But that's not how the judge is quoted in the article. If it's really about the TRO, then the proof should be about whether the activities to be restrained actu

But that's not how the judge is quoted in the article. If it's really about the TRO, then the proof should be about whether the activities to be restrained actually happened - seems like that's not up for debate. Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.