March 8th, 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 Respondent’s Verified Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss or

Amend Stalking Order to Remedy Voter Suppression Conspiracy Against Respondent to be
filed in the above-referenced case.

This motion is urgent and time-sensitive as an illegal conspiracy currently threatens to

prevent me from voting in Windham’s upcoming 3/12/19 election.

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

VERIFIED EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO AMEND OR DISMISS STALKING

ORDER TO REMEDY VOTER SUPPRESSION CONSPIRACY AGAINST RESPONDENT

COMES NOW Respondent Paul Maravelias and respectfully submits the within Emergency

Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss or Amend Stalking Order to Prevent Voter Suppression Conspiracy

Against Respondent pursuant to RSA 173-B:5, VIII.(b), RSA 659:40, and state and federal

constitutional law. This stalking order is still pending this Court’s ruling on the recent

2/12/19 extension Hearing; accordingly, this Motion becomes moot if and when this Court

denies the extension. The Petitioner, Christina DePamphilis, her father David DePamphilis, and

their attorney Simon R. Brown, Esq. (hereinafter, “conspirators”) are currently orchestrating an

unlawful conspiracy to bully and intimidate Maravelias into not voting in the upcoming 3/12/19

Windham town election by operation of the instant stalking order, which arguably criminalizes

Maravelias’s appearance at Windham High School, Windham’s designated polling place.

Further, the conspirators are actively attempting to have Maravelias arrested for having lawfully

voted in a November 2018 election in Windham.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 1. On 12/10/18, Respondent Maravelias filed a Motion to Amend Stalking Final

Order of Protection to Exclude Second-Amendment-Protected Activity and accompanying

Memorandum of Law, claiming rights under the state and federal constitutions. Petitioner filed

an Objection. The said 12/10/18 Motion is still on the Court’s docket pending a ruling.

2. On 1/24/19, Petitioner filed a Motion to Extend Stalking Order. On 1/28/19,

Respondent filed his Objection and Memorandum of Law thereon. The Court granted the

preliminary stalking order extension and held a 2/12/19 Hearing. At said Hearing, it was shown

that DePamphilis’s verified extension motion contained gaping inaccuracies and/or sporadically

contradicted her testimony, e.g., wrongly accusing Maravelias “followed” DePamphilis on the

roads, misrepresenting the attributability of the allegedly pursuing vehicle to Maravelias as the

owner, exaggerating the number of “times” the alleged “following” occurred, inter alia. On

2/14/19, Respondent Maravelias filed a Motion to Dismiss the stalking order extension on factual

and legal grounds. Petitioner filed an Objection on 2/22/19.

3. The stalking order extension case is still pending this Court’s ruling, as

Respondent confirmed with this Court’s clerk on 3/6/19.

4. If the Court dismisses and/or denies the recent extension motion by 3/12/19 as it

should, the stalking order will be expired. This case will be ended, rendering the instant Motion

moot. The pending 12/10/18 Motion to Amend will also become moot if the extension is denied.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE VOTER SUPPRESSION CONSPIRACY

5. Petitioner’s 2/22/19 Objection to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss rehearses a

potpourri of inaccurate contentions, inflated liberties with the record, and desperate defamatory

denigrations of Maravelias’s character aspired to obfuscate the fact that DePamphilis’s central

2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
“following” accusations were exposed at trial as totally baseless at best, and, at worst, fraudulent

acts of willful deception. In keeping with these motivations, Petitioner includes a footnote at

Page 2 alleging the following:

“Defendant [Maravelias] also admitted to voting in-person at Christina’s high

school even though the stalking protective order prohibits him from appearing at
her school. While voting is a right, Defendant could have taken appropriate steps
to avoid this violation, such as seeking an absentee ballot.”

6. The aforecited legal document was composed and submitted by Simon R. Brown,

Esq., the DePamphilis’ lawyer counsel. Maravelias contends that Christina DePamphilis, David

DePamphilis, and Attorney Brown are willful conspirators in the voter suppression endeavor

detailed hereinafter.

7. Paul Maravelias graduated from Windham High School as the Valedictorian of

the Class of 2013. He is currently a resident of Windham, New Hampshire and is domiciled

there. He is registered to vote in Windham.

