Norway Corporations Export Global Corruption that Results in Financial Losses
Norway’s Harsh and Violent Corporate Whistleblower Retaliation Defrauds Investors to Preserve a Low-Corruption Mythology
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England. PGS ASA know SDK is a USA citizen living in the USA. PGS ASA intentionally has Thailand “law” firm Duensing-Kippen deliver “legal notices” in the Thai language on their behalf to illegally harass and terrorize SDKs Thai Family. PGS ASA illegally copied and provided SDK confidential personal data, including US passport and Texas driver license, to Duensing – Kippen. This is illegal under US Federal law and US Texas state law. This is also a violation of the General Data Protection Requirement that does not allow personal subject data to be transferred outside the EEA. PGS ASA illegally provided this data to Duensing – Kippen. Duensing – Kippen has also illegally copied and used SDK personal data to stalk and track SDK travel and to obtain personal Thailand records. PGS ASA is also in breach of the Thai Agreement that states communications should be done by e-mail. PGS ASA refuse to communicate directly using the English language. Norway allows their corrupt corporations to breaks laws and export corruption globally.
Why does Norway allow their global corporations to break Norway laws?
The sole purpose of PGS ASA litigation in Thailand against SDK is to retaliate and “gag” SDK legally protected public disclosure under Norwegian, England, and USA law. The two contracts signed between SDK and PGS ASA England subsidiary already contain Confidentiality clauses that prohibit publication of disparaging material. The litigation in Thailand is an unnecessary waste of resources and also a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors. “Whistleblowing” is protected by Norway’s Workers Environment Act 2005 (WEA) and the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
Norges harde og voldelige whistleblower-gjengjeldelse bedrager investorer for å bevare en mytologi med lav korrupsjon
Notice of PGS ASA breach of Employment Contact (2010)
PGS ASA (PGS) is a Norwegian based company. SDK was employed by the PGS ASA subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY by contract governed by the laws of England.
The PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook (“Handbook”) forms part of the contract of employment and states that the laws governing the policies within the Handbook are those of England and Wales. Of special note is Handbook section 2.9 Confidentiality, [i];
Each member of staff also agrees that he/she will not, during the course of his/her employment or at any time thereafter either make or publish, or cause to be made or published, to anyone in 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, employees, agents or shareholders.
In this paragraph 2.9, any reference to “Company” includes, for the avoidance of doubt, all companies in the PGS Group and each member of staff’s undertaking to the Company in this paragraph 2.9 is given to the Company for itself and as trustee for each company in the PGS Group.
The provisions of this paragraph 2.9 shall be without prejudice to a member of staff’s duties at common law.
PGS ASA refuse to clarify nor address concerns regarding the “criminal defamation” litigation that they have sponsored against former employee, Steven Kalavity (“SDK”) using the legal system of Thailand
The legal actions PGS ASA have taken against SDK in Thailand are a material breach of the original contract of employment which is governed by the laws of England.
1. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company. PGS refuses delivery of legal complaints in the English. This violates the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730 that proclaims English to be the obligatory language for use in the courts of England where the laws of England are adjudicated.
2. SDK is a USA citizen who was sponsored and employed by the PGS ASA UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) in 2010 on a Tier 2 visa. The defamatory forged documents that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited mean that PGS illegally employed a foreigner. PGSUK sponsored the renewal of SDKs Tier 2 visa and dependent permission to reside in England 15 July 2013. Tier 2 Eligibility requires that the foreign worker have a job offer and Certificate of Sponsorship from a company that is a licensed sponsor in the UK. The company can only offer a job if the foreign worker will not be displacing a suitable settled worker. This means that employers cannot offer a job to a non-settled worker if it means that a suitable settled worker will be turned down for the job or made redundant. In other words, it would be illegal for PGS ASA to sponsor on a Tier 2 visa a foreign worker who could not perform his job at the expense of a qualified settled worker who could.
3. SDK has published content disparaging PGS ASA since July 2015 and never invoked the English contract Confidentiality terms and conditions. SDKs original contract of employment references Confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibit public disparagement of PGS ASA, any of its subsidiaries, agents, customers, or other stakeholders. There is no limit in time to invoke these terms and conditions. However, there are exceptions to these contractual prohibitions. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) 43B, Disclosures qualifying for protection. In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following:
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,
(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,
(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,
(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,
(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, o
(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed
4. SDK first published content online July 2015. PGS inaction means that they do not have a valid defamation claim, even if the published material were defamatory. The Limitation Act 1980
(4A)Time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood. The time limit under section 2 of this Act shall not apply to an action for—
(a)libel or slander, or (b)slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, but no such action shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrues.
5. PGS Exploration is an English company following the laws of Thailand? Under English law, there is not criminal defamation. Criminal libel was repealed in the UK in 2010, when the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into effect and abolished the offences of sedition and seditious libel, defamatory libel and obscene libel. But the law still classes spoken or written statements about others that are not true as defamation.
The contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions are included to protect PGS ASA reputation. PGS ASA is illegally using the Thai legal system to retaliate, defraud, defame, and extort their victim of crimes and a whistleblower. PGS ASA corrupt actions are damaging the reputation and values of PGS ASA.
THE LITIGATION PGS ASA SPONSORS IN THAILAND IS ILLEGAL. PGS ASA MUST PROCEED THROUGH THR ENGLISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
How could PGS ASA Legally Engage Thai Law Firm Duensing-Kippen?
In September 2018, PGS ASA engaged a Thailand law firm, Duensing-Kippen, to prosecute criminal defamation claims against a USA citizen whistleblower, SDK, who was residing in Thailand. SDK became a whistleblower while working for the PGS ASA UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, from September 2010 through December 2013 by sponsorship contract governed by the laws of England. SDKs employment was terminated through a settlement contract. The contract was signed 5 December 2013, but was not executed until SDK had been reimbursed for relocation costs to the USA. SDK nationality was a significant issue and impacted every aspect of the employment contract. The Tier 2 sponsorship for employment of a non-EEA resident worker was conditional upon both worker and PGS ASA satisfying UK legal requirements. Both of the employment contracts contained Confidentiality clauses prohibiting the disclosure or publication of content disparaging to PGS ASA or any of its stakeholders. The legal remedy to protecting PGS ASA reputation is to invoke such clauses in a timely manner and minimize any damage. The exception to such publications are protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The principle here is that corruption devalues PGS ASA, while responsible and legal corporate governance is a value enhancer.How then would a UK subsidiary of PGS ASA governed by the laws of England be legally entitled to prosecute a criminal defamation claim in Thailand using the laws of Thailand?
