D J Freeman
43 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1JU.
26 August 2000
you for your letter of the 18 August. You will recall that following the instruction contained in ‘your’
letter of the 15 August, that I lodge your letter of the 11 August with my
Statement of Claim/Court filing; I closed my letter of the 15 August thus:
in order for me to comply with your apparent instruction1, 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.’
reply, your letter of the 18 August stated:
‘We did not intend you to include our earlier letter (11
August) as part of your claim,..’
In view of the above, it is
instructive to quote what you actually stated/demanded in your letter of the 11
1‘We require* you in any event,
to lodge this letter at Court when you attempt to issue proceedings.’
said ‘requirement’ was immediately dropped (‘We did not
intend…’) following my
insistence that a ‘Statement of
Truth’ from a Shell director/employee be forwarded in support of the said
letter. For the said letter of the
11 August is a further example of Shell’s shameless ability to lie. Accordingly, in view of the serious legal position, no Shell
director is willing to sign the required Statement of Truth.
To ask as of right; to demand; to have need for; to find it necessary; I require
you to remain silent at all times. Word
family: requirement (noun)
something which is required or obligatory.
You will further recall the opening paragraph of my letter of
the 15 August:
‘I need to know if you
are/were one of the ‘committee’ and or individuals that Mr Wiseman passed my
letter(s) on to.
If so, I shall include you in my claim.’
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.’
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.
surely a Johnson, Swift, or Chesterton will be required to better this
particular example of the absurd. Here
I am alone, yes alone, individual; no doubt there will be all sorts of
conspiracy theories/nonsense, inevitable a soon as human groupings form, anyway
here I am, single-handedly taking on one of the worlds most powerful and
ruthless transnational corporations, with its vast pocket and connections, able
to hire ‘fat cat’ lawyers without restriction, and I receive a note back
stating that you will not be intimated by me!
Well, that’s a relief!
You further state:
‘We can confirm that we do
not represent Channel Four in litigation against Shell, nor would we.’
inform who the ‘WE’ is. For are
not Freeman’s Channel Four’s lawyers? Hence,
I conclude that the ‘WE’ is a royal ‘WE’, i.e. Freeman’s are a front
for Shell, who is directing this defence, with you as a cover.
reason for hiring Freeman’s is simple, mainly their media contacts, now that
Shell’s previous media manager-former BBC television current affairs presenter
Frances (Fran) Morrison has ‘left’ Shell, following my exposing of the lies
in the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, and other letters bearing Mss
Morrison’s name and signature.
endless threats contained in ‘Freeman’s’ letter of the 11 August were
aimed at warning/ threatening the media, thus the demand that I lodge, with the
Court, the said letter with my Statement of Claim.
However, your threats to sue have been exposed, following your refusal to
issue proceedings against me, for what they are, empty threats, the actions of
the bully. The media and anybody
else can rest assured that Shell will not be suing anybody.
For Shell are perfectly well aware of the truth of their nuclear dumping
crimes, hence the threats, panic and desperation.
With regard to
the above, I feel it is correct to inform that I am presently drafting leaflets
setting out Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumping.
The leaflet will document Shell’s ‘Thornton’ nuclear research
programs, it’s hiring of known criminals to decommission its nuclear
reactor/testing cell in 1968, the cash payments.
In addition, Shell’s fraudulent Narrative, its lies, and criminal
actions. I give notice that I am
minded to start issuing the leaflets to Thornton’s employees as a first step.
The leaflet will contain my proposed WEB address, which shall
contain/document the draft Statement of Claim, this correspondence and other
letters and evidence. The meeting
with Thornton’s management, etc., etc. Of
course, if Shell believes any of the above is untrue, it will, to quote your
letter of the 11 August-
(Shell will) ‘take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its
reputation from false attacks.’
you now not take ‘action to protect Shell’s reputation from false attack’,
others will draw their own conclusions. Please
note that I shall be filing this letter with my claim, and should you not issue
proceedings noting the fact.
please confirm that you have received my fax log, showing that my letter of the
15 August was transmitted and received by you on the 15 August.