PGS ASA (PGS), a Norwegian based multi-national company with affiliate offices located around the world, believes that I have damaged the company brand and its agent’s reputations to a criminal level – in Thailand? By PGS ASAs own acknowledgement, the brand value has been diminished thousands of dollars (USD) through their extortive pursuit of legal justice in Thailand. PGS ASA hired Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen to deliver these civil and criminal complaints on behalf of their UK affiliate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) to their former worker contracted under the laws of England. By what legal authority can lawyers in Thailand deliver such complaints? PGS ASA has no affiliate offices in Thailand and besides no contracts were ever signed between us even if they did. UK Legal firm, Watson, Farley and Williams advised on these contracts governed by the laws of England? Why isn’t their competence being challenged?
PGS ASA has already acknowledged that the PGS ASA brand has been damaged to a criminal level. Their Thai claims state financial damages, as well. But whose fault are these damages really? Real legal due process has been thwarted. Citizens of Norway and the world must ask what levels of corruption must exist within the Norwegian corporate governance processes that would allow a Norwegian company board of directors and executives the ability to solve problems outside the corporate legal framework of Norway? Similarly, for the UK affiliate, outside the legal framework of England? I have published real evidence that the PGS ASA board of directors and executive management were very directly involved in a criminal conspiracy and assault of me and my family – emphasis my children! I have begged for intervention by government law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation. There has been no answer to reasonable requests from from a dysfunctional UK ActionFraud. I was a foreign worker employed on a Tier 2 visa when I was an initial victim of crimes perpetrated by the Norwegian organized crime syndicate UK affiliate. I have had to be bound by the legal framework under the laws of England for several years. PGS ASA has been able to ignore legal contractual confidentiality clauses explicitly in place to protect against disparaging public disclosure.
It is the board of directors job is to guide the business legally and successfully. These are concurrent and not mutually exclusive requirements. In Norway, legally means following the laws of Norway and not the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand. For directors of an English company, this similarly means that the laws of England must be followed. It is my view that such a reliance on the Thai legal system by Norwegian company PGS ASA demonstrates serious corruption. At the very least, such directing and management demonstrates serious dysfunction of internal governance processes. It is not legal to pay someone to commit a crime on your behalf. Diana Lovejoy, a USA citizen, was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison for hiring a man to kill her husband. The would be assassin was sentenced to 50 years to life. Her husband was not killed, but the hiring of someone with the intent to kill was a serious crime in of itself. By what legal authority does the PGS ASA board of directors have to hire a Thai legal firm to exercise defamation claims outside the legal contractual confidentiality clauses governed by the laws of England? I have asked several times, how can one be guilty of criminal defamation under Thai law and not in contractual breach under English law when the “plaintiff” is an English company governed by the laws of England? How is no response by PGS ASA general counsel Lars Mysen not fraud?
PGS ASA hired Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to break UK laws provided through contract. Duensing – Kippen harassed, blackmailed and extorted me and my Thai family members. In fact, much of this harassment was done to my Thai family members whilst I was in the USA. PGS ASA did not possess the legal authority to deny me my rights under English law, and therefore neither does Duensing – Nippen as an agent of a company governed by the laws of England. I believe that PGS ASA bribed Duensing – Kippen to break English and Thai laws on their behalf, which is illegal! My published disclosures claim that PGS ASA legal advisers under English law, Watson, Farley and Williams were previously bribed to utter forged documents to support a false pretense for a fraudulent settlement contract agreement. Both PGS ASA and Watson, Farley and Williams also withheld advised medical treatment and destroyed evidence to affect the fraudulent settlement contract. PGS ASA board of directors oversaw and approved of all of these violent illegal premeditated acts intended to harm a whistleblower and his family. NO LAWYERS REPRESENTING PGS ASA CAN AUTHENTICATE THE PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTS USED TO TERMINATE MY EMPLOYMENT. Which means PGS ASA and their legal advisers are all involved in a health harming criminal conspiracy to defraud and defame a whistleblower. Norway promotes and protects these accused criminals rather than investigate them!
Executives who do not recognize harassment and workplace bullying as a serious health and safety issues are not qualified to lead offshore operations. Executives who engage in fraud, bribery, and defamation to pervert the course of justice and hide their crimes should be in jail!
