civil protection order granted off of fabricated set of counsidences and petitioner wanting to use cpo to squash respondents ability to attend doctors appointments for no reason but simply control. petitioning to vacate cpo after recently acquired evidence showing malice on the petitioners side. Legal Knowledge: Failed to see context of message was constitutionally protected speech excluded from the definition of course of conduct and failed to identify or meet the merits of course of conduct within 90 days of filling cpo. Fairness & Impartiality: before cross examination of petitioner judge addressed respondents stating she would not accept any harassment in her court room. clearly showing a bias already before a findings of facts. Judicial Temperament: she talked down to Respondent and did not give Respondent any room to speak and took very little effort to clarify facts. Communication: started off by stating she felt Respondent could be stalking. no statement of facts simply a feeling. Timeliness: she made a decision within an hour on a decision that compromised the constitutional rights of respondent and minor child in common.