No Kings, No War, Etc

(L) Mary Maxwell in New Hampshire  (R) J Kennedy, Jr in Arizona

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

It was a pleasure to attend “No Kings Day” today (March 28, 2026). They say millions of people came out for it. Many Canadians also took part, although I hadn’t heard that they use the phrase “no kings” to mean, um, well, you know, Farewell to monarchy.

Did Aussies clog up the streets of Melbourne? I don’t know, but Caitlin Johnstone of that city is the biggest No War voice in America, via her never-humble writings at Substack.com.  As for me, your basic dual citizen, I am beside myself at the US government’s total ear-blockage as to the rights of Iranian people, and American soldiers, to not have to die for the likes of, um, never mind.

By the way, are you old enough to remember the record-breaking number of protestors against Australian participation in the US’s war on Iran? (Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, tsk tsk). I was pleased to see Adelaide’s North Terrace packed that day (16 March 2003) with locals “sending a message” to Parliament. That was on a Sunday and by Wednesday Canberra voted Yes for Bush’s war.  Up to a million persons thereby died.

Note: Yesterday, Col McGregor, in an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, claims that nowadays, when a US soldier salutes, he doesn’t say “Sir!”, he just holds his hand to his forehead and says “Epstein.”

On February 20, a week before Trump’s attack on Iran, and being a graduate (cum laude) of GumshoeNews (thank you, Dee), as well as a graduate of Adelaide Law School, I fronted up at federal court here in Concord to file a lawsuit against unconstitutional war-making.  I will print the case below. It seeks a restraining order against Trump.

One thing has to be announced on the positive side. Last week the US Supreme Court ruled that a president can be arrested.  This upends their 2025 decision, in Trump v United States, that a president is, after all, a king and therefore is above the law when performing his official duties, such as murder. (Not their exact words, OK?)

From Epoch Times, a US Air Force photo of a B52 headed to Middle East on March 22, 2026 in “Operation Epic Fury”

Here is my short read (verbatim, except I have corrected a typo):

United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire

MARY MAXWELL, pro se, PLAINTIFF
United States PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, DEFENDANT in his official and personal capacity.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. Case Number: 26 cv 161 JL
Plaintiff Mary Maxwell, proceeding pro se, states as follows:

1. JURISDICTION
   1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights claims).
   2. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.
2. PARTIES
   3. Plaintiff Mary Maxwell is an ordinary citizen, living in New Hampshire. 4. Defendant Donald Trump is the United States President.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. President Trump announced on February 10, 2026 that he would strike Iran.
6. On February 19, 2026, he said he would allow a 10-day delay before this happens, but today, February 20, he said he is now considering a strike.
7. The Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already sent thousands of troops to the area.
8. Iran has very sophisticated weapons, and also has two huge allies, Russia and China, so an attack on Iran by the US would likely escalate to “World War III.”
9. Plaintiff is thus in fear for her life, and the survival of her community, and so looks for protection by invoking the right to life as se- cured by the US Constitution.
10. The Constitution does not allow a president to make war unless Congress has declared war. Therefore, Plaintiff is arguing not only does she have a right to life, but she has a right to live under a government that ensures the separation of powers.
11. Without maintenance of the wall separating the legislative branch from the executive branch, a likelihood as seen by the Framers of the Constitution, is that tyranny would ensue.