I am a USA citizen married to a Thai woman. From September 2010 – December 2013, I worked in England. PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England KT13 0NY (PGSUK) sponsored me on a employment Tier 2 visa (Special Occupation List). My wife and I, along with our Thai – USA citizen children were all sponsored by PGSUK to live in England. D We were all owed a Duty of Care by PGSUK when we lived there from 26 September 2010 – 31 December 2020. PGS violated the terms and conditions of my employment contract multiple times. When I complained to key Norwegian executives about the misconduct, breach of contract, health and safety violations, and violations in UK law, parent company, PGS ASA retaliated. I was illegally terminated through fraudulent contract supported by uttered forged documents intended to illegally blacklist me in the industry. The fraud reached the very top of the organization and its board of directors. Watson, Farley and Williams negotiated the final termination settlement contract terms and conditions, as well as advised PGS on my Tier 2 visa. All involved lawyers have remained silent.
Duensing – Kippen decided to aid in the assault and robbery of me and my law – abiding Thai family. Duensing – Kippen’s threats terrorized my mother – in – law to the extent that she went to the hospital. She was very very traumatized and made ill by the illegal actions taken by Duensing – Kippen.
The charges drafted by Duensing – Kippen are fraudulent and supported by no evidence whatsoever. All lawyer refuse to acknowledge my publications as legal and protected public disclosure exposing criminal activity at the highest level of three (3) organizations: PGS ASA, Watson, Farley & Williams, and Landau Law (formally LZW Solicitors). The three (3) companies, two of which are law firms, participated in forming the final termination settlement contract which I claim to be fraudulent. All agents mentioned within my publications are all located in England. The contract is written in the English language. However, PGSUK is paying Duensing – Kippen to translate publications from English into Thai? .
Duensing – Kippen has decided to become an active part of the criminal conspiracy and cover-up through further damaging and traumatizing the victims crimes perpetrated by their client, PGS Exploration UK Limited. THESE ARE MY CLAIMS, BACKED BY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. I PLEA FOR A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION – what PGS ASA policy promises. UK Police are disfunctional and have refused multiple reports/requests to investigate.
Duensing – Kippen has no verifiable / legal evidence of defamation by SDK. The 2019 claims have never been delivered to the defendant. PGS ASA through Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen deliver their claims in the Thai language to the home of SDK Thai relatives and not his legal address. PGS ASA and Duensing – Kippen demand that I travel from USA to Thailand to address these legal claims when my publications have already provided evidence that PGS ASA bribes lawyers to pervert the course of justice. PGS ASA has been accused since 2016 of criminal conspiracy and bribing Watson, Farley & Williams (UK) and Landau Law (UK) to utter forged documents and engage in fraud to damage a USA citizen whistleblower. Duensing – Kippen has been aware of my claims of being a whistleblower since 2018 when Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited company secretary, initiated threats of legal action in Thailand. I posted then that I believed his threats to be blackmail/extortion. I continue to believe this today. Duensing – Kippen and PGS ASA have always ignored my claims that my publications were legal and protected. PGS has never followed the laws of England nor the UK company policy. PGS has never investigated my claims.
Their client is uttering forged documents that were used to support the illegal termination of a Tier 2 sponsored visa holder. PGS ASA and Watson, Farley & Williams UK affiliates have defrauded UK, Norway, USA, and Thailand government agencies. PGS ASA & Watson, Farley & Williams have misrepresented defamatory forged documents as legal documents. PGS ASA and Watson, Farley & Williams have also misrepresented protected public disclosure (whistleblowing) as defamatory in the Thai legal system through law firm Duensing – Kippen. I can prove it in ENGLISH. Translation into Thai language is wholly unnecessary misappropriation of resources by PGS ASA to deflect from their crimes commited under the laws of England. If what I have written in the English language is defamatory, why is it necessary for a UK company whose contracts are written in the English language governed by the laws of England to translate into the Thai language? How did Duensing – Kippen determine the published content was defamatory (untrue and harmful)?
