PGS ASA has acknowledged that the Company brand and value has diminished since 2013. In September 2018, PGS ASA and former Secretary of PGS ASA UK subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, engaged Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to file CRIMINAL DEFAMATION charges and civil charges against former employee and whistleblower, USA citizen SDK who was residing in Thailand.
At the time, PGS ASA and SDK were bound by TWO (2) Contracts GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. The contracts governed by the laws of England contained Confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibits former employee’s from publishing content that disparages the Company.
SDK first published legally protected public disclosure (whistleblowing) regarding PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management corruption and fraud 3 July 2015. Initial publications were published on the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform. NO LEGAL ACTION FOR CONTRACT BREACH WAS EVER TAKEN AGAINST SDK. PGS ASA management was not responsive to my claims and never even attempted to contact me. SDK actually made efforts to contact PGS ASA Compliance. (Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance at the time.)
The contracts governed by the laws of England referenced the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), as well as the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). PGS ASA NEVER ABIDED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. PGS ASA never investigated the whistleblowing charges. Instead, SDK was further defamed and defrauded by PGS ASA. SDK was restricted on LinkedIN™. PGS ASA never had to address allegations of criminal and corrupt Board of Directors and Executive behavior in a court of law.
In August 2016, SDK started NOPGS.COM and published his legal protected public disclosure on this site, free from the censorship of ignorant social media gate-keepers. SDK regarded this litigation as illegal extortion / blackmail. However, SDK capitulated to take NOPGS.COM offline from November – December 2018. NOPGS.COM was stolen and content destroyed in December 2018 through the PGS ASA sponsored litigation by Duensing – Kippen in Thailand.
PGS ASA Board of Directors and Compliance has now referenced SDKs breach of two agreements that he was forced to sign under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand. PGS ASA has never clarified the status of the two contracts governed by the laws of England. However, SDK believes that PGS ASA does not have the legal authority to take away his legal rights governed by the laws of England, including the right to legally publish protected disclosure. PGS ASA cannot give power of attorney to a Thai law firm to take away his legal rights. Further, gagging clauses or clauses that restrict publication of protected disclosure are not enforceable under the laws of England.
Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO & President was acting General Counsel and Legal Compliance when it was decided to retaliate against a foreign worker, USA citizen, whistleblower and his family. Pedersen is a trained lawyer and knowingly oversaw serious violent crimes to illegally expel whistleblower SDK. These crimes have included defrauding government agencies in Norway, England, and the USA. More recently, PGS ASA has engaged in bribery, extortion, blackmail, and harassment to AVOID THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF ENGLAND and NORWAY!
The PGS ASA Board of Directors has allowed the value and reputation of the company and many of its employees to be diminished so they will not have to answer serious questions and be held accountable for their many alleged criminal and non-compliant acts of retaliation against a foreign worker USA citizen whistleblower and his Thai family.
The PGS ASA Board of Directors have been able to avoid the defending fraudulent contracts governed by the laws of England and have instead engaged in illegal litigation and blackmail within the Kingdom of Thailand. PGS ASA has NO business subsidiary in the Kingdom of Thailand. The legal actions are a breach of their legal jurisdiction and the terms and conditions of ongoing contracts.
When PGS ASA contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions in place to protect reputation and value become impotent due to Board of Directors corruption, shareholders, the oil and gas industry and its professionals are irreparably damaged and the lives of innocent whistleblowers and their children destroyed. Norway’s system allows violent corporate criminals to be promoted and enriched and not punished. This injustice is repugnant.
UK Police / ActionFraud: Investigate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams, London’s Landau Law and Thailand’s Duensing – Kippen Corruption sponsored by Norway’s PGS ASA and Equinor. This GLOBAL CONSPIRACY of CORRUPTION and BRIBED LAWYERS undermines the entire system of LEGAL DUE PROCESS and JUSTICE! Only Government Law Enforcement can hold Corrupt Organizations Accountable. Corporate Criminal fraudsters are empowered to destroy the lives of the innocent and whistleblowers, defraud government departments and global citizens only when there is NO ACTION and thorough INVESTIGATION by Government law enforcement!
