October 31st, 2018

Robin E. Pinelle, Circuit Clerk

NH Circuit Court Paul Maravelias
10th Circuit – District Division – Derry 34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
10 Courthouse Lane Windham, NH 03087
Derry, NH 03038

RE: Christina DePamphilis vs. Paul Maravelias

Docket No. 473-2016-CV-00124

Dear Clerk Pinelle,

Enclosed please find Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Judgement to be filed in the
above-referenced case.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Maravelias

CC: Simon R. Brown, Esq.

 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS 10TH CIRCUIT – DISTRICT DIVISION – DERRY

Docket No. 473-2016-CV-00124

Christina DePamphilis

v.

Paul Maravelias

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENT

NOW COMES the Respondent, Paul Maravelias, and respectfully submits the within Motion

to Set Aside Judgement. In support thereof, he represents as follows:

1. Earlier in 2018, Judge John J. Coughlin oversaw a stalking order extension case

involving the parties. Plaintiff motioned to extend the stalking order on 1/5/18. The Court

granted the initial extension on 1/12/18 and scheduled a Hearing for 2/15/18, later continued to

5/3/18. Additional Hearing days were held on 5/4/18 and 6/8/18. John Coughlin granted the

stalking order extension on 6/15/18. Maravelias filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 6/25/18,

to which Coughlin gave a short-shrift one-world denial. The case is currently on appeal as

Supreme Court No. 2018-0483.

2. Maravelias was party to two other cases from the same approximate period over which

Judge Coughlin partially or fully presided: 1) as pro se Petitioner in Paul Maravelias v. David

DePamphilis (437-2017-CV-150) and 2) as Petitioner’s non-lawyer representative in Patti Cascio

v. John Chan (431-2018-CV-113).

1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 3. The summation of Judge Coughlin’s judicial activity around Mr. Maravelias throughout

these legal matters objectively evinces a common pattern of systematic bias, hostility, and

prejudice by which Judge Coughlin severely injured Maravelias through deprivation of basic

liberty and judicial libel, inter alia.

4. Maravelias files this Motion to Set Aside Judgement 1) solely in relation to the wrongful

stalking order extension in the instant case, birthed of judicial misconduct, and 2) solely on the

basis of the alleged bias and judicial misconduct.

5. That is, for the purposes of this motion, Maravelias does not 1) discuss the other weighty

legal and factual errors the trial court committed in the stalking order extension, nor 2) request

reversal of the false award of attorney’s fees Judge Coughlin wrongly issued against Maravelias.

These are matters of law currently under review by the Supreme Court.

6. Rather, Maravelias files the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgement for the first-time

seeking redress for disturbing indications hereunder of John Coughlin’s pre-retirement

misconduct, being obviously unable to do so prior to Coughlin’s 9/5/18 retirement.

7. Since Defendant Maravelias was not given a fair opportunity under Judge Coughlin’s

pre-retirement spree of dismissive, biased, and prejudiced conduct, Maravelias respectfully

requests this Court reverse the stalking order extension dated 6/15/18. See 6/15/18 Order

appended to Notice of Appeal, itself attached herewith.

A. The Timing of Judge Coughlin’s Orders Suggests Impure Motives

8. On 7/13/18, Coughlin went on a four-fold “denied”-scribbling-spree on Maravelias’s

pleadings, some of which had been pending for well-over two weeks awaiting his ruling. To wit,

Judge Coughlin reflexively denied 1) Maravelias’s 10-page Motion for Reconsideration, 2)

2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
Maravelias’s Motion to Strike, 3) Maravelias’s Reply to DePamphilis’s Objection to

Reconsideration, and 4) Maravelias’s Objection to DePamphilis’s outrageous motion for

expanded, draconian “stalking” order terms – all on the same day, 7/13/18.1

9. The day immediately prior on 7/12/18, Judge Coughlin had his final verbal interactions

with Maravelias when the Petitioner in Patti Cascio v. John Chan (431-2018-CV-113)

successfully motioned the Court to permit Mr. Maravelias to serve as her non-lawyer counsel in

that case.

