Case Reference: IC-44927-G3W4

cc:	berit.osnes@pgs.com, gareth.jones@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com, ir@pgs.com, kristin.omreng@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com, nathan.oliver@pgs.com, NAulak@wfw.com, olaf@duensingkippen.com, per.arild.reksnes@pgs.com, rob.adams@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, sarah.murphy@pgs.com, terje.blojseth@pgs.com, ActionFraud <contact@actionfraud.police.uk>, Alan Zeffertt <alan.zeffertt@anthonygold.co.uk>, Andrew Weir <andrew.weir@anthonygold.co.uk>, Carl Richards <carlrichards1@googlemail.com>, GDPR <gdpr@pgs.com>, Holly Rushton <HollyHobson@bdbf.co.uk>, John Francas <john.francas@pgs.com>, Landau Law <pl@landaulaw.co.uk>, Rhodri Thomas <info@emlaw.co.uk>, Tippaya Moonmanee <tippaya@duensingkippen.com>
date:	Jan 24, 2021, 7:00 PM
subject:	ICO Complaint 1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4
mailed-by:	gmail.com

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:

1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
2. Purpose limitation.
3. Data minimisation.
4. Accuracy.
5. Storage limitation.
6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
7. Accountability.

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,

1. Fairly and lawfully processed;
2. processed only for limited purposes;
3. Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
4. Accurate and up to date;
5. Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
6. Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
7. Data is kept secure;
8. 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

        GDPR

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.

Regards,

Steven

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.  

Regards,

Steven D. Kalavity

2.  IC-44927-G3W4

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)

• duensing kippen
• duensing kippen pgs
• duensing kippen tippaya moonmanee
• duensing kippen olaf

###

An Open Post to Former Agents of Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP

On 22 October 2013, US citizen and sponsored Tier 2 visa worker Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) formally engaged Philip Landau, then with Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors (LZW), a London, England employment law firm. LZW was contacted to advise on a settlement agreement that had been proffered by SDKs employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England, on 10 October 2013. Since this date, SDK has felt like a man convicted for a crime that he never committed. It has been hell! After months of terrible workplace mobbing abuse by his employer, SDK sought redress through his proceeding through the legally and contractually guaranteed grievance process. However, LZW decided not represent the interests of client SDK, but instead aid the abusers. (SDK could have never even imagined such evil back then.) The LZW agents who SDK communicated with directly and principally facilitated the confidence fraud were Philip Landau and Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson) who were professionally engaged as SDKs counsel through the eventual signing of a termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (10 October – 5 December 2013) [SCA]. The reason that SDK is able to publish articles disparaging his former counsel and employer is because the rendered SCA advised on by LZWs Landau – Hobson (Rushton) is an illegal contract supported by defamatory forged instruments. The conspirators were publicly exposed years ago (3 July 2015). Landau and Hobson have never advised that the online publications cease or denied accusations that they participated in a criminal conspiracy to defame and defraud their client. Landau and Hobson have remained silent. This is the main reason that justice has alluded SDK is because he never really ever had legal counsel representing his interests.

The voice of the lawyers involved with negotiating the actual terms and conditions of my termination were Philip Landau, from Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP, representing me and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) which was enlisted by PGSUK.  Every single one of these named individuals has a voice, access to legal counsel, and the capacity to respond and to clarify any of the issues brought-up in my posts.  The base argument is that no settlement agreement contract can be applied to supersede the legal provisions afforded to each data subject through the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).  The DPA does not allow inaccurate subject data to be fraudulently processed by a data controller, e.g., PGS. My contention, however, is that the aforementioned actors – and likely several others – have indeed conspired to accomplish just that.

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (22 June 2016)

Communications between SDK and Landau began on 10 October 2013. SDK had delivered a formal grievance to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 to initiate the formal grievance process. The grievance was prompted by an ambush meeting that occurred on 13 June 2013. SDK had wanted to submit a grievance directly following that ambush meeting, but was obstructed from doing so. PGS refused to provide minutes, or any firm record, of that meeting to SDK as a basis for the grievance. Eventually, on 24 July 2013, PGS delivered, through PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson, a letter, Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan. This ambush letter instead became the referenced basis for the grievance submitted 20 September 2020. The grievance had alleged the abuse of position, bullying / harassment, discrimination, and defamation of SDK mostly by three principals: David Nicholson, PGS UK HR Manager, Edward von Abendorff, SDKs supervisor and Simon Cather, von Abendorff’s boss. A grievance hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. On 10 October 2013 a termination settlement was proffered by the accused PGS perpetrator, Nicholson, to stop the grievance process, which SDK rejected. Following this, SDK did some online research, discovered and then contacted Landau / LZW.

