I agree, however it's important to emphasize that neither self-representation nor insulting the judge are crimes (outside of the disturbingly gray area of contempt).
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."
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."