1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 3

SDK does not accept PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response to his 2020 SAR as reasonable. It must be assumed that the correspondence delivered to SDK was for his consideration. Why does PGS Exploration (UK) Limited contend that this consideration can/should only be done in Thailand?

The subject access request (SAR) sent to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2020 is requesting copies of any / all legal notices sent to SDKs former residence in Thailand to be sent electronically to the email address referenced within the 11 November 2018 contracts. SDK has also requested the English language versions of any notices or correspondence prior to translation into the Thai language as well.

*to:*	*GDPR <[email protected]>,John Francas <[email protected]>***
*date:*	*Apr 15, 2020, 7:20 AM*
*subject:*	*GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request*
*mailed-by:*	*gmail.com*

RE; Steven D. Kalavity

GDPR

I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.

I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand. I have never received these.

I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.

I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.

Regards,

Steven

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has refused to honor the 2020 SAR and provide SDK with content actually created for his consideration. This PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response is more relevant to the SAR that SDK submitted in June 2018, prior to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards delivering initial claims in September 2018. SDK was compelled to sign two (2), one for each claim, compromise agreements governed by the laws of Thailand. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Richards agreed not to further pursue criminal defamation charges with 2-5 year sentences for each claim if SDK signed the agreements. (These agreements may also be invalid for reasons of duress.) PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited provided Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen with SDK sensitive personal data without consent to initiate their legal claims in 2018.

ICOs response to data subject, SDK:

An organisation has to comply with a condition set out in chapter 5 of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) if it is to transfer personal data overseas.

Article 49 (1) (e) of GDPR provides a condition permitting a data controller to transfer personal data overseas if it is “necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims”.

The organisation has confirmed that they relied on this condition to transfer your data.

In your case, the organisation has transferred your data to a legal firm in Thailand to pursue a legal claim against you. As such we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations in this case

Although we appreciate this will not be the decision you were hoping for, we hope the above information is of assistance to you in clarifying the application of the GDPR in this case.

*Carl Richards’, Secretary, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Silence Implies Agreement and the Abrogation of Fiduciary Duty (20 April 2018) p108-109*

SDK has also requested, through several separate correspondence, clarification on the status of the two current contracts between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK with respect to the legal notices delivered in Thailand citing SDKs breach of the Thailand contracts. The legality of Thailand contracts has not been resolved nor clarified by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. SDK has sent PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited several emails requesting clarification. PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response has been to have Duensing – Kippen deliver ultimatums that only frighten Thai relatives who have no understanding of SDK and PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited legal issues.

UK defamation laws are different from the laws of Thailand. Defamation occurs when something is said or written about someone which is untrue and damages their reputation. In the UK, defamation is a civil action. Thailand still has a criminal defamation law. Disparagement differs from defamation. The contracts between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK, governed by the laws of England, prohibit the publication of unprotected content (not whistleblowing) that damages the reputation of someone even if the content is true. The UK Limitation Act 1980 allows one-year from the date of publication to make a claim for defamation.

When an English company hires a foreign law firm, they do not inherit the agency of the law firm. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cannot legally hire Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen for the sole purpose of prosecuting a case under the laws of Thailand! PGS Exploration (UK) Limited would need to have agency in Thailand, such as a legal business of subsidiary, in order to be a victim under the laws of Thailand. There are defamation laws in the UK/England that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could sue under.

Duensing – Kippen cannot legally establish what is or is not a true published statement. The claim filed in Thailand on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is a false claim. SDK publications have focused on PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processing documents that are not signed by the data subject. These documents are inaccurate and unverifiable. SDK supports his claims with time-stamped emails. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Duensing – Kippen cannot legally establish what is true for the basis of a defamation suit. SDK regards the litigation in Thailand as illegal blackmail / extortion to intimidate him into depublishing legally protected content with evidence.

SDK was accused of breaching the 11 November 2018 Thailand agreements during the 10-day consideration period following the signing. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (also, PGS ASA/ Watson Farley & Williams/ Landau Law) again retaliated against SDK for publishing protected content directed to a customer whilst they were in negotiations for a lucrative transaction. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards filed new criminal claims in Thailand with a new scheduled trial date of 29 January 2019.