The UK Data Protection Act 1998 allows incorrect or harmful data to be changed. PGS ASA did not allow any correction during negotiations and through their legal counsel, Watson Farley & Williams, withheld the subjects personal data being processed from inspection and allowing correction. SDK counsel, Landau Zeffert & Weir Law (now Landau Law) was complicit. This implies that PGS ASA bribed counsels to utter forged documents to defame and defraud a whistleblower.
PGS ASA also put a time limit on discussions which was undue influence and fraud. PGS ASA and complicit counsel knew that they did not have legitimate documentation to support the false pretense for the termination settlement contract. SDK was on garden leave until 31 December 2013. PGS ASA had time but forced a quick decision because SDK was contemplating withdrawal from the settlement talks and proceed to tribunal. SDK is a USA citizen and had already informed landlord of his impending move.
SDKs First Protected Public Disclosure Grievance:
PGS ASA has been in material breach of their ethical, financial, and legal obligations to investors and stakeholders to protect the company reputation since at least June 2013 when SDK was retaliated against for exposing non-compliant, unsafe, unethical, and illegal PGS ASA executive behavior. SDK was illegally terminated from his employment and also defamed and illegally blacklisted for submitting a formal workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. The submitted grievance met the standard of protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing as defined by PIDA. PGS ASA illegally perverted the course of justice and obstructed SDK from submitting the grievance. By sure will, SDK submitted the formal grievance. However, even so, PGS ASA denied SDK his legal and contractual right to proceed through a fair grievance process as outlined within PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook.Instead PGS ASA manufactured performance issues and proceeded to proffer a settlement contract to terminate a foreign-worker whistleblower under false pretenses. PGS ASA defrauded the UK Border Agency and SDK both through withholding any such concerns during the Tier 2 visa renewal process July 2013.PGS ASA and all involved counsel has refused to explain their actions.
The Abominable Narcissistic Management of Corruption and Breach of Contract to Harm a Foreign-worker Whistleblower
Norway’s PGS ASA has no interest in resolving the online publishing of legal and contractually protected public disclosure in a fair and reasonable way. At its core, the dispute SDK has been pleading for justice since June 2013. PGS ASA has been allowed through a dysfunctional and corrupt compliance system and the support of Norwegian government officials to protect the abusers and criminals robbing investors and destroying the value of state-owned enterprises, such as Equinor. If SDK allegations are true and resolved equitably through due process, then SDK is probably owed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of US dollars in damages by the directors and executives who participated in the fraud and defamation to silence a law-abiding USA citizen whistleblower. PGS ASA has been perverting the course of justice to avoid such legal due process. Thus, many PGS ASA directors and executives would be facing time behind bars for the acts which they perpetrated against SDK. PGS ASA has invested substantial resources to protect the corrulipt PGS ASA Board of Directors and management that defrauds and devalues company investors, employees, the oil and gas industry and even the Norwegian people. The Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance has no value nor utility if it is not followed and a small group of corrupt corporate elite are allowed to pilfer the wealth from law abiding citizens who try to play fair globally. Norway’s export of corruption is a terrible thing. As the extent of Norway’s corporate corrupt becomes better known and recognized, Norway’s business practices will not be assumed above board without scrutiny.
Silent Treatment is a type of Passive-Aggressive Abuse
The silent treatment is a common tactic used by covert narcissists and other manipulators. The silent treatment is a passive – aggressive power-game intended to control the targets behavior. The silent-treatment is a form punishment that aids the abuser to avoid responsibility and maintain control. Norwegian corporation PGS ASA is a very corrupt organization. PGS ASA had the whistle blown on them in 2013. A corrupt PGS ASA governance and compliance system has never performed their legal fiduciary duties. In fact, PGS ASA have done just the opposite! USA citizen SDK had worked for different subsidiaries of PGS ASA. SDK believes that PGS ASA defrauded, defamed, and illegally terminated him from employment in retaliation for blowing the whistle. PGS ASA breached the employment contract on multiple levels. Whistleblowing was protected and retaliatory actions against a whistleblower was illegal. PGS ASA also provided misrepresentations to UK Border Agency and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). PGS ASA has been very very naughty.
Since July 2015, SDK has published evidence and allegations online. From July 2015 – August 2016, SDK published whistle blowing articles on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. PGS ASA again breached contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions and never did their. PGS ASA promise to employee’s, customers, and shareholders, was to investigate the whistleblowing claims and take actions against corruption. Instead, SDKs legally and contractually protected public disclosure was misrepresented as “defamatory” and SDK was restricted from LinkedIn. SDK started website nopgs.com soon after this restriction and re-published content taken down from LinkedIn and also published new content. SDK also had tried to get the PGS ASA compliance office to do their job from April 2016 – September 2016 through sending several e-mails. From August 2016 – December 2018, SDK published legally and contractually protected articles online. However, in September 2018, PGS ASA and former PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, an company residing in England, lawyer and secretary Carl Richards filed “criminal defamation” charges against SDK while he resided in Thailand.
PGS ASA again misrepresented legally and contractually protected public disclosure as defamation. PGS ASA again breached their contractual terms and conditions with SDK. Under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand by PGS ASA and Carl Richards, PGS ASAs hired law firm in Thailand, Duensing – Kippen, extorted SDK into signing yet another compromise agreement while two other contracts governed by English law were in effect. SDK has challenged the legality of this contract too. Let’s cut to the chase. If PGS ASA defrauded and defamed SDK, then SDK is owed thousands, if not millions, of US dollars in damages. Those involved also should face prison sentences. PGS ASA has never wanted to resolve their complaints in the English court system. This is why SDK was harassed and persecuted by Duensing – Kippen. Only one person from PGS ASA has ever communicated directly with SDK about the online publications. This person is John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal. SDK is now in the USA and PGS ASA through Duensing – Kippen wants to resolve the issue through the Thai legal system.
