Website censorship by Shell

Oct 7th, 2012

by John Donovan.

There is nothing new about Shell taking steps to prevent its employees visiting so-called anti-Shell websites from Shell premises. A Shell internal email dated 31 August 2007 provides proof that Shell issued instructions that its employees must not visit this website. In fact, Shell has a history of censoring information critical of the oil giant that has been published on the Internet.

By John Donovan

Last week it was alleged that Shell blocked employee access to a fake Shell website set up by activists.

Under the circumstances, Shell was entitled to do so. Whether it was wise is another matter, as it drew attention to the website and its a safe bet that far more employees checked out the website later at home than would otherwise have been the case.

There is nothing new about Shell taking steps to prevent its employees visiting so-called anti-Shell websites from Shell premises. A Shell internal email dated 31 August 2007 provides proof that Shell issued instructions that its employees must not visit this website.

In fact, Shell has a history of censoring information critical of the oil giant that has been published on the Internet.

I am in possession of Shell internal emails expressing concern about Wikipedia articles containing information critical of the company. They contain internal potting/discussion about the possibility of being caught if Shell staff surreptitiously edited offending information. Shell was later caught doing exactly that by Wikiscanner technology.

Perhaps the best example of Shell's censorship of negative information posted online, is what happened with an online facility it set up.

In 1998 Shell launched the "Tell Shell Forum," a feedback facility on the Internet for its stakeholders and the public to engage in open debate about its activities.

This is a description of the facility by Clare Harris of Shell International:

Date: November 16, 1999 02:07 PM
Author: Clare.E.Harris (Clare.E.Harris@SI.shell.com)
Subject: Our experiences with the internet dialogue

This forum is an uncensored space in which we want to hear your views about a variety of issues and about our approach to them. We created this forum so that people all over the world could have a conversation about these things and so that we could gain a better understanding of what your views are.  If you see a couple of the early postings in the 'engagement and open communication' thread you'll see that a choice needs to be made about censorship – yes or no? And if yes, how much? We opted for the completely uncensored option. Our senior management have been very supportive of this forum and the openness of the debate. I believe people want to have open honest conversations with real employees and not with an anonymous helpdesk that dispenses a standard form letter.

Here is another description, this time by Shell lawyers in a Complaint about this website submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in May 2005:

"Tell Shell Forum" is a facility set up in November 1998 to promote feedback from customers, shareholders or any other interested parties on topics and issues relating to Shell, and to enable the Complainant to respond to public concerns and criticism in an open and transparent way."

And here is a posting on Tell Shell from Jon Hofmeister:

Date: June 07, 1999 03:49 PM
Author: John Hofmeister, Director of Human Resources
Subject: Communications within Shell

However, let me say that I strongly believe the people in Shell have an enormously valuable contribution to make to the key debates, and that the Group's leadership is working very hard to promote open and honest communication within Shell, as well as with our external stakeholders. We genuinely do welcome all comments, positive and negative. We also believe that employees must be able to speak out without fear of rebuke or retribution. This website is in itself evidence that we are interested in seeking your views and willing to listen and respond.

These lofty ideals did not last very long.

Despite all of the above PR hogwash, Shell engaged in censorship of postings made on the forum (including surreptitious censorship) of comments made by individuals in their own names that contained no abuse or profanity.  Shell could not take the criticism and first suspended Tell Shell indefinitely, then closed it down altogether.

Shell promised to make the Tell Shell archive available online, but predictably failed to honour that promise also.

AS ALWAYS, WE HAVE PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT WE SAY.

Related article

Elaborate hoax targeting the Kiobel v Shell case currently before the US Supreme Court

Posted in: Business Principles, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Wikipedia.
Tagged: Censorship · Internet Censorship · John Donovan · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Huge public pressure forced Shell to lift an injunction

Shell Clyde refinery close

AUTOMATIC REPLY from Ms. Debbie Zuccala

BIRD CHIRPS FOR JUSTICE

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

TWO PERSONS CLAIMING MANAGER

antonio jr. Buensuceso  October 1, 2012	10/1/12
to dzuccala, Buensuceso

October  1,  2012

Ms. Debbie Zuccala

Office of Operator Certification

Division of Financial Assistance

RE:   TWO  PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR 

         MANAGER...VERY CONFUSING

Dear  Ms. Zuccala,

Good morning.