During this period, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards would decide to accept the previously signed agreements. However, in mid-December, the website, nopgs.com, that published most of the protected content was stolen after being taken offline. SDK believes this was illegal theft and destruction of evidence that SDK would have relied on to defend against the claims. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards did accept the signed agreements.

The legal notices pertinent to the 2020 SAR are directed on the content published on marineseismicsurvey.com Again, since nopgs.com was stolen and destroyed, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards would have to legally establish that content published on marineseismicsurvey.com is defamatory and the same as content illegally destroyed while under the legal discretion of Duensing – Kippen, Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. SDK can only suppose that the claims delivered to SDK attention in Thailand address these issues. But, Duensing – Kippen, Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refuse to deliver these claims to SDK while he is in the USA.

Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)

SDK believes that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is in breach of the 11 November 2018 Thailand agreement which stipulates an email address be used for communications regarding the contract. SDK resided in Thailand on a visa which has expired. Thus, SDK has no legal right to travel and/or remain in Thailand for any length of time. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Duensing – Kippen have demanded SDK travel to Thailand to address these delivered claims. SDK needs to consider the complaints and get advice prior to returning to Thailand.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited provided Duensing – Kippen SDK sensitive personal data. PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had been provided SDK passport copy and Thailand address information for the specific process of processing a 2018 SAR. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited did not have permission to provide sensitive personal data to Duensing – Kippen. SDK is requesting the legal claims delivered in Thailand so that he can receive counsel regarding how to legally respond, but also resolve whether the initial claims were themselves legal.

SDK believes the only legal and valid contract between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK is the original employment contract. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited have declared SDK published content defamatory only under Thai law. However, SDK publications are legally protected by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). PIDA protections against illegal whistleblower retaliation constitute the part of both contracts governed by the laws of England.

SDK believes that his termination from employment by Tier 2 visa sponsor PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was illegal retaliation for SDKs blowing the whistle on PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited management through the submission of a workplace grievance. PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were motivated to process fake records to support a “legal” basis for termination. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and most importantly Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) uttered forged documents to process the termination settlement contract.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Law have been copied on this complaint to ICO. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and most importantly Landau Law have never personally refuted SDK accusations nor invoked contractual confidentiality terms and conditions to cease the publication of content published since July 2015. SDK contends that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has been in violation of GDPR principles since 2013. SDK has published time-stamped e-mail records that prove PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing inaccurate SDK personal data.

These claims could easily be validated by a legal third-party (police) evaluation of SDK PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed data. SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014. SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable.

*Another Unanswered E-mail to PGS ASAs Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Berit Osnes, Nathan Oliver, Rob Adams and Walter Qvam (6 June 2020)*

SDK has subsequently submitted SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The predicate for the submissions in 2016, 2018, and 2020 has been the contents – personal personnel file data/documents – that was received from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited by the 2014 SAR.

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards), Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) all were involved with forming the termination settlement contract supported by the defamatory forged documents. This is the reason why PGS Exploration (UK) Limited sponsored litigation in Thailand, where SDK was living. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams) and Landau Law (LZW Law) are avoiding the English legal system because it would expose agent complicity and criminal behavior.

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards), Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) all know that the data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for SDK is not legal nor accurate. There is no way that any legal contract breaches could not be resolved in much less time. There has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards), Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) have been copied on this email and should be able to clarify and resolve the issues that SDK has found with his personal data that was processed by YOU ALL!

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Carl Richards and co-conspirators at Duensing – Kippen, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law continue to pervert the course of justice through their silence. In the meantime, my family suffers from the collective abuse from unprofessional pieces of shit who decided to make a US citizen a victim of their harassment, fraud and abuse. You know who you are and what you have done. Too many cooks spoil the soup as too many lawyers spoil a contract. Whose contract takes precedence? Article 49 (1) (e) of GDPR provides a condition permitting a data controller to transfer personal data overseas if it is “necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims” Are the claims legal? This is in doubt and contested by data subject SDK.