SDK was apparently requested to defend his publication in Thailand 25 May 2020. But, there is no travel allowed to Thailand due to COVID-19. PGS ASA has remained silent since learning of this. But, more significant is that the only reason SDK has published so much content is that PGS ASA have refused to contact or comment on the published content. PGS ASA continues to waste and misuse shareholder resources so that they can escape being held accountable for their corrupt and inept direction and management. PGS ASA would demand that SDK spend thousands of dollars to face ridiculous charges in Thailand than actually write a damn letter explaining what exactly is defamatory within SDK publications? SDK does not publish defamatory material. SDK has evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Most of SDKs publications request a full police / third-party investigation. That is not defamatory. A victim of crimes asking for justice is not defamatory. And that is why PGS ASA want a rigged outcome from Thailand to absolve them of many wrongs.
Evidence of Fraud in Human Resources and Employment Law
LINKS TO REFERENCED IMAGES ARE APPENDED AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.
While I may not fully understand every detail of the actions of all the actors who participated in a conspiracy and confidence-fraud, explicitly carried out to harm me financially, professionally, and physically, I am certain now that London based employment law solicitor, Philip Landau, played a pivotal role. On 11 October 2013, I contacted Philip Landau who was then with Landau, Zeffertt and Wier Solicitors (LZW). My initial contact was through a comment section of a blog article which Landau had written. The reason why I had contacted Landau was that the previous day I had been offered a settlement agreement in response to a written grievance prior to a meeting with my employer. I was working in a foreign country and was not familiar with UK employment law. While I had experience in negotiating contracts, it did not apply to matters of employment law. I contacted Landau to learn more about my options. Since that day, I have invested substantial time and energy trying to understand how forged documents could become a part of my personnel file? I know that legal and fair processes cannot produce illegal and unfair outcomes. There is never a legal way to process forged documents that support a false narrative. The process to do this has to be illegal. It is not my nature to look back and reconsider decisions already made. At the same time, one should not blithely accept being wronged. Accepting one’s own bad decisions is fundamentally different than accepting being a victim of crime. I have always believed that I was a target of crime and even filed an initial report with UK ActionFraud (police) 24 August 2015 (http://nopgs.com/pgs-exploration-uk-limited-actionfraud-report/). Herein is my understanding of Landau’s significant role in carrying out those crimes.
The previous day, 10 October 2013, my employer at the time, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) had offered me a settlement agreement in response to a formal grievance which I had submitted on 20 September 2013. PGSUK is an affiliate of Norwegian based Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS). Because the grievance and presented document implicated high-level executives of PGSUK, agents of PGS had to be involved as well. A grievance meeting to discuss the points raised was scheduled for Monday, 14 October 2013. High level PGS executives chaired the meeting/hearing via video conference. In my view, PGSUK had offered me the settlement contract agreement to avoid dealing with the grievance. I rejected the settlement agreement offer and opted to attend the scheduled meeting. However, I remained curious about being offered the settlement agreement contract prior to discussing with my employer the points which were raised within my grievance document. I do not recall exactly which article of Landau’s I had read. Landau was a prolific writer and speaker on employment law matters and this had given me some ease of mind in contacting him.
According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) [http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/j/8/Acas-Code-of-Practice-on-Settlement-Agreements.pdf] , for a settlement agreement to be legally valid the following conditions must be met:
The agreement must be in writing;
The agreement must relate to a particular complaint or proceedings;
The employee must have received advice from a relevant independent adviseron the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on the employee’s ability to pursue that complaint or proceedings before an employment tribunal.
The UK NiDirect (https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/grievance-procedures) government services website states that grievances are concerns, problems or complaints that employees raise with their employer. There is no legally binding process that you or your employer must follow when raising or handling a grievance at work. However, there are some principles you and your employer should observe. An employer’s grievance procedure should include these steps:
A written and detailed account of your grievance.
A meeting with your employer to discuss the issue.
The ability to appeal your employer’s decision.
The PGSUK 2013 Office Handbook elaborated on similar stages:
As I alluded to earlier, I eventually did engage Landau as my legal adviser. I also let him have the reigns in handling my concerns. This decision subsequently resulted in my termination from employment through what I now have determined was a fraudulent settlement agreement contract based on fake events. In essence, a performance based termination replaced a much more serious claim of gang-bullying and harassment. My tormentors were spared accountability because Landau was a double agent who, while engaged by me, was advancing the interests of my adversaries without my knowledge. In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to PGSUK. In addition to several electronic communications, I received a copy of my PGSUK personnel file. What I discovered was that my personnel file records were comprised of forged documents (false instruments) supporting a false narrative. Since this discovery, I have embarked on my project, which has been chronicled through several blog articles published on my dedicated website (http://nopgs.com/nopgs-blog/), to reinstate my accurate personal data that supports a truthful narrative of events. The article which I believe proves that inaccurate data has been processed is The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016) [https://goo.gl/0tppdJ]. (It may enhance clarity to refer to this article, as well.) For most of these blog articles, I had been focused mostly on PGS/PGSUK actors. However, I now understand that I had been chasing the whiterabbit, so to speak. More recently, I have written blog articles implicating Landau, What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30-Apr-2017) [https://goo.gl/xDkj2n] and My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial (8-Nov-2016) [https://goo.gl/XfqmSI].
Initially, I provided e-mail evidence to representatives of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee DPA compliance proving that the data held within my personnel file was indeed inaccurate and therefore violated the DPA provisions. However, ICO could not help me. Over time, I came to realize that the real problem was that my legal adviser, Landau, must have agreed with the data being processed. What I also learned is that it is next to impossible to correct and rectify inaccurate data if it has been processed while overseen by a legal adviser. This is why the law requires employees to seek legal advice before signing such agreements. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that inaccurate data continues to knowingly be processed by PGSUK. PGSUK lied to the ICO government agency through forwarding the knowingly false information. It demonstrates that PGS/PGSUK lawyers, as well as lawyers from two firms with legal specialists in employment law have tied a difficult legal knot to untangle because all have no compunction about lying and cheating. This is not really so difficult a puzzle except for the fact that none of the lawyers who were involved are helping me unravel the crime and telling one bit of truth.
