In CIA Leak Trial Jury Is Aligned On 2 Courts But At Impasse On The Rest

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon ThreadBBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 6 – In the end game of the trial of accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, on the afternoon of Friday, March 6 the jury said it is aligned on two counts and at an impasse on the remaining counts: that is, on eight counts.  Live tweeted thread here.

  Whether the alignment is guilty or not guilty, this may be seen as a loss for the prosecutors. More on Patreon here.

  Judge Paul A. Crotty told the jurors to go home for the weekend (and to watch out for Coronavirus and crowds). He said things will resume on Monday, March 9. It is getting to end game.

 Back on the afternoon of February 28 the US in an emergency hearing dropped Count 2 against Schulte, and admitted that it can never be revived: jeopardy has attached. Inner City Press has obtained the transcript and tweeted and uploaded it here on Scribd, on Patreon here.

  On March 5, Judge Paul A. Crotty and both side's lawyers held a closed door proceeding in the judge's robing room. Afterward Assistant US Attorney Matthew Laroche said that the transcript should be sealed until after a verdict.

  Inner City Press immediately wrote to Judge Crotty and the docket, for the fifth time in this proceeding (here's III and IV): "Dear Judge Crotty:    This supplements the January 22, 23 and 26 and February 24, 2020 submissions on this topic on behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity. Your Honor on Janaury 31 ruled inter alia that "[t]he Government is directed to make transcripts and exhibits available to the public no later than the evening after the day of testimony." Docket No. 293, at 15.   This morning after a robing room discussion about Juror Number 5 (and perhaps other matters) from which the press was excluded, AUSA Laroche urged your Honor to seal the transcript of that discussion until AFTER there is a verdict. That is unacceptable, and inconsistent with your previous order.  The purpose of this letter is to formally request at the earliest time - 10 minutes after AUSA Laroche's statement, your ruling on which is unclear - that the transcript of the robing room proceeding be made available immediately, as well as all other exhibits which Inner City Press has continued available to the public on https://www.patreon.com/MatthewRussellLee."

  Meanwhile, as now excused Juror 5 left the courthouse, Inner City Press caught the tail / end of her comments to two intrepid tabloids. She specializes in buttocks sculpting - and most explosively, indicted that she believed Schulte was naughty but not guilty. This would seem at a minimum to provide fuel for a defense appeal in the event of a conviction. But first - the transcript. Watch this site.

  On March 4, the jury deliberated for a full second day without reaching a verdict. Or perhaps the whole jury did not deliberate - as Inner City Press first tweeted (thread here), the foreperson passed out a note that Juror Number Four (whose name was said) was refusing to deliberate with others, was conducting their own inquiry into the evidence. Schulte's lawyer Zas urged Judge Crotty to let time elapse before acting. Could this type of independent inquiry be more favorable to Schulte than that US? Thread here; Inner City Press is staying on the case.

  On March 3, the jury deliberated and asked at least nine questions. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here. There were questions about locking and unlocking computers, and if Schulte was ever diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a matter raised in cross-examination. Perhaps of concern for the defense was the lack of questions about alternate suspect Michael.

  At day's end in Judge Crotty's courtroom gallery it was only Inner City Press and one of the Assistant US Attorneys, who waited to say he and Schulte's lawyers would try to answer some of the questions the next day, March 4. Inner City Press will be there - watch this site.

  On March 2 were the closing arguments, which Inner City Press tweeted, thread here.

Before CIA Leaks Trial of Joshua Schulte Disputes About Fake Names and Court Sealing

By Matthew Russell Lee, PatreonBBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 24 – Ten days before the trial of accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, set to begin February 3, a final pre trial conference on January 24 showed continuing disputes about the secrecy and sealing of evidence and witnesses.

   Assistant US Attorney Matthew Laroche argued that while prospective jurors will be shown witnesses real names, it will only by in hard copy and thereafter some 17 of them will be referred to by pseudonyms.

  Schulte's lawyer Sabrina Shroff, still with the Federal Defenders for purposes of this case, insisted on calling these "fake names," and complained about the difficulties imposed in conducting basic research on potential witnesses.

US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey S. Berman is asking to have the public excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of several of these CIA witnesses: ten called by the prosecution, and seven the defense seeks to call.

On January 21, SDNY District Judge Paul A. Crotty scheduled a public hearing on US Attorney Berman's request, to be held on January 27 at 2 pm.  Opposition to sealing has already been filed, see Inner City Press filing into the docket on Big Cases Bot, here. Watch this site.

US Urges Banning Public From CIA Leaks Trial of Schulte But SDNY Hearing Jan 27 Inner City Press To Be There

By Matthew Russell Lee, PatreonBBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 21 – For the upcoming trial of accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, US Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman is asking to have the public excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of several CIA witnesses.

