Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Please find enclosed an original and seven copies of the following pleadings to be filed in
the above-referenced case:
Sincerely,
Paul J. Maravelias
SUPREME COURT
NO. 2018-0483
Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias
1. A party cannot come back to this Court months-later and petition for
fees within a done, closed case, whining about the opposing party’s disliked factual
positions. Rule 23 clearly states, “Costs will be deemed waived if a request for
taxation of costs with itemization is not filed within 30 days after the date on the
order in the case.” The Court’s Order here was dated 1/16/19, almost 3 months ago.
1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
2. Insofar as Appellee covertly attempts to request comprehensive
“extraordinary” attorney’s fees within the umbrella of the 30-day time limit. There
must doubtlessly be such a procedural time limit bearing upon such requests, and
another bad-faith litigation tactic to harass Maravelias, or else she would have filed
the “request” long-ago. The DePamphilis actors are currently infuriated by the
course of recent trial court proceedings, where their daring lies within the recent
her bold lies at the recent 2019 trial court extension Hearing, explaining the delay
2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
II. Appellee’s Motion Is Precluded by Collateral Estoppel, Even if It Were
Not Untimely, Since the Court Already Considered and Rejected the
Relief She Now Requests Months-Later
Brief. She had appended the obligatory DePamphilis prayer for attorney’s fees to
both said Motions. Regardless of the flawed or nonexistent merits of said Motions,
this Court DENIED the requested attorney’s fees relief in connection with filing
brought those two Motions in bad-faith, ripe with patently unreasonable assertions.
would have ordered sanctions against Appellee DePamphilis for bringing two
baseless Motions to Strike. The Court also denied Appellee’s baseless, bad-faith
request in December to dispose of this entire appeal because Maravelias stated some
in-record facts beneficial to his legal position which Appellee did not like.
requests. Collateral estoppel applies. Appellee already litigated her contention about
the two motions and whether she was entitled to attorney’s fees for routine appellate
3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
10. Therefore, as a matter of law, Appellee’s “request” has zero potential
legal viability. It should be stricken from the record, let alone denied substantively.
punitive fees against her legal abuse victim, she is making a fact-based argument on
the merits of said “request”. But this familiar exercise was already performed, ad
nauseum, throughout the course of the appeal. The Court’s Final Order denied the
“further relief” requested in Appellee’s two Motions to Strike, i.e. for “reasonable
attorney’s fees”.
12. Appellee therefore is asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on those
two Motions. However, Rule 22 imposes a 10-day post-order time limit for motions
must still obey the Court’s rules. She could have filed a timely Motion for
Court to reconsider any disagreed-with aspect of its final decision by failing to file a
4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
14. By reason of the above, there is no possible way Appellee’s improper
3/22/19 “request” could procure relief without unscrupulously cheating around this
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
April 1st, 2019 in propria persona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Appellant’s Motion to Strike
Appellee’s Request of Award of Attorneys’ Fees was forwarded on this day through
USPS Certified Mail to Simon R. Brown, Esq., counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee,
Christina DePamphilis, P.O. Box 1318, Concord, NH, 03302-1318.
______________________________
April 1st, 2019
5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
NO. 2018-0483
Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias
NOW COMES Paul Maravelias (“Appellant”) and respectfully submits the within
is the defendant in this case, attacked by movant DePamphilis, yet he somehow faces
1. This appeal case has been closed, done, and over-with since almost three
months ago. The DePamphilis family, angry at having been exposed as extreme liars at
1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
the recent trial court extension hearing, now returns to this Court to give a shot at
23-year-old who can’t afford to live apart from his family and whose scant income
executive – has committed the following acts of cruel judicial extortion through his
a. In 2016, having his daughter file a false stalking petition which Maravelias later
spent almost $10,000 to appeal while a 21-year-old student, an appeal this Court
rejected because Maravelias did not know to “preserve” legal arguments while
an ignorant pro se defendant in the trial court, before he got an appellate lawyer;
c. In 2018, after threatening and harassing Maravelias to the point Maravelias filed
an honest stalking petition against him, using his lawyer to maneuver the
malleable despotic biddings of exposed tyrant judge John J. Coughlin to order
Maravelias to pay DePamphilis $9,000 of attorney’s fees based on a finding that
Maravelias’s “positions” were “patently unreasonable”, although the same exact
“positions” were recently adopted by the same trial court to issue
DePamphilis’s recent stalking order against Maravelias (see Exhibit A);
2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
the instant case, in which DePamphilis and his daughter Christina incitatively
harassed/bullied Maravelias on the internet through vulgar gestures with
Appellee’s 22-year-old ex-boyfriend, whom she recently discarded so she can
have more sex partners in college;
e. Causing this Court, at the drop of a hat, to issue the demented extortionary
aberration in 2018-0376 which Maravelias confides this Court will soon correct
in response to the pending Motion to Reconsider, unless it wishes to make
national headlines of shame of reproach in the United States Supreme Court, etc.