I have once again reviewed the 2013 e-mail correspondence between Landau and myself during our past business relationship. But, now from the vantage point of realizing that there was an illegal outcome. Landau had received a lot of information that could have been used to advance my interests. The first substantive communications with Landau were from 14-15 October 2013 following the grievance meeting/hearing. These e-mails are in images (a –g). At this point, I had not formally engaged Landau. Targets of confidence fraud may be inexperienced and anxious, and therefore rely upon the good faith of the con artists. Therefore, I was a good mark for such a confidence trick. Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is manipulated to favor the abuser. Targets of workplace gang-bullying/mobbing, as my grievance articulated, are already beaten down from the lies and manipulation. False information is presented by the con artists with the intent of making targets doubt their own understanding and perceptions. Fraudsters and abusers use gaslighting because they need to destroy their target’s sense of reality. They then are able to substitute their own alternate reality. For instance, they will tell their client that they will be in a stronger position if they depart the recommended stages published online for resolving workplace grievances:
Wanting to stay or leave determines which action
Employer’s prefer not to provide a decision to save face
Being proactive and not waiting for a grievance decision is advantageous
In retrospect, it is apparent that both Landau and PGS/PGSUK agents coincidently decided not to follow the publicly prescribed steps outlined for conducting grievances, or more importantly, those stated in the 2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook. Landau had received a lot of information from me throughout communications which lasted, in total, from 11 October through 5 December 2013. Landau had received a pdf copy of the 2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook soon after he was engaged by me. However, it appears as though Landau ignored all of the information that would benefit me. Through my grievance document, Landau had many things to consider. I see now that I was being lied to and manipulated on both ends. I was between a rock and a hard place, as they say. On 18 October 2013 I still had not received any kind of feedback from PGS/PGSUK with regard to the outcome to my grievance hearing. My witness that attended the meeting along with me had also related no feedback. I did not want to be unreasonable and seem to think I knew more than these seasoned professionals with experience in these matters. However, the workplace conditions were becoming even more unbearable and I needed to move forward. With all this whirling in my head, I contacted Landau and decided to pursue his recommended settlement agreement exit. (The con artists bet that I would.) In many respects, this was done against my better judgment. I had always wanted to actually go through the prescribed processes, but I was being counseled against it. At the same time, Landau had the legal agencyand responsibility to provide sound legal advice to affect a legal outcome before he was officially engaged.
I had read and believed that the most beneficial path to follow would align with the published recommendations. Also, I actually had waited and wanted a response from my employer. At the same time, I wanted to get the hell out of my corrupt and toxic work environment! These dual interests played against one-another in forming my decisions moving forward with Landau. On 22 October 2013 Landau stated to me that he had finally completed reading through my formal grievance and would make contact with PGS/PGSUK agents. I find this hard to believe. How would any lawyer give sound advice without some understanding of events? Why would both Landau andPGS/PGSUK align on these departures from policy and recommended steps from the very onset of any possible subsequent negotiations? I was told that there had not been any communications between Landau and PGSUK agents. However, there had to have been. Landau is making an assumption that PGS would not follow recommended practice before being in contact with them? How could any point of advantage be established in predicted settlement discussion without fully understanding the basis and merits of PGSUKs position? The e-mails are establishing PGSUK as behaving reasonable and also having a much stronger case. This is classic gaslighting and confidence fraud.
However, in a 25 October 2013 e-mail (image m) Landau states that he had finally communicated with PGS/PGSUK lawyers. I have inquired about the details and participants of this meeting from all parties. No one will provide any more information. This is a very significant e-mail and was discussed within the fore mentioned blog article [https://goo.gl/0tppdJ]as well as another one that preceded it 20 September 2015 [https://goo.gl/3Adilx]. But, I now believe that this e-mail is even more significant than I believed it to be when these blog articles were published. For one thing, the 25 October 2013 e-mail clearly contradicts one of the most important forged documents which PGSUK continues to process. Within my personnel file there resides a forged MEMO which is also dated 25 October 2013 said to be written to my attention. I never received this memo, as is made clear in many other communications with Landau. This is also the last item held within my personnel file, except for a copy of the final settlement agreement. It seems that this likely was a meeting to discuss how to set-up their confidence game.
The MEMO is said to be the conclusion to a grievance. (Of course, this document is unsigned by me.) The MEMO references an 11 September 2013 meeting, which never took place. I actually mention this meeting within a 24 September 2013 e-mail to Landau (image l). The MEMO also references a 29 September 2013 letter authored by me, which I never wrote. It does reference at least one true event, the 14 October 2013 grievance meeting. The actual 20 September 2013 grievance document, which was provided and finally read by Landau 22 September 2013 (image k) is not referenced in this forged MEMO. No lawyer’s or Human Resources (HR) personnel who were involved in the processing of the settlement agreement have been willing to comment on this MEMO. (This includes Landau, who represented me, and who was provided all of the accurate information.) The data controller, PGSUK, has refused to remove or correct this knowingly inaccurate data. Since this data is held within the PGSUK personnel file, this means that this was the data processed for my settlement agreement. In other words, fake data was processed and the real data was ignored, all with Landau’s direct involvement.
In this alternate reality created by a group of lawyers and complicit PGSUK HR personnel, there actually was an investigation into a possible Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) 11 September 2013 and I had no witness. Perhaps, I filed a (fake) grievance in response to this investigations finding by letter on 29 September 2013. The conclusion was given and therefore I sought a settlement instead. Was this my response to a fore go a written appeal? We will have to ask the fiction writers. But, the recommended stages for a grievance are fulfilled, more or less, within this MEMO. In hind sight, it is very likely that Landau had actually made contact with agents of PGS/PGSUK sometime between our first contact and the grievance meeting. He must have been recruited to the other team in the very early stages to coordinate the breaking of recommended protocols. Regardless, what I know with absolute certainty to be true in the real world is that most every document pertinent to my leaving employment with PGSUK is a forged/false instrument created to satisfy a false narrative.
What I have always known is that Landau was provided with the actual narrative and accurate information during our communications. This is why it took me some time to connect the dots and confirm in my mind that Landau was a double-agent. However, looking back through a different objective lens, Landau rarely provided substantive feedback regarding the information that was provided to him. Following 25 October 2013, I continue to provide Landau with more information to help strengthen our negotiating position toward that enhanced settlement agreement terms. Within a 26 October 2013 e-mail excerpt, I relate to Landau issues that I have read regarding my Tier 2 visa status (image k) and employer reporting. A 28 October 2013 e-mail (image o) has some personal information redacted. This e-mail states that there has been no communications regarding the grievance and affirms that the MEMO had never been delivered to me. This e-mail contains information regarding a visit to a doctor. It excoriates PGS/PGSUK silence in the grievance matter and makes clear that the reason I have chosen the settlement route was because of PGS/PGSUK intolerable inaction (as they continue to do to this day). The grievance document illuminated duty of care and health and safety issues, harassment citing nationality due to my Tier 2 visa status, breach of trust and confidence, negligence, etc. It was a critique of the abuse of positions through the misuse of the PGSUK “performance management system.”
