FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           
25 May 2006


Herbert W. Titus, Attorney              757-421-4141

Henry Hamilton, Attorney                803/779-0700
Daniel D. New, Project Manager     254-796-2173

Michael New dismissed
by US Court of Appeals


District of Columbia - The US Court of Appeals released on Tuesday its decision to dismiss the case of former Army Specialist Michael New, who was court-martialed in 1996 for his refusal to wear a United Nations uniform, to deploy to Macedonia under United Nations command, and to serve under the command of a general officer from Finland

Writing for the court, in a unanimous decision, District Judge Williams summed it up with, “Because New fails to identify fundamental defects in the military courts resolution of his claims, we affirm the district courts denial of relief." [1]

According to Daniel New, Project Manager for the legal defense team, “This court is now in violation of its own rules, and establishes a very bad precedent for the future, if they are not overturned. If this new ‘Michael New Rule’ is applied across the board, then never again will the government have to worry about presenting evidence in order to find someone guilty. All they will have to do is say, ‘He had his day in court -- case dismissed.’ ”

At issue is the question of whether an American soldier, having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, may be forced instead to serve under the military command of a foreign power, specifically the United Nations.  The military courts ruled that this was a political question, outside the jurisdiction of their courts.  Thus, New was denied his day in court in order to protect the Clinton administration from having to justify the deployment. 

According to legal observer Joseph Dale Robertson, "Every judicial circuit court of appeals in the federal system - except the District of Columbia - has ruled that in all criminal cases it is the jury, the trier of fact, that must exclusively determine each and every essential element of the alleged crime. Michael New was denied this fundamental right in his original court-martial.  Every circuit court in the United States has said so with the singular exception of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is now time for the DC circuit court of appeals to join with all other federal circuit court of appeal in the land and hold in the Michael New case that the constitution applies to criminal court martial trials as well.  Further, that Michael New was denied a fair trial in that he was denied the fundamental right to have every element of the alleged crime determined by a jury and not a judge."

And what does Michael New think of all this?  "Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  They can argue until the End of Time, but I will never serve the United Nations."  New is pursuing a degree in Information Management Systems in Texas.

- 30 -

Complete opinion may be viewed at


·        10/10/1995  Order to wear UN uniform disobeyed

·        12/1995       US District Court refuses to hear case

·        1/1996         Army Court-martial - Bad Conduct Discharge

·        3/28/1998    Oral arguments, Army Court of Criminal Appeals

·        4/28/1999    ACCA upholds court martial decision

·        2/4/2000      Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces Oral arguments

·        5/24/2001    Appellant’s Motion for a Decision   by the Court 

·        6/13/2001    CAAF upholds, after a stall of 495 days

·        5/8/2002      US District Court hears case

·        12/24/2004  US District Court dismisses case

·        7/19/2005    US Court of Appeals agrees to hear oral arguments

·        2/16/2006         US Court of Appeals oral arguments

·        5/23/2006         US Court of Appeals dismisses case

[1] US Court of Appeals, D.C., Case No. 05-5023, Page 2