You know, I was just thinking about how closely the Baha'i communities I knew fit this definition. #1 and #6 apply to Baha'u'llah, of course, but since he's been dead for quite a while it's less of an issue. More concerningly, they could plausibly be applied to many LSA, NSA, and UHJ members: there are explicit injunctions in the writings against using the secular legal system to resolve disputes among Baha'is, and in most communities there are people in the LSA who the LSA will definitely never rule against in any dispute. In general, criticizing members of the LSA, NSA, or UHJ is strongly discouraged as "creating disunity", even more strongly than publicly criticizing other people.
#2 and #3 are pretty extreme. If you have social contact with a Covenant-Breaker you are likely to lose your voting rights.
#4 is of course somewhat true because most Baha'is know someone who has been imprisoned or killed (in Iran) for being Baha'i, or at least know someone who knows someone. You'd have to be pretty irrational not to be somewhat paranoid under those circumstances.
I'm not sure what is meant by #5, but shame of course has a prominent place in the Baha'i faith, as in any religion.
Going through the list, though, I think that to a significant extent it's just a rough definition of "religion" or "culture", plus elements of leadership. Is Thomas Jefferson "above the law"? Is Muhammad? Of course they are, you can't prosecute them. Is the US Government? Yes, it has "sovereign immunity". You'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that didn't consider itself superior to the outgroup, yet vulnerable to attacks from it, or that didn't enforce some degree of ideological conformity, or that didn't shame deviations from its norms.