In Griffith NoKo Crypto Case Inner City Press Got Unsealed Decoder Ring Cited on Venue

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 8 – Virgil Griffith, charged with violating North Korea sanctions in connection with a crypto-currency conference there, sought to get the case moved for lack of venue out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This emerged at a telephone conference in the case on May 18. Griffith's defense lawyer Brian E. Klein said he is ready to file a motion on venue as early as this Friday May 22, based on "ex parte, in camera" filings he made with SDNY Judge P. Kevin Castel. 

   Inner City Press, which has covered the case from Griffith's first appearance in the SDNY Magistrates Court to his Christmas holiday legal moves to get released to home confinement in Alabama, immediately sought the still-sealed documents in this criminal case, see below.

 Now on December 8, Griffith's lawyers have pushed again for a bill of particulars, saying it "should not be forced to use a decoder ring on over 6,800 pages of discovery" to discern what crimes were actually alleged to have been committed, by whom, and where. That is a key word: where. Because the defense is still hammering on venue. Watch this site.

 On November 10, Inner City Press went in person to the proceeding in Judge Castel's Courtroom 11D. It was alone in the gallery; in the front were the three ASUAs, Mr. Buckley for Griffith, and on the side CISO Hartenstein, who performs the same role in the CIA leaks case US v. Joshua Schulte.

  The government said it won't make its CIPA motion under March 19. Buckley point out that is more than a year after Griffith was arrested, and that Griffith is seeking FBI and other information.

 Judge Castel replied that he will bring the parties in on December 22. He said the public portion of the CIPA Section 2 conference was over; he told Mr Buckley he did not have to wait around (and Inner City Press, by implication, either). But what are the rights of the press and public with respect to these CIPA sealings?

For now, the outcome of the sealed CIPA meeting on November 10 is this, docketed on November 12: "ENDORSED LETTER as to Virgil Griffith addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from James L. Dunlap dated 10/5/2020 re: I recommend Mr. Daniel O. Hartenstine, Supervisory Security Specialist, for the position of Classified Info1mation Security Officer in the above-captioned case, I also recommend Security Specialists Matthew W. Mullery, Maura L. Peterson, Carli V. Rodriguez-Feo, Harry J. Rucker, and Winfield S. Slade as alternate Classified Information Security Officers....ENDORSEMENT: Daniel O. Hartenstine is appointed Classified Information Security Officer and the five named individuals as alternate classified information security officers in this case. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/10/20)(jw)." Watch this site.

 On July 20, Klein requested for Griffith restored access to the Internet, telling Judge Castel in letter here on Patreon that while on leave from Ethereum another unnamed company has offered to make him a consultant, but that Klein would wants it name sealed : "While he has been placed on leave by his former employer during the pendency of these charges, he has been offered one consulting contract, which can be submitted to the Court under seal."

 On July 24 Judge Castel held a hearing on this, which Inner City Press live tweeted, below.

  Now on November 6 the US Attorney's Office has filed an opaque letter about an upcoming closed presentation of national security information: "Re: United States v. Virgil Griffith, 20 Cr. 15 (PKC) Dear Judge Castel: As the Government has notified the Court and defense counsel, the Government intends to file a motion pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”) in this case with respect to certain classified information. For the Court’s ease of reference in anticipation of the CIPA Section 2 conference scheduled for November 10, 2020, the Government writes to provide further information about the procedures under CIPA that will govern the anticipated motion. CIPA governs the discovery of classified information in federal criminal cases. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2010). Congress enacted CIPA to enable the Government to fulfill its duty to protect national security information, while simultaneous ly complying with its discovery obligations in federal criminal prosecutions... Should classified discovery prove necessary, the Government will provide defense counsel and the Court with a proposed CIPA § 3 protective order, and coordinate with defense counsel to secure any necessary clearances. See, e.g., United States v. Schulte, No. 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) (SDNY) Dkt. No. 61. The Court may appoint a Classified Information Security Officer (“CISO”) in this matter to facilitate these procedures." We'll have more on this.

On October 22 Griffth filed motions for information: "Mr. Griffith’s motion to compel seeks an Order directing the government to produce the following: a. All internal materials of the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Controls (“OFAC”) regarding or in connection with Mr. Griffith’s trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (“DPRK”); b. Confirmation of the identity of an individual identified by the government as “Witness-2”; and c. Materials from OF AC, Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), and National Security Agency (''NSA") related to the DPRK's cryptocurrency capabilities. Despite good faith efforts, the parties have reached an impasse on each of the above topics that are the subject of Mr. Griffith's motion to compel. 4. Mr. Griffith's motion for a bill of particulars seeks an Order directing the government to produce the following: a. a specific recitation of the "services" Mr. Griffith is alleged to have provided, or caused to be provided, in violation of law, including the alleged services involved, the identification of others involved, the manner in which such services were provided in violation oflaw, and the amount and source of each payment for such alleged services; b. the identities of all known co-conspirators; and c. all relevant acts or events that occurred in this District. Despite good faith efforts, the parties have reached an impasse on each of the above topics that are the subject of Mr. Griffith's motion for a bill of particulars." Full letter on Patreon here.

On July 30, Judge Castel denied Griffith's venue motion: "    OPINION AND ORDER as to Virgil Griffith re: [43] MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Virgil Griffith. Defendant Virgil Griffith is charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705. For these reasons, Griffiths motion to dismiss the indictment for improper venueis DENIED. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion (Doc 43). (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/29/20)(jw)."

 Judge Castel's full order also states that "the defense will be free to contest the government’s evidence concerning venue and present its own theory, should it choose to do so. Subject to any motions for judgment as a matter of law, it will be for the jury to decide whether the government has established venue by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court will be in the best position to decide whether the drawing of an inference of receipt or access in this District is reasonable from the totality of the evidence at trial."

Griffith's lawyer Keri Axel says now Virgil's cold wallets have been secured, it's time to let him use the Internet. Cites COVID19 and her own canceled international vacation.

