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

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

The Symphonic Utterances of Forged Instruments

The PGS Make Believe Events of 11 September 2013 – Boycott PGS

The Holocaust teaches us that nature, even in its cruelest moments, is benign in comparison with man when he loses his moral compass and his reason.

Samuel Pisar

Knowing what’s right doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.

Theodore Roosevelt

Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) (22-Jun-2016), in many respects, was the reiteration of past LinkedIn™ (LI) posts describing the corrupt management practices at the top of PGS.  I have publicly accused a list of PGS employees of workplace mobbing, conspiracy, and fraud.  I have further inquired: Why wouldn’t an innocent person with means defend their honor and character do so if they were really being attacked with false allegations?  It is my confident position that a workplace mob resolved on making me the target of abusive and health-harming behavior and professionally defamatory claims, orchestrated an illegal termination through highly unethical misrepresentations and false instruments to safeguard the workplace mob from responsibility, accountability, and liability.  I had relied on the PGS Code of Conduct and Core Values as a guide in asking for such unprofessional and health-harming behavior to end.  I wanted the Africa sales group to focus on the real objective of promoting PGS acquisition and data processing services for the betterment of PGS.  My allegations are supplemented with documented evidence.  The accused PGS mob personnel, even with (free) legal counsel at their disposal, have chosen to remain silent.  They likely hope that UK Action Fraud (AF) and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will continue to choose not to thoroughly investigate the matter, as seems too often to be the case.  PGS Compliance Hotline (CH) is a farce, as the compliance agents themselves are involved and complicit in the cover-up of the reported corruption and fraud.  

The core actors / perpetrators around my claims have been identified by name and position: CEO and President, Jon Erik Reinhardsen; EVP Operations/Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes; EVP General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen; SVP HR, Terje Bjølseth; SVP Marine Contract, John Greenway; Marine Contract President – Africa, Simon Cather; Marine Contract Sales – Africa VP, Edward Von Abendorff; HR Manager EAME (ret.) David Nicholson; Head of Legal (UK), Carl Richards; Legal Associate, Ben Kelly; HR Officer, Laura Haswell; HR Officer, Anna Stockle; and HR Officer, Gareth Jones.  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.  Substantial resources have been devoted to make me feel bad and look bad professionally.

The principal issue at stake throughout my ordeal, which began when I was a target of workplace mobbing, and has continued since my paid employment officially terminated through a negotiated (on fraudulent basis) settlement agreement contract at the end of 2013 has always been the truthful narrative constructed from accurate data.  This is highlighted within pasted excerpts from my grievance document shared in the LI post, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016).  The procedural and legal integrity of the PGSUK performance management system, along with its unsubstantiated and defamatory narrative, is what was always being challenged.  The proffer of the settlement was done to avoid the unattainable burden of proof to support any legal termination. The narrative and basis for settlement rested wholly on conspired executive mob fantasy.  While employed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Marine Contract Sales – Africa group in Weybridge, England, as a USA citizen on a company sponsored Tier 2 visa, my voice and accurate narrative was, and continues to be, deliberately suppressed.  Through a litany of abusive and unethical behaviors, my legal rights under contract were ubiquitously obstructed and subsequently denied.  This process to eliminate real events and replace them into a deviant functional narrative contrived of falsehoods is parochially referred to as gaslighting.  This mobbing, fraud and gaslighting was principally sponsored and executed by high-level actors within the Legal, Marine Contract, and Human Resources (HR) work groups in both England and the PGS corporate headquarters in Lysaker, Norway.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse which attempts to deceive someone that false events actually occurred, and that real events are false. Gaslighting is ongoing and requires some prior knowledge of the targets experiences. There must be a deliberate, dishonest aspect to be considered gaslighting.  In other words, there needs to be a lying.  Gaslighting is seen in domestic abuse cases, and in fact the naming of this psychological phenomena is derived from the 1944 movie Gaslight.  In the movie a woman’s husband slowly manipulates her into believing that she is going insane.  The husband does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people. He does not allow his wife to go out or see visitors, especially past acquaintances who might provide her help and support.  Meanwhile, he searches for jewels which are thought to be hidden somewhere in their house attic.  His wife hears his footsteps up and down and notices the flickering gas light caused when he uses the attic light.  However, he tries to manipulate her into believing that she has imagined the gaslights flickering.  (Watch the movie.)  Gaslighting mainly is aimed at denying something factual, not simply the emotional state of the person receiving the criticism.  It is used by narcissistic bullies to instill an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion in their targets. 

A sociopath is one who sees others as impersonal objects to be manipulated to fulfill their own narcissistic needs without any regard for the hurtful consequences of their selfish actions.

R. Alan Woods

I think a lot of self-importance is a product of fear. And fear, living in sort of an un-self-examined fear-based life, tends to lead to narcissism and self-importance.