Being Bribed and Conspiring to Misuse Legal Credentials to Protect Criminals and Harm their Victims is Despicable and Should be Investigated and Punished.
Corrupt lawyers who manipulate legal due process to protect criminals should be investigated and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law. Neeta Aulak is allowed to violate most every law and principle of human decency because of her title. No one investigates her lies to the UK government and the global legal community. This lying criminal whore, Neeta Aulak, is allowed to not invoke the Confidentiality clauses in Watson Farley & Williams formed contracts designed to protect Company value because a courtroom would reveal her evil criminal acts and send her and Watson Farley & Williams clients to prison where they belong!
Watson Farley & Williams contracts for PGS ASA UK subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited are worthless in the court of law because they are fraudulent pieces of shit supported by forged documents created and uttered to protect their criminal PGS ASA clients.
PGS ASA and Watson Farley & Williams, and of course Philip Landau Law London are too frightened to defend themselves with the illegal contracts they generate to harm whistleblowers. They export corruption and bribe Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to harass and terrorize innocent Thai old people and children. None have the courage to confront their crime victim in a fair fight. Duensing – Kippen acts, sponsored by PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law are a disgrace to the legal profession and Thailand.
As President and CEO of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Jon Erik Reinhardsen allowed shareholder value to decline and never defended the reputation of the company by invoking contract Confidentiality clauses. Why? Jon Erik Reinhardsen and his supportive board of directors participated in violent and criminal retaliation against a USA citizen whistleblower. Reinhardsen lied to governments in Norway, UK, USA and now Thailand to evade responsibility. A corrupt Norwegian political – executive class are protected and overpaid at the expense of the average citizen and worker. If I am lying, Reinhardsen could invoke the terms of a contract. But, since 2015, this piece of shit has been allowed to abuse my family and rob Norwegians. Jon Erik Reinhardsen should be in jail. Only corruption and inept management explains Equinor losing $20 BILLION USD for USA operations. Remember, one of Reinhardsen’s FIRST decisions as StatOil Chairman of the Board was to give StatOil CEO Eldar Sætre a big raise.
“Eldar has done a very impressive job,” Statoil’s chairman Jon Erik Reinhardsen told newspaper Dagens Næringsliv (DN) over the weekend. That’s how he justified granting Sætre, who helped Statoil get through the industry crisis set off by the collapse in oil prices three years ago, an extraordinary pay raise of 7 percent, to bring his base pay before bonus up to NOK 8.76 million a year (USD 1.12 million).
Steven, I am writing to you in a personal capacity, and only about the material you have posted online about me. I am not writing as a representative of PGS. I have no authority to discuss any material you have posted online about PGS or other individuals, nor to discuss your employment / data protection dispute with PGS.
This statement is not true. Carl Richards was acting Secretary for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Richards not only has the authority, but the fiduciary duty to protect the interests PGS and its agents. Richards should have invoked the terms and conditions of either the SCA or OEC if there were a breach. On the other hand, I do not think that an acting secretary can legally make a claim as an individual. This would be false representation.
When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.
Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretarywas first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.
You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me. I understand that you reside in Thailand. I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me). My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017. They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.
SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?
I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty. However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.
SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.
I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms. If you do this then I will take the matter no further.
Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.
SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.
17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never
to Protect Himself and other PGS ASA corrupt executives from addressiing protected public disclosure claims – whistleblowing – in a legal and compliant manner according the laws of England and PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook policy.
When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.
Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretarywas first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.
You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me. I understand that you reside in Thailand. I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me). My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017. They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.
SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?
I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty. However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.
SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.
I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms. If you do this then I will take the matter no further.
Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.
SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.
17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never
Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes
Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes
mailed-by:
gmail.com
PGS UK Data Controller,
Please confirm receipt of this email.
The forty day period for compliance of my Subject Access Request (SAR) has now passed. I do not believe that there has been complete compliance, but I will defer to ICO guidance on how to proceed.
I have not received information regarding who directly has processed my personal data, who has had access to the different personal data stored, who has been provided with my personal data, or for what reasons.
I applied for different roles while within PGS, especially during the time I was with Marine Contract – Africa. Please provide me with discussions/outcomes from these applications.
