In the first paragraph of my opening letter to Shell's lawyer, D J 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.'

4 January 2001, Shell's lawyers again declined to reaffirm the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's previous denials regarding the operation of a nuclear reactor and involvement in nuclear research programs, despite the evidence I provided.

To date, I have received no response, satisfactory or otherwise.