See other Resistance Articles
Title: Supreme Court Turns Down Michael New
Source:
email
URL Source: http://www.minkenew.com
Published: Apr 23, 2007
Author: Daniel New
Post Date: 2007-04-25 15:23:37 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 480
Comments: 44
PRESS RELEASE - for immediate release 23 April 2007 contact: Daniel New, Project Manager 254-796-2173 ddnew@mikenew.com Michael New Action Fund Michael New Legal Defense Fund P.O. Box 100 Iredell, Texas 76649 Former Army Specialist Michael New's petition to the US Supreme Court, asking them to review his case, and the lack of due process and the sudden change in the legal "standard of review" applied to it, has been denied. Thus ends a legal battle that began in August of 1995. What does this ruling mean to Americans? If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become "discretionary element" of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don't, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the "standard of review" that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld. If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America. In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process. If you are a Member of Congress, or are represented there, it means that the Executive Branch may now send our soldiers into war, (under the UN), without bothering with little inconveniences like getting a Congressional Declaration of War. This, thanks to Presidential Decision Directive #25 http://www.mikenew.com/pdd25.html, which was touted as the legal basis of the order to send Michael New under the UN, in apparent contradiction of existing law and precedent. The balance of power between the branches of government, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has just been destroyed. If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war. There is more, but that's enough to demonstrate that the USA has just experienced a figurative shifting of the tectonic plates of our very existence, and the USA is not what we have all been led to believe it is - our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead. If the President can force Americans to fight, without a declaration of war, under foreign powers, then the Republic no longer exists. Other than that, it's just another day. The grass will continue to grow, and the sun will continue to shine. And what do we do now? We're thinking about that, and considering many options. This would be a very good time to give us your own thinking on the subject. Thank you all, so much, for your support over the past decade. Daniel New Project Manager Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!
Supreme Court Turns Down Michael New
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
(Edited)
I am more cynical about the future of our country than I ever have been. I've spoken with several college and grad school students about Virginia Tech, and that incident last week where a college student in Colorado was arrested after some students felt his comments were inappropriate. I read the story, and it appeared the guy was simply engaging in an active discussion about the topic, in a class where they were asked to discuss it. I felt the school and authorities had grossly overreacted, and the guy's comments were not threats, but explorations of rationales. I have been both amazed and troubled that educated grad students in their mid twenties believe the action taken was proper. They have grown up with free speech as a given, and don't think about it as a right. They think more about security, and being safe. I fear the generation coming up has been conditioned to accept armed soldiers walking about in uniform with assault weapons, and to perceive that not as a threat, but as protection.
Toss in the Geneva conventions, the Nuremburg laws, the separation of powers, and the individual liberties of the citizenry and you've got a list to go on with. We have a sheriff in a nearby county here in Missouri who twice refused service of a habeas corpus, saying "This don't mean nothing to me." He was told in no uncertain terms that he was committing a misdemeanor (532.630 RSMo) when he also refused to produce a copy of the warrant or other process by which he was holding my friend. He did this on two separate occasions. The statute calls for a $500 fine for each occurence, payable to the aggrieved party. The judge denied this claim in court which just goes to show how completely corrupt they are. The sheriff can commit a crime and get off scot free while the average Joe must languish in jail for violations of administrative law. Fascist is too kind a term, they are criminals of the worst sort engaged in racketeering.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
That sounds like grounds for a section 1963 civil suit against the sheriff in federal court.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I fear the generation coming up has been conditioned to accept armed soldiers walking about in uniform with assault weapons, and to perceive that not as a threat, but as protection. This type of unthinking reactionaryism will result in the loss of liberty for all. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
That kind of thing is happening all over. Police routinely arrest citizens now who observe police misconduct and object vocally to it. Typically, the police are arresting someone, treating them brutally, and citizens are either objecting vocally or taking videos. Cops believe they have a right to BE the law, not merely enforce the laws we have enacted.
If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America. In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process. And, if we ever bring back the draft, many Americans will be subject to this tyranny without their ever having agreed to join the military.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Wait until the rock and bottle chucking at the scum starts up for their criminal acts. And start it will. Folks are fast becoming fed up with out insolent and disobedient public servants. These rogue cops will soon become targets and I pity the good cops among them who must suffer the backlash as well.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
When the IRA went after the Royal Irish Constabulary, many of the policemen they killed and injured were decent men. But they had the bad luck to be on the wrong side in revolutionary times.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The way to beat the draft is when one is at the induction center and the DI says "Whoever is here to join up, take one step forward," you simply take one step (or more, sit down even if there is a chair behind you) back and refuse to volunteer. Be prepared, however, for a dressing down and verbal assault the likes of which I would not wish on my worst enemy (or maybe I would). Stick to your guns and you will be on the next bus home.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
True. Shit happens and we must be prepared to dish out many times more grief than they can give us. We must realize that the gov't always has unlimited money and manpower. Pick your spot and be precise.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Isn't that a 1983 action?
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
Me, too. The constitution is, for practical purposes, a dead letter.