ICO has ignored SDK concerns regarding claims that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has violated multiple GDPR principles and even UK law (e.g., reports to ActionFraud (police) and instead have accepted the uninvestigated and unverified denials from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has escaped the most rudimentary and reasonable validation processes to confirm with certainty their compliance to GDPR principles. SDK is 100% certain that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is NOT compliant to GDPR Principles!

*17 May 2020 SDK to PGS ASA, Duensing – Kippen, and Watson Farley & Williams (17 May 2020)*

1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 2

cc:	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ActionFraud <[email protected]>, Alan Zeffertt <[email protected]>, Andrew Weir <[email protected]>, Carl Richards <[email protected]>, GDPR <[email protected]>, Holly Rushton <[email protected]>, John Francas <[email protected]>, Landau Law <[email protected]>, Rhodri Thomas <[email protected]>, Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:	Jan 27, 2021, 11:27 AM
subject:	What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 2
mailed-by:	gmail.com

This is a continuation of my previous complaint.

Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to work in England with data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. The employment contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was/is governed by the laws of England.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed SDK personal data to (a) confirm that a foreign worker met the criteria to legally work in England, and (b) maintain legal records regarding SDK work in England. In the case of SDK, this data is mutually dependent. The data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processes must simultaneously satisfy both of these legal requirements. The data subject, SDK, has shown with evidence that it doesn’t. But, ICO does not hold PGS Exploration (UK) Limited accountable.

SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014. SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was clearly, in the eyes of data subject SDK, in violation of DPA principles.

The Case Reference Number RFA0563589 for the initial complaints regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited personal/subject data processing.

On 9 January 2015 ICO sent me a response. This correspondence has also been attached to this email.

Firstly, SDK was flabbergasted when he received the personal data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed about me. It was like an identity theft. Most all of SDKs personal data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was inaccurate and defamatory.

At that time, I could not figure out exactly what had happened.

My employment with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited ended by a settlement contract, UK employment law requires that terminations through settlement contract require the employee receive advice from a solicitor, which I did.

What SDK did not realize was that he had been the target of a confidence fraud by his hired solicitor. My solicitor, Philip Landau and Holly Hobson (previous Holly Rushton) participated in the creation of fake data to support a performance based termination.

The settlement contract that was proffered and negotiated was in response to a submitted workplace grievance. The grievance met the standard of protected disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

UK Law prescribes a legal process for resolving workplace grievances involving a written conclusion/decision and the opportunity for the employee to appeal the decision. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited bribed Philip Landau and Holly Hobson to process an illegal settlement contract and deny SDKs opportunity for due process per law and contract.

SDKs grievance cited PGS Exploration (UK) Limited malpractice and breaches in UK Law, including violations of the Health & Safety Act 1974 and Equality Act 2010. This included claims of being a target of workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached SDKs employment contract multiple times. SDK had requested many times to see the contents of his professional personnel file and other documents. SDK was denied. This continued throughout the settlement contract negotiations because Landau and Hobson were not working in the interest of their client, but actively defrauding and defaming him.

In normal situations, the data subject would receive assistance in resolving such personal data issues from their solicitor. However, since my solicitors were involved in the confidence fraud, it has been very difficult to unwind. Settlement contracts are very binding and unless there is some criminal investigation over the fraud, there is not too much I can do as a data subject. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has invested a lot of money and resources into this fraud.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Landau Law (Philip Landau & Holly Hobson) and Watson Farley & Williams (Rhodri Thomas) broke many laws throughout the course of SDKs “settlement negotiations.” Also, since lawyers oversaw and participated in the confidence fraud, normal avenues of redress were blocked or made exceedingly difficult.

Within the 9 January 2015 ICO email:

Secondly regarding the removal of your personal data this is not a matter we can assist with. As previously advised Section 14 of the DPA says that a court can order a data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy data where the court is satisfied the data contains an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on inaccurate data. Therefore you can consider taking such an issue to court, however you may wish to seek independent legal advice before pursuing this.

