high- school email account commands further protection as speech within a “nonpublic forum” or, arguably, “limited public forum”. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 129 S.Ct. 1125,172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009). Even in a nonpublic forum, lack of viewpoint-neutrality triggers strict scrutiny.

6 Cf. O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012). “Raising the middle finger may constitute fighting words or a true threat.” Id at 429.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

37

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Because the “State Constitution provides at least as much protection as the Federal Constitution”, strict-scrutiny-review is appropriate under both corpora of law. State v. Allard, 148 N.H. 702 A.2d 506,510 (2002).

iii. The Statute Fails Even Intermediate Scrutiny

Even content-neutral regulations subject to intermediate scrutiny must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information”. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (2014), citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 791 (1989). A statute fails intermediate scrutiny if burdening “substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests”. Ward at 799. Applying strict scrutiny, the governmental interest advanced must be not only “significant”, but “compelling”.

1. Tailoring Analysis

Where the statute’s standard for stalking order extension atrociously exceeds the government’s presumed interest in the “cessation of stalking” (See RSA 633:3-a, III-a.), it is overinclusively not-narrowly-tailored. Although arguably intending to regulate unprotected (e.g., threatening) speech, “the overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.” Ashcroft at 237. See also Doyle at 221, invalidating laws as facially overbroad under Part I, Article 22 of the State Constitution where “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the [law’s] plainly legitimate sweep”.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

38

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

RSA 633:3-a, III-c. permits trial courts to extend any stalking order where a plaintiff testifies she’d feel “uncomfortable” or “unhappy” otherwise, since this alone shows by “good-cause” that an extension would “provide for” her “state of being comfortable, happy, or healthy” (the definition of “well-being”, supra). The language renders the facts of the case – a defendant’s history of stalking, the level of expected unlawful future behavior, etc. – completely irrelevant where a plaintiff’s mere “comfort” or “happiness” is served by granting extension.

The draconian statute disowns any realistic model of human psychology or sociology, in which one person’s lawful third-party-or- public expressions might incidentally distress an individual holding different views – even though the suppression of minor annoyance alone triggers the dictionary definition of serving “well-being”. Negative social experiences disfavor well-being. Rook, K.S. (1984) 7 Seeing the word “no” alone triggers unhealthy, uncomfortable, and unhappy neurotransmitters and hormones. 8

The statute burdens a woefully latitudinous fetch of protected speech far beyond that necessary to promote “a cessation of stalking”. A potential rebuttal pits the controlling context of “safety” and the generic context of the statute against “well-being” as altogether constituting a legal standard for extension higher than prevention of minor annoyance. But, such an interpretation is tautologically illogical, since the legislature added the word

PAUL MARAVELIAS

39

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

“well-being” and, thus, intently did not stop at “safety”. Regardless, such a reading would separately demonstrate the statute’s unacceptable vagueness, discussed infra.

Separately, reasonable alternatives to the “safety and well-being” language which would equally advance the counter-stalking governmental- interest evince the statute’s lack of narrow-tailoring. See Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62,74 (1990). The statute could alternatively permit stalking order extension upon a good-cause-showing such would provide for a plaintiff’s “safety” only, or, better-yet, “as is necessary to bring about a cessation of” (or simply “prevent”) “stalking”, to mirror the language in subsection III-a. No possible circumstance currently allowing extension would fail this more-narrowly-tailored test wherein the governmental-interest involved is truly one of counter-stalking, rather than of silencing annoying speech and effectively criminalizing a defendant’s self-defensive speech itself caused by the stalking order, as in Maravelias’s case. Such a narrowly-tailored alternative would not amount to the necessity of re-proving new acts of stalking or showing protective-order non-compliance to obtain extension, since the “good-cause” standard already requires that the trial court consider the underlying circumstantial provenance of the original stalking-order. See MacPherson v. Weiner, 158 N.H. 6,10 (2008).

Rather, RSA 633:3-a, III-c. surreptitiously supplants the original- stalking-order legal standard (III-a) with a patently absurd legal standard catering to “well-being” (III-c.), unrelated to the narrow counter-stalking governmental-interest, when extension is concerned. Naturally, therefore,

PAUL MARAVELIAS

40

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

the statute is also underinclusively not-narrowly-tailored. Statutes failing to restrict an amount of harmful-to-the-governmental-interest speech comparable to the amount restricted are not narrowly-tailored. See Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of Mendon, 769 F.3d 61,73 (1 st Cir. 2014); Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524,540 (1989). Here, if “safety and well-being” actually is otherwise narrowly-tailored to serve the governmental-interest, then so should the initial-stalking-order-issuance legal standard of III-a adopt the lower good-cause-provision-for-“safety and well-being” standard, rather than the higher-burden, more-stringent standard currently within subsection III-a positively requiring “stalking” and granting relief only as necessary “to bring about a cessation” thereof.

Instead, the illogical “safety and well-being” conundrum at III-c. radically discriminates between groups of potentially indifferentiable stalking order defendants. III-c. assaults the liberty-interests of extant defendants through a much-lower “well-being” legal standard, while III-a coddles the liberty-interests of new defendants, even though the liberty- restricting nature of the one-year injunction-at-hand remains identical both at III-a and III-c. Though civil, this villainously contravenes the precepts of double-jeopardy. In fact, III-c. permits further extensions “for up to 5 years”, despite imposing a far lower legal standard than III-a!

In failing to be narrowly-tailored, the statute also discriminates against stalking victims. Why should the State expect legitimate stalking victims newly-seeking protective injunction to sustain a much higher burden than those already granted a stalking order – for the same one-year protection? If any difference in legal standard is appropriate between the two groups,

PAUL MARAVELIAS

41

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

equity requires the reverse. This concern is exacerbated by New Hampshire trial courts’ “extending” stalking orders by III-c. – lawfully or unlawfully – months after their expiration. See Stewart v. Murdock, (2015-0448). The overbroad language at III-c. creates an inequitable advantage for prior- order-wielding plaintiffs and an indefensible disadvantage for prior-order- subject defendants.

2. The Governmental Interest Served is not “Compelling”

The underinclusiveness aforementioned casts doubt on whether the statute’s “proffered interest is truly forwarded by the regulation, or is in fact substantial enough to warrant such regulation.” Showtime Entertainment, LLC, supra. That is, if the “safety and well-being” standard were narrowly- tailored to the interest, the interest would be compelling enough to warrant usage of the same legal standard for original-stalking-order-issuance at subsection III-a. This suggests the governmental-interest served is not “compelling”, forming separate causal grounds for failure of strict-scrutiny. Furthermore, wherever the “well-being” language could possibly remain narrowly-tailored to the governmental-interest, such interest could never be “significant”, and the statute would fail intermediate scrutiny regardless. The presumed counter-stalking governmental-interest motivating 633:3-a might be “significant”, but the obsequiously-catering- to-the-epicurean-“comfort”-and-“happiness”-of-a-plaintiff interest (the only interest to which “well-being” is narrowly-tailored) surely is not.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

42

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

3. Alternative Channels

Nor does the legal standard at III-c. appropriate any imaginable

alternative manner a defendant may dare disagree with a plaintiff’s stalking

order within his public-or-third-party communications without suffering

greater likelihood of stalking order extension, where the plaintiff’s

“comfort” should be disturbed by knowing the defendant’s mere contrary

opinion.

B. The “Safety and Well-Being” Language of 633:3-a, III-c. is Impermissibly Vague

“A statute can be impermissibly vague for either of two independent

reasons. First, if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a

reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits. Second, if it

authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703,732 (2000). Here, the language of RSA

633:3-a, III-c. is unintelligible and so loosely constrained that arbitrary,

discriminatory enforcement thereof is inevitable. Not only is the term

“well-being” too vague, but also the extent to which the preceding term

“safety” narrows or qualifies “well-being”.

i. Semantic Vagueness

As applied, Paul Maravelias lacks the intelligence to discern which

behaviors are reasonably expected to minimize chances of order extension.

