I like this article speaking about our U.S. Constitution. This post is in two parts, this is part I: I, too, am in U.S. District Court with respect to this same idea: AWOL, from the global war on terrorism in support of the Constitution of the United States. "... Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff xxxxxxx xxxx shall not communicate directly with the court about the merits of this case, or about any matter unrelated to the case, by email, typed or written correspondence, or in other fashion. ..." This is a direct assault on the FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution.

this is PART II: With a good number of great lawyers in my past to know and rely upon, as I said about the civil rights lawyer who is stellar -- his time bills at $400 / hour, RE: BOGUS MOTION FILED IN FEDERAL COURT: "... You must respond, if you want to be heard at all. You cannot assume that because you believe a motion to be improper that the judge, without your argument, will likewise believe it to be so. Just set your arguments out in non inflammatory words. There is no reason to bar you from directly communicating with a national bank on issues not in the case before this judge. If they feel you are a nuisance and that they are entitled to enjoin you from any such contact whatsoever, their proper remedy is to file a separate suit against you to enjoin litigious conduct, or to file a criminal charge against you for threats etc. Just because a plaintiff or a defendant is before the court on one case does not give that judge the power to enjoin any and all misdeeds. E.g., the judge could not enjoin you from smoking in front of the bank; the judge could not enjoin the bank from charging other customers excessive fees, etc. Separate lawsuits must be brought for that. What the bank is doing here is similar to the SLAP suits. They are asking the judge to close you down altogether so that you cannot complain to a federally regulated bank. Point out that XXXXX has no jurisdiction over such a claim because that is not part of the lawsuit pending before him. Notwithstanding the characterizations of you by counsel, they cite only one document as being bothersome. That is not enough to enjoin you from speaking. If that were true, then no lawyer would be able to file any partisan document in court, because lawyers constantly accuse opposing counsel of all sorts of chicanery. .... Download ORS 31.150 XXXXXXX ..."

I think that the way of war your goverment choosen just awful mistake. I can't understand why they was thinking so long , while intruding in Iraq...so much people were killed too much for your constitution

Sorry friend but the US nor any other soviereign nation needs permission from the UN to go tot war with another country. If they did then Russia's recent war with Georgia would have to be an illegal war as well. Would it not? Not to mention of course the former led Russian USSR that invaded Czechoslovokia, Afghanistan, etc.

I wouldn't consider the reasons of this alleged conflict of interest to be what is causing any number of soldiers to go AWOL. And I especially wouldn't consider it significant enough to call a "movement". The simple fact is, no one likes to come home only to be redeployed. To feel your life being threatened every moment of every day is extremely stressful. But that is also not an excuse accepted by the government. This seems more like a wrangling for the purpose of promoting a book.