>>>>…<<<<

Accuracy of data

Finally regarding the accuracy of persona information held about you, as previously advised, we only consider issues of factual inaccuracies and not issues about opinions that may be recorded. In their letter to you dated 22 December 2014 PGS Exploration (UK) Limited advised you that your email to them dated 5 December 2014 had been placed on your personnel file. This means that this has now become part of the information they hold about you expressing your views about what happened.

If you have evidence that they hold information about you is factually inaccurate you may wish to raise this with them. This would not include such matters as your views about opinions expressed about you, or the way in which your grievance was conducted.

Other Issues

The following are response to other issues raised in your correspondence dated 29 December 2014:

Regarding providing information to Gareth Jones in the US if he is an employee of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited this information is not being disclosed to a third party organisation. Therefore his being in the US does not appear to be a DPA Issue.

The management of you former company email address is not a DPA issue. If any personal information about you is held on this email account PGS Exploration (UK) Limited should have considered providing this to you when they responded to your subject access request. This would not include personal emails.

We have no evidence that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited hold information about a visit you may made to occupational health on 15 November 2013. If you have such evidence you may wish to raise this with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.

Landau Law (Philip Landau & Holly Hobson), under normal circumstances, should be able to address all of the issues brought to the attention of ICO by SDK. However, since LandaU and Hobson were SDKs hired counsel but actually principals in the confidence fraud, redress has been difficult.

However, with regard to the final point regarding the visit with the occupational health nurse 15 November 2013, SDK did acquire this report which not only should be processed as SDK personal data, but should have greatly impacted the settlement negotiations. SDK submitted an SAR directly to the nurse. The OHN report contradicts much of the fake content within the personal data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. This report has been sent to ICO previously, but has been attached again.

The agency of Gareth Jones, who was working in the PGS ASA Houston, Texas USA office in 2013-2014 is a question that Landau and Hobson should be compelled to answer, since they were theoretically advising USA citizen SDK. Landau and Hobson should also be compelled to state who signed the 5 December 2013 settlement contract on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. But, they fo not.

In the previous complaint which SDK sent to ICO last week, SDK mentioned that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited needed to support both legal sponsorship for a foreign worker in addition to normal employee records.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could not legally sponsor a poor performing foreign worker. Foreign workers can only fill roles which cannot be satisfied by the local employment market. A performance based termination was used as a way to blacklist a whistleblower.

Every lawyer and human resources professional understands the importance of having records signed by the data subject. The reason that SDK records are not signed is because a criminal conspiracy of PGS ASA/PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and bribed lawyers uttered forged documents.

This leads to the same question as was asked in 2014, how can ICO or anybody regard unsigned documents as legal?

Again, this e-mail will be copied to those accused in this mail. Everyone can invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions of the employment contract if they feel disparaged. (They have not done so since first publications July 2015.)

Regards,

Steven D. Kalavity

Was Withholding my Occupational Health Nurse Report from me OK? (2 April 2019)

Case Reference: IC-44927-G3W4

cc:	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ActionFraud <[email protected]>, Alan Zeffertt <[email protected]>, Andrew Weir <[email protected]>, Carl Richards <[email protected]>, GDPR <[email protected]>, Holly Rushton <[email protected]>, John Francas <[email protected]>, Landau Law <[email protected]>, Rhodri Thomas <[email protected]>, Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:	Jan 24, 2021, 7:00 PM
subject:	ICO Complaint 1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4
mailed-by:	gmail.com

*Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017) – Republish*

Complaint Regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Law SDK Personal Data Processing

*The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)*

According to a quick Google search, the Information Commissioner is an independent official appointed by the Crown. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) mission is to “uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”.

These information rights are articulated within the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) seven key principles:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
Purpose limitation.
Data minimisation.
Accuracy.
Storage limitation.
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing illegal personal data for SDK, which is a violation of GDPR Principles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Put simply, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is actively engaged in the illegal uttering of forged documents that were used to defraud and illegally terminate SDK from employment, but also defraud UK immigration (UK Border Agency), USA immigration, and Thailand immigration. ICO has provided no support in rectifying PGS Exploration (UK) Limited criminal violations of GDPR principles.

