johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

Sajjad Nabi        

D J Freeman                                                                         

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

2 April 2001 

Your ref   SVN/CG2/0113119999

Dear Mr Nabi, 

Thank you for the letter bearing your name and signature of the 29 March 2001.   

'Responding' to my letter/questions of the 23 March 2001 'you' stated: 

'I confirm the bunble enclosed with my letter of 21 March 2001 is a complete set of disclosure of all companies in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.' 

My letter of the 23 March, opening question (was): 

'Who, precisely, are Freeman's 'clients?'  i.e.- 'enclosed a bundle of our clients disclosure.'  Please state precisely who they are.' 

Following Freeman’s latest refusal to supply answers as to who precisely its clients are in this matter, I again request that D J Freeman 'state precisely who its ‘clients' are?’ 

My second question of the 23 March (was):

 'Which particular Shell, and/or other company/firm and/or outfit, supplied and/or forwarded the said 'bundle' of documents?  Please state precisely who they are.' 

Shell/Freeman's ('your') letter of the 23 March refused to even address the question, still less supply an answer.  Consequently, I again repeat the above question?  Please now address it. 

Third question of the 23 March: 

'The documents forwarded do not even represent 'a sample' of all documents/records, data, correspondence concerning myself held on computer and/or paper by any member, or associate, of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.  Consequently, advise whether, or not, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group maintains that it has sent all personal, and other documents/records, data, correspondence concerning myself held on computer and/or paper by any member, or associate, of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group- as per my request.'   

The supplied 'answer' (that)- 'the bunble enclosed with my letter of 21 March 2001 is a complete set of disclosure of all companies in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998'  - only indicates, at best, that those particular Shell companies coming under the UK Data Protection Act (i.e. a small minority of the thousands of Royal Dutch/Shell companies) have been 'engaged'.  Thus 'your' inclusion/ use of  'Royal Dutch' could only have been designed to deceive. 

However, Shell's/Freeman's inability to be truthful was anticipated, hence my letter of the 23 March, continued: 

'If Royal Dutch/Shell maintains that the sent 'bundle of documents' is the full, exhaustive and complete list of all personal, and other documents/records, data, correspondence concerning myself held on computer and/or paper by any member, or associate, of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, forward the name of the Shell individual, and/or individuals stating this.  In addition please forward an authorised statement that no 'culling', 'shredding', 'withholding' or 'transferring' of documents has been authorised, and/or known by the any member of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and/or Associate/Associates and/or any 'hired help' with regard to myself and Shell Thornton/ nuclear crimes issue.'   

Now please state (whether or not)

·     'Royal Dutch/Shell maintains that the sent 'bundle of documents' is the full, exhaustive and complete list of all personal, and other documents/records, data, correspondence concerning myself held on computer and/or paper by any member, or associate, of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group'  Yes or No?

 ·     'In addition please forward an authorised statement that no 'culling', 'shredding', 'withholding' or 'transferring' of documents has been authorised, and/or known by the any member of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and/or Associate/Associates and/or any 'hired help' with regard to myself and Shell Thornton/ nuclear crimes issue.'   Now please supply an answer.

I further requested that Shell/Freeman 'precisely (state) what 'Exemption' sections of the Data Protection Act have Shell/Freeman's invoked?  With particular reference to section: 

28. - (1) Personal data are exempt from any of the provisions of-  

(a) the data protection principles

(b) Parts II, III and V, and if the exemption from that provision is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security if the exemption from that provision is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. 

Please state if any of section 28 has been invoked to withhold documents/records, data, and correspondence.  Should a denial be issued please state the name of the person authorising the denial.  A refusal to issue a denial will be taken as admittance. 

You have answered in the affirmative, i.e., Section 28 has been invoked.  

I requested 'whether, or not, Freeman/Shell have invoked section 35: 

35. - Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.  

(1)            Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.    

(2)            Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.' 

You have answered in the affirmative, i.e., Section 35 has been invoked. 

I requested that Shell/Freeman 'state whether, or not, any files, documents, records, data, and/or correspondence has been transferred to any member, or associate, of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, with particular reference to those outside of the United Kingdom-thereby falling outside of the UK Data Protection Act.  Please further confirm (any?) the 'code' names assigned and/or used with regard to myself and/or the Shell Thornton nuclear dumping crimes issue.' 

You have answered in the affirmative.  

Finally, Freeman/Shell has, for all intents and purposes, not supplied any of my requested (Data Protection Act) ‘documentation’.  However, in pursuit of Royal Dutch/Shells - ‘we are acting responsibly-we have no evidence of a nuclear reactor/dumping’- strategy it was deemed necessary to give the impression (lie) that the Group had complied with the Data Protection Act, hence the supplied ‘bundle’ of the 21 March! 

Yours sincerely,

John Dyer.