I still await the legal claims and notices which were processed through PGS ASA and delivered by Duensing – Kippen. Through e-mail, PGS ASA has essentially endorsed the delivery of the legal claims and notifications.
On 23 April 2020, PGS ASA / John Francas e-mailed that I was in “breach” of the 11 November 2018 compromise agreement that I signed in Thailand. For several weeks, apparently, documents were delivered to the home of my Thai relatives. However, I have asked several questions through e-mails from June 2018, and especially following the delivery of summons’ by e-mail in September 2018. Why has PGS ASA refused to respond to these e-mails? Now that I am in the USA, PGS ASA refuses to deliver claims to me. What is PGS ASAs intention, really. How does PGS ASA see the issues within the claims being resolved if they are never delivered and presented to the “defendant”?
I want to resolve potential travel restrictions in or out of Thailand in the future. I need PGS ASA to responsible respond.
A SHORT LIST OF NAMED PGS ASA CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATORS WHO ARE MORALLY WEAK CO-CONSPIRATORS TO ILLEGAL WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION, FRAUD, DEFAMATION, EXTORTION, & FORGERY. OTHERS HAVE RETIRED IN DISGRACE NEVER ONCE DEFENDING THEIR “REPUTATIONS”
PGS ASA violent and organized criminal acts are directed to harm and terrorize the dependents of a USA foreign worker whistleblower in order to silence truth and continue to defraud the oil and gas industry and rob shareholders. Breaching the Code of Conduct and Core Values to Preserve the Corrupt Power Structure is the Essential Ingredient to Career Progression within the PGS ASA “Business Unit” and Executive Tiers
PGS ASA has a pattern of not responding to e-mails. This is why online publications have become necessary. Several e-mails were sent at the onset of the criminal accusations against SDK in Thailand. PGS ASA irresponsibly never answered. It must be emphasized that PGS ASA agents in Thailand, Duensing – Kippen, have no first hand knowledge of events written about and are not prosecuting based on evidence, but on a PGS ASA fraudulent narrative.
PGS ASA (PGS) delivered notice to former employee, Steven D. Kalavity (“SDK”) that he was in breach of a compromise agreement signed in Thailand 11 November 2018 (the “Thai Agreement”). For the past several months PGS has hired Thailand legal firm, Duensing – Kippen to deliver harassing legal notices to the residence where SDK stayed in Thailand while on visa. SDK is a USA citizen and never had the legal permission to remain in Thailand indefinitely. SDK informed PGS ASA that he was no longer living in Thailand 4 July 2019. Nevertheless, the harassing legal notices continued to be delivered to the physical address of traumatized Thai relatives even though the Thai Agreement only specified an e-mail address for communication. SDK has always rejected the validity of the totally unnecessary Thai Agreement. The Thai Agreement’s main purpose was to use Thai laws to gag protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.
PGS and SDK had signed a termination settlement agreement 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”) governed by the laws of England. The Settlement Agreement contains Confidentiality clauses that prohibit parties from publishing disparaging content about one another. However, there is a provision for protected public disclosure through included reference of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). The Thailand Agreement also prohibited SDK from disparaging PGS. However, the Thailand Agreement did not provide any exception for protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. SDK has contended that the exclusion of such exception for protected public disclosure within the Thai Agreement made such “gagging” terms and conditions unenforceable. Nevertheless, Duensing – Kippen continued to deliver such notices in Thailand.
PGS’ UK subsidiary Head of Legal, John Francas, is now trying to enforce the terms and conditions of the Thai Agreement outside of Thailand through sending the Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement. SDK has never accepted the validity of the Thai Agreement, most notably because of the omission of terms and conditions regarding protected disclosure. SDKs employment contract was governed by the laws of England and allowed protected public disclosure under PIDA., the target of SDK whistleblowing was PGS ASA, a Norwegian corporation governed by the laws of Norway.
In Norway, whistleblowing is protected through the Working Environment Act 2005 (the “WEA”). Retaliation against an employee who makes use of this right and reports on censurable conditions in the organization is specifically prohibited by the WEA. Whistleblowing in Norway is defined as “reporting cases of blameworthy conditions that includes illegal, unethical, immoral, or illegitimate matters. PIDA (especially Clause 43J) and WEA have been the topic within most of the e-mail correspondence to Duensing – Kippen and PGS. This includes before, during and following the signing of the Thai Agreement.
