Shell 'Challenge'
Home 'Evidence'




Following the collapse of Shell's Narrative, Shell and its lawyers have consistently refused (despite repeated requests) to stand by/restate the Group's previous official position (lies) - that it did not have/house a nuclear reactor/testing cell on/at its Thornton/Stanlow site.  

Shell's lawyers -D J Freeman opening letter of the 11 August 2000, demanded that I include Freedman’s (opening) letter, with my court files.  However, as Freeman/Shell’s said letter contained a number of further lies, I requested that either Shell's legal head, its chairman Mark Moody Stuart, or Freeman’s senior media partner-Marcus Rutherford, forward a statement of truth (as per court requirement) in support of the said letter –all refused!   This proved to be somewhat embarrassing.

Now, the same 'ethical' people, having got their fingers burnt, have instructed a junior member of Freeman's staff, Sajjad Nabi, to write letter(s) threatening my WEB providers, in furtherance of Shell’s efforts to get this site closed.  'Nabi's' said letter included the following:

‘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 an absolute 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 affords the illusion of a denial, as per intent.

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).  

My challenge to Shell is that on receipt of either Shell's Legal Head or its Chairman's  denial, asserting that no Shell, or associated company, housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at/on Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s.  I shall publish via this WEB site a ‘secret’ Shell patent of the ‘Thornton’ reactor!   I await Shell's 'official' denial (don't hold your breath).


Shell's legal head, Richard Max Wiseman,  and its Chairman, Mark Moody-Stuart have (in response to the challenge) refused to forward a Statement of Truth.  Instead Shell's solicitors-D J Freeman, were instructed.   However, Freeman's not only refused to (re)state that no Shell company housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell, as per request/challenge, they further declined to repeat the previous Sajjad Nabi/Freeman 'fictitious reactor'  line/lie (as contained in the said threats to my WEB providers).  Instead the Group's lawyers have returned to its minimalist  ‘our clients continue to deny the truth of the allegations’ line.  However, without defining who Freeman's clients are, it’s absolutely meaningless.  Consequently, I have requested that Freeman's state precisely who their clients are, together with detailed statement of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's official position regarding to this matter.  

Moreover, 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 instruct their solicitors to rubbish the unseen, therefore unknown evidence! 

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 glaring exception being its said Narrative.  Which was constructed in 1994, utilizing my (forwarded/received) evidence. The multinational aware of the actual truth, with a television programme imminent, knowingly, deliberately fabricated at highest director level its fraudulent sham Narrative, of the 7 February 1994, in order stop (kill) the television programme.  Nothing changes.  As I informed Shell's legal head (who (now) maintains that Shell’s said Narrative was/is a 'honest mistake' i.e. parts of it are 'true') however:

‘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 fee’s, 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 there 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 have (4 January 2001) responded.  Again refusing, in the face of the supplied evidence, to reaffirm the 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 it's clients are, renders Freeman's  current and previous letters- worthless.   


Following my reply (correcting Freeman's apparent ignorance regarding the Statement of Truth court procedure), the challenge to the Royal Dutch/Shell Group Shell remains.  That on receipt of either Shell's Legal Head or its Chairman’s denial, asserting that no Shell, or associated company, housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at/on Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s.  I shall publish via this WEB site a ‘secret’ Shell patent of the actual ‘Thornton’ nuclear reactor!   I again await Shell's 'official' denial.

A 'reply' has (9 January 2001)  been received, by which,, well see for yourselves.

In view of Freeman’s continuing assistance in 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' has 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 'respond' 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)!