This website, london-landua-law.com exists because Philip Simon Landau, principal of Landau Law Solicitors, is a criminal peice of shit who perverts the course of justice. If Philip Landau’s settlement contract on behalf of USA citizen client, SDK were a legal instrument, SDK should be sued in the courts of England for disparaging his former employer, co-workers, customers, and competitors of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, England. The last thing criminal Philip Simon Landau wants to do is go to an English court because he would go to English prison shortly thereafter. My hope is that he does spend a long time in prison for his fraud and debasement of the legal profession and crimes against me and my family.
Why isn’t the former Tier 2 visa sponsor and employer of USA citizen SDK, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Weybridge, Surrey, England upset with the London Employment Solicitor Philip Simon Landau Rubbish Settlement Contract that is supposed to prohibit the publication of content that disparages Norwegian company (organized criminal oil and gas cartel) PGS ASA or any of its subsidiaries and stakeholders?
Philip Simon Landau, principal at London Landau Law and former principal at LZW Law Limiteddiscriminated, defrauded, and defamed USA citizen client SDK. Philip Simon Landau aided and abetted criminals who illegally denied sponsored Tier 2 visa holder to submit and follow the required workplace grievance process. Philip Simon Landau conspired to create fraudulent personnel records to blacklist whistleblower SDK. Philip Simon Landau defrauded the UK, USA, and Thailand immigration agencies. Philip Simon Landau also defrauded the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee personal data processing compliance. Philip Simon Landau has misrepresented unsigned and inaccurate personnel records as compliant to data protection laws. Every record processed to support the illegal termination of a whistleblower is illegal, and therefore in violation of the UK Data Protection Act.
Philip Simon Landau misrepresented his client, SDK, a USA citizen sponsored on Tier 2 visa along with family dependents, to be removed from England and sent to the USA under false pretenses. Philip Simon Landau aided criminals through helping them remove their victim of crimes from the UK and thus essentially taking away SDKs legal right to use the UK criminal and civil justice system.
By the laws of England and contained within the employment contract, employees have a right to submit a grievance to their employer.
By the laws of England, employer’s must respond to the grievance and the employee must be informed of their right to appeal the response.
Because SDK was a USA citizen, PGS / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited decided to discriminate and bypass the laws of England and company policy to deny SDKs right to submit a grievance and have it be processed legally.
PGS / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited decided to cheat and break the laws of England and do whatever was necessary to not address issues presented within a grievance and instead end the matter by expelling SDK and dependent family members by-passing the laws of England.
PGS / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited bribed lawyers / legal firms Watson Farley & Williams and LZW Solicitors (LZW was hired to represent SDK) to gaslight and coerce SDK into signing an illegal settlement contract to terminate his employment and not follow the legal grievance process.
The settlement was illegal and used primarily to illegally terminate SDK and family member visa’s and get their victims out of England where crimes were committed. This allowed perpetrators to escape legal civil and criminal accountability under the laws of England.
PGS is processing forged and illegal documents as SDKs personnel records. This could be proven within an English court of law.
SDK and his dependent family members would be owed substantial monetary damages and several executives within PGS, Watson Farley & Williams, and LZW Law should face criminal prosecution and prison time.
This is what the government of Norway supports? The crimes committed against SDK and his dependent family members happened while SDK and family members were sponsored by PGS and held visas to legally live and work in England.
H.M.S. Pinafore: “He is an englishman”
The government of Norway supports their corporate leaders deceiving government immigration and data protection agencies? PGS produced false personnel records and shared them globally to illegally retaliate and blacklist from employment a foreign worker whistleblower.
Much of the evidence has been posted on-line since 20 September 2015. No legal action has been taken? The government of Norway supports the destruction of evidence exposing corporate criminal behavior which deceives market investors.
