1. Does asking someone for help to learn about the controllers that are installed at the plant at which
s/he was working for the summer, to talk about what it was like to go to school in her/his hometown,
to talk about her/his academic program and career opportunities, and to talk about ideas for
improving education 18 months earlier; writing a letter that confronts her/him about some behavioral
concerns 17 months earlier; trying to persuade her/him to attend two professional-level short courses
with others who were invited and watching some of her/his softball games via a publicly available
video link from out-of-state 9 months earlier; returning a fundraiser purchase via mail from out-of-
state; and/or any of the statements in the petition that Respondent filed with the Dunn County Clerk
of Court on December 19, 2017 specifically indicate, either individually or in combination, the
presence of an emergency, a present or imminent threat of danger, and/or that irreparable harm will
occur before a motion for injunction can be heard, thereby justifying the use of an ex parte
proceeding to obtain a TRO, with respect to which proceeding the Respondent and the court failed to
attempt to notify Petitioner or allow him to participate in person or telephonically?

2. In a matter where there is no emergency, present or imminent threat of danger, and/or indication
that irreparable harm will occur before a motion for injunction can be heard, if, during the week
before the week of Christmas, a court works reduced hours and fails to notify the public that it is not
working its normal hours, if the pro se respondent in a case checks the court's website to learn that
only the court's normal working hours are posted and plans her/his time accordingly, and if, as soon
as s/he knows that it will be physically impossible for her/him to arrive at the court on time for a
hearing, the pro se respondent calls the court during normal working hours, approximately 52 hours
into the 145 hour window between when s/he was served and when the hearing is scheduled, to try
to reschedule the hearing, finds that the court is not answering its telephone, and leaves detailed
messages regarding her/his circumstances, is it a violation of due process when the court proceeds
with the hearing by involuntary default and denies a motion to reopen the matter because it blames
that party for not calling while the court was open, i.e., knowing that the court was closing early for
Christmas 33 hours after the party was served?

3. Under the facts described in Questions 1 and 2, above, when a pro se respondent calls a court to
inform the court that it is physically impossible for her/him to arrive on time for a hearing, finds that
the court has closed early for the Christmas holiday without notifying the public, leaves detailed
messages with both the Clerk of Courts and the clerk for the court regarding her/his circumstances
and what s/he is doing to get to the hearing as soon as s/he can, and indicates in one or more of these
messages that s/he is calling to try to get the hearing "rescheduled", is it a violation of due process
when the court proceeds with the hearing by involuntary default, because the party did not request
to have the hearing "continued", "adjourned", or "rescheduled", and then denies a

Does asking someone for help constitute an emergency, threat of danger, or irreparable harm?