Working Environment Act 2005
Section 2 A-2 Protection against retaliation in connection with notification
(1) Retaliation against an employee who notifies pursuant to section 2 A-1 is prohibited. As regards workers hired from temporary-work agencies, the prohibition shall apply to both employers and hirers. If the employee submits information that gives reason to believe that retaliation in breach of the first or second sentence has taken place, it shall be assumed that such retaliation has taken place unless the employer or hirer substantiates otherwise.
(2) The first paragraph applies correspondingly in connection with retaliation against an employee who makes known that the right to notify pursuant to section 2 A-1 will be invoked, for example by providing information.
(3) Anyone who has been subjected to retaliation in breach of the first or second paragraph may claim compensation without regard to the fault of the employer or hirer. The compensation shall be fixed at the amount the court deems reasonable in view of the circumstances of the parties and other facts of the case. Compensation for financial loss may be claimed pursuant to the normal rules.
PGS have intentionally misrepresented legal protected public disclosure, as defined by both PIDA and WEA as criminal defamation in Thailand. SDK being a whistleblower has been emphasized within e-mails and blog posts since long before the delivery of the Thai Claims. SDK was compelled to sign the Thai Agreement to avoid proceeding through two (2) criminal trials in Thailand. SDK never recanted that his published content was protected and further more never regarded the contents as untrue or defamatory, this includes up until and past 11 November 2018.
On 15 November 2018, out of desperation, SDK wrote a whistleblowing e-mail to JOGMEC (Japan Oil Gas and Metals Corporation) who had recently shortlisted PGS ASA to purchase a seismic vessel.
The email to JOGMEC stated:
Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2018
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation Thank you for contacting us.
The following inquiries were received.
Your request or question Business Ethics:
Please remove Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) from your consideration for the vessel sale and support contract
I am a whistleblower and have for over three years voiced my concerns about PGS board and management corruption and fraud．
I am a USA citizen who worked for the business unit in the UK. I now live in Thailand. Recently, PGS engaged in litigation in THAILAND against me to silence me. They have never addressed directly my claims of corruption, but instead engaged in threatening litigation to silence critics of health and safety and other practices. I had published numerous blog articles on nopgs.com. Nopgs.com is now offline due to this threatened litigation. One of my publications was an open letter to the PGS board of directors. Another publication called for the boycott of PGS. These publications began over three years ago. PGS refuses to address their internal corrupt business practices. PGS violates their own Core Values and the principles of the UN Global Compact. I have also written about this．
Name Steven Kalavity
Company name Marine Seismic Survey
Somehow, PGS agents were made aware of this new protected disclosure and stated that I had breached the terms and conditions of the recently signed Thailand Agreement. PGS, again ignoring the laws of Norway and England, threatened new criminal prosecution. SDK tried to recant the new whistleblowing claims of the earlier email to JOGMEC, but it was too late.
Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2018
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation Thank you for contacting us.
Your request or question I sent an earlier mail． And I did not know you would disclose this communication to Petroleum Geo-Services．
However, I have agreed to a compromise agreement with Petroleum Geo-Services processed in Thailand that will come into affect 19 November 2018 and I should have not related any matters to you．
I have agreed to unpublish my posts and take down a website critical of PGS．
So, I apologize for announcing to you this information．
Under the terms of the pending agreement, I should not have contacted you. So, please disregard the previous communication. Matters have been settled．
Petroleum Geo-Services and I have agreed to stop．
Best regards, Steven
Name Steven Kalavity
Company name Marine Seismic Survey
PGS, through Duensing – Kippen, scheduled new criminal proceedings for 29 January 2019. In the interim, SDK would have to wait for a decision as for whether or not these proceedings would proceed or if PGS would accept the Thailand Agreement. SDK had taken nopgs.com offline (and listed the site for sale) as part of the terms and conditions of the Thai Agreement. However, from 1 – 10 December 2018, SDK was ordained a Thai monk at the behest of his Thai family to earn merit. While SDK was a monk and not accessing his websites and online content, nopgs.com was stolen and SDK lost access to the content. I mentioned this to my Thai lawyer, but remained remarkably unconcerned. PGS agreed to allow SDK to write an apology letter so that the criminal proceedings would not progress.
