Even if you are 100% right, you don't represent yourself in court, and you certainly don't insult the judge or court. This is the quickest way to lose your case. If he's lucky, his courtroom trolling may have provoked the judge into overstepping the law and it'll be tossed out.
Even among Mr Shuler's defenders there is widespread recognition that he has potentially crossed the line into defamation on more than one occasion. That's not the problem. The problem is what appears to be a lack of due process so far. Quoting the article and the illustrious Ken White:
"But Mr. White and others say that before a judge can take the step of banning speech, libel must be proved at trial, or at least over a litigation process more involved than a quick succession of hearings, with the only evidence presented by the plaintiffs."
Their list is out of date then.
But even without this sort of defense, he should still have the right to free speech that everyone in US gets.
The problem isn't that he's being punished by the courts, it's that he's seeing indefinite jail time just for opening his mouth. There is a crime here, but the punishment doesn't fit it.
If they believe that the order is flawed, the correct way to go forward is to still comply, then raise the case in a higher court. Not complying only means that the judge can hold him in jail for the rest of his life if he chooses to, without any impropriety.
Both the Supreme Court and the NRA disagree with you. I think you need to recheck your research.