The government of Norway supports extortion and bribery to retaliate against a USA citizen whistleblower and his Thai-USA citizen dependent family members? PGS bribed legal firm Watson Farley & Williams and Duensing-Kippen in Thailand to harass and file false “criminal defamation” charges for publishing legally protected public disclosure under the laws of England – Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998.
Norwegian and world citizens must demand that their government and corporate elite follow the law and stop obstructing justice.
PGS must be compelled to appear in the courts of England FIRST and then the Federal Courts of the USA. PGS has also broken numerous Norwegian laws, but apparently that is okay? Norway’s corporate elite are allowed to break international laws and be protected by the corrupt Norwegian government as well.
The Chicks – Not Ready to Make Nice (Live at VH1 Storytellers)
“Not Ready To Make Nice”
Forgive, sounds good Forget, I’m not sure I could They say time heals everything But I’m still waiting
I’m through with doubt There’s nothing left for me to figure out I’ve paid a price And I’ll keep paying
I’m not ready to make nice I’m not ready to back down I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could ‘Cause I’m mad as hell Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I know you said Can’t you just get over it It turned my whole world around And I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’ It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger And how in the world can the words that I said Send somebody so over the edge That they’d write me a letter Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing Or my life will be over
I’m not ready to make nice I’m not ready to back down I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could ‘Cause I’m mad as hell Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I’m not ready to make nice I’m not ready to back down I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could ‘Cause I’m mad as hell Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
What it is you think I should
Forgive, sounds good Forget, I’m not sure I could They say time heals everything But I’m still waiting
The conspiracy to defraud and commit other crimes against SDK and his dependent family members were only possible because SDK and his dependent family members were foreigners sponsored by PGS on a UK Tier 2 Visa.
Employee’s of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited must read and confirm understanding of the PGS UK Personnel Handbook (“the Handbook”). The Handbook states the laws guiding the written policy are the laws of England. This includes policies regarding grievance and disciplinary procedures. This also includes addressing employment of foreigners.
The direction and management of PGS / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited have been irresponsible and destructive. Directors and employees have allowed publication of copious amount of legally protected public disclosure and taken no action to protect the value and reputation of the company, its stakeholders, and the industry at large. They have all breached their contracts and fiduciary responsibilities.
There are two ways of to deal with content that disparages company reputation and value: removal and suppression
Removal: The inclusion of confidentiality clauses within employment or settlement contracts seek to prohibit publication of content which disparages company stakeholders. Those who breach confidentiality clauses expose themselves to civil litigation for claims of damages.
It is clear that there is a legitimate place for confidentiality clauses signed as part of an employment contract. These are used by employers to protect commercially sensitive information and to prevent their employees sharing such information with their competitors. We also heard evidence that many employees who sign a settlement agreement at the end of their employment with an organisation value the inclusion of confidentiality clauses, as they allow them to move on and make a clear break. However, using these clauses to silence and intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination cannot be tolerated, which is why we are introducing reforms.
CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES – Response to the Government consultation on proposals to prevent misuse in situations of workplace harassment or discrimination, UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
Suppression: Contact Google to remove sites that violate their policies. For example, publishing sensitive financial or personal information is against Google policies. When illegal confidentiality clauses are used, suppression is illegally used to cover-up criminal acts and keep them from proceeding through the legal court process.
A BuzzFeed News investigation has found examples of executives, doctors, criminals, and even a Russian oligarch all benefiting from search engine manipulation campaigns to suppress negative content.
The Minister of Petroleum and Energy is a councilor of state and chief of Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. The current minister is Terje Aasland. Tina Bru served in this post from 2020 to 2021. Criminal accusations of executives within the Norwegian Petroleum and Energy industry have been published by USA citizen and whistleblower SDK since 4th July 2015 and ignored, in violation of Norwegian laws (Working Environment Act). In fact, the corrupt Norway government has PROMOTED and PROTECTED criminals and abusers of USA and Thai citizens. Irresponsible corporate board of directors members and executives do not execute contractual confidentiality clauses which prohibit publication of disparaging content to protect company value and reputation which is fiduciary malfeasance!
Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2
(6-April-2019)
The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11
Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2
Psychological terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an individual in a way that leaves no physical scars but leaves psychological injuries or trauma that have long-lasting impact.
Discrimination, bullying or harassment of any kind will not be tolerated by the Company and all allegations of such behaviour will be dealt with seriously, confidentially and speedily.
UK COMPANY OFFICE PERSONNEL HANDBOOK
Within a previous MarineSeismicSurvey (MSS) blog post article, Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part One: The Ambush Meeting (Part 1), the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter, was discussed. The 24 July 2016 Ambush Letter scheduled another meeting for 11 September 2013. Of all the dates to choose to eliminate the American (USA) foreign worker, 9-11 was chosen as a meeting6 date with all its emotional symbolism. Minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting had been requested right after the event. These important minutes chronicling a distressing event were denied, but I pressed for something firm in writing. That was how the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter came about. Almost six-weeks following the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, a letter was finally delivered to me. What was never answered in the interim or within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was how the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting conformed to the UK-England company written policy, procedures, and of course contract and employment law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter actually raised similar concerns once it was received.
The copy of the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter scanned and referenced in this article was received through my submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014. The UK company is an affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company (NGSUK). NGSUK personal data processors within the human resources (HR) group are processing this 24 July 201 Ambush Letter. Unfortunately, there are many problems with the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. It would serve as the impetus for my submitting a lengthy workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. However, the most immediately visible problem with the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter when I received it as part of my official NGSUK personnel file documentation is that the mentioned scheduled 11 September 2013 (my 9-11) meeting actually never happened! The same HR manager who hosted the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting of questionable propriety and intentionally withheld the requested meeting minutes from me, also prevented the submission of a grievance soon after the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, and also cancelled and rescheduled the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013, as the 18 September 2013 e-mail indicates. The same HR Manager was now overseeing my SAR a year later. I did submit a 20 September 2013 formal grievance, but this document is not being processed within the body of my personnel file records. However, the 20 September 2013 formal grievance is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with the Norwegian geo-services company (NGS). NGS’ HR departments subsequent processing of defamatory fake data is a sinister form of blacklisting. Both are not compliant nor legal acts, but were the coordinated endeavor of the corrupt and evil NGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by NGS / NGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!
The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to NGSUK policy and procedures? Within the pages of the submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance, I had made the case that the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meetingdid not conform to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK contract and employment law. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance had focused on the propriety and the participants of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting as well as countering the unsubstantiated claims made within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter, since I never had received minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. (This point was made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, as well.) I was also astonished to discover a version of minutes for the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was also being processed within my official PGSUK personnel file. My truthful professional reputation was assassinated on 11 September 2013, an event that never happened to me in reality, but exists as the most significant date within my professional official work history with NGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. NGS / NGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal nor compliant to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK employment and contract law. For some time, I have believed, and collected evidence showing, that I was a victim of a conspiracy to defraud, on top of being a target of severe workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). I have been on a writing campaign for justice since discovering this. However, it is a very difficult endeavor to confront corrupt power and money, especially when so many “professionals” from different companies participated in the alleged crimes against me and my family. Overcoming the banality of corruption and incivility is difficult, especially when those entrusted with corporate governance are the principal perpetrators and facilitators of the crimes.
Make no mistake. Gaslighting is not about love or concern. It’s about power and control. A gaslighter is someone who needs to feel superior and who manipulates people to further their own agendas.
Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D., 7 Ways to Extinguish Gaslighting
Trust yourself. Recognize what they are doing and stay calm. If you know your case, preserved your record, and know why you’re in court today, you are armed. You will correct the record as appropriate and return focus to the important issues for the court and your case. You have prepared and you know what you are doing.