ICOs RESPONSIBILITY is to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited subject data processing as compliant to GDPR principles. ICOs failure to confirm data controller compliance has contributed to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited violence and human rights abuses against foreign-worker whistleblower, SDK.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is also actively defrauding ICO. The tragedy is that ICO is so dysfunctional that they seem unable to detect or remedy what should be simple to detect data controller violations and protect the human rights of data subjects as well as the vested interests of the UK government.

ICO fails at their core objective mandate for existence to protect the rights of data subjects. ICO failures have contributed to the damage inflicted on SDK and his family by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegal subject data processing practices.

SDK is a professional data processor and analyst. SDK also has received formal training and certification in auditing compliance for ISO 9001 Quality Management System standard. SDK has also carried out several ISO 9001 internal compliance audits and also OHSAS 18001 Health and Safety compliance audits. Auditors do not annotate compliance, they validate compliance. In other words, auditors do not care if the auditiee says their processes are compliant because it is meaningless. Auditors look at the requirements and validate compliance from the data which supports or subtracts from the objective requirements for compliance. Auditors generally do not have intimate knowledge of the processes that they audit or even the industry. This allows auditors to focus on the documentation and data to determine process compliance.

Data subjects have neither the power, authority nor resources to compel data controller compliance to GDPR principles and ensure that personal data is being properly processed. This responsibility and authority is given to ICO. SDK has no idea what processes ICO caseworkers follow to assess data controller compliance to GDPR principles intended to protect the rights of data subjects.

What SDK does know with absolute certainty through supporting data is that ICO has been unable to protect SDK personal data integrity and human rights.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited endured no reprisal for their exposed DPA violation. ICOs failure to address what SDK understands to be UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) violations in 2014 (early 2015) was the predicate for multiple reports submitted to ActionFraud (police) and the impetus behind SDKs legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing – campaign.

Fairly and lawfully processed;
processed only for limited purposes;
Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
Accurate and up to date;
Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
Data is kept secure;
Not transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection.

Legal documents are required to have a signature and date. A signature is the name of a person written with his or her own hand. It is a legal means of indicating acknowledgement of the document content. A date is necessary to show when the signature was made and therefore acceptance given.

None of the documents of significance being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited as SDK personal data have been signed by the data subject SDK. They are not legal and do not satisfy the first principle. The PGS Exploration (UK) Limited SDK data being processed could not be used in an English court of law. But, ICO allows PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has taken no action to defend subject data integrity. How is this possible? It is obvious that ICO processes are woefully inadequate and not protecting data subject rights.

Due to ICOs dysfunction and inability to stop PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued processing of illegal data formed to defame and blacklist from employment data subject SDK in retaliation for exposing PGS ASA (Norwegian parent company) and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited board of directors and executive corruption and criminal behavior SDK reported to ActionFraud (police) and embarked on blogging campaign publishing legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing (LinkedIn Pulse, July 2015).

SDK has subsequently submitted SARs in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The predicate for the submissions in 2016, 2018, and 2020 has been the contents – personal data – that was received from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited by the 2014 SAR. SDK was disclosing legally protected content intended to provoke a legal response which would expose, or force PGS ASA, to reveal the illegal subject data which. (The first online publication, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015) PGS ASA has avoided direct legal action in the UK court system and never cited the initial article or any thereafter as a breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions.

In 2016, PGS ASA did not respond to numerous PGS Compliance emails exposing PGS ASA corruption from SDK. PGS ASA also illegally deleted comments posted on the PGS ASA LinkedIn space. PGS ASA breached contractual confidentiality terms and conditions protecting whistleblowing through the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). PGS was legally and contractually obligated to process a whistleblowing claim properly or cite a breach by SDK of contractual non-disparagement clauses.

Contractual Confidentiality Clause:

Each member of staff also agrees that he/she will not, during the course of his/her employment or if any time thereafter either make or publish or cause to be made or published, to anyone is 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, agents or shareholders.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited wrote SDK a letter (22 December 2014) demanding that SDK stop communication with ICO regarding claims that their SDK data was non-compliant (fake) and cited that SDK was in breach of the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and would take legal action (blackmail).

