20 December 2000.
R M Wiseman
UK General Counsel
Shell International Limited
London SE1 7NA.
(by post, fax, and e-mail)
Your Ref: LSUK
Dear Mr Wiseman,
A number of points have arisen.
‘Dear Mr Wiseman,
Thank you for your fax of 26 June.
You repeat your line regarding my going to the authorities.
I will undertake to do this if you will you, 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
I now await your undertaking.’
No ‘undertaking’ was received; instead, you responded by faxing an outright refusal! Accordingly, I now await confirmation that this misleading ‘Health & Safety’ line, given to your Thornton staff, will now cease.
You will further recall that your appointed lawyers in this
matter -D J Freeman, opening letter, of the 11 August 2000, closed with
Shell’s demand that I include Freedman’s said letter, of the 11 August, with
my court fillings. However, as
Freeman/Shell’s said letter contained a number of lies, I requested that
either you, Shell’s chairman Mark Moody Stuart, or Freeman’s senior media
partner-Marcus Rutherford, forward a statement of truth (as per court
requirement) in support of the said letter –you all refused!
I now find that a junior member of Freeman’s (your
appointed lawyers) staff, Sajjad Nabi, has now written several letters,
threatening my WEB providers, in furtherance of Shell’s efforts to get my site
closed down. The said letter
included the following:
‘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.’
However, the letter began, by stating that it was written
on behalf of ‘Shell International and associates’, consequently, the above,
is meaningless. However, you and/or
Shell’s Chairman can now make matters abundantly clear!
As I now afford you and Shell’s chairman the opportunity to restate (as
per Shell’s 7 February 1994, Narrative): -
(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
(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).
Please answer in a
non-ambiguous, manner. Specifically
does Shell deny the Shell Group and/or Thornton had/housed/utilised a nuclear
reactor/testing cell at Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s,
as set out in my Statement of Claim, Yes or No?
Upon receipt of a
supporting statement of truth, from either yourself or Mark Moody Stuart,
asserting that no Shell, or associated company, housed/utilised a nuclear
reactor/testing cell at Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow in the 1960’s, I
shall publish via my WEB site a ‘secret’ patent of the actual
‘Thornton’ nuclear reactor! Yes
that’s correct, the actual reactor! You
will, I am sure, should you believe a word of Shell’s ‘we had no nuclear
reactor’ line, be only to eager to swear the required supporting affidavit.
And, of course, now issue Shell’s threatened writs.
This letter will
now be posted on my WEB site. You
have my postal and e-mail addresses, and my fax/phone number.
I now await your affidavits.
cc Mark Moody-Stuart
cc Sajjad Nabi