I am not a multinational company, but I have been around the block and around the world. I understand the challenges faced in this climate. I cannot accept my narrative being defined through the tyranny of self-impressed psychopaths. I want control of my narrative.An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015]
If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information? Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules whenever they cannot “win” on their terms?When Human Resources is Corrupt (10 August 2015)
PGS ASA has recently reinvigorated their dubious legal actions in Thailand to silence and disempower the accuser of PGS ASA board of directors and executives of criminal acts through the misuse of the Thai legal system. PGS ASA is violating my human rights and rights under English law and contract through ignoring accusations of executive criminal acts and whistleblowing claims. I seek to act on and protect my human rights and rights under English law and contract to accuse perpetrators of crimes against me and my family and seek justice. I am further disenfranchised because I am a USA citizen who signed a contract bound by the laws of England. PGS ASA has never exercised on a civil breach of contract using the legal instruments at their disposal governed by the laws of England. The claims put forth in Thailand omit the very important reference of the current legal relationship that exists between the plaintiffs and defendant. I believe that the many omissions of exculpatory facts and evidence intentionally and maliciously misrepresent my publications as criminal when they are known by the plaintiffs to be legal and protected. The claims being advanced in Thailand are fraudulent and intended to intimidate a victim of crimes and whistleblower into submission and silence. The claims’ cited publications are protected under English law through provisions of contracts signed 27 September 2010 and 5 December 2013 between the plaintiffs and defendant. The non-disparagement clauses contained within these contracts provide legal avenues of action for transgressions much less serious than criminal defamation. Most importantly, the cited contracts both reference the UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which protects whistleblowing.
The legal actions forwarded by directors of PGSUK in the Thai legal system is an overstep of the English company legal jurisdiction. English law has all the avenues of redress to resolve the issues addressed within the Thai criminal claims fairly. If the cited contracts did not provide all pertinent legal protections required, then what was the utility of the fore-mentioned signed contracts including non-disparagement and jurisdiction clauses? This is more of an issue of legal contract management incompetence or criminal cover-up and not defamation. The only victims of crimes in Thailand (fraud, blackmail, extortion, destruction of evidence, etc.), related to the parties of these complaints, are me and my Thai family who have been distressed and traumatized, had their health endangered, and who have also had to find resources (been robbed) to defend themselves against what I believe to be illegally financed false claims. PGSUK directors hold no bona fide legal business interests or citizenship in Thailand. They personally never visited Thailand to even sign the resolution contracts 11 November 2018. All that was required of them was to pay a Thai lawyer to process their illegal (under English law) actions. PGS ASA/PGSUK vindictive and malicious intent is to persecute and harm their USA citizen accuser and his Thai family. I am married to a Thai national and we have three (3) Thai-USA children together. We all lived in Thailand together until recently. These actions by PGSUK have broken our family. The Thai legal system should protect the rights and safety of my Thai family above the rights of corrupt Norwegian executives and directors of an English company who contract out their illegal harassment to a Thai lawyer to avoid accountability for English crimes!
Under the rules of commercial law, an incorporated business must follow the laws and regulations where the company was formed. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY (PGSUK). According to the records held by UK Companies House, PGSUK is registered in England. The Companies Act 2006 forms the primary source of UK company law. A director of a UK company must (a) act in accordance with the company’s constitution, and (b) only exercise powers for the purposes for which they are conferred. The litigation initiated against me in Thai (criminal) legal system violates provision (b) explicitly. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses, such as the ones that was included within the cited contracts, limit disputes to the courts of specific and defined jurisdictions. An exclusive jurisdiction clause intends to provide certainty that parties know where they each can be sued. PGSUK directors and secretary must honor their fiduciary obligations of law and contract based on the laws of England first and foremost. The laws of England must always take precedence in every business decision made by PGSUK, especially contractual terms and conditions specifically citing legal jurisdictions attached to legal rights, such as the General Data Protection Requirement GDPR (formally UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)) and PIDA. Directors of PGSUK do not have legal authority to take away rights under English law and contract. The terms and conditions of the cited contracts remain enforceable under the laws of England, as does my right to blow the whistle.
The most disturbing document is the memo signed by Per Arild Reksnes, EVP PGS Marine Contract (now EVP Operations) and Terje Bjølseth, SVP HR. This memo is a forgery. There are several detectable problems. The Memo is addressed to my attention, but it was never received by me while I was employed with PGS.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)
The evidence and reasons to support the allegations of breaches in the Code of Ethics have been written about in previous LinkedIn posts, but are grounded in conspiracy and the abuse of position used to discredit and distort my professional standing in retaliation for revealing a number of internal organization policy transgressions as well as violations in the base constructs of the Law of Contract as it pertains to employment. However, in this effort, individuals have also falsified and forged personnel file documents and deceived government compliance organizations as to their authenticity and content accuracy.The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11 October 2015)
My publications began 3 July 2015 and multiple accusatory publications were provided to PGS ASA compliance for evaluation from April – September 2016. The UK Limitation Act 1980 limits the time for a claim of defamation of one year. The published content cited in the 2018 Thai criminal claim surpasses one-year from its publication date. PGS ASA made a business decision to ignore the published content for several years. No actions referencing published content were ever taken by PGS ASA/PGSUK with regard to disparagement or breach in the current legal agreements. Therefore, no criminal legal breach in Thailand can be warranted nor be even possible legally. How can the defendant not be in breach for disparagement under English law, but be guilty of criminal defamation under Thai law? The publications referenced in Thai criminal claims have pointed out that PGS ASA have not exercised the protective clauses within their contracts for the express reason of avoiding culpability for breaking numerous English laws. PGS is pursuing criminal defamation charges in Thailand which are totally ludicrous. Such defamation implies that I am knowingly publishing untrue and damaging statements about PGS. The Thai claim references excerpts from a criminal report submitted to UK police (Action Fraud) which I published online! Why didn’t PGS complain to the UK police? Why have the plaintiffs allowed such publications since 3 July 2015? My publications are evidence backed accusations of PGS ASA executive and board of director’s violations in English law and contract, although they may in fact be criminal violations in other countries/legal jurisdictions, as well, including Thailand, Norway, and the USA.
Over a year ago, in September 2018, the directors and former secretary of PGSUK delivered to me by e-mail two (2) summons’ to appear in Thai criminal court. The summons’ were delivered to my personal e-mail account, as well as my then registered home address in Thailand. This was done just as I had departed my address of record in Thailand. The e-mail address used had not ever been provided by me to the Thai law firm representing the plaintiffs. My passport and Thai address information also had never been provided to the Thai law firm by me. The summons’ were in the Thai language. As a US citizen, I resided in Thailand on visa. I had not received the actual complaint until I returned to Thailand after shortening my trip. However, the complaint was also in the Thai language. As far as I am aware, plaintiff Carl Richards, a lawyer licensed to practice law in England and former secretary of PGSUK is not legally fluent in the Thai language. I am guessing that current PGS General Counsel Lars Mysen or PGS UK Head of Legal John Francas are not legally fluent in the Thai language either. I do not believe the PGSUK directors and plaintiffs; former PGS General Counsel and current PGS CEO and President Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CFO and EVP Gottfred Langseth, and PGS Chief Accountant Christin Steen-Nilsen are not legally fluent in the Thai language. Nevertheless, these directors have placed the reputation interests of a company governed by the laws of England at the discretion of a junior Thai lawyer who is not licensed to practice law in either England or Norway and who has no first-hand knowledge or legal documentation to support the claims being advanced.
PGSUK and I shared an employee-employer relationship. PGSUK is a company governed by the laws of England. Those laws are written in the English language. We communicated in English for business. As a US citizen, I was a Tier 2 visa sponsored employee of PGSUK. Qualifying for the Tier 2 visa was not a trivial matter. Such employment had to be requested based on unique and/or special qualifications that were not readily available in the local labor market. One of the qualifications for the Tier 2 visa is proficiency in the English language. Would have I qualified for the Tier 2 visa based on the current contents of my PGSUK personnel file? My Thai wife and dependent children were also sponsored. My employment with PGSUK ended through a termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 which I now believe is fraudulent. The claims filed in Thai criminal court reinforce this belief, as does PGS’ silence and inaction in dealing with my online publications and accusations. What is certain, however, is how devastating and abusive PGS’ behavior has been toward me and my family. The illegal termination from employment and subsequent blacklisting impacted me. However, when PGSUK agreed to sponsor my employment as a foreign worker, they also agreed to comply with their duty of care contractual obligations to me as well as my spouse and dependent children. PGS’ fraud was mean spirited and intent on destroying the victim of their crimes professionally and financially. Such abuse obviously robs dependents of opportunities and places their health at risk. It is violent, cowardly and mean abuse of children. Because of this, I refuse to give-up on my pursuit of justice. I do not believe that cowards, liars, and cheaters who abuse children should lead companies and people, even if the government of Norway, Equinor, and PGS do.