against poor Maravelias through manipulating the legal system, Maravelias is destitute
appellate level is absurd. Rule 23 attorney’s fees are for “extraordinary” cases of
“frivolous or bad-faith” appeals. On the contrary, this appeal was ripe with compelling
corrupt trial court judge. It surpasses insanity to assert Maravelias should be punished
for defending himself by exercising his right to appeal such unlawful, criminal
3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
despotism by Judge John J. Coughlin – an un-convicted federal lawbreaker (See 18
complained-of exhibits were from an earlier hearing in the stalking case, but they were
III. Appellee’s Two Vexatious “Motions to Strike” Were Not Granted, As She
Falsely Claims They Were
“The plaintiff’s motions to strike exhibits to the defendant’s brief and reply brief are
granted in part and denied in part. Pages 197 to 221 of the appendix to the defendant’s
brief and pages 1 to 23 of the appendix to the defendant’s reply brief are stricken
because they consist of pleadings and documents that were not submitted to the
trial court in connection with the decisions that are the subject matter of the
present appeal, but were instead submitted in related matters. See Sup. Ct. R.
13(1). The remaining relief requested by the plaintiff in both motions is denied.”
(Emphasis added)
denied in part”. Appellee’s “request” makes patently false claims and is an example of
rule-breaking, fraudulent conduct. The Court DENIED the relief she now requests.
interpretation of Rule 13. Maravelias cannot possibly be penalized for obeying the
4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
thereof was ever brought into existence; the contested materials were undisputedly
10. As the Court knows, disputes over evidentiary and issue preservation
arise in many appeals. It is an inherent, routine aspect of appellate litigation. The same
goes for incendiary, offensive, and verifiably truthful comments against an opposing
11. Even if Maravelias did commit an error by attaching materials from the
trial court record, it is positively ridiculous to say this renders his entire appeal
12. When similar disputes have arisen in other appeals, the Court has not
issued punitive appellate fee orders to similarly situated parties or even to parties who
have openly and doubtlessly violated Rule 13 or other rules, unlike Maravelias. What
this Court did to Maravelias in its libelous 1/16/19 Order is “punishment enough” for
whatever sense of wrong this Court feels done against it by Maravelias’s mere legal
accordingly, he must not be subject to arbitrary punitive extortionary acts done under
the penetrable excuse of Rule 23 attorney’s fees where totally inapplicable. Such
5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
would disparage this Court’s 14th Amendment-mandated duty to apply the law equally
to all people.
V. Appellee Wants Maravelias to Literally Pay for Her Own Licentious and
Criminal Misconduct, Objectively Documented in the Record, Which She
Chose to Make into Relevant Legal Facts by The Certain Ways She
Attacked Maravelias
13. Appellee’s “request” is pure evil if not totally nonsensical. Beyond the
within the course of litigation to discredit his legal abuser’s baseless attacks.