These were the main issues that I hoped would be considered during the 14 October 2013 meeting and were not. I was especially hoping that they would be considered at some level during the subsequent settlement negotiations. I continued to provide additional information to Landau. Of course, all of this provided information was ignored. The MEMO had already stated the conclusion. PGSUK engaged a private law firm to handle the negotiations with Landau. This surprised and puzzled me somewhat. On the other hand, PGS lawyers were not really attached to HR matters. They were used in the PGS marine seismic contract business and I actually interacted with them frequently in my contract sales role. However, it was related to me that the initial settlement offer had been reviewed by PGS/PGSUK internal counsel. I now believe that enlisting a third-party unfamiliar with true events also allowed PGS/PGSUK to further disassociate itself from confusing statements. Landau would forward communications from Rhodri Thomas, who was with Watson, Farley and Williams. PGS had been trying to force me down a performance based termination for a while. Even so, I was perplexed with the initial e-mail that started the negotiations on 1 November 2013 (image p). However, PGSUK had never officially embarked down a performance based termination path. My grievance addresses this. I respond to Landau to clarify the misguided Thomas e-mail and opening to the settlement negotiation discussions (images q-s).
Nothing after the MEMO is held within my personnel records, except the final settlement contract dated 5 December 2013. The instruments pertinent to my termination are forged documents. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is not held within my personnel file. However, I am led to believe that the grievance is the foundation of the settlement negotiations. Therefore, what is most important to note within the communications beyond the 25 October 2013 date is that there is even more evidence that PGS/PGSUK have been knowingly processing forged documents. I could never really understand why PGS seemed to have a much stronger position at the table than reality would seem to dictate. It was because PGS rigged the game through controlling all the legal counsel. By doing this, lawyers outside the conspiratorial loop cannot see a tort claim because of the special ambiguous language that was used by all the experienced lawyers involved in the confidence trick. My questions, advice, or clarifications are never really considered. This is exampled within the e-mail exchange at the onset of the settlement negotiations. There were then delays between e-mail exchanges (images t-v). Perhaps this was done to suggest that there was consideration over my concerns. Maybe the lawyers did not want the discussions to become fluid.
Once I agreed on the settlement route, I began preparing to leave England and my position. In the 9 November 2013 e-mail, I relate this to Landau (image t). Landau was privy to my objectives and progress in terms of finding another job. What led to my submitting the SAR to PGSUK was my belief that PGSUK was actively interfering in my effort to seek new employment. Originally, this was what I believed to be the purpose of the false documents being processed in my personnel file. In mid-November 2013, I took a full week off from work because I was feeling ill from all the pressure the situation was bringing to bear on me. My immediate supervisor and the HR manager had scheduled a check-up for me with a third-party occupational health nurse. She did give me a check-up and provided a preliminary report. Landau was made aware of my health concerns, as well. When I received my personnel file with my SAR contents I inquired about this report, as it was not part of my record. The OHN was also made aware that I was involved in an ongoing settlement regarding bullying. I later submitted a separate SAR to the OHN. I learned that she had provided a report to the HR manager and requested that a copy be provided to me. I never received a copy while employed by PGSUK. This was also done while Landau was my adviser. Also, within a 28 November 2013 email, I inform Landau that my doctor/GP would be prepared to issue an unfit note to me so we could pursue the constructive dismissal route as another option (image w). Landau was very aware of the health effects from my current workplace and essentially did absolutelynothing.
Within the 28 November 2013 e-mail, I relate to Landau that with no real ties to the UK, my wife and I wanted to leave England with dignity. Most communications are regarding the tit-for-tat of certain settlement terms. Medical coverage was an issue brought up (image x), but PGSUK did not have to relent to anything, really. I also was very concerned about my professional reputation moving forward and wanted items created by individuals named within the grievance expunged. And of course, this was denied. At no time did I ever see my personnel file documents. However, within a 4 December 2013 “without prejudice” discussions, PGSUK and Landau assured me that PGS’ personnel records are its property and must naturally give an accurate record of all an employee’s employment history(image zb). Further, Landau related to me in a subsequent 4 December 2013 e-mail that it was his view that there is very little scope for further negotiations on the terms of the Agreement and that I could accept the current form or continue down the grievance route (image zc). The MEMO was a conclusion to the grievance. So, once again, how did false instruments supporting a false narrative end up within my personnel file? And why won’t PGS/PGSUK authenticate the records held within my personnel file if they were promised to be accurate the day before the settlement was signed?
I did not really even know about the DPA while employed in England. However, DPA provisions were mentioned within my employment contract. PGS/PGSUK management wanted me out of the office. I wanted out of the office – to safety. I signed the settlement agreement contract on 5 December 2013. While I was officially employed through 31 December 2013, I was placed on Garden Leave once the settlement was signed. I was in Weybridge, England, but not in the offices until departing flights Christmas Eve took me, my wife, and two children back to the USA. I had not lived in the USA since 2001. I had worked around the world with various affiliates of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA. In October 2014, I did not know how false instruments supporting a false narrative ended up within my personnel file. However, through my investigation and writings, and the responses from principals who were involved, these false records were processed to affect my termination from employment. Landau, as my legal agent placed a seal of approval on these knowingly forged instruments, and that is at least one crime, one of many that he has assisted PGS/PGSUK to perpetrate against me.
Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.
~ Sam Houston
Well when you’re down on your luck and you ain’t got a buck in London you’re a goner.
