"It is Arthur, King of the Britons."

I've come to the conclusion that tax protesters are some of the craziest people to work their way through the court systems.  The only question is:  are they crazy before they become protesters, or is it something about becoming a protester that causes them to lose all touch with reality?  (Actually, I haven't just come to this conclusion; I arrived at it years ago.)

This popped back into my head thanks to a recent article on CBC: No name doesn't mean no tax, Yukoner finds out.  The article title is incorrect though, as a quick scan of the two page affidavit (Warning: PDF file) shows that he never claimed he had no name.  Rather, he claims that the name by which the government was trying to collect taxes wasn't his true name.

Actually, the affidavit is kind of a wonderful and concise introduction to the wacky world of tax protester name-games.  To wit:  he's got a true name which (much like demons) is the only one through which he is legally bound (and which is different than his commonly-known-as name of "John Douglas of the Doe family"), and that the names "JOHN DOUGLAS DOE," "John Douglas Doe," and "DOE, JOHN DOUGLAS" all refer to different people.  All that's missing is the unpronounceable-glyph argument, and I think we'd have covered all the bases.

There's one thing I'm curious about though: if he claims that any debts against the name on his birth certificate should be sent to the province of Alberta, does that mean that any cheques written to this name should also be sent to the province of Alberta?