When the highest levels of the organization supports mobbing and collusion to harm you, there is first and foremost a great feeling of betrayal.  It is intentionally distressing and destabilizing.  The mob persona that best describes the mob behavior which orchestrated my termination would be narcissist.  There are several definitions of gaslighting, but in a nutshell it refers to the act of trying to deceive someone into a false reality.  Through the abuse of position and countless manipulations, the perpetrators breached their legal responsibility to maintain fair and accurate personal subject data, as DPA requires.  The PGS mob also intentionally deceived several third-party actors, including caseworkers for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who monitor DPA compliance, agents of the UK Border Agency who approve and administer worker and sponsored family visas, as well as contracted agents who are trusting PGS to provide truthful information required for preparation of the actual visa applications.  Approval is not automatic, but is contingent on several factors reliant on truthful information.  There were also credit checks for lease approvals where PGS agents signed-off that a potential tenant’s continued employment is not known to be at risk.  The PGS mob deceived these agents.  PGS also contracted with an occupational health nurse practitioner to monitor the healthiness and wellness of their workers, but subsequently ignored recommendations and destroyed a report in my case.  The web of deceit is far-reaching and has serious implications that effect the successful operation of the enterprise.  Not least of these is PGS’ company reputation.  PGS reputation effects worker morale and stakeholder willingness to invest in PGS.  PGS’ inability to sincerely and transparently address these allegations responsibly diminishes trust and employee morale even more.  Of course such irresponsible and deviant behavior contradicts categorically the pledges made within the PGS website.  The betrayal is felt throughout and beyond the internal organization and individual target.

If one imagines what it is like for someone to describe your professional life with complete falsehoods whilst never being allowed to correct or challenge such aspersions, then they might imagine the frustration and anxiety of my working within the Marine Contract Sales – Africa group.  Since I am the principal actor in my narrative, I actually do know what transpired.  The PGS mob has focused on my professional character assassination.  There is safety in numbers which allows these lying thieves and cowards to abuse their power and break all the protocols of legal workplace civility.  Simply, the mob decided to be mean and hurt me.  If this were not the case I would never have been so inspired, or even been allowed, to accuse the PGS mob of such transgressions.  But, the sheer spitefulness of their collective calumniation drives me toward a day of reckoning.  Since reviewing my personnel file, I have wondered why the PGS mob has remained so adamant about continuing to process – utter false instruments – and share a false narrative as part of my personal subject data.  After all, the damage was done.  I had already signed a settlement contract agreement and left England.  I had to come to terms with the full-dimension and power of the mob that invested so much thought, (PGS) resources, and energy into harming me and my family. 

In truth, there are very few documents within my personnel file.  Likely, it is the bare minimum required to affect the appearance of a legal termination.  Also, there needs to be a reasonable minimum amount of time allowed for a once competent employee to crash into incompetence.  The downward trajectory toward my PGS exit firmly began during an ambush meeting, as is often the case with bully targets.  This event is covered in some detail within my LI post, Petroleum Geo-Services CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – Evidence (20-Sep-2015) and then again within, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016).  When I was asked for minutes from this ambush meeting, they were withheld.  No documentation within my personnel file which would be applicable to affecting a legal termination was reviewed or signed by me.  None. 

A legal document is usually only considered valid if the signatures of all parties involved are on it. Signatures verify that everything in the document has been agreed upon and shall be followed by all the parties involved.  This had always been a requirement of PGS, as well as other employer performance appraisals.  However, the PGS CH team with EVP General Counsel and SVP HR cannot see any issues with documents about me that do not bare my signature.  The only signatures which appear on these documents are by Nicholson alone, and Bjølseth with Reksnes.  My boss, Von Abendorff did not sign any pertinent document following the ambush meeting, even though he would have been the only person who could provide first-hand knowledge of the issues described.  So, where is the source information?  Pulled out of thin air.  Every utterance since the ambush meeting would be unsubstantiated hearsay, at best. 

So obscure are the greatest events, as some take for granted any hearsay, whatever its source, others turn truth into falsehood, and both errors find encouragement with posterity. ~ Tacitus

All your life you live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye, and when something nudges it into outline it is like being ambushed by a grotesque. ~ Tom Stoppard

I was very close to pulling-out of the settlement negotiations because the feedback seemed so strange.  I had engaged a solicitor of some repute and essentially trusted his experience and credentials.  I was kept quite busy with contract sales work during the settlement negotiations and was not directly involved.  However, by the time both parties had reached settlement discussions I was motivated to finalize and leave England for the health of myself and my family.  Also, the USA and UK school year schedules shared a common dividing point between Christmas and New Year.  PGS was aware that I wanted finalization since it was mentioned within the occupational health nurse (OHN) report.  In fact, Nicholson-Von Abendorff requested the report during the negotiations.  The OHN had requested that the report be forwarded to my home address and had recommended a follow-up health check-up.  This OHN report was withheld from me.  The OHN report was never received by me, and apparently it was destroyed by PGS.  Nicholson denied its existence during my queries following my subject access request (SAR) to PGS.  Of course, when I did receive my personal data, including certain e-mails and my official personnel folder, I noticed the main issues with the documents right away.  One peculiarity has stood out especially.  The original scheduled date for my grievance presentation had been 11 September 2013.  The invitation for this meeting was included in the ambush letter which I had received in lieu of the minutes for the ambush meeting, which I was denied. 