~ Gary P. Nunn, London Homesick Blues
I lived and worked in Weybridge, England with my wife and two children from 26 September 2010 until 24 December 2013. I am a USA citizen and was sponsored to work with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY (PGSUK), on a Tier 2 visa. I left Weybridge and my employment after being gang-bullied. I am now certain that I was also a target in a confidence fraud game involving my former employer, their contracted legal firm, as well the legal advisor whom I engaged. My Weybridge story is about a foreign worker who blew the whistle on executive non-compliance and corruption. I mostly wanted the harassment and bullying to end. At its core, this is a story about lies and betrayal in the workplace. It is a tragic tale about how easily co-workers will support, directly and indirectly, those with corrupt authoritative power. The herein mentioned professionals are trained and experienced and knew full well that their actions were evil, non-compliant, and illegal. Yet, certain employees were allowed to make the collective decision to bypass their company policies and national laws to aid and abet in crimes against a former colleague. These individuals conspired to carry out actions that they knew would cause me, and also my family, physical, psychological, financial, and professional damage. They decided to solve the executive corruption problem through bribes, forgeries, and fraud. They have continued to pervert the course of justice through silence. A self-entitled corporate executiveclass has positioned themselves above the law. They spend other people’s money to protect and promote agents in their syndicate from responsibility. This must stop and there needs to be a police investigation, accountability, and justice. Weybridge, and surrounding communities, benefit when all know that no one is above the law.
The first lesson that targets of bullying (and gang-bullying) need to understand is that the human resources (HR) entity within organizations which publishes and distributes company policies and procedures is part of the enterprise hierarchical power structure and not above it. In other words, if there is corruption and non-compliance, HR is usually an enabler because of their placement and authoritative power within the organization hierarchy. It is part of the calculus which toxic management understands. This is why too often targets of bullying find no relief, and often bring more harm to themselves, if they complain about harassment and bullying through HR. HR is weaponized to protect those in the upper echelons of an organization and not to police them. In well managed and compliant organizations, HR will follow policy and behave compliantly because top management demands it. However, harassment and bullying generally do not proliferate within well-managed and compliant organizations. Further, there is a substantive argument that harassment and bullying are corrupt behaviors in of themselves which negatively impact most every aspect of enterprise performance. Beyond this, workplace bullying and harassment is often antecedent to more consequential corruption. Because the misuse of the HR function is essentially sanctioned, targets of abuse can be robbed of income and then maligned in their industry without resources to fight back against such repugnant practices carried out in corrupt organizations. Justice can only really come from outside the power structure.
Also, one must understand that when they identify workplace bullies or bullying, they are also implicating weakness in the management practices and power structure. Enterprise culture permeates from the top-down. The company directors and top management are ultimately responsible for ensuring legal compliance within the work place. Directors must take reasonable care to support the health and safety of employees and workplace bullying and harassment are identified as significant workplace hazards. Directors can be held responsible for data protection breaches, defamation, libel and providing misleading information. The company secretary shares additional responsibilities with the directors (UK Companies Act 2006). If a secretary fails to ensure that the directors are acting properly in the conduct of the business, they could be held personally responsible. Further, the company secretary can also be subject to criminal proceedings if company funds are misappropriated. PGSUK is an affiliate of Norwegian based Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). The directors of PGSUK are executives of PGS who reside in Norway. The PGSUK secretaries are UK residents. Understanding the authoritative power structure in an organization is beneficial when confronting bullying and harassment in the workplace.
Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase. Charles
~ Caleb Colton
The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.
~ Stanley Milgram
My employment with PGSUK terminated upon my signing a settlement agreement contract. Such a settlement agreement contract is a legal instrument supported by HR records. Settlement agreement contracts are very binding and require those offered such contracts to enlist legal advisors. However, in October 2014, months after having left England, citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (SAR), I submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer, PGSUK. What I discovered was that false instruments supporting a false narrative resided within my personnel file. These were not disagreements of opinion, but documents citing events that never occurred and excluding events which did. This is a DPA violation. I was told that the PGSUK data processors (in HR) who were: David Nicholson, PGSUK HR Manager; Laura Haswell, PGSUK HR Staff; Anne Stokle, PGSUK HR Staff; Gareth Jones, HR Staff and Simon Cather, Marine Contract President – Africa. Nicholson was resolute about retaining these knowingly false – inaccurate – records and to continue processing them and even sent me a threatening letter telling me to stop my interrogatory.
I also went round-and-round with the Information Commissioner’s Office staff who oversee DPA compliance sharing with them e-mail evidence proving the PGSUK records being processed were false and inaccurate. The problem was the fact that I separated with a settlement agreement contract which was approved by a legal advisor who should have recognized that the instruments being processed were bogus and inaccurate. At the time, I did not really understand the depth and cooperation of the conspiracy behind my termination. I had thought that a spiteful HR manager, David Nicholson, had created these records after my termination. However, the dates indicated that this data was processed in forming my settlement agreement contract. The other error I made was that I did not think one’s legal advisor influenced the data being processed so much. But, in fact, their role is pivotal. Therefore, my legal advisor had to have been complicit in both creating the false instruments and processing them to affect the terms of the settlement contract. Because of this, ICO could not challenge the records or investigate PGSUK. However, this impediment toward truth and justice did not change the fact that the records were illegal. I had lived the truth and was not going to concede it to corrupt people and practices.
If you prosecute a CEO or other senior executive and send him or her to jail for committing a crime, the deterrent effect in my view vastly outweighs even the best compliance program you can put in place.
~ Jed S. Rakoff
Psychopaths are social predators, and like all predators, they are looking for feeding grounds. Wherever you get power, prestige and money, you will find them.
~ Robert D. Hare
Through the period of writing my blog articles responses (silence) from those whom I have exposed have been gauged. During this time, I have developed a better understanding of what took place. I know that the final outcome was illegal (forged documents). Therefore, stepping back and rethinking the events which preceded the settlement contract agreement being proffered in the first place needs to be explored. The reason that the outcome needed to be illegally altered must be a product of why the settlement agreement contract was proffered in the first place. I had submitted a formal workplace grievance implicating three principals, my boss, Edward von Abendorff, VP Contract Sales – Africa, his boss, Simon Cather, President Marine Contract – Africa, and David Nicholson, HR Manager, in non-compliant workplace practices that transgressed PGSUK policy and UK employment law. These actions included defamatory – untrue and harmful – statements and documents intended to impugn and damage me professionally and personally. Central to this grievance was the abuse of position and misuse of the internal performance management system to demote and terminate me from employment.