8. Paul Maravelias wishes to vote in all elections, including the upcoming 3/12/19

Windham town election. He does not plan to be absent from Windham on 3/12/19. He does not

have any employment obligations, religious commitments, or physical disabilities which would

prevent or burden his appearance at Windham’s official election polling location. He is not

elderly or inform, nor cares for children or infirm adults, nor a uniformed services voter.

9. Paul Maravelias is over 18 years of age, has never been accused or convicted of

any felony crime, and has a legal right to vote in all town, state, and federal elections.

10. Windham’s official election polling location is Windham High School.

3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 11. At all material times, David DePamphilis, Christina DePamphilis, and Simon R.

Brown, Esq. (“conspirators”) knew and were aware of the truth of all the facts alleged in

Paragraphs 7-10 above, or had no reason to believe contrarily to any of the identified facts.

12. Recently, in his vindictive legal harassment crusade, David DePamphilis

complained to the Windham Police Department yet again to attempt to get Maravelias arrested

for frivolous reasons.1 DePamphilis complained that Maravelias had voted in a November 2018

election, claiming this violated the stalking order.

13. On 3/6/19 at 0834 EST, Sgt. Bryan Smith of the Windham Police Department

called Maravelias’s cell-phone. The conversation contained the following dialogue:

Sgt. Smith: “Hey it’s Sgt. Smith at the Windham Police how are you?’
Maravelias: “Hey Sergeant how are you.”

1
Upon information and belief, David DePamphilis’s alarming hostility against Paul Maravelias has
worsened since the 2/12/19 Hearing where Maravelias disproved DePamphilis’s wild accusations with
irrefutable physical evidence. For instance, Maravelias has learned David DePamphilis created a bizarre
defamatory spectacle at the Dunkin Donuts in Windham one recent night in early March or late February
2019. David DePamphilis reportedly entered the coffee shop by himself to demand the employees tell him
if they “[knew] Paul Maravelias”, claiming Maravelias is a “dangerous” “pedophile” and a “very, very,
very bad” person who should be “reported”. The alarmed teenage workers found David’s intimidating
tirade disturbing as they tried to keep their composure. They feigned ignorance at DePamphilis’s
persistent inquisitions, not wishing to aggravate David’s behavior nor perpetuate the unsafe situation.
David DePamphilis’s outrageous, baseless “pedophile” slander against Maravelias to total strangers is
indicative of the sole abusive harassment motivations for which this stalking order has been sought.
DePamphilis’s delusional “pedophile” slander also creates reasonable question as to his mental state. A
cognitive dissonance reduction phenomenon is hypothesized, wherein accusing Paul Maravelias of being
a “pedophile” numbs the inescapable observation of the object of DePamphilis’s own eldest son’s sexual
preference, his intimate partner Nate, and any such resemblance thereof to an emaciated underage
prepubescent female relatable to “pedophilia”. See e.g., https://www.instagram.com/p/BsGwKb_Frg6,
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2ladmpd.jpg, http://oi64.tinypic.com/zloism.jpg,
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhZOTQCnyHa/, https://www.instagram.com/p/Bp0sfaDFnwT/ As it goes
without saying, Maravelias is not a “pedophile” nor has ever been remotely accused of any sexual offense
involving any person of any age, nor has this laughably absurd accusation ever been lodged against
Maravelias anywhere outside the history of David DePamphilis’s verbal and legal abuse.

4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 Sgt. Smith: “I’m doing well.”
Maravelias: “Good.”
Sgt. Smith: “So the reason I’m calling is, um… we were notified that you in the last
election in November went to Windham High School and voted during that?”
Maravelias: “So that’s what you were notified?”
Sgt. Smith: “Yeah, well, like, we were told that you testified to that in the hearing. Um, so,
we just wanted to call, or I wanted to call, to remind you that, um, you have other ways to
be able to vote such as a – a, um, an absentee ballot, without actually going to the high
school, just based on the fact if Christina’s there, you may in violation of the … the
stalking order, so.”
Maravelias: “Thank you for saying that. I’m not – I’m not accepting what you alleged in
your description there, but, but thank you for saying that. I, and I, yeah.
Sgt. Smith: “OK. So like I said, I – I’m – we’re just letting you know that, or I’m trying to
notify you that, you know you have another way to be able to vote, and if Christina’s there,
uh, in the school since it states that you can’t go to her – her school, that you may be in
violation of that stalking order, so.”
Maravelias: “Thank you for that.”
Sgt. Smith: “Alright?”
Maravelias: “Thank you sir.”
Sgt. Smith: “Thank you sir, have a good one.”
Maravelias: “Thank you, bye”.

