Case Reference: IC-44927-G3W4
Alan Zeffertt <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrew Weir <email@example.com>,
Carl Richards <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Holly Rushton <HollyHobson@bdbf.co.uk>,
John Francas <email@example.com>,
Landau Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Rhodri Thomas <email@example.com>,
Tippaya Moonmanee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
|date:||Jan 24, 2021, 7:00 PM|
|subject:||ICO Complaint 1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4|
Complaint Regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Law SDK Personal Data Processing
According to a quick Google search, the Information Commissioner is an independent official appointed by the Crown. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) mission is to “uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”.
These information rights are articulated within the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) seven key principles:
- Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
- Purpose limitation.
- Data minimisation.
- Storage limitation.
- Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to work in England with data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. The employment contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was/is governed by the laws of England.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed SDK personal data to (a) confirm that a foreign worker met the criteria to legally work in England, and (b) maintain legal records regarding SDK work in England. In the case of SDK, this data is mutually dependent. The data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processes must simultaneously satisfy both of these legal requirements. The data subject, SDK, has shown with evidence that it doesn’t. But, ICO does not hold PGS Exploration (UK) Limited accountable.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing illegal personal data for SDK, which is a violation of GDPR Principles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Put simply, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is actively engaged in the illegal uttering of forged documents that were used to defraud and illegally terminate SDK from employment, but also defraud UK immigration (UK Border Agency), USA immigration, and Thailand immigration. ICO has provided no support in rectifying PGS Exploration (UK) Limited criminal violations of GDPR principles.
ICOs RESPONSIBILITY is to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited subject data processing as compliant to GDPR principles. ICOs failure to confirm data controller compliance has contributed to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited violence and human rights abuses against foreign-worker whistleblower, SDK.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is also actively defrauding ICO. The tragedy is that ICO is so dysfunctional that they seem unable to detect or remedy what should be simple to detect data controller violations and protect the human rights of data subjects as well as the vested interests of the UK government.
ICO fails at their core objective mandate for existence to protect the rights of data subjects. ICO failures have contributed to the damage inflicted on SDK and his family by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegal subject data processing practices.
SDK is a professional data processor and analyst. SDK also has received formal training and certification in auditing compliance for ISO 9001 Quality Management System standard. SDK has also carried out several ISO 9001 internal compliance audits and also OHSAS 18001 Health and Safety compliance audits. Auditors do not annotate compliance, they validate compliance. In other words, auditors do not care if the auditiee says their processes are compliant because it is meaningless. Auditors look at the requirements and validate compliance from the data which supports or subtracts from the objective requirements for compliance. Auditors generally do not have intimate knowledge of the processes that they audit or even the industry. This allows auditors to focus on the documentation and data to determine process compliance.
Data subjects have neither the power, authority nor resources to compel data controller compliance to GDPR principles and ensure that personal data is being properly processed. This responsibility and authority is given to ICO. SDK has no idea what processes ICO caseworkers follow to assess data controller compliance to GDPR principles intended to protect the rights of data subjects.
What SDK does know with absolute certainty through supporting data is that ICO has been unable to protect SDK personal data integrity and human rights.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited endured no reprisal for their exposed DPA violation. ICOs failure to address what SDK understands to be UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) violations in 2014 (early 2015) was the predicate for multiple reports submitted to ActionFraud (police) and the impetus behind SDKs legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing – campaign.
SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014. SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was clearly, in the eyes of data subject SDK, in violation of DPA principles, which states that subject data must be,
- Fairly and lawfully processed;
- processed only for limited purposes;
- Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
- Accurate and up to date;
- Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
- Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
- Data is kept secure;
- Not transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection.
Legal documents are required to have a signature and date. A signature is the name of a person written with his or her own hand. It is a legal means of indicating acknowledgement of the document content. A date is necessary to show when the signature was made and therefore acceptance given.
None of the documents of significance being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited as SDK personal data have been signed by the data subject SDK. They are not legal and do not satisfy the first principle. The PGS Exploration (UK) Limited SDK data being processed could not be used in an English court of law. But, ICO allows PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has taken no action to defend subject data integrity. How is this possible? It is obvious that ICO processes are woefully inadequate and not protecting data subject rights.
Due to ICOs dysfunction and inability to stop PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued processing of illegal data formed to defame and blacklist from employment data subject SDK in retaliation for exposing PGS ASA (Norwegian parent company) and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited board of directors and executive corruption and criminal behavior SDK reported to ActionFraud (police) and embarked on blogging campaign publishing legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing (LinkedIn Pulse, July 2015).
SDK has subsequently submitted SARs in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The predicate for the submissions in 2016, 2018, and 2020 has been the contents – personal data – that was received from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited by the 2014 SAR. SDK was disclosing legally protected content intended to provoke a legal response which would expose, or force PGS ASA, to reveal the illegal subject data which. (The first online publication, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015) PGS ASA has avoided direct legal action in the UK court system and never cited the initial article or any thereafter as a breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions.
In 2016, PGS ASA did not respond to numerous PGS Compliance emails exposing PGS ASA corruption from SDK. PGS ASA also illegally deleted comments posted on the PGS ASA LinkedIn space. PGS ASA breached contractual confidentiality terms and conditions protecting whistleblowing through the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). PGS was legally and contractually obligated to process a whistleblowing claim properly or cite a breach by SDK of contractual non-disparagement clauses.
Contractual Confidentiality Clause:
Each member of staff also agrees that he/she will not, during the course of his/her employment or if any time thereafter either make or publish or cause to be made or published, to anyone is any circumstances any statement (whether of fact, belief or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Company or any of its directors, officers, agents or shareholders.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited wrote SDK a letter (22 December 2014) demanding that SDK stop communication with ICO regarding claims that their SDK data was non-compliant (fake) and cited that SDK was in breach of the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and would take legal action (blackmail).