USA FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS TRUMP A FRAUDULENT COMPROMISE AGREEMENT PROFFERED BY PGS ASA, A NORWEGIAN COMPANY, TO NEGATE TWO PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND PGS ASA UK AFFILIATE, PGS EXPLORATION (UK) LIMITED. BOTH SIGNED AGREEMENTS CONTAIN NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSES GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. BOTH AGREEMENTS ALSO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS THROUGH THEIR REFERENCE OF THE UK PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 1998 (PIDA). GLOBAL LAW FIRM, WATSON, FARLEY, & WILLIAMS UK AFFILIATE ADVISED ON BOTH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AS WELL AS ADVISING ON THE USA CITIZEN WHISTLEBLOWER EMPLOYMENT (TIER 2) VISA. WATSON, FARLEY, & WILLIAMS ALSO HAVE OFFICES IN THAILAND. WHY ISN’T PGS ASA USING WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS TO ADVISE ON THEIR CRIMINAL THAI DEFAMATION CASES?
SINCE 2016, SDK HAS PUBLISHED DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS THAT WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS AND PGS ASA WERE INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO UTTER FORGED DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT AN ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF A FOREIGN WORKER WHISTLEBLOWER. PUBLISHED DOCUMENT EVIDENCE ALSO SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS THAT SDK COUNSEL MISREPRESENTED THEIR CLIENT – ME – AND ALSO WERE BRIBED TO UTTER FORGED DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT A DEFAMATORY FALSE PRETENSE FOR THE TERMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WATSON, FARLEY, & WILLIAMS HAS BEEN DRIVING THE ILLEGAL PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CHARGES AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER SDK TO ILLEGALLY FORCE THE DEPUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE (DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE) SHOWING WATSON, FARLEY AND WILLIAMS, PGS ASA, LANDAU LAW (FORMERLY LZW SOLICITORS, LONDON). PGS ASA AND WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS HAVE ENLISTED THAI LEGAL FIRM DUENSING – KIPPEN TO PROSECUTE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND TO BLACKMAIL AND EXTORT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND HIS THAI FAMILY INTO SILENCE.
DUENSING – KIPPEN CASE IS BASED ON FRAUD AND FORGERIES. THE TRANSLATION OF PUBLICATIONS FROM ENGLISH TO THAI DEMONSTRATES THE CORRUPTION AND IDIOCY OF PGS ASA AND WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS BOARD OF DIRECTORS’. PGS ASA; WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS; AND LANDAU LAW ARE COMPANIES GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND.
THAI LEGAL FIRM DUENSING – KIPPEN IS REPRESENTING COMPANIES GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND AND DOES NOT POSSESS THE LEGAL AGENCY TO BREACH ENGLISH LAW AND CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS.
PGS ASA, WATSON, FARLEY & WILLIAMS, AND LANDAU LAW HAVE NEVER EXERCISED CONTRACTUAL PROTECTIONS FOR DISPARAGEMENT CONTAINED IN CONTRACTS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND BECAUSE ANY LITIGATION CITING THE LAWS OF ENGLAND WOULD REVEAL THEIR PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND DEFAME A USA CITIZEN HEALTH AND SAFETY WHISTLEBLOWER.
There is very little for any whistle blower to gain from deception and distortions. By action and words, several concerns have been presented with supporting evidence.Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Capital Markets (25-Jul-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. They show-up in first page results to Google™ searches associated with PGS CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (8-May-2016)
A fair and thorough investigation addressing a whistleblowing claim is my legal right under English law and contract. Such a request is not defamation. PGS ASA (PGS) has been defrauding and defaming me since before June 2013. There has been a continuum of perverting the course of justice with the malicious intent to harm me and my family physically and financially. PGS’ behaviors have been cruelly abusive and illegal. Thus, the collective silence of the abusers. And PGS and several of its corrupt agents know it. This is why PGS has had to bribe lawyers and other internal and external personnel to manipulate the fair legal processes owed me under law and contract. Through bribing lawyers, avenues of legal redress are obstructed. Victims of PGS ASA et al. crime and abuse cannot find justice – easily. Just as shameful has been the (alleged) illegal acts conducted on PGS’ behalf by co-conspirator, law firm Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW). The most relevant document for all the lawyers mentioned within my blog post articles is to explain the 25 October 2013 Memo signed by (then) PGS EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes and PGS SVP Global HR Terje Bjølseth.I believe that PGS and WFW owe me hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of (USA) dollars for their breaches in contract along with fraud, perverting the course of justice, and other illegal acts. Likely several PGS and WFW executives should go to prison too. The police need to take white-collar crime more seriously. Dysfunction and apathy destroys victims lives. The stakes are high. My initial whistleblowing claim was made in June 2013. Most every personnel and personal action taken by PGS to respond to my whistleblowing has been wrapped in illegal conspiracy. PGS and WFW have knowingly defrauded UK and Norway government agencies. This is why principals PGS and WFW refuse to detail the documentation supporting their decision making process. However, PGS ASA Capital Markets investors must demand a thorough investigation and audit as part of their fiduciary duties they own their stakeholders.
