This is Legal Contractually Protected Public Interests Disclosure under English Law
Norway’s PGS ASA is misusing the Thai criminal justice system to persecute their USA citizen crime victim and whistleblower. PGS are ignoring legal jurisdiction issues, statute of limitations issues, and fraudulent content by omission and false claims issues which make these prosecutions illegal, in my view. Beyond this, PGS does not acknowledge and investigate the whistleblowing claims reported to their compliance hotline, as their Responsibility Report and policy state. Demand that PGS stop misrepresenting to the public and investigate!
I am not a multinational company, but I have been around the block and around the world. I understand the challenges faced in this climate. I cannot accept my narrative being defined through the tyranny of self-impressed psychopaths. I want control of my narrative.An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015]
If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information? Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules whenever they cannot “win” on their terms?When Human Resources is Corrupt (10 August 2015)
PGS ASA Continues to Breach the Terms and Conditions of Contracts Governed by the Laws of England and Harass and Illegally Use the Thai Criminal Justice System to Silence Legal (England/Norway) Protected Public Disclosure
PGS ASA has recently reinvigorated their dubious legal actions in Thailand to silence and disempower the accuser of PGS ASA board of directors and executives of criminal acts through the misuse of the Thai legal system. PGS ASA is violating my human rights and rights under English law and contract through ignoring accusations of executive criminal acts and whistleblowing claims. I seek to act on and protect my human rights and rights under English law and contract to accuse perpetrators of crimes against me and my family and seek justice. I am further disenfranchised because I am a USA citizen who signed a contract bound by the laws of England. PGS ASA has never exercised on a civil breach of contract using the legal instruments at their disposal governed by the laws of England. The claims put forth in Thailand omit the very important reference of the current legal relationship that exists between the plaintiffs and defendant. I believe that the many omissions of exculpatory facts and evidence intentionally and maliciously misrepresent my publications as criminal when they are known by the plaintiffs to be legal and protected. The claims being advanced in Thailand are fraudulent and intended to intimidate a victim of crimes and whistleblower into submission and silence. The claims’ cited publications are protected under English law through provisions of contracts signed 27 September 2010 and 5 December 2013 between the plaintiffs and defendant. The non-disparagement clauses contained within these contracts provide legal avenues of action for transgressions much less serious than criminal defamation. Most importantly, the cited contracts both reference the UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which protects whistleblowing.
The legal actions forwarded by directors of PGSUK in the Thai legal system is an overstep of the English company legal jurisdiction. English law has all the avenues of redress to resolve the issues addressed within the Thai criminal claims fairly. If the cited contracts did not provide all pertinent legal protections required, then what was the utility of the fore-mentioned signed contracts including non-disparagement and jurisdiction clauses? This is more of an issue of legal contract management incompetence or criminal cover-up and not defamation. The only victims of crimes in Thailand (fraud, blackmail, extortion, destruction of evidence, etc.), related to the parties of these complaints, are me and my Thai family who have been distressed and traumatized, had their health endangered, and who have also had to find resources (been robbed) to defend themselves against what I believe to be illegally financed false claims. PGSUK directors hold no bona fide legal business interests or citizenship in Thailand. They personally never visited Thailand to even sign the resolution contracts 11 November 2018. All that was required of them was to pay a Thai lawyer to process their illegal (under English law) actions. PGS ASA/PGSUK vindictive and malicious intent is to persecute and harm their USA citizen accuser and his Thai family. I am married to a Thai national and we have three (3) Thai-USA children together. We all lived in Thailand together until recently. These actions by PGSUK have broken our family. The Thai legal system should protect the rights and safety of my Thai family above the rights of corrupt Norwegian executives and directors of an English company who contract out their illegal harassment to a Thai lawyer to avoid accountability for English crimes!