Griffith's lawyer says Internet restriction has wrecked havoc on his ability to work. "He will be on leave from Ethereum but has been offered a consulting contrast" which she offers to show Judge Castel in camera - without the public or press seeing.

Griffith's lawyer: He does back-end work on people's servers. His employers would want their data protected - so, no monitoring, it's not secure.  Note: Inner City Press has covered another Judge Castel case in which loosening was denied, here.

AUSA Krouse: The defendant remains a risk of flight. The evidence in this case has grown since we were before Judge Broderick [Inner City Press' scoops at turn of the year.]  Judge Castel: If monitoring of Internet limited to risk of flight? Or some other reason?

 AUSA Krouse: He developed a browser for the Dark Web... The defendant has sophisticated knowledge of technology, and a willingness to use it to help a rogue regime, North Korea, with crypto-currency

AUSA Krouse: He offered to ship a rig to help North Korea mine crypto-currency.  Griffith's lawyer: I will jump in here -- Judge Castel: AUSA Krouse, are you finished? AUSA: Yes. Griffith's lawyer: They never argued danger to the community

 Griffith's lawyer: He's not accused of using his computer skills for harm - he gave a lecture, that's all. He has a PhD, he had a research interest in the Dark Web. It's used for human rights purposes, to access to Facebook. He got kicked out of the TOR project 

Griffith's lawyer: He has cooperated with law enforcement about the Dark Web. He helped Ann M. Kempf (sp). He's never been accused of doing anything wrong with his skills.

Griffith's lawyer: If he were the Doctor Evil they make him out to be, he wouldn't use his home computer to do it. I'm sure you're aware of a burner phone, a burner computer, a public spot, an ISP... He can't do Zoom calls with counsel. [Yeah, that's secure - although another SDNY proceeding on July 24 took place on Zoom.]

 Griffith's lawyer: He can't order PostMates from his phone. Judge Castel: Here's my concern. The defendant represents a danger to the community. He assisted the DPRK [North Korea] in learning how crypto currency works. He proposed an Ethereum node in DPRK

Griffith's lawyer: It's the government's burden to prove he is a danger. We don't want to tip our full hand. We are familiar with briefing before your Honor in SEC v Telegram [Inner City Press covered that as well, here]

Judge Castel: I find he is a danger. I have reviewed the transcript...  Court reporter: I think we lost the Court.

Judge Castel: I'm back. My phone's battery ran out due to the length of our proceeding but I have secured another one. This man has the ability to respond to detailed question with knowledge that poses a danger. Modest restrictions of Judge Broderick address that

Judge Castel: The applicant to modify conditions is denied. Anything more from the government? Griffith's lawyer: Your Honor, I have a question. Judge Castel: Do you have an application? Griffith's lawyer: Can he use Internet beyond the order? Can he do searches?

 Judge Castel: There's no confusion on this - your application says he can only email with counsel. That's what I've ruled on. Klein: I have a point about the motion schedule. Do they plan to supersede? If so, have it be a month in advance.

 Judge Castel: that's between US and grand jury. You could argue for change in schedule. Thank you, we are adjourned.

 The day above on July 23, Judge Castel held arguments on venue. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.

 And, hours after the proceeding, AUSA Ravener submitted a "proposed Protective Order" to govern 3500 material in the case - basically, withholding all of it. We'll have more on this.

Griffith's lawyer Klein complains that only at 11 pm last night they received discovery about search warrant to North Korea's Mission to the UN - regarding which Inner City Press won unsealing.

Klein: There is no IP evidence of this email. We asked them for a copy of the email. We are very concerned about this late disclosure - Judge Castel: What's the late disclosure?

 Klein: They sought the content of the e-mail. [Inner City Press: what are the provisions for access to the email account of a country's UN mission? Also, Klein's seeming discovery complaint is really an argument the March 6, 2019 email was never read in SDNY]

Judge Castel: Doesn't the government have a right to put on its evidence at a trial and ask the jury to draw an inference? And you can oppose it? Klein: Your Honor does not need to wait for a Rule 29 motion. Judge Castel: But the indictment alleges venue.

 Klein: Our replies argues we don't have to get to a bill of particulars. Judge Castel: Let's go back 50 years. Before e-mail. There may be no proof that an individual received a letter. But upon testimony that a letter was addressed to NY, jury could find venue Judge Castel: We'll have to hear what goes on in the mission of the DPRK in NY. [This, Inner City Press wants to hear. Who will testify?]

Judge Castel: Isn't that why a trial is necessary? Klein: E-mail is different. [Sound a dog barking, court reporter complains]

 Klein: That is not my dog. I don't have a dog, and I didn't adopt one during the pandemic.... With mail, there is only one address. With email, it's out in the ether - even your Chambers. It could be accessed from anywhere. It's like a phone number.

Judge Castel: Do you know what the evidence is the government is going to put on at trial? Klein: No, I don't... Why don't you ask them for it? Our client should not have to go to trial in a district in which there is improper venue, both in terms of time & cost.

 Klein: It is appropriate for your Honor to dismiss this indictment at this time. Judge Castel: Let me hear from the government.  Crickets.

 AUSA Krause: I was on mute. This is a fact question for the jury. The defendant sent an email to the DPRK mission on March 7, 2019, to get a visa. On April 18, 2019, the DPRK approved his travel and gave him a visa.

 Krouse: The DPRK's sole mission in the US is in New York. We'll make these arguments to the jury. This is a fact question. On the search warrant, we got it on June 5, 2020. We found the data didn't contain anything before Sept 2019. So it doesn't show anything

Judge Castel: We don't live in a civil law country. If a reasonable inference can be drawn, it's up to the jury... I think you're grasping at straws. I'm not impressed with your argument. Klein: What's not the argument I'm trying to make.

Judge Castel: I don't think your argument is consistent with Second Circuit case law.  Klein: Now I've lost my train of thought. And maybe it's a train that should have been lost. The visa was issued in Beijing, not in this district.

