Open Letter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Defrauding the Information Commissioner’s Office

An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO):

This complaint letter is legally protected public disclosure as defined within the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  If any information presented herein is disparaging to named parties, they are legally and contractually able and obligated to clarify.

The following complaints were submitted to ICO prior to their recommending taking the complaints to the next level to PHSO:

What do you think we [UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)] did wrong?

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”.  The GDPR seven key principles:

  1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
  2. Purpose limitation.
  3. Data minimisation.
  4. Accuracy.
  5. Storage limitation.
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
  7. Accountability.

Steven Kalavity’s (SDK) first direct interaction with the ICO was from October – December 2014.  SDK has submitted subsequent SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England in 2016, 2018, and most recently in 2020 predicated on the contents received through the 2014 SAR.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales.

SDK has been both disappointed and astonished by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ability to ensure subject data integrity and data controller compliance to General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) seven key principles and protect SDKs data subjects rights.  ICO fails to exercise even the most basic due diligence of data controller responses and confirm their responsibilities to data subjects.  ICO seems to lack robust processes that actually qualify and then validate data controller compliance.  Thus, subject data rights can never really be properly protected when dysfunctional processes that allow non-compliance are used by ICO.  

SDK is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to legally work in England with employer/data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited from September 2010 to December 2013.   SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited are bound by two contracts, (a) original employment contract and (b) a termination settlement contract both governed by the laws of England.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continues to defraud SDK, the ICO, UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, as well as several global stakeholders within the upstream oil and gas industries. 

If the aforementioned contracts are valid, SDK is contractually and legally prohibited from sharing information that disparages PGS Exploration (UK) Limited or any of its affiliates, customers, or contractors.  (This includes the recent disclosures to ICO and of course other online publications.) However, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never cited a breach of these contracts by SDK.  Why not?  SDK has published disparaging content about PGS Exploration (UK) Limited since July 2015.  However, the content has been legally protected (PIDA) or whistleblowing.  

Three (3) data controller’s processed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited SDK personal data in forming the termination settlement contract signed in 2013.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was represented by Watson Farley and Wiliams and SDK was represented by Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law).  Agents from these firms have been copied on complaints submitted to ICO (and ActionFraud.  Since 2016, SDK has published his belief that he was a mark/victim of a criminal conspiracy and confidence fraud led by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) all have been hostile and fraudulent respondents with regard to queries about the termination settlement contract which they formed.  The termination settlement contract contains Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of disparaging content.  It should be noted that while PGS Exploration (UK) Limited does not have a subsidiary in Thailand, global legal firm Watson Farley and Williams does have offices in Thailand.  Yet, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited used Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen?

However, the real power of settlement contracts is that they make future litigation between parties extremely difficult, absent a breach in the terms and conditions.  In any case, litigation is also very expensive, especially for an illegally terminated and blacklisted data subject.  This is important because usual civil litigation that data subjects would have available to them to correct data is not available once a settlement contract is signed.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) engaged in criminal behavior and conspired to utter forged and defamatory documents to harm the data subject whistleblower, SDK.  

SDK first published his belief that Watson Farley and Williams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir were bribed to illegally terminate a whistleblower in 2016.  Watson Farley and Williams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir have never commented directly on the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited sponsored litigation against SDK in Thailand.  In fact, SDKs position is that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached the terms and conditions of the termination settlement contract that contained mutual non-disparagement clauses.  The purpose of the termination settlement contract was to obstruct the avenues of legal redress to pursue civil and criminal claims under English law against PGS Exploration (UK) Limited / PGS ASA agents.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir, and Duensing – Kippen principals/agents have been copied on emails and could answer many questions.  However, they remain hostile and refuse to clarify the most basic queries.  SDK believes that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir, and Duensing – Kippen are intentionally working to avoid resolution by the English justice system.  Failure to disclose id a form of fraud:

Fraud Act 2006 Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

18.Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of “legal duty” is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

The fact that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited does not use the legal system of England as prescribed by contract(s), but instead takes “legal” action against SDK in Thailand citing Thailand criminal code should raise a big flag pointing to some irregularity or impropriety. (It is remarkable that ICO does not see this as highly unusual rather than likely.)  SDK has reported to both ICO and ActionFraud that he believes he and his Thai family members are victims of fraud, and extortion/blackmail multiple times.  However, such claims of data controller impropriety are not regarded as worthy of serious investigation by either ICO or ActionFraud (police)?  It is much too easy for data controller’s, such as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, to provide material misrepresentations to both the data subject and ICO regarding subject data processing compliance.