Alyson A. Foster, Gaslighting in Litigation
The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was written on behalf of NGSUK and states that its creation was necessary since I had related that I wanted to pursue the matter officially. To me, this meant according to NGSUK policy, procedures, as well as employment (Tier 2 visa) law and contract law. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter did not address my simple queries. At the same time, I was helpless to steer events. It seems that there were two avenues which could have been pursued, based on the NGS UK Office Policy Handbook (NGSUK Handbook). These were to either follow the NGSUK Handbook grievance procedures or the disciplinary procedures. These would have been the anticipated official routes to be followed. As was pointed out in Part 1, when disciplinary and grievance matters are related, as was the case here, according to ACAS, the matters can be resolved together. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter also indicated that I would have the opportunity to respond with my case and supporting documentation. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance, which is not being processed within the body of my personnel file by NGS / NGSUK HR, was my response and contained substantive information countering the claims made during the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. But, my truthful narrative is destroyed.
The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the NGSUK Handbook procedures. NGS / NGSUK had denied me my legal right to follow the grievance process. How was this permitted? With the assistance of my compromised counsel, Philip Landau of LZW Solicitos and Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), representing NGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all NGS / NGSUK, LWZ Solicitors, and WFW legal and HR professionals involved in my SCA termination to show otherwise that the process was compliant and legal. I quite frankly could not figure out what was happening at the time and why all my queries seemed to fall on deaf ears. I never really believed that the process was being carried out correctly, but was being fed misrepresentations from all sides. (WFW had also recently processed my Tier 2 visa leave to remain.) I made countless queries during the negotiations that went unanswered because I had no legal representation. My hired solicitor, Landau, I allege, was complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. This is what I have reported to UK ActionFraud (police). I have also compiled the numerous e-mail communications that confirm that my solicitor was aware of the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013 meeting change. Landau knew that I was a USA citizen and had also received a copy of the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, a copy of the NGSUK Handbook, and NGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepancies should have been noted. However, what especially should have been noted was that my legal right to file a grievance was adhered to. It was not. Instead, false instruments were processed that supported a corrupt disciplinary process used to illegally terminate a whistleblower.
The NGSUK HR Manager was aware that the response to the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter (and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting) would be in the form of a formal grievance prior to the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting. Therefore, the NGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well. What is also important to note is that there was a change of NGSUK secretary 13 September 2013. The new NGSUK secretary assumed the role of secretary andthe responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the NGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The NGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The NGSUK Handbook also states NGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures. Any official route should have implicitly followed NGS Core Values and the NGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the NGSUK Handbook. Nicholson continued to be the main driver of the process even though he was directly implicated in misconduct and bullying through hosting the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. Neither NGSUK seretaries ever contacted me before or following the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. Within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance it was my belief that my nationality and Tier 2 visa status had elevated the destructive behaviors to harassment of a protected class, or illegal harassment. My Tier 2 visa status was a very important consideration which seemed to be ignored.
Indeed, most of those surveyed for the report identified employer retaliation and not being taken seriously as the most common barriers to taking complaints to employers
Muneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address harassment
First, his silence may be taken as consent to whatever has been said to him, as an implied admission. This inference arises where a denial would be expected if the statement was false. Here silence operates rather like a nod; it is as if the party did not think it worth while lasting words in assenting to what he and the speaker know is obvious.
J. D. HEYDON, SILENCE AS EVIDENCE
Subsequent debates have argued the fine print over whether these individuals are actually psychopaths, or sociopaths, or have another mental disorder, called narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever the name of their conditions, they create chaos. They have no capacity to see or respect the perspective of others, are completely disrespectful, and many of them prop themselves up with a sadistic addiction to diminishing others.
Perpetrators actively, though often covertly, seek to harm others–physically, emotionally, and spiritually, using tactics designed to injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.