10. Given the timing, it seems highly unlikely John Coughlin’s dismissive 7/13/18

outburst legally crucifying Maravelias every-which-way was anything but a retaliatory,

vindictive act, annoyed to see Maravelias appear once-more in his courtroom.2

11. It goes without saying that Maravelias comported himself with incredible respect

before Judge Coughlin throughout the entire history of all three cases. While Judge Coughlin

was likewise cautious to behave respectfully, amicably, and professionally during public court

proceedings outward-personality-wise, his reckless judicial actions are without any legitimate

purpose and constitute misconduct.

B. Judge Coughlin Contradicted His Honest Comments from the Hearing in His Fact-
Amnestic Extension Order, Highlighting the Dishonesty Thereof

1
The Supreme Court Notice of Appeal for this case is attached, containing all of Judge Coughlin’s
referenced Orders.
2
Upon information and belief, further indications of Judge Coughlin’s strange, perverse, and unhealthy
distaste for Maravelias were noted on 7/24/18. Maravelias attended the Roseanna Mullin v. Kimberly
Nichols (431-2018-CV-156) stalking hearing as a mere member of the public seated in the gallery. The
Petitioner failed to show up and the absurd case was dismissed; when the parties were departing,
Coughlin stared-down Maravelias with a facial expression of determined, enraged, though partially
confused, offense, as if Maravelias’s mere existence were somehow a threat to Coughlin’s authority.
Maravelias dared not acknowledge Coughlin’s non-verbal communication and proceeded straight out the
courtroom.

3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 12. After perceiving the undisputed fact that Christina DePamphilis incitatively bullied

and harassed Paul Maravelias with her 21-year-old boyfriend on 6/21/17 through social media by

targeting Maravelias in a public post with her and her boyfriend middle-fingering Paul

Maravelias, Judge Coughlin tossed-in a gratuitous finding in his 6/15/18 stalking-order-extension

Order, wholly unnecessary by RSA 633:3-a, III-c., that Christina DePamphilis had “reasonable

fear” of Maravelias, because Maravelias communicated to two third-parties disagreeing with the

stalking order he called “legal abuse”.

13. Coughlin’s reckless judicial libel against Maravelias, not a “stalker” but the victim of

DePamphilis’s fearless bullying, totally contradicted Coughlin’s honest comments and

impressions during trial (Transcript 73:12-18)3 wherein he indicated he understood Christina

DePamphilis clearly did not “fear” the young man she was calling-out and provocatively middle-

fingering on public social media along with her boyfriend, while she had a “stalking”

“protective” order against her victim.

14. Therefore, John Coughlin’s comment about “reasonable fear” in his 6/15/18

extension Order proves it was totally disingenuous and shamefully dismissive in Maravelias’s

prejudice.

15. Even more disturbingly, John Coughlin included in his Order the ridiculous verbal

posturing that Maravelias has a “strange, perverse and unhealthy obsession” with DePamphilis

“which … continues to this day”. See 6/15/18 Order in appended Notice of Appeal.

16. However, John Coughlin at-trial openly commented to Maravelias that he understood

the obvious fact Maravelias was repulsed by and disinterested in the false-accuser Plaintiff,

3
Referenced transcript pages are attached herewith

4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
saying: “it appears that you do not want to have any contact and that you’re going to do that on a

voluntary basis … 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”. (Transcript 479-480)

17. Accordingly, John Coughlin’s rash stalking order extension against Maravelias is

undeniably rooted in biased, dishonest judicial conduct. The above-noted disparities indicate

John Coughlin simply ignored the facts of the case in Maravelias’s prejudice.

C. Judge Coughlin Demonstrated his Bias Against Maravelias Through Negligent

Dismissiveness

18. In Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis (437-2017-CV-150), Coughlin denied

Maravelias’s meritorious petition, included an alternate-universe-imagining comment that

Maravelias provided “no credible evidence” to sustain his allegations (one of the allegations was

a reproduced-as-entered-exhibit social media post in which David DePamphilis had bullied

Maravelias), and ordered Maravelias to pay his abuser $9,000 of attorney’s fees. While this

outrageous injustice is mostly a matter of law outside the context of this motion and currently

under review by the Supreme Court, a certain notable phenomenon therefrom is profitable to the

narrow judicial-misconduct-showing discussion herewith.

19. Judge Coughlin ordered Paul Maravelias to pay one of DePamphilis’s itemized

expenses of “attorney’s fees” from before the stalking petition was ever filed. When Maravelias

noted this larcenous error in his 5/21/18 Motion for Reconsideration in that case, John Coughlin

reflexively denied the reconsideration in toto, claiming Maravelias did not indicate any

overlooked “facts” or “law” to challenge the Court’s decision.