 AUSA Krouse: He emailed the DPRK Mission in Manhattan. [As aside: Inner City Press has been there, a suite of drab rooms on 43rd Street, for surreal press briefings. More another time.]

Judge Castel: Emails sent to this address, two thirds were access from outside the district. It could be some in Vermont. AUSA: Even if an IP address seems to be outside of NY doesn't mean that it is. There are ways to mask it. VPNs. We can have witnesses.

AUSA Krause: The staff of the Mission are limited.  [Yes, it is 25 miles from Columbus Circle. Applies to Syria, too - their Ambassador was turned down to travel to Princeton NJ. And UN staff from Iran gets US permission to go to the Hamptons.]

 Klein: It could have been accessed from North Korea. The IPs are Virginia, Ireland, Azerbaijan... and Portland, Oregon

 Klein: Sure, it may have been the intention the email come to New York. But it had to be received and acted on in the SDNY. Usually they have a cooperator to say, I was on 98 St. [But of court NoKo is not going to cooperate].

Judge Castel: By your position, there's no way to prove venue. I'll reserve judgment. Let's move on to your bail application. Klein: I haven't read their response. [Inner City Press already reported on it, below]

Bail issue here deferred...

AUSA Krouse: Let's talk motion schedule. They're going to move to suppress, too. Klein: We're still trying to figure out how much more discovery we'll get.  We were thinking about October. Motion to dismiss, failure to state a claim. Judge Castel: Really?

 Klein: Well, insufficient on its face. Motion to suppress... like US v. Wei (sp), before Judge Nathan... Court report: Who's speaking? Mister Buckley? Klein: It's Brian Klein again. We might file a motion for a bill of particulars.

Judge Castel: OK - motions due October 8. And your reply due November 19. Time excluded until Nov 19? AUSA Krouse: We move to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. Judge Castel: Any objection? Klein: No.  Judge Castel: This outweighs the interest of the public.

 Judge Castel.. to a speedy trial. AUSA Krouse: There will be some classified information litigation in this case. CIPA. We're trying to cooperate with agencies. A motion will be filed.  Judge Castel: That seems fine.

AUSA Krause: We're talking about another protective order, for 3500 material. Judge Castel: Anything further? Thank you for the arguments.

Earlier on July 23 - an hour before the above-tweeted conference in the case, the US Attorney office has opposed, offering these quotes from the North Korea conference: "Hello everyone, I know it’s late in the day so I’ll try to make this fun. So the most important feature of blockchain is that they are open. And the DPRK can’t be kept out no matter what the US or the UN says.  . . . One of the more interesting things is that blockchain allow greater self-reliance in both banking and contracts. So you can have contracts without an authority. . . . So you heard about with blockchain the USA can’t stop your payments. That’s like, that is step 1, and step 2 is the UN can’t stop agreements. So if the DPRK makes agreements with someone, or if an individual does, it’s um, you can um you don’t have to go to a court." They quote Griffith on text message: "on October 2, 2019, the defendant, in a text exchange with family members, noted that he might be fired from his cryptocurrency company and stated that, if he was, he might instead “setup a money laundering company in North Korea.”  We'll have more on this.

  Judge Castel to his credit the same day asked each side's counsel to respond: "The Court has received an application from Inner City Press for the unsealing of certain applications by the defendant for the issuance of subpoenas. The parties shall respond to the application by May 22, 2020. If there is no objection, the Court will order the applications and any resulting order unsealed."

 On May 29, Judge Castel ruled: "Defendant is directed to file forthwith on ECF his ex parte and in camera applications for subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 5/29/2020) (ap)."

  And now they have been filed: a March 17 letter and affirmation, and the subpoena itself, for "A list of any and all IP addresses associated with the email address dprk.un@verizon.net, and any logs or similar records of access to the email address dprk.un@verizon.net, for the period from November 1, 2018 to October 30, 2019."

  Inner City Press has uploaded the application, affirmation and subpoena on Patreon here.

   An aside: the application of diplomatic immunity and/or the Vienna convention to this subpoena, and Verizon's response to it, remain UNclear.

 On June 1, Griffith's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of venue, stating that Griffith's email to the North Korea Mission in New York, responded to, might not have been "received" in New York. Inner City Press is tweeting the photo here. Watch this site.

    On May 28, from Judge Castel again to his credit, this: "ORDER as to Virgil Griffith. The government advises that the defendant consents to public disclosure of his ex parte and in camera application for a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (the Application) but does not consent to advance disclosure of the Application to the government. To enable the government to intelligently state its position on public disclosure, defendant shall transmit the Application to the government by 1 p.m. today, May 28, 2020. The government shall state whether it has any objection to public disclosure by 1 p.m. on May 29, 2020. The Court will thereafter rule on whether the Application should be publicly filed (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 5/28/20)(jw)." Watch this site.

The case is US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15 (Castel). 

***

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.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Exclusive: Despite Sanctions, UN Let North Korea Foreign Trade Bank Withdraw $4 Million from Sputnik Bank

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 21 – In the face of North Korea sanctions, the UN in December 2017 used the sanctioned Foreign Trade Bank and Russia's Sputnik Bank to transfer EUR 3,974,920.62 into the country, documents obtained by Inner City Press show. A letter from Sputnik Bank states that "unauthorized person (I.V. Tonkih) led  negotiations with Korean party on interbank correspondent relationship." Photos here. 

Nevertheless, then-chairman of the UN Security Council's 1718 / North Korea sanctions committee Sebastiano Cardi of Italy informed Sputnik Bank to release the nearly $4 million to the Foreign Trade Bank - the very entity for dealing with Latvia's ABLV Bank has been sanctioned by the United States. 