In October 2014, I contacted Nicholson and Haswell to submit my SAR to PGS Exploration UK Limited.  I contacted Landau, just so he would be aware.  I also contacted Bjølseth.  There was a brief acknowledgement from Landau. Bjølseth basically confirmed and approved that Nicholson et. al would address my SAR.  I made it clear that I had many disagreements about my held subject data with the ICO caseworker, as well as with Nicholson and Haswell.  The communications with PGS ended in late December 2014.  Readers must understand that I knew immediately upon receiving my SAR data that something was awry. 

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14 June 2016)

Landau immediately recommended that an “enhanced” settlement agreement be sought, rather than continuing to proceed through the Company grievance procedures through conclusion and then possible appeal. SDK was motivated to extricate himself and his family from the health-harming work environment. However, SDK obviously wanted to do so with the most favorable financial and professional terms possible with his reputation and dignity intact. As a US citizen foreign worker, SDK had no ties nor interest in any prolonged battle or remaining in England. Reluctant to abandon the grievance procedures process, SDK paid Landau to negotiate the most favorable exit that he could, based on his experience and knowledge of UK employment law. SDK finally did act and place his confidence in Landau’s advice to negotiate the “enhanced” termination settlement agreement. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK felt that the garden leave and isolation from office acquaintances was disparaging, especially around the holiday season, but PGS offered to pay an additional month salary if SDK agreed. SDK would have never agreed to such terms and conditions if he lived in England and not been a sponsored foreign worker. SDK and family departed England to the USA on 24 December 2013 never completely satisfied with the outcome, but out of harms way. Or so SDK hoped and believed at the time.

following the initial settlement proffered by one of the perpetrators which SDK rejected.

Diligence, Negligence, and Gross Negligence

Through a network of bribed and corrupt lawyers / solicitors and human resources personnel justice have perverted the course of justice and denied their victim of violent crimes an opportunity to fight back. PGS, along with their contracted counsel WFW plus LZWs crucial assistance formed an illegal termination settlement contract through gaslighting lies and manipulation. The abuse of SDK and his family has continued through their illegal silence. PGS, LZW and WFW fraud, defamation (blacklisting), harassment and abuse has never ceased. Once in the USA, in October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to receive copies of SDK personal data that PGS was processing. This included SDKs PGS professional personnel file and several other e-mails. (Landau was made aware that an SAR was submitted. ) The documents processed within SDKs PGS personnel file bore no subject SDK signature and were inaccurate and defamatory. SDK sent several complaints to both PGS as well as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in charge of DPA compliance. On 22 December 2014, PGS sent by e-mail and post mail a letter signed/endorsed by Nicholson “clarifying” issues that SDK had discovered following the receipt of data that PGS was processing as SDKs personal data (extortion letter).

PGS did concede to amend SDKs personnel file documents by including one 5 December 2014 complaint e-mail into SDKs PGS personnel file, but threatened legal action if SDK continued his questioning of the false instruments PGS had already illegally processed. In spite of the double-speak within the extortion letter, placing the 5 December 2014 e-mail highlighting issues with the contents of SDKs personnel file was an amendment/change of SDKs personal data after the fact. PGS essentially acknowledged that PGS, WFW and LZW had processed inaccurate personal data and their solution was to correct it. This was also an acknowledgement that PGS, WFW and LZW has all conspired to defraud SDK. As a condition of signing the termination settlement agreement, PGS, WFW and LZW promised that the contents would be true and accurate. PGS, WFW and LZW all gaslighted to induce SDK to sign the phony contract. Obviously, LZW participation in the fraud was pivotal to its “success.” Records with no subject counter-signature cannot be verified for accuracy and would not be considered legal documents, except within this criminal conspiracy including corrupt lawyers and human resources employee’s. Most documents are signed solely by accused harasser and defamer Nicholson!