Given your comments that you have been in touch with the ICO, we should be grateful for your confirmation by return that you have not disclosed any information to the ICO in breach of your confidentiality obligations (and that you will not do so).

In August 2016, SDK was restricted from LinkedIn through PGS ASA misrepresentation and mishandling of SDK personal data and not legally processing protected public disclosure claims per law and contract. PGS ASA provided no information to SDK following the 2016 SAR. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cited no breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions over multiple online publications exposing PGS ASA fraud and abuse. Thus, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited legal inaction is an admission that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory documents as SDKs personal data, as claimed within SDK blog post articles.

The 2020 SAR was focused on litigation that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiated against SDK in September 2018 regarding content published online which the data subject declared to be legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. SDK was forced to sign in Thailand under threat of potential 2-5 years imprisonment for each for two claims of criminal defamation two compromise agreement contracts governed by the laws of Thailand?

RE; Steven D. Kalavity

GDPR

I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.

I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand. I have never received these.

I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.

I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.

Regards,

Steven

SDK has contended that the litigation initiated in Thailand on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is illegal blackmail intended to depublish and destroy evidence of crimes committed against a whistleblower and his family, but also against company stakeholders, the UK Border Agency and even ICO whom PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has provided misrepresentations repeatedly.

If the accusations made through the 20 January 2021 e-mail sent to ICO is not protected public disclosure, then PGS ASA, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Law agents could all cite the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and sue SDK under the laws England. But, all of the co-conspirators remain fraudulently silent and take no action. Again, such inaction is an admission that the published claims of SDK that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory SDK personal data, which is a crime and violation of GDPR principles.

In June 2018, SDK submitted an SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited following the receipt of legal threats by email from Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary, while living in Thailand regarding online publications which SDK regarded as legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited requested that SDK provide them with information to confirm his identity prior to processing the 2018 SAR. This included a postal mail address in Thailand, SDK USA passport and Texas driver’s license photocopies.

In September 2018, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards (two separate claims) had Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen deliver summons to the address which had been provided to them by request to process the 2018 SAR. PGS illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to third-parties Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had never responded to numerous e-mails nor commented on the also numerous posted articles on SDK website, nopgs.com. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to support illegal litigation. SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were bound by the confidentiality terms and conditions of the original employment contract and the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract, both governed by the laws of England.

Both the 22 December 2014 and 16 July 2018 SAR response letters written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited referenced the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibit the publication of disparaging content. However, rather than PGS Exploration (UK) Limited citing a breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions (governed by the laws of England), PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiate criminal defamation claims in Thailand citing Thailand laws?

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England. But, more significantly, how could there be no breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions, but defamation under Thai laws? If the SDK personal data is not legal, then the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract cannot be legal. PGS ASA is trying to avert the laws of England. SDK was forced to sign another compromise agreement in Thailand to avoid two criminal and civil trials in Thailand.

SDK does not believe that the agreements signed in Thailand are legal instruments as they prohibit whistleblowing. SDK left Thailand 3 July 2019. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited / John Francas was made aware of this. Yet, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued to mail threats to the home of SDKs Thai relatives in SDKs absence. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited threatened that there was criminal prosecution and jail awaiting SDK if he did not appear in Thai court.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never explained how the litigation in Thailand that exposes the SDK personal data PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing are defamatory forgeries can be legal or what has become of the original employment contract or 5 December 2013 contract terms and conditions.

The 5 December 2013 settlement contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is not a legal contract because it is supported by forged and defamatory documents!

ICO needs to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited DPA/GDPR compliance. This must start with demanding that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited explain why they contend that documents which have several inaccuracies, are defamatory toward the data subject, and finally do not bare the signature of the data subject are legal.

If ICO cannot compel data controllers to demonstrate compliance to GDPR principles, then exactly what can ICO do to ensure personal data integrity?

Do your job, ICO.

Regards,

Steven D. Kalavity