Previously, Cardi by letter had, according to UN Resient Coordinator Tapan Mishra, neglected to "make clear reference to the need for cash withdrawal." The Treasurer of the UN Development Program Paul Gravanese then asked Cardi for wider authorization for FTB to withdraw funds.  The 1718 Committee, now chaired by Netherlands' Ambassador, is meeting on February 21. Earlier this month when Inner City Press asked if the Committee's rulings on request for exemptions, and the underlying requests themselves, are placed on the Committee's website or otherwise made public. The answer was and is no.  Inner City Press will have more on this exclusive story. Media paid to cover the UN too often let it off the hook, on issues from North Korea to UN corruption to most recently automatic weapons. The UN has been the venue for bribes paid from Macau based operative Ng Lap Seng and now Patrick Ho of the China Energy Fund Committee - but on February 13 in the same basement the North Korea sanctions committee meets in the UN allowed an Indonesia based weapons company to advertise not only machine guns and drones but even tanks inside the UN. Periscope video here. But when the Japanese media paid to cover the UN belatedly chime in on gun control, like Sankei Shimbun's Mayu Uetsukahere, they ignored the UN's total failure in even advertising guns after the Florida shooting. They could have covered it, and still could; their Mr Tatsuya Kato in South Korea, whom Inner City Press supported here and here, and also in Sankei, proves there is something to support on a free Press basis. But. As the North Korea UN sanctions "experts" report continues to be cherry picked further and further down the food chain, now that North Korea paid its 2017 UN dues by means of a swap is also ignored, like the recent report focused on coal, pointing the finger at Vietnam, Russia, China, Vietnam and South Korea. Omitted, apparently intentionally, are violations by Japanese companies, like Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi, as Inner City Press has reported. It is facts chucked or thrown, rather than fact checked. How far will today's UN go to placate some countries, while ignoring others and restrictingthe Press? On January 26 UN "global communications" chief Alison Smale flew to Charleston, South Carolina for a photo op and UNTV video with China's Xiamen Airlines for having painting the UN's "SDGs" logo on the side of an airplane. This without having answered Press questions about her Department of Public Information's malfeasance with resources allocated by the General Assembly for Kiswahili and about the lack under her "leadership" of any content neutral UN media access rules. Afterward, when Inner City Press asked for the mp4 videoof her South Carolina junket - Inner City Press is informed that the plane she celebrated could not in fact fly - it was told to "Ask UN Webcast," which is under Smale. They were asked - and have not given the video. Nor has Smale offered any response to a detailedpetition two weeks ago, while re-tweeting her former employer the NYT and current boss Antonio Guterres. But who is making who look bad? And how can a former NYT editor have no content neutral media access rules, and no answers? As she restricts Inner City Press from its UN reporting on Cameroon,Myanmar, Kenya, Yemen and elsewhere? We'll have more on this. While any country would try to get the UN to promote its airline, if the UN would do it, Smale is the UN official who responsible for Inner City Press being restricted and evicted as it reports on the UN bribery scandal of Patrick Ho and China Energy Fund Committee. Smale hasn't even deigned to answer petitions in this regard, in September (she said she recognized the need for the "courtesy" of a response, never given) and in January -- too busy flying to South Carolina to promote an airline:

 Today's UN of Antonio Guterres, who just metwith ICC indictee Omar al Bashir, and his Deputy Amina J. Mohammed who has refused Press questions on her rosewood signatures and now the refoulement of 47 people to Cameroon from "her" Nigeria, has become a place of corruption and censorship. On January 30 as Inner City Press sought to complete its reporting for the day on Guterres' Bashir meeting and Mohammed's Cameroon no-answer, it had a problem. It was invited to the month's UN Security Council president's end of presidency reception, 6:30 to 8:30 - but with its accreditation reduced by censorship, it could not get back into the UN after 7 pm, to the already delayed UN video. It ran to at least enter the reception - but the elevator led to a jammed packed third floor, diplomats lined up to shake the outgoing UNSC president's hand. Inner City Press turn to turn tail back to the UN, passing on its way favored, pro-UN correspondents under no such restriction. Periscope here. Inner City Press has written about this to the head of the UN Department of Public Information Alison Smale, in Sepember2017 - no answer but a new threat - and this month, when Smale's DPI it handing out full access passes to no-show state media. No answer at all: pure censorship, for corruption. Smale's DPI diverted funds allocated for Kiswahili, her staff say, now saying they are targeted for retaliation. This is today's UN. Amid UN bribery scandals, failures in countries from Cameroon to Yemen and declining transparency, today's UN does not even pretend to have content neutral rules about which media get full access and which are confined to minders or escorts to cover the General Assembly. 

Inner City Press, which while it pursue the story of Macau-based businessman Ng Lap Seng's bribery of President of the General Assembly John Ashe was evicted by the UN Department of Public Information from its office, is STILL confined to minders as it pursues the new UN bribery scandal, of Patrick Ho and Cheikh Gadio allegedly bribing President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa, and Chad's Idriss Deby, for CEFC China Energy. 

Last week Inner City Press asked UN DPI where it is on the list to be restored to (its) office, and regain full office - and was told it is not even on the list, there is no public list, the UN can exclude, permanently, whomever it wants. This is censorship.

North Korea's Ri Yong Ho Says All Options on Operations Table, At One UN Hotel, Periscope

By Matthew Russell Lee, Photos, Periscope

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 – Days after the UN Security Council banned textile exports from North Korea, the country fired another missile over Japan's Hokkeido. On September 23, North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho delivered this speech in the UN General Assembly hall, then came to meet UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, USg Jeffrey Feltman and others. There was a photo op, well attended by wire services and largely Japanese and some South Korean photographers - and Inner City Press. Saturday Periscope video here. Then on Monday September 25 Ri held a press encounter - no questions, just two statements - in front of the One UN Hotel / Millennium Hilton. Inner City Press streamed Periscope, here. 