PGS did not address that their concession to amend SDKs personal data meant that inaccurate/false personal data had been used to process the termination settlement agreement (fraud). Nevertheless, ICO was and has remained satisfied with this “solution.”

A formal grievance had been delivered to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 and a hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. Landau recommended immediately recommended that he advise on negotiating an “enhanced” settlement agreement (payment) and discontinue the grievance process. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK and family departed England 24 December 2013.

Because of the binding nature of settlement contracts, there was little more that SDK could do, even though the entire purpose of DPA is to ensure correct data is processed for data subjects. In July 2015, SDK published some of these issues online the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform expecting that the Confidentiality clauses would invoke some response (legal action) from PGS. Nothing happened. In August 2015, SDK submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police). Neither ICO nor the police, to date, have ever thoroughly investigated SDK, claims. From September 2015 through August 2016, SDK published several more articles on LinkedIN™. SDK sent several complaints to PGS Compliance Hotline which were never answered. SDK also submitted several comments on the PGS LinkedIN™ space . These complaints were deleted. SDK even contacted Landau. Landau and Hobson (Rushton) were now with Landau Law. Landau and Hobson have never commented, but have essentially aided PGS in maintaining the false narrative. SDK believes that this silence and failure to clarify SDKs position is itself fraudulent and perverts the course of justice. It also confirms that Landau -Hobson were principle actors in the execution of a confidence fraud against their client. SDK, a USA citizen. SDK was denied due process under English law and contract. SDK was then sent back to the USA out of reach of English justice. This punctuates the claim of discrimination made against PGS. SDKs US citizenship made him vulnerable to such a confidence fraud.

Several e-mails between SDK and Landau-Hobson from 10 October 2013 – 5 December 2013 confirm that PGS is processing inaccurate defamatory data as SDKs personal data.orwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) illegally harassed and discriminated against a US citizen foreign worker whistleblower. To avoid accountability for their violent crimes against US-Thai citizens under their contractual Duty of Care, they bribed lawyers, Philip Landau and Holly Hobson (Rushton) to defraud and professionally blacklist their client, Steven Kalavity (SDK). On 22 October 2013, Philip Landua, then with Landau Zeffert and Wier Solicitors (LZW) was paid money and formally engaged to represent SDK. (LZW later became Landau Law to scrub evidence and launder the bribe money.) SDK was sponsored to work in England by PGS’ subsidiary in England, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY. The criminal conspiracy to defraud foreign worker whistleblower, SDK, was only successful because SDK was a foreigner. Through bribing SDKs counsel, SDK was effectively denied his legal due process. Everything that I am writing can be confirmed or denied by Landau and Hobson. Landau and Hobson silence is fraud. Every question asked of PGS through the subject access request (SAR) sent to PGS October 2014 should have been confirmed by Landau and Hobson. However, since Landau and Hobson were indispensable actors in the criminal conspiracy confidence fraud, they have never come to the aid of their former client. They have allowed SDK to be defamed and defrauded. Landau and Hobson have been accused of criminal acts formally since 2016. Neither has ever protested their innocence. So, why doesn’t UK ActionFraud (police) arrest them when they have never denied that they are criminals. The evidence that SDK has posted online since 3 July 2015 is irrefutable. But, it seems Sherlock Holmes inquisitiveness is only the thing of fiction in the UK.

Equinor should have addressed ‘significant’ problems in U.S. sooner -chairman (9 October 2020) – Norway covers-up their corruption and the PWC audit is meaningless. The same board that allowed the poor investments also selected Reinhadsen to be Chairman

• equinor pgs erna solberg
• equinor pgs tina bru
• equinor pgs jon erik reinhardsen