However, in spite of having a legal team, human resources team, and contract team, PGS has been unwilling to present definitive proof of compliance and legal behavior, even though they state to the public and to me otherwise. PGS is mostly involved in a cover-up of corrupt and illicit behavior. PGS executives have been uncooperative and silent and demonstrated no interest in resolution, but instead have ran-away from accountability.The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4 November 2016)
These prose chronicle multiple infractions of corporate governance, as well as provide evidence of serious wrong-doing that should sound alarms whether true or false. Either way, the publications should prompt action and engagement. The articles have been viewed by thousands within and outside the marine geophysical sector.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (5 May 2016)
First and foremost, the claims put forth in Thailand not only ignore the statute of limitations for claims of defamation of one year in both England and Thailand, but also ignore claims that the content is protected whistleblowing. The principal charges reiterated within several of my publications is that PGS ASA board and officers uttered, and continue to utter, forged defamatory documents that support a fraudulent contract. This fraudulent contract was used to illegally terminate the employment of a whistleblower. PGS ASA has provided material misrepresentations to government agencies in the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, and now Thailand, regarding the integrity of the personal data and processes which I have contended to be false. PGS ASA has made false accusations to defraud the Thai criminal justice system. PGS ASA has omitted material facts, withheld, and destroyed exculpatory evidence to gain advantage and to terrorize their victim and his Thai family by using a foreign legal system. PGS ASA wants to avoid the English legal system where executives have been accused of criminal acts. Evidence of these criminal acts had been processed online at http://nopgs.com/ The legal actions carried out last year by PGS ASA sought to restrict publications and unpublish evidence which support my accusations of crimes perpetrated by PGS ASA. My mantra has always been simple: legal and compliant processes cannot produce illegal and non-compliant outcomes.
The Thai criminal complaint only translated superfluous content from my online publications written in the English language to the Thai language. Certain excerpts were then highlighted and labelled as “defamation”, void of context and supporting evidence. How did the Thai lawyer/law firm, or any lawyer, including PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas know whether the publications were defamatory? The only way for Francas and the contracted (paid) Thai lawyer/law firm to possibly know what is defamatory is if PGS had completed what I had always requested: a thorough investigation. From April 2016 – September 2016, I requested that the PGS Compliance Office (i.e., plaintiff Pedersen, et al.) to authenticate and verify the legality of the processes and documents used to process my termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013. The PGS Compliance Office actually published to a wide LinkedIn™ audience that they had investigated my claim. So, there should be a report ready to send off and provide to Francas and his Thai associate. (However, it would need to be translated into the Thai language first?) There is an important Memo dated 25 October 2013 and signed by Per Arild Reksnes, then PGS EVP Marine Contract and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources. This important Memo forms the basis of my whistleblowing and criminal accusations publications. This Memo is intentionally not even referenced within the Thai Criminal Complaint. This tells me that the Thai criminal claims forwarded by PGSUK directors and Carl Richards are omitting material exculpatory evidence in their CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. PGS ASA and the Thai lawyer knows this. Thus, such intentional misrepresentations and omission of material facts is tantamount to PGSUK falsely accusing me of criminal behavior.
The central thesis behind most every publication which resided on nopgs.com is that PGSUK processed, and continues to process, defamatory forged documents used to illegally terminate me from employment for whistleblowing. No one from PGS/PGSUK ever engaged me prior or during the delivery of the criminal complaint. All communications came from a Thai law firm. The Thai lawyer has no first-hand knowledge of the events chronicled within my publications. From my reading of the claim, particular the highlighted defamatory (nopgs.com) content is extracted from the following articles:
The Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128 was published over one-year prior to the claim delivered to me in September 2018. Why didn’t the PGS ASA directors respond to this letter? Had PGS ASA board of directors responded to this letter truthfully and responsibly, every publication following 18 June 2017 likely would not have ever been published. The delivered claim on behalf of PGSUK directors also cited the ActionFraud report? Why didn’t PGSUK contact the UK police and demand clarification and an investigation? The publications that comprised the criminal complaint are the product of PGS ASA neglect and inaction. The fact is that one of the principal plaintiffs, PGSUK director and PGS CEO and President Pedersen, had throughout 2016, as PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance, been provided with many publications that contained accusations of PGS board of directors and executive criminal acts. Since 2016, Pedersen has never responded to the published claims of executive criminal activity as defamatory. Neither has Pedersen ever investigated and delivered a report exonerating PGS agents of wrong-doing, even though PGS publicly stated otherwise. Pedersen is participating in defrauding the Thai criminal justice system through forwarding a knowingly false criminal complaint. Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and legal compliance at the time of the initial whistleblowing complaint submitted 20 September 2013. Pedersen did not comply with PGS policy and UK law in how PGS responded to my workplace grievance. Pedersen oversaw the creation of forged documents and confidence fraud used to process a false claim and basis for termination:
The authentication of held data records were requested again from CH [PGS Compliance Hotline], and of course could not be provided. Without investigating and providing the source of the contents in the personnel file, along with peripheral communications, the words from the CH investigation are meaningless and only become a continuation of the fraud which began three years ago.The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)
There are so many variations between the (false) narrative espoused and held within PGS personal data records and the narrative presented within the detailed grievance document. Anyone who had considered both of these narratives fairly, responsibly and honestly, should have easily detected and noted, and subsequently reported on, the many differences. Certainly the individuals who chaired my grievance hearing, Reksnes and Bjølseth, should have attended to this. [Reksnes and Bjølseth are (alleged) fraudsters.]Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)
Nopgs.com first came online in August 2016. Several blog articles had been published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. During 2016, I tried to get the attention of PGS compliance through the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space. PGS never took any official legal action against my publications. However, anonymous complaints eventually got me restricted from LinkedIn™. Nopgs.com published much more content than what the Thai criminal claims included. For a long time, I have published allegations that the 5 December 2013 signed termination settlement agreement was a fraudulent agreement which was illegally proffered and supported by illegal forged documents. I was illegally terminated for blowing the whistle in 2013. The proffered termination settlement agreement did not comply with UK employment law. Yet, lawyers from three firms, including my hired counsel, cooperated in processing the false claim and uttering forged instruments – criminal behavior. I discovered that something very wrong had happened to me when I received the contents being processed within my PGSUK professional personnel file. The claim filed in Thai criminal court is both malicious and fraudulent through its omission of legally substantive material information.
PGSUK directors comprised a complaint that omitted our current legal relationship which is defined by an original contract of employment (OEC) signed between me and PGSUK in 27 September 2010 and a subsequent termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (SCA). My publications, including the 20 September 2013 submitted workplace grievance which is referenced in the SCA, cite material breaches of the OEC by PGSUK and since have alleged that the SCA is fraudulent and was intended to cover-up the OEC breaches and defame me for blowing the whistle on non-compliant, unethical, and illegal acts perpetrated by PGS/PGSUK (agents). To facilitate the use of the fraudulent SCA, PGSUK uttered defamatory forged documents to provide the appearance of a legal basis for the SCA. I am both a victim of crimes and a whistleblower for publicly disclosing such illegal actions perpetrated against me. Very important is the fact that PGSUK and I were already constrained by terms and conditions of contracts governed by the laws of England. Both the OEC and SCA that possessed all of the actionable avenues of legal redress that the Thai criminal claim pursues. The OEC and SCA include actionable Confidentiality clauses that protect parties of the contract from disparaging each other. Disparagement is a much lower threshold than defamation, as the truth of the public disclosure is not a defense. However, both the OEC and SCA by legal requirement under the laws of England include reference to the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) that protects whistleblowing. PGSUK sponsored spurious litigation in Thailand against a whistleblower is an illegal and malicious attempt to bypass numerous accountabilities under English law. I published evidence that PGS was processing forged documents within, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015). I also published, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). I sent these articles specifically to the PGS compliance for consideration. The Thai claim did not reference these articles.