Whether he is simply to obey the order, avoiding/ignoring the Plaintiff as

PAUL MARAVELIAS

43

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

he has, or must somehow appease her psychological “well-being” by tacitly congratulating her felony-perjury-fueled legal abuse, is unclear.

Facially, the language creates even worse problems for trial courts. One judge might think a “well-being” order ridiculous and far in-excess-of the legislative counter-stalking intent, calibrating his or her judgements to the statute’s broad “safety” context, even applying ejusdem generis to constrain “well-being” thereby. However, another judge might reject this interpretation, “safety and well-being” not being a list, and adopt the plain meaning of the word “well-being” as this Court does on review.

ii. Syntactic Vagueness

The statute is fraught with meaningful syntactic ambiguity between the co-possible constructions “shall grant such relief as may be necessary to provide for the (safety and well-being)” and “… relief as may be necessary to provide for the safety, and (relief as may be necessary to provide for the) well-being”. The former interpretation begets tautology, the latter overbroad plaintiff-sycophancy. This tremendous interpretation-dependent leeway afforded trial courts in applying subsection III-c. sponsors capricious, arbitrary extensions as perversely fact-amnestic as John Coughlin’s against Maravelias in this case.

The Old Man’s 2003 death was not of natural causes. From on-high he beheld the land before him. He witnessed not a frugal New England citizenry of individualist “Live Free or Die” self-reliance, but rather the

PAUL MARAVELIAS

44

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

infantilistic, progressivist corruption of all for which he stood. He glanced farther to Boston and envied the dutiful balance of liberty-interest in Massachusettensian law – embarrassingly, unlike its tyrannical Novahantonian analog. He contemplated M.G.L. 265 §43, which sensibly necessitates an actual “threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury” for “stalking”. Betrayed by his own people, he then beheld M.G.L. 258E §3(d): the analogous civil “harassment” order extension standard; for civil “stalking” orders do not exist. The Commonwealth irrationally-abdicates-not its legitimate counter-harassment governmental-interest, nor embellishes with flowery “well-being” sophistry. Amazingly, it permits “the court [extend] the [harassment] order … as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff from harassment.” Id. The more-proximate golden dome at Concord then robbed the Old Man’s gaze. The insidious travesty of RSA 633:3-a, III-c. agonized his senile consciousness. He threw himself down, ending his own life in ashamed despair: for “death is not the worst of evils”. 9

9 Upon extensive individual research, Appellant cannot find one single other state of comparable protective-order-procedure which magically discards the initial-issuance-standard for something pointlessly different for extension.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

45

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

II. WHERE CHRISTINA DEPAMPHILIS INCITATIVELY BULLIED PAUL MARAVELIAS ON HER SOCIAL MEDIA AFTER LAUGHIBLY LYING ABOUT HAVING “FEAR” OF HIM, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF “REASONABLE FEAR” WAS INSUFFICIENT

Fortunately for him, the Old Man never lived to see the day where a

New Hampshire trial court would continue criminalizing a young man’s

firearm-ownership because the 17-year-old girl who incitatively targeted

and bullied said citizen with her and her boyfriend’s middle-fingers on

social media claims to “fear” him. Judge John Coughlin’s peppering-in a

finding of “reasonable fear” (A2) was gratuitous under subsection III-c.,

obviously rooted upon insufficient evidence, and further indicative of his

biased, dismissive judicial misconduct against Maravelias, days before

retirement.

III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN UNSUSTAINABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE STALKING ORDER EXTENSION

A. Good Cause for Stalking Order Extension was Not Shown by a Preponderance of Evidence

The trial court’s order is risibly ludicrous. This stalking order has

become an absurd and pointless self-fulfilling prophecy if Maravelias’s

PAUL MARAVELIAS

46

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

non-Plaintiff-directed speech-acts decrying the injustice of the “staking”

order themselves cause it to be extended.

Analytically, the logic of the trial court’s order is as follows:

Premise #1

Paul Maravelias, believing himself falsely accused of stalking and possessing an audio recording disproving the accusations sustaining our original stalking order, dared communicate privately to third-parties, not Christina DePamphilis, about the injustice he believed we did against him.

Premise #2

These private third-party communications of Paul Maravelias protesting his own innocence somehow caused Christina DePamphilis to have “reasonable fear”, even though she only even found-out about them by-accident, and even though she admitted to middle-fingering Maravelias with her new boyfriend on public social media to assert her “independency [sic]” (T74:14,233:8) to Maravelias.

Premise #3

Despite Maravelias’s vociferous asseverations to be repulsed by and disinterested in Christina DePamphilis, including his inability to even physically recognize her in the court parking lot and intuition that “she deserves to be [his] girlfriend like Osama bin Laden deserves to be mayor of Manhattan” (T357:14-16), and despite her own attorney’s calling Maravelias’s a “previous obsession”

PAUL MARAVELIAS

47

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

 

(A36), we are justified to fantasize Maravelias has a “continuing” “obsession” “to this day” (A2) with DePamphilis.

Premise #4

We should ignore Maravelias’s evidence of Christina DePamphilis’s extreme falsity, such as the Turkey Trot video, and our in-person comments to Maravelias were lies. (See infra)

Conclusion

Therefore, there is “good cause” to extend the stalking protective order. Further, we include gratuitous, amplified language about a “perverse obsession”, “sole purpose of harassing/stalking” and “reasonable fear” in our order, because pro se Paul Maravelias knew the law, dared hold us accountable thereto, and generically pisses us off.

Premises 2-4 above are false. Any sensible adult having read the trial

court’s order, knowing the facts of this case, would find it illogical,

unsustainable, and simply outrageous. Furthermore:

Christina DePamphilis’s relied-upon, obsessively-collected 1.5-

year-old photographs of Maravelias’s private home

bedroom/office pictured a pre-stalking-order state, since

Maravelias was living away at college immediately after

December 2016. (T447:3-14,455:7-10;A46-47)

After Maravelias exposed her innumerable inconsistencies,

willful lies, and false memory, the trial court erred to attribute a

PAUL MARAVELIAS

48

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

scintilla of credibility to Christina DePamphilis’s

representations, such as relying upon her self-serving assertion

she “fears” Maravelias. (A44)

Upon Maravelias’s showing DePamphilis had submitted

countless false-or-otherwise-unfruitful police reports trying to

get him arrested mid-order (T483,A20), the trial court insensibly

failed to dismiss the obvious legal-harassment-purposed

“stalking” order against Maravelias.

Given the early-May 2018 phenomenon where Maravelias

wrongly believed the order was annulled and went for a peaceful

victory-“walk” instead of contacting the Plaintiff whatsoever

(T357:2-5,303:17-22), only an unscrupulous tyrant like John

Coughlin would later libel him an “obsessed” “stalker” causing

“reasonable fear”.

If the upheld-extension in MacPherson v. Weiner, ibid., was “a

close case” even where the defendant had actually violated the

stalking order and committed far-less-questionable original acts

of “stalking” (not asking-out a girl once, thereafter eternally

ignoring her), then the instant case miserably fails to even

approach warranting extension.

B. The Trial Court Made Honest Verbal Comments at Trial Proving its Subsequent Written Order was Shamefully Disingenuous

Judge Coughlin revealed his honest impressions of Maravelias toward

the end of the Hearing, commenting to Maravelias:

PAUL MARAVELIAS

49

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Well, let me ask you, is there any potential that this case could settle?