18 January 2019
To PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Mr. Carl Richards,
Please accept my apology for the offensive content which I have published on-line over the years and for directing such content through e-mails, especially once a compromise agreement was me.
I am hopeful that we can put these matters behind us and that I can focus on my family.
However, I believe this was illegal domain theft and the destruction of evidence, since the principal site that published the “disputed” content was nopgs.com. Nopgs.com remains pertinent for any continued litigation in either Thailand or the USA (e.g., Harris County, Texas). The Thai Agreement does not reference specific content nor even the specific claim document(s).
SDK was essentially held hostage in Thailand due to the litigation. My marriage visa expired in February 2019 and I would not be able to remain in Thailand indefinitely. PGS agreements cannot supersede governments rights to grant permission to enter Thailand. PGS has been overstepping their legal authority by both expecting and later demanding that their “legal notices” be received and acknowledged. PGS has never sent SDK the actual claims by e-mail, the manner designated within the Thai Agreement. Apparently, PGS sends claims in English from England to Duensing – Kippen in Thailand to be translated and delivered to relatives of SDK, since SDK is not a citizen of Thailand and no longer resides in Thailand. PGS is aware of this.
Under the terms of a Settlement Contract between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGS) and Steven D Kalavity dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Contract”), PGS agreed not publish or cause to be published any statement (whether of fact or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Employee.
Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.7:
9.7 In consideration for the obligations entered into by the Employee in this Clause 9, the Company agrees to make reasonable efforts:
Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause 9.7
(a) neither to make nor publish, nor cause to be made or published, to anyone in any circumstances any statement (whether of fact or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Employee (save as may be required by law or regulation), nor to represent the Employee as an authorized agent/employee or otherwise of the Company once his employment has ended, and
(b) to keep the existence and terms of this Agreement and the circumstances giving rise to its making confidential and not to disclose, communicate or otherwise make public these terms to any third party save and except as required by law or regulation, or in confidence to its professional advisers.
PGS has also breached the Settlement Contract Confidentiality clause 9.6 through misrepresenting protected public disclosure as criminal defamation in Thailand. PGS has not followed policy or whistleblower procedures. PGS has illegally retaliated against a whistleblower through these intentional breaches.
Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.6:
9.6 Nothing in this Clause 9 shall prevent the Employee from disclosing information which he is entitled to disclose under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, provided that the disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the Employee has complied with the Company’s policy from time to time regarding such disclosure.
Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.6
The Settlement Contract was referenced to be legally affirmed and valid by PGS within the 16 July 2018 response to the SDK submitted subject access request (2018 SAR Response).
Thai Criminal case number 2551/2561 claim document (“PGS Thai Claim”) was signed and dated by PGS directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen 10 July 2018. PGS directors also affirmed the Settlement Contract.
Therefore, the PGS Thai Claim constitutes a material breach of the Settlement Contract by PGS. The PGS Thai Claim is not a valid legal instrument.
SDK is demanding the withdrawal of all claims and contracts that are a derivative of PGS ASA breaching the Settlement Contract.
John Francas / PGS ASA have never cited a breach in the Confidentiality clauses of SDK – PGS Exploration (UK) Limited contracts (2010 & 2013) prohibiting disparaging parties. However, SDK cites several PGS ASA breaches in these agreements!
What’s wrong with English contracts governed by the laws of England, PGS?
NORWAY’S PGS ASA EXPORTS CORRUPTION and BRIBES DUENSING – KIPPEN in THAILAND because PGS ASA has NO Evidence of DEFAMATION in UK
USA FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS – RACKETEERING INFLUENCED and CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO)
DON’T LET NORWAY’S PGS ASA EXPORT CORRUPTION to THAILAND
PGS ASA and Duensing – Kippen Broke USA Federal Law and Illegally Copied SDK Passport to Stalk and Harass SDK and form an ILLEGAL FALSE CLAIM. PGS ASA want SDK to STOP Legally Protected WHISTLEBLOWING. PGS ASA wants SDK to Destroy Evidence of PGS ASA CRIMES!