The vantage point of time-passed and actions taken has allowed me to construct the breadth of the deceitful cruel and illegal actions taken against me and my family. I have not been a quiet victim of PGS and WFW crimes. Since I first became aware of PGS’ nefarious and illegal behaviors, I have shared it publicly through blog post articles. My first blog post article which named names was published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform (LI) 3 July 2015. PGS and WFW continued to defame me through their choosing not to invoke the non-disparagement (Confidentiality) terms and conditions within the employment contract and subsequent termination settlement contract which rests at the center of my blog posts. Instead guilty parties and/or their enablers anonymously make their false claims of defamation to LI administrators. PGS and WFW did not want to address the published content and claims within my blog post articles in a courtroom. PGS and WFW did not want to clarify or correct the content and claims. PGS and WFW wanted my voice silenced and the content and claims de-published because they were fact-based whistleblowing exposing corruption. In August 2016, I was restricted from LI. The social media network for professionals was unintentionally (we hope) aiding and abetting corruption through restricting my account that published protected published disclosure and credible allegations of criminal activity. PGS and WFW never had to address my publications as whistleblowing which is protected within the Confidentiality clauses of both contracts. WFW formed these contracts on behalf of PGS’ UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK). Following my restriction from publishing on LI, I continued publishing content on my own dedicated website, nopgs.com (NO Psychopaths in Geo-Services). I also started using Twitter™ to publish my whistleblowing claims and to link/direct users to more detailed articles with evidence of PGS/WFW wrong-doing published on nopgs.com.
Throughout 2016, I tried multiple times to contact the PGS Compliance Hotline to voice my concerns, but never received a response. I also contacted WFW risk and compliance and received similar stonewalling. PGS further defamed me to the entire LI community through stating that they carried out a thorough investigation when they never did. I am certain of this because I know the facts. I am the subject of my personal data. I know exactly what happened. By this time, I had determined that both PGS and WFW, including compliance, were corrupt and vested in a cover-up. It also began to be clear that my legal counsel, Philip Landau with employment law firm Landau, Zeffertt and Weir Solicitors (LZW), had also been compromised. In other words, in actuality, I had had no real legal representation for my grievance – which met the criteria for whistleblowing – with PGS. WFW represented their client and my employer, the PGSUK in an illegally rigged settlement negotiation process that bypassed my legally guaranteed rights under English employment laws. With WFW guidance, PGS bypassed legally guaranteed grievance process steps as well as precautions for stressed employees, as I had stated that I was. The most significant aspect of being the mark of a conspiracy to defame and defraud in retaliation for my June 2013 whistleblowing was the fact that I was a USA citizen employed through PGSUK sponsorship of my Tier 2 visa. With all of my avenues of legal recourse compromised, the cabal was able to gaslight and break English laws with relative ease. This was all premeditated perverting the course of justice and fraud with the knowledge that such action harmed the health and safety of their target of abuse. The objective of my online publications have been to provoke PGSUK into exercising the terms and conditions of my original employment contract and especially the termination settlement agreement contract which was the outcome of the rigged negotiations between PGS, WFW, and LZW which were predicated on forged defamatory documentation.