Because it looked like you’re willing to stay away and not have any contact and otherwise comply with what is the order.” (T479)

it appears that you do not want to have any contact and that you’re going

to do that on a voluntary basis.” (T479)

you indicated that, you don’t want to have anything to do with the family,

you don’t want to have anything to do with this young woman, and you just want to be left alone and you’re going to leave her alone. At least that’s my impression” (T480)

Having listened to Maravelias testify, any rational adult would endorse Judge Coughlin’s candid Billy-Joel-esque characterization of Maravelias’s pacifist “leave-me-alone” outlook concerning the Plaintiff and her family. However, seven mere days later in his demented 6/15/18 order, John Coughlin took to a vomitous display of self-contradicting libel, bullshitting that Maravelias has a “strange, perverse and unhealthy obsession” with the Plaintiff “which … continues to this day”. (A2)

Additional self-contradictions aliunde in the transcript (T58:7-9,73:13- 19,308:12-18,468:19-20) are likewise indicative that John Coughlin’s 6/15/18 libelous abomination extension order was about as genuine as the 1919 World Series.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

50

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

IV. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MARAVELIAS’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

A. Reversal is the Necessary Remedy to the Trial Court’s Blatant Violation of the “30 Days” Hearing Requirement of 633:3-a, III-

c.

Given the trial court’s illegal abrogation of Maravelias’s due-process

“right” “to a hearing on the extension of any order under this paragraph to

be held within 30 days of the extension” as mandated by 633:3-a, III-c

subsequent stalking order extension must inescapably be reversed. This

Court was abundantly clear in McCarthy v. Wheeler, 152 N.H. 643 (2005)

that dismissal of domestic violence petitions is the required remedy when

trial courts fail to obey statutory time-limit requirements. Such

requirements are compellingly necessary to provide defendants a baseline

level of due-process fairness where their basic liberties are at stake.

, the

McCarthy bears striking factual similarity hereto and is doubtlessly

dispositive. Firstly, it was a domestic violence order reversed on appeal,

certainly more serious than a “stalking” order here where Defendant invited

Plaintiff and her mommy on a date while offering her a fancy car, got

rejected, and then never spoke to her ever again. Secondly, the McCarthy

trial court scheduled the first excess-of-30-day-requirement hearing for

9/16/04, 4 days beyond the 30-days-post-10/13/04-petition date. Here,

Maravelias’s rights were repudiated by the stalking order for 9 days after

2/11/18, the date 30-days post-1/12/18-extension.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

51

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

“Where the legislature, out of liberty interest concerns, has mandated

time limits for holding hearings, we have held that personal jurisdiction

over a defendant is lost, absent waiver, if the case is not heard within the

statutory period.” Id., quoting Appeal of Martino, 138 N.H. 612 (1994).

The stalking statute is functionally identical to the domestic violence statute

in stipulating the court “shall” obey the time-limit. “Since these hearings

are designed to protect a defendant’s substantive rights, the court’s failure

to hold them must result in dismissal of the domestic violence petition.”

McCarthy, ibid. Accordingly, this Court must reverse the stalking order

extension.

B. The Trial Court Illegally Limited Defendant’s Guaranteed Right to Videotape the Entire Public Hearing

The trial court illegally limited Maravelias’s right to videotape the

entire proceeding. (T9:1-3;A48) After Plaintiff objected to Maravelias’s

perfunctory videorecording-notice-motion, the trial court violated Circuit

Court Rule 1.4 by formally prohibiting Maravelias from including the

Plaintiff in his videotape of her own public court hearing. (A48,60)

Maravelias objected contemporaneously (T5-7) and post-facto through

pleadings (A48,60-64), identifying the further-Plaintiff’s-lying-enabling

prejudicial nature of letting her testify off-camera. Thus, reversal is the

appropriate remedy, exactly as Maravelias presciently apprehended at trial.

(T484)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

52

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

C. The Trial Court Violated the Statutory Advance Notice Requirement and/or Other Substantive Due Process Rights

i. “Obsession” and the 6/8/18 Surprise-Photographs-Exhibit

The trial court erred by relying upon Plaintiff’s unnoticed surprise-

photographs with which she ambushed Maravelias on the hearing’s last-day

to advance an unnoticed allegation of “obsession”, in violation of 173-B:3,

I. (A2), applicable to stalking cases. Both that allegation and the

Maravelias-privacy-assaulting bedroom-photographs themselves were

noticed nowhere in Plaintiff’s extension motion. Further, the absurd

“obsession” allegation should have been estopped. (A67-70)

ii. Ignored Motion to Dismiss

Maravelias invites this Honorable Court to ignore this paragraph if

disagreeing the “good-cause” standard could permit a trial court to refuse to

extend a stalking order because of a subsequent showing it was predicated

on totally-unnoticed, extra-petition allegations, even where said order won

this Court’s obligatory affirmation on the technicality-grounds of

insufficient issue preservation. Maravelias here repeats the facts and

arguments (T487-489) his ignored 3/29/18 Motion to Dismiss (A107)

rehearsed.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

53

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

V. JOHN J. COUGHLIN, THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE, COMMITTED A RAMPANT SPREE OF BIASED AND UNJUST CONDUCT AGAINST MARAVELIAS, BEING LARGELY UNACCOUNTABLE TO AUTHORITY, SINCE HE RETIRED DAYS LATER

Taken altogether, Judge Coughlin’s judicial acts from both 2018

Maravelias-DePamphilis cases reveal a consistent pattern of bias and

prejudice. Put lightly, no remotely honest judge would order a stalking-

petitioner to pay his opponent’s itemized expense incurred and dated before

said petition was even filed and then utterly ignore the error after said

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration complained thereof (referencing

2018-0376). Lacking space here to analyze Judge Coughlin’s abounding

even-worse instant-case misconduct, Appellant Maravelias requests this

Court review his recent trial-court-level motion explicating the noted

disturbing phenomena. (A115)

This Court should reverse, as Maravelias was obviously not given a fair

shot.

VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR EXTENDED PROTECTIVE ORDERS

On 7/2/18, Plaintiff motioned for vastly expanded “protective” orders

against Maravelias. (A152) She hoped to criminalize Maravelias’s mere

possessing her “social media” artifacts wherein she bullied and harassed

PAUL MARAVELIAS

54

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Maravelias, which indicated her malicious prosecution and bold lack of “fear” (A154). Maravelias extensively litigated against this outrageous motion in responsive pleadings (A156), asserting the requested terms’ unconstitutionality (A161) and illegality (A182).

In predictable fashion, Judge John J. Coughlin, the natural-rights- calpestating rebel and effeminate, sequacious houseboy-servant to daddy David’s vindictive lust, scribbled-off his approval. Spineless Coughlin might as well have prepended his Order, “Don DePamphilis, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your daughter’s restraining order hearing. I will extend it and grant any further requests. Don DePamphilis, I pledge my ever-ending loyalty.”

John Coughlin pleasured himself with a last-laugh of recalcitrant judicial abuse against Maravelias by not even granting Plaintiff’s concessively amended, slightly-less-overbroad terms proposed in her responsive 7/12/18 pleading (A180,8). Rather, Judge Coughlin ignored Maravelias’s weighty responsive pleadings and affirmed motu proprio the irrationally draconian terms in Plaintiff’s original 7/2/18 motion, which even she was willing to partially ameliorate in light of Maravelias’s subsequent counterarguments. (A7)

Maravelias’s meritorious legal counterarguments in these pleadings endured a familiar fate: defenestrated into the wind, ignored insouciantly by the trial court. Unsurprisingly, Judge Coughlin did not cite a word of legal authority for his final judicial act against Maravelias. (A6) The temerarious tyrant did not whim to betray the slightest indication he’d even read

PAUL MARAVELIAS

55

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Maravelias’s counter-pleadings at all, wherein Maravelias hopelessly

attempted to hold Judge Coughlin accountable to written laws and

constitutions guaranteeing certain rights.

Rather, John Coughlin whored himself on the exhilarating thrill of his

trademark “denied” and “granted” go-to scribblings (A3,4,5,6), knowing

himself sacrosanctly above the law, unobliged to offer a single further word

of justification for ablating Maravelias’s right to possess public court

exhibits profitable to his defense. After all, at that time, September 5 th was

just days away. That plump post-retirement pension was so close John

Coughlin could taste it.

