According to a law professional in #14, who you, curiously enough, haven’t addressed with your insults, the article is ‘nonsense’. I concur.
#14 reads: This article is from the NESARA website, which should be a red flag that it’s likely to be nonsense. And, having now read it, I can tell you as a lawyer that it IS nonsense; it’s full of usual Tax Protester arguments about how only corporations have to pay income taxes, yadda yadda.
Then you are "concurring" with blatant error and vaguery. And as far as it being from a "law professional," THAT wouldn't surprise me a bit.
First of all, "this article" IS NOT "from the NESARA website." It is, rather, from Free Republic, posted by myself on July 7, 2012 and to which I give a direct link on this page at post #20. NESARA reprinted it without identifying its source.
Secondly, your "law professional" merely slanders with a "tax protester" label, and avoids all specifics, a legal analysis based on the actual words of the actual Roberts ruling. So, unless this "professional" can scrounge up some sort of quote from my analysis that is divorced from Roberts actual words, he's merely slandering me. And if there's something in particular about Robert's ruling he finds "tax protesterish," I suggest he write a letter to the IRS and turn in the Chief Justice himself.
Unless, of course, you would like to explain some details of your own specific analysis of the work, and provide a detailed rebuttal.
No? What a surprise.