He said, all options are on the operations table. Inner City Press asked the North Korea Mission to the UN if the international legal conference they have been asking for was discussed; the North Korean Mission to the UN told Inner City Press its “Foreign Minister raised that issue during the meeting. He also told UNSG to be most impartial, not to take one-sided.” We'll see. Back on September 21, this speech in the UN General Assembly Hall, by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as transcribed in English by Inner City Press: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is now a focus of international attention. The 19 September this year, that is two days ago, marks the 12th  anniversary of the 2005, September 19 joint statement of the 6 party talks. At that time, the 6 parties, China, the United States, Russia,  DPRK, RoK and Japan, with China being the chair, made concerted efforts, the two main parties concerned, the US and DPRK made the decision, and we had formulated the roadmap for denuclearization of the peninsula. The DPRK undertook to abandon its nuclear programs, and the US undertook to normalize its relations with the DPRK. All parties committed to setting up a peace mechanism for the peninsula. The statement opened up new vistas for regional peace and stability. 12 years have passed. Some think things have changed on the peninsula and the statement has become outdated, but we believe things following the progressing trend of the times never become outdated, and decisions on the right track never become obsolete. If there is any change, anything we need now, it is denuclearization that is more comprehensive, more thorough, and more irreversible. There should be no new nuclear weapon state whether it is in the north or the south of the peninsula, whether it is in Northeast Asia or other parts of the world. We urge the DPRK not to go further on a dangerous direction. We call ont eh US to honor its four no commitment, and we call on all parties to play a constructive role in easing tensions.  There is still hope for peace and we must not give up. Negotiation is the only way out. Parties should meet each other halfway by recognizing each other’s legitimate concerns. In China’s view, the day when the denuclearization of the peninsula is realized should also be the day when a peace mechanism is established. China is always a force for peace. We have made tireless efforts for a peaceful resolution on the Korean peninsula. Whatever changes may take place, however long it may take, China will stay firmly committed to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to regional peace and stability." Back on September 15 Russian Ambassador Nebenzia said, as transcribed by Inner City Press: "we made a statement, a press statement by the president of the Security Council condemning the recent launch, calling on the DPRK to stop it, and also, which is important, reiterating the need for political and diplomatic solution of the crisis, early... We’re discussing that we’re in a vicious circle. We have a provocation, a resolution, then another provocation. Many people raised the issue that we have to think outside the box.  There is the China Russia road map of the 4th of July, which is at the moment the only political proposal on the table... Take away this morning’s Secretary of State Tillerson’s statement, our  American colleague said that Russia and China should quickly implement the sanctions measures provided for in 2375. To which we said that we are responsible members of the international community and we honestly implement resolutions that we adopt in the Security Council but this resolution also provides for political measures that should be implemented equally in that sense we called on our US partners and others to implement the political and diplomatic solutions that are provided for in the resolution and without implementing this we also will consider it as non-compliance with the resolution, not fully implementing the resolution. We were considering what elements we might include in a resolution that would be on a political side.. One way or another, we are including them in the resolutions we have already adopted. We would possibly like more. We’ll see what happens. I think people are keen to discuss it during the high level -- one way or another it will come up, both in the debates and in the meetings. We think that threats, tests, launches should be stopped and we should engage in meaningful negations. Many serious American actors are saying there is no way but to sit at the table and come to think how to resume the six party talks. I think it was Madeline Albright who was referring to it recently and some others as well. There are serious analyses in the American press of the issue, which came out in the last few days before we adopted resolution 2375. Many people around the world understand that there’s no alternative to this in the end."  US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the day before said, "North Korea's provocative missile launch represents the second time the people of Japan, a treaty ally of the United States, have been directly threatened in recent weeks. These continued provocations only deepen North Korea's diplomatic and economic isolation. United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the most recent unanimous sanctions resolution, represent the floor, not the ceiling, of the actions we should take.  We call on all nations to take new measures against the Kim regime. China supplies North Korea with most of its oil. Russia is the largest employer of North Korean forced labor. China and Russia must indicate their intolerance for these reckless missile launches by taking direct actions of their own." When Nikki Haley spoke on North Korea's hydrogen bomb test in the UN Security Council on US Labor Day, she called for a vote on new sanctions on Kim Jong Un's government on September 11. They passed 15-0, after reducing the cut into North Korea's oil and dropping a proposal travel ban and asset freeze on Kim Jong Un. Now on September 14 North Korea has fired another missile, right over Japan's Hokkeido. And the UN was holding... a fashion show, in its General Assembly lobby, introduced by its new head of "Global Communications" who has yet to even respond to emails about her Department's imposition of UN minders on the independent Press. We'll have more on this. Back on September 11, spinning on background, a US official familiar with the negotiations said, before the vote, that "Kim Jung Un doesn’t have that many assets that are out there and vulnerable anyway." Now you tell us. On September 6, the US draft came out, saying it would among other things BAN oil exports to North Korea (see language below); CNN is still using that term (but see new draft and language below). The vote is slated for 6 pm on September 11; mid morning when Inner City Press asked Italy's Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi about the oil provisions, he said he wouldn't comment on the "details." Video here.At 3 pm, French Ambassador Francois Delattre said "The bottom line is simple: the threat of DPRK has changed in scope, scale, and its very nature. We’re facing not a regional but a global threat, which unites us. We fully support the resolution proposed by the US. We think it’s a robust resolution, a needed step towards the firmness I was just referring to. Our deep belief is that only a firm reaction of the Council can open the path to a political res. Our firm attitude today is the best antidote to the risk of war. I think the conditions are met to go for a vote. We completely support the resolution as it is. By definition this is a compromise to get everybody on board. We believe we have a  strong, robust resolution and it is a needed and important step with respect to the firmness that is the condition for a political solution tomorrow."