That such corrupt court-sponsored further-trampling of Maravelias’s

basic freedom of speech could occur in a nominally free country is surreal.

Judge Coughlin only profaned the public’s memory of his lackluster career

by consummating such cavalier insanity as one of his final judicial acts. Is

Maravelias a criminal for “possessing” “social media exhibits” in this very

brief for his own legal defense?

Maravelias here re-invites this Honorable Court to contemplate the

tragic absurdity that all this is transpired solely because he once invited a

girl to dinner and never once spoke to her after the day she rejected him.

(T27,28,35-36,451:17-18)

A. The Trial Court Transgressed Constitutional Rights and Unsustainably Exercised Discretion

Maravelias satisfactorily explicated the unconstitutionality and

unsustainable improvidence of granting Plaintiff’s motion for expanded

PAUL MARAVELIAS

56

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

terms in his responsive pleadings thereto (A161-163), especially regarding

the first term prohibiting Maravelias from directly or indirectly

“possessing” his legal abuser’s “social media communications” (A154). In

this brief, Maravelias advances similar arguments against the underlying

stalking order extension which are equally applicable to this separate order

granting expanded protective order terms. Lacking space for repetition

thereof, Maravelias here incorporates by reference those arguments.

(A157,182)

B. John J. Coughlin Personally Committed a Class B Criminal Felony Violation of 641:5, I.(B) in Granting Plaintiff’s Obscurantist Assault Against Maravelias’s Public Freedom of Expression

Maravelias respectfully requests this Court address that Judge Coughlin

personally violated a criminal statute in granting the motion, as Maravelias

emphatically forewarned in his objection pleadings in this matter.

(A182,183)

PAUL MARAVELIAS

57

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE the foregoing compels the Defendant-Appellant, Paul

Maravelias, humbly to pray this Honorable Court:

I.

Reverse the trial court’s 6/15/18 extension order, ending this case;

II.

Reverse the trial court’s 8/7/18 order granting further injunctions; and

III.

Retroactively annul the original stalking order dated 2/7/17, if possible, issuing declaratory relief that it was error to find Paul Maravelias had ever stalked the daughter of David DePamphilis.

I, Paul Maravelias, certify that copies of the Derry District Court

decisions being appealed are attached hereto. See N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 16(3)(i).

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. MARAVELIAS, in propria persona

Paul J. Maravelias 34 Mockingbird Hill Road Windham, New Hampshire 03087 paul@paulmarv.com (603) 475-3305
Paul J. Maravelias
34 Mockingbird Hill Road
Windham, New Hampshire 03087
paul@paulmarv.com
(603) 475-3305

THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD MMXVIII

PAUL MARAVELIAS

58

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND RULE 16(11) COMPLIANCE

I, Paul Maravelias, hereby certify that on this day were sent via first- class mail two copies of the within Defendant’s Brief and accompanying Appendix, postage prepaid, to Simon R. Brown, Esquire, Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee, Christina DePamphilis, P.O. 1318 Concord, New Hampshire, 03302-1318.

I, Paul Maravelias, hereby certify that this document was not drafted by a limited-representation attorney. See N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 16(10).

Certification, further, is made of the foregoing document’s compliance to word-count limitation, 9,493 words being contained, exclusive of the herein addendum-certificate and of other addenda. See N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 16(11), 26(7).

November 1 st , 2018

PAUL MARAVELIAS

Paul J. Maravelias
Paul J. Maravelias

59

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

PRAYER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The Appellant, Paul Maravelias, respectfully requests Oral Argument before the full court pursuant to Rule 16(h). 15 minutes are requested.

PAUL MARAVELIAS

60

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Trial Court Decisions

APPENDIX

6/15/18 Order Granting DePamphilis’s Motion to Extend Duration of Final Stalking Order of Protection

A1

Denial of Maravelias’s Motion for Reconsideration

A3

Denial of Maravelias’s Motion for Discovery

A4

Denial of Maravelias’s Motion to Strike

A5

Denial of Maravelias’s Objection to DePamphilis’s Motion for

Further Stalking Order Terms

A6

8/7/18 Order Granting DePamphilis’s First Motion for Further

Stalking Order Terms

A7

8/7/18 Order Not Even Granting DePamphilis’s Responsive, Ameliorated Motion for Further Stalking Order Terms

A8

1/12/18 Initial Extension of Stalking Order

A9

Trial Court Exhibits

Christina DePamphilis’s 6/21/17 Middle-Finger Provocation

Posts Against Paul Maravelias on Social Media

A11

Christina DePamphilis’s 6/19/17 Social Media Post With Her

Boyfriend Targeting Maravelias

Christina DePamphilis’s 12/12/16 Text Message to Paul Maravelias Showing She Did Not Have “Fear” of Him

A13

A14

Evidence of Christina DePamphilis’s Social Media Accounts

Deleted Right Before Hearing

PAUL MARAVELIAS

61

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

A15

Maravelias’s April 2018 Statement to WPD About the March

2018 Nasty Letter Sent to David DePamphilis

A17

Christina DePamphilis’s Age-16 “4:43am” Vodka Post

A18

Photograph of Christina DePamphilis Casually Socializing with

A19

Maravelias’s January 2018 Memo to WPD Regarding False and

A20

Maravelias’s Criminal Complaint Against DePamphilis Perjury and Theodore and Caroline Maravelias Letter-testimonies On the Contents of Maravelias’s 12/12/16 Audio Recording They

A24

Excerpt from Christina DePamphilis’s Attorney’s April 2018 Pleading Alleging Maravelias Had a “Previous Obsession”

A36

May 2018 Nolle Prosequi of Baseless 12/15/17 WPD Arrest of

A37

Transcript Excerpt From 1/5/17 Hearing Indicating Christina DePamphilis’s “Turkey Trot” Accusation Proven False by the

A38

Excerpt from Original 12/28/16 Stalking Petition Copy Showing Christina DePamphilis’s Claims about Being “Stalked” by Maravelias at the 2013 Turkey Trot, Later Revealed to be a Total Lie by His Sister’s Incidental Cell-Phone Video

A39

Paul Maravelias

Fruitless Stalking-Order-Violation Accusation

Listened to In Vermont

With Her

Maravelias

Cell-Phone Video

Thereof, and Other False Accusations

Original Stalking Order

Judge Stephen’s 2/7/17 Stalking Order Finding of Facts Against

Maravelias

PAUL MARAVELIAS

62

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

A40

Motion for Reconsideration Litigation

Maravelias’s 6/25/18 Motion for Reconsideration

A41

DePamphilis’s 7/2/18 Objection

A52

Maravelias’s 7/5/18 Reply to DePamphilis’s 7/2/8 Objection

Maravelias’s 7/5/18 Motion to Strike Part of DePamphilis’s 7/2/8 Objection

A58

A67

Underlying Stalking Order Extension Motion

DePamphilis’s 1/5/18 Motion to Extend Duration of Stalking

Final Order of Protection

A72

Maravelias’s 1/18/18 Objection to DePamphilis 1/5/18 Motion

to Extend

Other Trial Court Motions

A97

Maravelias’s 3/29/18 Motion to Dismiss and Vacate (Redundant

Exhibits Omitted)

A107

Maravelias’s 5/29/18 Motion for Discovery

A110

Maravelias’s 10/31/18 Motion to Set Aside Judgement

A115

Transcript Excerpts of Related Proceedings

PAUL MARAVELIAS

63

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Transcript Excerpt from 1/5/17 Hearing Showing “Arm- Grabbing” Lie Against Maravelias

A150

Transcript Excerpt from 2/15/18 Hearing in Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis Indicating the Trial Court Scheduled That Hearing Before the Renewal Motion in This Case, Further

A151

Violating the 30-Days Requirement

Summer 2018 Post-Extention Litigation on DePamphilis’s Motion for Expanded Protective Order Terms