14. Shortly after this phone call, Maravelias submitted a follow-up email to Sgt.

Smith and WPD Captain Michael Caron. The email was as follows:

Dear Sgt. Smith,

Thank you for calling me today.

I understand you’ve indicated in your call that I should not appear at WHS, the town’s polling
place, to vote in elections.

Instead, in order to ensure compliance with the DePamphilis “stalking” order, I must use an
absentee ballot to avoid potential arrest.

Certainly if the stalking order continues to an election, I will not go to the polling place, in light of
your call. In fact, because of the extra hassle, I probably won’t vote.

5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 I appreciate the warning in advance.

Kind regards,
Paul Maravelias

15. When composing the above email, Paul Maravelias knew that he could not

lawfully obtain an absentee ballot since he does not satisfy the requirements of RSA 657:1 for

absentee voting. Maravelias also knew and believed Sgt. Smith and Attorney Brown, in their

respective communications, had invited Maravelias to commit a misdemeanor criminal violation

of RSA 657:24, “Misusing Absentee Ballot”. Maravelias recognized he was necessarily

entrapped into either committing a crime (obtaining an absentee ballot without meeting the legal

requirement), being arrested for violating a falsified stalking order (Sgt. Smith’s threatened

enforcement should Maravelias appear at the polling place to vote), or hopelessly surrendering

his right to vote in the election.

16. On 3/7/19 at 1106 EST, Paul Maravelias sent a letter to Attorney Brown by email

regarding voting in the election, attached as Exhibit A. Maravelias’s covert purpose with the

letter was to establish Attorney Brown’s willful complicity in this voter suppression conspiracy.

The letter made Attorney Brown unequivocally aware Maravelias did not meet the absentee

voting requirements and offered Attorney Brown an opportunity to contradict Maravelias’s

assumption Attorney Brown’s 2/22/19 footnote was in violation of the New Hampshire Rules of

Professional Conduct Rule 3.1, “Meritorious Claims and Contentions”.

17. Maravelias’s letter alleged DePamphilis has a “political” “motivation to prevent

[Maravelias] from voting” and has pursued the stalking order extension partly for the purpose “to

chill and restrain my political expression and voting activity.”

6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 18. At 1728 EST the same day, Attorney Brown replied by email (Exhibit B) in a

manner not exculpating him of willful participation in the conspiracy. He entirely ignored the

content of Maravelias’s letter and creatively envisioned it as constituting a request for legal

advice, advising that Maravelias should seek his own counsel.

19. It is obvious by his silence that Attorney Brown is not ignorant of the RSA 657:1

absentee voter requirements, the central issue of Maravelias’s letter, and that Maravelias does not

satisfy them. Attorney Brown did not recant his unlawful footnote soliciting Maravelias to

commit a misdemeanor crime nor object to Maravelias’s assumption that said footnote was in

violation of Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, ibid.

20. The above letter constitutes the extent to which Maravelias contacted the

opposing party prior to filing this motion for ex parte emergency relief. The opposing party

perpetuated the voter suppression conspiracy by refusing to retract their WPD criminal complaint

and refusal to assent that Maravelias lawfully appear at Windham’s polling location to vote.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

21. The New Hampshire Rules of the Circuit Court – District Division do not

promulgate specific requirements controlling motions for emergency ex parte relief. Thus, the

Court should rely upon generic common law standards for ex parte relief adopted by courts of

competent jurisdiction (e.g., as discernible within Superior Court rules, specific statutory

provisions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, etc.)

22. When ruling on a motion for ex parte relief, the Court must determine whether

immediate or irreparable injury will result to the movant absent relief. See e.g., Fam. Div. R.

2.9(B), RSA 511-A:8, RSA 458:16, II.(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioners for ex parte relief

7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
must provide a sworn affidavit certifying the factual allegations sustaining the requested

emergency relief.

