Contempt trial violates 3 1A clauses

Yesterday I was found in contempt of court. I don't know why I ever expected a fair hearing from this kangaroo court.

My ex-wife argued that this blog is embarrassing to her because I "use it to tell his story". She said that I use it to tell untruths, distortions, and misleading statements.

I asked her for her best example of an untruth, and she cites these two sentences from my complaint to the state psychology board:

Perlmutter was paid $27,900 for his evaluation, report, and testimony. He only made a temporary recommendation for the next 6-9 months, and suggested going back to him for an update to get instructions on what to do after that.

(Here are followups to that complaint.) She said that this made him look greedy, that his recommendation was not just for 6-9 months, and that an update with him was not required. She spent a lot of time attacking me for submitting this complaint, saying that it was harmful to the psychologist, embarrassing to her, and damaging to the system.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the May 2010 order that Ken Perlmutter wrote:

11. In the event father selects Plan 2 or 3 after the Plan has been in effect for at least nine months father may request that the Court expand his visitation appropriately. This expansion may include: unsupervised visits, longer visits, overnight visits. It will be up to the Court to make that determination. The Court may also determine that the parents shall have an updated child custody evaluation in order to receive input from an update to the current child custody evaluation with specific recommendations to address the parents' then current custodial requests.

Am I wrong here? You decide. It seems to me that my description was accurate, and that the judge could readily verify that it was accurate. I certainly could not have been misleading the state board because I also sent the order along with my complaint.

My ex-wife complained about many things from my blog, but said that she was only asking the court to order me to remove exact quotes because I use quotes to add credibility to what I say.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I pointed out that my ex-wife was asking to violate three clauses of this at once. She was acting against free speech, free press (of this blog), and my right to petition the Government (by complaining to a state agency about a licensed psychologist).

Update: A reader argues that Perlmutter might not have literally suggested an update, because he merely wrote a order that the court may decide to have an update done. I disagree.

The Webster's dictionary definition of suggest is:

sug·gest, transitive verb
1a: (obsolete)
b: to call forth : evoke
c: to mention or imply as a possibility
d: to propose as desirable or fitting
e: to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis

Maybe Perlmutter did not "call forth" an update, but he certainly mentioned and implied it as a possibility, he certainly proposed it as desirable and fitting, and he certainly offered it for consideration and as a hypothesis. He wrote it into a court order as the only specific thing to do after his 6-9 month recommendation expires. As I read this, he quite literally suggested an update, and I do not see any other way to read it.