ICOs response to data subject, SDKs 2020 SAR:

>>>>—-<<<<<

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.

>>>>—-<<<<<

ICO facilitates pathological deception and data controller criminal cover-up and misrepresentation.  The UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) form the terms and conditions of both contracts between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK.  The only data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited should legitimately be processing for SDK at any time are records pertaining directly to SDKs legal employment.  This especially applies to records created whilst being employed in England from September 2010 to December 2013. These legal records should include personnel records that support the Tier 2 visa work permit legal requirements and also dependent family member application data provided to UK Border..

ICO does not seem to have an understanding of what legal subject data processing is and therefore has no processes in place to detect or validate such processing.  ICO must recognize that there are different types of personal data.  A data controller must only process personal data that is pertinent to the legal relationship of the data controller and data subject.  Data controllers’ legal processing of subject data must be qualified.  For example, inaccurate reporting of personal data used to support a Tier 2 visa could warrant criminal penalties for non-compliance and false reporting to other (international) government agencies.  

ICO renders decisions based on impressions.  Such practices are unreliable and do not protect data subject rights.  ICO decisions must be fact-based and supported with evidence/data.  ICO cannot and should not understand the details of subject data.  However, ICO should understand the base relationship between the data controller and data subject to the extent of making cogent decisions on fair data use.  Data controller’s garner no penalty for actively abusing their position and misusing or withholding subject data.

Data controllers have obligations, whereas data subjects have rights.  ICO must also understand the dimensions of personal data with regard to its fair use.  Data controller records and subject legal records cannot be conflated and allowed to be processed in the same way.  What data is processed and why are central  aspects of the GDPR principles.  While data subject SDK does not believe that ICO (caseworkers), chooses to use poor or dysfunctional processes, doing so actually aids and abets GDPR violators that severely harm data subjects.  

Case IC-44927-G3W4 pertains to the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response to SDKs 2020 SAR which was submitted 15 April 2020:

From: Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:20 AM

Subject: GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request

To: GDPR <[email protected]>, John Francas <@pgs.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,

SDK follow-up 19 April 2020 email for unanswered 15 April 2020 email:

From: Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:58 PM

Subject: Fwd: GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request

To: GDPR <[email protected]>, John Francas <@pgs.com>, Lars Mysen <@pgs.com>

PGS GDPR DPO,

I submitted a subject access request 15 April 2020 that has not been acknowledged.

Could PGS ASA please acknowledge?

The 11 November 2018 documents that I signed in Thailand, (1) Plaintiff PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and (2) Plaintiff Carl Richards are not signed by the plaintiffs.  Can you please provide a letter with notarized signature confirming the plaintiffs are attached to the document?

Also, could you provide in English the Tippaya Monmanee’s legal qualification in matters of the laws of England?  Is she qualified to draft agreements for a company governed by the laws of England?  Also, is Tippaya Moonmanee qualified to draft contracts for adjudication in the US Federal Courts of Harris County Texas?

Regards,

This response from ICO shows a complete lack of understanding of SDKs data protection issues and concerns with .PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  ICO disregards substantive emails sent to them concerning the 2014 SAR, 2016 SAR, 2018 SAR and 2020 SAR processing by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. ICO states, “As such we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations in this case.”   ICO has absolutely no basis in fact to issue such a ridiculous statement that damages the data subject and protects corrupt data controllers.  ICO disregards the GDPR Seven Key Principle.  Beyond this, ICO does not consider the data itself that was transferred.  UK GDPR states:

The UK GDPR restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside the UK or to international organisations. These restrictions apply to all transfers, no matter the size of transfer or how often you carry them out.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has not been required to provide substantive responses that demonstrate their adherence to any of The Seven GDPR Principles.  ICO seems completely clueless in understanding different types of personal data and also does not inquire why a company, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, governed by the laws of England is using the Thai criminal justice system?  ICO Stating “we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations” demonstrates an abject disregard for the rights of the data subject who claims the ventures into Thailand are a way to avoid the English legal system and blackmail to destroy and de-publish evidence of crimes!

