You are on page 1of 11

February 14th, 2019

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,

Please find enclosed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for filing in the above-referenced case.

During the 2/12/19 Hearing in this case, Judge Leonard allowed me 48 hours to submit the
within legal argument(s) in written form as opposed to hearing them as oral argument.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

CC: Simon R. Brown, Esq. Paul J. Maravelias


THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS 10TH CIRCUIT – DISTRICT DIVISION – DERRY

Docket No. 473-2016-CV-00124

Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Paul Maravelias (“Defendant”) respectfully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the

1/24/19 Motion to Extend Stalking Order filed by Christina DePamphilis (“Plaintiff”) and end

this case. In support, Maravelias states the following.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE MERITS

1. The Court stipulated that it found good cause for the 1/24/19 temporary stalking order

extension because of three parts of Plaintiff’s 1/24/19 Verified Motion to Extend:

a. Paragraphs ¶12-13 (viz., the past 2018 extension case had illuminated that Maravelias
had called the Plaintiff mean/bad names to others a few times);
b. Paragraphs ¶22-24 (viz., Plaintiff alleges Maravelias has “followed” her in summer
2018 and again “in his vehicle” on “10/23/18”); and
c. Paragraph ¶27 (viz., Maravelias submitted a NH Supreme Court Reply Brief containing
a public court exhibit allegedly in violation of the 8/7/18 “extended terms”).

2. This Court held a Hearing on 2/12/19 which assumedly established the following facts:

1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
a. Cell phone location history proves Paul Maravelias did not “follow” Plaintiff on
10/23/18 in Windham. At all times material, “3:45pm to 4:15pm”, he was miles-away
doing business in Concord, NH. Maravelias was at the Administrative Office of the
Courts, the USPS Post Office, and the NH Supreme Court filing a Motion.

b. Christina DePamphilis testified she knew Maravelias has two vehicles, a Black Alfa
Romeo and a Black Minivan, but she feared he could possibly have different vehicles.
She claimed the 10/23/18 following vehicle was a “white SUV” and speculated it could
be Maravelias’s, though not knowing. But she had priorly asseverated in her sworn
Verified Motion that Maravelias was following her “in his vehicle”. (¶23)

c. Paul Maravelias testified he’s never been in the Salisbury Beach area at any times
material (to wit, “August 2018”) nor ever followed the Plaintiff.

d. Regarding Plaintiff’s allegation at ¶27 and the 8/7/18 “extended terms”, Maravelias
testified they were issued ultra vires without legal authority. He has filed a federal
lawsuit against state criminal enforcement officials for declaratory/injunctive relief.

3. Assuming the above facts, Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend does not state a claim under the

statute for extension. There was no “following” (¶22-24), no act of stalking by Maravelias filing

a legal appellate brief (¶27), and Maravelias’s behavior long-ago of calling Plaintiff not-nice

names to other people (¶12-13) does not amount to present concern for her safety and well-being.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MATTER OF LAW

4. Even ignoring all facts found at yesterday’s Hearing and assuming all of Plaintiff’s well-

pleaded allegations within the Verified Motion to Extend, the Court must dismiss. The following

argumentation relies upon a few shared legal principles.

5. First, there is a difference between 1) the absence of reversible error within the Supreme

Court’s appellate jurisdiction, and 2) the absence of actual error which this Court may correct

within its original jurisdiction over stalking orders.1

1
The Supreme Court’s 1/16/19 Order denying Maravelias’s appeal of the 2018 extension in this case is
instructive: “‘The trial court is in the best position to view the current circumstances, as well as the

2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
6. Second, insofar as Plaintiff’s 2/11/19 Bench Memorandum invokes a passing-reference to

collateral estoppel, the requirements of collateral estoppel are not satisfied2 where Plaintiff

attempts to hand-cuff this Court because of a Supreme Court Order denying the appeal of the

past 2018 extension – i.e., meaningfully different arguments tailored to a different case.

7. Third, any past-arguments purposed to dismiss, reconsider, or reverse-on-appeal the past

2018 extension are separate arguments from Maravelias’s new arguments – however similar – in

this motion to dismiss the new 2019 extension. “A trial court … has the authority to revisit an

earlier ruling on a motion to dismiss if it becomes aware that the ruling may be incorrect.” Gray

v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160 (2010) See also Route 12 Books Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569,

575 (2003).

