Yes it was sourced to a blog, but I think it was reliable.  It has been published on the blog for a year and it is sourced to a court transcript. The pro se litigant was a Yale grad. The blog owner is a 3rd year law student and I don't think he would misquote a federal judge.  Isn't there a way to use that source, with whatever notations?

My statements of views are merely responding to yours.  You write "I did write that the CA rule creates a double standard, because it does. It says one set of rules governs how the court must act when all parties are represented by counsel, and another set applies to pro se litigants.".  I don't think that is true. What rule are your referring to?  To the best of my knowledge all the written rules are exactly the same in all courts for both pro ses and attorney except for 1.) ECF, which pro ses are frequently not allowed to use, 2.) pro se forms, which  pro ses aren't required to use.  An attorney could probably use the pro se forms if they wanted. 3.) appellate appendixes  in pro se cases the entire case file is sent over and there is no provision for joint appendixes, a disadvantage for pro ses.  There are also other procedures for pro ses, which are not in the rulessee the appellate procedures which I quoted from the case manuals. As I read the California manual, it seemed merely to instruct the judges to provide more explanation.  I don't remember reading anything that seemed to indicate that a pro se paper would be processed but the same paper from an attorney would be dismissed.

Criminal legislation is supposed to be clear.  A crime is supposed to be a crime no matter who does it unless they are mentally ill or a child.

If someone is jailed for disrupting a court, the Federal Rules require that the court say what the disruption consists of, so there should not be a question of what it was.

Please give me an example of a court order that you think a person can be jailed for not obeying, other than not paying alimony or child support, or not testifying when subpoened about a crime or not responding to a subpoena by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.