Ohio federal Judge Dan Polster vs. New Jersey attorney John McDermott standoff: 5th Amendment implications

I've just blogged about the continued standoff between the Ohio federal judge Dan Polster and the New Jersey attorney John McDermott.

I would like to separately emphasized one of the most important aspects of this standoff:

the compelled self-incrimination that Judge Polster is requiring of John McDermott.

John McDermott is not admitted in Ohio state courts, or in Judge Polster's federal court.

Judge Polster, as an accuser, is accusing John McDermott of giving improper legal advice to his brother, specifically, not to appear at a case management conference in that court.

If that was true, for John McDermott that would have constituted a criminal offense of unauthorized practice of law.

So, when Judge Polster is absolutely requiring that John McDermott come and answer charges against him charging him practically not only with contempt of court, but with engaging in the crime of unauthorized practice of law, and Judge Polster issued an order punishing John McDermott with $500/day fines until he comes to the court and waives his right to remain silent on the issue protected by the 5th Amendment, there is a whole additional level of illegality there.

Once again, I wonder whether Judge Polster will be disciplined for his actions against John McDermott, because he appears to be completely lacking the necessary temperament, knowledge, competence or integrity of a judge.