HardyW wrote:notorial dissent wrote:I'd say they could come steal from us, but they've been doing that right along with spectacularly poor success and track record. Somehow an Englishman in an English court appealing to the UCC/Bill of Rights/Title26/etc doesn't strike me as horribly functional, ...
I've no idea what "Title26" is, so can't comment, but what's the objection to appealing to the Bill of Rights?
Wikipedia maintains that the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. Quite convincing, except of course that Wikipedia is probably run by the Rothschilds, and those two Parliament Acts are treasonous.
As for quoting the UCC well that's plain daft, in any courtroom, anywhere in the world, ever.
He's referring to the American Bill of Rights;