DePamphilis’s 7/2/18 Motion to Amend Final Stalking Order of

Protection to Include Further Terms

A152

Maravelias’s 7/5/18 Objection

A156

DePamphilis’s 7/12/18 Reply to Maravelias’s 7/2/8 Objection

A178

Maravelias’s 7/16/18 Reply to DePamphilis’s 7/12/18 Reply and Criminal Complaint against Christina DePamphilis . A182

Miscellaneous

Maravelias’s 12/23/16 Text Message to David DePamphilis

A197

Transcript Excerpt from the Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis Hearing Indicating the Bad-Faith, Vindictive Provenance of the Stalking Order in This Case by David

A198

Maravelias’s 4/13/18 Reply to DePamphilis’s Brief on Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees in Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis, Showing Initial Falsification and Theft-Attempt

A199

Asking Him to “Stop Harassing” Maravelias’s Parents

DePamphilis’s 2016 “Last Straw” Quote

PAUL MARAVELIAS

64

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

Trial Court’s First Notice of Hearing for 2/15/18

A222

Text of Relevant Authorities

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated

General Laws of Massachusetts

New Hampshire Rules of the Circuit Court – District Division

A223

A227

A229

PAUL MARAVELIAS

65

34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087

A1 A1

A1

A1

A2 A2

A2

A2

A3 A3

A3

A3

A4 A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A6 A6

A6

A6

A7 A7

A7

A7

A8 A8

A8

A8

A9 A9

A9

A9

A10 A10

A10

A10

On 6/21/17, the Plaintiff Christina DePamphilis pictured herself in the following post on her public social media making vulgar gestures against the Defendant, Paul Maravelias.

It was targeted against Maravelias, and its caption read “Did Dartmouth [Defendant’s college] teach you how to do this ” [Middle finger “emoji”].

This act of harassment was to taunt Maravelias that DePamphilis had successfully abused him with a falsified restraining order, and cruelly bait Maravelias into violating it.

The man on the right is Matthew LaLiberte, DePamphilis’s boyfriend in his 20s.

Permalink for verification: http://bit.ly/2y0JFEF

is Matthew LaLiberte, DePamphilis’s boyfriend in his 20s. Permalink for verification: http://bit.ly/2y0JFEF A11 A11

A11

A11

A12 A12

A12

A12

Christina DePamphilis posted the following image on the same public social media account on 6/19/17 at 8:54pm, immediately prior to the vulgar incitation post pictured in the preceding exhibit. This post pictures the boyfriend calling-out Defendant by initials “PM”, further removing any doubt the posts were directed unto him.

boyfriend calling-out Defendant by initials “PM”, further removing any doubt the posts were directed unto him.

A13

A13

The following is from Defendant’s Gmail SMS text-message backup and shows that the Plaintiff actually texted him after his inviting her to dinner on 12/12/16 to “thank” him for the words and kind

gesture. The Plaintiff’s cell-phone number (603-

and kind gesture. The Plaintiff’s cell-phone number (603- ) is indicated. This shows there was never

) is indicated. This shows there was never

any “fear”, and the subsequent “stalking” accusations have been completely fraudulent.

there was never any “fear”, and the subsequent “stalking” accusations have been completely fraudulent. A14 A14

A14

A14

Evidence tampering documentation: social media account deleted right before 1/3/18 hearing in which DePamphilis targeted Maravelias with the aforecited provocative, inciting gesture (6/21/17).

hearing in which DePamphilis targeted Maravelias with the aforecited provocative, inciting gesture (6/21/17). A15 A15

A15

A15

Evidence tampering documentation: deletion of both Instagram accounts of DePamphilis’s daughter (“tipsytina69” and then renamed “tipssyytina”) containing other referenced postings:

daughter (“tipsytina69” and then renamed “tipssyytina”) containing other referenced postings: A16 A16
daughter (“tipsytina69” and then renamed “tipssyytina”) containing other referenced postings: A16 A16

A16

A16

Maravelias 4/18/17 statement about the letter received by David DePamphilis which was cited/reproduced in Plaintiff’s motion to extend stalking order:

letter received by David DePamphilis which was cited/reproduced in Plaintiff’s motion to extend stalking order: A17

A17

A17

In July of 2017, 16-year-old Christina DePamphilis pictured herself in this posting. She is evidently about to return home in her grey 2013 Jeep Wrangler (pictured in background) openly carrying hard liquor in left hand in her possession. “gn” stands for “good night”, and the caption reads, “in need of walk of shame number 2 lmk”.

The winter prior she complained about “fear” for “personal safety” while making false accusations of “stalking”.

prior she complained about “fear” for “personal safety” while making false accusations of “stalking”. A18 A18

A18

A18

Cell-phone picture (and screenshot of metadata) taken by Maravelias at his own house on 6/29/13 depicting the comfortable and normal social dynamic between him and the liar Plaintiff (pictured) at Defendant’s HS graduation party, contrary to her mendacious claim to this Court about being “really nervous and uncomfortable” (Page 7 of 1/5/17 transcripts) in this same social encounter, which was made to support her falsified Stalking Petition.

7 of 1/5/17 transcripts) in this same social encounter, which was made to support her falsified

A19

7 of 1/5/17 transcripts) in this same social encounter, which was made to support her falsified

A19

The following is a 1/25/2018 statement Maravelias submitted to Windham Police upon another of DePamphilis’s malicious false accusations that Defendant had violated the protective order. The police dismissed the frivolous, vexatious complaint, as they had done with other similar DePamphilis false complaints made in March and September 2017. This shows DePamphilis’s “protective” order is intended as nothing but a weapon of harassment and legal abuse against Maravelias.

A20

A20

Paul Maravelias

1/25/18

Re: Statement on newest DePamphilis false accusation

On 1/25/18, Officer Dzierlatka called my cell to relay that David DePamphilis (or family member) had accused me of violating the fraudulent stalking order with regards to his daughter. The accusation was that on 1/20/18 I had seen one of DePamphilis’s automobiles on my street while driving myself and that

I aggressively accelerated at high-speed to reach and tailgate their vehicle at close-range at the same

time as David’s daughter was in his car. This is completely false as I did nothing of the sort. In fact, I

didnt even see Davids vehicle this night.

The fraudulent stalking order forbids knowingly approaching the Plaintiff (David’s criminal perjurer daughter) within 300 feet. Whenever I have seen the criminal, David, out driving, or his complicit daughter, I have ignored their presence and minded my own business. I shall do the same if I ever encounter them in public, which fortunately has not happened.

I informed Officer Dzierlatka that the accusation seemed malicious, given David’s past lies to police and

given my absolute lack of memory of seeing his vehicle on that night. I also stated that I am highly aware of Davids vehicles when I do see them, and I would certainly remember if one was in front of me this night.

I searched my Google phone location history records and found that I had returned to my house at 2206

EST for the last time that day. I did not leave my house again until around 0800 EST the following morning. David alleges the incident occurred an hour and a half later around 2330 EST. I had been inside my house for 1.5 hours at this point. My last excursion that day was to purchase a non-alcoholic fermented beverage at Shaws before they closed at 10pm. My attached phone location history and credit card transaction record all corroborate these memories. Even without this proof of my physical absence, there is no proof beyond hearsay of any aggressive driving behaviors.

Some of Davids past accusations against me have been delusional, and some others intently malicious. I will be collecting information from my family members on whether the car David associates with me was even out on the road at all at this time. It is possible my sister was driving it, as it is a car I purchased primarily for her usage and not mine. Depending on what I find, I may submit a criminal complaint against David DePamphilis for violation of RSA 641:4, which criminalizes he who knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer with the purpose of inducing such officer to believe that another has committed an offense. David has already violated this law on multiple occasions, from his initial falsified stalking petition against me to his bully-like sophistry on 9/5/17 that my seeing his wife at the supermarket was a violation of the stalkingorder which involves only his utilized revenge-puppet daughter. This department needs to enforce this law against David by arresting him and clarifying that police resources are not to be exploited to bully peaceful 22-year-olds.