On January 21, District Judge Paul A. Crotty scheduled a public hearing on Berman's request, to be held on January 27 in the run-up to the trial scheduled to begin February 3. Inner City Press will be there for both.   

Schulte has been charged to providing WikiLeaks with information about the CIA's hacking activities, which WikiLeaks subsequently published in its "Vault7" trove.

Since then Schulte has been accused of further dissemination of information from the Metropolitan Correctional Center, and put into solitary confinement there.   

For months Inner City Press, even as it has complained about being unceremoniously ordered to leave certain courtrooms including that of Judge Crotty (in a case he said would be made public in 60 days but hasn't been - perhaps for reasons, but none explained), has observed lawyers headed to the "SCIF" on the ninth floor of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at 500 Pearl Street.  

 One of Schulte's lawyers, Sabrina Shroff who also represented former Senegal foreign minister Cheikh Gadio in a UN bribery trial Inner City Press covered, has indicted she was constrained in what she could say. She has complied with all rules, however restrictive. But information wants to be free.    

  On July 22, 2019 Inner City Press went to Judge Crotty's courtroom for the case US v. Perlson but was told by Judge Crotty to leave. Inner City Press said, "I am a reporter. If you are going to try to close a public courtroom there must be specific findings, for specific portions. There is case law."  Inner City Press pointed out US v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 87 (before closing a proceeding to which the First Amendment right of access attaches, the judge should make specific, on the record findings demonstrate that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest). 

 There followed a sidebar, apparently transcribed, from which Inner City Press was excluded. At the end Judge Crotty while ordering Inner City Press to leave said that the government's case was moving along well and that he hoped to unseal the transcript in a month. 

 Six months later, the case still shows up as "cannot find case" in PACER.

Often when the Schulte case has appeared in the day's Events Calendar in PACER, with proceeding scheduled for Judge Crotty's Courtroom 14C, Inner City Press has gone, only to find the courtroom door locked.  

Now, at least on January 27, the door will be open. Inner City Press will be there, and while hoping to live tweet from right there, will publish a full article immediately after. Watch this site. 

Inside UN, CIA Official & “Accurate Reporting on US” Pitched by UNCA, UN's Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- What is the function of what's called the UN Correspondents Association? Tomorrow April 10 it is summoning its members to “an informal off-the-record meeting” with the “Deputy Director, Media Hub of the Americas, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs.”

   The summons, sent by UNCA President Giampaolo Pioli, links to a self-description of this US Bureau of Public Affairs, that “PA/IME works in close collaboration with State Department and interagency colleagues to create and manage tools to ensure accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy by major international media.”

    UNCA represents only part of the UN press corps. This writer, for example, quit the group after 2012.  UNCA is said by UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to receive the first question in the UN Press Briefing Room “by tradition,” even after UNCA's Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for its reporting about Sri Lanka, UN Peacekeeping and colonialism (Herve Ladsous) among other topics.

  Now UNCA wants to facilitate “accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy.” Does it perform this service for other countries?

    Inner City Press, like the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded after quitting UNCA, is not against accurate coverage. Last month, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Yemen (including the decision not to evacuate Yemeni Americans from the country), Cuba (the US restrictions on its diplomats at the UN), the Maldives, Middle East and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each case, Inner City Press reported the answers in full, where possible with video.

  But why provide this platform for one country and not others? Earlier on April 10 UNCA will have a presentation by a former US CIA employee who served in Saipan, Korea, Vietnam and "Burma," as the UNCA notice puts it.

  What has happened to this UNCA under Pioli and presumably current Executive Committee members fromReuters, the US Broadcast Board of Governors and ANSA? And how now can the UN continue to “partner” with UNCA, exclusively, using this partial group as a proxy for the wider press corps? 

 Earlier on April 9, when the UN with little notice canceled its question and answer noon briefing in deference to a"press encounter" with Ban Ki-moon at which Dujarric handpicked the questioners and Ban notably did not call for a halt or even pause in airstrikes on Yemen, UNCA said nothing. (They will, however, have a "Prosecco toast" with Ban later in the month.)

 The Free UN Coalition spoke up in criticism, as here. We'll have more on and of this.

   

From North Korea, As UN General Assembly Votes, Foreign Ministry Trolls EU on CIA Torture Report: DPRK Full Text

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- On the day the full UN General Assembly voted a recommendation to the Security Council on North Korea's human rights record, with 116 in favor, 20 against and 53 abstaining, North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea issued this statement, to the EU:

FM Spokesman Urges European Countries Not to Peddle Other's “Human Rights Issue”

Pyongyang, December 17 (KCNA) -- The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK answered a question raised by KCNA on Wednesday in connection with the disclosure of European countries' conspiracy with the U.S. in its human rights abuses.

At a time when cruel tortures committed by the CIA against inmates in its secret prisons were disclosed recently to come under fire by the international community, the information that European countries had conspired with the U.S. in them was brought to light. This is sparking great uproar.