Under the rules of commercial law, an incorporated business must follow the laws and regulations where the company was formed. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY (PGSUK). According to the records held by UK Companies House, PGSUK is registered in England. The Companies Act 2006 forms the primary source of UK company law. A director of a UK company must (a) act in accordance with the company’s constitution, and (b) only exercise powers for the purposes for which they are conferred. The litigation initiated against me in Thai (criminal) legal system violates provision (b) explicitly. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses, such as the ones that was included within the cited contracts, limit disputes to the courts of specific and defined jurisdictions. An exclusive jurisdiction clause intends to provide certainty that parties know where they each can be sued. PGSUK directors and secretary must honor their fiduciary obligations of law and contract based on the laws of England first and foremost. The laws of England must always take precedence in every business decision made by PGSUK, especially contractual terms and conditions specifically citing legal jurisdictions attached to legal rights, such as the General Data Protection Requirement GDPR (formally UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)) and PIDA. Directors of PGSUK do not have legal authority to take away rights under English law and contract. The terms and conditions of the cited contracts remain enforceable under the laws of England, as does my right to blow the whistle.
The most disturbing document is the memo signed by Per Arild Reksnes, EVP PGS Marine Contract (now EVP Operations) and Terje Bjølseth, SVP HR. This memo is a forgery. There are several detectable problems. The Memo is addressed to my attention, but it was never received by me while I was employed with PGS.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)
The evidence and reasons to support the allegations of breaches in the Code of Ethics have been written about in previous LinkedIn posts, but are grounded in conspiracy and the abuse of position used to discredit and distort my professional standing in retaliation for revealing a number of internal organization policy transgressions as well as violations in the base constructs of the Law of Contract as it pertains to employment. However, in this effort, individuals have also falsified and forged personnel file documents and deceived government compliance organizations as to their authenticity and content accuracy.The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11 October 2015)
My publications began 3 July 2015 and multiple accusatory publications were provided to PGS ASA compliance for evaluation from April – September 2016. The UK Limitation Act 1980 limits the time for a claim of defamation of one year. The published content cited in the 2018 Thai criminal claim surpasses one-year from its publication date. PGS ASA made a business decision to ignore the published content for several years. No actions referencing published content were ever taken by PGS ASA/PGSUK with regard to disparagement or breach in the current legal agreements. Therefore, no criminal legal breach in Thailand can be warranted nor be even possible legally. How can the defendant not be in breach for disparagement under English law, but be guilty of criminal defamation under Thai law? The publications referenced in Thai criminal claims have pointed out that PGS ASA have not exercised the protective clauses within their contracts for the express reason of avoiding culpability for breaking numerous English laws. PGS is pursuing criminal defamation charges in Thailand which are totally ludicrous. Such defamation implies that I am knowingly publishing untrue and damaging statements about PGS. The Thai claim references excerpts from a criminal report submitted to UK police (Action Fraud) which I published online! Why didn’t PGS complain to the UK police? Why have the plaintiffs allowed such publications since 3 July 2015? My publications are evidence backed accusations of PGS ASA executive and board of director’s violations in English law and contract, although they may in fact be criminal violations in other countries/legal jurisdictions, as well, including Thailand, Norway, and the USA.
Over a year ago, in September 2018, the directors and former secretary of PGSUK delivered to me by e-mail two (2) summons’ to appear in Thai criminal court. The summons’ were delivered to my personal e-mail account, as well as my then registered home address in Thailand. This was done just as I had departed my address of record in Thailand. The e-mail address used had not ever been provided by me to the Thai law firm representing the plaintiffs. My passport and Thai address information also had never been provided to the Thai law firm by me. The summons’ were in the Thai language. As a US citizen, I resided in Thailand on visa. I had not received the actual complaint until I returned to Thailand after shortening my trip. However, the complaint was also in the Thai language. As far as I am aware, plaintiff Carl Richards, a lawyer licensed to practice law in England and former secretary of PGSUK is not legally fluent in the Thai language. I am guessing that current PGS General Counsel Lars Mysen or PGS UK Head of Legal John Francas are not legally fluent in the Thai language either. I do not believe the PGSUK directors and plaintiffs; former PGS General Counsel and current PGS CEO and President Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CFO and EVP Gottfred Langseth, and PGS Chief Accountant Christin Steen-Nilsen are not legally fluent in the Thai language. Nevertheless, these directors have placed the reputation interests of a company governed by the laws of England at the discretion of a junior Thai lawyer who is not licensed to practice law in either England or Norway and who has no first-hand knowledge or legal documentation to support the claims being advanced.
