US Court of Appeals Rejects Soldier Who Refused to Wear United Nations Blue Beret

Share Article

The only American soldier ever arrested, tried and convicted for refusing to deploy under United Nations control has been rejected on appeal by the US Court of Appeals (Case #05-5023).

The American soldier who refused to wear a United Nations blue beret lost another round last week in his attempt to petition for a redress of grievances, US Court of Appeals (Case #05-5023).

In a tersely worded note, the Court of Appeals made it clear than not one of the eleven justices was interested in the merits of the case before them. Not one could discover a Constitutional issue that has been violated in New's eleven year legal odyssey to have his case heard on its own merits. (Wording below.)

The issue before this court was actually unrelated to New's stand in 1995, when he refused to report to a formation in Germany, where his battle dress uniform (BDU) was to have been altered to replace the US flag on the right shoulder with a United Nations patch. This court was asked to examine the radical "Standard of Review" which a three-judge panel used earlier this year to reject New's appeal.

As has happened several times in New's case, he is now carrying a torch for an issue that is secondary to his initial issue, but has been forced upon him by several astonishing rulings by courts which cannot find their way to examine the merits of his case. The latest ruling by the Court of Appeals overturned 40 years of precedent by this very court.

The initial court-martial in 2006 refused to allow SPC New to present any evidence in his own defense, which would have proved that the uniform changes were unauthorized; the chain of command under a U.N. general were unconstitutional; and the deployment into Macedonia was, in fact, illegal. The military courts of appeal ruled, in order to prevent New's evidence from being submitted, that Evidence is not a fundamental element of the Defense. JAG officers throughout the military were stunned at that ruling.

Military courts have steadfastly maintained that SPC New's claims were political, while civilian courts have ruled them a military question. As a result, the merits have never reached a single judge nor jury.

Here is the Order of the Court:

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges , and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.


Upon consideration of Michael G. New's petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam


Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY Nancy G. Dunn

Deputy Clerk

According to SPC New's father, Daniel New, "This case is not really about Michael New. It's about the future of our military, and whether our sons and daughters are going to be forced to served under foreign powers against their will. If the courts fail to do their duty, then this government may not reasonably expect any more of our sons and daughters to enlist in its military. We take 'breach of contract' pretty seriously in our family."

In the meantime, legislation has been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, of Texas, to solve the problem of forcing American military personnel to serve under the United Nations in undeclared wars. H.R. 4797 is entitled

The Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2006.

Michael New Legal Defense

P.O. Box 100

Iredell, Texas 76649

# # #

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Daniel New
Visit website