choices. She cannot legally attack Paul Maravelias by her father’s design with false
“stalking” accusations and then expect Maravelias not to advocate facts beneficial to
his legal position. Here, the DePamphilis actors animated their original 2016 legal
abuse by whining that Maravelias was a few years older than DePamphilis in 2016
when he kindly invited her to dinner. Maravelias rebutted this with legally relevant
testimony that she has had sexual relationships with older men his age, defeating her
she herself publicized bragging how far she and her ex-boyfriend moved the bed. Now
Christina DePamphilis has the audacity to whine to New Hampshire’s highest court
demanding that her legal abuse victim essentially pay-up for referencing her own
6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
15. The same is true of her documented alcohol and drug use (e.g. A18,
admitted as evidence by the trial court). It is the DePamphilis actors who are bringing
these unfortunate facts once again into the limelight, not Maravelias. Maravelias is just
legally relevant facts. DePamphilis has never even denied most or all of those
undisputedly true facts, since she knows they have been shown to be true. An
conduct in this case. See Maravelias’s 12/10/18 cease and desist letter to Attorney
7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
Appellee’s counsel needs to go back to law school and learn the three elements of
VIII. Paul Maravelias Should Not Be Further Extorted and Financially Abused
for Mentioning Judge John J. Coughlin’s Alleged Criminal and Felonious
Acts, as Appellee Suggests
20. Appellant did indeed point-out Judge John J. Coughlin vile lawbreaking,
attempting to ban a certain public “social media” exhibit from being used in this
appellate case, a criminal violation of the witness tampering statute, among others.
21. Mr. Coughlin also committed federal crime (18 U.S.C. §242) when he
willfully violated Maravelias’s constitutional rights under color of state law; see A161.
22. It is John J. Coughlin who should be punished for his lawbreaking, not
the victim thereof: the Appellant who simply made legal arguments about the said.
submitted Appellant’s Motion for Award of Fees and Costs, showing that – if anyone
8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
WHEREFORE, Defendant Paul Maravelias respectfully prays this Honorable
Court:
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
April 1st, 2019 in propria persona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
______________________________
9
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias
NOW COMES Paul Maravelias (hereinafter, “Defendant”), on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, and respectfully submits the within Motion for Clarification pursuant to U.S.
CONST., Amend. XIV, and N.H. CONST., Pt. I., Art. 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15. Maravelias
respectfully demands this Court apply the law equally at all times and not discriminate against
certain subjectively disliked individuals. In support thereof Maravelias states the following:
because the Defendant allegedly made “offensive and hateful” “statements” in public (on the
“internet”) to third-parties. See 3/8/19 Order. The Court reasoned that this behavior proves
“hostility” towards Plaintiff, therefore showing “legitimate concern” for her “safety” and that
such “fear for her safety” is “reasonable” because of the “offensive” statements in public.
1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
This Court held hearings thereon in February 2018. Maravelias alleged and corroborated that
David not only engaged in extreme offensive and hateful statements in public (which were also
defamatory, calling Maravelias a “sexual predator” and “piece of shit stalker”), but also
Maravelias, containing vulgar gestures and instrumentalizing his daughter’s new boyfriend
3. Judge John J. Coughlin not only denied Maravelias’s Stalking Petition but even
forced Maravelias to pay DePamphilis over $9,000 in attorney’s fees, claiming that Maravelias’s
Petition was “patently unreasonable” and that Maravelias provided “no credible evidence” for his
accusations.1 See 5/11/18 Order in 473-2017-CV-00150. Maravelias then appealed. The biased,
activist, bad-faith Supreme Court refused to reverse. See NHSC Case No. 2018-0376.
4. This Court must clarify whether proving a defendant made “offensive and hateful
statements in public” to “disparage” a plaintiff is a viable cause of action for claims to civil
5. When Maravelias filed a Stalking Petition, alleging this same element and indeed
far more, and ultimately proved this element and far more, Judge John J. Coughlin committed
1
This Court’s finding surpassed insanity, since Maravelias provided witness testimony and even physical screenshot
evidence proving his allegation(s) beyond any and all doubt, regardless of whether they raised to the level of
stalking.
2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
extortionary judicial abuse against Maravelias by blindly declaring the petition “patently
unreasonable”.
defended without any reasonable basis in the facts provable by evidence or any reasonable claim
in the law as it is, or as it might arguably be held to be.” Glick v. Naess, 142 N.H. 172 (1998).
7. Here, it is irrelevant whether the parties’ claims against each other of “offensive
and hateful” comments, between the two stalking cases, are factually true. The instant question is
purely legal: if there is a “reasonable claim” in the law for a contention, it cannot be “patently
8. In one stalking case, Maravelias alleged David DePamphilis made offensive and
hateful statements to disparage Maravelias in public (and much worse). This Court issued an
Order on 5/11/18 (Coughlin, J) pronouncing the said allegation “patently unreasonable”: i.e., an
allegation which, even if proven true, is not an actionable contention for relief for RSA 633:3-a
stalking orders, requiring a “course of conduct” placing a person in fear of their “personal safety”
and permitting extension similarly only when there is ongoing concern for a plaintiff’s “safety”.