23. The equal right to vote in elections is a constitutional right guaranteed to all adult

inhabitants of New Hampshire. See N.H. Const. Part I, Art. 11. “It is well-established that the

deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury’” Melendres v.

Arpaio, 795 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)).

Courts must resolve prospective voting-related disputes with emergent expeditiousness, as “once

the election occurs, there can be no do-over and no redress”. League of Women Voters of N.C. v.

N. Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014).

24. The equal right to vote in elections is a “fundamental” right under both the federal

and state constitutions. See Newburger v. Peterson, 344 F. Supp 559, 560 (D.N.H. 1972); Akins

v. Secretary of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006). If a law imposes “severe” restrictions on voting

rights, the regulation must “withstand strict scrutiny to be constitutional” and must “be justified

by a compelling governmental interest … necessary to the accomplishment of its legitimate

purpose” Akins, 154 N.H at 72, 73.

25. Respondent Maravelias has no adequate remedy at law. Since his right to vote in

the upcoming 3/12/19 Windham election is a fundamental constitutional right, monetary

damages cannot redress the deprivation of said right.

IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Without Appearing at His Alma Mater, Windham High School, Paul Maravelias Has
No Lawful Means of Voting in the 3/12/19 Election

26. RSA 657:1, I. “Absence, Religious Observance, and Disability Absentee Voting”,

effective January 1, 2019, sets forth the controlling absentee voter requirements:

8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 “Any person who is absent on the day of any state election from the city, town, or
unincorporated place in which he or she is registered to vote or who cannot appear in
public on any election day because of his or her observance of a religious commitment or
who is unable to vote there in person by reason of physical disability may vote at such
elections as provided in this chapter. A person who is unable to appear at any time during
polling hours at his or her polling place because of an employment obligation shall be
considered absent for purposes of this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the term
‘employment’ shall include the care of children and infirm adults, with or without
compensation.”

27. According to the plain language of the statute, absentee voting is strictly confined

to registered voters meeting certain requirements. As Paul Maravelias lives and works in

Windham where he is registered to vote, does not plan to be absent on 3/12/19, nor meets any of

the other statutory requirements, he is unquestionably ineligible for absentee voting. It goes

without saying that a civil protection order cannot force Maravelias to intentionally make himself

absent from his own town of residence against his will for the entire day of an election, as the

sole means to vote lawfully and/or without threat of arrest. Any contention to the contrary would

surpass absurdity, necessitating infringement of Maravelias’s natural rights under Part I, Article

2 of the state constitution and individual right to privacy and right to be left alone, guaranteed by

the state constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

28. Indeed, the Absentee Ballot Form promulgated by the Town of Windham for the

upcoming election parallels the requirements of RSA 657:1 as enumerated herein, affording

Maravelias no opportunity to honestly or lawfully obtain one. See Exhibit C.

29. It is a criminal offense to seek an absentee ballot without meeting the

requirements therefor as set forth in RSA 657:1. RSA 657:24, “Misusing Absentee Ballot.”,

states in relevant portion:

“Anyone who votes or attempts to vote under the provisions of this chapter who is not
entitled to vote by absentee ballot or anyone who knowingly votes or attempts to vote in
violation of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

9
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 30. Maravelias would commit a crime if he were to obey the footnote in

DePamphilis’s 2/22/19 Objection, written by Attorney Brown, inviting him to “seek an absentee

ballot” where one necessarily unavailable under the law. Sgt. Bryan Smith of the Windham

Police Department also wrongly encouraged Maravelias to commit this crime.

31. Since the right to vote is a guaranteed constitutional right which may be freely

exercised without the threat of arrest, and since absentee voting is unavailable to him, Maravelias

must appear at his alma mater of Windham High School on 3/12/19, Windham’s designated

polling location, in order to vote in the election.

B. The Conspirators’ Conduct Against Maravelias Is Criminal

32. RSA 629:2, “Criminal Solicitation”, provides in relevant part:

“I. A person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with a purpose that another
engage in conduct constituting a crime, he commands, solicits or requests such
other person to engage in such conduct.
II. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor
renounced his criminal purpose by persuading the other not to engage in the
criminal conduct or by otherwise preventing commission of the crime under
circumstances manifesting a purpose that it not occur.”