Last September 24, 2012,  two persons in the names  of  

certain Christine Gordon and  certain  Wes Wilkinson  

wrote me an e-mail. They both did write me an e-mail on 

this same day (September 24, 2012) both claiming to be 

your manager. I felt being fooled and confused.

Both claimed to be your manager. However,  no one of 

the two ever  mentioned  nor  treated  any one of them 

to be held  responsible and accountable for  your acts and 

omissions (as levied against you in my e-mail  letter 

complaint titled :  IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS 

DEMONSTRATING,  INEFFICIENCY,  INCOMPETENCY AND

UNEXPLAINED NEGLECT OF DUTY   dated  September 6, 2012).

I received  the e-mails  sent to me  from  these two claimants.   

On Letter  A  shown is from Christine Gordon  and  

letter B shown is from  Wes Wilkinson for your perusal.  

Please take note that these e-mails are both sent to me on 

the same day,  September 24, 2012     

These acts of  Christine Gordon and Wes Wilkinson  made my 

grievance complaint very confusing and difficult to pursue as I 

do not know who the real manager to be  held responsible 

and accountable for your (Ms. Zuccala's) acts and omissions. 

These acts of  Christine Gordon and  Wes Wilkinson,  

as I saw it,  was a deed done in conspiracy, 

to sow confusion with an ill motive to evade 

culpability and accountability.

I am confident to state that Christine Gordon and Wes Wilkinson 

conspired to sow confusion as it could be seen that from  Letter A 

and  from Letter B,  both Gordon and Wilkinson knew of 

each other's allegations being your ( Ms. Debbie Zuccala's) manager. 

Each one of them was copy furnished of each one's  

respective e-mails  sent to me as shown below. Both of them 

knew the plot to confuse me of who to  to be held responsible 

and  accountable for your (Ms. Zuccala's) malperformance of  

your duties and responsibilities and obligations. 

Hence, conspiracy is well established and they

(Gordon and Wilkinson) achieved their intentions  

and  effectively confused me. 

xxxxxxx

A.   E-MAIL RESPONSE CERTAIN  CHRISTINE GORDON 

      (CLAIMING TO BE YOUR MANAGER)

Gordon, Christine@Waterboards	Sep 24 (7 days ago)
to Wes.Wilkinson, Doug.Wilson, me, Debbie.Zuccala

Good morning Mr. Buensuceso,

I am Debbie’s manager. We have made several attempts via email 

to receive a phone number to contact you to resolve this matter 

immediately; however, we have been unsuccessful.  I would like 

to make every effort possible to resolve the situation.  Please send 

me a phone number so I can discuss with you, or you can contact me 

at             (916) 341-5835      . 

Thank you,

B.  E-MAIL RESPONSE FROM CERTAIN  WES WILKINSON

     (CLAIMING TO BE YOUR MANAGER)

Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards Wes.Wilkinson@waterboards.ca.gov	Sep 24 (7 days ago)
to me, Christine.Gord., Debbie.Zuccala

Mr. Buensuceso,

I am the Manager of the Office of Operator Certification Unit and 

Debbie Zuccala is on my staff.  Please find the attached letter that 

was sent to you in the mail today regarding your request for a 

response from Debbie Zuccala regarding the processing of an

examination application.

If you have any questions or would like to contact me, I can be 

reached at wwilkinson@waterboards.ca.gov or             (916) 341-5131      .

Thanks,

Wes Wilkinson

Staff Services Manager I

Office of Operator Certification

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 “I” Street, 17^th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

            (916) 341-5131      

letterhead doc Antonio (3).pdf 186K   View   Download

xxxxxxxxxx

my e-mail resumes.........

Please bear in mind that I am jobless and desperately

 looking for one.   I am already  very much aggrieved,  

and suffering wounded feelings  headaches   and 

sleepless nights.  I  lost  direction and enthusiasm  and 

appetite to eat.

For your information I am writing this e-mail at 2:00 am  

as I could  not sleep tight and almost stayed awake all night 

because of  these  grievances  and  controversies. 

I have been under these circumstances since September 6, 2012 

the day I first wrote an e-mail to you which you  

inexcusably ignored to reply .   It  is October 1,  2012  now ,   

it is almost a month now that I am under this predicament. 

Please have mercy.