As the NGSUK Handbook header indicates, NGSUK HRM prepared the NGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents. The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by NGSUK HRM, as well. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of NGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is also signed by only the NGSUK HRM. Nothing is countersigned by the employee (me) or his supervisor. The exception is a Memo dated 25 October 2013, when Landau was engaged as my solicitor. NGSUK HRM did not sign this Memo, but neither did I. None of these documents are authenticated or substantiated by documentation and are therefore defamatory. I did not work directly for any of the directors, secretary, HR department, or division Executive Vice-President (EVP). The documents relate uncorroborated events, wrong dates, and non-existent documents. They are all forgeries. Further, no NGS / NGSUK, WFW, or LZW agent has ever challenged or commented on the allegations that the documents are forgeries in over three-years of protected public disclosure – whistleblowing. No definitive answer nor clarification has ever been provided as to the propriety of 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting or 24 July 2013 Ambush Meeting following multiple queries, including NGS Compliance. NGS, Landau, and WFW uttered false instruments to process my termination from employment with NGSUK.
This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct. Said another way, NGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels. NGSUK continued to obstruct my ability and right under UK employment law to complain! My queries were simple and reasonable. They could have been addressed easily. The NGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees. The NGSUK Handbook notes the importance of formal and informal lines of communication, especially between the employee and their immediate supervisor. The grievance procedure discusses provisions where the immediate supervisor is the focus of the grievance or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor. In this case, the grievance should be raised with the employee’s supervisor’s superior. As for any disciplinary actions, such matters must be fully investigated and focused on a fair resolution. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter stated management’s intention to investigate the possibility of implementing a performance improvement plan. But, what was the predicate for NGSUK’s directors and secretary intervention prior to any completed investigation or addressing the central concern as to the propriety of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting?
These behaviors seem to model the behaviors of workplace harassment, mobbing, and bullying, inclusive of manipulative gaslighting, as described in literature. They seem to model non-compliant and criminal behaviors. NGSUK manipulated the processes to force a desired outcome. This included blocking all avenues of legal redress through adopting an official route that is not included within the NGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and uttering forged instruments. Legally guaranteed processes were notpermitted and choices were limited to the employee so that management could achieve their “win” in this nefarious end game. This end game included co-opting a truthful professional narrative with a fabrication of events. This end game included the symbolic elimination of the American from their workforce on my 9-11. It was all psychological terrorism. It involved illegality, the denial of my human rights and rights under contract and employment law, which were all documented within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance. Most troubling is the witnessing of the death of professionalism and civility and the revelation of weak characters that found sadistic pleasure in abusing their power. Many, many NGS / NGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore NGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. NGS / NGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. NGS’s dumbfounded Norwegian management and board should have thought twice before lodging their despicable terrorist attack on an American focused on justice. Truth is very strong. Poor management is weak and soon runs out of resources. Weak NGS management- management built upon the “sands” of deception – and board of directors attacked me and my family and now these “leaders” hide from their actions and accountability. Pathetic. Even more pathetic is the employee ranks who allow such depraved leadership to remain unaccountable to a Code of Practice or Responsibility Report and functional corporate governance.
In essence, the psyche constantly returned to scenes of unpleasure because, by restaging the traumatic moment over and over again, it hoped belatedly to process the unassimilable material, to find ways of mastering the trauma retroactively
SIGMUND FReud
Privilege, or immunity, is also a defense against a claim of defamation. Qualified privilege is usually used in cases where the person communicating the statement has a “legal, moral, or social duty to make it….” The person making the statement must show that he or she has made the statement in good faith, believing it to be true and that the statement was made without malice. One example of qualified privilege is the immunity of members of the press from defamation charges for statements made in the press in good faith unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.
Does the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) accept bribes and launder money to protect criminals? This former SEG member, PGS ASA employee and whistleblower thinks that they do.
Why don’t PGS ASA EVP Nathan Oliver and PGS ASA EVP Rob Adams dispute or deny online publications accusing them of crimes?Shouldn’t everyone then assume that they are criminals?
