|
|
|
johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com Marcus Rutherford
D J Freeman 43 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1JU. 27 December 2000 Your
ref MWR/PAS/011311999 Dear
Mr Rutherford, Thank
you for your letter of the 20 December 2000.
As
you are aware, Thornton’s current Managing Director, Graeme Sweeney,
undertook, (following our meeting of the 12 January 1999), to ‘check’ a
number of supplied facts that would enable Shell to establish the truth of its
nuclear dumpings. After waiting,
for over a year, for the promised ‘enquiry findings, I wrote to Graeme
Sweeney, on the 5 May 2000, only to discover that he had, apparently, lost the
ability to respond. Instead,
Shell’s legal head, Richard Wiseman, wrote to inform, on the 8 June 2000, that
Mr Sweeney would not be ‘responding’ i.e. Shell refused to disclose it’s
‘enquiry’ findings, in contradiction of its agreement(s) of the 12 January
1999. Having been a party to
dishonouring the said agreement(s), the same Graeme Sweeney is currently
misinforming Shell Thornton’s staff that I have refused to call in the
‘Health & Safety’ authority! My
last letter requested that this misinformation (lie) be corrected, you (Shell)
have chosen in your reply to completely ignore the issue. I
now find that Shell’s legal head, when asked to forward a Statement of Truth
(that Shell did not have/house or use a nuclear reactor/testing cell at on/at
its Thornton/Stanlow site in the 1960’s), has now, apparently also lost the
ability to respond. Instead, on
this occasion, Freeman’s (Shell’s lawyers), are instructed to respond.
For the record, this is now the second time that Shell’s legal head and
its Chairman have refused to sign a Statement of Truth regarding Shell’s
nuclear reactor/testing cell. Since
Freeman’s ‘official’ appointment in this matter, the Group’s legal head,
Richard Wiseman has written to me on several occasions, hence, that old stand by
– ‘Mr Wiseman passed my letter on as all correspondence must (now) be
conducted by/through the appointed lawyers’- will not wash.
If
I may say so, your/Shell’s attempt to pre-rubbish my (unseen)
patents/documents is enlightening. A
piece of advice, it may appear more ‘convincing’ if Shell adopts the policy
of actually viewing the evidence, before rubbishing it.
After all, Shell’s legal head not only informs that Thornton’s
records, dating from the 1950/60’s are ‘now’ virtually non-existent, he
further sought my advice on whether or not, Shell should start its
‘investigation’ via the USA, because (he asserted) the American freedom of
information legislation could enable Shell to get ‘Thornton (nuclear/military)
information’, unobtainable in the UK. Returning
to my letter of the 18 December, I requested following Freeman’s statement in
its said letters/threats to my WEB providers: ‘The website (nuclearcrimes)
contains a number of false and defamatory allegations against our clients
including an assertion that they operated a nuclear reactor in the 1960s at
their Thornton research centre and that the demolition of this fictitious
reactor represented a serious hazard to public safety.’ that Shell’s
legal head, and/or its Chairman now forward a Statement of Truth (as per
Shell’s 7 February 1994 Narrative), that: (a) ‘Shell Thornton was not involved in ‘atomic research’ (page 1). (b) ‘Thornton did not house a ‘nuclear facility’…. Thornton
did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.’ (Page
2). (c) ‘We do not understand what you mean by ‘atomic research for military purposes’. (d) ‘We have already
explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research’ (page
2). They refused.
Instead, ‘you’ (again) responded by refusing to reaffirm Shell’s
Narrative as per my (latest) request. Instead
Freeman’s content itself by restating the ‘our clients continue to deny the
truth of the allegations’ line. It
is instructive that ‘you’ did not repeat the ‘….. they operated a
nuclear reactor in the 1960s at their Thornton research centre and that the
demolition of this fictitious reactor represented a serious hazard to public
safety.’ line. Precisely who are
‘your clients’, who you claim ‘continue to deny the truth of the
allegations’? Do they, for
instance, include Shell Research Limited? Royal
Dutch Shell? Shell Transport &
Trading? Please detail/state the precise
names of all the ‘clients’ Freeman’s represent in this matter.
Once
you have set-out your client list, please detail what ‘allegations’ your
‘clients’ (Shell?) deny? I need
to know, as your ‘clients’ cannot deny my ‘allegation(s)’ that:
It therefore follows that
your ‘clients’ accepts many (most?) of my ‘allegations’.
Accordingly, the issue is what ‘allegations’ Royal Dutch/Shell accepts, and what
‘allegations’ Royal Dutch/Shell does not accept. Therefore, I repeat
(and, furthermore, I will go on repeating until the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, directly
answer), does Shell stand by its 7 February 1994, Narrative: ‘(a) Shell
Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’
Yes or NO. ‘(b) Thornton
did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton
did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page
2).’ Yes or No. ‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by
"atomic research for military purposes". We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in
any atomic research (page 2).’ Yes
or No?
Specifically,
does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny they and/or Thornton/Stanlow had/housed/utilised
a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in
the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim? Yes or No? Again,
does the Royal Dutch/Shell
Group deny that it
and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear
research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of
Claim? Yes or No?
Yours sincerely, John Dyer. |
