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 historical legal doctrine and military practice, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) ruled that evidence of illegality is not a fundamental element of the offense to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt by the military jury, but is instead an issue for the prosecution, to be resolved at the discretion of the military judge.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) in 2001, the court-martial was once more sustained, but only after a delay of 495 days. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. Having "exhausted the military remedy," New took his case to the US District Court, challenging the court-martial conviction. The transcript of that hearing can be found here: www.mikenew.com/docs/111904.pdf

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."

"It is now going on ten years, since this perversion of the Constitution began in Mike's case," says his father, Daniel New, Project Manager of the Legal Defense. "They thought he would go away. He was a nobody to the government, which lives by the argument that, 'You must obey orders, no matter what.' Even though we hung German officers who used that as a defense following World War II, it appears now that we have come full circle and we find the Pentagon making the same arguments that their opponents made half a century earlier. Having forgotten our history, we are now forced to repeat it."

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."

Another aspect was recently discussed by legal observer and common law authority Joseph Dale Robertson: "At issue here, is a question of no less importance than was the Dred-Scott case. Is a soldier a citizen, or is he a serf? That is at the heart of this legal case, and it has implications for future of our entire military and our nation. Dred-Scott dragged on for twelve years, and the decision in the end was dreadfully wrong. When American soldiers find out that they do not have the rights as citizens that their fathers had, they are not going to take it well."

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 continues is pursuing a degree in Information Management Systems in Texas.

The case is expected to be heard late this year, or early in 2006.