By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - Song
SDNY / UN GATE, Feb 25 – When Russia announced it will recognize independence for the Donetsk and Luhansk "People’s Republics," eyes turned to the United Nations, full of corruption and ineptitude under Antonio Guterres.
Guterres was nowhere to be seen, only recently back from the Genocide Games in Beijing. His spokesman Stephane Dujarric banned Inner City Press from his noon briefing, which he started late cutting off even others by WebEx. In the room, he took three questions in a row from China state media.
Now after military action began literally during a Security Council meeting, a draft resoluation is out - Inner City Press has published it here and here -- sure to be vetoed, Inner City Press wrote on February 24.
On February 25 it happened. Not only the veto, but abstentions by China (population 1.4 billion and a genocide supported by Guterres), India also with population of 1.4 billion, and the president of the Security Council for March, the UAE. The UN is advertising its obsolescence, like a badge of honor. It is time to move on.
UAE takes over UNSC Presidency March 1. Will they too exclude Inner City Press? Watch this site.
The deep decay of the UN under Guterres came into focus, but its supporters looked away and made excuses. Stand-up here. Song here
At the courts, which Inner City Press while banned from the UN by Guterres covers, Ukraine, fending off troops on its borders and separately an arbitral award to Tatneft, cited both in arguments before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on February 17. Inner City Press live tweeted it (more on Patreon here), thread here:
now Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, in which Ukraine is opposing discovery requests by citing troops on its border. SDNY judge says, I understand, but... Ukraine's lawyer Maria Kostytska: There is no justification for these 52 subpoenas from Tatneft. There are troops on Ukraine's border.
Judge: I understand that. But I am concerned with efficiencies in these two litigations. Ukraine wants a protective order entered - not (just) to protect it militarily, but hear to keep documents in the case secret, from the Press and public. Inner City Press may after research oppose this - this week we won some unsealing, here
Tatneft's lawyer: Ukraine wants to delay. We have subpoena-ed financial institutions. [From docket, involved: #BankOfAmerica, #WellsFargo, #MorganStanley, #Santander, #CIBC, #CreditAgricole & #GoldmanSachs (which we're covering #EDNY: US v. Ng.
Ukraine: There are discovery proceedings in four Federal courts, in NY and DC. [So what's the 4th?] We are speaking on behalf of the highest levels of Ukraine's government. The Prime Minister is considering this. There is a mediation upcoming.
Ukraine's lawyer: We are not delaying. We are exercising our recourse against an award based on illegal share purchase using promissory notes. We have not waived this due to estoppel. We have not provided on appeal. So we seek certiorari
Tatneft's lawyer: The discovery could be avoided if Ukraine would secure the judgment. The arbitral award is what it is. We are entitled to pursue discovery without further delay. Judge: Maybe Ms. Kostytska tomorrow will have more info from her client [Ukraine]
Judge: So this is how we're going to proceed -- Ukraine's lawyer: We want to add an additional suggestion, we want reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3, your clear error.
Digging into the docket, we find a declaration by Ukraine citing the US State Department on an "invasion force of 175,000."
More on Patreon here.
This case is Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, 21-mc-376 (Koeltl / Netburn)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