33. Christina DePamphilis, by her attorney, Simon R. Brown, submitted to

Maravelias her 2/22/19 Objection which contained the aforementioned Page 2 footnote having a

purpose to solicit Maravelias to obtain an absentee ballot to vote in the upcoming election. This

purpose is further demonstrated by David DePamphilis’s coincidentally recent criminal

complaint to WPD about Maravelias’s alleged past voting conduct, submitted immediately prior

to the upcoming election, causing Sgt. Smith to call Maravelias for the purposes of rehearsing

the same solicitation that Maravelias “[seek] an absentee ballot”.

34. At all material times, conspirators knew that Maravelias is not an absentee voter.

10
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 35. The conspirators’ 2/22/19 communication to Maravelias and indirect 3/6/19

communication to Maravelias through Sgt. Smith purposefully solicited Maravelias to attempt to

vote as an absentee without being a proper absentee voter, which is a crime (See supra).

36. When Maravelias’s non-absentee status was explicitly affirmed or reaffirmed to

Attorney Brown on March 7th, Attorney Brown did not retract the communication soliciting

Maravelias to obtain an “absentee ballot”. Any affirmative defense to Criminal Solicitation under

RSA 629:2, II. is therefore waived.

37. RSA 629:1, “Conspiracy”, provides in relevant part:

“I. 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.
II. For purposes of paragraph I, ‘one or more persons’ includes, but is not limited
to, persons who are immune from criminal liability by virtue of irresponsibility,
incapacity or exemption.”

38. It is previously established that the conspirators acted with a purpose to cause

Maravelias to vote or attempt to vote through an absentee ballot where such act would be

inappropriate and, in fact, a misdemeanor crime as “defined by statute”.

39. All conspirators of furthermore guilty of criminal conspiracy, since 1) Attorney

Brown agreed with his client to submit a legal document in her name “[causing] the commission

of such crime”, 2) David DePamphilis agreed with Christina and/or Attorney Brown to file the

aforementioned criminal complaint with WPD, and 3) Sgt. Smith of WPD agreed to

recommunicate the unlawful solicitation to Maravelias that he must improperly seek an absentee

ballot where legally unavailable.

11
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 40. The conspirators’ criminal conduct is not limited to their attempts to induce

Maravelias to misuse absentee voting.2 The ultimate purpose of this conspiracy is of voter

suppression: to intimidate Maravelias with the threat of criminal prosecution to dissuade him

from voting. RSA 659: 40, “Bribing; Intimidation; Suppression”, provides in relevant part:

“II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or
intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain
from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot
measure, or refrain from registering to vote.
III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to
prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on
fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited
acts of voter suppression include:
(a) Challenging another person’s right to register to vote or to vote based on
information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(b) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or
from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to
be false or misleading.
(c) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or
from voting at the proper place or time by providing information that he or she
knows to be false or misleading about the date, time, place, or manner of the
election.
IV. Whoever violates the provisions of this section or whoever conspires to
violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.”

41. Conspirators used the threat of criminal prosecution for a stalking order violation

as a “tactic of coercion” to “induce or compel” Maravelias to “refrain from voting” and did so

knowingly. See RSA 659:40, II. Having attempted to deceive Maravelias with the false pretense

that he could obtain an absentee ballot even though he was not absent nor otherwise qualifying,

conspirators contacted the Windham Police 1) to seek Maravelias’s arrest for voting in

November 2018, and 2) to articulate unlawful, unconstitutional enforcement schemes of the

stalking order that would result in Maravelias’s arrest should be appear at WHS to vote. Further,

2
Maravelias here furnishes a primarily state-law-focused analysis, but see 18 U.S.C. § 241., “Conspiracy
against Rights”, lacking the requirement that conspirators be state officials acting under color of state law.

12
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
it was expectable that Maravelias would eventually discover for himself that he could not obtain

an absentee ballot by reading the plain language of the form. See Exhibit C.

42. Conspirators committed a separate count of voter suppression under RSA 659:40,

III. by knowingly attempting to deter Maravelias from voting by using the “grounds or

information” that the absentee ballot provided him an alternate manner of voting, a contention

hereinabove established as totally false, and therefore “deceptive, misleading [and] spurious”.3

43. RSA 659:40, III.(c) contemplates the manner in which conspirators committed

voter suppression with strikingly specific applicability to the facts here. Conspirators made false

representations about the “manner of the election” as it concerned Maravelias’s part, lying that

he was obligated to “[seek] an absentee ballot” or was even lawfully allowed to do so.