According to it, 21 European countries including Britain actively cooperated with the U.S. in its human rights abuses as evidenced by the facts that they allowed the CIA to set up secret prisons and interrogation bases and Okayed inmates' passage through their territories and their stay there.

EU and European countries have so far often found fault with other countries over their alleged human rights violations, behaving as if they were a "model" in protecting the human rights. And they have zealously joined the U.S. in its "human rights" campaign against the DPRK.

But, this time, it was disclosed that most of EU member states became servants in the U.S. brutal human rights abuses. This brought to daylight the fact that the signboard of "human rights protection", which was professed as one of its major pillars of EU policies, was only ostentation and proved to be a smokescreen to conceal a political hypocrisy peculiar to Europe.

The European countries are now faced with a strong condemnation and pressure at home and abroad. There come strange voices from several European countries that they only gave a green light to CIA to operate secret prisons but did not grant a right to torture prisoners.

There also comes a spate of discontent among them. Those countries grumble that they demanded the deletion of their cooperation in U.S. acts of torture but it was opened to public as it was.

In the final analysis, Europe has been reduced to a servant fated to sit in the dock for acting under the baton of the U.S. It scuttled the human rights dialogue with the DPRK, which had been smoothly under way a decade ago, under the wire-pulling of the U.S. over the DPRK's nuclear issue.

Recently alone, EU recognized the DPRK's will to seek an international cooperation in the field of human rights. But, pressurized by the U.S., EU behaved so recklessly as taking the lead in adopting the "human rights resolution" against DPRK, which is based on lies told by a few human dregs at the UN General Assembly.

European countries should be well aware of their own situations where they have lost even elementary qualifications to peddle the "human rights issue" of somebody. They would be well advised to bear in mind that they would only harm their own interests and lose their faces if they follow others without independent viewpoints.

If European countries are truly concerned for the protection of human rights, they should learn how to behave themselves and stop peddling "human rights issue" in the DPRK peppered with fabrications, though belatedly, and opt for calling the extra-large scale human rights violations by the U.S. into question at the UN and on other international fora.

By doing so, Europe can only redress its past and become a genuine champion of human rights as claimed by it.

  On the Security Council from the EU are permanent members France and the UK, and Luxembourg which leaves in 13 days (Spain will replace it in 2015 and 2016). Ten days after ten UN Security Council members wrote to request a meeting on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the request was discussed behind closed doors on December 15.

  The day arrived at for the session appears to be December 22 (Inner City Press asked the Chadian President of the Security Council for December), with a moment of drama at the beginning.

 That day, the President of the Council will say, "the provision agenda is the situation in the DPRK," and any Council member has the right to object. There are, however, no veto rights on this procedural matter.

  China's Permanent Representative to the UN Liu Jieyi said China is opposed to putting DPRK on the Council's agenda, calling the situation there complex and sensitive. Will he object on December 22? Wait and see, he said.

  On December 5, ten UN Security Council council members on December 5 asked for a Council meeting on the subject.

  Inner City Press obtained the letter that day and put it online, here.

  The request, by  Australia, Chile, France, Jordan,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the United States of America, is to put DPRK on the Council's agenda. For this, there is no opportunity to veto, unlike on any referral to the International Criminal Court.

  In January, there are five new members on the Council: Venezuela, Angola, Malaysia, Spain and New Zealand.

  Back on November 18 in the UN's Third Committee India said, in the fast transcription Inner City Press published that day, "We have abstained on the vote. We had voted in favor of the Cuban amendment. One of the main reason for India being unable to sign on to the ICC is that this doesn't allow the court to be free from political interference. The Security Council has the power to refer, the power to block, and the power to refer non-state parties. No state can be forced to be bound by a treaty it has not accepted. The Rome Statute violates international law. It gives state parties the power to refer non-state parties. OP 7 and OP 8 represent the very reasons against our joining the statute.It is unfortunate that matters on human rights have been taken to a vote."

 Earlier, after Cuba's proposed amendment was voted down, with 40 in favor, 77 against and 50 abstaining, DPRK itself spoke. Here is a fast transcription:

We express profound to all delegations that supported the amendment this morning.

"Regarding the draft resolution, the DPRK rejects the draft resolution. It is a product of political and military confrontation with no relevance to human rights. The EU and Japan submitted the resolution based on the reports of the Commission of Inquiry, which has never been to the country at all. The reports of the CoI is only based on fabricated testimonies of a handful of people who fled the country, abandoning their loved ones. The report is a compilation of groundless political accusations. We have maintained a position of rejecting confrontation and giving priority to dialogue and cooperation. The EU and Japan chose to provoke confrontation. The draft fails to reflect reality on the ground. Some member states of the EU and Japan hastily included dirty materials as leaflets flown by defectors. We do not feel any need to appeal to anyone to come and see the reality of our country, where politics and social system are all for the people. The Eu and Japan disclosed that the goal was subservience and sycophancy to the US and hostility to the DPRK from the outset, thus closing the door to doalogue. 