5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 20. That Judge Coughlin wholly ignored Maravelias’s Motion for Reconsideration to the

extent of failing to undue his veritable larceny (i.e., assuming attorney’s fees were warranted, the

Court has no jurisdiction to order payment of extraneous costs incurred months before the

stalking petition was filed) is incontrovertible proof of his biased, prejudicial, and hostile

misconduct against Maravelias.

D. Judge Coughlin Deserted his Judicial Duty to Decide

21. John Coughlin failed to issue any ruling whatsoever on Maravelias’s 3/29/18 Motion

to Dismiss in this case, ignoring its compelling legal arguments in toto. This was a willful act of

negligence: oral argument from both parties spanned the last few minutes of the final 6/8/18

Hearing before Judge Coughlin, whereupon he “[took] the matter under advisement” to conclude

the Hearing.

22. Professional standards of judicial conduct do not permit Judge Coughlin simply to

issue a rash extension Order, wash his bloody hands in the river, and retire. Maravelias rightfully

expected a ruling on his Motion to Dismiss and an articulated basis in the law for the said ruling,

not a symbolic denial thereof by way of the extension Order, seized as a pathetic opportunity for

John Coughlin to finagle his way out of actually listening to and considering Maravelias’s legal

arguments.

23. Therefore, in this particular episode of John Coughlin’s conduct, Code of Judicial

Conduct Canon 2 Rule 2.7, Rule 2.3(A), Rule 2.5(A), and Rule 2.6(A) were violated.

E. Judge Coughlin Was Adamant to See the Parties Reach a Settlement, Foreshadowing
his Prejudicial Inability to Side Against the Younger, Lawyer-Represented Female Party

24. Towards the end of the 5/4/18 Hearing, Coughlin emphatically implored the parties to

see if they could settle the case and reach an agreement, dissolving the need for him to rule on

6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
the motion to extend the stalking order. (Transcript 295-297) Coughlin strangely and

emphatically reanimated the same request towards the end of the 6/8/18 Hearing: he actually had

the parties take a recess to see if they could work-out a settlement. (Transcript 479-480)

25. Viewed in the context of the subsequent judicial terrorism of his libelous, fact-

amnestic 6/15/18 Order against Maravelias, John Coughlin’s adamant fixations on evading

having to rule in this case are retrospectively suggestive of his identity-politics-rooted inability to

side against the younger, female, lawyer-represented party. The absurdity of the injustice he

prejudicially expected he’d otherwise have to do against Maravelias moved John Coughlin to

seek out a potential way out of prostrating himself before the altar of feminist false-victim-

advocacy. Clearly, male, 22-year-old, pro se Maravelias did not have a fair chance when Plaintiff

motioned to extend her already-criminally-falsified “stalking” order.

F. In His 2018 Pre-Retirement Decisions Against Maravelias and Other Stalking

Defendants, Judge Coughlin Demonstrated a Habit of Unlawfully Ignoring Facts and
Baselessly Amplifying His Orders’ Language with Wholly Unsupported Legal Buzz-
Words, Reminiscent of an Autistic Child Pretending to be a Firefighter or an Astronaut

26. Through examination of public records, Maravelias has scrutinized all of Judge

Coughlin’s 2018 stalking order conduct. The results are disturbing. They are further indicative

that Maravelias was prejudiced in this case.

27. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has clarified multiple times what expectations

are binding against judicial officers granting DV/stalking orders, per the relevant statutory due-

process requirements. The most basic of these requirements is that when issuing stalking orders,

judges must specifically cite which factual allegations were relied upon as forming a “course of

conduct” under RSA 633:3-a, II. (a) to sustain the finding of stalking. “We hold that when

issuing a stalking order in response to a civil petition filed pursuant to RSA 633:3-a, III-a, the

7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
trial court must make findings on the record that a defendant engaged in two or more specific

acts ‘over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.’” Fisher v.

Minichiello, 155 N.H. (2007) The Supreme Court readily vacates stalking orders where the

judge’s order “gives no indication of the facts upon which the trial court relied in issuing the

order, nor the reasoning”. Kiesman v. Middleton, 156 N.H. (2007). See also Fillmore v.

