He didn’t request the bailiff to do anything. Listen to it again. He basically said “if you continue to be disruptive I’ll hold you in contempt”…and the guy insists “is that civil or criminal?”…and the judge won’t answer…but the guy keeps pushing…and when the judge can’t come up with an answer, he just says “at this point I withdraw my request”. He had not said a single word to the bailiff. I do not know what you’re talking about.
I don’t understand. “It is a credible threat if you don’t rat yourself out.” …but if you do rat yourself out…it’s a credible threat?
“refusing to follow some legal point of order is not […] a refusal to obey an order issued by the court”
The judge is considered the court. Judges on the bench refer to themselves in the third person as “this court”. The judge told him he needed to be quiet, quit being disruptive, and essentially to sit down and go along with everything. And the guy didn’t do it. I do not understand how that is not “a refusal to obey an order issued by the court”.
He says this was 5 or 6 years ago. What are they waiting for?
As for everything else you said, I don’t see how it really supports your position that this is all nonsense. If anything you sound to be agreeing with this guy’s essential position.