C. As-Applied, the Stalking Order Violates Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire
Constitution

44. Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution states:

“All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and
upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be
considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated
place where he has his domicile. …”

45. The stalking order in this case, currently in-effect only through this Court’s

preliminary 1/28/19 extension pending final ruling following the 2/12/19 Hearing, states in

relevant part:

3
Cf. Guare v. State of New Hampshire, 167 N.H. 658 (2015), finding “confusing and inaccurate”
language on a voter registration form to constitute unreasonable burden on the right to vote as a matter of
law in violation of Part I, Article 11. Here, conspirators’ misleading representations imputing a
nonexistent duty to Maravelias to obtain a legally unavailable absentee ballot were at best “confusing and
inaccurate”, and were likely indeed, moreover, willful acts of deception.

13
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 “2. … The defendant is prohibited from coming within 300 feet of the plaintiff. …
5. The defendant shall not contact the plaintiff at or enter upon plaintiff’s place of
employment or school …
12. The defendant shall not follow the plaintiff or appear in proximity to the residence,
place of employment or school of the plaintiff, or follow or appear at any other place
where the plaintiff may be.”

46. RSA 173-B:5, I.(a)(3), applicable to stalking order permissible forms of relief by

operation of RSA 633:3-a, III-a., provides that courts may issue civil stalking protective order

terms “restraining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff or entering the plaintiff’s place of

employment, school, or any specified place frequented regularly by the plaintiff or by any family

or household member”.

47. The only statutory authorization for civil restraining order terms potentially

prohibiting Maravelias from appearing at the “school” of the Petitioner (his own “school”, and

Windham’s designated polling place, Windham High School) appears in RSA 173-B, the

Domestic Violence statute. The legislative intent of this statute is “to preserve and protect the

safety of the family unit for all family or household members by entitling victims of domestic

violence to immediate and effective police protection and judicial relief.” State v. Steven Kidder,

150 N.H. 600; 843 A.2d 312 (2004).

48. It is a testament to the irrational, dysfunctional machinations of our state’s

incompetent legislature that, thirty years later, the ambit of “domestic violence” legislation

has now metastasized to outlaw a peaceful citizen with zero history of violence from voting

at his own town’s polling location, his own high school where he graduated as

Valedictorian in 2013, because of a civil restraining order involving zero acts of “violence”,

alleged or actual, and a petitioner who has never once had any “domestic” nor “intimate”

relation with said oppressed citizen whatsoever.

14
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 49. As-applied, the stalking order irrefutably violates Maravelias’s rights under Part I,

Article 11 by imposing criminal penalties for “appearing” at the “school” of the Petitioner, where

said “school” is also the sole designated polling location for Maravelias’s town’s election. As

established above, Maravelias cannot lawfully vote by any other means. The cited terms of the

stalking order, lacking any explicit exception for voting, are logically synonymous with

criminally prohibiting Maravelias from voting.

50. Categorically incapacitating Maravelias from voting and threatening criminal

prosecution should he appear at the polling place doubtlessly consists a “severe restriction” on

voting for purposes of triggering strict scrutiny constitutional review. Here, prohibiting

Maravelias from voting in a public building patrolled by multiple police officers cannot have the

remotest effect of advancing a “compelling governmental interest” in the protection of domestic

violence and stalking victims. Assuming, but not granting, that RSA 633:3-a civil protective

orders serve a “compelling” and not just “significant” governmental interest, voting is a

constitutionally protected political activity where is not likely any act of threatened or actual

violence would occur to Petitioner, even in the astronomically low chance she were present at the

polling location to vote at the same time Maravelias.

