This blog is in possession of a letter sent yesterday (May 18) by attorney Adrian Gonzalez-Maltes to Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Independent Inquiry Committee into the UN Oil-for -Food Programme. It concerns the treatment of Franco-Lebanese businessman Pierre Mouselli whose confidentiality agreement, Gonzalez-Maltes and his client believe, was betrayed by the committee. The following is a significant portion of that letter. Consistent with what will shortly be the official policy of Pajamas Media, the original document is posted in its entirety here (pdf) as well so that you may judge if any quotes have been taken out of context.
5. How did Kojo Annan and his counsel obtain confidential information regarding Mr. Mouselli’s participation as a witness on or prior to March 24? Was Robert Parton [now resigned lead investigator] informed of these disclosures? Why was Pierre Mouselli or his counsel not advised of these disclosures?
6. Did someone from the Committee provide to Kojo Annan or his counsel Mr. Mouselli’s private, unlisted cellphone number? If so, who and under what circumstances?
7. How did the Secretary General and his counsel obtain this same information? How did they obtain the transcript of the Report relating to Mr. Mouselli’s testimony? Was Robert Parton informed of these disclosures? Why was Pierre Mouselli or his counsel not advised of these disclosures? Can you give your assurance that proper procedures were followed and describe what those procedures were?
8. Were there any meetings, discussions or communications with the Secretary General or his counsel concerning the content of my email clarification sent to Robert Parton on March 25 at the prompting of the Secretary General’s counsel? If so, was Robert Parton aware of these communications? Again, if so, why was Pierre Mouselli or his counsel not advised of these disclosures?
9. Was the email clarification properly treated by the IIC as a privileged communication from legal counsel for a witness and was the confidentiality of that communication complied with?
10. Was Committee Counsel Susan Ringler made aware of breaches of confidentiality with respect to Mr. Mouselli? If so, why was Mr. Mouselli or his counsel not made aware of such breaches?
11. Was a decision made by Committee members to characterize my March 25 email clarification to Robert Parton as “conflicting”
after unilateral contacts with the Secretary General or his counsel? In any event, given the credibility accorded the rest of Mr. Mouselli’s testimony, his expressed willingness at all times to provide further information to the Committee and assist in all respects, his reliance on Committee representations regarding his presentation as a credible witness, and the opportunity afforded other parties to comment and contradict Mr. Mouselli’s testimony, why was neither he nor his counsel consulted for comment prior to the decision to so characterize the communication?
12. In addition, it has come to my attention that additional communications that I have addressed to the Committee that are both legally privileged and covered by Mr. Mouselli’s confidentiality agreement have been leaked by members of the Committee to the press. These are serious breaches of confidentiality that appear designed to discredit Mr. Mouselli as a witness. They do not however directly concern the substance of the investigation or the specific information provided. The Committee may wish to investigate these violations internally.
I will post any response from Mr. Volcker as soon as I learn of it.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
20 Comments
1. Ron Wrght:The MSM is desparately lacking a little gumshoe work
Roger,
As I’ve said many times before nothing really surprises me about the UN anymore. My question is why we continue to give it any relevance?
Great work Roger.
This is what the MSM is desparately lacking a little gumshoe work. Either because many local dailies can no longer afford the cost of investigative reporters or are precluded from doing so by editorial control by media conglomerates. These conglomerates are pushing their own social and political agendas.
See this related thread on NEWSWEEK over at a blog, Balidlocks I’ve recently discovered:
Does Newsweek Hate the Military?
Link Here
May 19, 2005 - 6:50 am 2. ex-democrat:terrye – this letter follows upon our exchange a few days back that Volcker/his committee is now being accused of a very serious breach of trust. if volcker values his sterling reputation – as he must – that may become his greatest vulnerability.
i’m still curious to know if any one out there (especially the litigators) can see where this is likely to go?
May 19, 2005 - 7:07 am 3. Jamie Irons:Roger,
For the second time in the last few days, I want to thank you for providing an original document; in a sense this lets us all be (amateur, but at least halfway serious) historians, and gives us a chance to draw our own conclusions.
It is amusing that one of the events that prompted the birth of Pajamas Media was the provision of an “original” “document,” the famous “Killian” “memo.” When Charles Johnson and others got a chance to examined the “memo,” we all know what happened next.
Jamie Irons
May 19, 2005 - 7:07 am 4. PeterUK:Good work Roger,this is vital taking into account the strange silence of the MSM.
This is the consequence of the investigation being a judicial review and essentially allowing the UN to investigate itself.Is there any legal redress for this?
On the subject of the silence of the MSM,as well as protecting their transnational leanings they are also aware that the whole edifice of UN legitimacy for the war in Iraq is about to crumble,when all those principled opponents turn out to have been on the take.
