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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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-ofstate; 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. Ina 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 motion to reopen the matter? : . ~ 4. Under the facts described in Questions 1-3 above, in a quasi-criminal matter, is it a violation of due . process when the court denies a motion to reopen because it asserts that, even though it was physically impossible for the pro se respondent to arrive at the hearing on time, s/he could have participated telephonically? ‘ 5. Under the facts described in Questions 1-4 above, in a quasi-criminal matter, is it a violation of due process to effectively deny a respondent the opportunity to build a defense either via formal discovery or mediation? : 6. In an ex parte proceeding regarding a quasi-criminal matter, is it a