Also, I had always wanted to go through the legal grievance process. PGSUK offered the settlement to avoid the grievance process. The underlying performance issues were never substantiated by any process or documentation and were in fact the basis for my grievance in the first place.My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial ( 8 November 2016 updated 9 April 2017 )
The mob exists in a make-believe world and then makes their decisions based on the fabricated self-delusion that they do not. PGS executives say that they have core values, but they do not apply them to their decisions. PGS executives say that their health and safety statistics are above industry standard, but they suppress and remove health and safety concerns from consideration and publication.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)
My publications have provided e-mail and other evidence supporting my allegations. PGS, WFW and LZW have publically misrepresented my whistleblowing, which was always legal and protected public disclosure within the definition of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), to be defamation. PGS, WFW and LZW are all aware of this and that is why no legal action has ever been taken under the laws of England that governed my employment contracts. In September 2018, the directors of the PGS UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK), 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK); Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO; Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant, along with former secretary and PHS UK Head of Legal, Carl Richards, delivered criminal defamation claims to the house where I lived in Thailand. I was not there. I had just left Thailand for the United States (US) and was not able to receive the claims in person until I returned (earlier than planned) in October 2018. That’s right, a multinational marine geophysical service company based in Norway with affiliate offices located around the world believes that I have damaged the company and its agent’s reputations to a criminal level – in Thailand? Over three years since my initial publications on LI had passed, PGSUK and Carl Richards delivered summons and criminal charges of defamation while I traveled abroad. PGS does not list any offices in Thailand. On the other hand their legal representation in my case, global legal firm WFW, does have an office in Bangkok, Thailand. However, WFW has never threatened any legal action against me in spite of the fact that WFW has been mentioned in several of my articles. A different legal firm, Duensing Kippen – Attorneys & Arbitrators is representing PGS interests in Thailand.
Since July 2015 my published articles have been intended to alert PGS stakeholders of these risks. PGS has a legal department that employs lawyers whose responsibility is to review PGS business contracts and ensure that they do not expose the company to excessive risks. It is my belief that PGS’ inability to resolve contractual issues within the constraints of jurisdictional clauses exposes corrupt and incompetent management and is therefore a significant capital markets risk. Both the original contract of employment and the termination settlement contract are governed by the laws of England. Further, WFW was involved in forming the terms and conditions of the original contract of employment, assisting in the Tier 2 visa application and approval process, as well as the eventual settlement agreement which I claim is a fraudulent instrument predicated on forged and defamatory documents. PGS and WFW have refused multiple requests to confirm that the same documentation used to obtain the Tier 2 visa was also used to form the terms and conditions of the termination settlement contract agreement? Both of the legal contract agreements between PGSUK and myself were advised by WFW. Only the original employment contract and the termination settlement contract agreement bare my countersignature. All of the other personnel file documentation are signed by HR personnel and not my immediate supervisor.
This begs the question as to how did WFW ensure the accuracy and legitimacy of the signed termination settlement contract? And also, how can their be criminal defamation claims in Thailand and no breach in the non-disparagement terms and conditions in either one of the contracts governed by the laws of England? WFW is a global law firm with office in both England and Thailand. WFW advised on both the original employment contract and subsequent termination contracts which both contained Confidentiality clauses citing PIDA protections. So, how has WFW advised PGSUK in their legal actions in Thailand with firm Duensing-Kippon (DK)? The compromise agreements that I was forced to sign under threat of prosecution for criminal defamation in Thailand bypass the WFW advised legal agreements formed under the laws of England. WFW certainly should be advising PGSUK in their Thailand legal actions. WFW has never been included directly in the “legal notices” sent to me in Thailand by DK. Why not? DK is essentially being used to disassemble WFW advised agreements and take the dispute out of the legal jurisdiction of England and into Thailand. This benefits all conspirators, most notably PGS and WFW. PGSUK, an English company, is investing significant resources to stay out of the English legal system. I cannot see how this is legal under the Companies Act 2006 or English contract law. PGS, WFW, and DK remain silent, as does LZW (now Landau Law) who was supposed to represent my interests from October – December 2013.
