' Answers'

In the first paragraph of my opening letter to Shell's lawyer Freeman's Marcus Rutherford, I requested the following information:

'Thank you for your letter of the 11 August. Unfortunately, it contains a number of the errors. However, before I correct a couple of them, I note that you fail to state when you were first ‘instructed’ by Shell. Therefore, I need to know if you are/were one of the ‘committee’ and or individuals that Mr Wiseman passed my letter on to. If so, I shall include you in my claim.'

Freeman in their letter of the 18 August replied:

‘We know of no basis upon which the writer could personally be joined into your proposed action, but if the threat is intended to intimidate, it does not.’

As no answers were received, hence I responded via my letter of 26 August:

'One would think such a straightforward, uncomplicated question would not be too hard to answer; a simple yes or no would perfectly suffice. Yet, you replied:

‘We know of no basis upon which the writer could personally be joined into your proposed action, but if the threat is intended to intimidate, it does not.’

First, who is the ‘WE’? Please answer, as, with respect, it is for me to decide whether or not there is a basis for inclusion. However, rest assured I intend to include all members of Shell’s ‘defence committee’ in my claim at some point. Besides, I fear that others may conclude that the members of Shell’s ‘defence committee’ are either too ashamed to be named or have something to hide.'

Shell's lawyers have (4 January 2001) again refused in the face of my supplied evidence, to reaffirm the Royal Dutch/Shell Groups previous denials that they operated/housed a nuclear reactor and that the Group carried out the nuclear research programmes (as set out). D J Freedman now contents that (Shell(?) were/are not legally required to supply a Statement of Truth. Freeman have further refused to confirm/state who they represent in this matter- consequently, as I informed Shell's(?) solicitors the refusal to state who Freeman's clients are, renders the previous issued 'denials', worthless.

Following my reply the challenge to the Royal Dutch/Shell Group Shell remains. That on receipt of either Shell's Legal Head or its Chairman’s denial, asserting that no Shell, or associated company, housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at/on Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s. I shall publish via this WEB site a ‘secret’ Shell patent of the ‘Thornton’ nuclear reactor! I now await Shell's 'official' denial (don't hold your breath).

Still no answers, satisfactory or otherwise, have been received to date.