The Thai Litigation Criminal Claim Leading to the Compromise Agreement Included Reference to an Unanswered “Open Letter to the PGS ASA Board of Directors.” The PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, signed-off on the Thai Claim (s). PGS ASA Board of Directors (of a Norwegian Company) are the Plaintiffs
PGS ASA/John Francas,
This is acknowledgement that I received, by e-mail, the Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement, dated 23 April 2020, (the “Thailand Extortion”)
The Thailand Extortiondoes not reference a physical address for legal correspondence, but only an e-mail address (Clause 3). PGS ASA / John Francas were notified 3 July 2019 that I was not residing in Thailand. Why has PGS ASA delivered firm copies of legal document to an address in Thailand?
Would you please send me notarized copies of the referenced Thailand Extortion that Steven D. Kalavity signed?
Also, please send details and legal credentials of the agent(s) representing PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for PGS ASAs claims in the USA/Texas.
Please send me acknowledgement and responses to the e-mails sent to PGS ASA agents following the delivery of the summons (13 September 2018) and the signing of the Thailand Extortion([11 November 2018 “Compromise Agreement”]).
As you know, I was employed by PGS ASAs USA subsidiary in Houston, Texas.
I would also like to receive copies of the employment contracts signed between myself and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2010 and 2013 (advised by legal firm Watson, Farley & Williams (the “UK Legal Contracts“).
What is the status of the UK Legal Contractsin context to the Thailand Extortion? Please also send me confirmation of PGS ASA employee, Gareth Jones, legal agency (employer) from 2013 – 2020?
Please send a copy of my PGS ASA personnel file, which is the predicate behind all my online publications.
The Thailand Extortionis being prosecuted on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and Rune Olav Pedersen. Please correct me if I am wrong, but PGS ASAs USA subsidiary, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., Houston, Texas has directors Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Jon Erik Reinhardsen, who have legal fiduciary responsibilities for PGS ASA USA matters?
Similarly, please send credentials and authorization of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited agent Duensing – Kippen to draft legal agreements for adjudication in the Federal Courts of Harris County, Texas, USA.
PGS ASA has not yet acknowledged my submitted [subject access request] 15 April 2020. Please do so, and I would also like PGS ASA to respond to subsequent e-mail correspondence, especially the e-mail sent 22 April 2020.
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, as well.
More PGA ASA Blackmail / Extortion ….
Dear Mr Kalavity
Notice of Breach of Compromise Agreement
Under the terms of a Compromise Agreement of Criminal Case between PGS Exploration (UK) (PGS) Limited and Steven D Kalavity dated 9 November 2011 (the “Compromise Agreement”), you agreed that you would not publish or cause to be published the Publication or similar content on any website, social media platform or any other digital or physical media including, without limitation, by email.
You breached the Compromise Agreement in 2018 and you received notices to that effect pursuant to Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement on 30 April 2019 and 7 May 2019 instructing you to remove or amend such material. You did not do so. As such PGS are taking civil and criminal proceedings against you in Thailand, as we are entitled to do under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in such proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This will be enforced against you as a debt.
You have published the Publication and more similar content in breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise agreement on your websites www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org.
This email constitutes notice in accordance with our obligations under Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement. PGS hereby notifies you in accordance with Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement that publishing of the material on www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org is a breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise Agreement and must be removed from those websites. You have three (3) days to comply with this notice by removing the material or amending it so that it does not mention PGS or its Affiliates or employees.
Under Clause 4 of the Compromise Agreement you agreed to pay a penalty of USD $50,000, which shall constitute a debt from you to PGS. In the event that the material has not been removed by 2 pm UK time on 26 April 2020, PGS shall without further notice to you instigate debt recovery proceedings against you for all penalty sums due to PGS occasioned by this and your previous violations of Clause 2. Such proceedings may include bankruptcy proceedings available to PGS under relevant applicable laws.
In addition to proceedings against you in Thailand, we reserve the right to issue further proceedings against you in Texas for breach of contract in accordance with our rights under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in these further proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This, again, will be enforced against you as a debt.
I submitted a subject access request 15 April 2020 that has not been acknowledged.
Could PGS ASA please acknowledge?