At this point, I believe laws of Thailand have also been broken. All publications regarding these actions by PGS/PGSUK I regard aids protected public disclosure allowed through signed legal agreements governed by English law. So, what is the Thai lawyer’s legal role and how are the legal interests of PGS/PGSUK being advanced by this litigation which I regard as illegal blackmail under the provision both Thai and English law? Corrupt PGS board and executives are doing anything possible to silence their accuser of crimes through ignoring bona fide, data supported criminal accusations and whistleblowing claims under the laws of Norway and England. PGS board and executives are abusing their power and delivering false accusations supported by fraudulent documentation into the Thai criminal justice system. John Francas and his Thai lawyer associate did not do what their legal agency requires and determine the validity of my accusations rather than silence them. All that the board and executives of PGS must do is to authenticate the processes and supporting documentation used to terminate my employment by settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 signed by PGSUK and myself. This has always been and remains the objective of my publications. These accusations are not defamation. PGS’ criminal complaint holds no real evidence that demonstrates my claims are false either. PGS’ misuse of the Thai criminal justice system is appalling. These claims are intended to suppress the truth which is the opposite of defamation. PGS has used the Thai criminal system to take away my rights under English law to make public interest disclosures. The Thai criminal justice system has also been used to illegally destroy and unpublish evidence of PGS board of directors and executive criminality. My children are Thai citizens and I cannot allow PGS corruption to destroy the Thai system of justice. The Thai police need to investigate PGS ASA and their representative counsel for criminal acts of false criminal claims, fraud, blackmail, extortion, and destruction of evidence. I AM THE VICTIM.
Reputation management of the corporate brand and the executive team is paramount. However, in the absence of real professional integrity, silence is the best way to maintain the appearance of being reputable. Dismissing criticism simply allows employed professionals to get-on with running the company. No time for distractions. But, if there is no time for dealing with criticism, then why does the PGS CEO letter suggest that there is both time and willingness?Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)
I have alleged PGS executives to have obstructed legally guaranteed processes, forged official records, conspired to defraud, provided material misrepresentations, breached internal policies and several UK employment and contract laws. Most of all, PGS executives have abused their positions and violated their agency responsibilities of trust and confidence and duty of care to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. Forgery and the uttering of forged instruments is criminal behavior.The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4-Sep-2016)
The Norwegian corporate governance Code of Practice is not enforced nor practiced in actual terms. Norway’s corruption is the byproduct of a narcissistic country that relies on a reputation of having little corruption compared to other countries. But, in truth, Norway is very corrupt, especially given its size and population distribution. Norway has an entitled executive class who direct and manage companies with little more oversight than a mythology of how things should be done. There is no other explanation for human garbage and accused criminals such as John Erik Reinhardsen, former CEO and President of PGS ASA, becoming Equinor’s Chairman of the Board.
I have the evidence to prove this, but I am being denied the opportunity to present it through both negligence and the abuse of power by those entrusted with such responsibility and authority. Corrupt and criminal power structures reward the un-professionals who do not protest and who look the other way from injustice. Even those who previously penned internal articles or hang posters in their work space extolling the importance of values and ethics in business submit to the greed of ascending in a corrupt and criminal hierarchy. It’s a disgusting hypocrisy and fall from grace to observe. This is the type of low-integrity professionals that corrupt narcissistic organizations produce, and that soiled industries and professions embrace. These un-professionals pollute and ruin the industry and the level commercial playing field. These un-professionals would rather watch the innocent die than compromise their selfish upward mobility.
Those with integrity are blacklisted out of the profession while the most evil, such as Reinhardsen, are protected and promoted. This needs to change. Reinhardsen never did his job as Petroleum Geo-Services ASA CEO and President, and he is not doing his job as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Equinor. Reinhardsen has never commented nor protested the many critical articles written about him and PGS employees even though employment contracts have non-disparagement clauses. Why not? I contend that he was a principal in a conspiracy to defraud and illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower.
CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF NORWAY’S CORPORATE CORRUPTION, STARTING WITH EQUINOR & PGS ASA.Marine SEISMIC SURVEY, SDK
ATTN: Walter Qvam, Chairman
CC Directors: Daniel J. Piette, Holly Van Deursen, Carol Bell, Anne Grethe Dalanem, Morten Borge, Richard Herbert
Chairman Qvam, et al.:
The PGS board of directors and several senior managers are corrupt and have behaved immorally and criminally to the detriment of the enterprise and its stakeholders.
PGS board of directors and several senior managers, including compliance officers, need to be investigated thoroughly by a third-party for corruption and fraud.
I am writing this letter in order to reiterate directly and publicly my concerns regarding the direction and management of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS).
The PGS Board of Directors, PGS Executive Management, and several other senior managers have abrogated their legal agency responsibilities to the detriment of PGS stakeholders, competitors, the marine seismic service sector, as well as the greater oil and gas (O&G) industry.
Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)
As a general rule, given the choice, most would prefer not to do business with evil and dishonest moral degenerates. Thus, the long-term business success and future of PGS is in jeopardy with the current board and executive composition of the enterprise.
Jon Erik Reinhardsen is currently the CEO and President of Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). Reinhardsen recently (29 May 2017) announced that he will retire from PGS at the end of August 2017. Reinhardsen is not the only person who needs to retire from PGS. Reinhardsen never understood the cyclic seismic industry so much as financial instruments and legal loopholes. PGS desperately needs a solid and ethical leader and executive team who understand thoroughly the cyclic nature and technology demands of the marine seismic industry. The new CEO should also understand the importance of adhering to core values to serve all stakeholders. Ethics and values are the only stable thing in business, to which Reinhardsen pays only lip-service. It is a sad testament to the O & G industry that Reinhardsen has been picked to chair Norwegian oil company Statoil. This may be the worst decision that the Statoil board has ever made.Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017)
The image which heads this blog article is the screen capture from a Google™ Image search of PGS #Pedersen. By any standard, leadership entrusted with advancing the company, as well as its directors and management’s, reputation would not allow being associated with such imagery and accusations. Therefore, any settlement contract that is intended to end an employment relationship on fair, equitable and reasonable terms, yet allows the employer and its agents open to such public ridicule and criticism would not seem to accomplish its intended objectives. In fact, the outcome of this settlement has apparently left Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and its UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK), agents impotent in constructively resolving such an online tirade. The PGS/PGSUK legal compliance lawyer, Rune Olav Pedersen (PGS #Pedersen) is responsible for this contract and all of the online postings which it has inspired.Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017)
Having come across an article written by London employment law solicitor, Philip Landau (currently of Landau Law), in October 2013, I contacted and later engaged Landau to help me. I am a U.S. citizen who was working for PGS Exploration UK Limited [PGSUK] in Weybridge, England at the time on a Company sponsored Tier 2 Shortage Occupation List) visa. I was working in a toxic workplace and had filed a grievance citing harassment and bullying, in part, through the misuse of the PGSUK performance management system. Inclusive to the grievance was my claim that an unsubstantiated false narrative regarding my professional performance which was being forwarded by PGS managers to impugn my professional reputation. I believe that this was defamation and this was cited as well within my grievance. The only formal employment action between me and PGSUK was the grievance. There were only threats of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) being investigated, which I qualified as harassment and bullying. The negotiations lasted nearly six-weeks from Oct-2013 to Dec-2013. I left England at the end of 2013 having signed a settlement contract facilitated by Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton (Landau officially signed-off on the settlement). Placing so much trust and confidence in Landau was a disastrous watershed event in my life.What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement ContractS (30 April 2017)
People with means with integrity and reputations to preserve simply would not allow such published allegations to be left unanswered. Of course, people guilty of wrong-doing also will not engage and place themselves in legal peril. According to the IT law Wiki site, confidence fraud is the reliance on another’s discretion and/or a breach in a relationship of trust resulting in financial loss. It includes a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.WHAT #PHILIPLANDAU, #LONDON #EMPLOYMENTLAW SOLICITOR TAUGHT ME ABOUT SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS (30 APRIL 2017)
Corrupt and criminal PGS/PGSUK agents have lied throughout all of this. They have lied to me, to UK Border, to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and to stakeholders. They have been able to lie because of Landau’s binding settlement. Corrupt PGS/PGSUK agents have such little respect for stakeholder clients, employees, and shareholders that without shame they highlight grifters like Cather as spokespeople for anti-corruption. Laughing like this only hurts. What Landau taught me about employment settlement contracts is that you cannot trust anyone.WHAT #PHILIPLANDAU, #LONDON #EMPLOYMENTLAW SOLICITOR TAUGHT ME ABOUT SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS (30 APRIL 2017)
Psychological terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an individual in a way that leaves no physical scars but leaves psychological injuries or trauma that have long-lasting impact.Valerie Robins , WORKPLACE BULLYING: MOBBING IS EMOTIONAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL TERRORISM
Discrimination, bullying or harassment of any kind will not be tolerated by the Company and all allegations of such behaviour will be dealt with seriously, confidentially and speedily.UK COMPANY OFFICE PERSONNEL HANDBOOK
Within a previous MarineSeismicSurvey (MSS) blog post article, Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part One: The Ambush Meeting (Part 1), the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter, was discussed. The 24 July 201 Ambush Letter scheduled another meeting for 11 September 2013. Of all the dates to choose to eliminate the American (USA) foreign worker, 9-11 was chosen as a meeting date with all its emotional symbolism. Minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting had been requested right after the event. These important minutes chronicling a distressing event were denied, but I pressed for something firm in writing. That was how the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter came about. Almost six-weeks following the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, a letter was finally delivered to me. What was never answered in the interim or within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was how the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting conformed to the UK-England company written policy, procedures, and of course contract and employment law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter actually raised similar concerns once it was received.