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.What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017) p128-129
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)
Where does DK get its legal agency to bypass agreements formed under the laws of England? DK is an agent of PGSUK, an English company governed by the laws of England. DK cannot assume authority to break the laws of England or legal agreements that PGSUK does not legally possess as a principal. DK can only legally exercise the legal authority possessed by PGSUK. This is why I regard the legal actions being taken against me and my family in Thailand to be fraudulent. Further, there remain several pertinent unanswered questions by WFW, PGS, and LZW. How can a “poor performing employee” be legally sponsored and employed on a Tier 2 visa? WFW advised PGSUK on my Tier 2 sponsorship and reviewed all documentation submitted to the UK Border Agency in both 2010 and again in July 2013 for the visa renewal. The other question is how was the personnel file documentation establishing “performance issues” articulated within the PGSUK 24 July 2013 letter (signed by David Nicholson) vetted for process compliance, accuracy and legality? The opening negotiations by PGSUK by their representative WFW counsel, stated:
WFW has no authority nor qualified privilege to assess my performance as a Tier 2 visa sponsored employee of PGSUK. Without credible and compliant process documentation, WFW is defaming and defrauding me on behalf of PGSUK. And my counsel, LZW, is allowing this to happen? Similarly, the 24 July 2013 letter which was the predicate for my subsequent filing of a workplace grievance 20 September 2013 is defamatory as well. Without credible and compliant process documentation, PGSUK (i.e., directors and secretary) is defaming me because malicious prose also have no qualified privilege. Further, PGSUK have no direct knowledge of my work performance. I worked for no director nor secretary directly. My immediate supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, PGS Marine Contract, VP Contract Sales – Africa, has not signed any of the pertinent documentation, nor has the subject of any performance reviews, me! Even von Abendorff would not possess qualified privilege if their were malicious intent, such as bullying and mobbing an employee that they supervise to escape accountability for misconduct. PGS, aided by WFW, LZW and DK, have illegally weaponized the human resources department through the misuse of employment lawyers. Lawyers involved within my dispute with PGS have not performed their legally prescribed duties to their ability, but rather advanced a false narrative to protect PGS ASA. Lawyers involved in my case with PGS ASA have uttered forged documents lauding a defamatory narrative. The central question is what would motivate lawyers to behave this way?
When I eventually did deliver my formal grievance complaining of workplace bullying and harassment, along with multiple departures from PGSUK policy and UK contract and employment laws, I cited that the three principal bullies were, in fact, behaving with arbitrary caprice.Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018) p112-118
I have not received any requests to stop publishing my pieces by anyone, including those within PGS. The simple truth is that what I have published is indeed true. I know it. Many know it. As time passes and the truth is no longer disputed what will remain, at the very least, is a chronological record of non-action and apathy by PGS executives.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)
There is no normal legal pathway that could describe how a contract dispute governed by the laws of England would be finally resolved within the Thai criminal justice system. The principal reason that contracts define legal jurisdiction and applicable laws is so parties of a a contract can plan and understand the rules of resolution if breaches occur. Settlement agreements are very binding. The laws of England are remarkably different then the laws of Thailand. Why would PGS ASA consider them interchangeable? I have for several years disputed the legality of the termination settlement contract agreement that was signed by myself and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY [PGSUK] 5 December 2013. This contract is governed under the laws of England. I cannot force PGS Exploration (UK) Limited to invoke contractual terms and conditions which are designed to protect parties from publishing disparaging content about the other party. I cannot not be blamed for their collective apathy and negligence.
What was the point of the inclusion of such non-disparagement clauses? PGS ASA has never challenged public accusations of non-compliant and/or criminal acts of named PGS agents, most notably their former CEO and President, Jon Erik Reinhardsen. PGS ASA has never financed an investigation that would absolve themselves. PGS ASA has also never cited the public disclosures as a breach of contract. Instead, new litigation that bypasses the terms and conditions of currently enforceable agreement is initiated in Thailand? PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, and PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas, both refuse to explicitly confirm whether such litigation in Thailand is legal and/or compliant under the laws of England. PGS ASA could litigate under the Laws of England and exonerate themselves. The UK Companies Act 2006 makes it clear that it is the fiduciary duty of company directors (and secretary) to both follow English law as well as protect the company brand and reputation. There simply cannot be any criminal defamation in Thailand without their first being a breach by the other party of the Confidentiality terms and conditions of a contract governed by the laws of England.
I believe that John “Fraudster” Francas, newly appointed Head of Legal, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK), is a liar, cheater, and fraudster. I believe Francas is a mercenary with legal credentials being paid and misused by corrupted interests to obstruct justice. Francas knows what he is doing. If Francas believes my claims are defamatory, then I implore him to make his legal case.John Francas, Arbitrary and Capricious, Head of Legal, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (21 July 2018)
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)