PGSUK and I shared an employee-employer relationship. PGSUK is a company governed by the laws of England. Those laws are written in the English language. We communicated in English for business. As a US citizen, I was a Tier 2 visa sponsored employee of PGSUK. Qualifying for the Tier 2 visa was not a trivial matter. Such employment had to be requested based on unique and/or special qualifications that were not readily available in the local labor market. One of the qualifications for the Tier 2 visa is proficiency in the English language. Would have I qualified for the Tier 2 visa based on the current contents of my PGSUK personnel file? My Thai wife and dependent children were also sponsored. My employment with PGSUK ended through a termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 which I now believe is fraudulent. The claims filed in Thai criminal court reinforce this belief, as does PGS’ silence and inaction in dealing with my online publications and accusations. What is certain, however, is how devastating and abusive PGS’ behavior has been toward me and my family. The illegal termination from employment and subsequent blacklisting impacted me. However, when PGSUK agreed to sponsor my employment as a foreign worker, they also agreed to comply with their duty of care contractual obligations to me as well as my spouse and dependent children. PGS’ fraud was mean spirited and intent on destroying the victim of their crimes professionally and financially. Such abuse obviously robs dependents of opportunities and places their health at risk. It is violent, cowardly and mean abuse of children. Because of this, I refuse to give-up on my pursuit of justice. I do not believe that cowards, liars, and cheaters who abuse children should lead companies and people, even if the government of Norway, Equinor, and PGS do.
However, in spite of having a legal team, human resources team, and contract team, PGS has been unwilling to present definitive proof of compliance and legal behavior, even though they state to the public and to me otherwise. PGS is mostly involved in a cover-up of corrupt and illicit behavior. PGS executives have been uncooperative and silent and demonstrated no interest in resolution, but instead have ran-away from accountability.The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4 November 2016)
These prose chronicle multiple infractions of corporate governance, as well as provide evidence of serious wrong-doing that should sound alarms whether true or false. Either way, the publications should prompt action and engagement. The articles have been viewed by thousands within and outside the marine geophysical sector.Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (5 May 2016)
First and foremost, the claims put forth in Thailand not only ignore the statute of limitations for claims of defamation of one year in both England and Thailand, but also ignore claims that the content is protected whistleblowing. The principal charges reiterated within several of my publications is that PGS ASA board and officers uttered, and continue to utter, forged defamatory documents that support a fraudulent contract. This fraudulent contract was used to illegally terminate the employment of a whistleblower. PGS ASA has provided material misrepresentations to government agencies in the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, and now Thailand, regarding the integrity of the personal data and processes which I have contended to be false. PGS ASA has made false accusations to defraud the Thai criminal justice system. PGS ASA has omitted material facts, withheld, and destroyed exculpatory evidence to gain advantage and to terrorize their victim and his Thai family by using a foreign legal system. PGS ASA wants to avoid the English legal system where executives have been accused of criminal acts. Evidence of these criminal acts had been processed online at http://nopgs.com/ The legal actions carried out last year by PGS ASA sought to restrict publications and unpublish evidence which support my accusations of crimes perpetrated by PGS ASA. My mantra has always been simple: legal and compliant processes cannot produce illegal and non-compliant outcomes.
The Thai criminal complaint only translated superfluous content from my online publications written in the English language to the Thai language. Certain excerpts were then highlighted and labelled as “defamation”, void of context and supporting evidence. How did the Thai lawyer/law firm, or any lawyer, including PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas know whether the publications were defamatory? The only way for Francas and the contracted (paid) Thai lawyer/law firm to possibly know what is defamatory is if PGS had completed what I had always requested: a thorough investigation. From April 2016 – September 2016, I requested that the PGS Compliance Office (i.e., plaintiff Pedersen, et al.) to authenticate and verify the legality of the processes and documents used to process my termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013. The PGS Compliance Office actually published to a wide LinkedIn™ audience that they had investigated my claim. So, there should be a report ready to send off and provide to Francas and his Thai associate. (However, it would need to be translated into the Thai language first?) There is an important Memo dated 25 October 2013 and signed by Per Arild Reksnes, then PGS EVP Marine Contract and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources. This important Memo forms the basis of my whistleblowing and criminal accusations publications. This Memo is intentionally not even referenced within the Thai Criminal Complaint. This tells me that the Thai criminal claims forwarded by PGSUK directors and Carl Richards are omitting material exculpatory evidence in their CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. PGS ASA and the Thai lawyer knows this. Thus, such intentional misrepresentations and omission of material facts is tantamount to PGSUK falsely accusing me of criminal behavior.