The criminal charges put forth by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited against SDK are for criminal defamation under the laws of Thailand.   Firstly, the UK has no criminal defamation law.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK were bound by contracts governed by the laws of ENGLAND that both contained Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting publication of content disparaging PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. (Unless it is protected disclosure as defined within PIDA.)  How can one not be in breach of contract for publishing unprotected disparaging content under the laws of England, but be charged with criminal defamation under the laws of Thailand?  ICO supporting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited claim that they have “likely” met their obligations for transferring subject data outside the EEA is both ridiculous and unfounded.

There needs to be an ICO process in place similar to the legal workplace grievance process that allows  data subjects the ability to appeal the adequacy of data controller responses to SARs.  Data controller compliance to the GDPR Principles should always be the primary objective.  Even if the concerns of the data subject are deemed ridiculous, data controller’s have the obligation to abide by GDPR principles and therefore must be able to easily demonstrate such compliance.  ICO must also understand what legally protected disclosure as defined by PIDA.  Data subjects citing data controller non-compliant data processing or their covering-up such activity is whistleblowing.  ICO needs to anticipate such reporting.

As previously mentioned, SDK had submitted an SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGS ASA) in 2018.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is allowed to respond with ambiguity, threats and ultimatums rather than clarify legitimate data subject compliance concerns.  The response to SDKs 2020 SAR is absurd and actually more relevant to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited actions proceeding SDKs 2018 SAR.  SDK is requesting original English language (prior to translating into Thai language) copies of the “legal notices” that were delivered in Thailand to the residence of relatives while SDK was in the USA, as well as any personal data used in forming the legal notices.

For what possible reason has PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refused this request?  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has not even provided a current status of their Thai claims.  SDK has never published content written in the Thai language.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is translating content (which SDK believes to be legally protected per PIDA) in the English language to the Thai language.  Just as legal matters governed by the laws of England are written in English, documentation for use in the Thai legal system is written in the Thai language.  SDK is simply requesting copies of the documents intended for his receipt in Thailand to be delivered for his perusal in the USA.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited also provided multiple misrepresentations to SDK within their response to SDKs 2018 SAR in July 2018 which preceded the initial delivery of two (2) claims in Thailand through legal firm Duensing – Kippen to SDKs residence in Thailand in September 2018.  In November 2018, SDK signed two separate agreements under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand and possible prison terms. SDK had also written multiple emails to ICO from June – December 2018.  (ICO Case Reference Number ENQ0754715).  

SDK never regarded the Thailand legal proceedings and subsequent agreements as legal and communicated this to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited multiple times.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never explained how terms and conditions of both the original employment contract and termination settlement contract governed by the laws of England are not still valid and enforceable?  How can agreements sponsored by English company, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited,under the Thai legal system take legal precedence over contracts governed by the laws of England?

A PGS Exploration (UK) Limited company secretary, Carl Richards, had threatened litigation against data subject SDK in April 2018 regarding legally protected (PIDA) publications essentially revealing a criminal conspiracy controlled by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  Richards, fiduciary agent of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was threatening litigation against SDK as an individual divorced from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  SDK published his belief that the threat of litigation was illegal extortion.

Richards never confirmed his identity nor answered questions of his legal agency and fiduciary responsibilities of an acting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary that would allow him to pursue litigation in Thailand as an individual whilst SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were bound by two contracts prohibiting the publication of anything derogatory to PGS ASA, et al.  SDK also received threats from Thai legal firm, Duensing – Kippen, who similarly did not provide requested identification information.  

Duensing – Kippen emphasized that they only represented individual Richards and not PGS ASA or its affiliates.  Richards resigned as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited 25 May 2018.  This inspired SDK to submit another SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited as GDPR was replacing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and PGS ASA had appointed a Data Protection Officer.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cited the termination settlement contract and attorney client privilege for not providing any information regarding SDK data processing.

In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered two (2) claims against SDK.  One claim was on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and the other Carl Richards.  Duensing – Kippen misrepresented that they also represented PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  When SDK reviewed the claim, it was noted that the claim had been assembled following the delivery of the 2018 SAR.  Therefore, the response which PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was applicable to the 2018 SAR.  But, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had provided misrepresentations to SDK in their response in 2018.

SDK had provided PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Norwegian parent company, PGS ASA, with copies of his USA passport and USA Texas state driver’s license, as well as SDKs postal mail address in Thailand where he was staying on visa for the explicit purpose of identification for processing an SAR in July 2018.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited used this data for fraudulent purposes without the permission of the data subject.  The identification and home address data was then provided this data to a Thailand based legal firm to harass and stalk SDK.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had no legal reason for processing this data beyond identification verification.  These documents (passport and driver’s license) were not relevant, and in fact were different from those provided to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited during the Tier 2 visa application process in both 2010 and 2013.  

