|
|
|
Marcus Rutherford D J Freeman 43 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1JU. 7 September 2000 Your ref MWR/PAS/011311999 Dear Mr Rutherford, Thank you for your letter
of the 6 September, and the enclosed information concerning Mr Van den Bergh. Unfortunately, the rest of
your letter is once again grossly misleading.
First, the opening statement that I have only offered to supply evidence
‘on terms’ is a lie. I quote
from my letter of the 9 June 2000
to Shell’s legal director, Richard Wiseman: ‘You
state (Shell): “To this point we have been unable to find anything
to collaborate your allegations…..” Wrong, wrong, wrong! At our meeting, of the 12 January 1999, I
communicated to Mr Sweeney (Shell
Thornton's MD) , how Shell could quickly authenticate the ‘first
element of the story’, -the extensive cash payments. Once this was verified, I informed the meeting (Shell), we
could move forward. As I informed
Mr Sweeney, the bank’s ex-employees will be able to supply the required
corroboration regarding the cash payments.
If you had any trouble locating the bank’s former employees, I shall be
able to assist. Consequently,
I await your call. At the said meeting, I further detailed the plant and
wagons used, the problems the ‘Lads’ and Shell encountered with the nuclear
decommissioning, etc, etc. You State: ‘However, to proceed we need something more concrete than your
allegations alone. This is what Dr Sweeney asked for following your meeting with
him at Thornton last year.’ Misleading, and erroneous! Following
my meeting with Mr Sweeney, Mr. Hugh Dorans wrote, in his letter of the 18
January 1999: ‘In addition, we believe that we would be able to make more progress
if we were to discuss the events directly with the witnesses you have
interviewed.’ I have repeatedly offered, as per my last letter, to
jointly interview the ‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and others, who
would quickly establish the truth. You
refuse! I offered to interview former Shell directors, who
were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative, prior to its construction.
You refuse! I remind you that in spite of your (Shell) numerous
undertakings, I now find that not only does Mr Sweeney refuse to respond to my
letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact that ‘he will
not be responding’. There seems hardly any point in detailing further
examples.’ All of the above offers (and others), had no
conditions attached to them, all were refused.
In the case of the ‘ex-bank employees’, no call received.
The offers were rejected because Shell’s strategy is to brazen its
nuclear dumping crimes, and hence the consequences, out.
Consequently, the above offers, and any other offers I make, will be/were
rejected, for once Shell, for example, contacted the said former bank employees,
as per Graeme Sweeney’s (Thornton’s MD) undertaking, Shell would no longer
be able to turn a ‘Nelson’s eye’ and pretend that it is unaware of the
truth concerning its nuclear dumping. However, even the premise on which the assertion is
based is a lie. For I have supplied
your clients with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret
military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim.
Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set
out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?
Please answer. Despite the fact that the premise is a lie, even if
one were to accept the premise ‘your’ point regarding ‘evidence’ it is
mistaken. For as I pointed out to
Mr Wiseman in my letter of the 27 June 2000: ‘You (Richard Wiseman) will recall that you closed your letter of the 8 June thus: ‘Without
concrete evidence either given direct
or through a third party reviewer, we are unable to proceed further.’ In
view of this, I am afraid that you fail to understand the logic of your
(Shell’s) previous ‘assertions’. For
instance 24 May (Richard Wiseman wrote): ‘Your
assertion that in the past people on our side have been untruthful is completely
denied’ You
were just as emphatic in your letter of a mere a couple of days
later: ‘The
statement contained in paragraph 1 is not just “an official position”, it is
the truth.’ You will further recall that you
informed me in your letter of 2 October, that Shell Research Limited: 'provided all of the information (i.e. Shell’s
Narrative of the 7 February 1994.) needed to respond to the assertions you (I)
have previously made' It logically follows that if your people have not been
lying, as per your repeated claims, then the Narrative was only incorrect
because, as you claimed, they had assumed, wrongly, that the building in
question was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth. It
follows that the (rest of) information in your Narrative must be, and is
‘factual’ i.e. you have records or were informed, presumably by former
employees, as to the contents of your Narrative, otherwise you would have made
it up i.e. lied. Now
going back to your repeated demands for- ‘concrete evidence’, if your
‘assertions’ that Shell personnel did not lie is correct then your own
Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘concrete evidence’. For at virtually every point your Narrative vindicates the 'Boys'
account of events. For example:
Please directly answer the above questions,
do not ignore them. As you can see, if your assertions that Shell personnel told
the truth are maintained, it seems all along that you had the ‘proof’
yourselves.’
------------------------- I
hardly need to inform that no ‘direct’ or other answer(s) were forthcoming,
for self-evident reasons. As
you can plainly see, my attempts to disclose my evidence to your clients have
all been systematically rejected. Now
just what were, what you have chosen to label, my ‘unacceptable terms’?
My letter of the 26 May is instructive: ‘As stated I am most
concerned that Shell will use my body of evidence, as per 1993/4, to construct
another ‘Narrative’, or destroy ‘internal’ evidence, and or otherwise
seek a cover up. In order
that matters are ‘above board’, i.e. ‘verified’, the agreed, (Shell
would have the absolute right of veto, so no concern as to who will have access)
intermediates, would examine and evaluate the body of evidence, having free
access, with the appropriate non disclosure undertakings, to the Shell Group.
It will be only correct and proper that I shall be called upon, by
'Shell' and or the appointed personnel, to justify any statement or assertion or
piece of evidence, that I have made, submitted or supplied.