8. Fourth, since the standard for extending a stalking order is much lower than for the

original issuance thereof3 – despite the same requested one-year-order remedy – the Court

violates a defendant’s due-process rights if it grants an extension on a preexisting stalking order

defendant’s prior acts, and determine whether an extension is necessary for the safety and well-being of
the plaintiff.’ Id. [MacPherson v. Weiner, 158 N.H. (2008)] at 11. We will uphold the trial court’s
findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law, id. at 10, mindful
that it is for the trial court to accept or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented, and
that our role is not to determine whether we would have ruled differently, but whether a reasonable person
could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence, Cook v. Sullivan,
149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003); see also MacPherson, 158 N.H. at 10. We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188, 190 (2007).” (Emphasis added)
2
“For collateral estoppel to apply, three basic conditions must be satisfied: (1) the issue subject to
estoppel must be identical in each action; (2) the first action must have resolved the issue finally on the
merits; and (3) the party to be estopped must have appeared as a party in the first action, or have been in
privity with someone who did so.” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 80 (2006) The issues Maravelias raises
herein are not “identical”, because they are in reference to the current 2019 extension, and because they
meaningfully differ in substance. Further, Maravelias did not have a fair and full opportunity to litigate all
of these issues even with regards to the different 2018 extension case. “A party against whom estoppel is
pleaded must have had a full and fair prior opportunity to litigate the issue or fact in question.” Id.
3
Compare RSA 633:3-a, III-a. to RSA 633:3-a, III-c.

3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
which itself comes into reasonable question after the fact4. I.e., if the underlying stalking order

violated statutorily mandated rights, due-process rights, or constitutional rights, any extensions

thereof necessarily re-prejudice a defendant by subjecting him or her to the lower extension

standard where the higher original-issuance standard should apply.

A. This Court Must Dismiss the Stalking Order Because Its Application Thereof Has
Violated the Equal Protection Clause of the State and Federal Constitutions

9. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “no state shall ...

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

10. On 12/10/18, subject to the stalking order, Defendant Maravelias submitted a Motion

to Amend Stalking Final Order of Protection to Exclude Second-Amendment-Protected Activity

and accompanying 20-page Memorandum of Law to this Court. Plaintiff then filed an Objection.

11. Maravelias’s Motion claimed a statutory right under RSA 173-B:5, VIII.(b) and

claimed constitutional rights under the Federal and State Constitutions.

12. On 1/24/18, Plaintiff DePamphilis submitted a Verified Motion to Extend Stalking

Order which claimed a statutory right under RSA 633:3-a, III-c.

13. Over two months after Maravelias’s 12/10/18 Motion, this Court has not ruled upon it

nor taken any action on it whatsoever. But this Court granted DePamphilis’s 1/24/19 Motion the

very same day.

4
“The ultimate standard for judging a due process claim is the notion of fundamental fairness.” Saviano
v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 151 N.H. 315, 320 (2004).

4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
14. Christina DePamphilis is a lawyer-represented 18-year old female. Paul Maravelias is

a pro se 23-year-old unmarried white male.

15. As applied, this Court’s implementation of the stalking order has violated all

applicable state and federal constitutional Equal Protection clauses. Where both parties claimed a

right, the Court acted immediately on one party’s claim yet has still taken no action in response

to the other party’s over two months later. The parties were similarly-situated and no legitimate

reasons exists for the disparity; Maravelias even reminded the Court of his outstanding 12/10/18

Motion on 1/4/19 by filing a Motion for Timely Ruling. Further, Maravelias’s claimed right was

both constitutional and statutory, whereas DePamphilis’s was only statutory.

16. Dismissal is the appropriate remedy to the said Equal Protection violation. The said

violation came about by and through this stalking order, which was temporarily extended

recently only to incidentally consummate the Equal Protection violation.

B. This Court Must Dismiss the Stalking Order Because It Violated the 30-Day Hearing
Requirement in 2018, a Critical Due-Process Right, Thereby Losing Personal Jurisdiction
Over Maravelias

17. Maravelias herein repeats and incorporates Paragraphs ¶13-17 of his 1/28/19 First-

Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Objection to Petitioner’s Motion to

Extend Duration of Stalking Final Order of Protection, presenting the substance of this issue.

18. In summary, it is not fair to subject Maravelias to the lower standard for extension

(RSA 633:3-a, III-c.) when the past order giving rising to Plaintiff’s current extension motion

5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
was issued in violation of Maravelias’s due process rights, where this Court failed to hold a

Hearing on the past extension within 30-days of Plaintiff’s 1/5/18 Motion to Extend.5

19. The causal nature of the new extension by means of the violative first extension

renders this objection to the Court’s continued exercise of personal jurisdiction a new issue.

20. The Court may hear a new stalking petition from Plaintiff as part of a new case, but

must dismiss this case which can only continue to exist by virtue of upholding this Court’s 2018

error of disobeying the 30-day-hearing requirement in RSA 633:3-a, III-c.

C. This Court Must Dismiss the Stalking Order Because It Violated Maravelias’s Advance-
Notice Rights by Relying Upon Plaintiff’s Photographic Exhibits She Noticed Nowhere in
Her 1/5/18 Extension Motion, Rather Ambushing Maravelias on 6/8/18 Almost Half-a-Year
Later at the Hearing’s Final Day

21. Maravelias herein repeats and incorporates Paragraphs ¶26-27 of his 1/28/19 First-

Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Objection to Petitioner’s Motion to

Extend Duration of Stalking Final Order of Protection, presenting the substance of this issue.

