NEW petition to US Court of Appeals,
Independence Day 2006!

(District of Columbia) - Attorneys for Michael New filed a petition in the US Court of Appeals in Washington on the Fourth of July, for an en banc hearing on his recent dismissal by a three judge panel from the same court.

This unusual move is prompted by the fact that the ruling of the three judges, against Michael New, reversed over 40 years of legal precedent, which had been established by this very court! (En banc is where all twelve judges will review the decision made by their own judges.)

Michael and Daniel New outside US Court of Appeals, Feb 16, 2006

In the original court-martial of 1996, the military judge, LTC Gary Jewell, ruled that no evidence would be allowed in the trial, that the order was lawful in his opinion, and that the only question allowed the jury was whether or not the order to SPC New to wear a United Nations uniform was obeyed.

By deferring to the military courts, instead of making an independent judicial decision whether the court martial conformed to the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the judges refused to be bound by their own precedent! Instead of deciding Michael's constitutional claims on the merits, they let stand the military courts, because those courts had "fairly" considered those claims, as if a grade of C- was sufficient for the military courts to pass the constitutional test.

On February 16, of this year, a panel of three Court of Appeals judges pressed Michael's attorney, Herb Titus, to present a constitutional issue upon which they could rule. In response to Titus' claim that Michael's court-martial had failed to meet Supreme Court due process standards that required competent and relevant evidence of the lawfulness of the order, the panel of three decided to defer to the military courts' ruling that Michael had the burden of proving the unlawfulness of the order and that the government need not introduce any evidence of its lawfulness - because the order was presumed to be lawful.

The reason there was no evidence is because the military courts would not permit any!

“So… for eleven years now, we have been arguing over jurisdiction and over technicalities,” argues Daniel New, “and the courts (both military and civilian) have been unable to look at the merits, the evidence which proved conclusively that (a) the uniform was unauthorized; (b) the chain of command was unconsti-tutional; (c) soldiers are forbidden to accept pay or emoluments from any foreign power; (d) the deployment into Macedonia was illegal in the first place!

The court will probably rule within a matter of weeks on whether they will entertain the petition, which would be an interim step on the way to the Supreme Court. As is so often the case, this news-letter may be obsolete before it gets to you.

Where is all this taking us?

Where is all this taking us? A decade of fighting over a minor uniform change? Is that what this is all about?

Our readers and supporters well know that this is about the future of the United States as a sovereign republic. The patch on

Special Offers Order now - 10 copies of the military edition of MICHAEL NEW - Mercenary …or American Soldier? for only $25. We’ll pay the postage, and you’ll hand out the books to: Active duty military personnel Kids old enough to enlist Veterans Politicians School teachers Libraries Order now - your free 2007 Bill of Rights Calendar - in greater demand every year, so order yours early. (We don’t object to a donation, but it’s not necessary if you want to get the calendar.) Order now - Message delivered to the Institute on the Constitution by Dr Herb Titus, just a few days before appearing in Court in D.C. this year. Inspirational. A donation of $10 will bring this to your door. MNAF PO Box 100 Iredell, Texas 76649

a uniform is symbolic, and may seem minor to some, but you try putting the wrong patch on your uniform without authority, and you will find yourself court-martialed!

By the current Uniform Code of Military Justice, President Bill Clinton should have been either court-martialed, or impeached, for attempting to change the US uniform in direct contradiction of the Army Regulations then existing.

Yes, of course, that seems a bit extreme, but then, Clinton was the law-breaker, not Michael New. His actual impeachment should have been over actual acts of treason and illegality instead of acting immorally with an intern.

The answer to the question above is, in one word, “Regionalism”. It is the goal of this administration, and apparently of powers that are more powerful than our visible government, that our national borders are going to be dissolved, and we are going to merge with others into a New World Order.

By dissolving the meaning of national borders, for purposes of economics, security, the flow of immigrants, the waging of wars, etc., the sense of national identity breaks down.

"Regionalism is an interim goal of the invisible government of the United States, merging us into the New World Order."

When you break down our national identity, you remove the most difficult stumbling block to having that age-old dream of one-world government. It is imperative that the Constitution of the United States be reduced in its authority, and the Globalists (such as Bill Clinton and George Bush) have not been shy about doing that through treaties which create the very entangling alliances about which George Washington warned us. This is clearly a bi-partisan problem - both parties are moving us toward one world government.