California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6 provides in pertinent part as follows: "(a)(1) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section. . . . "(b) For the purposes of this section: "(1) 'Course of conduct' is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, facsimile, or computer email. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of 'course of conduct.' "(2) 'Credible threat of violence' is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. "(3) 'Harassment' is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." Section 527.6 was intended "'to protect the individual's right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as guaranteed by the California Constitution.'" (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1412; Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1250.) This, then, was the law to be applied by Judge Hall in making his order, which order may be based on declarations as well as oral testimony. (Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 728; Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 733, fn. 6; see generally 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Provisional Remedies, 322, p. 262.) "California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6 'was enacted "to protect the individual's right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as guaranteed by the California Constitution." ' Its purpose is 'to provide expedited injunctive relief to victims of "harassment." ' " (Kobey v. Morton (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1059.) Under the statute a "person who has suffered harassment" may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting the harassment. ( 527.6, subd. (a).) "Harassment" is defined as "unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at the plaintiff that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the plaintiff, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff." ( 527.6, subd. (b).) " 'Credible threat of violence' is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose." ( 527.6, subd. (b)(2).) " 'Course of conduct' is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means. . . . Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of 'course of conduct.' " ( 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) An order under section 527.6 requires "clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists." ( 527.6, subd. (d).) "The trial court's decision to grant a permanent injunction rests within its sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion." (Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904, 912.) "However, to the extent the trial court had to review the evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, and draw inferences from the disputed facts, an appellate court will review such factual findings under a substantial evidence standard. Our power in this regard 'begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.' " (Ibid.)