On North Korea Missile, UNSC To Adopt Presidential Statement, ICP Publishes Draft Here

By Matthew Russell Lee, Periscope, Letter, Photos

UNITED NATIONS, August 29 – After North Korea submitted a letter to the UN Security Council about the joint US - South Korea military exercised (Inner City Press put it online here), North Korea fired a missile right over Japan's Hokkaido island. Now on August 29, there is an emergency UN Security Council meeting - and set for reading out and adoption in the Council chamber at 7:30 pm, this Presidential Statement: 

DRAFT PRST FOR DPRK AUGUST 28 LAUNCH OVER JAPAN 

The Security Council strongly condemns the August 28 2017 (local time) ballistic missile launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that flew over Japan, as well as the multiple ballistic missile launches it conducted on 25 August 2017. The Security Council further condemns the DPRK for its outrageous actions and threats against another UN Member State, and demands that the DPRK immediately cease all such actions. The Security Council stresses that these DPRK actions are not just a threat to the region, but to all UN Member States.The Security Council expresses its grave concern that the DPRK is, by conducting such a launch over Japan as well as its recent actions and public statements, deliberately undermining regional peace and stability and have caused grave security concerns around the world.The Security Council, resolute in its commitment to a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, emphasizes the vital importance of immediate, concrete actions by the DPRK to reduce tensions in the Korean Peninsula and beyond.    The Security Council demands that the DPRK not proceed with any further launches using ballistic missile technology and comply with resolutions 1695 (2006), 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), and 2371 (2017), as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41), 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and 16 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/13), by suspending all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launches.  The Security Council further demands that the DPRK immediately comply fully with all of its other obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions, including that it shall: abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and immediately cease all related activities; not conduct any further nuclear tests or any further provocation; and abandon any other existing weapons of mass destruction in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. The Security Council calls on all states to strictly, fully, and expeditiously implement all relevant Security Council resolutions including 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), and 2371 (2017). The Security Council reiterates the importance of maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia at large, expresses its commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation, and welcomes efforts by Council members, as well as other States, to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue.”" Earlier, French Deputy Ambassador Gueguen read a statement but did not answer any questions, as she previously declined to answer on Togo killing protesters, when asked by Inner City Press. Japan's Ambassador Koro Bessho said the first order of business will be to make sure Council members are all on the same page; he declined to answer if Japan will ask for an oil embargo. There is talk of "elements to the press" today, something more formal later in the week, perhaps on the UN's Eid holiday on August 31. On their way in, Nikki Haley conferred with UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, who then came to the stakeout with a statement, also on Myanmar, saying the August 30 meeting agreed to will "shine a spotlight." Inner City Press asked, So an open meeting? It was not answered. Periscope here. On the morning of August 29, US Ambassador Nikki Haley stopped at the Security Council stakeout and said, as to North Korea, "Enough is enough." Alamy photos here. UK Deputy Ambassador Jonathan Allen said that he didn't want to prejudge the meeting, but that the entire world condemns North Korea's action. (This included, however belatedly, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, or at least his Associate Spokesperson. Under Guterres, the UN World Intellectual Property Organization has helped North Korea with cyanide patent(s), as Inner City Press aske Nikki Haley about, see below.) Late on August 28, Inner City Press ran to the UN Security Council stakeout and raised a Periscope video, here. Japan's Ambassador Koro Bessho said We are still gathering facts, at this time, I have nothing to say. Egypt's Ambassador, President of the UN Security Council for August, emerged and said there has been no request for an emergency meeting, yet. Inner City Press asked him a question, here (Alamy photos here); Egyptian state media Akhbar al Yom, to which the UN is trying to give Inner City Press' long time UN work space, was not even present. Now Japan has announced, "#NorthKorea's #ballisticmissile launch - @JapanMissionUN @USUN & @ROK_Mission have just requested urgent @UN #UNSC consultations. #DPRK." It will be late Tuesday, whenever the previously scheduled Egyptian debate on peacekeeping ends. Now the White House has issued this read-out: "President Donald J. Trump spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan to address North Korea’s launch of a missile that overflew Japanese territory.  The two leaders agreed that North Korea poses a grave and growing direct threat to the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, as well as to countries around the world.  President Trump and Prime Minister Abe committed to increasing pressure on North Korea, and doing their utmost to convince the international community to do the same." Watch this site. After North Korea's most recent missiles, the EU said, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) today launched a number of short range ballistic missiles. Such actions violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions and seriously undermine regional peace and stability. The DPRK must halt all launches using ballistic missile technology and abandon its ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, as required by the UN Security Council. There is an urgent need for a de-escalation of tensions on the situation on the Korean Peninsula. We  expect the DPRK to refrain from further provocations and to immediately re-engage in a credible and meaningful dialogue with the international community aimed at pursuing the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation through peaceful means. The European Union supports such a process in consultation with key partners." Meanwhile the chair of the UN Security Council 1718 Committee, Sebastiano Cardi of Italy, told Inner City Press DPRK arms sales to Syria and/or the UAE was not discussed in his August 25 meeting. Vine Camera video here. The UN Security Council on Saturday August 5 met and adopted new sanctions, including a ban on the export of seafood, iron and iron ore, lead and lead ore. On the evening of August 4 the UN itself allow North Korea to censor an art exhibit in its lobby (exclusive Inner City Press coverage here), at an event attended by (former?) US Mission to the UN spokesperson Kurtis Cooper. On August 8, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA), top Democrat on the East Asia Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “a miniature nuclear warhead in North Korea is a massive and unacceptable threat to the United States... We need a coherent and comprehensive strategy from the Trump administration that focuses on immediate direct diplomacy and increased economic pressure, along with military deterrence with regional allies to confront this grave national security threat.  Last weekend, the United Nations Security Council imposed sweeping new sanctions to slash North Korea’s exports by upwards of $1 billion. The UN took an important step, but... President Trump must work to start direct and immediate talks with North Korea.  We cannot afford to wait any longer. The consequences of inaction are too great.” We'll have more on this. In other UN censorship news, while Inner City Press remains under restriction, the Egyptian state media the UN is trying to give its office to didn't even come in, with Egypt as Security Council president. The UN was asked but would not explain this absurdity. On August 4 Inner City Press notice a sign outside windowless UN Conference Room A, of a "Mission of the United States of America: Security Council Experts Meeting [Closed]," to begin at 11 am. Photo here. Inner City Press staked it out, but no one went into the room at that time. Nevertheless by the afternoon a lone Security "Council diplomat" was spoon-feeding Reuters that on Saturday, with a high likelihood, the Council would ban exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. Seafood! What about the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization's work on North Korea's cyancide patent?