Now,  I am asking this personally to you (Ms. Debbie Zuccala) 

and not to anyone else. Please do respond   promptly,  

honestly and  faithfully to this question :

Who between Christine Gordon and Wes Wilkinson

truthfully declared  herself or himself as  your legally 

acknowledged manager ?

I will greatly appreciate your 

immediate response to this e-mail.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

US Supreme court decides on Shell torture case

Sep 30th, 2012

by John Donovan.

Published on Sunday September 30, 2012

"The Kiobel case was part of a broader set of legal complaints by Nigeria's Ogoni people, who argued that Royal Dutch Shell was complicit in murder, torture and other abuses committed by the former military government."

The US Supreme Court is back in session tomorrow to tackle major social issues such as same-sex marriage and affirmative action, as well as a high-profile international human rights case involving the Dutch oil giant Shell in Nigeria..

Twelve Nigerians accuse Shell of becoming an accomplice to torture, extrajudicial executions and crimes against humanity in the Niger Delta region.

The nine justices will decide whether to hold major companies liable for crimes committed outside US borders by virtue of the Alien Tort Statute, a law passed two centuries ago.

"ATS clearly covers those violations," said Carey D'Avino, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. "There's nothing in the ATS that violates domestic and international laws."

Not everyone is so sure.

The Supreme Court could be "afraid of some kind of backlash, what other nations will think of us," said constitutional lawyer Lisa Blatt.

The case is Esther Kiobel versus Royal Dutch Shell. Kiobel is the widow of one of the anti-Shell protesters who was executed in 1995. Shell settled a similar case for $15.5 million shortly before it went to trial in a New York federal court in 2009.

On 27 February when the case came before the court, Justice Samuel Alito wondered why this latest case was being discussed in Washington because it had been brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant for acts allegedly committed outside of the United States.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote often decides closely contested cases, expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could open up American companies to similar actions in other countries.

Nigerian activists celebrated their day at the Supreme Court, saying they will keep on fighting for justice, regardless of the court's decision, which is expected by the end of June. They said they want the case to be heard in the United States because they do not think they can get a fair trial in Nigeria.

Marco Simons, legal director of the Washington-based advocacy group Earthrights International and a strong proponent of corporate accountability, says he is optimistic.

"I did not hear anything that fundamentally changes the outlook of this case," said Simons. "Some [U.S.] judges have views that a corporation should not be subject to suits for violations of international law. But we are quite optimistic that that will not be the view of the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court."

The plaintiffs are attempting to use the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, which allows U.S. courts to hear cases brought by foreigners for violations of international law and U.S. treaties. The question is whether corporations can be prosecuted under the statute.

Shell's representative Kathleen Sullivan repeatedly told the nine justices that the Supreme Court should reject corporate liability because there is no precedent in international law courts and conventions.

Afterward, Simons said that even if corporate accountability is not recognized in the case, it does not mean the end of lawsuits against corporations for violations outside of the United States.

"It is just that these cases will be more likely to be heard in state courts rather than federal courts, and would be heard under different labels," he said. "Essentially, instead of calling the case a case against torture or crimes against humanity, it might be about assault and battery, for example."

Similar cases going through the U.S. court system include an attempt to hold U.S.-based oil companies ExxonMobil and Chevron accountable for alleged human rights abuses in Indonesia, as well as cases against several U.S. companies for their alleged role in assisting the South African government during the apartheid era.

A US appeals court in New York had ruled in the Kiobel case that corporations or political organizations were immune to such liability.

The Kiobel case was part of a broader set of legal complaints by Nigeria's Ogoni people, who argued that Royal Dutch Shell was complicit in murder, torture and other abuses committed by the former military government.

The victims included Nigerian writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and others executed in 1995 in what plaintiffs said was a campaign of repression backed by the oil giant.

Saro-Wiwa had led a non-violent campaign to protest environmental destruction and abuses against the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta before he was hanged along with other activists after his trial by a tribunal.

In 2009, Shell agreed to pay out $15.5 million to relatives of the victims, in what it hoped would be the end of a long legal battle and avoidance of a potentially embarrassing court case.

Shell maintained its innocence throughout, saying the settlement was a "humanitarian gesture" to help the Ogoni, but human rights lawyers in New York two years ago hailed the agreement as a precedent for holding Shell and other oil giants responsible for activities in countries with repressive governments.

Apart from the Shell case, the US Supreme Court will also rule on affirmative action at the University of Texas.