Regards,

Paul Maravelias

A21

A21

A22

A22 A22

A22

A23 A23

A23

A23

The following is a criminal complaint Maravelias submitted to the Salem Police Department regarding DePamphilis’s willful criminal perjury made to Salem District Court in order to obtain the protective order in the present case. David DePamphilis suborned the Plaintiff, Christina DePamphilis, to make materially false statements in a 1/5/2017 Hearing and in the original falsified, bad-faith, vindictive Stalking Petition filed 12/28/2016.

A24

A24

November 1 st , 2017

Paul J. Maravelias

34 Mockingbird Hill Rd Windham, NH 03087

To: Windham Police Department

Cc:

Detective Jason Dzierlatka Detective Christopher van Hirtum

In re

David DePamphilis Criminal Complaint (felony Perjury under 641:1, felony Conspiracy under 629:3, misdemeanor Defamation under 644:11, and misdemeanor False Reports to Law Enforcement under 641:4)

Fair and impartial public servants of Windham:

It has come to pass that my abuser David Nicholas DePamphilis of

violated four criminal laws to wage his ongoing course of undue harassment against me.

The felon, David DePamphilis, lied to your police department in December 2016 when he filed a false “stalking” petition against me through his daughter, to satisfy his own lust for revenge.

I submit proof that the crime of felony Perjury occurred decisively on January 5 th , 2017 at Salem District Court at around 1:30pm when David caused “a false material statement under oath or affirmation” to be made when he did not “believe the statement to be true” (RSA 641:1 I. (a)).

My complaint is not semantic hairsplitting, petty revenge, or fighting over facts.

David’s willful crime has directly caused tremendous financial and emotional damage to me, as well as the marked abuse of my property rights and destruction of my good record.

At the 1/5/17 stalking hearing, David suborned his attorney Jerome Blanchard and daughter Christina to perjure the following falsehood about my normal, kind words to her while asking the young woman out to dinner on her 16 th birthday, before I left after her respectful decline:

h birthday, before I left after her respectful decline: has severely “Q Did he use the

has severely

“Q Did he use the phrase at any point during this conversation, age of consent?

A Yes

Q What did he say?

A He said I was age of consent at 16.(Page 27 of transcripts for Christina

DePamphilis vs. Paul Maravelias, Case No. 473-2016-CV-00124, attached as Exhibit C)

Though it is difficult for me to refrain from writing about how shockingly inaccurate their whole dramatic canard about “stalking” was (we had been normal family friends), I need to stay focused here on this certain specific criminal perjury.

A25

A25

Under the Perjury statute (641:1), only material willfully false representations are punishable. The knowingly false accusation above was material: it directly caused the issuance of the restraining order, in the words of Judge Stephen’s finding of stalking:

“[Maravelias] referred to [that day, her 16 th birthday] as the ‘age of consent’” and “mentioned he will wait until she is ready and be back when she is 18 years old” (Stephen, Robert S. in Final Order 473-2016-CV-00124, attached as Exhibit D).

These specific false claims which caused the order (that I said I’d “be back” in two years and mentioned a creepy sexual motivation behind my kind gesture) were not once mentioned in David’s initial written “stalking” petition he had his daughter write on 12/28, nor during his own verbal explosions and tirades against me and my family on 12/12 and 12/14. It is crystal clear this was an intentional, willful “buzz-word” dreamed-up maliciously to get the order.

Now, let actionable proof be submitted of David’s outrageous perjury:

I had actually been taking a sentimental cell-phone recording of the 12/12/16 verbal exchange in question. It was disallowed as evidence in the stalking hearing under the “wiretapping” statute.

Your department possesses this recording from when David vindictively had me arrested for it.

I played the recording for my parents in Norwich, VT on 10/21/2017, and I attach two letters from them (Exhibits A and B) which indicate the contents of this audio recording: that I absolutely never said the alleged things above. (Also that there was never any “fear”, etc.)

Unlike the recording itself, this testimony is indubitably admissible, actionable evidence.

My parents and I are happy to testify in person at court or come to the station to make a recorded statement about the contents of this audio recording, which proves what I had and hadn’t spoken.

Thus I have hereunto submitted proof for all three elements of criminal perjury: that the false statement was 1) material, 2) maliciously, knowingly false, and 3) indeed factually untrue.

David has additionally committed criminal Conspiracy under RSA 629:3. The statute reads,

“A person is guilty of conspiracy if, with a purpose that a crime defined by statute be committed, he agrees with one or more persons to commit or cause the commission of such crime, and an overt act is committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

David conspired with his daughter Christina and lawyer Jerome Blanchard to deliver the referenced illegal and defamatory perjuries into the stalking hearing at Salem District Court.

Furthermore, he is guilty of a separate count of Conspiracy for suborning the falsehoods written in the initial “stalking” petition, including that I had “insisted” with his daughter and even made the creepy statement “you will learn to love me”. I had never said any such thing, as my audio recording proves.

These certain malicious lies were misdemeanor crimes of False Reporting (641:4) but fell just short of an additional count of felony Perjury, since they were not “material” representations,

A26

A26

unlike the aforementioned perjuries cited by the judge in the false finding of stalking. Exhibit E shows the inclusion of these outrageous lies, among others, in the petition.

David has also committed criminal Defamation (644:11) against me, since the same referenced act of Perjury also satisfies 644:11’s lower standard of Defamation, occurring when a person:

“purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule”.

As a victim of his false accusation and massive resulting injustice, I respectfully demand David DePamphilis be arrested and prosecuted for felonious Perjury and Conspiracy, and misdemeanor Defamation and False Reporting.

Nota bene: Although the daughter Christina DePamphilis orally delivered David’s perjury, David suborned it to happen having premeditated the aforecited direct examination. He is liable under accepted legal maxims respondeat superior and quid facit per alium facit per se. Still, his daughter is knowingly complicit, and I request a warrant be issued for her arrest as well.

Thank you for your impartial professionalism as you attend to justice in this criminal matter.

Respectfully,

Paul J. Maravelias

A27

A27

10/23/2017

Theodore Maravelias

34 Mockingbird Hill Rd, Windham, NH 03087

To: Windham Police Department Cc: Detectives Jason Dzierlatka and Christopher van Hirtum

Re:

David DePamphilis Criminal Complaint (felony “Perjury” under 641:1 and misdemeanor “False Reports to Law Enforcement” 641:4)

To whom it may concern:

We are respectfully requesting an arrest warrant be issued for David N. DePamphilis (

an arrest warrant be issued for David N. DePamphilis ( in Windham). We are outraged that
an arrest warrant be issued for David N. DePamphilis ( in Windham). We are outraged that

in Windham). We are outraged that he has delivered intentional lies to your department to

corrupt the course of justice, among other crimes.

On December 28 th , 2016 David filed a “stalking” petition against our son Paul Maravelias through his daughter Christina. David and his wife Laurie were unquestionably the originators of this action, and even your prosecutor admitted this in court (10/6/17) during an unrelated matter.

David DePamphilis concocted a slew of intentional lies in the “stalking” petition against our son, and then even more lies during the hearing. He suborned his daughter to perjure in court to get revenge on our son with the stalking order.

Though DePamphilis dreamed-up too many lies to list here, Judge Robert S. Stephen cited one particularly outrageous fallacy which directly caused the “stalking” order to be issued.

This intentional “false material statement” (the requirement in 641:1) was that, when my son had nicely invited David’s daughter and wife to dinner, he:

“referred to [that day, her 16 th birthday] as the ‘age of consent’ to her mother”

and

“mentioned he will wait until she is ready and be back when she is 18 years old” (quotes from Judge Stephen’s finding of “stalking” in Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias, 473-2016-

CV-00124).

For sentimental reasons, my son had been audio taping the exchange in question on his cell- phone.

On October 21 st , 2017, I listened to this audio recording at Norwich in the State of Vermont.

