RECENT EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:28:02 +0000
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, “[email protected]” <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, “Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LSUK” <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Conversation: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
Subject: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
Dear Mr Brandjes
I have supplied below a draft article relating to the former Shell Terminal/Depot at Earley, Reading in Berkshire and related matters.
We will happily publish unedited any comments or statement Shell may wish to make. If Shell specifically states that any stated fact within the article, the related (XXXXXXXX) webpage, or the draft email to UK Members of Parliament is untrue, we will either remove or amend the relevant information, or include Shells categorical denial. Shell is also invited to challenge the authenticity of any quoted or linked document, whether declassified document or otherwise.
Kindly supply within two working days any standard rebuttal you wish to provide as you have in the past. If you want more time to investigate before providing a substantive response an invitation you have taken up on occasion, there will be no problem even if you understandably need a couple of weeks in view of the complexity and range of matters covered. We are, as always, more interested in accuracy than publishing an article before Shell has had a reasonable opportunity to respond, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues. I doubt any other publisher is as fair or as accommodating as we are in such matters.
Although some sections containing extracts may be moved to linked web pages, the overall text will remain as per the draft subject to any amendments or additions arising from any response from Shell.
I am sure you will understand that if there is no response of any kind by close of business on 12 November 2008, we will assume Shell accepts the information stated as fact is correct and also accepts the authenticity of the quoted or linked documents and we will say so in the article. Versions of the article will be published on several websites including royaldutchshellplc.com and on a USA news website.
The Ray Fox email will be sent individually to over 600 MPs subject to his authorisation.
We will also draw the attention of the news media to the entire matter. An earlier similar initiative in respect of Shells appalling TFA safety record on North Sea Platforms resulted in two Channel 4 News reports by Jon Snow and two newspaper articles.
Shell executive directors
Persimmon Homes (Sent separately)
Wokingham District Council (Sent separately)From: John Donovan
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC
Cc: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF
Sent: Wed Nov 12 20:29:55 2008
Subject: DRAFT ARTICLE SUPPLIED ON 10 NOVEMBER 2008
Dear Mr Brandjes
Since you have not responded to my email of 10 November 2008 we will, without further notice to Shell, publish the relevant draft article with the following preface:
Because of the extremely serious nature and scope of the issues covered in this article, it was supplied in advance to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Copies were also supplied to all of the executive directors of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to Shell senior in-house lawyers, Group Legal Director Beat Hess and Richard Wiseman, General Counsel of Shell International.
Mr Brandjes and Mr Wiseman have also had advance sight of this preface.
Whenever we have previously supplied draft articles to Shell, Mr Brandjes or his colleagues have without exception pointed out when they take issue with the accuracy of what is stated in relation to Shell and have advised us when an item supplied to us by a third party was a forgery (an alleged email from Shell executive director David Greer). Naturally we did not publish the email.
It can be safely assumed by the reader under the circumstances that Shell does not in this case take issue with ANY of the stated facts, nor does it challenge the authenticity of ANY of the cited declassified documents, or any other cited documents.
RESPONSE BY RICHARD WISEMAN, RECENTLY CROWNED AS CHIEF ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
We have repeatedly said that no inference should be drawn from our not commenting specifically on any allegation. This continues to be true.
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands
Email: [email protected]
RESPONSE BY JOHN DONOVAN
From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:53:29 +0000
To: <[email protected]>
Conversation: DRAFT ARTICLE SUPPLIED ON 10 NOVEMBER 2008
Subject: Re: DRAFT ARTICLE SUPPLIED ON 10 NOVEMBER 2008
Dear Mr Wiseman
I am sure that like me, Mr Fox will be less than amused to note your new title. Once again a fox is put in charge of the henhouse.
You are the person who gave fundamentally false information to Mr Fox as pointed out in the draft article. You were also the author of the snide comment about his horticultural problems. In fact the Shell sourced radioactive/toxic contamination from the leaking drain was killing the trees and according to experts, also poisoning the Fox family.
Your record in dealing with us is equally shameful. I have your various emails confirming the use of an undercover agent, Mr Christopher Phillips, who used a fake company, fake documents, a fake telephone number and a fake cover story when he visited our offices and was caught red-handed examining private mail. It was only after we retained a private investigator to investigate your undercover agent that you and the senior partner of Kendall Freeman (Colin Joseph) were cornered into admitting the truth. Even then, Joseph continued with the intimidation by revealing that other enquiry agents were working on our case. He refused to disclose what they were doing.
This all happened at a time when we were besieged by undercover operatives and sinister thugs. You will recall for example the investigation by the Police into the series of burglaries carried out at the home of our solicitor, Richard Woodman, the residence of a key witness, Roger Sotherton and at our own home, in the run up to the High Court Trial. One of the burglars found and no doubt copied a document that Colin Joseph had vowed to obtain even after a Judge had ruled that Shell was not entitled to see it.
Despite all of the sinister events, including intimidation of witnesses, Shell did not reveal to the Police its close connection with Hakluyt & Company Limited which was engaged at that time on behalf of Shell in exactly the kind of sleazy covert operations which were directed at us. As is pointed out in the draft article, titled Shell Transport directors were the ultimate spymasters at Hakluyt (and major shareholders in the spy firm).
Correspondence also reveals your role along with Jyoti Munsiff and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart in a conspiracy to prevent important information from reaching Shell Transport shareholders in relation to the infamous Funding Deed. I have your letter and the associated letters from your co-conspirators.
At the time when you were Legal Director of Shell UK Limited you represented Shell in the High Court at the climax of my cross examination by Geoffrey Hobbs QC. As you will recall, the court was deceived into believing that a motorbike messenger was on route from Sainsburys with documentary evidence relating to my testimony the implication being that it would prove that I had forged a key document. If fact, it was all a total fabrication, there was no messenger, no motorbike and no documentary evidence none whatsoever.
You were also aware of the evidence I uncovered of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud companies participating in a Shell tender process for a major contract. I unearthed all of the Shell documents which provided irrefutable evidence of an evil premeditated plot in which AJL was the mastermind. The contract was miraculously awarded to a company which had not even participated in the tender. This was akin to a horse winning a race in which it did not run. AJL happened to have a personal relationship with the directors of that agency to which all contracts were funnelled irrespective of which agency had originated proposals. Business ideas were stolen not just from me, but from other agencies such as Senior King. Despite having this evidence brought to your attention and to the attention of more senior colleagues such as Malcolm Brinded, Shell directors did not withdraw the backing for AJL which he was able to claim in his witness statement.
Shell decided to settle the court case at the climax of the cross-examination of AJL when the subject of his offshore bank account was about to be raised. Shell paid my legal costs. I also received a secret payment. You admitted in our last correspondence that not all of the settlement papers were put before the Judge. Like Shell shareholders, Shell employees, the media and the public, the Judge was kept in the dark. A so called joint press statement gave a false account of the settlement. You were the key Shell official responsible for that cover-up sanctioned by Moody-Stuart.
As for the draft article, I note there is not a single categorical denial of any statement of fact or any challenge over the authenticity of any cited document. I will make this plain in a revised introduction.
Quite frankly, given your track record it is disgraceful that you have been appointed to the position of Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It must be because Machiavelli is unavailable.
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENDS
THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION WILL BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO SHELL