Fillmore, 147 N.H. 283 (2001).

28. John Coughlin’s pre-retirement conduct was incompetent and dismissive not only in

Maravelias’s case: throughout, Coughlin would 1) totally ignore his duty to substantiate his

stalking orders with particularized factual allegations against defendants and, as an improper

substitute therefor, 2) sprinkle-in amplified legal-sounding buzz-word terms in strange,

inapplicable places, without any factual corroboration whatsoever, in order to fool the casual

reader into the deceptive semblance that Judge Coughlin was being thorough and doing his job

properly. (Exhibit D)

29. For the period 1/1/8 – 9/1/18, Derry District Court granted 9 new stalking petitions

and 2 extant stalking order extensions, inclusive of the instant case. (Exhibit A) Judge Coughlin

authored all these decisions, except for the 431-2018-CV-46 stalking petition, which was granted

in an order written by Judge Elizabeth M. Leonard, and the 431-2018-CV-139 stalking petition,

which was handled by Judicial Referee Philip Cross. (Exhibit A)

30. For some reason, Judge Leonard and Referee Cross possess the competency to do

their jobs correctly and make specific reference to factual allegations sustaining a “course of

conduct” in their stalking orders (Exhibits B and C) whereas John Coughlin totally violated the

law, and committed judicial misconduct, by completely omitting any specific factual reference

whatsoever in 7 of the 8 stalking orders he issued. (Exhibit D) Only in one stalking order, 431-

8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
2018-CV-69, did Judge Coughlin make any reference at all to any specific allegation against a

defendant, noting that David Morehouse “stalked” Amy Callahan when Mr. Morehouse “pointed

a power drill” at Amy during an argument. (Exhibit D)

31. If John Coughlin’s dismissive incompetency in failing to substantiate his stalking

injunctions by itself were not concerning enough, the stalking orders in question indicate another

disturbing pattern: Coughlin’s meaningless stylistic embellishments with unsupported legal

buzz-words attempting to adorn said orders with a superficial gloss of seeming competency.

32. A perfect example is John Coughlin’s highly concerning 2/1/18 stalking order in

Patricia D’Avella v. Clint DePalmer (431-2018-CV-001):

“The Petitioner appeared, was sworn and testified. Upon consideration of the
evidence, the Court finds that the Plaintiff met her Burden of Proof by a
preponderance of the evidence with regards to the allegations as set forth in the
Petition and the Petitioner is in fear of her personal safety and the Petitionee
purposely, knowingly or recklessly engaged in such Course of Conduct.”
(Exhibit D)

33. Judge Coughlin mindlessly recited the patently non-specific “purposely, knowingly

or recklessly” language of RSA 633:3-a, I(a) and even went out of his way to pepper-in the legal

buzz-word “Course of Conduct”. But, unfortunately, none of this enables Mr. DePalmer to

understand what specific acts of his caused a New Hampshire trial court to label him a “stalker”.

34. This pattern of ridiculous, incompetent, and unsubstantiated judicial behavior is

repeated throughout all 7 of Coughlin’s 8 pre-retirement 2018 stalking orders. A particularly

9
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
striking display of vapid, meaningless repetition of statutory language within an absolutely fact-

less Order is observed at Mary Peterson v. Richard Garrigus (431-2018-CV-89).4 (Exhibit D)

35. Given Judge Coughlin’s repeated pre-retirement misconduct with stalking orders, his

reckless 6/15/18 Order against Maravelias (blanket-referencing factual allegations not supporting

whatsoever his false legal claims that Maravelias put the Petitioner “in reasonable fear”, has a

“present” “obsession”, and communicated to third-parties for “the sole purpose of

harassing/stalking the Petitioner”) is clearly disingenuous, biased, and dismissive drivel. The

resultant extended stalking order against Maravelias is a product of clear injustice and must be

reversed.

H. Judge Coughlin Wrongly Crowned Himself with Self-Fantasized Clinical Credentials

36. Where Judge Coughlin was emotionally offended by Maravelias’s non-expert use of

the generic English word “psychotic” (Page 58 of Transcript of 2/15/18 Hearing in 473-2017-

CV-150, not attached), Judge Coughlin conferred upon himself clinical credentials to allege

“obsession” in his 6/15/18 extension Order against Maravelias.