A28

A28

The recording clearly documents the entirety of my son’s interaction with on them that day, and that he never spoke anything remotely close to the disturbing, sexualizing “age of consent” reference, nor states that he would “be back when she is 18”.

The recording also proves that David’s wife and daughter outright lied about many other facts, such as saying that my son “insisted”.

We know these false statements by David constituted intentional perjury since DePamphilis had screamed harassing insults and perverse expletives at me and my son over phone on December

12 th (later that day) and then on December 14 th : he never once then alleged that our son had said

something as creepy and disturbing as referencing his kind invitation as motivated by some sort

of sexual impulse on the brink of the girl’s legal age. David surely would have mentioned this during his unhinged and threatening tirade, if my son had said this.

In fact, this particular damaging false accusation was not even in the original written stalking petition, which included complaints of “stalking” as foolish as “I noticed Paul was looking at me while seated in his backyard during a family party”. We were good family friends. That is beyond insincere and disingenuous.

Clearly, the intentional perjury in question was only contrived by Mr. DePamphilis immediately before the 1/5/17 stalking hearing, or else it would have certainly been included in the written petition (12/28/16) and also in his verbal tirades against us on 12/12/16 and 12/14/16.

For the separate misdemeanor false police reporting charge, we refer to different falsehoods about this exchange which were in the written stalking petition: that our son said “you will love me” and “insisted” during his romantic expression.

The recording I listened to (while in the State of Vermont) proves this is false. These specific lies caused the stalking order.

As I understand it, my son is also producing evidence of various alcohol crimes David has committed with minors.

David DePamphilis is a vindictive and merciless man who has abused our son, caused great stress for my family, and caused a miscarriage of justice against him by intentionally perjuring to get the stalking order. I firmly believe that at the very least, this constitutes perjury.

We were family friends with this family for a long time. Instead of showing neighborly love and understanding, he chose vindictiveness and was sadly willing to employ perjury to carry his retaliatory actions out.

A29

A29

A30

A30

10/23/2017

Caroline Maravelias

34 Mockingbird Hill Rd, Windham, NH 03087

To: Windham Police Department

Cc: Detectives Jason Dzierlatka and Christopher van Hirtum

Re: David DePamphilis Criminal Perjury

To whom it may concern:

I’m a stay-at-home mother from Windham. I am indignant that my neighbor David DePamphilis has slandered our son to the point of outright lying to the court (perjury) and to this police department to obtain a false “stalking” restraining order against my son.

My husband and I are respectfully requesting for David to be arrested and prosecuted for his crime of perjury and false police reporting, which we have proof of.

DePamphilis vindictively filed a “stalking” petition against our son through his daughter on 12/28/16. This was two weeks after we had settled him down from his emotional outburst. He had a verbally abusive explosion against my husband and son Paul after Paul had respectfully invited his daughter to dinner on her birthday.

David got so angry that he willfully lied to the court that our son made creepy and disturbing, sexual comments when he invited Christina to dinner and her mother as well. My son actually behaved like a gentleman, and we have an audio recording which proves David lied outrageously to get the court order.

On 10/21/17, in Norwich, VT, I listened to the sentimental cell-phone recording my son Paul made of his romantic invitation on 12/12/16 to David’s daughter. David and his daughter claimed in court that Paul had said “you will learn to love me!”, that he was “insistent”, and that he even said downright weird, frightening things like referencing the “age of consent”, suggesting sexual intercourse.

The judge actually attributed this last lie in his false finding of “stalking”, proving that David’s perjury was absolutely material to the case and directly caused the perversion of justice against our son.

The audio recording I listened to confirmed my son’s testimony during the stalking hearings that he absolutely never said any of these outrageous false accusations. He never once mentioned the “age of consent” or any reason for his choice of that particular day at all. He was kind, respectful, and even said “I respect your feelings” once Christina politely rejected him. David’s family members had actually been happy to see Paul. The recording proves his daughter in fact invited him back, after Paul first went to the door and her mother was in the shower.

The “stalking” petition and allegations in the court hearing paint a picture of my son so completely false that my husband and I are outraged months later. Hearing the recording for the first time has validated our outrage at David’s perjury. David’s wife and daughter were actually laughing and joking with Paul; I heard Christina say “that’s so sweet”, “thank you”, “no, you’re fine”, etc. Laurie said she “appreciated” the gesture. The dishonesty of this family in their delusions against my son two weeks later is absolutely disturbing. To call his kind behavior “stalking” is appalling.

A31

A31

A32 A32

A32

A32

Exhibit C

Summary:

This is a reproduction of the referenced page from the stalking hearing transcripts. The entire transcript is digitally attached in three separate PDF files. Please note that the transcripts are of absolutely awful quality, though no errors in transcription affect in the referenced portions on page 27 indicating DePamphilis’s testimony from 1/5/17. Red box emphasis to material perjuries cited by judge is added.

indicating DePamphilis’s testimony from 1/5/17. Red box emphasis to material perjuries cited by judge is added.

A33

A33

Exhibit D

Summary:

This is a reproduction of Judge Stephen’s finding of “stalking” based upon the two specific perjuries presently discussed, proving them “material” to an “official proceeding” under 641:1’s requirement for Perjury.

These are the two intentional perjuries for which we submit proof of falsity and willfulness. We do not have actionable proof of falsity and willfulness for the other material perjury referenced in this finding (about the “dropping off” incident), so we restrict our demand for arrest and prosecution to the basis of only the perjuries highlighted in red.

A scan of the full order is attached digitally.

prosecution to the basis of only the perjuries highlighted in red. A scan of the full

A34

A34

Exhibit E

Summary:

This is an excerpt from David DePamphilis’s stalking petition filed vicariously through his daughter Christina against Maravelias on 12/28/16. It is absolutely libelous and littered with imagined, delusional false accusations against Maravelias. The area highlighted in red indicates the misdemeanor false reports to law enforcement under 641:4 which Maravelias’s audio recording proves as false, corroborating his accurate memory and testimony.

Since these false reports were not directly attributed in Stephen’s finding, they might not have been “material” under the definition of Perjury. However, the form does indeed state, “I understand making a false statement on this form will subject me to criminal penalties”. We therefore demand imposition of such penalties for these false statements.

The full stalking petition is attached digitally. It also usefully reveals the shocking truth that the outrageous “age of consent” perjury was never once mentioned here, since it was maliciously dreamed-up right before the 1/5/17 stalking hearing but after this 12/28/16 written petition.

it was maliciously dreamed-up right before the 1/5/17 stalking hearing but after this 12/28/16 written petition.

A35

A35

The following is an excerpt from Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s counsel’s defamatory Motion to Strike in the related stalking case against David DePamphilis. While falsely libeling Maravelias that he ever had an “obsession” or “stalked” the Plaintiff, it admits that these circumstances, true or not, were “previous”. I.e., Plaintiff’s own counsel admits the alleged “stalking” circumstances no longer exist.

“previous”. I.e., Plaintiff’s own counsel admits the alleged “stalking” circumstances no longer exist. A36 A36

A36

A36

The following is documentation that the alleged criminal violation of the protective order (mentioned in Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend) has been fully dismissed as of 5/23/18, due to the baselessness and outrageous unconstitutionality of the unlawful arrest, as Maravelias never violated the order. At bottom, see “5/23/18 N P” (nolle prosequi) plus initials of Windham prosecutor in the matter.

the order. At bottom, see “5/23/18 N P” ( nolle prosequi ) plus initials of Windham

A37

A37

A38 A38
A38
A38

A39

A39

A40 A40

A40

A40

A41 A41

A41

A41

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS

10 th CIRCUIT – DISTRICT DIVISION – DERRY

Docket No. 473-2016-CV-124

Christina DePamphilis

v.

Paul Maravelias

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Paul Maravelias, the Respondent, in dutiful compliance with the customs necessitated by proper court

etiquette, restrains his justified indignation and submits respectfully this Motion for Reconsideration of

the Court’s unlawful 6/15/18 Order extending the Stalking Order in the above-referenced case.