On North Korea Launches, US Gets Meeting, Press Statement Issued, Deja Vu

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 --  Another month, another launch, another statement. The US State Department at its briefing on March 18 said it was seeking a UN Security Council meeting, but wasn't sure if it would seek a resolution or more sanctions.

  Later on March 18 after a closed door Security Council session, the Council issued this Press Statement:

"The members of the Security Council held urgent consultations to address the serious situation arising from the recent ballistic missile launches conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
 
The Members of the Security Council strongly condemned and expressed grave concern at the ballistic missile launches conducted by the DPRK on March 18 and on March 10.  
 
The Members of  the Security Council stressed that all these launches were unacceptable, constituted a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), and posed a threat to regional and international security.
 
The Members of the Security Council reiterated that the DPRK shall refrain from further actions in violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and comply fully with its obligations under these resolutions.
 
Recalling the Security Council's unanimous adoption of resolution 2270 (2016) on March 2, the Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern over the DPRK's reaction to that resolution and its demands.  The Members of the Security Council therefore are determined to ensure that resolution 2270 (2016) is implemented fully.
 
In light of these recent violations, the Members of the Security Council emphasized the importance of the work of Security Council's Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) and urged all Member States to redouble their efforts to implement the measures imposed in all relevant Security Council resolutions.    
 
The Members of the Security Council agreed that the Security Council would continue to closely monitor the situation and act as appropriate. "

  Back on February 25 in front of the UN Security Council, US Ambassador Samantha Power said, "There must be and there will be accountability for North Korea's actions." (But not for the UN's actions, apparently, see here and here and below).

  After changes were made to the draft -- dropping KOMID's listed representative in Russia, loosening the restrictions on aviation fuel in Paragraph 31 -- it was unanimously approved on March 2.

After the vote, Inner City Press asked Spanish Ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi to explain the amendment on aviation fuel.

Marchesi, who first tried to take no questions, replied to the side of the UNTV stakeout that the new Paragraph 31 is "stronger." Video here.

 But just to check that, here is the new Paragraph 31, which adds an exception:

"decides also that this provision shall not apply with respect to the sale or supply of aviation fuel to civilian passenger aircraft outside the DPRK exclusively for consumption during its flight to the DPRK and its return flight."

  So what to make of the statement that the adopted Paragraph 31 is "stronger" that the original Paragraph 31? We'll have more on this.

Ban rushed out a statement after the unanimous vote on North Korea. He is, wags say, running for President of South Korea. Meanwhile his failures in Sri Lanka are being highlighted again by his USG of DPI Cristina Gallach, Spain's highest UN official, throwing Inner City Press into the street, and trying to seize its desk and Resident Correspondent's accreditation, without any due process. There's been a protest, click here to view.

It is sometimes asked, what is the responsibility of a donor state which places one of its nationals into a politically-appointed job in the UN.  To ensure they answer questions? Non. But at least, to make sure they don't censor, and to do something if they do? We say Si.

 On February 29 (leap year), the following arrived on background:

"The United States has asked that the draft sanctions resolution on the DPRK be put in blue. We have requested that the Angolan presidency schedule the adoption for tomorrow after Security Council consultations on the March program of work, which will start at 3:00 p.m."

But then on March 1, this:

"Subsequent to the United States’ request to place the draft sanctions resolution on DPRK into blue and to schedule a Council vote for this afternoon, Russia invoked a procedural 24-hour review of the resolution, so the vote will be on Wednesday."

  On the afternoon of March 1, when the vote was to have taken place, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press, "Issues to take care of, we discussed them with the US delegation, I think they accommodated some of our concerns. Have they accommodated all of our concerns? not entirely. But you know, we are working for consensus of course.  You never get everything you want. It's very complicated text. It's a resolution that is necessary, which the Security Council need to adopt because of of certain
challenges coming from DRPK. So we'll see what happens tomorrow."

Churkin didn't answer on the coal or fuel provisions; it was unclear but as to one individual he said, “He is not even in Russia. We are surprised he appeared there in the first place.”

   Inner City Press notes, in the annex of the weekend's draft, one Jang Song Chol, listed as KOMID's representative in Russia...

 At a UNSC wrap up session earlier on February 29, Spain as chair of the DPRK sanctions commitee said it hopes for adoption as soon as possible.

 After the February 25 meeting, Power emerged and described the proposed new sanctions. Inner City Press asked, any humanitarian carve-out for example on the aviation fuel ban? No answer. (Japan did answer, below). Power as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

"Today in response to the DPRK’s recent nuclear test and subsequent proscribed missile launch, the United States tabled a draft security council resolution that, if adopted, would break new ground and represent the strongest set of sanctions imposed by the Security Council in more than two decades.

Let me explain some of the resolution’s major provisions. The first time in history, all cargo going in and out of the DPRK would be subjected to mandatory inspection. For the first time, all small arms and other conventional weapons would be prohibited to be sold to the DPRK.

In addition, this resolution would impose financial sanctions targeting DPRK banks and assets, and ban all who use nuclear and missile-related items. Also for the first time, the Security Council would impose sectoral sanctions on the DPRK, limiting and in some instances banning outright exports from the DPRK of coal, iron, gold, titanium, and rare earth minerals, and banning the supply to the DPRK of aviation fuel, including notably rocket fuel. These measures would also ground DPRK flights suspected of carrying contraband; suspicious vessels carrying illicit items would be denied access to ports.

