Since the sole purpose of any government is to protect the individual citizen from force and fraud...
AND in this particular case, it is the government indulging in BOTH force and fraud...

What does that say for our future in the USA?

Welcome to life in the USSA.

Overstepping the Constitution. Flying in the face of a few thousand years of judicial practice.
Just two of the myriad reasons that this PC crap is pure nonsense and should be fought to the nth degree.

Time to start ignoring all victimless federal laws. If one is to be found guilty regardless of actions, why not?

Old dino is a retired state employee but If anyone for any stupid PC reason wanted me to affirm anything about Allah I have a card up my sleeve.,
I swear Allosaurus = "different lizard" would just have to act out with the voodoo that only I can do.
I'd be a-sayin', "Carnsarn it! Whut ther heck y'all want me ter affirm some silly mythical Arabic moon god fer? Ya'll a-tryin' ter sell me magic carpets or whut?"
Then for Exhibit A evidence, I'd provide a hard copy of~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_a...
If the prosecutor wants to talk about what offends Islamic scholars, I'd get all deflective and say I prefer a moon goddess.
Should I be asked which moon goddess, I'd present Exhibit B and say, "Taker yer pick!"
http://www.goddess-guide.com/moon-god...

This is a poorly written article for several reasons. First, it labels the collateral bar rule as obscure or otherwise illegitimate. It is a well understood doctrine affirmed by the Supreme Court. In essence it states that when faced with a court order one cannot violate the order and then defend against contempt with impunity unless the underlying order is reversed or stayed by an appellate court. Here the defendant was ordered to file an amended valid tax return for the relevant years. She did not do so and did not get a reversal from the appellate courts. In fact, her appeals had all been lost. Therefore she was not privileged to violate the court order and was barred from attacking the underlying order collaterally. There is no disturbing new precedent being made here. In fact, had the 6th Circuit reversed that would have been the new precedent. Second, the article does not clearly give the factual background that gave rise to all of this. The defendant and her husband were involved in filing tax returns that refused to recognize as income her earnings because they asserted that only government employees' earnings are subject to federal tax. This is a frivolous argument and was rejected as such by this court. The order by the court mandated the filing of compliant returns. The defendant's deliberate failure to do so gave rise to the contempt proceedings. If she fails to do so again she may be subject to additional orders and, possibly, new contempt proceedings. This can go on indefinitely. See the sad case of Irwin Schiff.

This falls into the class of "freemen on the land" legal hackers, only it appears here that the "hacks" have had more legitimacy and effect than those used by the freemen. Hence the government's desperate reaction.

Most developed countries have a small contingent of "sovereignty" hackers, who attract the most vigorous persecution, since they are attacking the prison which is used to keep the population docile.

People call Alex Jones a hysteric and a nut case, but he's entirely correct when he states that the Federal government is corrupt to its core. I was brought in to testify in a Federal Grand Jury, and in the preliminary interview I was told that I was to give false testimony or face everything the DOJ and IRS could throw at me to destroy my business. I refused, and reported the Prosecutor's attempt at suborning perjury to the presiding judge. In theory, that complaint should have brought the entire Grand Jury process to a halt, pending investigation. Instead, all that happened was a statement from the prosecutor saying that perhaps she had been "too passionate," and that she was sorry I had "misinterpreted" her request to "more clearly define" my testimony. She didn't dare put me on the stand, and the accused was railroaded into an indictment.

I'm repulsed enough by the American court system that I find it difficult to apply the word "law" to any action it takes. Judges should be term-limited, and not allowed to make a lifelong profession of their office. They should also be held accountable for their mistakes or deliberate malfeasance.