51. Ergo, the stalking order is unconstitutional as-applied through RSA 633:3-a.

D. As-Applied, the Stalking Order Violates Equal Protection under the State
Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

52. Part I, Article 11 guarantees not only the right to vote, but the “equal” right to

vote. Here, Maravelias is inequitably targeted by a civil protection order resulting in the rapine of

his basic voting rights whereas all other citizens who not subject to such civil protective orders

do not suffer the same effective voting restrictions. The state cannot deprive constitutional rights

15
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
from citizens because of a civil protective order in which there was not even the slightest

accusation of violence or actual crime; accordingly, this unequal protection aspect amounts to a

separate violation of the state constitution.4

53. The Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees

“nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

For the aforementioned reasons, the stalking order as-applied violations federal equal protection

law by isolating Maravelias as a civil protective order defendant. The law on felony

disenfranchisement is long-settled by the United States Supreme Court; states cannot lawfully

deny citizens’ right to vote unless to convicted felons.5

E. The Appropriate Remedy Is Dismissal of the Stalking Order

54. The Petitioner and David DePamphilis have criminally colluded with Simon R.

Brown, Esq. and the Windham Police Department to usurp this stalking order as a political

bludgeon to intimidate, dissuade, and chill Maravelias’s voting activity. They have cornered

Maravelias into either surrendering his right to vote or risk likely arrest and criminal prosecution

for appearing at the polling location.

55. This outrageous, patently unreasonable conduct is typical of DePamphilis’s legal

harassment conduct against Maravelias since late 2016. From it, the Court should infer there is

no legitimate desire nor cause for a “protective” order other than DePamphilis’s obsession with

4
See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), permitting voter disenfranchisement solely as a criminal
punishment to convicted felons.
5
See Richardson, ibid., quoting Section II of the 14th Amendment, “except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime”.

16
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
bullying and harassing Maravelias. Accordingly, especially while the Court still can rule on the

merits of this stalking order, it should be dismissed.

56. As a matter of law, the entire stalking order must be dismissed because its

implementation violates Maravelias’s legal right to vote under the state and federal constitution.

The unlawful enforcement is declared, pending, and actual. The chilling effect on Maravelias’s

political activity cannot be cured unless the entire order is dismissed immediately. While the

Court could alternatively modify the stalking order to dissolve Terms 2, 5, and 12 thereof, the

remaining terms would provide no substantive protection warranting any order in the first place.

Given the expansive nature of the said offending stalking order terms, dissolving them would

functionally equate to dismissing the order lest a skeletal order remain ineffective to its intended

purpose.

57. While said necessary remedy is not legally beautiful, this Court cannot function as

the legislature’s nanny. It is the legislature’s responsibility to resolve the disastrously

problematic scheme they have recklessly created in their failure to appreciate this particular

situation, even though it is a statistically likely one indubitably set to occur again elsewhere.

F. In the Alternative, this Court Must Immediately Amend the Stalking Order to
Prevent Immediate, Irreparable Harm to Maravelias’s Voting Rights

58. In the alternative, this Court should dissolve Terms 2, 5, and 12 of the Stalking

Final Order of Protection, and clarify that Maravelias has the right to appear at his town’s polling

location for the purpose of voting in elections.

17
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul Maravelias respectfully prays this Honorable Court:

I. Grant this Motion;

II. Issue a declaratory judgment that Paul Maravelias is not eligible for absentee
voting in the 3/12/19 Windham town election according to RSA 657:1;

III. Issue a declaratory judgment that the named conspirators’ conduct is criminal and
constitutes voter suppression according to RSA 659:40;

IV. Deny the pending motion to extend the stalking order, and/or dismiss this stalking
order on the grounds set forth in this Motion, rendering the instant Motion moot
and the 12/10/18 Motion moot, or,

V. In the alternative, amend the Stalking Final Order of Protection to dissolve Terms
2, 5, and 12, effective immediately; and

VI. Grant and further relief as may be deemed just and necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,

March 8th, 2019 in propria persona

18
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 PAUL MARAVELIAS’S AFFIDAVIT CERTIFYING THE FOREGOING VERIFIED
EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO DISMISS OR AMEND STALKING ORDER
TO REMEDY VOTER SUPPRESSION CONSPIRACY AGAINST RESPONDENT

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE – COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM

On this ___ day of March 2019, before me, _________________________, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared ________________________, known to me (or satisfactorily
proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
that he/she executed the same for the purposes therein contained, who being by me first duly
sworn, on his oath, deposes and says:

All factual stipulations within the foregoing Motion are true

and accurate to the best of my knowledge as of 3/8/2019.
[affiant’s statement of facts]

__________________________________
[signature of affiant]

Paul J. Maravelias
[typed name of affiant]

34 Mockingbird Hill Rd, Windham, NH 03087

[address of affiant]

In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

____________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires: ________________

19
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Respondent’s Verified Emergency Ex Parte
Motion to Dismiss or Amend Stalking Order to Remedy Voter Suppression Conspiracy Against
Respondent was forwarded on this day through USPS Certified Mail to Simon R. Brown, Esq.,
counsel for the Petitioner, Christina DePamphilis, P.O. Box 1318, Concord, NH, 03302-1318.