My grievance was researched and confronted these false claims which aligned to tactics used in workplace gang-bullying. My grievance cited events and data from the work group, referenced PGSUK policy handbook, UK employment law, and literature to demonstrate that I was being harassed and bullied in the workplace. I believed that PGSUK was in breach of contract in PGSUKs duty of care responsibility in creating a hostile and health-harming workplace environment (health and safety), as well as breach of trust and confidence because principals were departing from policy on multiple levels. The submission of a formal grievance was prompted by two key events. The first event was an ambush meeting. Following this meeting, I requested minutes of the meeting, how the meeting aligned with policy, and informed Nicholson that I wanted to file a grievance. I was denied all of these requests. I needed something in writing. Eventually, Nicholson prepared a letter which covered main points of the ambush meeting. However, instead of responding to me initial queries, Nicholson added a subject line, Investigation into possible implementation of a performance improvement plan (PIP).
Within the ambush letter, a meeting to discuss the highlighted points was scheduled for 11 September 2013. This is a very important date in the chain of events leading to my eventual termination from employment. Mainly, it is important to note that the 11 September 2013 meeting never occurred. It was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. Also important to note is that the majority of actions and behaviors referenced within my formal grievance predated 11 September 2013. The ambush meeting happened in June 2013, and the ambush letter was delivered in July. In between those two dates, PGSUK had submitted documentation to renew my Tier 2 visa. This is another key point. Both the ambush meeting and ambush letter presented defamatory and denigrating content impugning my job performance. Essentially, I was being told that I was incompetent. However, these sentiments were not presented to UK Border Agency, an official UK government agency which issued my Tier 2 visa based on the professional shortage occupation list requested by PGSUK so that I could continue working in Weybridge. This is why I noted that Candida Pinto resigned as PGSUK secretary 13 September 2013 and Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal took over in that role. So, who would be responsible for the PGSUK actions pre-dating 13 September 2013 in terms of complying with PGSUK policy and UK law? I never received any content regarding an investigation into implementing a PIP. I responded to this ambush letter in the form of my written grievance, 20 September 2013. However, lying to UK Border Agency as a means to employ someone on false pretenses is not appropriate and can be illegal.
Most of the evil of the world comes about not out of evil motives, but somebody saying ‘get with the program, be a team player;’ this is what we saw at Enron, this is what we saw in the Nixon administration with their scandal.
~ Philip Zimbardo
Good manners are cost effective. They not only increase the quality of life in the workplace, they contribute to employee morale, embellish the company image, and play a major role in generating profit.
~ Letitia Baldrige
The objective of gang-bullying is to oust the target from employment. Had I endured such workplace conditions in the USA, I likely would have quit and moved on sooner and not raised a grievance. The grievance cited my nationality as factor elevating the abusive workplace bullying behaviors to be harassment. My family was in a foreign country on visas sponsored by PGSUK so that I could work in their offices. It would not have been easy or cheap – or even legal – to just quit and leave. I was working on an employment contract. All parties had invested a lot for my family to be living in Weybridge. My Thai wife did not really like Weybridge weather, but did enjoy trips into London and also found a spiritual community at the Thai Buddhist temple in Wimbledon. Our family would take trips to Wimbledon several weekends while living in England. My children attended Manby Lodge and then moved to Saint James C of E primary school. The teachers and administration were professional, attentive and caring to our daughters. I was very grateful of this. We all enjoyed taking the train and seeing the sites in England that we journeyed to from Weybridge. So, my children especially have fond memories of our time living in Weybridge. I want to make it clear that it was a few bad apples within my workplace which displaced my fonder memories of living in England. Unfortunately, however, it was not only PGSUK professionals who behaved corruptly. PGSUK influence through misappropriated resources and lies infected others, as well.
On 20 September 2013, I delivered my formal grievance personally and through e-mail. The attendees of that meeting were me, my requested co-worker witness, John Barnard, Abendorff, and the meeting host, Nicholson. These individuals also were sent a copy by e-mail, as were Cather, his boss, Per Arild Reksnes, EVP Marine Contract; Terje Bjøseth, SVP HR, who Nicholson reported to, and John Greenway, SVP Marine Contract. Greenway often attended our groups planning and strategy meetings via phone conference from Lysaker, Norway and so I thought his impression and comments would be important and useful. Barnard had been privy to the several e-mails regarding the original 11 September 2013 meeting and rescheduling, as well. Barnard was the only one beyond me, and the principal three cited in the grievance, that was in the loop. I recall Abendorff’s surprise when he first read the grievance and learned that Nicholson and Cather were also named. I think that the three had prepared for me to complain about only Abendorff. This would have allowed them to contain and control things even easier. Now, Norway executives were brought into the resolving the matter.
A grievance hearing meeting was scheduled for 14 October 2014, a Monday. On 10 October 2014, Nicholson called me down to his office and offered me a settlement contract agreement to end my employment with PGSUK and forego the grievance hearing. I rejected the offer. However, I was made aware that I would require a legal advisor if I did accept a settlement agreement offer to end my employment. I was reading and came upon an article by Philip Landau and completed an online query prior to 14 October 2014. I have written about my initial encounter with Landau within the recent blog article, The Crimes of @PhilipLandau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30-Dec-2017). Within this article e-mail communications between Landau and his associate, Holly Rushton, and I are shared to show that Landau had been provided with accurate information that contradicts the contents held within my personnel file. Therefore, I have concluded that Landau and Rushton were not my advocates, but rather were compromised and knowingly forwarded forged documents to advance an illegal settlement contract agreement. This settlement contract benefited the corrupt interests of the named bullies, as well as the directors/secretary of PGSUK. These actions allowed corrupt PGSUK agents to escape accountability for overseeing a health harming workplace and breaching several PGSUK policies and even UK employment laws. Further, PGSUK also enlisted the services of Watson, Farley, & Williams, employment solicitor, Rhodri Thomas, to help facilitate this confidence fraud.
The trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide.
~ Hannah Arendt
In any society, fanatics who hate don’t hate only me – they hate you, too. They hate everybody.