Of course, I will give an unqualified undertaking to
respect confidentiality. The appointment of scientific personnel and their
‘free’ access to evidence and its appraisal, would fully meet the
“verifiable undertakings to behave in a responsible manner” criteria.’ ----------------------------- This
was rejected, as unacceptable, as per all my numerous other proposals.
I ask again why? What possible reason would any responable public body have to
reject the above proposal? I
again offered in my 9 June 2000 letter to Shell: ‘In light of the construction of a your Narrative
of the 7 February 1994, you are perfectly well aware, that I am unwilling to
simply hand over my evidence, without reasonable safeguards in place.
Thus, I regard your offers as little more than rudimentary PR exercises. Nevertheless, the one thing we can surely agree on is
that this is far too important to allow personal feelings to be in any way a
significant factor. Consequently, I
am prepared to hand over direct to Shell, a transcript of my interview with your
former ‘Manager’, complete with official, Shell and other documents
conclusively ‘demonstrating’ that Shell Thornton Research Centre and its
employees were conducting the nuclear research programs as per the Managers
account. I have further good news.
I have located some of the personnel involved.
However, not all reside in the UK, some reside in Europe, others are
wider a field. In
return, after inspecting the evidence you will accept (the evidence) as being
such, that you will accept my proposal(s) to have the remainder of my evidence
subjected to the required scrutiny, as I have set-out.
In the event that you ‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven’ you would
give an undertaking to jointly interview, the said identified personnel, so that
the facts can be established. If I
may quote you ‘What have you to lose?’ So there you have it, further alternative methods
‘to collaborate (my) allegations’
----------------------------- This
(above offer)
was rejected, believe it or not, on the grounds
of ‘costs’. Having rejected my
proposal on the grounds of ‘cost’, Shell employ D J Freeman hardly seems any
point in continuing with this point. Further, the point regarding ‘your’ 11 August
instruction is incorrect. You
closed ‘your’ letter of the 11 August
thus: ‘We
require you in any event, to lodge this letter at Court when you attempt to
issue proceedings.’ Well,
if I were to lodge your letter, as per you instruction, it would self-evidently
form part of my/the pleadings. Once
I insisted on a Statement of Truth, ‘your’ ‘requirement’ was instantly
dropped. It is interesting to note
that you, the chairman of Shell Transport & Trading, -Mark Moody-Stuart and
Shell’s legal head-Richard Wiseman have all now declined to sign a Statement
of Truth in support of the letter. Seven
years after Shell’s fraudulent Narrative (cover-up) resulted in the
‘cancellation’ of a current affairs television program that would have
exposed Shell nuclear dumping crimes, along with it’s illegal surveillance,
it’s campaign of personal abuse and vilification against myself, etc., etc.,
Shell now ‘suggests’ that I deal with the issue by informing the Health
& Safety Executive. Well,
frankly it is akin to, say, complaining about Shell’s behaviour in Nigeria, to
the local trading standards officer! Despite
this, I again repeat my offer of the 15 August last: ‘I
will undertake to do this (go to the Health & Safety Executive) if
you (Shell) will now, give an unreserved undertaking on behalf of
the Shell Group, as its Legal Head, that the Shell Group of Company’s will
make all of the relevant records freely available, and that the relevant
authorities will have free and unhindered access to any document or record or
Company and or individuals, without reserve! Furthermore, you will hand over
your files, as I undertake, as an act of goodwill.’ I
await, now as then, your clients undertaking In
view of your clients ‘call in the authorities’ defence, the following from
my letter of the 31 May 2000 is enlightening: ‘For
if the Narrative was true then my evidence must be counterfeit, the witness’s
liars, and numerous official and other documents are forgeries!
The decommission ‘personnel’ must have conspired with dozens of
others, including former Shell employees, forged and planted documents on
several continents in order to fabricate one of the most complex and
sophisticated conspiracies in history. Why, they even managed to get inside the German, French and
Belgium, to name three, patent offices and place highly technical counterfeit
copies of their work. They not only
fooled the patent examiners and myself, moreover they must have had secretly
planted moles inside the Shell organisation to intercept, and reply, to the
patent examiners mail! In addition,
if this was not enough, on top of all of this, the ‘lads’ paid Shell’s and
‘others’ application fee’s and in the case of those patents which
proceeded, the annual patent fee’s, which as you know, are exponential.
In addition, there you are, innocent owners of patents that you had no
idea or knowledge of. Not content with stopping there, these Master Forgers,
agree to publicly go on national television, I actually interviewed them with a
full crew, camera, sound, lights complete with a producer in attendance, in
presumably furtherance of there conspiracy against Shell, they repeat the most
outrageous claims direct to camera, ready for national, and international,
transmission. Deliberate, for make
no mistake these people are knowingly lying if your Narrative is ‘true’. No
question of them misunderstanding, misremembering, or otherwise being mistaken
arises. These people have made the
most shocking allegations, involving very substantial cash payments, by Shell,
to known criminals in order for them to carry out wholesale dumping of nuclear
waste (for the record the ‘criminal’ himself has in some detail
authenticated to me the events leading up to, how they were contacted, cash
payments. etc, and the actual ‘events’ at Shell Thornton site/job). These allegations could leave the people making the
allegations, themselves open to prosecution.
Yet six years on, you have not called in the police.’ In my last, and previous, letter I offered to jointly
interview these people- you refused.’ Time
is now running out, however I refuse to believe that there are none within Shell
who are not appalled by its present strategy of (attempting to) brazening it
out. Consequently, I shall keep
open all of my offers until the very last moment.
But be under no illusion I intend to press on. Yours sincerely, John Dyer. |