It is a violation of USA Federal law to copy a USA passport without permission.  It is a violation of USA Texas state law to copy a Texas state driver’s license without permission.  These copies were provided for subject identification only. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited fraudulently used without the data subject permission USA and USA Texas state legal documents for nefarious purposes beyond the scope of the employer – employee relationship.  This illegally obtained personal data was then provided to Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen who used passport data and address information to stalk, harass, and extort (blackmail) SDK.  These are violations of GDPR principles that should mandate the fair and legal processing of personal data.     

PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited also did not acknowledge a 2016 SAR which was sent to PGS ASA compliance which once again claimed and provided evidence of PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited executive fraud, forgery, embezzlement, and bribery.  PGS ASA states that they investigated, but the claim is not believed by SDK.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited noted SDKs 2014 SAR.  Since July 2015, SDK has published legally protected content online.  SDK published his concerns on the LinkedIn PGS comment space.  PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited deleted comments and did not invoke a breach in contractual Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publishing derogatory content nor processed the comments as protected disclosure, or whistleblowing  

At no point in time has data controller PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited played by the rules,  Thus, it is infuriating and intolerable that ICO responds that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has likely complied with their obligation to data subject SDK.  ICO does not even reference the numerous ICO cases and emails sent to them by data subject SDK since 2014!  Is it normal for data subjects to send so many complaints about data controllers every two years?  When providing responses, ICO must also consider the totality of information which they have been provided with focus on the mission.

The tragic truth of the matter is that the 2016 SAR, 2018 SAR and 2020 SAR were required only because ICO gave PGS Exploration (UK) Limited a free pass on their processing SDK personal data that did not comply with (then) DPA principles.  ICO did not protect the rights of the data subject, but provided a shield to criminal abusers who falsified personal data in order to destroy the livelihood and reputation of the data subject, SDK.  The only reason that so many legally protected publications were possible is because ICO dropped the ball in 2014 by not demanding that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited abide by DPA Principles.

The UK Data Protection Act 1998 Principles –  Subject data must be,

  • 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.

The response received from ICO 9 January 2015 is abject gobbledygook because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is non-compliant to the DPA first principle: subject data must be fairly and lawfully processed.  Nevertheless, ICO ignores the first principle and responds: 

Response from the ICO [Ref. RFA0563589]

[email protected] <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:38 AM

To: [email protected]

9th January 2015

Case Reference Number RFA0563589

Dear Mr Kalavity

Thank you for your further emails of 19 December 2014, 20 December 2014, 22 December 2014, 23 December 2014, 29 December 2014 and 30 December 2014 about PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.

The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to personal information relating to living individuals. It requires organisations collecting and using personal data to comply with eight rules of information handling. These are called the data protection principles.

>>>>….<<<<<

Accuracy of data

Finally regarding the accuracy of personal 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.

>>>>….<<<<<

First of all, the 22 December 2014 letter written by an accused criminal and non-compliant HR Manager, David Nicholson on behalf PGS Exploration (UK) Limited consists of unqualified misrepresentations and does not answer many of the issues the data subject, SDK, has raised.  These allegations were written and submitted within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance which is only referenced within the termination settlement contract.  While the letter does reference and state that a 5 December 2014 complaint email will after the fact be processed to make the subject data compliant, ICO cites no problem nor assesses any penalty to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for processingesg inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents.  

These inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents supported the termination settlement contract.  This  means that SDK was terminated from employment illegally using non-compliant personal data. It also means this data was used to terminate his Tier 2 visa illegally. Why does ICO allow this solution and not hold  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for violating DPA principles?  A 22 December 2014 email was actually a response to an SDK email sent 20 December 2014.  The email contained the (electronic) attachment of the 22 December 2014 letter citing several issues with a 25 October 2013 Memo which is being processed as SDKs personal data.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) also conspired to place the physical health and well-being of SDK and his family at risk through abrogating their legal duty to protect employees from stress at work.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) fraudulently withheld an occupational health nurse assessment report from consideration in forming the termination settlement contract.  This report is also not being processed as part of SDK personal data.  (It was obtained through a separate SAR to the contracted occupational health nurse.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited acknowledges this through the inclusion of the 5 December 2014 email which brings up the matter.