  "We shall strongly respond without slightest tolerance to any attempt to abuse the human rights issue as a tool for eliminating the social system of the DPRK. There is a hostile policy pursued by the US against the DPRK with a view to eliminating the social system of the country by means of force. The US instigated its followers to accuse us of crimes against humanity. The US unleashed a war in Yugoslavia, claiming to prevent crimes against humanity. It is now clear that all crimes of aggression committed by the US are linked to the vicious human rights campaign. We need to maintain powerful state capability to defend our people and their human rights. 

"This compels us not to refrain any further from conducting nuclear tests. In light of the human rights campaign we shall keep in our hearts pride and honor about the socialist system which was chosen by our people .The current draft resolution is confrontational in nature and will result in serious consequences. We wish to request a recorded vote and will vote against it. We encourage the representatives of the UN member states to vote against this confrontational resolution."

Before the vote on Cuba's amendment, South Africa spoke in support of the amendment, fast transcription here:

"We take the floor to support the Cuban proposal for the amendments of this res, in matters of principles. We agree with the views expressed, that this resolution is not balanced. The proposal Cuba is making would balance. We support the view Cuba raises about the dangerous precedent, as well as referring matters to the Security Council that do not belong in the realm of the Security Council. 

 "The Security Council can deal with any other matter in the world, without having the General Assembly urge it to do so. We find the res to be contradictory. There is a reference to the DPRK having gone through the UPR, but in the Operative Paragraph, the first OP condemns the longstanding violations in the DPRK. We find that to be a contradiction.... We will support the Cuban proposal."

  Here is a fast transcription of what the Cuba representative said: 

I would like to note that on the webpage there is a text in which we request that only the initial part of our amendment be maintained. The rest of the text will be eliminated. This had been included in the resolution but we wish to maintain only the first part.

This does not necessarily reflect human rights in the DPRK. Cuba has maintained a clear position on this matter and will vote against the resolution. We are not trying to prevent the SC from looking at the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Rather, Cuba is taking a position of principle. A number of delegations referred to the trigger mechanism, whereby the Human Rights Council is turning in to a tool used by some countries to attack others. Countries for which dialogue is not interesting, countries that don't want to promote human rights or uphold economic and social rights.

This resolution has been used to est a pattern which would endanger all developing countries. It creates a procedure under the Human Rights Council whereby there's no debate, the country in question isn't consulted, and has no chance to clarify the situation. It undermines the purpose of the council.

There's been a call to refer to the ICC. All these proposals will undermine the ICC. The ICC is a tool used against some developing countries, being used by more powerful countries. We haven't had time to explain our truth, and we would like to see a greater spirit of cooperation in terms of giving the country in question a chance to clarify.

We're trying to ensure that a precedent isn't being set. This would further damage the credibility of the council. This is political manipulation. We're not looking for confrontation. We believe where there's a will to cooperate, that will must be recognized. We don't want the situation to be exacerbated. We don't want to see people deprived of sovereignty.

Cuba has taken a position of principle. Every time attempts are made to manipulate the process, to use the council as a tool, we will take a stand.

  Here was the full text of Cuba's amendment:

Cuba: amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea

Delete operative paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert a new operative paragraph 7 reading as follows:

Decides to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: (a) the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; (b) the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and (c) the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country;

   In the Third Committee on November 17, others disassociated themselves from the portions of the Human Rights Council's resolution on their country-specific mandates, including Iran and Eritrea, which also argued that Norway had erroneously stated that the African Group supported the mandate against it.

 There was a dispute when Mauritania tried to present as the African Group's statement on the report of the Human Rights Council a text that after challenged it admitted South African had not agreed to. We'll have more on this.

 On North Korea, as Inner City Press reported on November 4, here, a wider range of countries have expressed concern to the European Union and Japan about not only the ICC language, but also a reference to the Responsibility to Protect. 

  While these countries may not constitute the majority to derail the proposal, if an amendment along the lines of their concerns is proposed, the waters will be clouded. This should be next week.

  On November 8 the US announced that the Democratic People Republic of Korea released U.S. citizens Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller, held for two years and seven months, respectively.

  The US State Department said "We also want to thank our international partners, especially our Protecting Power, the Government of Sweden, for their tireless efforts to help secure the freedom of Mr. Bae and Mr. Miller. The Department of State reiterates our strong recommendation against all travel by U.S. citizens to the DPRK."

  This comes amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit. Some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  More recently Inner City Press has heard from sources not sponsoring the resolution that an amendment will be offered to strip out the ICC and other language, but may not pass. And now?

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.