The central thesis behind most every publication which resided on nopgs.com is that PGSUK processed, and continues to process, defamatory forged documents used to illegally terminate me from employment for whistleblowing. No one from PGS/PGSUK ever engaged me prior or during the delivery of the criminal complaint. All communications came from a Thai law firm. The Thai lawyer has no first-hand knowledge of the events chronicled within my publications. From my reading of the claim, particular the highlighted defamatory (nopgs.com) content is extracted from the following articles:
- Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) EVP Per Arild Reksnes Operations Artifice (9-Jun-2018) p105-106
- How Corrupt Bullies and Lawyers Ruined a Marine Geophysical Company 20-May-2018) p107
- Carl Richards’, Secretary, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Silence Implies Agreement and the Abrogation of Fiduciary Duty (20 April 2018) p108-109
- Norway’s Equinor Corruption Perception Delusion and Moral Turpitude (21 March 2018) p109-111
- Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018) p112-118
- The Crimes of @PhilipLandau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30-Dec-2017) p118-120
- ActionFraud Report (Posted November 2017)
- Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October2017) p120-123
- Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128
- What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017) p128-129
- Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017) p129-131
The Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128 was published over one-year prior to the claim delivered to me in September 2018. Why didn’t the PGS ASA directors respond to this letter? Had PGS ASA board of directors responded to this letter truthfully and responsibly, every publication following 18 June 2017 likely would not have ever been published. The delivered claim on behalf of PGSUK directors also cited the ActionFraud report? Why didn’t PGSUK contact the UK police and demand clarification and an investigation? The publications that comprised the criminal complaint are the product of PGS ASA neglect and inaction. The fact is that one of the principal plaintiffs, PGSUK director and PGS CEO and President Pedersen, had throughout 2016, as PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance, been provided with many publications that contained accusations of PGS board of directors and executive criminal acts. Since 2016, Pedersen has never responded to the published claims of executive criminal activity as defamatory. Neither has Pedersen ever investigated and delivered a report exonerating PGS agents of wrong-doing, even though PGS publicly stated otherwise. Pedersen is participating in defrauding the Thai criminal justice system through forwarding a knowingly false criminal complaint. Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and legal compliance at the time of the initial whistleblowing complaint submitted 20 September 2013. Pedersen did not comply with PGS policy and UK law in how PGS responded to my workplace grievance. Pedersen oversaw the creation of forged documents and confidence fraud used to process a false claim and basis for termination:
Thai litigation Sponsor/Plaintiff PGSUK Director Rune O. Pedersen was Presented the Following Articles as Member of the PGS Compliance Hotline Team more than One-Year Prior to the Defamation Claims delivered in Thailand. The UK Limitation Act 1980 does not allow Defamation Claims for Content Published over One Year. PGSUK Intentionally Omitted Citing of this Content in the 2018 Claim.
- The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11-Oct-2015)
- An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)
The authentication of held data records were requested again from CH [PGS Compliance Hotline], and of course could not be provided. Without investigating and providing the source of the contents in the personnel file, along with peripheral communications, the words from the CH investigation are meaningless and only become a continuation of the fraud which began three years ago.The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)
There are so many variations between the (false) narrative espoused and held within PGS personal data records and the narrative presented within the detailed grievance document. Anyone who had considered both of these narratives fairly, responsibly and honestly, should have easily detected and noted, and subsequently reported on, the many differences. Certainly the individuals who chaired my grievance hearing, Reksnes and Bjølseth, should have attended to this. [Reksnes and Bjølseth are (alleged) fraudsters.]Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)
Nopgs.com first came online in August 2016. Several blog articles had been published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. During 2016, I tried to get the attention of PGS compliance through the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space. PGS never took any official legal action against my publications. However, anonymous complaints eventually got me restricted from LinkedIn™. Nopgs.com published much more content than what the Thai criminal claims included. For a long time, I have published allegations that the 5 December 2013 signed termination settlement agreement was a fraudulent agreement which was illegally proffered and supported by illegal forged documents. I was illegally terminated for blowing the whistle in 2013. The proffered termination settlement agreement did not comply with UK employment law. Yet, lawyers from three firms, including my hired counsel, cooperated in processing the false claim and uttering forged instruments – criminal behavior. I discovered that something very wrong had happened to me when I received the contents being processed within my PGSUK professional personnel file. The claim filed in Thai criminal court is both malicious and fraudulent through its omission of legally substantive material information.