22. Maravelias preserved this issue in his 6/25/18 Motion for Reconsideration to this

Court. The 1/16/19 Supreme Court Order did not address this ripe and valid issue.

23. It is well settled that a “defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which

the plaintiffs are proceeding and the redress that they claim as a result of the defendant's

actions.” Morency v. Plourde, 96 N.H. 344, 346, 76 A.2d 791, 792 (1950).

5
This argument is meaningfully different from the one the Supreme Court’s 1/16/19 Order rejected. The
latter decided whether the 30-days-violation was grounds for an appellate court to reverse the 2018
extension – not whether Maravelias’s new objection here bars the trial court from granting another 2019
extension, the instant argument.

6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
24. For the reasons already stated, this Court cannot grant another extension based upon

an underlying Order where Maravelias’s due-process rights were violated.

D. This Court Must Dismiss the Stalking Order Because The 8/7/18 “Extended Terms”
Were Issued Ultra Vires in Defiance of Statutory and Constitutional Law

25. Maravelias repeats and incorporates by reference all the facts and arguments

appearing in Maravelias’s recently filed federal lawsuit regarding the 8/7/18 “extended terms”

nominally attached to this stalking order, N.H. Federal District Court, Maravelias v. Coughlin et

al. (Case No. 1:19-CV-143), which was entered as an Exhibit in yesterday’s Hearing. The said

litigation treats this topic in extensive detail.

26. By and through this stalking order, Plaintiff has been allowed to disparage and injure

Maravelias with said “extended terms” not authorized by the controlling statute, RSA 173-B:5,

and in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, the First, Fifth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Part I Articles 2, 12, 22, and 23 of the NH

Constitution. Further, granting the “extended terms” was likely a criminal act in violation of

RSA 641:5, I.(B) and 18 U.S.C. §242, a federal criminal statute.

27. Amending the stalking order to dissolve these terms is not a sufficient remedy. Since

the granting of said terms implicated Equal Protection rights and other due-process issues

discussed hereinabove, and as these “extended terms” were only allowed to transpire by and

through the vessel of this underlying “stalking order”, said order cannot be retrospectively

considered as not violating Maravelias’s due-process rights in application, and the Court cannot

therefore extend it. This is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new stalking petition.

7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
E. This Court Must Dismiss Because the Original Stalking Order is Grounded Upon a
Material Allegation Which Did Not Appear in Plaintiff’s Petition, Violating Advance-
Notice Due-Process Rights

28. Maravelias herein repeats and incorporates by reference Paragraphs ¶18-25 of his

1/28/19 First-Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Objection to Petitioner’s

Motion to Extend Duration of Stalking Final Order of Protection, presenting the substance of

this issue.

F. This Court Must Dismiss Because Opposing Counsel Failed to Obey Circuit Court Rule
1.8(C), Which Prejudiced Maravelias

29. Maravelias herein repeats and incorporates Paragraphs ¶4-6 of his 1/15/19

Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Stalking Final Order of Protection.

30. Plaintiff’s counsel knew of the Court’s rule to reach-out to the other party to attempt

to obtain concurrence prior to filing such a Motion: counsel obeyed this rule in the past.

Maravelias was therefore caught-off-guard by the 2019 Motion to Extend and given less time to

prepare a case-in-rebuttal. This prejudicial outcome warrants dismissal in light of an attorney’s

willful or negligent violation of the Court’s rule.

F. This Court Must Dismiss Because RSA 633:3-A, III-C. Is Facially Unconstitutional for
Overbreadth and Vagueness, and Because It Is Virtually Impossible for Any Such
Extension Not to be Plagued by Said Overbreadth and Vagueness Defects

31. For a concise summary of this issue without verbose constitutional law analysis,

Maravelias repeats herein and incorporates by reference Paragraphs ¶99-118, Cause of Action

Count 8 and Count 9, of the “ORIGINAL VERIFIED COMPLAINT” within Maravelias’s

recently filed federal lawsuit, N.H. Federal District Court, Maravelias v. Coughlin et al. (Case

No. 1:19-CV-143), itself entered into the instant case as an Exhibit in yesterday’s Hearing.

8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
32. For a more rigorous treatment of this issue, Maravelias repeats herein and

incorporates by reference Paragraphs ¶28-60 of his 1/28/19 First-Amended Memorandum of Law

in Support of Defendant’s Objection to Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Duration of Stalking Final

Order of Protection.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Paul Maravelias respectfully prays this Honorable Court:

I. Grant this Motion;

II. Dismiss Plaintiff’s 1/24/2019 Motion to Extend Duration of Stalking Final Order
of Protection, ending this case; and

III. Grant any further relief deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,

February 14th, 2019 in propria persona

9
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 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.

_______________________________

February 14th, 2019

10
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087