I printed four copies of my grievance to present personally during the scheduled meeting. I distributed the hard copies them to the meeting attendees: John Barnard (my witness), David Nicholson, and Eddy Von Abendorff. I also e-mailed copies to Simon Cather, Per Arild Reksnes, and John Greenway.
The grievance was principally in regard to the unfair and inaccurate processing of my personal data. I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 was violated when PGS did not allow correction of this data and continued to publish and disseminate the incorrect information.
During settlement discussions I requested disputed information removed and PGS UK refused this request.
PGS UK has provided only a select number of communications from limited data processors and not undeleted or recovered from back-up other electronic mails and records.
Hardcopy records (i.e., date books, other) have not been provided or mentioned.
Further, the Settle Agreement, Clause 9.7 establishes that PGS will endeavor not to publish any disparaging or harmful information about me.
I have communicated with ICO for guidance on how to proceed.
Even though the disputed information was brought to PGS UK attention over a year ago through my grievance, ICO allows data controllers to address and correct (remove) inaccurate information.
Since I do not believe that I have received all my personal data that PGS UK holds, I will address the information in my personnel file.
For clarity, can PGS UK please confirm the order of the documents provided to me in two (2) packages as to how the information is presented and who has access to which portions?
With regard to the HRIS copy, can you please provide time-tagged copies (2 month interval) of the file to confirm how and when changes were made?
I am following the order provided to which the data was provided to me. Please address these changes within 28 days.
Please address why this data was retained and created.
File Section 1:
Need to add eligible for rehire (as written in your recent e-mail).
Memo dated 25-October-2013 – Conclusions from Grievance Hearingshould be removed from the file.
This document was never presented to me, yet it is referenced to my attention.
No signature or acknowledgement/agreement from me regarding content.
PGS offered me the settlement to STOP the grievance process (prior to this meeting, in fact).
Also, my solicitor, which I was prompted to engage after you made the offer, indicated PGS would prefer the settlement to proceeding with the grievance so they WOULD NOT have to respond.
The grievance process was not CONCLUDED – it was just not continued due to PGS UK’s offer of a settlement agreement.
The minutes and record from this meeting are not sufficient given the gravity of the issue to the data subject. Many important and substantive points are missing.
More likely, I would have not accepted a PIP and would have appealed this conclusion and gone to tribunal, per ACAS provisions.
There is no presentation of evidence to indicate a thorough analysis.
There is no presentation of data that counter any of my issues brought-up within my grievance.
It accepts and amplifies the malicious and defamatory statements that are backed by no substantive evidence.
This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
This also is not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting publication of disparaging remarks.
Omitted: My grievance document that challenges allegations with supporting evidence. (Omitted okay as long as with the other documents that inspired it.) The document provided does not include the pages of evidence that support my disagreement. Why is not the complete document provided?
Also, I remember a yellow-highlighted copy of my grievance being reference when the settlement was offered. Is this the document copied?
I provided hard copies to you, Eddy and John. Where are they?
Letter to me (SDK) 24 July 2013 – Investigation for Possible Implementation of Performance Improvement Plan – Should be removed
This letter was provided to me after HR refusal to present me with minutes of an “informal meeting” where these allegations were first made.
This letter without my response (grievance) included suggests some sort of agreement or concession of these claims. My file contains no meetings or emails that corroborate any of these statements. In fact, these statements are both malicious and defamatory.
This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.
I was called to the meeting with no warning or time to prepare.
This meeting did not follow PGS policy or procedures.
I asked for clarification about how this meeting conformed with PGS policy and was refused.
I was also refused minutes of the meeting to contest. Instead, I was provided a letter which prompted my response. Yes, I did believe the minutes needed to be written so that I could have the opportunity to contest the (unsupported) allegations.
I do not agree with these minutes and believe they conflate meetings and correspondence which occurred between the meeting and my grievance.
Allegations are not supported by any documentation. In a fair and accurate process, these allegations should have been substantiated:
Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be quantified. I included this in my grievance. It was never provided in the meeting.
Responsible and fair HR Management should have verified and clarified claims made as fact.
Commercial acumen was never defined and purely a (malicious) unqualified opinion.