David Nicholson <[email protected]> Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:21 AM

To: Steven Kalavity <[email protected]>

Please find attached our response to your constant requests for information which either you are not entitled to or we don’t possess.

Please also note that we are now taking legal advice on this matter as we are of the opinion that we have reacted to all your requests in a fair and reasonable manner and that you are now in breach of your Settlement Agreement which you signed last December.

This letter has also been sent to you through the post.

David Nicholson HR Manager

From: Steven Kalavity [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 20 December 2014 04:03

To: Laura Haswell

Cc: David Nicholson

Subject: KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided

PGS UK Data Processor/Controller:

In my personnel file there is a Memo written/signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes.

First of all, I never received this Memo (to my attention?) until recently when it was sent to me by my SAR / UK DPA 1998.

Note the three referenced documents:

1) Meeting 11 September 2013

2) Your letter of 29 September 2013

3) Meeting 14 October 2013

I have not received these referenced items. 

Item 3:

I think this is a reference to the Norway – UK teleconference meeting.

No minutes of this grievance hearing are provided.  My witness/co-worker John Barnard attended (to verify what was said/discussed).  He is not copied on these minutes.  Simon Cather and David Nicholson did not attend this meeting.

Item 2:

Your letter?  I do not know what letter is being referenced.  Perhaps a letter from DN/SC?  I have not been provided with this document.

Item 1:

I do not know anything about this meeting.  It was not with me.  I have not been provided with minutes of this meeting.

The point is, information has been referenced and processed but has not been provided to me through my SAR request.

Please explain.

Regards,

Steven

Within the 9 January 2015, ICO again does not protect subject data rights, but instead shields data controller PGS Exploration (UK) Limited from addressing concerns responsibly.  ICO essentially allows PGS Exploration (UK) Limited to “correct” subject data with no penalty whatsoever!  ICO does not require that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited state why amending SDKs personal data is either necessary or compliant?  ICO did not even make the most basic inquiries to protect the data subject..  Why is it acceptable or necessary to alter SDK personal data by the inclusion of one of the complaint emails dated 5 December 2014?  The 5 December 2014 email is requesting that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited remove inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents from SDKs official personnel records!  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has acknowledged that they have been in violation of DPA/GDPR principles through their permitting this alteration of SDK personal data.  ICO apparently does not even recognize this and obviously is not penalizing the data controller in any way.  Why would PGS Exploration (UK) Limited amend personal data months following the termination settlement agreement?  It is because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed the termination settlement contract using fake – forged and defamatory – personal data.  This is fraud.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited would not agree to or should be allowed to amend SDKs personal data with inaccurate and non-compliant content.  

ICO should not need to know this, but PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (Landau Law) had promised that SDK personal data was accurate the day before the termination settlement contract was signed.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (Landau Law) denied multiple requests by data subject, SDK, to inspect his personal data whilst negotiations were going on.  (SDK now knows why.)  However, ICO should know that documents that have no subject signature would not be considered legal or useful a court of law.  Within the 5 December 2014 complaint email to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, SDK requested the removal of non-compliant (to DPA principles) and illegal personal data.  

The 5 December 2014 complaint email to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited:

Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes

Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com> Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM

To: Laura Haswell <[email protected]>

Cc: David Nicholson <@pgs.com>

PGS UK Data Controller,

Please confirm receipt of this email.

The forty day period for compliance of my Subject Access Request (SAR) has now passed.  I do not believe that there has been complete compliance, but I will defer to ICO guidance on how to proceed.

I have not received information regarding who directly has processed my personal data, who has had access to the different personal data stored, who has been provided with my personal data, or for what reasons. 

I applied for different roles while within PGS, especially during the time I was with Marine Contract – Africa.  Please provide me with discussions/outcomes from these applications.

I printed four copies of my grievance to present personally during the scheduled meeting.  I distributed the hard copies them to the meeting attendees:  John Barnard (my witness), David Nicholson, and Eddy Von Abendorff.  I also e-mailed copies to Simon Cather, Per Arild Reksnes, and John Greenway.

The grievance was principally in regard to the unfair and inaccurate processing of my personal data.  I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 was violated when PGS did not allow correction of this data and continued to publish and disseminate the incorrect information.

During settlement discussions I requested disputed information removed and PGS UK refused this request.

PGS UK has provided only a select number of communications from limited data processors and not undeleted or recovered from back-up other electronic mails and records.

Hardcopy records (i.e., date books, other) have not been provided or mentioned.