SDK was a foreign worker in a foreign land under significant stress from the hostile work environment. The health and well-being of SDK and his family were continually jeopardized by the illegal workplace behaviors, continual lies and gaslighting. Things came to a head 13 June 2013 when SDK entered into an ambush meeting hosted by HR Manager, David Nicholson and attended by SDKs supervisor, Edward von Abendorff and his supervisor, Simon Cather. An ambush meeting is essentially when corrupt managers abuse their power and without legal license nor evidence threaten a hapless target of illegal harassment and discrimination livelihood and defame them. Following this meeting, SDK requested minutes of the meeting so that he could invoke his legal right under law and contract to submit a grievance. The trio of criminals, Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff breached SDKs contract and perverted the course of justice by obstructing this legal right under law and contract. SDK needed something in writing since minutes of the illegal ambush meeting were withheld. Eventually, Nicholson signed and delivered an illegal letter on behalf of the Company on 24 July 2013 that similarly threatened and defamed SDK. The trio of criminal cowards wanted to escape all responsibility for their illegal behavior and PGS upper management aided and abetted in the fraud and defamation of a foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK did not work directly for Nicholson. Further, since the requested grievance regarded the meeting that Nicholson hosted and participated in, he would not have any qualified privilege. Similarly, the directors and secretary of PGSUK, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Candida Pinto also held no direct knowledge of my work and also held no qualified privilege. They abused their power to intimidate their target of violent health harming harassment through endorsing an illegal and defamatory letter that they ultimately would be accountable. The letters subject line, Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan was strategically named to obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right to submit a grievance which would have obviously revealed PGS breach of contract and defamation. The ambush letter scheduled a meeting for 11 September 2013. SDK had made his intentions clear that he intended to respond to the ambush letter with a grievance. PGS continued to illegally obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right under law and contract to submit a grievance. PGS never aided in the submission process as they are supposed to do. The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. On 13 September 2013, Pinto resigned as PGSUK secretary and Carl Richards assumed the role. From 24 July 2013 SDK had requested co-worker John Barnard to be his witness through the grievance process. Again, Nicholson made several attempts to obstruct the grievance process. However, on 20 September 2013 there was a meeting. PGS never provided any investigation report at the meeting. SDK delivered the grievance during the short meeting.

Again, PGS delayed. Nicholson was a named subject of the grievance citing bullying, harassment, and other contractual duty of care breaches (Health and Safety Act 1974), discrimination (Equality Act 2010), based on SDKs nationality protected class. Nicholson continued to be allowed to direct – or obstruct – SDKs legal grievance process. A meeting / hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. However, Nicholson – a named perpetrator within the grievance – proffered a settlement agreement 10 October 2013 stop SDKs legally guaranteed grievance process. SDK did not accept the settlement offer, but did decide to seek legal advice and came across Philip Landau. Landau immediately recommended seeking an “enhanced settlement.” Email records show that Landau (and Hobson) were provided with both a summary of the grievance as well as the grievance document with names redacted. Landau never requested a copy of the employment contract, which was predicated on my Tier 2 visa sponsorship and also included reference to the disciplinary and grievance processes contained within the employee Handbook. (This would mean not following the grievance procedures would be a breach of contract.) The grievance hearing occurred on 14 October 2013 by video conference with myself and Barnard in England and Cather’s superior, Per Arild Reksnes, and Nicholson’s superior, Terje Bjolseth both in Norway. No minutes or decision from that meeting was ever provided to SDK. Impatient, on 22 October 2013, SDK officially engaged Landau to represent and advise in the grievance – settlement process. PGS had never provided any Performance Improvement Plan, only the grievance process was officially initiated.

I have signed a settlement agreement, or “NDA”. Can I take my story to the media?

In most cases, no. If you have signed a valid settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause this would usually be sufficient to stop you from taking a story to the media. It is possible (and likely) that your ex-employer could sue you for breach of contract and significant damages if you did so.

However, as mentioned above, a settlement agreement cannot prevent you from reporting crime to the police, whistleblowing to an appropriate authority (for example a regulator), or reporting anything that had not yet happened at the time you signed the settlement agreement, for example if you have stayed with your employer and the harassment has continued.

If you are concerned about the validity or enforceability of a settlement agreement you have signed, you should seek legal advice before taking any further steps.

LANDAU LAW SOLICITORS

Settlement agreements are not legally effective unless the employee has received independent legal advice about it.

Ben Kelly lawyer DTN PGS Watson Farley Williams

Settlement agreement discussions and section 111A of the ERA 1996

Section 111A of the ERA 1996 provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.

Claims that relate to an automatically unfair reason for dismissal such as whistleblowing, union membership or asserting a statutory right are not covered by the confidentiality provisions set out in section 111A.

Neither are claims made on grounds other than unfair dismissal, such as claims of discrimination, harassment, victimisation or other behaviour prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, or claims relating to breach of contract or wrongful dismissal.

 Acas Code of Practice on settlement agreements

###