I would like to reference the Response to Access Request Dated 11 June 2018 (the “Access Request”) dated 16 July 2018 and signed by John Francas, Head of Legal, UK, Africa, and Middle East for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (the “Fraudulent Letter”)
It seems that PGS intentionally provided material misrepresentations and also withheld material information from the data subject in this Fraudulent Letter. Please clarify if the data subject has misinterpreted the Fraudulent Letter.
The Fraudulent Letterstates:
You should also note that under the terms of the settlement agreement between you and PGS dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”) you agreed not to further pursue your grievance or any analogous or substantially similar or other grievance against PGS and that PGS, nor any other company in the PGS group, shall have any further obligation to you in respect to such grievances.
The majority of my online publications do not repeat the issues of the 20 September 2013 grievance (the “grievance”) which is referenced in the Settlement Agreement. I would appreciate it if PGS ASA would specifically reference the contents of the grievance, to avoid ambiguity, since the grievance is quite long. However, as PGS ASA can reference from the copy of the grievance being processed by PGS, the Form of Grievance introduction states:
In response to the fore-mentioned meeting and the Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan, I am initiating the grievance procedure due to my belief that PGS Contract Sales – Africa has breached in practice and principle UK labor laws, PGS Core Values, PGS UK Personnel Handbook practices, as well as established best practices as presented through PGS contracted training and development courses.
It is my contention that Contract Sales – Africa work environment is unsafe/unhealthy.
Further, the Contract Sales – Africa Manager has breached his trust and authority through exercising negative behaviors consistent with workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, defamation and negligence.
The topic of most of my online publications have been in regard to the documents and processes which supported and led to my signing the Settlement Agreement. The grievancepresented to PGS ASA executive management was protected disclosures, or whistleblowing, according to the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA):
In this Act a “protected disclosure” means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.
43B Disclosures qualifying for protection.
(1) 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, or
(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.
In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (the “2014 SAR”) so that I could obtain the personal data that PGS was processing in my name. Firm copies of e-mail records and the contents of my PGS professional personnel file (“personnel file”) was mailed from Weybridge, England to my residence (at the time) in Houston, Texas, USA.
It was immediately recognized by me, the data subject, that several of the documents within the personnel file being processed are defamatory forgeries that are not legally verifiable. No one can verify them as authentic, because the documents are not signed by the data subject nor supported by accompanying documentation evidence. (I challenge PGS data processor, John Francas, a lawyer, to authenticate to the standard required by a court of law (England) the documents that were delivered to me. Also, the dates on the documents indicate that they were processed to support the Settlement Agreement. In other words, illegal documents were used to process the Settlement Agreement. This revelation of more (alleged) criminal activity has been the topic of most of the queries e-mailed to PGS agents and content which I have published online. This content is also protected disclosure, but not the same protected disclosure that was revealed within the grievance.
PGS references the 2014 SAR within the Fraudulent Letter:
We [PGS] have determined that applicable law allows us to deny your request on the basis that processing of your personal data, if any, that may have occurred since your previous request on 10 October 2014 (the “2014 SAR”) would have only been performed in order to seek privileged legal advice in respect to your various direct and indirect communication with or about PGS and/or its employees. Accordingly, we are denying your request under the Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a).
In any event, we consider your request manifestly unfounded or excessive under GDPR Article 12(5)(b). In particular they are repetitive given the 2014 SAR and subsequent persistent requests in email correspondence in December 2014 and repeated requests in June 2018 in the days following the Access Request. It is our view that PGS provided you with a substantive response and documents in respect to the 2014 SAR.
It should be emphasized, again, that my repeated requests are a derivative of PGS ignoring my direct or indirect communications with or about PGS and/or its employees. PGS has had multiple opportunities to answer simple questions, but irresponsibly refuse to do so, as with the Fraudulent Letter that answers nothing and instead makes continued online publications and queries inevitable.
Of course, PGS is aware that I rejected their citing Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a) as a reason for denying a responsible response to my several queries stemming from the 2014 SAR response. If PGS actually read and acknowledged the contents of my online publications, PGS would understand that I believe that PGS continues to utter forged defamatory documents (criminal behavior) as my personal data.
Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a) – Legal Professional Privilege
19 The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of –
Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, confidentiality of communications, could be maintained in legal proceedings.
One of the exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is the crime-fraud exception. This exception applies when communications are made in the furtherance of a crime or fraud. In other words, the attorney-client privilege is not a shield to be used by either the attorney or the client to pursue or cover up criminal activity, including acts contributing to the obstruction or perversion of justice.
With regard to the 2014 SAR, during November – December 2014, following the receipt of the data received from PGS, I wrote several e-mails stating my concerns about the integrity of the data that PGS processed in my name. On 22 December 2014, PGS sent a response letter to me by post and e-mail (the “Extortion Letter”):
Data Processing Queries – PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (the “Company”)
I am writing further your e-mail correspondence of 5, 6, and 20 December 2014.
Please be aware that, to the extent that your queries and comments relate to issues which were not raised in your grievance of 20 September 2013, the Company is willing to take reasonable and proportionate steps to accommodate your requests.
Instead, a copy of your email of 5 December has been placed on your personnel file (and is held also in our email and document database), and the points you have raised about the data we hold are accordingly held together with your other personal data. We regard this as a satisfactory and proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about you is accurate.
The only point which we think might possibly not be clear from that material would be the identities of those who have had access to your hard copy personnel file. The people who have had access to the hard copy personnel file (a copy of which was provided to you) are myself, Laura Haswell, Gareth Jones, Anna Stokle and Simon Cather, all in our capacities as your management and HR employees of the Company.
You should also be aware that, to the extent the Company incurs losses by reason of further breaches of your agreement not to pursue matters raised in that grievance, its rights are reserved to (among other remedies) bring damages claims against you for breach of contract in respect of those losses.
The Extortion Letter similarly misrepresented my concerns with the content received from the 2014 SAR as relating to the issues raised within the grievance. I was now raising issues with how the grievance was settled. The grievance itself claimed that PGS ASA was breaking the law and in breach of employment contract and PGS (UK) policy, which was whistleblowing. Upon receiving the copies of data being processed in my name by PGS, I now believed that defamatory forged documents were illegally used to process the Settlement Agreement. PGS stating that they would process the Dispute E-mail“as a satisfactory and proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about you is accurate” is acknowledging that inaccurate data was processed to support the Settlement Agreement. However, I did not regard that simply processing correct data after weaponized fraudulent data was used to affect a termination under false pretenses was a proportionate remedy. Not only did PGS process inaccurate (defamatory) data, but so did all the lawyers involved in using the inaccurate data. This implied a criminal conspiracy to defraud a whistleblower and terminate him illegally with a fraudulent Settlement Agreement. PGS’ solution was neither acceptable norproportionate to the data subject and victim of crimes!
I did not come to these conclusions immediately after receiving the 2014 SAR response contents. However, I did immediately believe that PGS was in breach of the Settlement Agreement. However, I hadn’t yet imagined the broader conspiracy and what it implied. The binding nature of settlement agreements made legal redress problematic. On 3 July 2015, I published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”. PGS never invoked the Confidentiality clauses within the Settlement Agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging content. I believed that this was protected public disclosure. On 24 August 2015, I submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police). I continued to publish on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. On 6 September 2015, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign was published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, followed on 20 September 2015 with, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II, that actually presented documented evidence that PGS was uttering forged documents as my personal data. (These articles now are published on marineseismicsurvey.com.) Again, PGS didn’t invoke the Confidentiality clauses of disparaging content which I was trying to provoke. In October 2015, I moved from the USA to Thailand.
I continued to publish protected disclosure on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. On 20 April 2016, I submitted another SAR (the “2016 SAR”) to the PGS Compliance Hotline composed of PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen; PGS Senior Vice President Global Human Resources, Terje Bjølseth; and Vice President Compliance and Internal Audit, Silke Hitschkes. My intentions for notifying the PGS Compliance Hotline were to formally present my concerns regarding the integrity of the data PGS was processing in my name so that it would be processed, but also to provoke a response to my publications on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. I especially wanted PGS compliance comment confirm the contents published within the 20 September 2015 article where evidence to support my allegations was presented. PGS issued the following statement on 20 May 2016:
PGS has followed up your complaint through the Compliance Hotline in accordance with our procedures. No deviations from PGS’ procedures or guidelines were uncovered and none of the documents placed in your employee folder was found to contain false or misleading information about you. No evidence found indicate that you were defrauded. The case dealing with your complaint is hereby closed.
