I think
> the only other "good"
> example we have is the TRO process: you can pretty
> much get a TRO on
> anyone if you can convince a judge that your fear is
> real: you don't
> need an actual crime, or even really a valid threat.
No. You need to show:
1) Irreparable harm (that couldn't be fixed by money in a suit at law)
2) Reasonable likekihood of success on the merits of your case -- not just that you are afraid that something bad will happen. You have to show that it's reasonable to think you'd actually win. You need that for any extraordinary relief, from a TRO to a prelimary injunction. (For a permanenbt injunction, of course, you have to actually win on the merits.)
3) That the ballnce of harms betwen the parties favors you, that you will be hurt worse by not getting the TRO than the other party will be by your getting it
4) That the TRO will produce benefit to society.
In addition, aa TRO is strictly limited in duration,a nd you can olnly get a tre TRO, that is an ex parte one, rather than a preliminary injunction with a hearing, if you can show the judge that you can't serve the other party or that serving him would cause the irreparable harm you seek to delay -- and you still have to meet the other criteria.
There is absolurely nothing troublesome about this procedure from a civil libertarian perspective in my view.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com