Further, the Settle Agreement, Clause 9.7 establishes that PGS will endeavor not to publish any disparaging or harmful information about me.

I have communicated with ICO for guidance on how to proceed. 

Even though the disputed information was brought to PGS UK attention over a year ago through my grievance, ICO allows data controllers to address and correct (remove) inaccurate information.

Since I do not believe that I have received all my personal data that PGS UK holds, I will address the information in my personnel file.

For clarity, can PGS UK please confirm the order of the documents provided to me in two (2) packages as to how the information is presented and who has access to which portions?

With regard to the HRIS copy, can you please provide time-tagged copies (2 month interval) of the file to confirm how and when changes were made?

I am following the order provided to which the data was provided to me.   Please address these changes within 28 days.

Please address why this data was retained and created.

File Section 1:

Need to add eligible for rehire (as written in your recent e-mail). 

Memo dated 25-October-2013 – Conclusions from Grievance Hearing should be removed from the file. 

  • This document was never presented to me, yet it is referenced to my attention.
  • No signature or acknowledgement/agreement from me regarding content.
  • PGS offered me the settlement to STOP the grievance process (prior to this meeting, in fact).
  • Also, my solicitor, which I was prompted to engage after you made the offer, indicated PGS would prefer the settlement to proceed with the grievance so they WOULD NOT have to respond.
  • The grievance process was not CONCLUDED – it was just not continued due to PGS UK’s offer of a settlement agreement.
  • The minutes and record from this meeting are not sufficient given the gravity of the issue to the data subject.  Many important and substantive points are missing. 
  • More likely, I would have not accepted a PIP and would have appealed this conclusion and gone to tribunal, per ACAS provisions.
  • There is no presentation of evidence to indicate a thorough analysis.
  • There is no presentation of data that counter any of my issues brought-up within my grievance.
  • It accepts and amplifies the malicious and defamatory statements that are backed by no substantive evidence. 
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
  • This also is not in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting publication of disparaging remarks.

Omitted:  My grievance document that challenges allegations with supporting evidence.  (Omitted okay as long as with the other documents that inspired it.)  The document provided does not include the pages of evidence that support my disagreement.  Why is not the complete document provided?

  • Also, I remember a yellow-highlighted copy of my grievance being reference when the settlement was offered.  Is this the document copied?
  • I provided hard copies to you, Eddy and John.  Where are they?

Letter to me 24 July 2013 – Investigation for Possible Implementation of Performance Improvement Plan – Should be removed

  • This letter was provided to me after HR refusal to present me with minutes of an “informal meeting” where these allegations were first made.
  • This letter without my response (grievance) included suggests some sort of agreement or concession of these claims.  My file contains no meetings or emails that corroborate any of these statements.  In fact, these statements are both malicious and defamatory.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.

Meeting 13-June-2013 summary – Should be removed

  • This was an informal meeting.
  • I was called to the meeting with no warning or time to prepare.
  • This meeting did not follow PGS policy or procedures.
  • I asked for clarification about how this meeting conformed with PGS policy and was refused.
  • I was also refused minutes of the meeting to contest.  Instead, I was provided a letter which prompted my response.  Yes, I did believe the minutes needed to be written so that I could have the opportunity to contest the (unsupported) allegations.
  • I do not agree with these minutes and believe they conflate meetings and correspondence which occurred between the meeting and my grievance.
  • Allegations are not supported by any documentation.  In a fair and accurate process, these allegations should have been substantiated:
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be quantified.  I included this in my grievance.  It was never provided in the meeting. 
    • Responsible and fair HR Management should have verified and clarified claims made as fact.
    • Commercial acumen was never defined and purely a (malicious) unqualified opinion.
    • Meeting and instruction were cited, but not supported by written records.  In fact, they never happened.
    • The GAP analysis meeting(s) mentioned with Manager are not corroborated by notes or details, and in fact never happened.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed this.
    • PIP was never discussed during meeting, move to another work assignment was mentioned.
    • Quality of work – no record of meetings or specific instances.  In fact, there seems to be no reduction in work given to me as mentioned in grievance.
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be corroborated with evidence.  It never was.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed and clarified this.  Workload distribution evidence was included within my grievance/reply.
  • I was not provided an impartial witness during the meeting to corroborate the minutes.
  • I do not agree with many of the contents of this letter.
  • My Grievance documents go into detail about the many disagreements.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks/information.
  • Why was there no validation by HR (UK/Norway) of the contested statements made as fact and to my personal detriment?
  • I believe that this is a violation of the DPA.
  • The documents inclusion into my personal personnel record is prejudicial and disparaging and violates the terms of the settlement agreement, as well.