Perhaps the noteworthy date was intended to play on my emotions as a USA citizen. Who knows?  But, the real issue is that the meeting never happened.  It was postponed until 20 September 2013.  Thus, I never considered the date too much once the meeting was cancelled.  My grievance was a response to the unsubstantiated claims made within the ambush letter and also indirectly to the claims and propriety of the ambush meeting.  I did reference the ambush letter directly in my grievance.  However, I never received a new letter with a changed date.  The ambush letter copy held in my personnel file also retains the original date because I never was sent a corrected letter/invitation.  (This was an oversight by me that set the stage for the mob plan.)  My grievance response is not included in my personnel file.  The (forged) memo response to my grievance hearing is signed by both Bjølseth and Reksnes and has many issues.  One of the issues is that it references a meeting held on 11 September 2013.  Of course, no minutes of the meeting are held within my personnel file.  Also, PGS did not provide the emails where the date for the meeting was changed with my SAR.  I had forwarded them to personal email for records.  Another note worthy of mention, is there were no minutes of the grievance hearing chaired by Bjølseth and Reksnes in my file.  I should have received these along with the memo, but in reality never received either.  I was supposed also receive a letter telling me that I could appeal the grievance decision, as well.  Of course, I did not receive this.  One would expect an SVP HR to know these protocols or at least clarify them.  This never happened.  I believe that PGS had been negotiating on the basis that there actually was a meeting held about my performance on 11 September 2013 that preceded my grievance presentation 20 September 2013.  This would make my grievance appear to be a reaction to the negative outcome of the meeting. This is what the documents in my personnel file point to.  But, again, this is not what happened at all.  It is all a bit hard to accept and get my head around. 

Richards was appointed secretary for PGSUK on 13 September 2013.  He vetted the settlement process along with Kelly, and based on what Nicholson shared, Norway legal.  Directors for PGSUK are Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, and Cristin Steen Nilsen.  Honestly, I cannot be sure as to whom actually signed the settlement contract on behalf of PGSUK.  My final days working at PGSUK for Marine Contract Sales – Africa were idiosyncratic.  There had been no meetings with my boss Von Abendorff following the ambush meeting that spoke directly to the serious issues brought-up during the meeting.  Certainly nothing documented or signed.  After the presentation of the grievance there was an awkward silence in the work area.  I was not moved outside the work group or anything.  Work carried-on with business as usual, which was rather surreal in itself.  As the settlement negotiations dragged-on, everyone was anxious to finalize.  On the other hand, I had no real interest in leaving before the school term finished for my children.  PGS placed me on garden leavewhich kept me employed, but out of the office and unable to say final good-byes or talk about what was going on with anyone in the office either.  I would miss the office Christmas Party.  However, I was in Weybridge, England, and could have attended the recommended appointment with the OHN.  But, as was stated earlier, the report was never delivered to me, even though the OHN had specifically requested Nicholson to do so.  The parties did not congregate for the document signing.  I mailed-in my signature page, PGS phone, and PGS work identification.  I suspect Richards signed-off on the settlement on behalf of PGSUK.  It seems PGSUK is really unkind –demonic it seems – to employees who do not perform to their (arbitrary) standard.

I would interact with Richards along with his associate, Kelly, frequently, especially during the tender preparation process.  I recall taking a Negotiation course along with Haswell and others.  Haswell was a zero-sum negotiation advocate at the onset and during the course.  Zero-sum is game theory which looks at the item of consideration as fixed, like a piece of cake.  Zero-sum would mean only one party walks away from the table with a piece of cake, the other with nothing.  There is a definite winner and loser in this scenario.  Maybe, HR promotes zero-sum negotiations and see no value in good parting relationships.  Of course, the purpose of the class exercise was really to show the folly of zero-sum negotiation, especially for service providers.  The objective is win-win, because in actuality negotiations are not fixed, as parties have different non-conflicting objectives.  The idea is to make a value proposition such that one-party profits from the other parties procurement of services in mostly equal terms as how much the other party gains from the services which are provided.  Both walk away as winners who achieved what they needed to solve their problems.  Long-term relationships and repeat business generally comes from a win-win approach.  Cheaters and bullies demand zero-sum outcomes – they win and their target loses.   Narcissistic personalities tend to discard relationships once they are used-up.  They want to get rid of the targets ability to influence future relationships.  This is why they are not satisfied by simply eliminating targets from their immediate network, or organization, and want to damage targets so that they cannot influence the overall network.  Even narcissists understand the influence and dangers of past targets of abuse.  The objective of the mob is to eliminate the target from the workplace followed by professional character assassination to purge any target threat from the professional landscape.

