Dear Supporters of USA Sovereignty, and of Michael New:
16 February 2007
For immediate release.
Government gets another extension in Michael New case
(Washington) - The Supreme Court has granted the Justice
Department a new extension, that they may be prepared to file their brief
in the case of former Army Specialist Michael New. This is the
government's second request for an extension of time. According to Daniel
New, Project Manager for the Michael New Legal Defense Fund, "It's easy to
see why the government is unprepared. They've spent eleven years treating
this case with contempt and arrogance. Now, for the first time, they have
suddenly realized they are going to have to produce some serious legal
work in order to defend the total abuse of justice that they have
practiced for over a decade."
At issue in this court is the Standard of Review, along with the
twin issue of Due Process. Spc. New was court-martialed in 1996,
and was denied permission to introduce evidence in his own defence that
would have proven that the United Nations uniform that he was ordered to
wear was unauthorized; that the chain of command under a Finnish general
officer was unconstitutional; and that the deployment itself to Macedonia
was illegal. The Army merely ruled that "evidence is not a fundamental
element of the defence." That decision was upheld by the Army Court of
Criminal Appeals, and by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. Not
being allowed to present evidence in his own defence, and acting with
orders of the judge, the panel (jury) found him guilty in fifteen
minutes. It has not been so easy to make him go away since that time.
The brief filed by Michael New's attorneys can be found
amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief filed by the
National Institute of Military Justice
in support of Michael New may be found
Should the Supreme Court grant Oral Arguments, after reviewing this case
some time around May of this year, those arguments will probably be set
for the Fall Session.
After Oral Arguments, the Supreme Court can uphold the lower courts'
rulings, or they can remand the issue back to any lower court for an
argument on the merits of the case - something that has not yet happened
in nearly a dozen years.
The ultimate issue is the question of whether U.S. citizend can be forced
to serve in a military capacity under a foreign power, against their will,
having taken an exclusive Oath of Allegiance to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
Constitutional attorney, Dr. Herbert W. Titus of Virginia, contends, "It
is nothing less than a bait-and-switch tactic to recruit young people to
serve their country, and then switch them over to serve, and perhaps die
in service to the United Nations." Titus is lead counsel on the legal
team arguing Spc. New's case before the Supreme Court.