1. Christina DePamphilis (hereinafter, the “Petitioner”) is a high school senior turning 18 this year. She

has pictured herself consuming and/or under the influence of alcoholic and other controlled substances

in social media artifacts submitted to this Court while complaining that Maravelias’s non-threatening,

lawful expressions made in private to other parties endanger her “personal safety”. She filed a

Stalking Petition against Mr. Maravelias in late 2016 after he respectfully invited her to dinner and

never spoke to her ever again after the day of her rejection. She complained of his older age in the

Petition and then pictured herself united to a 21-year-old boyfriend weeks later as a 16-year-old. At

the 5/3/18 Hearing, she said she feels she is being “stalked” by Mr. Maravelias “every single day”

because he continues to “mention [her and her legal action against him] to other people”.

2. Paul Maravelias (hereinafter, the “Respondent”) is a 23-year-old author and recent Ivy League

graduate who is presently employed as a software engineer. The first time he asked a young woman

A42

1

A42

out to dinner, she filed a vindictive Stalking Petition weeks later against him because her father David

DePamphilis had an argument with him and was extremely angry. The Petitioner later had Mr.

Maravelias arrested for attempting to defend himself against her false accusations in her Stalking

Petition. To disprove her malignant claims about what he had actually said to her, he introduced a

sentimental, happenstance cell-phone audio recording he had made with a popular Android

smartphone app outdoors during his date proposal to her. Unbeknownst to Mr. Maravelias, the victim,

this is apparently illegal in New Hampshire and called “wiretapping”. For context, unlike the “minor”

Petitioner, Maravelias has not had a drink in years, is chaste, and refrains from criminal perjury.

3. In a 6/15/18 Order signed by Judge John J. Coughlin, this Court extended Petitioner’s Stalking Order.

A. THIS COURTS FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS FEARED FOR HER PERSONAL SAFETYIS LAUGHABLY ABSURD, GIVEN HER DOCUMENTED CONDUCT OF CRUELLY BULLYING MR. MARAVELIAS ON THE INTERNET WITH VULGAR GESTURES DURING THE PENDENCY OF HER FRAUDULENT STALKING ORDER, IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO GET HIM TO VIOLATE IT AND HAVE HIM ARRESTED, SHOWING HER MALICIOUS BAD-FAITH AND FULL CONFIDENCE THAT HE IS A NON-VIOLENT AND LEVEL-HEADED PERSON

4. Petitioner’s testimony and Respondent’s accepted exhibits in this case both established that the

Petitioner made a public social media post specifically directed at Respondent on 6/21/17.

5. Her inciting, harassing, and vulgar post against Mr. Maravelias pictured herself with her father and

21-year-old boyfriend, all three parties middle-fingering the camera to insult Mr. Maravelias that he

had failed to have a relationship with Petitioner and was then subject to her falsified restraining order.

6. At the Hearing, Petitioner also confessed to posting another image wherein her boyfriend addressed

Mr. Maravelias with incendiary remarks. This was after the Petitioner lied about having “fear” of him.

7. To put it lightly, this Court’s conduct is shocking and reckless in condoning Christina DePamphilis’s

and David DePamphilis’s 1) willful legal abuse through a bad-faith Stalking Petition, 2) perjury about

having any “fear” of the Respondent, and 3) outright provocative bullying against Mr. Maravelias in

said social media post(s), by actually granting her Motion to Extend a Stalking Order wherein the

roles of victim and perpetrator are undeniably reversed.

A43

2

A43

8.

This Court turns a blind eye to Petitioner’s public interpersonal terrorism against Mr. Maravelias on

social media and her documented illegal acts (such as her underage alcoholic intoxication pictured in

Respondent’s exhibit(s) and even in her own), but has no qualms about issuing a baseless extension

against Respondent even when the “personal safety” of the Petitioner was clearly never threatened.

9. This Court then dares the audacity to uphold its recent ruling inculpating Mr. Maravelias of “bad

faith” conduct in his honest Stalking Petition against David DePamphilis, in an Order dated 6/14/18 1 .

10. This Court has woefully calpestated the natural rights of Respondent through inexcusable, biased

conduct and should expect to be sanctioned accordingly by higher state and/or federal authorities.

B. THE PETITIONER, CHRISTINA DEPAMPHILIS, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY, AS MARAVELIAS IRREFUTABLY DOCUMENTED HER DELUSIONAL, REVISIONIST MEMORY AND/OR OUTRIGHT WILLFUL LYING AT MULTIPLE OCCASIONS DURING THE HEARING; THE COURT THEREFORE ERRS TO RELY UPON HER MATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS

11. This Court granted an extension on a Stalking Order in which the Petitioner’s lies or false

representations of fact, in whole or in part, are beyond dispute. Respondent submitted her testimony

transcript from the 1/5/17 Hearing wherein she admitted to falsely inserting words into Maravelias’s

mouth, confessing he never said the phrase “you will learn to love me” as she alleged in her Petition.

12. The Court also saw a cell-phone video of a 2013 Turkey Trot outdoor event showing Petitioner

walking across a crowd to interrupt Respondent’s conversation with friends and say hello to him,

when her false Petition perjuriously claimed that “he came up to [her]” and made her “scared”.

13. This Court sat back and watched as the Petitioner perjured during the Hearing, as Maravelias pointed

out in testimony, yet still granted her abusive extension. The Petitioner claimed the sole purpose for

her demeaning middle-finger post against Mr. Maravelias was “to let him know” that she knew he

could view the account. But, Maravelias then revealed a posting from her same social media account

two days prior to the 6/21/17 vulgar post, which had already directly identified Maravelias on 6/19/17.

1 Maravelias’s unnecessarily polite Motion to Reconsider in that matter had documented clear facts and points of law overlooked by this Court’s oppressive award of attorney’s fees, even to the extent that one of the granted expenses was dated from months before Maravelias even filed his truthful Stalking Petition. That this Court would wholly ignore this fact and all others raised in a knee-jerk, thoughtless, nondescript, and hastily-scribbled rejection of said motion in entirety is reminiscent of its reckless finding in the instant case. Clearly, this Court automatically disregards all of Maravelias’s presented facts and arguments, and is but a slave unto the contrived optics of the side flashing a 17-year-old female before the Court and whining baselessly about “victimization”. Thus, judicial malpractice has obstructed a fair outcome for Mr. Maravelias.

A44

3

A44

14.

The 6/19 exhibit (which Petitioner didn’t know Respondent had) also shows her dishonesty in

claiming to be the “only one who knew” to whom the vulgar gestures were directed. Her boyfriend

addressed Maravelias in her 6/19 post; therefore, he and, by extension, David DePamphilis, all knew

exactly whom they were bullying in the 6/21/17 post 2 . For this Court to validate a bold liar of such

turpitude by extending her falsified order against the victim is shameful, rash, and utterly emetic.

15. This Court’s Order has thus endorsed a felony crime under the perjury statute (RSA 641:1): willful

misrepresentation of fact in a protective order case. Ergo, it is noted that this Court does not operate

whatsoever according to the laws of the land, but rather only to its arbitrary and capricious diktats 3 .

C. THE COURTS ORDER IS BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT RELIES UPON A WRONG FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAS AN OBSESSIONWITH THE PETITIONER TO THIS DAY”, WHICH NEGLIGENTLY IGNORES A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY TO THE CONTRARY CONVENIENTLY IGNORED BY THE COURTS ORDER

16. The Court cites Respondent’s wrongly-pluralized “letters” (Maravelias’s 11/2017 reply to Attorney

Brown’s legal threat) and “emails” (Maravelias’s private complaint email to an honor society) as

indications of a “strange, perverse and unhealthy obsession” he allegedly has for the Petitioner.

17. This wanton act of libel against Mr. Maravelias is highly disturbing, considering that both referenced

communications 1) enthusiastically declared his