As revealed in Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana  FCA 374, Christopher Rana attended a weekend course with Mark Borleis (aka Pytellek) who convinced Christopher and Paul Rana that this was the proper legal path to undertake to defend himself in these proceedings. Paul Rana filed four documents which the Court found were so staggering in their absurdity that it is difficult to describe their contents. The expression was so muddled that it is difficult to understand what the paragraphs were intended to convey. There is some reference, which can only be described as weird, questioning the existence of relevant actors as human beings, which was directed to more than 40 people or entities, all of whom seemed to have been regarded by Paul Rana as having harmed him or taken action against his interests in some way. The document is written in language which is barely comprehensible, but pretending to mimic the worst forms of obtuse legal terminology. The concept of the document is wildly absurd. The Court commenced the hearing of the charges by seeking to establish whether the respondents including Paul Rana appeared. When asked whether he was Paul Rana, the following exchange occurred:
MR RANA: Paul John, sir. Just for on the record…
HIS HONOUR: No, no, Mr Rana. Are you Paul John Rana?
MR RANA: No.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, if you take a seat, I will issue a bench warrant to have Paul John Rana arrested and brought to the court. Just take a seat…
MR RANA: That is fine. For and on the record, I would like to appoint the other side as fiduciary, and here are their instructions.
HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, Mr Rana.
MR RANA: You may address me as Paul John. I am here as a third party intervener, here only by special appearance under injury with a real interest in the matter and reserve all rights, powers and privileges. I am here with limited jurisdiction. I am here to assist the court to settle and close all real issues and find out the nature and cause of this action and there by – if there be any today and to stop and correct any leave all parties commercially whole. I thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Rana, are you or are you not Paul John Rana? MR RANA: I have just explained that, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Your explanation was, frankly, nonsense. The question I asked you is whether or not you are Paul John Rana. If you are not, I will have the police arrest Paul John Rana and bring him to the court as soon as possible.
MR RANA: That is fine, sir. I am not the defendant. I am commonly known as Paul John of the family Rana.
And later the following further exchange occurred:
HIS HONOUR: There is really one issue and that is whether you are the person named in the summons.
MR RANA: Yes, well, I conditionally accept your offer to address me as Mr Rana on proof of claim that the answer to that name does not give me a disability.
HIS HONOUR: There is one question: are you or are you not Paul John Rana? If not, I will have the police …
MR RANA: I am not the defendant, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, I will have the police find the defendant and bring that person before me.
MR RANA: Fantastic.