OK. I read the material on the captialization issue (and it was, indeed, someone else's website). I must be thorouhgly dense. I don't get what, if any, legal significance there is to the typographical happenstance of capitalization. Someone in the materials proclaimed that "John Smith" is the name of a natural person but "JOHN SMITH" is a fictitious name. Beats the hell out of me why that should be so. Nothing in the materials suggests any particular reason that there should be a difference, other than a citation to the fact that it violates the laws of grammar. So far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for violating grammatical rules. I still think the capitalization issue is nonsense.

There isn't any law that requires the Supreme Court to hear every case submitted to it. Which, IMHO, is probably a good thing, given the current composition of the Supreme Court (whoever thought that John Paul Stevens, when he was appointed, would become the staunchest guardian of civil liberties on the bench?). If there were such a requirement, I can't imagine that, given the volume of cases that would be submitted -- and the enormously high percentage of pure bullshit in that volume -- they'd ever get anything done. Again, maybe with this Court, that's not such a bad thing.

I noted that I was not a Wikipedian. . . but, in this particular case, so far as I was able to cross-check the cases that were cited, the one article seemed to be pretty accurate and comprehensive. Didn't know Wikipedia had government connections. No, don't tell me, I don't want to expand the discussion.

So, a question for you, Mr. Natural Guest: have you personally tried the abatement method of avoiding paying income taxes? If so, how well did it work?

michael