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
My thoughts exactly.
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
Yes, I misremembered. 1983 is right.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When I read it, I thought "does that sound right?" It did, but I felt there was something amiss. I find myself doing that more and more. 1963, 1983. Easy to misremember. Hell, I went six months a couple of years ago trying to remember the name of KD Lang. Damn, it pissed me off not being able to remember. I know my memory has peaked. Yes, the days of my being Jeopardy material are over. I still know stuff, but I can't always access it quickly.
So ends road long traveled. Was anyone surprised though? The gov is corrupt. I do wonder what the vote was but we'll never know. Obviously no more than 3 voted to hear New's case. I'm sure Bush's latest appointees were not sympathetic. But a job well done for Michael and Daniel New. They carried their case to the bitter end and that's admirable.
woohoo..you guys are getting along now. :P
i'd only be surprised if it went the other way. shocked in fact. i still have to wonder why/how joe bannister was acquitted.
grrrrrr...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, mom. Lay off. Wally started it.
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
made my day, i'll tell ya.
Oh, I know that one. It's KD Lang.
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
I resemble that remark ;)
It was a narrow escape. If the sheep had been created first, man would have been a plagiarism. -- Mark Twain No group of professionals meets except to conspire against the public at large. -- Mark Twain The only thing you have to do is identify when the so-called Nazis showed up, and as the following document shows, it was a looooooong time ago.... oh yes, long before 1933. The only thing that has slowed the process down is getting each succeding generation a little more used to chains. (See Senate Document 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933; "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called ownership is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." This is still on the books; still in force and effect today.)
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
We're working on a case together! You know, Christine, there are cases where you come away from it with a solid relationship with some opposing attorney. I think cases usually require a period of contentiousness and head busting before reason sets in. At least, that's what I've seen and lived many times. A lawsuit has a life unto itself, a mixture of law and performance art and applied psychology. There usually comes a point where all the lawyers want to kill all the clients, and all the clients want to kill all the lawyers, and then settlement follow.
Me, too. The constitution is, for practical purposes, a dead letter. bump it
that's amusing
The mind-cache is so full of so much shit - it's tough. It's there, we just can't quickly call it to tongue. Aging - not for sissies.
I liken it to a computer. You can have info in your computer, but if you can't find the file, you can't see what is in it. Memory is fascinating, and I've always had a great one. You know when you've lost speed remembering.
I looked at my bozo count and you don't really have me on bozo. I know you can see this.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Why do they call you "Pole Revere" over on Log Cabin?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
When there is a lot riding on the outcome, and the case is nearing the point of trial, the pressure on everyone builds. A witness starts getting shaky on some part of his story. The judge rules on some pretrial motion that blows a hole in your case. Some party is either unrealistic or unreasonable. Cases settle when the level of pain is sufficiently high, and the outcome sufficiently uncertain, that temporary sanity sets in. Now days, almost every judge requires a serious mediation attempt, and sometimes requires parties to get back into mediation in the last week, before trying the case. Judges beat on parties to get cases to settle. They send mixed signals to put the parties and their attorneys off balance. Sometimes they chew out both sides and try to say to the parties what their own lawyers may have difficulty saying (like "you're not looking too good on this point"). A good mediator can get a case settled, but only if the parties and attorneys are rational. A case that doesn't settle is a failure, because sane and reasonable attorneys should be able to prevail on their clients to settle, if there's a court ordered mediator who has the power to put the deal to paper that day.
you sound like an old bullshitter. are you old? are you a bullshitter?
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
does this mean that sheep shit doesn't have me on bozo?
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
Yes, but watch the count or you won't be able to tell what is going on. If you had one you wouldn't be able to tell if it was Sheep Shit or someone else.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Yes, it is a sure fire 1983 suit. When you read the federal habeas statutes, the sheriff is a dead duck for violating them. This is a federal question for violation of rights under color of law. It's a sure thing to stir the pot in the district court, especially considering the corruption that is so transparent at the county level. The judge even admitted on the record that he "made errors." And the county is pulling the usual crap of only sending partial records of the trial to the state appeals court. We need more rope!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I'm sure the judge in my civil case said that to the shysters who are representing those insolent and disobedient public servants I am suing up here after I slam dunked their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by completely dismembering their so-called "affirmative defenses" as bogus lies, pettifoggery and misrepresntations of the facts. A friend of mine who has been fighting them for many years says my suit has held on the longest out of any he has seen in the last several years.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
The constitution is, for practical purposes, a dead letter. The corruption in the courts is so widespread that there is basically no justice to be had in them for the people when it comes to fighting the state. The judges are there to protect the corporations, and that includes the corporate state. This comes down to brass tacks right in the trenches of the streets where we will have to educate the police, one on one. If they refuse to listen and learn, they need to be hurt so badly they are forced to retire. It will not be easy and many will fall on both sides.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
A friend of mine who has been fighting them for many years says my suit has held on the longest out of any he has seen in the last several years. If you got past their motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, it probably means you have stated a cause of action, although perhaps inartfully. It also means you likely have a triable fact issue, which is imperative if you want to get the case to a jury. The problem with suing the state is that even if you win and get a judgment in the trial court, they usually don't have to post a supersedeas bond to perfect their appeal or keep the judgment creditor from executing on the judgment. In other words, governments get a free pass for appeal that private litigants do not get. This is a huge advantage. Governments have advantages but their biggest disadvantage is the poor quality of the lawyers they have on staff. If they have any sense, they get outside lawyers when they get sued for anything serious.