9. But here, the Court’s recent extension 3/8/19 Order granted stalking order relief
based solely upon a finding that a defendant made “hateful and offensive” statements in public.
10. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST, Amend. XIV. See also N.H. CONST, Pt. I, Art. 2, “All
men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and
defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of
seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
11. There is a class of citizens whose stalking order petitions have been denied and
12. There is a class of citizens who have been ordered to pay attorney’s fees under the
exception to the regular American rule that each party pays their own fees: the “patently
13. There is a class of citizens who have not been ordered to pay attorney’s fees,
Protection rights according the U.S. Supreme Court’s established “class of one” of doctrine
which applies even in civil suits for money damages where no “fundamental rights” are at stake,
as they are here in the context of a restraining order. See generally Araiza, W.D., 2013.
“Flunking the class-of-one/failing equal protection.” Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 55, p.435. See also
4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
15. The Court’s acts against Maravelias in the context of stalking order relief under
RSA 633:3-a are logically incompatible and violate constitutional due process and equal
protection rights:
a) When Maravelias was a civil stalking plaintiff, his allegation that someone made
offensive and hateful comments against him, showing hostility and therefore
reasonable fear, was deemed “patently unreasonable” (i.e., an allegation which even
if true, cannot possibly result in civil protective order relief under RSA 633:3-a).
b) When Maravelias was a civil stalking defendant, the Court granted the stalking
order relief through exact same reasoning it previously rejected in Maravelias’s
petition and deemed “patently unreasonable”, forcing impecunious 22-year-old
Maravelias to pay his alleged-stalker over $9,000 dollars in attorney’s fees.
16. This Court’s orders necessarily either extort Maravelias wrongfully of over
wrongfully extended stalking order. Either one or the other must be true: there is no logically
IV. THE COURT MUST EITHER DISSOLVE ITS PUNITITVE FEE AWARD
AGAINST MARAVELIAS OR DISSOLVE THE STALKING ORDER
EXTENSION AGAINST MARAVELIAS
17. Equal Protection demands that the Court cannot have it both ways. There have
been zero changes to the applicable statutory or case-law landscapes in the past few months
when the Court took the above-referenced, logically incompatible actions against Maravelias.
18. This Court has original jurisdiction over both actions. Regarding the 5/11/18
punitive fees award against Maravelias, this Court has full authority to reverse it. “A trial court,
however, has the authority to revisit an earlier ruling on a [motion] if it becomes aware that the
5
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
ruling may be incorrect.” Route 12 Books Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569, 575 (2003) (in
19. The Supreme Court’s order in 2018-0376 has no preclusive effect as follows in
20. First, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction generically does not restrain this
Court from doing the right thing, upon new information, within this Court’s original jurisdiction.
I.e., the Supreme Court acknowledges the trial court’s authority and only acts upon reversible
21. Second, the Supreme Court did not uphold the fees awards on the “patently
unreasonable” grounds; instead, they upheld it on the “bad-faith” grounds and offered one single
threadbare sentence noting that their “review of the record” caused them to feel Maravelias acted
in bad-faith, with zero specific references or citations whatsoever. The Supreme Court’s obvious
bad-faith, patently unreasonable screw-Maravelias order primarily concerned the other aspect of
that appeal, which were the merits of the stalking order dismissal, not the fees award.
22. Maravelias does not presently seek to relitigate or collaterally attack the dismissal
of his stalking petition, since the legal question of viability of offensive public speech for
stalking orders does not span the substantive fact-based question on the merits of whether David
23. However, as a matter of law, the baseless fees award predicated upon the
allegation that Maravelias’s theory was “patently unreasonable” – the same exact theory this
Court has recently used to extend a stalking order against Maravelias – must unquestionably be
reversed.