37. Aside from the obvious dishonesty of Coughlin’s amplified verbal posturing that

Maravelias has a present-day “obsession”, and aside from the fact an allegation of an

“obsession” appeared nowhere in Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend, Judge Coughlin has no business

issuing such clinical declarations while lacking necessary credentials. There was no expert

4
It is worth mentioning that Mr. Garrigus, an amicable and peaceful senile man, has been languishing in
Rockingham County Jail since the summer because of Ms. Peterson’s specious accusation he violated
Coughlin’s outrageous “stalking” order. John Coughlin committed woeful judicial misconduct in that case
by allowing the matter to continue where Mr. Garrigus clearly lacked the mental capacity to even
understand what was happening, let alone testify in own self-defense (he did not). The Petitioner in that
case, Ms. Peterson, is a demonstrable vexatious litigant who filed a different stalking petition on 6/25/18
so incredibly ridiculous that even John Coughlin dismissed it immediately without a hearing. (431-2018-
CV-121) Unsurprisingly, the defendant in that case (where Coughlin behaved sensibly, denying the
petition on-the-spot) was female.

10
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
psychologist testimony, no supporting letters from professionals, and most importantly, no

allegation of “obsession” in the Plaintiff’s extension motion. Coughlin’s foolhardy folly of

alleging “present-day obsession” further evidences his fact-amnestic bias against Maravelias.

I. Judge Coughlin Willfully, Criminally Violated RSA 641:5, I.(B) While Further Abusing
Maravelias’s Constitutional Rights

38. DePamphilis filed a Motion on 7/2/18 in the instant case petitioning for expanded

“protective” order terms which would criminalize Maravelias’s mere possession of court exhibits

for his self-defense: Petitioner’s “social media communications”, some of which document her

middle-fingering and harassing the victimized young man she falsely accused of “stalking” and

falsely claimed to “fear” (Defendant Maravelias).

39. On 8/7/18, Judge John J. Coughlin – the prince of perversity – granted this assault on

Maravelias’ First Amendment free-speech rights, despite Maravelias’s pellucid premonitions in a

prior objection pleading that such would be in direct violation of RSA 641:4, I.(B), which

prohibits the suppression of evidentiary exhibits being used or about to be used in a court case

(to wit, the Christina-DePamphilis’s-middle-fingers-bullying-post against Maravelias in use

within the ongoing Supreme Court appeal, No. 2018-0483):

641:5 Tampering With Witnesses and Informants. –

A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
I. Believing that an official proceeding, as defined in RSA 641:1, II, or investigation is
pending or about to be instituted, he attempts to induce or otherwise cause a person to:
(a) Testify or inform falsely; or
(b) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing; or
(c) Elude legal process summoning him to provide evidence; or
(d) Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been
summoned; or
II. He commits any unlawful act in retaliation for anything done by another in his
capacity as witness or informant; or

11
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 III. He solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit in consideration of his doing any
of the things specified in paragraph I.

40. John Coughlin therefore also violated criminal law as part of his rampant spree of

biased, prejudicial legal abuse against Mr. Maravelias.

J. Judge Coughlin Knowingly Violated Court Rules in Prejudice of Maravelias

41. Judge Coughlin’s knowing, reckless, and tortious violation of Maravelias’s

constitutional rights through unilateral acts of restraining-order tyranny are matters of law,

currently under Supreme Court review, which exceed the scope of the present motion.

42. However, Judge Coughlin’s willful violation of court rules in Maravelias’s prejudice

is relevant here and supports a view of Coughlin’s biased misconduct against Maravelias.

43. On 5/3/18, at the onset of the Hearing in the instant stalking order extension case,

Maravelias politely demanded the Court respect his incontrovertible right to videotape the entire

proceeding, guaranteed by Circuit Court Rule 1.4. Maravelias recited the rule to Judge Coughlin.

Coughlin willfully violated the court rules, prohibiting Maravelias from videotaping certain

aspects of the Hearing. (Transcript 5-9)

44. The New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct defines that:

“Law” denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law.

45. Through his willful violation of the Circuit Court Rules guaranteeing Maravelias’s

recording rights, and through his willful or negligent disobedience of the Supreme Court’s

mandate that stalking orders be rooted in specific factual findings, John J. Coughlin has

rampantly violated Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 Rule 2. (A) in the months immediately

prior to his 9/5/18 retirement:

12
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

K. The Proper Remedy for Coughlin’s Bias and Judicial Misconduct is to Set Aside
Judgement and Terminate the Stalking Final Order of Protection

46. As a generic fairness argument, since the stalking order extension was an obvious

product of Judge Coughlin’s undeniable dismissive, biased misconduct as extensively indicated

hereinabove, the stalking order extension should be reversed.