The copy of the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter scanned and referenced in this article was received through my submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014. The UK company is an affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company (NGSUK). NGSUK personal data processors within the human resources (HR) group are processing this 24 July 201 Ambush Letter. Unfortunately, there are many problems with the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. It would serve as the impetus for my submitting a lengthy workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. However, the most immediately visible problem with the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter when I received it as part of my official NGSUK personnel file documentation is that the mentioned scheduled 11 September 2013 (my 9-11) meeting actually never happened! The same HR manager who hosted the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting of questionable propriety and intentionally withheld the requested meeting minutes from me, also prevented the submission of a grievance soon after the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, and also cancelled and rescheduled the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013, as the 18 September 2013 e-mail indicates. The same HR Manager was now overseeing my SAR a year later. I did submit a 20 September 2013 formal grievance, but this document is not being processed within the body of my personnel file records. However, the 20 September 2013 formal grievance is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with the Norwegian geo-services company (NGS). NGS’ HR departments subsequent processing of defamatory fake data is a sinister form of blacklisting. Both are not compliant nor legal acts, but were the coordinated endeavor of the corrupt and evil NGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by NGS / NGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!
The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to NGSUK policy and procedures? Within the pages of the submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance, I had made the case that the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting did not conform to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK contract and employment law. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance had focused on the propriety and the participants of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting as well as countering the unsubstantiated claims made within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter, since I never had received minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. (This point was made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, as well.) I was also astonished to discover a version of minutes for the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was also being processed within my official PGSUK personnel file. My truthful professional reputation was assassinated on 11 September 2013, an event that never happened to me in reality, but exists as the most significant date within my professional official work history with NGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. NGS / NGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal nor compliant to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK employment and contract law. For some time, I have believed, and collected evidence showing, that I was a victim of a conspiracy to defraud, on top of being a target of severe workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). I have been on a writing campaign for justice since discovering this. However, it is a very difficult endeavor to confront corrupt power and money, especially when so many “professionals” from different companies participated in the alleged crimes against me and my family. Overcoming the banality of corruption and incivility is difficult, especially when those entrusted with corporate governance are the principal perpetrators and facilitators of the crimes.
Make no mistake. Gaslighting is not about love or concern. It’s about power and control. A gaslighter is someone who needs to feel superior and who manipulates people to further their own agendas.Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D., 7 Ways to Extinguish Gaslighting
Trust yourself. Recognize what they are doing and stay calm. If you know your case, preserved your record, and know why you’re in court today, you are armed. You will correct the record as appropriate and return focus to the important issues for the court and your case. You have prepared and you know what you are doing.Alyson A. Foster, Gaslighting in Litigation
The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was written on behalf of NGSUK and states that its creation was necessary since I had related that I wanted to pursue the matter officially. To me, this meant according to NGSUK policy, procedures, as well as employment (Tier 2 visa) law and contract law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter did not address my simple queries. At the same time, I was helpless to steer events. It seems that there were two avenues which could have been pursued, based on the NGS UK Office Policy Handbook (NGSUK Handbook). These were to either follow the NGSUK Handbook grievance procedures or the disciplinary procedures. These would have been the anticipated official routes to be followed. As was pointed out in Part 1, when disciplinary and grievance matters are related, as was the case here, according to ACAS, the matters can be resolved together. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter also indicated that I would have the opportunity to respond with my case and supporting documentation. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance, which is not being processed within the body of my personnel file by NGS / NGSUK HR, was my response and contained substantive information countering the claims made during the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. But, my truthful narrative is destroyed.
The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the NGSUK Handbook procedures. NGS / NGSUK had denied me my legal right to follow the grievance process. How was this permitted? With the assistance of my compromised counsel, Philip Landau of LZW Solicitos and Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), representing NGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all NGS / NGSUK, LWZ Solicitors, and WFW legal and HR professionals involved in my SCA termination to show otherwise that the process was compliant and legal. I quite frankly could not figure out what was happening at the time and why all my queries seemed to fall on deaf ears. I never really believed that the process was being carried out correctly, but was being fed misrepresentations from all sides. (WFW had also recently processed my Tier 2 visa leave to remain.) I made countless queries during the negotiations that went unanswered because I had no legal representation. My hired solicitor, Landau, I allege, was complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. This is what I have reported to UK ActionFraud (police). I have also compiled the numerous e-mail communications that confirm that my solicitor was aware of the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013 meeting change. Landau knew that I was a USA citizen and had also received a copy of the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, a copy of the NGSUK Handbook, and NGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepancies should have been noted. However, what especially should have been noted was that my legal right to file a grievance was adhered to. It was not. Instead, false instruments were processed that supported a corrupt disciplinary process used to illegally terminate a whistleblower.
The NGSUK HR Manager was aware that the response to the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter (and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting) would be in the form of a formal grievance prior to the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting. Therefore, the NGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well. What is also important to note is that there was a change of NGSUK secretary 13 September 2013. The new NGSUK secretary assumed the role of secretary and the responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the NGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The NGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The NGSUK Handbook also states NGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures. Any official route should have implicitly followed NGS Core Values and the NGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the NGSUK Handbook. Nicholson continued to be the main driver of the process even though he was directly implicated in misconduct and bullying through hosting the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. Neither NGSUK seretaries ever contacted me before or following the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. Within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance it was my belief that my nationality and Tier 2 visa status had elevated the destructive behaviors to harassment of a protected class, or illegal harassment. My Tier 2 visa status was a very important consideration which seemed to be ignored.
Indeed, most of those surveyed for the report identified employer retaliation and not being taken seriously as the most common barriers to taking complaints to employersMuneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address
First, his silence may be taken as consent to whatever has been said to him, as an implied admission. This inference arises where a denial would be expected if the statement was false. Here silence operates rather like a nod; it is as if the party did not think it worth while lasting words in assenting to what he and the speaker know is obvious.J. D. HEYDON, SILENCE AS EVIDENCE
Subsequent debates have argued the fine print over whether these individuals are actually psychopaths, or sociopaths, or have another mental disorder, called narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever the name of their conditions, they create chaos. They have no capacity to see or respect the perspective of others, are completely disrespectful, and many of them prop themselves up with a sadistic addiction to diminishing others.Jenny Luesby, How Toxic Bosses Destroy Companies
Perpetrators actively, though often covertly, seek to harm others–physically, emotionally, and spiritually, using tactics designed toBurgess, Garbarino, & Carlson, 2006
injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.
