Judge Dan Polster, on the same day, issued an order dismissing the lawsuit against John McDermott's brother and, at the same time, issued an order requiring John McDermott (who was not attorney of record for any parties in that case, was not admitted to practice law in the state of Ohio or in Judge Polster's court) to personally appear THE NEXT DAY to answer civil contempt charges as to why he should not be held in contempt for allegedly telling his brother not to appear at the case management conference (on the day when his brother's motion to dismiss was granted by the same judge and the case against the brother was dismissed).
There is no indication in the docket that John McDermott was served with the order to appear in civil contempt proceedings, or with the bench warrant.
John McDermott is, once again, practicing and living in New Jersey, and Judge Polster was summoning John McDermott to appear in Ohio the next day after the order to appear was issued, and without serving the order on John McDermott.
Actions of Judge Polster were clearly illegal.
Whenever people's liberty is involved, they have to be served with such warrants personally or at the very least by certified mail.
It takes time for orders to travel from state to state, so Judge McDermott definitely had no right to expect John McDermott to appear in federal court without ever having being served with the contempt charges in accordance to the law.
Moreover, the contempt charges were issued by Judge Polster, making Judge Polster an accuser against John McDermott.
On June 9, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision in Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. __ (2016) holding, among other things, that when an accuser also acts as an adjudicator in the same court proceeding, such a situation constitutes a violation of the due process of the accused.
In other words, a judge cannot act as an accuser and prosecutor in the same court case.
Yet, that is exactly what Judge Polster is doing in his standoff against attorney John McDermott.