The policy, aimed at correcting historic imbalances in education by favoring US minorities in public university admissions and other circumstances, has come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of a growing minority population.

A white student is accusing the university of using quotas for racial and ethnic minority groups in university admissions in a way she claims violates her US constitutional rights.

It will be the first time the court takes up the controversial issue since its 2003 ruling saying racial or ethnic quotas did not violate the US Constitution.

But since then, the makeup of the court has changed to make it "the most conservative in a lifetime," giving greater likely voice to affirmative action opponents, said Georgetown Law professor Louis Seidman.

Alan Morrison of The George Washington University Law School stressed that "there's a lot at stake and plenty of reasons to be concerned." He called the affirmative action decision "crucial," saying it would be felt at all US universities, both public and private.

Among the fairly rare national security issues to come before the court will be a case on wiretapping and human rights due to be examined on October 29. And on October 31, the justices are set to address whether the use of drug-sniffing dogs violates constitutional rights.

Still, in terms of social reach, it is the court's looming moves on same-sex marriage that have both captured a lot of Americans' attention and fueled strong reactions.

SOURCE

Posted in: Africa, Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Corruption, Environment, Human Rights, Nigeria, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, United States.
Tagged: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum · Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell · Litigation · Niger Delta · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Motiva says black woman failed to exhaust administrative perquisites before filing discrimination claim

Shell Now Close to Drilling 2 Wells Simultaneously in Arctic Ocean →

ROEL MANLANGIT LIVE AT RATED KORINA

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Reeves & Associates wins Ninth Circuit CSPA appeal

Reeves & Associates wins Ninth Circuit CSPA appeal

THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2012 10:33 REEVES & ASSOCIATES

 12 0 0 12

0 Comments and 0 Reactions

After years of litigation in federal courts, today heralded a victory for Reeves & Associates and our clients in the battle to expand coverage of protection under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) to “aged-out” derivative beneficiaries. Today, September 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an en banc opinion in the class action CSPA lawsuit originally filed by Reeves & Associates. The Ninth Circuit granted Reeves & Associates’ appeal and held that “the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries.” This means that for thousands of aged-out children, immigration relief is finally a possibility.

This litigation began when Reeves & Associates filed a class action complaint on behalf of thousands of children nationwide and across the globe who would be eligible for CSPA protection. Reeves & Associates was joined in this litigation by the Law Firm of Carl Shusterman, which represented two individual claimants. This precedent decision is a major victory for children who were derivatives of visas filed for their parents, but who were denied green cards in the United States because they turned 21 years old while waiting years and years for a visa to become available. Prior to this decision, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) took the position that when a child of a visa beneficiary turned 21, that child was no longer eligible for the visa afforded to his or her parents, unless the child qualified under a narrow exception for processing delays. Although the parents could file a new petition for the child, USCIS refused to allow the child to retain the priority date from the petition filed on behalf of the parents. The result was that the child had to go to the back of the immigration line and again wait many years before a visa would become available.

After encountering numerous clients in this dilemma, Reeves & Associates filed a class action lawsuit in California District Court to challenge USCIS’s interpretation of CSPA and to compel USCIS to allow these children to retain the priority date of the original petition (i.e., the petition filed on behalf of the child’s parents, often filed at a time when the child was very young), as provided by the plain language of CSPA. While the case was pending in District Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published a decision (Matter of Wang), holding that CSPA did not permit aged-out children to retain the older priority date. The District Court deferred to the BIA and denied relief to the class.

Undeterred, Reeves & Associates took this matter up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel of the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the District Court, again deferring to the BIA opinion in Matter of Wang. Reeves & Associates requested a rehearing before a full 11-judge panel of the court. The court granted the request for an en banc rehearing, and earlier this year, the parties presented oral arguments before the 11-judge panel. Today, that panel issued its decision, reversing the District Court decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Although we expect the government to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, this decision is a significant victory for all CSPA children. The Ninth Circuit has resoundingly indicated its refusal to defer to the unreasonable and unfair BIA decision in Matter of Wang, and has opened the door to new green card applications for derivative children. Reeves & Associates never conceded, and although the litigation has been long and grueling, the result is a windfall victory. Should this matter go up on appeal, Reeves & Associates will be prepared to continue to fight on behalf of the class, with confidence in continued success.

(www.rreeves.com)

The TRUTH will set you FREE.