As the NGSUK Handbook header indicates, NGSUK HRM prepared the NGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents. The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by NGSUK HRM, as well. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of NGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is also signed by only the NGSUK HRM. Nothing is countersigned by the employee (me) or his supervisor. The exception is a Memo dated 25 October 2013, when Landau was engaged as my solicitor. NGSUK HRM did not sign this Memo, but neither did I. None of these documents are authenticated or substantiated by documentation and are therefore defamatory. I did not work directly for any of the directors, secretary, HR department, or division Executive Vice-President (EVP). The documents relate uncorroborated events, wrong dates, and non-existent documents. They are all forgeries. Further, no NGS / NGSUK, WFW, or LZW agent has ever challenged or commented on the allegations that the documents are forgeries in over three-years of protected public disclosure – whistleblowing. No definitive answer nor clarification has ever been provided as to the propriety of 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting or 24 July 2013 Ambush Meeting following multiple queries, including NGS Compliance. NGS, Landau, and WFW uttered false instruments to process my termination from employment with NGSUK.
This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct. Said another way, NGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels. NGSUK continued to obstruct my ability and right under UK employment law to complain! My queries were simple and reasonable. They could have been addressed easily. The NGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees. The NGSUK Handbook notes the importance of formal and informal lines of communication, especially between the employee and their immediate supervisor. The grievance procedure discusses provisions where the immediate supervisor is the focus of the grievance or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor. In this case, the grievance should be raised with the employee’s supervisor’s superior. As for any disciplinary actions, such matters must be fully investigated and focused on a fair resolution. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter stated management’s intention to investigate the possibility of implementing a performance improvement plan. But, what was the predicate for NGSUK’s directors and secretary intervention prior to any completed investigation or addressing the central concern as to the propriety of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting?
These behaviors seem to model the behaviors of workplace harassment, mobbing, and bullying, inclusive of manipulative gaslighting, as described in literature. They seem to model non-compliant and criminal behaviors. NGSUK manipulated the processes to force a desired outcome. This included blocking all avenues of legal redress through adopting an official route that is not included within the NGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and uttering forged instruments. Legally guaranteed processes were not permitted and choices were limited to the employee so that management could achieve their “win” in this nefarious end game. This end game included co-opting a truthful professional narrative with a fabrication of events. This end game included the symbolic elimination of the American from their workforce on my 9-11. It was all psychological terrorism. It involved illegality, the denial of my human rights and rights under contract and employment law, which were all documented within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance. Most troubling is the witnessing of the death of professionalism and civility and the revelation of weak characters that found sadistic pleasure in abusing their power. Many, many NGS / NGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore NGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. NGS / NGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. NGS’s dumbfounded Norwegian management and board should have thought twice before lodging their despicable terrorist attack on an American focused on justice. Truth is very strong. Poor management is weak and soon runs out of resources. Weak NGS management- management built upon the “sands” of deception – and board of directors attacked me and my family and now these “leaders” hide from their actions and accountability. Pathetic. Even more pathetic is the employee ranks who allow such depraved leadership to remain unaccountable to a Code of Practice or Responsibility Report and functional corporate governance.
In essence, the psyche constantly returned to scenes of unpleasure because, by restaging the traumatic moment over and over again, it hoped belatedly to process the unassimilable material, to find ways of mastering the trauma retroactivelySIGMUND FReud
Privilege, or immunity, is also a defense against a claim of defamation. Qualified privilege is usually used in cases where the person communicating the statement has a “legal, moral, or social duty to make it….” The person making the statement must show that he or she has made the statement in good faith, believing it to be true and that the statement was made without malice. One example of qualified privilege is the immunity of members of the press from defamation charges for statements made in the press in good faith unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.Qualified Privilege as a Defense in a Defamation Case
Revised 22 October 2018. Publication of unanswered Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Compliance Hotline e-mails documenting PGS Legal Compliance Inaction and Apathy.
When I felt that my own professional and personal reputation had been defamed, I submitted a thorough formal grievance challenging the management of my employer, PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK), directly to substantiate their orally and written aspersions. I am now a former employee of PGS PGSUK. I am a USA citizen who was sponsored to live and work in England on a Tier 2 visa, along with my wife and dependent children. PGSUK is an affiliate of Norwegian based marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). When I tried to find redress through practicing my legal right under employment and contract law to initiate the grievance procedures outlined within the PGSUK Policy Handbook, this right was impeded through managements conscious efforts to bypass the processes and laws governing my employment as a foreign worker. My rights were manipulated and denied and the health and safety of my family placed in danger through these same consciously violent acts by negligent management. As a foreign worker with no ties to the community, I was employed within a toxic and dehumanizing workplace. But, I would not leave without defending my rights, dignity and reputation as a professional. I tried to follow the rules. Within my written grievance, I write:
A main motivation for my response in the form of a grievance is that one should never allow a defamatory statement to go unchallenged. Silence is perceived as acceptance. If one does not respond about what has been said and written about them – especially at a professional level – then it must be true.
Employer personnel files contain the documentation that is needed to provide an accurate view of an employee’s employment history. The documentation supports the employer’s decisions and must be of a legal standard to protect the employer in a potential lawsuit. Most employee personnel files will never be tested in this way. But, this is the standard for and basis for maintaining such records at all. The personnel file contents demonstrate the employer’s rationale behind hiring, promotions, transfer, rewards and recognition, and termination decisions. Outcomes are the derivative of processes and are only valid to the extent that the processes followed best practices as prescribed in policy which is guided by employment law. My grievance was grounded in the belief that my personnel file data was intentionally defamatory and the byproduct non-compliant processes.
Ten months after I left England, I submitted a subject access request to PGSUK citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998. I discovered that defamatory and inaccurate personnel records populated my personnel file contents. This was done intentionally by PGSUK to create a false history of my employment which would obviously would harm me for future opportunities. This was the basis for my filing a grievance in the first place and why defamation was specifically an issue that was brought up. Another key issue brought up within my grievance document was that PGS Core Values were being ignored. PGS Core Values and PGS Code of Conduct are specifically mentioned within the terms and conditions of my original employment contract. I felt that management had breached these terms and conditions through their deliberate and destructive decisions focused on me. I was a target of workplace gang-bullying and harassment.
The best way for an individual or company to maintain a stellar reputation, first and foremost, is to be proactive and ensure that one’s decisions are guided by ethical values. Enterprises must be principled and resolute about following such guidance. The UK Companies Act 2006 clearly establishes that directors and secretary (“directors”) have the fiduciary duty to protect the reputation of the company that they direct. Employee’s, present and former, are bound by Confidentiality conditions, such that they will not engage in activities and public disclosures that will negatively impact the business. This, of course, includes its reputation. The exception to any such public disclosures are protected disclosures, or whistleblowing. Such protected public disclosure is provided through the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) and is specifically referenced within the PGSUK Policy Handbook.
Most people when accused of a crime that they are innocent of will vehemently deny it and take action in the moment and not wait over three years to be outraged and file criminal defamation charges in a foreign country. We must concede that the reaction of PGSUK directors, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and former secretary Carl Richards is not normal. At what point are such publications the fault of those charged with guarding the company reputation? Where was the proverbial “line in the sand” in terms of what disparaging commentary would be tolerated? The first and only official condemnation of my postings came in the form of a criminal complaint made by PGSUK directors. However, prior to being President and CEO of PGS, Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance. He also ascended to be an Executive Vice President of Marketing. As a member of the legal compliance team of PGS, in 2016 several e-mails were directed to him and his team. All e-mails directed to Pedersen were not answered at all. I did have some exchange with other compliance team members. Between April to September 2016, I complained to the PGS compliance team on several occasions. I provided published blog article content and links for their consideration. The final blog article sent specifically to Pedersen’s attention was titled The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen.
Many of the same claims that were directed to Pedersen within my 2016 blog publications are repeated within future blog post articles. My intention was to make sure that the same base complaints were true and continued to be considered relevant. I continued publishing content and expanding the recipients of my complaints because the many issues important to me were never acknowledged or resolved by PGS, most notably the directors of PGSUK. I have always requested a thorough third party (police) investigation. In fact, if the directors of PGSUK were truly confident of their innocence, they would invite such an investigation to exonerate themselves. Currently, an updated report submitted to UK ActionFraud (police) accusing the directors of criminal behavior has been published on my website for some time. No one from PGSUK has ever addressed or clarified the accusations made or asked for the reports removal. Current publications implicate the same people as the articles published and forwarded to PGS compliance in 2016. Pedersen reneged on his duty to defend the reputation of PGS in 2016, as the e-mails below clearly show. So, who bares responsibility for damage to that reputation in 2018?
I am a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa, shortage occupation list basis, along with my wife and dependent children, to work with PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK). I was officially employed by PGSUK from 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013. Paperwork to renew my visa was submitted 15 July 2013. We all lived in Weybridge, England, during this time.