Meeting and instruction were cited, but not supported by written record. In fact, they never happened.
The GAP analysis meeting(s) mentioned with Manager are not corroborated by notes or details, and in fact never happened. Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed this.
PIP was never discussed during meeting, move to another work assignment was mentioned.
Quality of work – no record of meetings or specific instances. In fact, there seems to be no reduction in work given to me as mentioned in grievance.
Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be corroborated with evidence. It never was. Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed and clarified this. Workload distribution evidence was included within my grievance/reply.
I was not provided an impartial witness during the meeting to corroborate the minutes.
I do not agree with many of the contents of this letter.
My Grievance documents go into detail about the many disagreements.
This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks/information.
Why was there no validation by HR (UK/Norway) of the contested statements made as fact and to my personal detriment?
I believe that this is a violation of the DPA.
The documents inclusion into my personal personnel record is prejudicial and disparaging and violates the terms of the settlement agreement, as well.
GAP Analysis – Should be removed. Note, I asked for its removal during settlement talks and was refused.
No supporting documentation to give meaning and context.
The Gap Analysis is not supported by any tangible data.
It mostly indicates disagreement, but no basis of disagreement (what was measured?)
No supporting documentation that indicates any effort to resolve the Gap.
The denial to provide how the Gap is defined or can be filled makes this document irrelevant.
EvA references meeting, but no evidence is provided to substantiate.
This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.
Omissions – Supporting documentation
There is no record of meetings, advice, or elaboration about my deficiencies referenced in the meeting. Did the meeting ever happen? Did you confirm, if so why isn’t there supporting documentation?
Documents about my temporary living, and trip to England, etc. can be removed because the information is dated not really useful or relevant to my professional file
.Section 2:
Tax reference info if needed. Most all else can be removed as no longer valid. (i.e., passport copies)
Section 3:
–
Section 4:
Omission – Email from Maggie Bream regarding my health check following my 5-day absence.
DPA 1998 – Grievance Challenge to Information Processing 20-Sep-13
mailed-by:
gmail.com
PGS UK Data Controller – I was unambiguous within my grievance document, submitted 20-Sep-2013, that I challenged the fairness and accuracy of information processed about me. Printed copies were provided to Eddy Von Abendorff, David Nicholson, and John Barnard. Copies were emailed the these individuals as well, and also to Simon Cather, Per Arilde Reksnes, Terje Bjolseth, and John Greenway. Reference contents of email below. Regards,Steven Kalavity
This afternoon I am attending a meeting scheduled for 3 p.m. (UK time) with David Nicholson, HR Manager EAME, and my immediate supervisor, Eddy Von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa to respond to a letter regarding my professional performance. I have also invited my co-worker, John Barnard, Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa to attend.
I have prepared my response in the Form of Grievance document (attached) to initiate the grievance procedure.
KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided
mailed-by:
gmail.com
PGS UK Data Processor/Controller: In my personnel file there is a Memo written/signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes. First of all, I never received this Memo (to my attention?) until recently when it was sent to me by my SAR / UK DPA 1998. Note the three referenced documents:1) Meeting 11 September 20132) Your letter of 29 September 20133) Meeting 14 October 2013 I have not received these referenced items.
Item 3: I think this is reference to the Norway – UK teleconference meeting. No minutes of this grievance hearing are provided. My witness/co-worker John Barnard attended (to verify what was said/discussed). He is not copied on these minutes. Simon Cather and David Nicholson did not attend this meeting.
Item 2:Your letter? I do not know what letter is being referenced. Perhaps a letter from DN/SC? I have not been provided with this document.
Item 1:I do not know anything about this meeting. It was not with me. I have not been provided with minutes of this meeting. The point is, information has been referenced and processed but has not been provided to me through my SAR request. Please explain.
