The danger between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’

[Straw Man]

3. Picking cherries again?

From the same link you cited above:

In New York -- and this is generally true elsewhere, with superficial variations -- TRO's (here in NY, "temporary orders of protection" or TROs) are issued "ex parte". Different states have different standards for what constitutes enough danger to the applicant, but any court order issued by a judge ex parte is by definition based on one side only without any due process.

To obtain a Permanent Restraining Order, however, an applicant has to face the Respondent in court -- or, at least, prove that the Respondent knows about the hearing and decided not to go. This "notice" requirement is due process under the Constitution. The Respondent MUST be informed that a hearing is about to be held, or no Permanent Restraining Order will follow. That notice has to be served. Until then, even the TRO is NOT fully enforceable.

There are two important facts you may not be aware of.

First: The "ex parte" part of this TRO -- "T" for Temporary -- is crucial. The phrase ex parte means that the order was issued automatically as a matter of public policy, without hearing both sides. There's no proof it's legit. It's a Temporary legal protection for the Applicant. ... just in case.

Next: New York TRO's "are not a finding of wrongdoing" because they are issued ex parte. The "ex parte" automatic granting of a TRO means it is a procedural approval that has NOTHING to do with guilt. An employer. for instance, can't retaliate against an employee who was served with a TRO that was issued ex parte. This is a crucial legal distinction for any order issued ex parte.