Defensive Carry banner

Story & Updates Regarding Michael New

778 3
Story & Updates Regarding Michael New

I had heard about this on the news years ago like everyone else and thought it had lost track of it. It\'s amazing how you forget about important things after awhile. I often wonder just how many of us would have the guts to do what Michael New did in this situation, as I know I would feel the same way as he does. Putting American soldiers under foreign commanders is just plain wrong. Anyway, before I get too high up on my soapboax, I just wanted to post a link to his website so you could see that it\'s still going through the courts and so you can get an update.

Michael New\'s Website
Not open for further replies.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

I\'m with you, Bumper, I had forgotten all about that incident too. When you really think about it this is a very important case. I hope he prevails and the bill introduced to stop putting our guys under foreign command is passed.

Ditto for me. I thought it had been resolved although I am not sure what \"resolved\" would be if not an earth shaking bombshell. This is an important case in the protection of our sovereignty.

Premium Member
20,252 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Michael New Update July/August 2004

What Just Happened in U.S. District Court?

Perhaps you heard how we spoke with the government lawyers, and they expressed an eagerness to get on with
the case of Michael New vs. USA, even saying, \"We are looking forward to trying this case on its merits.\" Well, the attorneys themselves may have meant that when they said it, but someone from \"on high\" clearly does NOT
want this case tried on its merits. Instead of moving forward, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss, and you may have heard that, in May, Judge Paul Friedman denied that motion. So… did they proceed to trial? No! They filed yet another Motion to Dismiss!

At that point, we requested the court to give us oral arguments on this latest delaying tactic. We pointed out that Judge Friedman himself invited this case back to his court, way back in 1996, but only after we! \"exhausted the military remedy.\" Such a \"remedy\" - \"military\" and \"justice\" seem to be mutually exclusive terms. The Army and the Pentagon and the White House all succeeded in delaying justice for over seven long years, but in the end, of course, we lost. They seemed to have seized on the concept, \"to exhaust\", and we must give them credit - it\'s a tried and tested military tactic when you think you just might lose a battle - avoid the battle!

Judge Friedman granted our request! He set a date - further away than we thought necessary - October 19. But, then, the courts are busy these days. On that date it will have been precisely NINE years and NINE days from the day that a lowly Specialist Michael New deliberately reported to formation in Schweinfurt, Germany, wearing an AUTHORIZED Battle Dress Uniform, without the blue cap and blue scarf and blue shoulder patch of the United Nations. In the process, he stirred the conscience of the nation, and woke many, many people up to the threat of a One World Army, and hence, a One World Government. Please understand, these oral arguments are merely on the Motion to Dismiss. The attorneys are going to go before the judge and argue about whether they are going to get to argue, or not!

But … in the process, we\'ll see some of the merits brought to the table. For the first time in NINE years! At that point, it is our prayer that the judge will rule to continue with the case, and the government will either come up with some sound legal reasons for why they think they can send American troops under foreign command, on foreign deployments, to achieve a
foreign political and/or military agenda, and possibly to die for a foreign power.

We cannot wait to hear their rationale. They are understandably reticent about stating that rationale in a U.S. Court of Law.
In the meantime, SPC Michael New saw this coming. American soldiers may well be facing the \"authority\" of the International Criminal Court. Publicity over the mistreatment of prisoners has brought an international howl against the USA, led by those intrepid warriors, the French. It would not be such a big deal, except that President Bush has decided to \"waive immunity\", and allow such a thing to happen. This is a cataclysmic event, indeed, constitutes a revolutionary thing for a president to do, since he is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Treaties are NOT the law of the land, unless they are consistent with, and according to the Constitution itself. Article VI of the Constitution is clear to any who understand grammar and punctuation, but there is a willingness these days to misread and misinterpret in order to reach a globalist agenda.

Can our nation maintain sovereignty when its citizens and soldiers can be hailed into \"a higher court\"? We say that the
sovereignty of our nation has either been totally destroyed, or is far along in that process. It has been done by politicians of both major parties - this is a bipartisan problem: legislators and presidents who seem more concerned with public opinion polls than with their duty to their country.

It is also a bipartisan belief (whether you call yourself a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, or a constitutionalist), that our
sons and daughters are not available to fight and die for a planet run by and for corrupt United Nations bureaucrats.

We\'ve been told by the accountants and lawyers that we\'re about $39,000 in the hole right now, or will be by October 19. Should we proceed? We did not hesitate. We told them that there are still Americans who are not going to let this country
go without a fight. You have brought us this far, and you\'re not going to let it die now. We won\'t twist your arm. We\'ll continue to ask you for your prayers.

For a Sovereign, Constitutional Republic, once again,
Daniel & Suzanne New
Michael New
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Not open for further replies.