47. This is consistent with well-established federal case law. Where the New Hampshire

Family Court Rules do not specifically mention Motions to Set Aside Judgement, reference to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (“Relief from a Judgement or Order”) is proper. It

permits relief from final judgement on the grounds of:

“(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

misconduct by an opposing party;” or

“(6) any other reason that justifies relief.”

48. Judge Coughlin’s violation of “law” while carrying out his judicial function, both

criminal statute and “law” as defined the Code of Judicial Conduct, constitutes a “fraud” upon

the Court. “It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is

attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function.” Bulloch v. United

States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). (Emphasis added)

49. For the foregoing reasons, this Honorable Court should reverse Judge Coughlin’s

6/15/18 Order extending the stalking order and his 8/7/18 Order approving DePamphilis’s

motion for further draconian terms thereto.

13
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
WHEREFORE, the foregoing compels the Respondent, Paul Maravelias, to pray this Court:

I. Grant this Motion;

II. Reverse its 6/15/18 Order granting Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Duration of
Stalking Final Order of Protection, terminating the Stalking Final Order of
Protection;

III. Perfunctorily reverse its 8/7/18 Order granting Petitioner’s Motion for
Modification of Final Stalking Order of Protection to Include Further Terms; and

IV. Hold a Hearing, if necessary, on this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,

in propria persona

October 31th, 2018 __________________________________

14
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

______________________________

October 31st, 2018

15
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 EXHIBIT A
A list, as provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts, of all 1/1/18-9/1/18 stalking cases
at Derry District Court wherein a final order was issued or extended

EXHIBIT B
Judge Leonard’s 2018 Stalking Order, Properly Following the Law by Referencing Specific
Facts Underlying the Finding of Stalking

16
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 EXHIBIT C
Referee Cross’s 2018 Stalking Order, Properly Following the Law by Referencing Specific Facts
Underlying the Finding of Stalking

17
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 EXHIBIT D
John Coughlin’s 2018 Original Stalking Final Orders of Protection

18
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 19
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 20
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 21
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 22
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 23
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 24
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 REFERENCED TRANSCRIPT PAGES

25
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH
http://www.courts.state.nh.us
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL
This form should be used for an appeal from a final decision on the merits issued by a superior court or circuit
court except for a decision from: (1) a post-conviction review proceeding; (2) a proceeding involving a collateral challenge
to a conviction or sentence; (3) a sentence modification or suspension proceeding; (4) an imposition of sentence
proceeding; (5) a parole revocation proceeding; (6) a probation revocation proceeding; (7) a landlord/tenant action or a
possessory action filed under RSA chapter 540; (8) an order denying a motion to intervene; or (9) a domestic relations
matter filed under RSA chapters 457 to 461-A other than an appeal from a final divorce decree or from a decree of legal
separation. (An appeal from a final divorce decree or from a decree of legal separation should be filed on this form.)

1. COMPLETE CASE TITLE AND CASE NUMBERS IN TRIAL COURT

Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias

473-2016-CV-00124

2. COURT APPEALED FROM AND NAME OF JUDGE(S) WHO ISSUED DECISION(S)

10th Circuit Court - District Division - Derry

Hon. John J. Coughlin

3A. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF APPEALING 3B. NAME, FIRM NAME, MAILING ADDRESS,
PARTY. IF REPRESENTING SELF, PROVIDE E-MAIL E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF
ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER APPEALING PARTY’S COUNSEL

Paul Maravelias
34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
Windham, NH 03087

E-Mail address: paul@paulmarv.com E-Mail address:

Telephone number: (603) 475-3305 Telephone number:

4A. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF OPPOSING 4B. NAME, FIRM NAME, MAILING ADDRESS,
PARTY. IF OPPOSING PARTY IS REPRESENTING E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF
SELF, PROVIDE E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE OPPOSING PARTY’S COUNSEL
NUMBER
Simon R. Brown, Esq.
Christina DePamphilis Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP
P.O. Box 1318
Concord, NH 03302
E-Mail address:
E-Mail address: sbrown@preti.com
Telephone number:
Telephone number: (603) 410-1500