May 19, 2005 - 7:17 am 5. PeterUK:Ex-Democrat,
I think there are those associated with this affair who would let Volcker and his reputation go to the wall to protect the UN,after all they shamelessly stole billions.
May 19, 2005 - 7:28 am 6. Neo:As I read your stuff, I am constantly asking myself this question ..
If all this stuff is true or worse, just exactly what constitutes “bring them to justice” ?
I understand that if restitution is required that the Iraqis should probably get it, but other than that in which jail to these folks go ?
There seems to be a huge judicial “black hole” here.
May 19, 2005 - 7:40 am 7. David Thomson:I still think that Paul Volcker is basically an honest man. He is, however, a splendid example why an insider should never be assigned to do an investigation of this magnitude of his own organization. Volcker is simply too close to those being investigated. It is also very doubtful (at least to me) that he gave permission to anyone on his staff to betray Pierre Mouselli. He simply does not have their loyalty. Their allegiance is to someone else.
May 19, 2005 - 8:11 am 8. Mike_Nargizian:Roger and everyone else,
What’s the deal with Galloway? Do they have him nailed or not? The guy seems to slip everything. I’d love to see that arrogant **** taken down.
He comes with all the mouth, language and name calling of an Al Sharpton, in his old days. He must have accused everyone of being neo-con zionists insinuating how evil those things are of course.
However, Derbyshire of NRO noted however how much tougher and feistier British MP’s generally are versus self important fat-cat Senators… which is likely true.
Mike
May 19, 2005 - 9:21 am 9. RBMN:I suspect, inside most of the UN member countries, bribes and intimidation are just a way of life–especially for politicians. I think we forget about that sometimes. MOST people at the UN probably look at the OFF scandal, and apart from the sheer size of it, say “Yeah, and your point about this is what?” It’s business as usual, just bigger numbers.
May 19, 2005 - 9:24 am 10. David Thomson:ìWhat’s the deal with Galloway?î
Galloway would be dead meat in the United States. Our First Amendment protections allow us to thoroughly look at the allegations concerning his activities. An inadvertent mistake in our country is not actionable. But thatís not the case in Great Britain. The news media and the blogging community must worry about lawsuits. A relatively minor error could leave one bankrupt.
May 19, 2005 - 9:38 am 11. Canucklehead:“What’s the deal with Galloway?”
When Large ships navigate difficult waters, they need to be cautious because of the value of their cargo.
Small boats can turn on a dime…
Coleman will deliver the goods in the end.
Galloway took the money and ran.
May 19, 2005 - 10:00 am 12. Luther McLeod:I may be woefully naive here, and not that I support the International Court of Justice, but would this not be a fitting jurisdictional role of investigation/prosecution for the ICJ? If not, why not?
May 19, 2005 - 10:02 am 13. Rick Ballard:Neo,
Ah, you’ve gone and noticed that this is just “a tale told by idiots”. There is no judicial remedy available within the United States for the acts committed by UN employees covered by diplomatic immunity. They are beyond our reach. In fact, the “diplomats” are beyond the judicial reach of any country that is a member of the UN. Kind of a cool idea, huh? If you’re a thief at heart, the UN is the place to work – and so – we have the largest thievery scam ever consummated conducted with impunity by scumbags in suits whose main attributes appear to be an ability to lie in French while picking pockets.
If our dear representatives were in the least bit concerned about the UN they would be clamoring for enforcement (or reenactment if it has lapsed) of the Helm-Biden Act. Or at the minimum, a refusal to proceed with the loan for the UN building refurbishment (John Hinderaker covers this boondoggle/theft). Instead we are treated to document dumps by the Senate Committee without an adequate and understandable framework having been constructed prior to the dump being conducted. Nice, if you’re looking for continuing publicity concerning the investigation but basically futile with regard to achieving any measurable result.
Measurable results will only be achieved by applying a tourniquet to the UN’s wallet. It should be done today and Japan should be invited to join us in canceling dues. That is the only course of action which will have any results whatsoever but our posturing Senate investigators have not (to my knowledge) even raised the issue. Forget the Senate investigation – they’re just teasing. Henry Hyde’s investigation in the People’s House is being conducted on a more professional level and may produce results. Watch Jeff Sessions in the Senate – he’s the only one making noise about the UN loan at the moment and he does possess a backbone.
