It is. "Freemen on the Land" have a common tactic of trying to twist a public official's 'oath of office' against them, and then proclaim they have no authority over the matter.
I strongly suggest you don't follow this course of action. It's based on spurious logic that makes up premises and then attempts to argue them through to a conclusion. You won't get a good outcome in court with it. If you're lucky, the judge will simply think you're mentally deficient - if you're not lucky, you could wind up in contempt of court. Proclaim they have no authority all you like, that's not going to stop them penalising you.
You should read this judgment, in full: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana [2008] FCA 374 (found at:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana (Corrigendum dated 24 April 2008) [2008] FCA 374 (20 March 2008) )
Some applicable bits of the judgment are:
- At paragraph 16: "On 19 October 2007, Paul Rana filed four documents which are so staggering in their absurdity that it is difficult to describe their contents..."
- At paragraph 18: "Then there is some reference, which can only be described as weird, questioning the existence of relevant actors as human beings..."
- At paragraph 23 where Mr Rana sent an invoice for $294,413,110 to some 40 people including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecuting counsel, the chairman and officers of the ACCC, some ASIC officers, family members of deceased persons from a previous case, and Eddie McGuire. The basis for the charges is in paragraph 20, and they're too ridiculous to do justice in summary.
- At paragraph 25 where the judge has a quasi-"Who's on First" discussion with Mr Rana. Followed by paragraph 26 where the court issued warrants for Mr Rana's arrest when he failed to identify himself.
... and the train wreck goes on.
It might interest you to know that Mr Rana earned himself a 6 month custodial sentence at the end of it - which I understand was the maximum penalty allowable for the breaches.