Every online whistleblowing publication since 3 July 2015 is the derivative of Candida Pinto’s illegal decision to breach her fiduciary duty as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary and defraud the UK Border Agency and whistleblower SDK. Pinto has had multiple opportunities to invoke Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publication of disparaging content about PGS ASA and her. Pinto remains silent. Whistleblowing is protected under contract governed by the laws of England (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [PIDA])
The fraudulent and defamatory 24 July 2013 retaliation letter signed by PGS ASA UK (2013) HR Manager, David Nicholson on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, PGS ASA CEO & President Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS ASA CFO & EVP Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA SVP Chief Accountant, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and PGS ASA UK In-house Solicitor and Secretary Candida Pinto was illegal whistleblower retaliation that obstructed SDKs right to proceed through the legal grievance procedures SDK sought to end the illegal health-harming workplace harassment and discrimination. The 24 July 2013 letter was written following SDKs explicit request for minutes of the 13 June 2013 “Ambush” meeting, inquiry as to how that meeting conformed with PGS policy and the laws of England, and SDKs request to file a grievance. Pinto allowed the health and welfare of a foreign worker and his family to be harmed. Pinto is a co-conspirator in violent and illegal retaliation and needs to be investigated and if appropriate punished to the full extent of the law (England, Norway, Thailand, USA).
The 24 July 2013 letter written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and signed by David Nicholson who hosted a non-compliant bully ambush meeting. Meeting attendees Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather all provided misrepresentations to the UK Border Agency and employed a non-settled worker illegally. Pinto was secretary when these documents of contradicting narrative were processed. The 11 September 2013 meeting was postponed (18 September 2013 DN-SDK e-mail). Carl Richards became secretary 13 September 2013 to carry on with the fraud. SDK submitted a grievance 20 September 2013. However, PGS denied SDK this legal right and terminated his employment for defamatory “performance” reasons in illegal retaliation for blowing the whistle.
The 24 July 2013 letter written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and signed by David Nicholson who hosted a non-compliant bully ambush meeting. Meeting attendees Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather all provided misrepresentations to the UK Border Agency and employed a non-settled worker illegally. Pinto was secretary when these documents of contradicting narrative were processed. The 11 September 2013 meeting was postponed (18 September 2013 DN-SDK e-mail). Carl Richards became secretary 13 September 2013 to carry on with the fraud. SDK submitted a grievance 20 September 2013. However, PGS denied SDK this legal right and terminated his employment for defamatory “performance” reasons in illegal retaliation for blowing the whistle.
Co-conspirator Candida Pinto perverting the course of justice, defrauding and defaming whistleblower and victim of crimes US citizen and Tier 2 sponsored employee, SDK. Pinto participated in defrauding stakeholders and damaging PGS ASA value by not invoking contractual Confidentiality clauses. SDK was defamed and restricted from LINKEDIN so criminals like Pinto could escape accountability.
Co-conspirator Candida Pinto perverting the course of justice, defrauding and defaming whistleblower and victim of crimes US citizen and Tier 2 sponsored employee, SDK. Pinto participated in defrauding stakeholders and damaging PGS ASA value by not invoking contractual Confidentiality clauses. SDK was defamed and restricted from LINKEDIN so criminals like Pinto could escape accountability.
PGS ASA defrauded the LinkedIn community and whistleblower, SDK. PGS ASA did not follow policy or contract and invoke the Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publication of disparaging content. In fact, PGS ASA breached the Confidentiality terms and conditions by publishing the lie that they conducted an investigation. PGS ASA did not investigate anything! Candida Pinto knows that PGS ASA is lying because she is a co-conspirator to the retaliation, defrauding, and defaming of US citizen whistleblower, SDK. Nobody truly responsible for SDK publications is behaving responsibly. There is no investigation and content is deleted so it will not be scrutinized.
PGS ASA defrauded the LinkedIn community and whistleblower, SDK. PGS ASA did not follow policy nor contract and invoke the Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publication of disparaging content. In fact, PGS ASA breached the Confidentiality terms and conditions by publishing the lie that they conducted an investigation. PGS ASA did not investigate anything! Candida Pinto knows that PGS ASA is lying because she is a co-conspirator to the retaliation, defrauding, and defaming of US citizen whistleblower, SDK. Nobody truly responsible for SDK publications is behaving responsibly. There is no investigation and content is deleted so it will not be scrutinized.
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
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.
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.
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.
COVERT NARCISSISTS NEED FLYING MONKEYS | Let’s Find Out Why
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.
