I like to see balance, too- and so do judges.
However, that ship has sailed, and unless Alice has got some more evidence, she will lose, and Ioan will get a permanent RO.
If Alice had evidence, she would have filed herself. However that is not what she wants. She wanted him back before (so why would she file), now she wants to see him destroyed. If she had evidence that countered what Ioan said in the paperwork, she had her chance to provide it when she filed her response. Her lawyer filed a document that mistakenly treated it as if it is a defamation suit. It isn't. It is a harassment suit that aims to stop abuse. I don't buy the first amendment argument one iota. If that argument was valid, nobody would ever get a RO, ever.
BTW, ex parte simply means without notice to the party. Often those hearings just have the judge and the applicant. In the UK such hearings are reserved for the most urgent and violent of cases.
For many RO's (or injunctions in the UK) harassment would not be considered so urgent as to justify an ex parte hearing, but as long as the evidence is there the RO injunction will still be granted, with a TRO first (interim order in the UK), and it is usual for the respondent to have some notice and be able to be heard before the TRO is made. Ex Parte is only relevant to notice to the respondent, it has no bearing on the overall merits of the substantive application. From what I have seen, Ioan's application has merit.
However, that ship has sailed, and unless Alice has got some more evidence, she will lose, and Ioan will get a permanent RO.
If Alice had evidence, she would have filed herself. However that is not what she wants. She wanted him back before (so why would she file), now she wants to see him destroyed. If she had evidence that countered what Ioan said in the paperwork, she had her chance to provide it when she filed her response. Her lawyer filed a document that mistakenly treated it as if it is a defamation suit. It isn't. It is a harassment suit that aims to stop abuse. I don't buy the first amendment argument one iota. If that argument was valid, nobody would ever get a RO, ever.
BTW, ex parte simply means without notice to the party. Often those hearings just have the judge and the applicant. In the UK such hearings are reserved for the most urgent and violent of cases.
For many RO's (or injunctions in the UK) harassment would not be considered so urgent as to justify an ex parte hearing, but as long as the evidence is there the RO injunction will still be granted, with a TRO first (interim order in the UK), and it is usual for the respondent to have some notice and be able to be heard before the TRO is made. Ex Parte is only relevant to notice to the respondent, it has no bearing on the overall merits of the substantive application. From what I have seen, Ioan's application has merit.