DOES ANYONE REMEMBER MICHAEL NEW? Texas soldier takes a constitutional stand

Michael New Website ^ | July 1966 | Michael New

[VA Advogado]

I doubt this phony is a vet, or a lawyer. - To much of a buffoon to be either.

Says the man who on a daily basis soils the good name of one of our founding fathers. :)

[VA Advogado]

Isn't it time for you to go on one of your 'sudden' vacations? :)

[fogarty]

Sorry, pal you're WRONG. Obediance in the military is not ABSOLUTE without qualifiers, else we'd end up giving the same defense as the Nazis at Nuremberg. We are to obey all lawful orders, in accordance with the UCMJ - and above all, with the US Constitution as the guiding, ultimate document of our allegiance.

It is clear this assinine UN mission trumped neither the USMJ or the Constitution, hence Michael New's stance was correct and admirable.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..Texan who was perhaps ahead of his time?...

I was thinking perhaps he was born 200 years too late. Can't you just see someone as brave and as steadfast as Michael New, manning the walls of the Alamo? Thanks for posting this, Varina.

[Violette]

To think of all the garbage that Clinton pardonned at the end of his term....it makes one sick.

[RISU]

As far as I am concerned the US Congress owes this man back pay and a huge apology.

He is right. They are WRONG.

[varina davis]

New v. Perry, et al.

More than six years after he was penalized for refusing to put on the United Nations uniform and to submit to the command and control of a foreign military officer, and having exhausted his military appeals when the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for Writ of Certiorari, Michael New now seeks to re-open the habeas corpus proceeding he filed in 1995 in an effort to obtain a judicial determination of the constitutional issues presented by the government's actions. Our firm filed a motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which the government has opposed.

May 7, 2002

From www.lawandfreedom.com

thank you for the update.

[Violette]

United States Supreme Court denied his petition for Writ of Certiorari,

What does this mean? Is he in jail or is he with his family?

[VA Advogado]

Sorry, pal you're WRONG. Obediance in the military is not ABSOLUTE without qualifiers, else we'd end up giving the same defense as the Nazis at Nuremberg.

Glad you don't make these calls. This kid's a huckster just like his lawyer.

[tpaine]

A clownish buffoons reply. - Thanks.

[VA Advogado]

A clownish buffoons reply. - Thanks.

In case you don't remember, he likes his juice fresh squeezed.

[CIBvet]

Perhaps you haven't seen Col.Ray much because he's involved with cases in Wash DC, not scurrying around with you and your types behind the ambulances in your " ... local (KY)legal scene" - No, really !!

[CIBvet]

And YOUR service record is ??? Mr. Laaw-ya.

[VA Advogado]

You drinking again?

[varina davis]

United States Supreme Court denied his petition for Writ of Certiorari, What does this mean? Is he in jail or is he with his family?

No, he's not in jail, but you'll have to ask his attorney for the status quo of his case (see post in this thread).

[VA Advogado]

And YOUR service record is ??? Mr. Laaw-ya.

Never disobeyed a lawfull order gringo.

[Violette]

This kid's a huckster just like his lawyer

Are you saying then that if a soldier that was directed to carry out Hitler's commands made a stand against his "Chief in Command" to not carry out an order against humanity, that he would have been a huckster? This kid was protecting the principles on which our country rests and was actually obeying the law. And he was being incrediby brave in doing so.

[VA Advogado]

Are you saying then that if a soldier that was directed to carry out Hitler's commands made a stand against his "Chief in Command" to not carry out an order against humanity, that he would have been a huckster?

What did Hitler actually ask him to do? LOL