I don't know if I'd call it that, but the system is definitely in favor of those who have the most money to spend. No decent plaintiff's case makes it past the gauntlet of well funded defense motions and machinations unless either the client or his attorney is funding the plaintiffs case with time, skill and money. Value is created in a plaintiffs case by pouring time and money into that case. If one side has the law on its side, and the other side has the money, bet on the money to prevail, not the law.
#5. To: bluedogtxn, Paul Revere (#3)
These Nazis do not believe in a right to trial by a jury, the rules of evidence, the right to an attorney, the right to habeas corpus. It's shocking, and a scourge on America.
#6. To: BTP Holdings (#5)
#7. To: Paul Revere (#4)
I have been both amazed and troubled that educated grad students in their mid twenties believe the action taken was proper. They have grown up with free speech as a given, and don't think about it as a right. They think more about security, and being safe.
#8. To: BTP Holdings (#5)
(Edited)
#9. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become "discretionary element" of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don't, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the "standard of review" that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld.
#10. To: Paul Revere (#8)
Police routinely arrest citizens now who observe police misconduct and object vocally to it. Typically, the police are arresting someone, treating them brutally, and citizens are either objecting vocally or taking videos. Cops believe they have a right to BE the law, not merely enforce the laws we have enacted.
#11. To: BTP Holdings (#10)
#12. To: aristeides (#9)
if we ever bring back the draft,
#13. To: aristeides (#11)
When the IRA went after the Royal Irish Constabulary, many of the policemen they killed and injured were decent men. But they had the bad luck to be on the wrong side in revolutionary times.
#14. To: BTP Holdings, Eoghan, MUDDOG, ..., scrapper2, Fred Mertz, rowdee, Esso (#0)
our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead.
#15. To: aristeides (#6)
That sounds like grounds for a section 1963 civil suit against the sheriff in federal court.
#16. To: Paul Revere (#4)
I am more cynical about the future of our country than I ever have been.
#17. To: aristeides (#9)
And, if we ever bring back the draft, many Americans will be subject to this tyranny without their ever having agreed to join the military.
#18. To: bluedogtxn (#15)
#19. To: aristeides (#18)
Yes, I misremembered. 1983 is right.
#20. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
#21. To: bluedogtxn, Paul Revere, aristeides (#2)
#22. To: Neil McIver (#20)
#23. To: David Alan Carmichael (#0)
#24. To: christine (#21)
woohoo..you guys are getting along now. :P
#25. To: bluedogtxn (#24)
#26. To: Paul Revere (#19)
Hell, I went six months a couple of years ago trying to remember the name of KD Lang.
#27. To: Paul Revere (#1)
fall into this abyss of fascism
#28. To: bluedogtxn, Paul Revere, all (#3)
These Nazis do not believe in a right to trial by a jury,
#29. To: christine (#21)
woohoo..you guys are getting along now. :P
#30. To: bluedogtxn, PR, BTP, ALL (#16)
I am more cynical about the future of our country than I ever have been.
#31. To: Paul Revere (#29)
There usually comes a point where all the lawyers want to kill all the clients, and all the clients want to kill all the lawyers,
#32. To: Paul Revere (#19)
Yes, the days of my being Jeopardy material are over. I still know stuff, but I can't always access it quickly.
#33. To: lodwick (#32)
#34. To: Paul Revere (#33)
#35. To: Paul Revere (#33)
#36. To: christine (#31)
(Edited)
#37. To: Paul Revere (#36)
#38. To: Minerva (#35)
Bozo Rank: Number of Full and/or Introductory members who have bozo'd you: 0
#39. To: Morgana le Fay (#38)
#40. To: aristeides (#6)
That sounds like grounds for a section 1963 civil suit against the sheriff in federal court.
#41. To: Paul Revere (#36)
and try to say to the parties what their own lawyers may have difficulty saying (like "you're not looking too good on this point").
#42. To: lodwick, bluedogtxn, Paul Revere (#30)
I am more cynical about the future of our country than I ever have been. Me, too.
#43. To: BTP Holdings (#41)
I'm sure the judge in my civil case said that to the shysters who are representing those insolent and disobedient public servants I am suing up here after I slam dunked their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by completely dismembering their so-called "affirmative defenses" as bogus lies, pettifoggery and misrepresntations of the facts.
#44. To: BTP Holdings, lodwick, bluedogtxn (#42)
(Edited)
The corruption in the courts is so widespread that there is basically no justice to be had in them for the people when it comes to fighting the state. The judges are there to protect the corporations, and that includes the corporate state.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest