Freemanreply 2
Home Up Freemanreply 3 Shell's lawyers Freedmans letter



Marcus Rutherford

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

26 August 2000

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999

Dear Mr Rutherford,

 Thank you for your letter of the 18 August.  You will recall that following the instruction contained in ‘your’ letter of the 15 August, that I lodge your letter of the 11 August with my Statement of Claim/Court filing; I closed my letter of the 15 August thus:  

Finally, in order for me to comply with your apparent instruction1, to include your letter with my claim, I require a statement of truth, please forward.  Should the statement be signed by anyone other than a Shell director/employee please state which Shell person authorised the statement of truth.’ 

In reply, your letter of the 18 August stated: 

‘We did not intend you to include our earlier letter (11 August) as part of your claim,..’

In view of the above, it is instructive to quote what you actually stated/demanded in your letter of the 11 August: 

1‘We require* you in any event, to lodge this letter at Court when you attempt to issue proceedings.’  

The said ‘requirement’ was immediately dropped (‘We did not intend…’) following my insistence that a  ‘Statement of Truth’ from a Shell director/employee be forwarded in support of the said letter.  For the said letter of the 11 August is a further example of Shell’s shameless ability to lie.  Accordingly, in view of the serious legal position, no Shell director is willing to sign the required Statement of Truth.   

*Require- To ask as of right; to demand; to have need for; to find it necessary; I require you to remain silent at all times.  Word family: requirement (noun) something which is required or obligatory. 

You will further recall the opening paragraph of my letter of the 15 August: 

‘I need to know if you are/were one of the ‘committee’ and or individuals that Mr Wiseman passed my letter(s) on to.  If so, I shall include you in my claim.’ 

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. 

Second, surely a Johnson, Swift, or Chesterton will be required to better this particular example of the absurd.  Here I am alone, yes alone, individual; no doubt there will be all sorts of conspiracy theories/nonsense, inevitable a soon as human groupings form, anyway here I am, single-handedly taking on one of the worlds most powerful and ruthless transnational corporations, with its vast pocket and connections, able to hire ‘fat cat’ lawyers without restriction, and I receive a note back stating that you will not be intimated by me!  Well, that’s a relief!   

You further state: 

‘We can confirm that we do not represent Channel Four in litigation against Shell, nor would we.’ 

Please inform who the ‘WE’ is.  For are not Freeman’s Channel Four’s lawyers?  Hence, I conclude that the ‘WE’ is a royal ‘WE’, i.e. Freeman’s are a front for Shell, who is directing this defence, with you as a cover. 

The reason for hiring Freeman’s is simple, mainly their media contacts, now that Shell’s previous media manager-former BBC television current affairs presenter Frances (Fran) Morrison has ‘left’ Shell, following my exposing of the lies in the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, and other letters bearing Mss Morrison’s name and signature.   

The endless threats contained in ‘Freeman’s’ letter of the 11 August were aimed at warning/ threatening the media, thus the demand that I lodge, with the Court, the said letter with my Statement of Claim.  However, your threats to sue have been exposed, following your refusal to issue proceedings against me, for what they are, empty threats, the actions of the bully.  The media and anybody else can rest assured that Shell will not be suing anybody.  For Shell are perfectly well aware of the truth of their nuclear dumping crimes, hence the threats, panic and desperation.   

With regard to the above, I feel it is correct to inform that I am presently drafting leaflets setting out Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumping.  The leaflet will document Shell’s ‘Thornton’ nuclear research programs, it’s hiring of known criminals to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell in 1968, the cash payments.  In addition, Shell’s fraudulent Narrative, its lies, and criminal actions.  I give notice that I am minded to start issuing the leaflets to Thornton’s employees as a first step.  The leaflet will contain my proposed WEB address, which shall contain/document the draft Statement of Claim, this correspondence and other letters and evidence.  The meeting with Thornton’s management, etc., etc.  Of course, if Shell believes any of the above is untrue, it will, to quote your letter of the 11 August- (Shell will) ‘take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks.’ 

Should you now not take ‘action to protect Shell’s reputation from false attack’, others will draw their own conclusions.  Please note that I shall be filing this letter with my claim, and should you not issue proceedings noting the fact. 

Finally, please confirm that you have received my fax log, showing that my letter of the 15 August was transmitted and received by you on the 15 August. 

Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.