______________________________

March 8th, 2019

20
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
 EXHIBIT A

Simon R. Brown, Esq. March 7th, 2019

Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP
PO Box 1318 Paul Maravelias
Concord, NH 03302-1318 34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
Windham, NH 03087

VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

RE: Voting in 3/12/19 Windham election and your comments in

Christina DePamphilis v. Paul Maravelias, 473-2016-CV-124

Dear Attorney Brown:

I write this message in light of what I consider to be a confusing and meritless comment you
made in a footnote about my lawful ability to vote while your client’s stalking order is in effect
against me. This footnote appeared in your Objection pleading to my 2/14/19 Motion to Dismiss
your client’s recent Motion to Extend the stalking order, still pending ruling.

There is an upcoming election on March 12th in Windham, where I am domiciled and

registered to vote. I desire to vote. I plan to be in Windham all day on 3/12/19. The polling
location is at Windham High School, my own high school where I graduated in 2013 as the
Valedictorian. I don’t have any employment responsibilities, religious commitments, or physical
disabilities that would prevent me from voting in person. Given the content of the election and
my known political positions, your client has a motivation to prevent me from voting.

Please let me know if you disagree with my position which follows. The current stalking
order cannot and does not lawfully prevent me from appearing in person at my town’s designated
polling location, WHS, to vote. You made some confusing reference to a mail-in ballot. I am not
legally obligated to go through any special procedures, compared to any other citizen, in order to
vote in an election just because in my case someone has a [criminally falsified] civil restraining
order against me.

If you disagree, please explain to me exactly how I should vote.

1
 EXHIBIT A

If I do not hear back from you in response by the end of 3/10/19, I will assume the
following:

• I will assume you and your client now agree with my position that it is fully lawful
for me to appear in person at my high school to vote in any election while the
stalking order is in effect, and assent to the said act;

• I will assume that your footnote was an attempt to bully me into not voting at all, to
advance your and your client’s political agenda;

• I will assume that you concede your footnote was in violation of Rule 3.1 of the New
Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct;

• I will assume that your footnote was in fact in violation of Rule 3.1 of the New
Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct; and

• I will assume that one of your client’s purposes in pursuing the stalking order and
recent extension thereof has been to chill and restrain my political expression and
voting activity.

Kind regards,
Paul J. Maravelias

2
EXHIBIT B
 EXHIBIT C

My name is______________________________ and I am requesting an absentee ballot for the Town Election held on 3/12/19.
print clearly

I cannot appear in person to vote and request an absentee ballot for the following reason: (Select one
below)
I will be absent from Windham on the day of the Election.
I am disabled.
I have a religious commitment.
I have an employment obligation. For the purposes of this application, the term
“employment” shall include the care of children and infirm adults, with or
without compensation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

I hereby declare that: (Select one below)

I am a duly qualified voter who is currently registered to vote in the Town of Windham.
I am not a registered voter, and am either disabled, or already absent until after Election Day,
and cannot appear in person to the Town Clerk or supervisors of the checklist to register to
vote. Therefore, I am requesting for the proper documentation to be sent to me.

My voting domicile (home) address is: ___________________________________Windham, NH

Please mail my absentee ballot to (if different than the above domicile address):
_________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of applicant _________________________________________ Date_____________

Best contact phone and email: _____________________________________________________

The applicant must sign this form to receive an absentee ballot.

Any person who witnesses and assists a voter with a disability in executing this form shall print and sign his or her name in the space below:

I attest that I assisted the applicant in executing this form because he/she has a disability.

Signature ______________________________________ Print Name ___________________________________________

To track your ballot go to: https://app.sos.nh.gov/Public/AbsenteeBallot.aspx

Mail, fax, or hand deliver this completed form to the Town Clerk’s Office. If in person, be prepared to present an ID.