U.S. Attempt To Bribe & Threaten UN

I thought it was a threat or bribe, when the one Italian-American sent a letter to the UN following my first letter to them about torture of me and my family. It was the one where he asks to see the funding for UN, for the poor and in general, as it's mainly kept confidential, and reminding them of billions.

So I was looking at the 2005 report about the U.S. and right there it lists the U.S. as having contributed 70% of the money to "victims of torture" within the UN. That's not including "the poor" fund, but just victims of torture alone. This is the link to the document with the statement made by the UN:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/418/46/PDF/G0641846.pdf?OpenElement


And this is the comment made that I'm referring to:

12. The United States had contributed far more than any other country to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture: almost 70 per cent of the total contributions between 2000 and 2005.

I don't believe that U.S. man was genuinely inquiring about the confidential donations made by various countries, I believe he was discreetly trying to remind the UN who butters their bread and not to stick their noses into a legitimate case of torture occuring on U.S. soil. It's sort of a "Don't investigate our crime because we might want to see an audit of who is donating the most money to your organization, and you and I both know the answer, don't we."

Here's a section about torture and the law I was referring to about not returning parties to States where they are tortured.

19. The fact that the Convention defined “torture” in article 1 and referred to “other acts ofcruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in article 16 reflected the recognition bythe parties which had negotiated the Convention of the basic distinction between the severity of conduct constituting torture, on the one hand, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, on the other (question 3). On account of the aggravated nature of torture, States parties had agreed to comprehensive measures to prohibit it under the criminal law, to prosecute
perpetrators found in territory under their jurisdiction, and not to return individuals where there were substantial grounds for believing that such persons would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In contrast,


25. His Government did not permit, tolerate or condone unlawful practices by its personnel or employees, including contractors, under any circumstances (question 7). According to the Extraterritorial Criminal Torture Statute, it was a crime for a person acting under the colour of law to commit, attempt to commit or conspire to commit torture outside the United States. In addition, pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act, the United States had voluntarily undertaken a prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment that applied as a matter of
statute to protect any persons in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location.

About rape as form of torture (twice the United States refused to investigate rape against me when there was sufficient evidence to do so--they dropped a rape investigation telling me since the newspaper came out, get a new coat; and they refused to send in a rape kit I submitted in Wenatchee. That's not counting other forms of sexual assault):

41. While the specific federal crime of “torture” did not exist, any act of torture falling within
the Convention’s definition, as ratified by the United States, was criminally prosecutable, such as
acts of aggravated assault, homicide, kidnapping and rape (question 20). No lacuna existed,
therefore, in United States law. Indeed, a wide range of mechanisms existed through which the
United States implemented its obligations under the Convention. For example, many acts that
would qualify as “torture” could be prosecuted under section 242 of title 18 of the United States
Code as criminal deprivations of constitutional rights.