Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

British Spies, British Lies (James Hall vs Walied Shater)

British Spies, British Lies (James Hall vs Walied Shater)

I have never before seen a court document containing so many allegations of repeated lies by a top-level Shell official, supported by copious similar fact evidence of his alleged deceit.

By John Donovan

I reported in August 1917 that Mr Crockett Oaks III, Shell security manager for the Americas, received a ‘big bucks’ court case settlement from Shell.

The litigation arose from an alleged pattern of discrimination in favour of ‘White Brits’ by Shell and Shell Corporate Security VP James WD Hall, a British national.

Mr Hall is a security professional who worked in an undisclosed position purportedly in the British Foreign Office (MI6?) before his long career at Shell. 

Mr Hall has faced a succession of accusers on the same race/national origin grounds starting with Crockett Oaks III. 

The second case was brought by Mr Mike Oliveri, another gentleman with a military/security affairs background. Mr Oliveri is a decorated war veteran – a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Mr Hall’s current accuser is Mr Walied Shater a former US Secret Service agent. 

The extract below from page 10 is from a court document filed on 23rd Sept 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Shater’s Brief established with citations to specific evidence that Hall lied in writing to Shater, Blakely, and the entire Corporate Security Department in March 2017 about not yet having decided who to select for the RSM – Americas job, when in truth he had already selected Hunt in February 2017 (Shater’s Brief at 13-14 and RE Tabs 7, 8, and 11; Maynor Dep. No. 2 at 15-16; ROA.945). Shell’s Brief does not dispute that Hall repeatedly lied about that material – indeed central – issue. Rather, Shell points out that in Hall’s Declaration – some four years and nine months after the fact – Hall finally ultimately effectively conceded that he lied repeatedly in March 2017 about not having decided yet and vaguely explained in conclusory fashion that he did so “because of ongoing issues with the predecessor in the position” i.e., Oaks, over which he allegedly had no control (Hall Decl. at ¶ 23; ROA.389). Shell argues that Shater cannot rebut Hall’s vague and conclusory explanation for having repeatedly lied (Shell’s Brief at 25).

 Read it for yourself here: Shaters Reply Brief – 28 page Final Version

ALSO, SEE THIS REMARKABLE RELATED DECLARATION BY Jo Gachcru (use your browser to enlarge images)

This website and sisters,,,, and, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Comments are closed.