Paul Maravelias v. David DePamphilis

The NH Supreme Court permits itself through “Rule 23” to “award attorney’s fees related to an appeal” “in extraordinary cases” if “deemed by the court to have been frivolous or in bad faith”. In 2018, they fully resolved Petitioner’s appeal on the merits without any suggestion it was frivolous or in bad faith. Months later in 2019, they granted Respondent’s post-mandate motion for punitive attorney’s fees with no explanation. They denied pro se Petitioner any opportunity to contest Respondent’s fraudulent fees itemization totaling $4,900 over a 6-month period, when only fees in connection with two 10/19/18 pleadings ($530 max) had been sought and granted. The Questions Presented Are

1. Did the NHSC violate the Due Process Clause to deny Petitioner’s requested pre-deprivation hearing and by failing to make a single finding of fact in support, while exercising original jurisdiction over the “extraor­ dinary’ sanction?

2. Did the NHSC retaliate against Petitioner to punish his critical speech, violating the 1st Amendment, and/or violate the “class of one” Equal Protection doctrine by issuing a two-sentence Order awarding $4,900 against him?

3. Is NHSC Rule 23 facially invalid under the 14th Amendment for vagueness and/or substantial lack of due process protections?