My employment terminated through a settlement contract agreement which was proffered to me following my submitting a workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. The grievance specifically cited misconduct and non-compliant behavior and actions by my first line supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, Vice-President, Marine Contract Sales – Africa, his boss, Simon Cather, Marine Contract Regional President – Africa, and David Nicholson, Human Resources Manager.
In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR), citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to receive copies of personal data which PGSUK was processing in my name. When I received my “personal data” from PGSUK, I noted multiple problems, especially with the documents residing within my professional personnel file. The documents bore no counter-signature and were factually incorrect. Most obvious, was the reference to a 11 September 2013 meeting date, which was referenced in two separate documents. The 11 September 2013 meeting never happened.The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013, the day which I delivered my grievance to the first line supervisors of the subjects identified within the grievance. The superiors were executives of Norwegian parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). Cather reported to Per Arild Reksnes, Executive Vice-President, Marine Contract and Nicholson reported to Terje Bjølseth, Senior Vice-President, Global Human Resources. John Greenway, Senior Vice-President was also copied, along with my work colleague, John Barnard, who was my witness.
Employees who are terminated by a settlement agreement contract need to receive qualified legal advice before signing. I engaged solicitor Philip Landau with the London legal firm Landau, Zeffertt and Weir (LZW). LZW had also been made aware of the change in meeting time. The meeting had been referenced from a letter delivered to me on 24 July 2013, which was the memorialized basis for my submitting a grievance. However, the grievance document also referenced a 13 July 2013 meeting which I was called to without any warning. Following the 13 July 2013 “ambush meeting”, I requested minutes of the meeting, how the meeting comported to PGSUK internal policy and UK employment law, and queried about submitting a workplace grievance. As the grievance document clearly states, I never received these minutes of the meeting. I was also never informed as to how the ambush meeting comported to PGSUK internal policy and UK employment law. The ambush meeting was a very distressing event in my life.
Based on the contents received through my SAR, I now believe that the settlement contract agreement is not a legal instrument. I believe that it was necessary for LZW to be complicit in processing the illegal settlement contract agreement. Settlement contracts are very binding and are designed to make future claims virtually impossible. This is the reason that it has been so difficult to compel changes, or find redress.. In late 2014, I had identified many of the same problems which I identify today and publish about. However, in 2014, I did not suspect that LZW had helped advance the defamatory personal data residing within my personnel file. Further, most electronic (email) data received through the SAR does not mention the points raised within the grievance document, but are mostly about the review of the settlement contract agreement. PGSUK also engaged law firm Watson, Farley, and Williams (WFW) to represent them during the settlement agreement contract negotiation process. This means that three (3) different data controllers all processed knowingly inaccurate personal data, as proven by the reference to the 11 September 2013 meeting which never happened. It is this concerted and determined conspiracy of actors which have prohibited redress and denied me my human rights. I believe that I was the victim / target of an orchestrated confidence fraud. My being a foreign worker likely was a factor in selecting me.
I have known since late 2014 that something very wrong had happened. However, in 2014 I had not fully processed all of the information and understood the extent of what happened to me. On 5 December 2014, 6 (7) December 2014, and 20 December 2014, I wrote complaint e-mails to PGSUK. However, it should be noted that Nicholson, who had been a principal subject of my grievance citing misconduct (bullying and harassment), the mismanagement of the employee performance management system, and the dissemination of defamatory information about me, was also the main data processor for the SAR submitted in 2014. Nicholson wrote a 22 December 2014 letter on behalf of PGSUK essentially telling me to accept the personal data processing or “shut up.” PGSUK also threatened legal action if I continued my pursuit for the truth and the reinstatement of an accurate recounting of my employment history with PGSUK. The 22 December 2014 letter specifically mentions the three fore-mentioned e-mails. True to form, there were no timely responses to the 5 December 2014 email, and this was why the 6(7) and 20 December 2014 emails needed to be written.
The directors of PGSUK, relevant to my grievance and subsequent settlement agreement contract were: John Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and secretary, Carl Richards. While the 22 December 2014 letter was signed by Nicholson, it was written and sent on behalf of PGSUK and its directors/secretary who allowed Nicholson to be so involved in processing my personal data, in spite of the documented problems in his doing so.
The 6 December 2014 e-mail referenced within this letter is dated 7 December 2014 in my records and is part of this article. I was in Houston, Texas, USA when the contents from my subject access request (SAR) was received.
The list of people provided within the 22 December 2014 letter does not make sense to me. These are all human resources personnel, except for Simon Cather. My first line supervisor, Edward von Abendorff is not listed. Cather was Marine Contract Regional President – Africa and was von Abendorff’s boss. But, I did not report directly to Cather and he would not have assessed my performance from the standpoint of a first line supervisor.
As stated previously, von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson, were all named subjects within the submitted 20 September 2013 grievance document. I received no direct communications from Reksnes, and more notably, Bjølseth. Nicholson continued coordinating the grievance procedure as though he had never been named in the contents of the grievance. A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. However, on 10 October 2013, Nicholson proffered me a settlement contract agreement so that I would forego my legal right under employment contract to submit a grievance. I now believe that this proffering was another breach in my employment contract.
I first initiated contact with Landau on 11 October 2013. I was curious about the situation and being proffered a settlement contract agreement to interrupt the grievance procedure outlined within the UK Personnel Policy Handbook (2013). Landau was provided with a copy of the grievance document with the names redacted. Landau was also provided information regarding the advance proffering of the settlement agreement contract before the scheduled 14 October 2014 grievance hearing. Landau never asked about or mentioned anything about the PGSUK grievance procedure and recommended an enhanced settlement contract agreement. I now believe that Landau was compromised early on and that is why he did not ask more about or recommend that I follow the prescribed grievance procedures.
The grievance hearing was chaired by Terje Bjølseth, PGS Senior Vice President Global Human Resource, and Per Arild Reksnes, Executive Vice President Marine Contract (at the time), They didn’t view the personnel file? Also, my employment was terminated through a settlement contract. I had been told by Nicholson that lawyers from both the UK/London office and Oslo office had read the grievance and decided to offer the settlement contract agreement because I was “in dispute with the Company.” No lawyers of PGSUK/PGS processed my personnel file? Landau never processed the contents of my personnel file? And WFW, who eventually would represent PGSUK in settlement negotiations never processed my personnel file data?
By engaging Landau, I did not believe that I would need to learn about employment law in another country. However, the gov.uk website states that if the grievance procedure is included in the employment contract, then employers must follow those procedures or otherwise be in breach of the original employment contract. Grievance procedure was part of my employment contract. So, why did all the lawyers – experiences UK employment law lawyers – allow processing the settlement contract agreement? This is yet another reason why I believe the settlement contract agreement eventually signed by me is not a legal instrument.
The 5, 7 and 20 December e-mails written by me point out many factual dependencies between true events and the data that PGS Exploration UK Limited is processing in my name. During the settlement contract agreement negotiations, I had requested that all derogatory and defamatory data being processed to be expunged – removed – from my personnel file. I was especially concerned by content authored by any of the three subjects of my grievance: von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson. The response to this request is held in a 4 December 2013 e-mail from WFW lawyer, Rhodri Thomas, that was forwarded to me by Landau, and is clear:
“This amendment is not acceptable. PGS’s personnel records are its property and must naturally give an accurate record of all employees’ employment history, it will not agree to redact or amend these in any way.”
However, when I discovered inaccurate defamatory personal data being processed within my personnel file data, Nicholson included within the 22 December 2014 letter:
“Instead, a copy of your email of 5 December has been placed on your personnel file (and is held also in our email and document database), and the points you have raised about the data we hold are accordingly held together with your other personal data.”
We regard this as a satisfactory and proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about you is accurate.”
The 22 December 2014 letter contradicts the 4 December 2013 email that states that PGSUK will not alter the data in any way. This e-mail was approved by my legal adviser, PGSUK, and their legal adviser – three different data controllers. However, PGSUK (“We regard …”) agrees to amend the personnel file data as a proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about me is accurate. In other words, PGSUK is acknowledging that the personal data processed for the settlement contract agreement was not accurate. So, how can the settlement contract agreement be a legal instrument if it was processed using inaccurate data?
