Freemanreply 13
Home Up Freemanreply 14

Marcus Rutherford                                                                                  

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

4 February 2000

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999

Dear Mr Rutherford,

Thank you for your letter dated 24 January 2001. 

You state that this correspondence is becoming increasingly pointless and as justification for the assertion, you offer the opening sentence of Freeman’s first letter of 11 August 2000:

We have been instructed by Shell Research Limited and the other proposed corporate and individual defendants named in the draft Statement of Case…’

However, your ‘increasingly pointless’ claim is, I believe, exposed by the very quote you forward in its support.  For am I now to understand that ‘individual defendants’- Frances (Fran) Margaret Morrison (following my exposure of Shell’s lie’s -she’s now ‘left’ Shell and is presently employed by a tobacco multinational) and David Alison Parkes (Thornton’s ex-head, now ‘retired’ following my exposure of Shell’s lie’s) are or being consulted (never mind instructing) as to how Shell should defend/respond to the wholesale nuclear dumping charges?  I somehow think not.  In my last letter of 18 January 2001 I requested:  

‘Precisely, which ‘clients’ (you claim) ‘continue to deny the truth of the allegations’   

I further requested that you state whether your ‘client’s include: 

·         ‘Shell Research Limited? 

·         Royal Dutch Shell? 

·         Shell Transport & Trading?’    

Did Morrison and/or Parkes play a part/instruct Freeman’s not to answer, the above questions (as per the apparent logic of your quoted opening sentence of the 24 January 2001)?  

Your quoted opening sentence of the 11 August 2000 only indicates, at best, that Freeman’s were acting/responding (in the instance of the first letter) for ‘Shell Research Limited and the other proposed corporate and individual defendants named in the (my) draft Statement of Case’.  It does not follow that Freeman’s were subsequently instructed/acting/consulted, by/for Shell Research Limited, etc.  

You will, of course, have noted that in my letter of the 18 January 2001, I requested that Freeman’s detail/state the precise names of all the clients Freeman’s represent, in this matter.  Instead, you again refuse to answer.  If you are being ‘instructed’ (as per your misleading assertion) by ‘Shell Research Limited and the other proposed corporate and individual defendants named in the (my) draft Statement of Case, may one ask, where, when and how does Shell International Limited, come in to play?  Shell International played no part in my proposed Statement of Claim (proposed corporate), yet in ’your’ various letters/threats to my WEB hosts, and others, Freeman’s asserts that it (first) represents Shell International Limited, hence your deliberately misleading assertion that you have supplied the required information is, well to be kind, incorrect. 

I further requested, in my letter of 18 January 2001, that the Royal Dutch/Shell Group directly affirm that it stands by the Group’s Narrative (that): 

‘(a) Shell Thornton were not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’  Yes or NO.

‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"….  Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.  (page 2).’  Yes or No.

‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by "atomic research for military purposes".  We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).’ Yes or No?  

 Specifically, does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny they and/or Thornton/Stanlow had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim?  Yes or No? 

Again, does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny that it and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim?  Yes or No? 

I record, as a matter of fact, that the Royal Dutch/Shell Group has again; refused to restate/reaffirm its (above) previous Narrative position. 

You will be aware that a number of media outlets have now published my allegations, despite Royal Dutch/Shell’s issued threats.  For instance, the March edition of .net’ magazine not only publishes details of my Site  it graphically shows a nuclear radiation worker (twice) - full protective outfit, including breathing apparatus, armed with a Geiger counter (as per Shell’s actual Thornton decommissioning) -it could hardly be more defamatory to your clients.  Yet despite your issued threats that Shell (would have) ‘no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks’-   I note that Shell and its representatives are now reduced, to quote the said article, to the indignity of ‘refusing to comment’.  

Finally, in view of  ‘Freeman’s’ various illegible closing signatures, I need to establish which particular individual is now responding to this correspondence.  Please confirm.  It is, of course, entirely correct that those accused of ‘war crimes’ are properly represented.  However, should it transpire that Freeman’s are aware of the truth of these crimes, and hence, are party to the continuing cover-up, then that is an entirely different (criminal) matter.  Therefore, my reference to the Law Society’s Guide to Professional Conduct of Solicitors is ‘simply relevant’.

Yours sincerely,

John Dyer.