|
|
|
Background.
‘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.’ The above is a lie, made in the expectation that I (John Dyer) would not see the letter, which, incidentally, is meaningless, as Freeman's letter begins by stating that it was written on behalf of ‘Shell International and associate companies’. Consequently, the above is worthless as Shell International Limited (the 'associate companies' are not defined) has no standing in this matter; hence, Freeman's can 'correctly' state the above with impunity. However, the quote creates the illusion of a denial, as intended. Freeman's can 'correctly' state the above with impunity. However, the quote creates the illusion of a denial, as intended. With this in mind, I have now written
(20/12/00) to Shell's legal head, and its Chairman requesting that they 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
2). (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).
Shell's legal head, Richard Max Wiseman, and Chairman, Mark Moody-Stuart, have, as stated above, refused to forward a no-reactor Statement of Truth. Shell's instructed solicitors, D J Freeman, refused to (re)state that no Shell company housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell, as per request/challenge; moreover, they declined to repeat the previous Sajjad Nabi/Freeman 'fictitious reactor' line/lie (as contained in the said threats to my WEB hosts). Instead, the Group and its outside lawyers have returned to its ‘our clients continue to deny the truth of the allegations’ ('fictitious reactor') line. However, without defining who Freeman's clients are, it is meaningless. Consequently, I have requested that Freeman's state precisely who their clients are, together with a detailed statement of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's official position regarding this matter However, without defining who Freeman's clients are meaningless (requested). Nevertheless , Freeman's letter is instructive in that it amply demonstrates Shell's 'Brazen it out, admit nothing' policy. Having refused to forward a Statement of Truth/official denial, Shell, without sight or knowledge of the said patent. duly instructed their solicitors to rubbish the unseen patent! This is unsurprising, for alongside its policy of personal abuse and vilification, runs the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's rubbishing of the evidence agenda. The exception is the aforementioned Narrative. Constructed in 1994, utilising a stolen copy of Carlton Communications' exposure ITV1 program script, the multinational, aware of the actual truth, with the TV program threatening, fabricated at the highest director level its fraudulent sham Narrative, of 7 February 1994, in order to kill the television programme. Nothing changes. As I informed Shell's legal head, who now, as Shell maintains that the Narrative was/is an 'honest mistake’: ‘For if (parts) the Narrative was true then my evidence
must be counterfeit, the witness’s liars, and numerous official and other
documents forgeries! The
decommission ‘personnel’ must have conspired with dozens of others,
including former Shell employees, forged and planted documents on several
continents in order to fabricate one of the most complex and sophisticated
conspiracies in history. Why, they
even managed to get inside the German, French and Belgium, to name three, patent
offices and place highly technical counterfeit copies of their work.
They not only fooled the patent examiners and myself, moreover they must
have had secretly planted moles inside the Shell organisation to intercept, and
reply, to the patent examiners mail! In
addition, if this was not enough, on top of all of this, the ‘lads’ paid
Shell’s and ‘others’ application fee’s and in the case of those patents
which proceeded, the annual patent fees, which as you know, are exponential.
In addition, there you are, innocent owners of patents that you had no
idea or knowledge of.
Not content with stopping there, these Master Forgers,
agree to publicly go on national television, I actually interviewed them with a
full crew, camera, sound, lights complete with a producer in attendance, in
presumably furtherance of ther conspiracy against Shell, they repeat the most
outrageous claims direct to camera, ready for national, and international,
transmission. Deliberate, for make
no mistake these people are knowingly lying if your Narrative is ‘true’. No question of them misunderstanding, misremembering, or otherwise being mistaken arises. These people have made the most shocking allegations, involving very substantial cash payments, by Shell, to known criminals in order for them to carry out wholesale dumping of nuclear waste (for the record the ‘criminal’ himself has in some detail authenticated to me the events leading up to, how they were contacted, cash payments. etc, and the actual ‘events’ at Shell Thornton site/job). These allegations could leave the people making the allegations, themselves open to prosecution. Yet six years on, you have not called in the police.’ In my last, and previous, letter I offered to jointly interview these people- you refuse(d).' Shell's
lawyers (4 January 2001) responded.
Again refusing, in the face of the supplied evidence, to reaffirm that Shell operated/housed a nuclear reactor
denial, and/or repeat the previous denials that the
Royal Dutch Group carried out the nuclear research
programmes -as set out. Freeman's
(Shell) now contests that (Shell(?)
were/are legally required to supply a Statement of Truth. Freeman's, in
responding, have again refused to confirm/state who they represent in this matter;
consequently as informed Shell's(?) solicitors
refusal to state who its clients are renders Freeman's current and previous letters worthless.
A 'reply' has (9 January 2001) been received, by which,, well see for yourselves. In view of Freeman’s continuing assistance to Royal
Dutch/Shell’s in covering up the Group's nuclear dumpings and other criminal
acts, I have now 'advised' Freeman's of - The
Law Society’s Guide to the Professional Conduct
of Solicitors- 16.02 Circumstances which override
confidentiality
Drawing Freeman's attention to its reasonability's and professional 'behavior' resulted a response. Replying, 'I
note that
Royal Dutch/Shell again refuses to restate/stand by its (Thornton had) 'no nuclear reactor' Narrative proclamations.
I further note that despite the issued threats that Shell (would have) ‘no
hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks’- Shell
has refused to issue any of its threatened 'writs'. For instance, the March edition of
‘.net’ magazine not only publishes details of this 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 the Royal Dutch Group. Yet despite Shell's issued threats, Shell and its representatives are now reduced, to
quote the said article, to the indignity of ‘refusing to comment’.
Shell's lawyers 'responded' with a 'we have nothing to add' letter-the Royal Dutch/Shell Group again refusing (having now seen the outline of my evidence) to restate/stand by its 'no nuclear reactor' Narrative proclamations (lies). |