PGS provided no evidence nor an investigation report to back-up this ridiculous statement. PGS also did not reference nor comment on any of the content posted on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, the Extortion Letter, nor referenced the Dispute E-mail. On 24 May 2016, I published a response to the PGS Hotline in the form of a blog post,The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud. The title accuses PGS of criminal behavior. PGS refused to address simple concerns and questions. I continued to post articles on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, post queries in the PGS’ LinkedIn™comment space, as well as send e-mails to PGS Compliance Team members. In August 2016, I was restricted from LinkedIn™. PGS had complained that I defamed them. PGS irresponsible misrepresentation of protected disclosure with defamation. PGS never invoked the contractual non-disparagement clauses of the Settlement Agreement. I always considered my published content as protected public disclosure and rejected PGS’ claim that the publications were “defamation.” Further, many of the publications are identified as “whistleblowing.” Regardless, in-house counsel for a company should understand what is legally considered protected public disclosure. The Settlement Agreement is governed by the laws of England, hence PIDA is referenced.
Copies of the e-mails sent to PGS Compliance Hotline from April – September 2016 were intentionally provided to PGS with the 2018 SAR. The Fraudulent Letterintentionally omits reference to 2016 SAR. Retaliating against whistleblowing, most notably through acts contributing to the obstruction or perversion of justice, is what PGS has done consistently since forming the Settlement Agreement. There was something even more sinister and egregious withheld from the PGS’ 2018 SAR response. On 13 September 2018, PGS delivered a court summons for a criminal defamation claim while I was traveling outside Thailand to/in the USA. The summons was in the Thai language. The summons was to address a criminal defamation complaint. PGS had never once commented on any content that I had published prior Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen delivering the summons on behalf of PGS. Duensing – Kippen delivered the firm copies of the summons and claims to the address of my wife and family where I stayed. I never had provided either my e-mail address or physical address to Duensing – Kippen. I had to rush back to Thailand and see what was distressing my family. PGS violated GDPR and transferred my personal data outside the EEA to Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen without my consent. This included a copy of my USA passport, which is also a crime under USA Federal law.
My personal data had been provided to PGS for the explicit purpose of identification to process the 2018 SAR. The claim was prepared by PGS 10 July 2018. The 2018 SAR response is dated 16 July 2018. PGS had acknowledged receipt of the 2018 SAR on 18 June 2018. PGS had already processed my personal data, likely illegally, and did not disclose this within their 2018 SAR response. Further, PGS illegally stalked my travels using the illegally obtained personal data. PGS illegally provided my USA passport data to Duensing – Kippen, who also illegally copied my USA passport without my consent to advance a fraud. The summons was received by me in the USA, which again is USA Federal Wire Fraud. I am also convinced this entire organized crime enterprise facilitated by PGS violates the USA Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and will advance this to the extent which I am capable. PGS has perverted the course of justice through denying me due process facilitated through the bribery of corrupt lawyers. When I returned to Thailand, I had to confront these allegations with very little time to consider and prepare. Nevertheless, I e-mailed several e-mails to PGS asking so many questions. Many of these e-mails were written from the USA, as well.
I want PGS to stop their perverting the course of justice and finally address the issues and questions which have been asked since the fraud initiated whilst in Weybridge, England June 2013. I am demanding that PGS provide me with the purported Thailand arrest warrants that they sponsored through Duensing – Kippen. I also want all of the original data supporting the claims processed in England prior to their translation into the Thai language. There is no way that PGS could process a legal claim of defamation without authenticating the data and processes that created the contents of my professional personnel file. Also, any legal claim would need to be composed of the full-body of publications that were published when the claim was formed, including articles that had been delivered to PGS Compliance from April – September 2016. Finally, most of my publications were published on nopgs.com. This site was taken down in December 2018 and evidence destroyed while Kingdom of Thailand and USA Federal litigation was pending, per the signed 11 November 2018 Duensing – Kippen agreement. PGS and Duensing – Kippen need to explain what happened to nopgs.com?