Given your comments that you have been in touch with the ICO, we should be grateful for your confirmation by return that you have not disclosed any information to the ICO in breach of your confidentiality obligations (and that you will not do so).
In August 2016, SDK was restricted from LinkedIn through PGS ASA misrepresentation and mishandling of SDK personal data and not legally processing protected public disclosure claims per law and contract. PGS ASA provided no information to SDK following the 2016 SAR. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cited no breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions over multiple online publications exposing PGS ASA fraud and abuse. Thus, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited legal inaction is an admission that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory documents as SDKs personal data, as claimed within SDK blog post articles.
The 2020 SAR was focused on litigation that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiated against SDK in September 2018 regarding content published online which the data subject declared to be legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. SDK was forced to sign in Thailand under threat of potential 2-5 years imprisonment for each for two claims of criminal defamation two compromise agreement contracts governed by the laws of Thailand?
RE; Steven D. Kalavity
I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.
I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand. I have never received these.
I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.
I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.
SDK has contended that the litigation initiated in Thailand on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is illegal blackmail intended to depublish and destroy evidence of crimes committed against a whistleblower and his family, but also against company stakeholders, the UK Border Agency and even ICO whom PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has provided misrepresentations repeatedly.
If the accusations made through the 20 January 2021 e-mail sent to ICO is not protected public disclosure, then PGS ASA, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Law agents could all cite the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and sue SDK under the laws England. But, all of the co-conspirators remain fraudulently silent and take no action. Again, such inaction is an admission that the published claims of SDK that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory SDK personal data, which is a crime and violation of GDPR principles.
In June 2018, SDK submitted an SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited following the receipt of legal threats by email from Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary, while living in Thailand regarding online publications which SDK regarded as legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited requested that SDK provide them with information to confirm his identity prior to processing the 2018 SAR. This included a postal mail address in Thailand, SDK USA passport and Texas driver’s license photocopies.
In September 2018, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards (two separate claims) had Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen deliver summons to the address which had been provided to them by request to process the 2018 SAR. PGS illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to third-parties Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had never responded to numerous e-mails nor commented on the also numerous posted articles on SDK website, nopgs.com. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to support illegal litigation. SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were bound by the confidentiality terms and conditions of the original employment contract and the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract, both governed by the laws of England.
Both the 22 December 2014 and 16 July 2018 SAR response letters written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited referenced the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibit the publication of disparaging content. However, rather than PGS Exploration (UK) Limited citing a breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions (governed by the laws of England), PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiate criminal defamation claims in Thailand citing Thailand laws?
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England. But, more significantly, how could there be no breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions, but defamation under Thai laws? If the SDK personal data is not legal, then the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract cannot be legal. PGS ASA is trying to avert the laws of England. SDK was forced to sign another compromise agreement in Thailand to avoid two criminal and civil trials in Thailand.
SDK does not believe that the agreements signed in Thailand are legal instruments as they prohibit whistleblowing. SDK left Thailand 3 July 2019. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited / John Francas was made aware of this. Yet, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued to mail threats to the home of SDKs Thai relatives in SDKs absence. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited threatened that there was criminal prosecution and jail awaiting SDK if he did not appear in Thai court.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never explained how the litigation in Thailand that exposes the SDK personal data PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing are defamatory forgeries can be legal or what has become of the original employment contract or 5 December 2013 contract terms and conditions.
The 5 December 2013 settlement contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is not a legal contract because it is supported by forged and defamatory documents!
ICO needs to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited DPA/GDPR compliance. This must start with demanding that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited explain why they contend that documents which have several inaccuracies, are defamatory toward the data subject, and finally do not bare the signature of the data subject are legal.
If ICO cannot compel data controllers to demonstrate compliance to GDPR principles, then exactly what can ICO do to ensure personal data integrity?
Do your job, ICO.
Steven D. Kalavity
Criminal Pieces of Shit:
PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators
(WAITING FOR THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND CONFIRM)
- pgs asa
- pgs asa erna solberg
- pgs asa tina bru
- equinor board of directors
- equinor jon erik reinhardsen
- equinor pgs jon erik reinhardsen
- pgs asa board of directors
- pgs asa walter qvam
- pgs asa lars mysen
- equinor jon erik reinhardsen
- equinor pgs jon erik reinhardsen
- pgs asa rune olav pedersen
- pgs asa gottfred langseth
- pgs asa berit osnes
- pgs asa nathan oliver
- pgs asa rob adams
- pgs asa carl richards
- pgs asa ben kelly watson farley williams
- pgs asa candida pinto
- pgs asa john barnard
- pgs asa john francas
- pgs asa daphne bjerke
- pgs asa christin steen-nilsen
- pgs asa silke hitschke
- telenor silke hitschke
- pgs asa kristin omreng
- pgs asa terje bjolseth
- pgs asa sarah murphy
- pgs asa joshua may
- pgs asa per arild reksnes
- pgs asa david nicholson
- pgs asa simon cather
- pgs asa edward von abendorff
- pgs asa gareth jones
- pgs asa laura haswell
- pgs asa anna stokle
Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators
(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)
- watson farley & williams
- watson farley & williams pgs
- watson farley & williams rhodri thomas
- watson farley & williams neeta aulak
- em law london rhodri thomas
Legal Firm Landau Law / Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) Accused Criminal Conspirators
(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)
SDK hired Counsel and reason that I am able to publish so much content since 3 July 2015!
- philip landau law london
- philip landau zeffert weir lzw law london
- landau zeffert weir lzw law london holly rushton
- landau zeffert weir lzw law london holly hobson
- holly hobson london BDBF law
Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)
(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)