What difference would a court order make?
Agreed. A court order issued upon the claim of one person, no third party input, and no opportunity for the respondent (?) to rebut is not a lawful adjudication of anything. The way such an action should work is that the concerned party files a petition, the judge reviews it and grants a hearing, the subject gets served with a writ to appear, (then lawyers up) goes to court, argues and is then adjudged based on evidence and response, then either the petition is granted or rejected....
Me telling you that Joe is nuts is not anything more than gossip and innuendo.
Everyone knows that you do not have to answer the door for anyone, right? That’s what a video monitor is for.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.