~ Elie Wiesel
The creation and processing of forged / false instruments required that usual steps of due diligence and prescribed processing procedures were intentionally neglected. None of the relevant documents were countersigned by me. Many were not signed at all. None of the relevant documents were signed by my boss, Abendorff. There were no supporting documents to back-up the content. Mostly, it seems they were authored by Nicholson. These documents would probably not reach a legal standard for use in a court of law, which is the standard for HR records. Stokle had arranged the appointments between me and the occupational health nurse, which happened while the negotiations were underway. However, the generated final report was kept from me and was also not preserved within my personnel files. Haswell and Jones were discussing moving arrangements for me to move back to the USA while the negotiations were in progress. Similarly, Thomas, of Watson, Farley and Williams, did not check with individual’s who had processed my Tier 2 visa and note the performance based settlement did not coincide with a SOL Tier 2 visa requirement. Landau and Rushton did not even address my many queries on these topics. Everyone except me was seasoned and knowledgeable of the legal standards for legitimate personnel actions, but they instead followed the criminal lead. And this is why I was their target in the confidence fraud game.
Substantial weight is placed on my signing the settlement agreement contract. However, my signing the settlement agreement is a product of multiple misrepresentations and the withholding of information. There was a calculated effort to defraud me that all of the fore mentioned legal and HR “professionals” fully understood. Further, my assignment was in contract sales, and so those above me in the hierarchy understood the law of contract. Everyone who was directly involved in my ordeal knew exactly what they were doing was immoral and illegal. Now, they all have a vested interest in maintaining the false narrative. In one of my more recent blog articles, Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (28-Oct-2017), I liken these events to being the victim of gang-violence, where the guilt of everyone is known, but the rapists cooperate to keep the truth hidden. The impact of workplace mobbing on targets is documented to be devastating on multiple levels. The health harming aspects of workplace bullying was a point emphasized within my grievance document, which by the way, is also not preserved within my personnel record file. This is without the extra seasoning of crimes perpetrated on a target already dealing with living in a foreign country. What PGSUK/PGS corrupt agents have done is not inconsequential. The silence hides the seriousness of their crimes. What PGS/PGSUK constructed was a completely false claim to replace a more serious claim where directors and executives would be held accountable. Since my termination, many of the key actors have been promoted. No negative repercussions, beyond my blog post articles, for their robbery and assault of me and my family.
In a legal organization, thorough investigations would be carried out to determine if best practices, internal policies, and local laws were adhered to in forming a conclusion. At PGS/PGSUK no investigations and bogus conclusions are composed to form a false narrative. In a legal organization employees who departed from such practices demanded in their professional capacities would be reprimanded and possibly disciplined. Many of the described corrupt actions could warrant summary dismissal. That is not how things work at PGS/PGSUK. Within this organization, such violations are rewarded. Be a crooked general counsel lawyer overseeing legal compliance and screw up a simple settlement contract agreement and one can expect to become CEO! Others may be lauded within the Company’s responsibility report. Others will receive promotions and likely stellar recommendations so they may further their careers. Honest whistle blowers will have their careers halted and be blacklisted robbing them of income and opportunity. This is not the way it is supposed to work. Maybe many in the communities around Weybridge are capable and looking for an opportunity in an HR, legal, geo-science or IT field. However, the position they seek is filled by a criminal! Help me in demanding a full external investigation of PGSUK. It will improve the neighborhood. If you are or know a legal advisor who can remedy this situation, please e-mail: [email protected] .
Cruelty is all out of ignorance. If you knew what was in store for you, you wouldn’t hurt anybody, because whatever you do comes back much more forceful than you send it out.
~ Willie Nelson
“Truth” in Texas is topic sensitive. If you’re doing a business deal, a true Texan always stands by his word. There is nothing more sacred to Texans than their word, and they will do anything in their power to meet their obligations. But when it comes to tellin’ stories, the whole truth thing blurs quite a bit.
Why SDK believes that Philip Landau was Bribed and Conspired with PGS ASA to Defraud his Foreign-Worker Whistleblower Client with Watson Farley & Williams
Landau, Zeffert and Weir Law (now Landau Law) misrepresented a vulnerable foreign-worker whistleblower and acted as double-agents. Landau accepted money from his client, but participated in a confidence fraud game with PGS ASA and their representative counsel Watson, Farley and Williams (Rhodri Thomas) to allow SDKs employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, a subsidiary of Norway’s PGS ASA, to illegally terminate a whistleblower through uttering forged documents used to support a fraudulent termination settlement contract. Landau participated in the perverting the course of justice through aborting the legally defined grievance process. SDKs grievance met the standard of whistleblowing. Landau remains unaccountable for his egregious and illegal acts against his “client.” Landau needs to be investigated and punished to the full extent of the law. Philip Landau is a criminal piece of shit. Is this a breach of Landau’s settlement contract Confidentiality non-disparagement clauses? Landau has never tried to defend his reputation by contract, but instead deletes content and misuses search engine manipulation techniques to deceive the public. Landau has never commented, advised, nor admonished his former client for his publications. Landau has allowed the terms and conditions of his negotiated settlement contract on behalf of SDK (really, PGS ASA) to be breached and has remained silent with regard to PGS ASA extortion litigation in the Thailand legal system.
PGS ASA Board of Directors Breach of Duty
PGS ASA had been Aware of SDK Published Content as Early as April 2016. PGS ASA should have been aware upon the first published protected disclosure on the LinkedIn Pulse platform 3 July 2016. However, during August 2016, PGS ASA actively deleted SDK protected public disclosure comments from their LinkedIn comment space. PGS ASA had lied to SDK and never responded to non-public communications in a legal and compliant way. This prompted SDK to use the PGS LinkedIn comment space to voice concerns and warn stakeholders. Every deletion is a breach of the original employment contract signed between SDK and PGS ASAs UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Specifically, the terms and conditions of this contract allow publication of protected public disclosure as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Further, every deletion represents a defrauding and defaming of the whistleblower, SDK as well as the upstream oil and gas community. PGS ASA chose not to address internal corruption, but instead illegally retaliate and pervert the course of justice when their misdeeds were exposed. PGS ASA has demonstrated violent retaliation of a whistleblower and need to be held accountable to SDK, investors, and the industry!
PGS ASA Board of Directors Deleting LINKEDIN Whistleblowing Comments is Defrauding Investors and Defaming the Whistleblower. Why no Investigation?
Norwegian Corporate Executives have been able to Engage in Violent and Abusive Criminal Behavior toward a USA Foreign Worker Whistleblower and his Family Unabated by Labor Laws and Common Civility. The Norwegian People Deserve Better than to have Corruption Rob their Futures!