May 19, 2005 - 10:32 am 14. Kevin P:Roger:
Honestly Roger, you are messing with something you don’t understand. You do not have a J-school diploma. You are using whole documents and named sources and not snippets of documents, or even forgeries, and”trustworthy unnamed sources.” You are dealing with the facts that you have and not working on things that are in the realm of possibilities and focusing on what might be true. This style of blog reporting is totally at odds with the New Journalism. You are paying attention to this silly UN kerfluffle and not concentrating on the most important story of yesterday.The President,thru his press secretary, actually asked Newsweek that they might consider presenting the truth about Army policy regarding handling of the Koran to help repair the damage they they partially contributed to with their story that they admit was bogus.One of the real Journalists at MSNBC came to the logical conclusion that what Bush has done is exactly like Nixon’s attacking the press for the Pentagon Papers. The fact that the Pentagon Papers were factual and the Newsweek story was bogus is beside the point.Granted the sourcing was weak but the primary issue is that you can’t rule out that it could have happened. Fact- There are prisoners at Gitmo. Fact-There are Korans at Gitmo.Fact- There are toilets at Gitmo. Fact= The point that we have Al Queda training manuals that instruct prisoners to make up lies and that specificly tell the prisoners to claim that the Koran and other outrages against Allah are accuring has nothing to do with the obvious truth that all the factors for the flushing story are there to make the story possibly true. Thats real journalism. Go back to school and forget those trivialities like verified facts. You have a wonderfull imagination, use it.
May 19, 2005 - 10:58 am 15. Kevin P:Roger:
Honestly Roger, you are messing with something you don’t understand. You do not have a J-school diploma. You are using whole documents and named sources and not snippets of documents, or even forgeries, and”trustworthy unnamed sources.” You are dealing with the facts that you have and not working on things that are in the realm of possibilities and focusing on what might be true. This style of blog reporting is totally at odds with the New Journalism. You are paying attention to this silly UN kerfluffle and not concentrating on the most important story of yesterday.The President,thru his press secretary, actually asked Newsweek that they might consider presenting the truth about Army policy regarding handling of the Koran to help repair the damage they they partially contributed to with their story that they admit was bogus.One of the real Journalists at MSNBC came to the logical conclusion that what Bush has done is exactly like Nixon’s attacking the press for the Pentagon Papers. The fact that the Pentagon Papers were factual and the Newsweek story was bogus is beside the point.Granted the sourcing was weak but the primary issue is that you can’t rule out that it could have happened. Fact- There are prisoners at Gitmo. Fact-There are Korans at Gitmo.Fact- There are toilets at Gitmo. Fact= The point that we have Al Queda training manuals that instruct prisoners to make up lies and that specificly tell the prisoners to claim that the Koran and other outrages against Allah are accuring has nothing to do with the obvious truth that all the factors for the flushing story are there to make the story possibly true. Thats real journalism. Go back to school and forget those trivialities like verified facts. You have a wonderfull imagination, use it.
May 19, 2005 - 10:59 am 16. flenser:Well OT, to Jamie Irons
HA and I have been discussing the question you raised about Islam, way back on the May 15th thread “Damage Control at Newsweek”, if you’re interested.
May 19, 2005 - 11:41 am 17. Terrye:exdemocrat:
I think people like Volcker get into these situations and then start cutting deals for information and trust people they should not and make exceptions to rules etc.
But I wonder if the state of NY can do anything?
You know it might be better if they could just lock up the Galloways along the way because if faced with the combination of thievery on a grand scale and diplomatic immunity it might end up being one more nail in the UN’s coffin.
More and more I hear people say the feds should just send them packing.
May 19, 2005 - 12:30 pm 18. Jabba the Tutt:Paul Volcker had a terrific reputation. He’s destroying a lifetime of public service by getting in bed with UN dogs. He’s already itching and scratching from the flea bites, but that is just the beginning. He’s going to be known as Paul Mudd in 6 months.
May 19, 2005 - 2:21 pm 19. Jamie Irons:flenser
You wrote:
I went back and read your discussion, and very much appreciated it. I think your differing views encapsulate fairly well my own thinking’s vicissitudes on this question.
Thanks.
Jamie Irons
May 19, 2005 - 9:44 pm 20. Ron:Roger,
This is a bit off of the subject but shouldn’t be ignored. The New York Times has put on their front pages another “expose” of torture by the US military. This should be nipped in the bud before they can stir up trouble for our men and women in uniform. Front page, huge. They really have become the enemy, the liberal press are full of Walter Duranty’s. It might be time to start writing to their advertisers and tell them what is thought of newspapers the have become the mouthpiece of our enemies, these people haven’t a clue to what is happening with the Islamic Fascist. For what it is worth, I wrote and told them what a bunch of traitorous rats I thought them to be.
To put this in perspective, the United Nations and its band of merry cut throats and enablers of genocide’s, rapes and the greatest theft of all time have never gotten this type of coverage. It should be noted just who they are apparently working for and it isn’t their country in time of war. Lets see some beheadings on the front page and lets see those planes hit the buildings again, let see those poor people who had to jump. The rats at the Time’s make me furious.
May 20, 2005 - 9:58 am