Monday, 21 August
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS PETITION
BY MICHAEL NEW FOR EN BANC HEARING
The American soldier who refused to wear a United Nations blue
beret has lost another round last week in his legal attempts to seek
redress of grievances.
In a tersely worded note, the Court made it clear than not one of the
eleven justices was interested in the merits
of the case before
them. Not one could discover a Constitutional issue that has
been violated in New's eleven year legal odyssey to have his case heard
on its own merits. (Wording below.)
The issue before this court was unrelated to New's stand in 1995, when he
refused to report to a formation in Germany, where his battle dress
uniform (BDU) was to have been altered to replace the US flag on the
right shoulder with a United Nations patch. This court was asked to
examine the radical "Standard of Review" which a three-judge
panel used earlier in 2006 to reject New's complaint.
As has happened several times in New's case, he is now carrying a torch
for an issue that is secondary to his initial issue, but has been forced
upon him by several astonishing rulings by courts which cannot find their
way to examine the merits of his case. The latest ruling by the
Court of Appeals overturned 40 years of precedent by this very
The initial court-martial in 2006 refused to allow SPC New to present any
evidence in his own defense, which would have proved that the uniform
changes were unauthorized; the chain of command under a U.N. general were
unconstitutional; and the deployment into Macedonia was, in fact,
illegal. The military courts of appeal ruled, in order to prevent
New's evidence from being submitted, that Evidence is not a fundamental
element of the Defense. JAG officers throughout the military were
stunned at that ruling.
Military courts have steadfastly maintained that SPC New's claims were
political, while civilian courts have ruled them a military
question. As a result, the merits have never reached a single judge
Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel,
Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges , and Williams,
Senior Circuit Judge.
According to SPC New's father, Daniel New, "This case is not
really about Michael New. It's about the future of our military,
and whether our sons and daughters are going to be forced to served under
foreign powers against their will. If the courts fail to do their
duty, then this government may not reasonably expect any more of our sons
and daughters to enlist in it's military. We take 'breach of
contract' pretty seriously in our family."
of Michael G. New's petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a
request by any member of the court for a vote, it is
ORDERED that the
petition be denied.
FOR THE COURT
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY Nancy G. Dunn
In the meantime, legislation has been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, of
Texas, to solve the problem of forcing American military personnel to
serve under the United Nations in undeclared wars.
The Citizen Soldier Protection Act of
Michael New Legal Defense
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649
Daniel New, Project
Real Americans don't
wear U.N. blue!
(Donations are not tax-deductible, but they sure will
make you feel good! :c)