Freemanreply 1
Home Up Freemanreply 2 Freeman's letter Shell's lawyers Contact John Dyer



Marcus Rutherford                                                                                  


Marcus Rutherford

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

15 August 2000 

Your ref   MWR/PAS

Dear Mr Rutherford,

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.

You state: 

You assert that Shell employed personnel to keep you under surveillance, to tap your telephones, intercept your mail, posing as debt collectors or postal workers (paras 33-37).  You were invited to complain to the relevant regulatory bodies, but have failed to do so.’   

This is incorrect, at no stage did any Shell (or other) personnel ever advise regarding the above course of action.  The ‘invitation’ to refer to the ‘relevant regulatory bodies’, was in connection to the dumped nuclear materials/waste.  Shell’s ‘relevant regulatory bodies’ agenda was part of its cynical policy, in the event of publication, to enable Shell to mount a ‘we have behaved responsible’ defence.  The seriousness of Shell’s ‘complain to the relevant regulatory bodies’, position may be gauged by the following.  On the 26 June 2000 I wrote to Richard 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 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 now await your undertaking.’ 

Needless to say, no such undertaking was forthcoming; rather it was rejected out of hand, like all of my offers.  However, I replied to Richard Wiseman’s (Shell legal head) faxed rejection on the same day: 

‘Thank you for your fax of 27 June.  You state that I am imposing unacceptable condition. Why?  As I have not only welcomed a full investigation into my entire body of evidence, I have insisted on it, while Shell is impeccable opposed to any similar investigation regarding your own records.  Others will draw their own conclusions.  Incidentally, if you would have accepted any of my numerous offers all of this could have been avoided.  But no, your ‘concerns’, are I believe exposed for what they are, a cynical ploy to protect Shell.  The fact that Shell has dumped tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste, and that the nuclear waste is ‘buried’ in one of the most densely populated section of the UK, appears to pose no great moral problems to Shell.  I estimate that it is likely that hundreds of thousands, or possibly even more, will either be affected, or fear that they have been effected by/from Shell’s nuclear waste.’    

You further appear not to have grasped reality for a mere couple of paragraphs later you state: 

‘As a result of the campaign of vilification and abuse, you say the television programme was abandoned.  We do not know why the programme was abandoned, but the decision to do so was that of Carlton and/or the production company and/or the ITC and not Shell.  We would say that had a programme containing the allegations being made at the time been broadcast, it would have been defamatory of our clients and the financial consequences for broadcaster and production company could have been severe.’ 

This is again incorrect.  My draft claim stated: 

‘That the said (Shell’s) Narrative along with the campaign of personal/professional abuse and vilification against the Claimant and his research resulted in the television programme being ‘abandoned’.  

For the record I have since November 1998, repeatedly requested information as to when, the former Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster - Robert Temple Armstrong, was first informed of my research and the said television programme.  Lord Armstrong was a director of Shell Transport & Trading plc, Carlton and N M Rothschild & Sons at the time of the proposed television programme.  In spite of Shell’s undertakings, the requested information has constantly been refused. 

You appear to be most keen to avoid the issue.  The issue is that Shell planned to illegally dump (and did) enormous amounts of nuclear materials/waste, in 1968.  That Shell sought out, selected and employed known criminals, with a record of illegally disposing of nuclear materials, furthermore paid them cash to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre in 1968.  As stated, the decommissioning did not go to plan, hence, as set-out, high level (radiation) nuclear materials were ordered and sanctioned by Shell to be disposed of (dumped).  As I have informed Shell its nuclear ‘materials/waste’ were subsequently used in the construction of an housing estate, extensive medical, shops, leisure facilities and schools have, either been built on the waste and or its surroundings.  That the heath effects on the effected population have been outlined to Shell.  That I have informed Shell that the rest of its nuclear materials/waste has proven impossible to locate.  Furthermore, that in 1994, Shell constructed a knowingly fraudulent Narrative to cover up its crimes.  I repeat the nuclear dumping amounts to ‘war crimes’.  I give notice that I shall be filing this letter with my claim, hence I now give you the opportunity to ‘take whatever action Shell sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks’.  Please note that failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim.              

You state:  

‘Our clients have made no attempt to stop you publishing fair and accurate facts and have encouraged you to report your concerns to the relevant authorities.  They would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’ 

Your assertion that Shell has ‘encouraged you to report your concerns to the relevant authorities’ is a lie.  In view of your threat that Shell will have ‘no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’, I await your ‘writ’.  Please note that failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim.   

Furthermore, I have informed Richard Wiseman, Shell’s Legal Head, that I am mindful to publish my research via a WEB site, in order to give notice so that Shell could seek an injunction if it disputed my ‘allegations’.  Shell declined to take any such action.  I now give you the same notice, so that you may pursue your threatened legal remedies.  Please note that failure to issue proceedings will be noted in my claim. 

Incidentally, can you confirm that Freeman’s is presently representing Channel 4, in litigation against Shell? 

The rest of your letter appears to be a mixture of panic and bad manners, unworthy of reply.  

Not withstanding your letter, in view of the serious consequences, I am still willing to hand over my evidence on terms.  However, if I do not receive your substantive offer of settlement by Friday 18 August, I shall issue my claim.

Finally, in order for me to comply with your apparent instruction,  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.

Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.