6
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
V. CONCLUSION
24. If the Court stands-by its legal reasoning for extending the instant stalking order,
Paul Maravelias plans to file two new Stalking Petitions against both David DePamphilis
and Christina DePamphilis. Such petitions will proceed upon the Court’s own theory of relief
that the DePamphilis’ conduct against Maravelias has met and far-surpassed the communication
of “offensive and hateful” statements disparaging Maravelias in public, and thus a stalking order
shall issue lest the Court openly commit subjective discrimination against Maravelias as clear as
25. However, since Maravelias was wrongly penalized the first and only time he filed
therefore cautiously seeks this Court’s clarification first. Before filing any stalking petitions,
Maravelias wishes to confirm that alleging “offensive and hateful” statements made in public
shows “hostility” substantiating reasonable safety concern viable for civil stalking relief.
violation in both state and federal courts if this Court cannot resolve the injustice by either
reversing the stalking order extension or reversing the punitive fees award against Maravelias.
7
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
EXHIBIT A
II. Clarify whether the allegation that a defendant’s public offensive and hateful
communications about a plaintiff cause said plaintiff reasonable fear for purposes
of RSA 633:3-a relief;
a. Vacate and reverse its 3/8/19 Order granting extension in this case; or
IV. Grant any further relief as may be deemed just and necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Defendant’s Motion for Clarification was
forwarded on this day through USPS Certified Mail to Simon R. Brown, Esq., counsel for the
Petitioner, Christina DePamphilis, P.O. Box 1318, Concord, NH, 03302-1318.
______________________________
8
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
NO. 2018-0483
Christina DePamphilis
v.
Paul Maravelias
NOW COMES Paul Maravelias (“Appellant”) and respectfully submits the within
Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Appellant submits this Motion in case the Court
does not grant his Motion to Strike Appellee’s similar 3/22/19 motion for fees and costs,
choosing to enter the merits of both parties’ requests for fees. In support thereof
“request” possibly could. The critical difference is that the Court has not already denied
for “fees” which are baseless and effectively an untimely motion to reconsider.
1
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Exhibits and Arguments Presented in
misconduct in this case, bringing baseless and dishonest contentions remorselessly even
unreasonable and vile conduct. Accordingly, he should be awarded reasonable fees and
costs to reimburse the damage DePamphilis’s malicious misconduct has caused him.
4. Appellee knows the Court’s rules but chooses to violate them willfully to
harass, burden, and preoccupy Maravelias for a tactical advantage in the underlying
day” time limit for such requests. Attorney Brown also knows that his “request” is
effectively a motion to reconsider this Court’s 1/16/19 ruling denying the outrageous fee
requests, and that Rule 22 imposes a “10 day” post-order limit for motions to reconsider.
which this Court should sanction. The angry DePamphilis actors are attempting to gain an
time, forcing him to respond to such frivolous, hostile, and untimely pleadings.
2
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
III. DePamphilis’s Criminal Falsification Conduct to Harass and Defame
Maravelias Through This Stalking Order Has Recently Been Further-
Exposed in the Trial Court
requests, the Court must adopt a reinforced view of DePamphilis’s bad-faith criminal
falsification. She recently moved the trial court to extend the stalking order for five years,
alleging the Maravelias “followed” her while driving to “cheer practice” in Windham on
abusers inexplicably switched the alleged time to “4:00pm”. Then Maravelias reproduced
actually miles-away in here Concord, at this very Supreme Court, filing a pleading!1
8. Such liars and unrepentant criminal fraudsters have no place in this Court,
IV. Appellee Has Usurped This Appeal as a Forum to Libel, Defame, and
Disparage Maravelias’s Honorable Reputation Rather than Focusing on
Relevant Legal Arguments.
1
See Maravelias’s 10/23/18 pleading in Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis (2018-0376), which Maravelias
coincidentally happened to be filing here in Concord around the same exact time DePamphilis chose to engineer the
exposed “following” falsehood, lying that Maravelias was “following” her to Windham HS “in his vehicle”.
3
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087
disproven, false, and immaterial libelous attacks against Maravelias. See Appellant’s
is owned reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection with defending DePamphilis’s
improper, vexatious, burdensome, and ad hominem litigation tactics at the appellate level.
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
April 1st, 2019 in propria persona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a copy of the within Appellant’s Motion for Award of Fees
and Costs was forwarded on this day through USPS Certified Mail to Simon R. Brown,
Esq., counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee, Christina DePamphilis, P.O. Box 1318, Concord,
NH, 03302-1318.
______________________________
4
PAUL MARAVELIAS – 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM, NH 03087