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 1 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

5. NAMES OF ALL OTHER PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN TRIAL COURT

6. DATE OF CLERK’S NOTICE OF DECISION OR 7. CRIMINAL CASES: DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE

SENTENCING. ATTACH COPY OF NOTICE AND AND BAIL STATUS
DECISION.
June 28th, 2018
DATE OF CLERK’S NOTICE OF DECISION ON POST-
TRIAL MOTION, IF ANY. ATTACH COPY OF NOTICE
AND DECISION.
August 7th, 2018 and August 13th, 2018

8. APPELLATE DEFENDER REQUESTED? YES NO

IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU MUST CITE STATUTE OR OTHER LEGAL AUTHORITY UPON WHICH CRIMINAL
LIABILITY WAS BASED AND ATTACH FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT (OCC FORM 4)

9. IS ANY PART OF CASE CONFIDENTIAL? YES NO

IF SO, IDENTIFY WHICH PART AND CITE AUTHORITY FOR CONFIDENTIALITY.
SEE SUPREME COURT RULE 12.

10. IF ANY PARTY IS A CORPORATION, LIST THE NAMES OF PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES.

11. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY REASON WHY ONE OR MORE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WOULD BE
DISQUALIFIED FROM THIS CASE? YES NO
IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU MUST FILE A MOTION FOR RECUSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME
COURT RULE 21A.

12. IS A TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS NECESSARY FOR THIS APPEAL?

YES NO
IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU MUST COMPLETE THE TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM ON PAGE 4 OF THIS
FORM.

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 2 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

13. LIST SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL, EXPRESSED IN TERMS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, BUT WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DETAIL. STATE EACH QUESTION IN A SEPARATELY NUMBERED
PARAGRAPH. SEE SUPREME COURT RULE 16(3)(b).

1. Is 633:3-a, III-c unconstitutionally overbroad or otherwise void for vagueness

facially and/or as-applied to this case?

2. Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Christina
DePamphilis had “reasonable fear” of the Defendant given her mid-order incitative
harassment against him?

3. Did the trial court commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion and/or an error of
law in granting the stalking order extension?

4. Has the same trial court judge presiding over this case and Mr. Maravelias’s
stalking petition against David DePamphilis (Hon. John J. Coughlin) carried out an
unjust course of conduct on the brink of his retirement, marked by rampant
prejudicial bias against Mr. Maravelias?

5. Did the trial court violate Defendant Maravelias’s procedural due process rights?

6. Did the trial court violate de novo Defendant’s rights afforded by substantive due
process or by the specific advance notice requirement of 173-B:3, I, and/or
wrongly re-commit similar violation(s) previously committed by the initial
protective order by virtue of extending it?

7. Assuming 633:3-a, III-c is constitutional on its face, do acts of lawful, non-

threatening speech constitute sufficient “good cause” concern for Plaintiff’s “safety
or well-being” to warrant stalking order extension?

8. Did Judge Coughlin commit a class B felony violation of RSA 641:5, I (B) in
granting Plaintiff’s 7/2/18 post-trial motion for expanded protective orders,
forbidding Maravelias inter alia from even “possessing” her vulgar harassment
social media posts against him, which are public legal exhibits necessary for his
legal defense?

9. Did the trial court err in granting Plaintiff’s 7/2/18 post-trial motion for addition of
expanded protective orders?

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 3 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL
14. CERTIFICATIONS
I hereby certify that every issue specifically raised has been presented to the court below and has
been properly preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate,
by a properly filed pleading.

Appealing Party or Counsel

I hereby certify that on or before the date below, copies of this notice of appeal were served on all
parties to the case and were filed with the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken in
accordance with Rule 26(2).

August 16th, 2018

Date Appealing Party or Counsel

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 4 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL
TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. If a transcript is necessary for your appeal, you must complete this form.
2. List each portion of the proceedings that must be transcribed for appeal, e.g., entire trial (see Supreme Court Rule
15(3)), motion to suppress hearing, jury charge, etc., and provide information requested.
3. Determine the amount of deposit required for each portion of the proceedings and the total deposit required for all
portions listed. Do not send the deposit to the Supreme Court. You will receive an order from the Supreme Court
notifying you of the deadline for paying the deposit amount to the court transcriber. Failure to pay the deposit by the
deadline may result in the dismissal of your appeal.
4. The transcriber will produce a digitally-signed electronic version of the transcript for the Supreme Court, which will be
the official record of the transcribed proceedings. Parties will be provided with an electronic copy of the transcript in
PDF-A format. A paper copy of the transcript will also be prepared for the court.

