I only read the first two pages, but within that scope this article does not make its case. On the contrary, it makes claims about the law that cannot be corroborated in law. For example, it states:

A VOTE is a VOW and a VOW is a PLEDGE to a DIETY. A PLEDGE is a CONTRACT and a DIETY is a God. Voting then is a contract with another god.

Black's Law Dictionary, which makes explicit the definitions that are used in any law case, defines "Vote:"

Vote. Suffrage; the expression of one's will, preference, or choice, formally manifested by a member of a legisla­tive or deliberative body, or of a constituency or a body of qualified electors, in regard to the decision to be made by the body as a whole upon any proposed measure or proceeding or in passing laws, rules or regulations, or the selection of an officer or representative. The aggre­gate of the expressions of will or choice, as manifested by individuals, is called the "vote of the body."

There is nothing in there that can be interpreted as a "contract" in the legal sense (AKA an obligation on the party of the individual casting the vote). There is nothing in there that implies anything about Deities (God, false gods, etc.). Such wording, within the document posted, without explicit examples within the law itself is almost certainly designed to mislead. Even if what they say can be corroborated within the law, it does not itself provide actionable information to to do. You can not use this document to make an actual case within the law, even though it proposes to be an "elucidation of the law".

You could say, "Blacks Law Dictionary is lying," except that that is the source that is used to argue law. If you want to make a case that a definition is something completely different than what BLD says, you better provide really good evidence within the law itself, otherwise you will be laughed out of court.

I'm not saying that this is intentional Controlled Opposition, but my research suggests that this is exactly what it looks like.