There are two kinds of people: eaters and bakers. Eaters think the world is a zero-sum game: what you eat, someone else cannot eat, so they eat as much as they can. Bakers think that the world is not a zero-sum game—they can just bake more and bigger pies. Everyone can eat more. People trust bakers and not eaters.

Guy Kawasaki

Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.

Robert D. Hare

According to the UK Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), there are certain requirements for offering a settlement agreement contract.  One requirement is that the settlement agreement contract must relate to a particular complaint or proceeding.  At the time when the settlement agreement contract was offered to me by PGSUK, the only officially active complaint or proceeding was the grievance which had been only presented, but there had been no hearing.  The settlement agreement contract was offered the day before the scheduled grievance hearing.  I do have a copy of the email which I sent and the intended recipients with regard to the grievance and the document itself attached to that email.  PGS has no record beyond a date typed into two false documents.  My grievance document has been removed from my personnel record and destroyed.  How can this be if the settlement was based on my grievance?  The details provided within the grievance could have been discussed and perhaps some misunderstandings discovered and resolved. However, the mob did not want to entertain such a discussion.  They had formed another plan.  They offered an untimely settlement premised on multiple deceptions.  My request to file a grievance had always preceded PGS’ attempt to redirect toward a performance based termination that rested on defamatory claims.  Only through misrepresentations and the abuse of position, and finally, the fabricating of instruments used in uttering a false narrative, complete with forged documents, could the termination be affected on their terms.  Unbelievable, but what appears to be true.  The mob’s deception is given credibility only through their collective voices all shouting the same false narrative.  But, indeed, it is a false narrative and the chickens have come home to roost.  I will not allow my life story to be rewritten by a corrupt and maladroit mob intent on harming me and my family without a fight.  I have presented my narrative with evidence.  The mob remains silent.   

Narcissistic personalities will invoke the silent treatment as a cruel way to control, manipulate, and impact the psychological health and professionalism of their targets.  It is an intentional attempt to exact control and further damage their target’s credibility.  The silent treatment is a method of passive-aggressive control whereby their false-narrative is maintained while the protestations of their targets are marginalized as just some menial disenchantment of an ex-employee.  There is the reputation power-imbalance of the contented, albeit corrupt, employed mob against the disenchanted ex-employee.  The ex-employee must be the one with the problem, since the mob is viewed as professional and content.  It is even worse when the mob actors have adopted the narcissist’s strategy.  In this case, where multiple actors are all essentially watching the target drown and nobody can muster the character or courage to throw in a life-preserver.  Corporations with incorruptible compliance officers and a functioning compliance program should not be allowed to be silent, for one thing.  It is irresponsible and actually another form of fraud whereby one’s agency and position within the legal corporation demands clarification to all stakeholders.  Silence is used as a guard against self-incrimination for criminal proceedings.  But, for a legal corporation and its agents to respond this way is pathetic. 

Reputation management of the corporate brand and the executive team is paramount.  However, in the absence of real professional integrity, silence is the best way to maintain the appearance of being reputable.  Dismissing criticism simply allows employed professionals to get-on with running the company.  No time for distractions.  But, if there is no time for dealing with criticism, then why does the PGS CEO letter suggest that there is both time and willingness?  And this is where the gaslighting mob becomes the most dangerous.  The mob exists in a make-believe world and then makes their decisions based on the fabricated self-delusion that they do not.  PGS executives say that they have core values, but they do not apply them to their decisions.  PGS executives say that their health and safety statistics are above industry standard, but they suppress and remove health and safety concerns from consideration and publication.  In fact, the PGS mob does not hold to any of their values and they are likely not guided by health and safety concerns.  It is a dangerous deception for all stakeholders when the delusional mob occupies the highest level an organization.  In what professional relationships or transactions does the integrity kick-in?  Who knows?  So, next time a PGS executive cancels a meeting, be certain to save that mail in a safe place.  If you do not, there is no telling what one may later find out was discussed.  And a mob symphony will make you look like you forgot that you weren’t even there and you’ll have no idea what you agreed to.  That’s what mob gaslighting is about.

Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving.

William Shakespeare

You have undertaken to cheat me. I won’t sue you, for the law is too slow. I’ll ruin you.

Cornelius Vanderbilt