Não.

Estou respondendo da perspectiva americana, e suponho que isso se refira à teoria redentorista. Embora o PO sem dúvida esteja familiarizado com isso, ofereço o seguinte para o benefício do quora. Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008)explicou a teoria redentorista como:

that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the "strawman." The "strawman" purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1933, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt. Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free. Individuals can free themselves by filing UCC financing statements, thereby acquiring an interest in their strawman. Thereafter, the real person can demand that government officials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's name or, in the case of prisoners, to keep him in custody.

Essa bobagem foi rejeitada pelos tribunais por pelo menos trinta anos. McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2010) lista muitos casos:

Torne, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45518, 2010 WL 1904507 (dismissing, in some instances sua sponte, claims alleging fraud, conversion, conspiracy, extortion, securities fraud, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and GAAP, all based on theories advanced here); Barber v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:09CV40, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123939, 2010 WL 398915, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2009) [**35] (dismissing "utterly frivolous" and "patently ludicrous" claims of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy, and advising plaintiffs that their "tactics are a waste of their time as well as the court's time, which is paid for by hard-earned tax dollars"); Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, No. 09CV2518 et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68057, 2009 WL 2366132 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009) (considering 19 consolidated cases raising arguments virtually identical to those here, all filed in the District Court for the District of New Jersey within approximately one year, and discussing similar influxes of cases in the Federal District Courts in Delaware and Florida); Richardson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100716, 2008 WL 5225824, at *7 (dismissing claims as "patently frivolous and a waste of judicial resources"); Demmler, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9409, 2006 WL 640499, at *3 (characterizing such claims as "patently ludicrous" and noting that "these arguments have been repeatedly rejected by every court to consider the issue"); Carrington v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Assoc., No. 05CV73429, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31605, 2005 WL 3216226, at *2-3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (recognizing that these theories have been "universally rejected by numerous federal courts"); Thiel v. First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n of Marion, 646 F. Supp. 592 (N.D. Ind. 1986) [**36] (rejecting claims that lender had violated RICO and National Bank Act by issuing loan check in exchange for promissory note, and dismissing the claims as frivolous); Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg. Co., 615 F. Supp. 898, 900 (D.C. Ind. 1985) (finding the plaintiff's arguments and claims "absurd").

O problema fundamental do argumento é que não há fundamento legal, reconhecido por nenhuma entidade do governo americano, para a personalidade dividida. As coisas desmoronam muito rapidamente a partir daí.