It should be noted that LZW (Landau / Rushton) was formerly engaged 22 October 2013. The 25 October 2013 Memo, which I regard as a forgery, was created when LZW was engaged as MY legal adviser. The 25 October 2013 Memo is very important. The Memo is never mentioned in email communications between me and LZW. Further, the contents establishes that my termination was due to defamatory performance based reasons, and that I was not a target of health harming gang-bullying. This is significant, and that is why I cannot breath well until the issue is truly resolved. This is another indication that I was the target of a confidence fraud carried out by the conspiracy of three different data controllers.
When I submitted the SAR in 2014, I had no way of knowing that so many questions would be raised. I could not have conceived that the legal adviser I hired would be compromised. All I knew, is that I identified inaccurate defamatory data being processed by PGSUK when I shouldn’t have. The other tell-tale sign is that none of the documents in my personnel file bare no counter-signature. I have not signed any of the documents which I have requested removed. What kind of lawyers or HR professionals would process such documents?
The reason that PGSUKs response to my more recent 2018 SAR citing the General Data Protection Requirement is inadequate is because they have never really answered the questions raised within the 2014 SAR contents provided to me. In 2014, I had not had the opportunity to even conceive of being a victim of a fraud like this. But, in 2018, I have connected more dots that have raised more questions. I was hoping that the appointment of a new PGS Data Protection Officer and a new PGSUK Head of Legal would help me get some of the many questions finally answered. I was wrong.
Instead, PGSUK directors have are hunting down a whistle blower who lives in Thailand. They have given a Thai lawyer power of attorney. Is this even legal? And is the Thai lawyer allowed to pursue protected public disclosures in Thailand outside the scope of the prescribed Confidentiality provisions contained within the PGSUK Policy Handbook. Aren’t PGSUK directors fiduciary duty to INVESTIGATE whistleblowing claims? I am scheduled to appear in Thai criminal court 29 October 2018. The PGSUK directors want me to go to jail so that they will not have to answer serious questions regarding their decisions, actions, and behaviors. Please stop them.
Thank you for your consideration,
UK Serious Fraud Office
Caseworker(s) Information Commissioner’s Office
Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)
Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) former Secretary
Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager
Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer
John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal
Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel
Transparency International – Norway
SEG Whistleblower – membership
My name is Steven D. Kalavity. I am a citizen of the United States of America (USA). I currently live in Chiangrai, Thailand on visa with my Thai wife and three Thai – American children. From 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013, PGS Exploration UK Limited sponsored me and my family dependents on a Tier 2 visa.
PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, directors and former secretary have engaged in aggressive and inhumane vexatious litigation in a foreign country to suppress protected public disclosures. I have made allegations that the Company directors and former secretary have engaged in criminal behavior. I am a whistleblower.
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are executives of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, based in Lysaker, Norway. I am asking the authorities in England and Norway to immediately demand that PGS Exploration UK Limited directors withdraw all their legal claims made in Thailand.
The claims put forward in Thailand are in breach of PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policy, and therefore the directors have no fiduciary authority to authorize or advance their complaint in a foreign jurisdiction. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are abusing their positions and are in breach of their fiduciary duty. In doing this, PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have also authorized the illegal use of PGS Exploration UK Limited resources.
Two claims of criminal defamation have been initiated against me in Thailand by a Thai lawyer whom has been given power of attorney by the PGS Exploration UK Limited current directors and former secretary. The Thai lawyer has no knowledge of the veracity of my public disclosures. None of the directors reside, nor have professional interests, in Thailand. All of the public disclosure has been made in the English language and has been intended for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and agents, as well as the Petroleum Geo-Services board of director’s members and executives.
The first claim made against me in Thai criminal court was forwarded by the current PGS Exploration UK Limited directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen. The second claim has been made by former PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary, Carl Richards, who resigned 25 May 2018. The initial mediation court date in Bangkok, Thailand is scheduled for 29 October 2018, with a follow-up proceeding scheduled on 12 November 2018, in Chiang Rai, Thailand, depending on the outcome of the 29 October 2018 proceeding. I reside in Chiang Rai, Thailand, with my family. PGS Exploration UK Limited could have scheduled the first hearing in Chiang Rai, Thailand.
I believe that the proceeding scheduled in Bangkok, Thailand is an intentional attempt by PGS Exploration UK Limited to further harass and bully a whistleblower and harm the health and wellbeing of me and my family to the greatest extent possible. PGS Exploration UK Limited and Carl Richards are being as mean, vindictive, and unethical as possible to try and quiet my public disclosure. They have casts aside their contractual obligations to abide by the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Core Values, PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policies, and their commitments to principles of the UN Global Compact to persecute me and my family. It is a selfish and repugnant abuse of position and abrogation of their fiduciary duties.
Most of the public disclosures referenced within these claims were produced while Carl Richards was acting as PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary. The public disclosures relate directly to the performance (or malpractice) of his fiduciary duties. The Thai lawyer was provided with my personal passport data, home address, and e-mail address by Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Data Protection Officer (DPO). This personal private data had been provided to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, DPO in relation to a recent subject access request citing the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR). I believe that the use of my personal subject data to launch a claim outside the authority of the director’s legal fiduciary duty is a violation of my human rights and the GDPR. Providing my personal data to Carl Richards, as a private person, is an even more egregious violation of my human rights.
I am currently disputing the propriety of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA processing of my personal data and have been corresponding with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and legal counsel have been included in these communications. Much of the public disclosure has been in regard to my belief, supported by e-mail and other documented evidence, that PGS Exploration UK Limited human resources and legal counsel have knowingly created and processed non-compliant and illegal personal data about me. This fake data was used to advance an illegally proffered settlement agreement contract used to terminate my employment.
ICO has been aware of my disagreement with the personal data PGS Exploration UK Limited is processing in my name for some time. I also raised these concerns with UK ActionFraud 24 August 2015, and have periodically updated this complaint. In 2016, I submitted several complaints to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA legal compliance. This followed numerous complaints made through the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA LinkedIn™ social media comment space. Most queries were not answered. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA contends there was an investigation. However, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA refuses to share their investigation report. I do not believe that there was a valid investigation and that Petroleum Geo-Services ASA legal compliance has been directly involved in the alleged illegal acts. I also submitted a report to the UK Serious Fraud Office in 2017. PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA were made aware of these claims prior to their launching their Thai claim.
Most of the public disclosures regard PGS Exploration UK Limited director’s violations of English contractual and employment law and internal policy. This includes, but is not limited to, the UK Data Protection Act 1998, and now the General Data Protection Requirement , the Companies Act 2006, the Equality Act 2006, the Fraud Act 2006, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and of course the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Thai court system is not the appropriate legal venue to adjudicate matters of English law. PGS Exploration UK Limited is misrepresenting their claims as though their claims are truthful and not disputed. The irony is that PGS Exploration UK Limited and Carl Richards have refused multiple requests to demonstrate that they are processing legal and compliant data derived from legal and compliant processes. In other words, they refuse to prove that they have behaved legally in accordance to the laws of England and PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policy. It should be clear that there must be nefarious motivations for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors to exploit the Thai criminal justice system.
PGS Exploration UK Limited within a 16 July 2018 e-mail response to a subject access request citing the General Data Protection Requirement remained committed to not clarifying issues or answering questions thoughtfully brought forth originally by a subject access request submitted in 2014 citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998. PGS Exploration UK Limited states in their response to my subject access request:
Excerpts from the 16 July 2018 PGS Exploration UK Limited response to my 2018 GDPR subject access request
We have determined that the applicable law allows us to deny your request on the basis that processing of your personal data, if any, that may have occurred since your previous request on 10 October 2014 (the “2014 SAR”) would have only been performed in order to seek privileged legal advice in respect to your various direct and indirect communication with or about PGS and/or its employees. Accordingly, we are denying your request under Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a).
You should also note that under the terms of the settlement agreement between you and PGS dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”) you agreed not to further pursue your grievance or any analogous or substantively similar or other grievance against PGS and that PGS, nor any other company in the PGS group, shall have any further obligations to you in respect of such grievances.
You further agreed not to divulge confidential information or the existence or terms of the Settlement Agreement, nor to make or publish any statement that directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation of PGS or any Related Party of PGS.
PGS reserve its rights to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement in respect to any breaches by you of the Settlement Agreement.
