HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
[align=center]HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE[/align]
[align=center]Are Supreme Court Justices Too Timid To Battle for America??s Sovereignty?[/align]
[align=center]By Daniel New[/align]
Even if you attended government schools, you may well remember that event in history. An ancient Roman law forbade any general to enter the republic of Rome with a standing army??and the small Rubicon River was one of those borders. When Julius Caesar returned from his conquests of Gaul and Britain, he was forbidden to cross that Rubicon River with his army.
Everyone knew that civil war would be the result, if he defied the law and brought his army toward Rome. And yet, in the name of saving the Republic, Caesar decided to defy the rule of the Senate and to bring glory to Rome under what became the empire.
Even as the republic died, the empire grew and became more powerful than ever before, but the rule of law had been subverted, and the iron rule of emperors replaced it.
Michael New refused to submit to UN authority as an American soldier. He was court-martialed for his principled stand and, on April 24, the Supreme Court ruled against him. With that, they took the U.S. across the Rubicon toward legal chaos and empire.
Yes, I know: We??ve been moving that way for nigh unto a century, but this event is a ??continental divide? in the process.
As a result of that decision, it may well be that the final nail has been placed in the coffin of our onceproud republic, and we are now a nation where law is of no importance??precedent, political agenda and ruling parties will determine our direction, both in terms of wars and of foreign relations, until the New World Order settles down to bring us that which George Orwell predicted.
Our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen will serve, fight and die for the empire, not for the Constitution of the United States. Of course, they will not be told that, but then, do politicians tell the truth to their military? They are considered expendable by those who seek power.
The Supreme Court, in issuing a statement of two words, ??petition denied,? has stated that in the American judicial system today, it does not matter about due process, it does not matter about the ??standards of review,? it does not matter if the president makes up his own laws and then classifies them so no one can read them. None of this matters. All that matters is that, ??Soldiers must obey orders.?
Now there??s a question that we thought was settled at Nuremburg.
Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Patriotic American, for your support during our 11-and-a-half year legal battle. We could not have done it without you. Only God can know of the multitude of supporters, the prayers and the active support that you and thousands of others have done in the last decade.
A special thanks to the now defunct Spotlight and American Free Press, which brought the first printed story about Michael New to the attention of the American people back in 1995 and has followed the story closely ever since.
If we conclude that the republic is dead, what then? Do we all shout, ??Long live the empire?? I don??t think so. Bon voyage, American republic. We??ll miss you.
Daniel New is the father of Michael New. He can be contacted at 254-796-2173; [email protected]; Michael New Action Fund, P.O. Box 100, Iredell, TX 76649.
[align=center](Issue #19, May 7, 2007)[/align]
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Here's a link to describe what this is all about.........
The Court Martial of Michael New
Have a good one!:s4:
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
I dont understand why they would punish him in the first place,send him somewhere else its not like the U.S hasnt any other places where they could of sent him.
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
I don't think that they're able to pick and choose their assignments........BUT
I don't think that ANY of our people should be wearing a U.N. uniform though.
Have a good one!:s4:
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Well i dont think so either and to prosecute someone for not is going overboard.
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
I agree that he should not have to wear a UN uniform. If it was a US uniform with a UN insignia, it would depend on where that insignia was worn. If it was subjugated to the US insignia, then it would mean that a US soldier was helping the UN, If the US signia was removed, then He would be right in refusing as he would be viewed as UN. The facts are, we are being forced into a one world order as that makes it easier for the elites to control us. The elites really have no allegiance to any country. They have villas in spain, island getaways in the carribean, castles in europe, islands in the mediterranean, etc. It matters not which workers do their bidding, just that they are the cheapest they can get. The middle class in America holds no sway with the elites, if they can get a product to market cheaper through foriegn manufacture, so be it. With the advent of electronic voting, they can now tamper with the machines and sway the vote to their liking, simply by inserting a preprogrammed card into the machine, it will give the majority of votes to their candidates, Viola, the new world order. When it gets bad enough, the poor will have to eat the rich to survive, ~LOL~, I wonder how a barbecued Dick Cheney would taste, probably make you throw up!
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Well i dont think the elites want another french revolution so they had better not underestimate the average joe.
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinal
I wonder how a barbecued Dick would taste, probably make you throw up!
:jawdropper: FEAR FACTOR!!
Have a good one!:s4:
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Well here's the way I see it. I don't care about the uniform and I understand the problems of not having protected status. But for this guy to decide on his own that he's not going to follow certain orders because "they weren't in his oath" is a bunch of bs. Was eating meals in the oath? He figured that one out didn't he? Unlawful orders aside....which I completely agree with....he agreed to do a job so go do it.
HIGH COURT WON??T HEAR MICHAEL NEW??S CASE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weedhound
Well here's the way I see it. I don't care about the uniform and I understand the problems of not having protected status. But for this guy to decide on his own that he's not going to follow certain orders because "they weren't in his oath" is a bunch of bs. Was eating meals in the oath? He figured that one out didn't he? Unlawful orders aside....which I completely agree with....he agreed to do a job so go do it.
Agree 100%. This really has nothing to do with a uniform or insignia. It has to do with the fact that he refused to follow his orders. Case closed.