These sanctions, if adopted, would send an unambiguous and unyielding message to the DPRK regime. The world will not accept your proliferation. There will be consequences for your actions. And we will work relentlessly and collectively to stop your nuclear program. If adopted, and implemented fully, these sanctions would constitute a major increase in pressure compared to the Council’s previous actions on DPRK. They have broader scope, and target more of the DPRK’s pressure points. They also have unprecedented interdiction provisions to make sure the other provisions get enforced. Most notable among them is mandatory inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK.

In addition, these sanctions would make it much harder for the DPRK to raise the funds, import the technology, and acquire the know-how to advance its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For more than a decade, in spite of the international community’s efforts, DPRK has taken progressive steps toward its declared goal of developing nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. The international community cannot allow the DPRK regime to achieve that goal. The United States will not allow that to happen."

  Inner City Press asked Japan's PR Motohide Yoshikawa the same question, if any humanitarian carve outs in the case of famine, for example. He said humanitarian concerns are "embedded" in the resolution, which he said he'd just seen.

 Could the US not have shared the draft with its UNSC ally Japan?

 French PR Francois Delattre, when asked on his way in what the strongest element in the draft is, said You will soon see. So he's seen it, but not Japan?

  And what of the pending free press outrage at the UN?

  As the UN Security Council's 11 am Sunday meeting began, French Ambassador Francois Delattre stood on the entrance steps making points in French and English. China's Ambassdor Liu Jieyi squeezed by the stairs and, when almost into the Council, turned and said, "We are greatly concerned, we are working with the Council." Video here.

After UN (formerly US) official Jeffrey Feltman briefed the Security Council behind closed doors, the Council agreed on a Press Statement, read out at the stakeout by Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela, President for February. Inner City Press tweeted a photo of the Press Statement, here; it says “the Security Council will adopt expeditiously a new Security Council resolution.”

  But on his way out, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, “We haven't seen a text at all.” He said Russia would like to see a re-start of the Six Party Talks abut that “currently the atmosphere is such that the resumption of those talks is unlikely.”

   In a three way stakeout (complete with one question each from US, Japanese and Korean media), US Ambassador Power cited Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping's phone conversation, saying “they agreed on the importance of  a strong and united international response to North Korea’s illegal actions, including through an impactful UN Security Council resolution.”

   South Korea's Ambassador Oh Joon said, “about the missile defense, as you know the Republic of Korea and United States announced yesterday an alliance decision to improve the existing missile defense system. As the terminology first, this is missile defense system, which is defensive in nature. And it shouldn’t worry anyone else because this is focused on North Korea’s provocations and predicated on North Korea’s provocations.”

Before the meeting Japan's Ambassador Yoshikawa said it is time to use the pressure, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

Yoshikawa: Good morning. Thank you for coming on Sunday morning. We were very shocked at the DPRK has launched themissile despite the warning coming from many corners of the world. And thisis a clear violation of the past Security Council resolutions,  whether you call it a satellite or what. Using their missile technology is a clear violation of the UN security council resolutions, and it came after, four weeks after the nuclear test. So we hope that today the Council will make ourselves very clear that we cannot condone the acts, the violation of the Security Council resolutions by DORK. And it went over Japan, it landed near the Philippines. This is a clear threat to the lives of many people.

Q: You must be frustrated with China.

A: China was for more dialogue, I think. What we need is no longer the dialogue, but using the pressure to make understood the DPRK.

Q: What do you expect today?
A: We will be asking for expeditious, adoption of the robust Security Council resolution.

  Inner City Press has put the DPRK position online on Scribd, here.

  What about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon? Last time he met with his senior advisers -- all male -- then issued a statement. Then on February 5 he told a UNA-UK audience in London how important gender empowerment has been to him.

  If Ban is in fact running for President in South Korea, how will this help him? And any shadow over the US Super Bowl? Any (early) question in the GOP debate? We'll be following this.

Back on January 6 after North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

 After 1 pm, Security Council President for January Elbio Rosselli of Uruguay emerged and read out a Press Statement below. Japan's Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa spoke, and Inner City Press asked him of Ban's moves to visit DPRK. He replied that if such a trip emphasized UN resolutions including on human rights, it could be useful. Video here. But what WAS Ban's trip going to be about?

   Earlier, UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesscritiqued here.

Back on November 17, 2015 when Ri Hung Sik, Ambassador at-large of the Democratic People's Republic of Korean, held a press conference at the North Korean mission, he said that he had heard nothing, nothing at all, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visiting North Korea, which Yonhap ascribed to a senior UN source.

Even when asked a leading question about a hypothetical Ban trip, Ri Hung Sik said Ban's UN would have to improve its relations with DPRK. Inner City Press is putting the audio online here, and embedded below.

 Inner City Press ran back to the UN and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: here was just a press conference at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) mission, and there their minister, Ri Hung Sik, asked about the Secretary-General's possible reported trip, said he's heard nothing about it at all and that there are many rumours on the internet.  He also said that this South Korean national security law that makes it illegal for South Korean citizens to speak positively of the DPRK… that's how he described it… should be looked at by the UN.  So I wanted to know, what is the Secretary-General's view of that law?  And if that's an accurate description, is he bound by it?

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the law.  As far as Ban Ki-moon, he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations and is doing his duty as such.

   But why did Team Ban play it so coy on Yonhap's report? Now late on November 17, the UN has issued this more specific denial:

"In response to questions asked about a report from Xinhua and the Korean Central News Agency stating that the Secretary-General would be travelling to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea next week, the Spokesman had the following to say: The Secretary-General will not be travelling to the DPRK next week. He will be in New York most of the week and then travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Summit. From there, he will go to directly to Paris to attend CoP21. The Secretary-General has repeatedly said that he is willing to play any constructive role, including traveling to the DPRK, in an effort to work for peace, stability and dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."

  Before Inner City Press left the DPRK mission on November 17, it asked Ri Hung Sik for his view of UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and when or if UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid will visit North Korea.

  Of Darusman, Ri Hung Sik said he met him only once, and that it seems Darusman does not speak his own words, or think his own thoughts. Of Zeid, he said the discussion is of technical cooperation, but no date was given. Video here.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...