PGSUK directors comprised a complaint that omitted our current legal relationship which is defined by an original contract of employment (OEC) signed between me and PGSUK in 27 September 2010 and a subsequent termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (SCA). My publications, including the 20 September 2013 submitted workplace grievance which is referenced in the SCA, cite material breaches of the OEC by PGSUK and since have alleged that the SCA is fraudulent and was intended to cover-up the OEC breaches and defame me for blowing the whistle on non-compliant, unethical, and illegal acts perpetrated by PGS/PGSUK (agents). To facilitate the use of the fraudulent SCA, PGSUK uttered defamatory forged documents to provide the appearance of a legal basis for the SCA. I am both a victim of crimes and a whistleblower for publicly disclosing such illegal actions perpetrated against me. Very important is the fact that PGSUK and I were already constrained by terms and conditions of contracts governed by the laws of England. Both the OEC and SCA that possessed all of the actionable avenues of legal redress that the Thai criminal claim pursues. The OEC and SCA include actionable Confidentiality clauses that protect parties of the contract from disparaging each other. Disparagement is a much lower threshold than defamation, as the truth of the public disclosure is not a defense. However, both the OEC and SCA by legal requirement under the laws of England include reference to the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) that protects whistleblowing. PGSUK sponsored spurious litigation in Thailand against a whistleblower is an illegal and malicious attempt to bypass numerous accountabilities under English law. I published evidence that PGS was processing forged documents within, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015). I also published, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). I sent these articles specifically to the PGS compliance for consideration. The Thai claim did not reference these articles.
At this point, I believe laws of Thailand have also been broken. All publications regarding these actions by PGS/PGSUK I regard aids protected public disclosure allowed through signed legal agreements governed by English law. So, what is the Thai lawyer’s legal role and how are the legal interests of PGS/PGSUK being advanced by this litigation which I regard as illegal blackmail under the provision both Thai and English law? Corrupt PGS board and executives are doing anything possible to silence their accuser of crimes through ignoring bona fide, data supported criminal accusations and whistleblowing claims under the laws of Norway and England. PGS board and executives are abusing their power and delivering false accusations supported by fraudulent documentation into the Thai criminal justice system. John Francas and his Thai lawyer associate did not do what their legal agency requires and determine the validity of my accusations rather than silence them. All that the board and executives of PGS must do is to authenticate the processes and supporting documentation used to terminate my employment by settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 signed by PGSUK and myself. This has always been and remains the objective of my publications. These accusations are not defamation. PGS’ criminal complaint holds no real evidence that demonstrates my claims are false either. PGS’ misuse of the Thai criminal justice system is appalling. These claims are intended to suppress the truth which is the opposite of defamation. PGS has used the Thai criminal system to take away my rights under English law to make public interest disclosures. The Thai criminal justice system has also been used to illegally destroy and unpublish evidence of PGS board of directors and executive criminality. My children are Thai citizens and I cannot allow PGS corruption to destroy the Thai system of justice. The Thai police need to investigate PGS ASA and their representative counsel for criminal acts of false criminal claims, fraud, blackmail, extortion, and destruction of evidence. I AM THE VICTIM.
Reputation management of the corporate brand and the executive team is paramount. However, in the absence of real professional integrity, silence is the best way to maintain the appearance of being reputable. Dismissing criticism simply allows employed professionals to get-on with running the company. No time for distractions. But, if there is no time for dealing with criticism, then why does the PGS CEO letter suggest that there is both time and willingness?Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)
I have alleged PGS executives to have obstructed legally guaranteed processes, forged official records, conspired to defraud, provided material misrepresentations, breached internal policies and several UK employment and contract laws. Most of all, PGS executives have abused their positions and violated their agency responsibilities of trust and confidence and duty of care to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. Forgery and the uttering of forged instruments is criminal behavior.The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4-Sep-2016)
Comments are closed.