The United Nations is UNbelievable

Serial rapists envy United Nations peacekeepers. And who could blame them? Most rapists do not get to police their own crime scenes, food to trade for sex, diplomatic immunity and indifference from the people supervising them.

Sexual abuse charges against U.N. peacekeepers remain high due to the organization's "culture of dismissiveness," according to Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein, Jordan's U.N, ambassador. He thinks it could take three to four more years for a reform program to take hold. Potential rape victims in the world's hot spots will have to be patient.

There have been allegations against 295 troops, police and other U.N. staff. So far, 170 have been sent home or dismissed: 17 civilians, 16 police officers and 137 military personnel (six of them commanders).

U.N. peacekeepers and staff in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, have been accused of rape, pedophilia and enticing hungry children with food or money in exchange for sex.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the U.N. peacekeeping chief, said that "We are making headway in laying the foundation for the prevention of the problem in the long term."

In plain English, everyone will have to be very, very patient. If the U.N is incapable of stopping its own personnel from abusing the people they are there to protect, what is it capable of doing?

A program to assist the victims soon will be proposed, Mr. Guehenno said. Knowing that something soon will be in the U.N. pipeline to help them should be great comfort to the victims regardless of the decade in which the abuse happened.

Lock and load... Blue helmets not welcome on U.S. soil

Attention freepers...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

13 December 2005

Contact:

Herbert W. Titus, Attorney

Daniel D. New, Project Manager

757-421-4141
254-796-2173

forecast22@pinn.net
ddnew@danielnew.com

Michael New has a date
With Donald Rumsfeld!

(and you are invited!)

(District of Columbia) - The US Court of Appeals has set a date for oral arguments in the case of Michael G. New vs. Donald Rumsfeld, et al/

16 February 2006

Specialist Michael New 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.

In a radical departure from constitutional requirements of criminal prosecution, the District Court of D.C. had agreed with the military courts that there was no fatal defect when the military judge in New's court-martial refused to allow any evidence before the jury (panel). Legally, the Jury is the "trier of fact" and not the judge.

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.

In a surprising ruling, US District Court Judge Friedman conceded that Clinton may have broken the law, but that it is the duty of Congress to challenge the president, not a lowly soldier. ( www.mikenew.com/orlndsen.html) This decision continues to astonish attorneys and Constitutional authorities when they hear about it. As one attorney recently said, "I have always been under the impression that the citizen possesses every right under the Constitution that exists. Perhaps that is no longer true."

According to Lead Attorney Herbert W. Titus, of Virginia, who heads up the legal team representing Michael New and the Constitution, "We have here a case with serious implications for every American who ever wears a uniform. Michael New's stand is for them, and their right to defend their country exclusively, in accordance with the American soldiers Oath of Office."

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 -

www.MikeNew.com/

Timeline:

10/10/1995

Order to wear UN uniform disobeyed
1/1996

US District Court refuses to hear case
1/1996

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

Oral arguments, Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces
5/24/2001

LTC.Hamilton files 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

You are invited!

Do you want to attend this court session, and "stand with Michael New" in a court of law? It's open to the public, so you don't need our permission, of course. But if you want to be invited to the reception that follows that evening, at a venue to be determined, we need your contact information. To RSVP, click here.

Waiting...

Here is text of update>>>

Dear Supporters:

Here's your update on our latest venture into the Federal Zone, the District of Columbia. In keeping with our three-fold strategy to Litigate, Legislate, & Educate, we made progress on all fronts.

Litigation - Dr. Herbert W. Titus presented oral arguments in the US Court of Appeals on Thursday, 16 February. The courtroom was almost full of supporters, a most unusual thing in that court. More than one person asked, "WHO ARE all these people?" A HUGE thank you to those who came, and those who tried to come!

        Dr. Titus was his normal brilliant self, bringing the court's attention to our contention that this is not at all about a political question (as the government contends), but whether a soldier must obey all orders, including those that are unlawful? He asked the court, "Why do you suppose they put the word, 'lawful', in front of the word, 'orders', if it makes no difference? (That particular point, powerful in its simplicity, was repeated by one of the justices to the government attorney, who could not answer it.)

        We now wait, for two weeks to six months, to see what the Court of Appeals says. Best case scenario would be that they rule in Michael's favor, and then the government can appeal to the Supreme Court. Worst case scenario is that they dismiss the case, which means we would appeal, but the Supremes will not likely hear our appeals, whereas they will almost surely hear an appeal of the government. Another acceptable alternative to us would be for them to remand the case back to the District Court and order that court to hear the case on its merits.

Legislation - We were thrilled to learn that, even as Michael New was in court, Representative Ron Paul (of Texas) was introducing the H.R.4794 Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2006 into the House of Representatives!

        This is a moderate bill, and a non-partisan bill. Liberal Democrats do not want their sons (and daughters) drafted into a United Nations army any more than Conservative Republicans do. We want co-sponsors without regard to party or ideology. This is an AMERICAN issue!

Education - The time has come for us to develop a much more organized approach to educating others about this situation. There are several target audiences, and many of you have been doing this faithfully for years.

        Right now, legislators at all levels are a target audience, primarily in Congress. But you may have a working relationship with your state representative or state senator, and it may also be a good time to get their attention with a renewed effort to have your community, or your state, declared a "UN-free Zone"!

        Veterans are a target audience, because they have fought, bled, and seen friends die in combat. And yet, since World War II, most of those veterans have fought under the United Nations!!! Don't think so? The Korean War was totally UN, and undeniable. What most don't know is that the Vietnam War was fought under the SEATO treaty and organization, which was UN. Iraq I was a UN operation. Iraq II is a UN operation today! Even though the UN does not like the way we are going about it, both Bushes acted "on the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolutions" to proceed with their wars. We need education in this area.

        Students are a target audience. They are like lambs destined for slaughter, they have no idea what the New World Order has in mind for them, but we know it is not that they might grow up and protect their own nation's sovereignty.

ACTION ITEMS:

If you don't already have it, get the address and fax numbers for your US Congressional delegation - one Representative and two Senators. They are about to hear from you.
Get a copy of the Citizen Soldier Protection Act, and the number (we'll provide it as soon as it is available).
Call, fax and write to your three congressmen and tell (don't ask) them that you consider this bill to be a very reasonable, moderate bill that addresses a huge problem for all our military -- whether they can be FORCED to serve under the United Nations -- and that you expect to see their name, soon, as co-sponsors in the House or the Senate. Remind them that their sponsorship, or lack thereof, will help you decide how to vote in the primaries and in November -- this is litmus test! Let's see if they can pass it.

Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/
This is a U.N.-free Zone
www.UN-freeZone.org/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.