PROCEEDINGS TO BE TRANSCRIBED

PROCEEDING TYPE OF PROCEEDING NAME OF LENGTH OF RATE DEPOSIT

DATE (Motion hearing, opening JUDGE PROCEEDING (standard rate
(List each day statement, trial day 2, etc.) (in .5 hour unless ordered
separately, e.g. segments, by Supreme
5/1/11; 5/2/11; e.g.,1.5 hours, 8 Court)
6/30/11) hours)
DV/Stalking PO
5/3/18 Coughlin, J. 1.5 hrs. X $137.50 $206.25
Extension Hearing

DV/Stalking PO
5/4/18 Coughlin, J. 2.5 hrs. X $137.50 $343.75
Extension Hearing

DV/Stalking PO
6/8/18 Coughlin, J. 2.5 hrs. X $137.50 $343.75
Extension Hearing
TOTAL
DEPOSIT $893.75

PROCEEDINGS PREVIOUSLY TRANSCRIBED

PROCEEDING TYPE OF NAME OF NAME OF DO ALL DEPOSIT

DATE PROCEEDING JUDGE TRANSCRIBER PARTIES FOR
(List date of (Motion hearing, opening HAVE COPY ADDITIONAL
each transcript statement, trial day 2, (YES OR NO) COPIES
volume) etc.)
DV/Stalking Final Sheri Chism Yes No TBD
1/5/2017 Stephen, R.
Hearing (AVTranz)
Brittany Donnell Yes No TBD
DV/Stalking Final
1/12/2017 Stephen, R. and Nancy Dewitz
Hearing
(AVTranz)
Nancy Dewitz and Yes No TBD
DV/Stalking Final
2/1/2017 Stephen, R. Susan Leong
Hearing
(AVTranz)

NOTE: The deposit is an estimate of the transcript cost. After the transcript has been completed, you will be required to
pay an additional amount if the final cost of the transcript exceeds the deposit. Any amount paid as a deposit in excess of
the final cost will be refunded. The transcript will not be released to the parties until the final cost of the transcript is paid
in full.

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 5 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

Enclosed hereinafter (p. 7 – 20) pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(6)(A):

1. 6/28/18 NOTICE OF DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT ON MOTION TO EXTEND STALKING ORDER AND
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
a. CLERK’S 6/28/18 NOTICE OF DECISION – P. 7
b. 6/15/18 ORDER ON STALKING ORDER EXTENSION – P. 8
c. FINDING OF FACTS IN 6/15/18 ORDER ON STALKING ORDER EXTENSION – P. 9
d. 6/12/18 DENIAL ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY – P. 10

2. 8/7/18 CLERK’S NOTICE AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER
ON DEFENTANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
a. CLERK’S 8/7/18 NOTICE – P. 11
b. 7/13/18 DENIAL ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – P. 12
c. 7/13/18 DENIAL ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE – P. 13

3. 8/13/18 CLERK’S NOTICE AND ORDERS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF STALKING
FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION TO INCLUDE FURTHER TERMS AND RELATED PLEADINGS; DENIAL
ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
a. CLERK’S 8/13/18 NOTICE – P. 14
b. 8/7/18 DENIAL ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF STALKING FINAL ORDER OF
PROTECTION – P. 15
c. 7/13/18 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE – P. 16
d. 8/7/18 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR MODIFICATION OF STALKING FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION – P. 17
e. 7/13/18 DENIAL ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF STALKING FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION – P. 18
f. 7/13/18 DENIAL ORDER OF DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – P. 19
g. 8/7/18 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF STALKING FINAL
ORDER OF PROTECTION – P. 20

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 6 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 7 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 8 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 9 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 10 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 11 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 12 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 13 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 14 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 15 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 16 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 17 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 18 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 19 of 20

Case Name: Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias
RULE 7 NOTICE OF MANDATORY APPEAL

NHJB-2296-SUP (03/31/2012) Page 20 of 20