Bluntly, I have not regarded the referenced settlement agreement contract as a valid legal instrument for some time. My public disclosure has stated this in many different publications. My public disclosure has also stated that I regard my public disclosure as protected, or that I am a whistleblower. My claims of director and executive criminal conduct were first publicly published in 2015 through the LinkedIn™ Pulse publishing venue. This would have constituted a breach in a legal settlement contract agreement. PGS Exploration UK Limited made similar threats to me following my complaints regarding the data being processed in my name within a 22 December 2014 correspondence. Within the 22 December 2014 letter, PGS Exploration UK Limited states that they will not alter or remove any of the data which I identified as inaccurate and non-compliant.
At the same time, however, PGS Exploration UK Limited, did state that they would add one of my complaint e-mails (5 December 2014) into my professional personnel file. So, PGS Exploration UK Limited did not refuse to alter my personal data. What they did was place accurate data into the personnel file after inaccurate personal data was used to process the settlement contract agreement. This challenges the legality of the settlement contract agreement, in my view. Why would PGS Exploration UK Limited agree to alter my personnel file data with inaccurate data? There are many other compliance issues raised within this 22 December 2014 correspondence which PGS Exploration UK Limited refuses to clarify. I began publicly publishing my complaints and frustrations about these matters because PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA refuse to answer my reasonable questions. Recently, I have copied ICO caseworkers on e-mail communications with PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, with regard to the latest response to my subject access request so they can witness firsthand the irresponsible actions of these data controllers.
According to a confusing 22 December 2014 email written to me requesting that I stop my questions, PGS Exploration UK Limited states that they do not even process the 20 September 2013 grievance document within my professional personnel file. So, exactly what will be considered similar to it? I believe that the 20 September 2013 grievance which identified manager misconduct, policy and contract breaches, and breaches in UK employment and contract law was also whistleblowing. Many of my queries have been in regard to the 22 December 2014 email which has opened many questions. I believe that the referred settlement contract agreement was proffered illegally to terminate my employment without following my legally guaranteed process of grievance. Termination for whistleblowing is automatically an unfair dismissal.
With regard to PGS Exploration UK Limited’s alleged violations of internal policy and the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act through initiating defamation claims in Thailand, reference the PGS Exploration UK Limited Policy Handbook (2013):
During the course of their employment, each member of staff will have access to and become aware of information which is confidential to the Company. Without prejudice to his or her common law duties, each member of staff undertakes that he/she will not, save in the proper performance of his duties, make use of, or disclose to any person, (including for the avoidance of doubt any competitors of the Company), any of the trade secrets or other confidential information of or relating to the Company, or any user of the Company’s services or any company, organization or business with which the Company is involved in any kind of business venture or partnership, or any other information concerning the business of the Company which he/she may have received or obtained in confidence while in the service of the Company. Each member of staff will use his/her best endeavors to prevent the unauthorized publication or disclosure of any such trade secrets or confidential information.
This restriction shall continue to apply after the termination of a member of staff’s employment without limit in point of time but, both during employment and after its termination, shall cease to apply to information ordered to be disclosed by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction or otherwise required to be disclosed by law or to information which becomes available to the public generally (other than by reason of the member of staff breaching this confidentiality obligation).
Nothing in this paragraph 2.9 will prevent a member of staff making a “protected disclosure” within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 where they are lawfully entitled to do so.
For a disclosure to be protected by the Act’s provisions it must relate to matters that ‘qualify’ for protection under the Act. Qualifying disclosures are disclosures which the worker reasonably believes tends to show that one or more of the following matters is either happening now, took place in the past, or is likely to happen in the future:
A qualifying disclosure to the commission will be a ‘protected’ disclosure provided the worker:
I have submitted several complaints to UK and Norwegian bodies to no effect. I am very certain about the integrity of the documentation being processed within my PGS Exploration UK Limited professional personnel file. None of the documents which I requested removed bare a counter signature and contain factually incorrect data, most notably a meeting date of 11 September 2013 that is referenced in two documents. The 11 September 2013 meeting never happened. The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013, the day on which I submitted the referenced formal grievance. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is specifically referenced in the settlement contract agreement, as well as the 22 December 2014 correspondence from PGS Exploration UK Limited, and more recently in the 16 July 2018 correspondence from PGS Exploration UK Limited. However, it is not mentioned in the body of documentation contents of my personnel file and, as stated by PGS Exploration UK Limited, is not being processed currently as part of my personnel file.
An occupational health nurse report requested by the manager of human resources submitted to PGS Exploration UK Limited 16 November 2013 also mentions the grievance document, as well as reports on my personal health issues and stress experienced in the workplace. PGS Exploration UK Limited does not process this health report which they requested and also did not follow policy guidelines regarding employee stress. This endangered my own health and wellbeing, as well as that of my family. PGS Exploration UK Limited has suppressed and destroyed all personal data related to the 20 September 2013 grievance document and supplanted non-compliant fake data supporting a defamatory performance based termination. I had been led to believe that the settlement contract agreement was with regard to the substance mentioned within the 20 September grievance document. PGS Exploration UK Limited on 15 July 2013 also did not report any performance issues to UK Border Agency for the renewal of my Tier 2 shortage occupation list visa, and those for my dependent family members. Clarification on these issues is what PGS Exploration UK Limited has been withholding which I believe constitutes the deliberate concealment of information tending to show illegal and non-compliant acts.
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and Carl Richards are expediting their claims in Thailand through subversive tactics which do not correlate to PGS Core Value. They collective, including the Thai lawyer, stalked me by misusing my personal data. None of the directors had formally contacted me and identified themselves and their concerns prior to launching their claims in Thailand. The Thai lawyer also never confirmed her identification and credentials in previous communications which regarded a potential claim by Carl Richards. I asked the Thai lawyer many questions, stated that I regarded my public disclosures as protected whistleblowing. Further, I rejected claims made by Carl Richards as a private person because my public disclosures have always been in regard to his professional capacity as PGS Exploration UK Limited Head of Legal and secretary. I had just departed Thailand when I received an e-mail with the court proceeding information documents written in the Thai language attached. I was not in Thailand when the court claim by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors was delivered.
I had never received any communication from PGS Exploration UK Limited directors regarding my public disclosures prior to this claim being delivered in my absence. The Thai lawyer had withheld information that she was also acting on the behalf of PGS Exploration UK Limited directors in previous communications. Had she revealed this, I of course would have been more receptive to dialogue, just as I would have if Carl Richards was representing himself as secretary. Carl Richards’ complaint, as a private person, was actually the second complaint. It was received weeks after the court documents were delivered by e-mail. I believe this behavior has been, at the very least, inconsiderate, irresponsible, and unprofessional. It seems to transgress the actions of their true fiduciary duties. They should have behaved differently and used better judgment. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors’ actions have been clandestine and purposefully harassing.
In specific regard to the criminal defamation claims made in Thailand, most all of the referenced published content in the complaints pre-dates the 16 July 2018 correspondence received from PGS Exploration UK Limited in response to my subject access request. The 16 July 2018 correspondence cites no specific content which even breaches the terms of the settlement contract agreement. However, they warn me that the confidentiality nondisclosure conditions are still in effect. However, in September 2018, the content reaches the level of criminal defamation in Thailand? How is this possible? Much of my public disclosure has warned Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited that they should be more proactive in addressing the online content published because it is harmful to their reputation. Three-years later, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited wakes up and blames their criminal negligence on me – in Thailand? Unless PGS Exploration UK Limited can confirm the legality of the processes and documents that support the settlement contract agreement they are making fraudulent misrepresentations within their 22 December 2014 and 16 July 2018 responses to the subject access requests.
The fact that PGS Exploration UK Limited is not acting on the warnings given through their responses to me subject access requests to pursue breaches of the settlement contract agreement should be telling. No claim of non-disparagement in England, but criminal defamation in Thailand? Whatever damage has been suffered is a product of their collective fiduciary negligence. To that end, only I have lost my job and livelihood while Pedersen has ascended from Petroleum Geo-Services ASA General Counsel to President and CEO.
In light of the recent aggressive actions taken by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and former secretary in Thailand, there needs to be an equally aggressive investigation conducted in England. I really need some consideration. I am a victim of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited abuse. As a foreigner, I have always been more vulnerable. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA has had to disregard published values and policy to pursue their vindictive hunt to destroy a whistleblower who did nothing wrong. I have been the only one advancing Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Core Values and reputational interests.
I need help – NOW.
Steven D. Kalavity