12. The third branch, the judiciary, must be called upon to enforce the Lockean structure of government. Th judiciary is the keeper of the supreme law of the land.
13. Two members of Congress, Rep Ro Khanna and Rep Thomas Massie, have proposed to force a vote next week (the week beginning Feb 23, 2026) on a declaration of war against Iran. As of February 19th, they have 26 Democrat co-sponsors, and no Republicans, which indicates it will be a Party-line vote.
14. The word “Party” does not appear in the Constitution. The ‘Westminsterization’ of the legislature, dating to 1990 or so, is itself a sign that the US population is in trouble; the enacting of a statute seems to depend on directions from Party leaders, rather than on the wishes of a Representative’s constituents.
15. On May 31, 1787, James Madison stated, at the Philadelphia Convention, that he would “shrink from nothing which should be found essential to such a form of Gov’t as would provide for the safety, liberty, and happiness of the Community.”
16. Plaintiff claims that for her to be protected from a wrong-headed war, it is necessary for the three branches to be loyal to the Constitution, and all its particulars.
    17. In 2025 the Legislature did nothing in response to the president’s sudden plan for ‘regime change’ in Venezuela. The military action took place swiftly before it became known that the takeover of that country was part of a business deal for oilmen.
17. There is nothing in the Constitution to support our nation’s engaging in regime change of other nations. The attack on Venezuela was a regime-change war, and the planned attack on Iran seems to be for regime change. The CIA reportedly paid local protestors in Iran to demonstrate against their current rulers.
18. The Constitution gives the president the title of “Commander-in- Chief of the Army and Navy….” The purpose of that title is to indicate that no military general or admiral is in charge of war; warmaking must remain under civilian authority.
19. Much of the US’s warmaking is done in alliance with Israel. A re- tired US Army General recently stated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had privately claimed that “9-11” was done by ‘Mossad.’ Nine-eleven then caused a US war in Afghanistan that lasted 20 years. 21. On September 18, 2001, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the AUMF – Authorization for Use of Military Force – allow- ing the president to attack anyone he declared to have been responsible for the attacks of 9-11. At that time, the official narrative was that the attackers were 19 hijackers of airplanes, all Muslims terrorists.
20. The House vote on the AUMF was 420 to1, with Rep Barbara Lee casting the only Nay vote. Presidents have since called on that AUMF, instead of seeking the constitutionally required Congressional declaration of war. This is a dangerous and absurd situation.
21. The campus of the Pentagon is occupied by offices of several for- profit weapons manufacturers. Plaintiff worries that war decisions will be made by unaccountable persons and corporations. They will not feel obliged to consider her right to life.
22. Plaintiff’s security has been greatly reduced by the secrecy of the US government. Citizens are thus unable to debate when they are deprived of relevant information about war. Sixty-two years ago, President Kennedy said “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society.” But today most Americans have come to accept secrecy.
23. The current exposure of “the Epstein files” has revealed that a small group of persons, a sort of evil cult, has command over much of the world. Some of them openly favor depopulation, that is, mass murder.
24. It is possible that an outbreak of a World War is the wish of that group. If so, the United States’ contention with Iran could be merely a way to get to WW III, the real goal being depopulation.
    27. Plaintiff’s plea for help under the rubric of “deprivation of constitutional rights” is also a plea to make the proper authorities face up to reality. Whoever is responsible for the maintenance of the Republic (mainly, the People) should be doing their utmost to keep America’s ideals workable. No one ever said it would be easy.
25. Plaintiff asserts her standing to bring this case. She asks ‘Who has standing to seek judicial help against a misuse of the war power? After the 1952 Steel Mills case, the US Courts have said there is no justiciability for this. They rely on “doctrines” such as the doctrine of Ripe- ness: it is too early to bring a case. Mootness: it is too late to bring a case. The Political Question: Third branch must not interfere when the two political branches have a clear duty. Standing: The litigant must have an injury that is concrete, not speculative, and it must be particular to him/her, not to the whole society.
26. In 1970, the state of Massachusetts, using its privilege to go straight to the United States Supreme Court under ‘original jurisdiction’, sued Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, to oppose the sending of Massachusetts soldiers to Viet Nam without a Congressional declaration of war. It was ruled as not justiciable. A quote from the government’s brief:

“A President has great responsibilities, and many instances in our his- tory show that these responsibilities are supported by adequate powers…. the President should not be hemmed in by the prospect of judicial supervision in the exercise of these powers.”

30. In 1991, Rep Ron Dellums and 40 other Congressmen filed suit to stop a war about to be waged in Iraq, on behalf of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The US District Court dismissed it in January per the doctrine of Ripeness, saying that Secretary of State James Baker was in Geneva talking to Tariq Aziz, which might cancel the war, but in fact the war started a few days later.
31. In 2003, four soldiers “John Doe 1-4” and their parents filed suit against the planned invasion of Iraq (“owing to Saddam making n- weapons” –a lie) but were dismissed. Judge Lynch said that the case does not involve “a situation where the President acts without any ap- parent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposi- tion … To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties…” On appeal, Doe lost.
32. In 2016, Army Captain Nathan Smith filed suit saying that the continuing attacks on ISIS were illegal, as The War Powers Act of 1973 required the president to report to Congress after 60 days of such an undeclared action. Smith worried about his oath of commission, making him order his men to do something unconstitutional. On appeal, the court waited until he had left the Army, and thus declared the case moot.
33. In 2017, Citizen Mary Maxwell objected to President Trump’s announcement that he would nuke North Korea, unleashing “a fury like the world has never seen.” It was dismissed on standing (she failed to show an injury-in-fact) and the political question. The dismissal quoted a D.C. Circuit ruling saying: “It is difficult to think of an area less suited for judicial action…. These matters are plainly the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive.” Maxwell appealed it to the First Circuit, which upheld the District Court without giving an opinion.
34. In the above case of Massachusetts v Laird, Justice Douglas wrote a dissent, in which Justice Harlan concurred. It said: “We have never ruled, I believe, that when the federal government takes a person by the neck and submits him to punishment… the complaining person may not be heard in court. The rationale in cases such as the present is that government cannot take life, liberty, or property of the individual and escape adjudication by the courts of the legality of its action…

The question of constitutional war is neither academic nor political… it should be settled here and now.”

35. The foregoing quote strikes the Plaintiff as normal. Therefore, she sees today’s national life as abnormal. Lying has become acceptable and shameless. How can a person get at the facts when two opposite statements are taken to be equal?
36. And do Americans accept that presidents have immunity for all official acts? And why on Earth would folks meekly accept that the powerful can escape punishment?
    37. The reputation of the United States, word wide, is in tatters. The present case is urgent before we get blamed for starting a world war with millions of casualties. “Not in my name, please.”
37. CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
    38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1–36.
    39. Defendant Trump, acting through his executive authority or possibly by his trumped-up claims to personal power — has deprived Plain- tiff of her Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process.
38. This conduct has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm, in the nature of anxiety and discouragement, plus the ongoing risk to her life and health that will come with war.
    41. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future harm.
39. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
    a. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from attacking Iran without the constitutionally required Declaration of War by Congress,
    b. Declare that the challenged practices violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,
    c. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including costs (to the extent allowable for pro se litigants). DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
    Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,/s/
Mary Maxwell, pro se.
175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Dated: February 20, 2026

[RESULT: Letter received March 23, 2026 from Magistrate Andrea Johnstone, with her recommendation to Judge Joseph LaPlante for dismissal of this suit.]