GAP Analysis – Should be removed.   Note, I asked for its removal during settlement talks and was refused.

  • No supporting documentation to give meaning and context.
  • The Gap Analysis is not supported by any tangible data.
  • It mostly indicates disagreement, but no basis of disagreement (what was measured?)
  • No supporting documentation that indicates any effort to resolve the Gap.
  • The denial to provide how the Gap is defined or can be filled makes this document irrelevant.
  • EvA references meeting, but no evidence is provided to substantiate.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.
  • Omissions – Supporting documentation

There is no record of meetings, advice, or elaboration about my deficiencies referenced in the meeting.  Did the meeting ever happen?  Did you confirm, if so why isn’t there supporting documentation?

Documents about my temporary living, and trip to England, etc. can be removed because the information is dated not really useful or relevant to my professional file

.Section 2:

Tax reference info if needed.  Most all else can be removed as no longer valid.  (i.e., passport copies)

Section 3:

Section 4:

Omission – Email from Maggie Bream regarding my health check following my 5-day absence.

Section 5:

Replace with current CV.  I have provided several updated versions for internal vacancies.

Steven D. Kalavity

Steven Kalavity’s first direct interaction with the ICO was from October – December 2014.  SDK has submitted subsequent SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England in 2016, 2018, and most recently in 2020 predicated on the contents received through the 2014 SAR,  Since 2014, ICO had been unsuccessful in their mission to protect the data rights of subject SDK.  ICO failure has allowed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir / Landau Law, Duensing – Kippen) to process defamatory forged documents that violate every DPA /  GDPR principles.  

SDK does not believe that there is an individual ICO caseworker or ICO in general has a personal vendetta against the data subject.  However, there is something systemic within the processes and procedures that data controllers PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffrtt and Weir (Landau Law) to utter forged and illegal documents as SDK personal data over the course of several years without reprisal.  There may be other victims of data controller tyranny.  SDK is not the only person who is damaged by dysfunctional systems that violate personal human rights.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed fake data to preserve a dangerous mythology intended to deceive investors, customers and competitors.

The upstream oil and gas industry pays a premium for companies that operate safely.  However, the Deep Water Horizon disaster demonstrated how catastrophes manifest within climates of fear where whistleblowers remain silent due to the threat of reprisal.  Further, being the target of workplace gang-bullying and mobbing, a brutal tactic often used by corrupt organizations to oust whistleblowers, is no picnic.  SDK would not wish it upon anyone.  What PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has done to whistleblower SDK is take away his ability to fight back.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited denied SDK his ability to defend himself.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached SDKs contract and obstructed his ability to raise a grievance.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited engaged in mobster tactics and worked to destroy his reputation through producing defamatory performance reports.  However, this meant PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had to defraud UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could not legally employ a poor performing foreign worker and displace an able UK-EEA resident worker.  When SDK did finally submit his grievance, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited once again breached his employment contract by proffering a termination settlement contract and not follow-through the legally mandated grievance procedures.  

In desperation, SDK sought “legal” advice from solicitor Philip Landau.  When SDK received the contents of his personnel file through the 2014 SAR and discovered forged and defamatory documents being processed he knew he was the victim of something terrible.  Landau Zeffert and Weir (Landau) law betrayed SDK.  Landau received truthful information from his client, but processed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited lies.  Watson Farley and Williams processed one set of data for UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement and another set of SDK personal data to support the illegal termination settlement contract.  

Every penny spent on this confidence fraud game is money stolen from PGS ASA shareholders.  This robbery should have been halted years ago.  It only required that ICO employed robust processes that legally validate data controller compliance to DPA/GDPR principles rather than assuming that corrupt narcissistic data controllers are “likely” telling the truth.  SDK is 100% certain that the personal data PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is not legal and violates DPA / GDPR principles.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited even acknowledges this through their amending SDK personal data by the inclusion of the 5 December 2014 complaint email!

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited  has no legal business nor reason for transferring SDK personal data to a law firm in Thailand.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited litigation in Thailand is predicated on the fact that SDK was coerced to sign two compromise agreements in Thailand.  One agreement was on behalf of Carl RIchards and the other on behalf of the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen  The agreements were signed under threat of criminal prosecution under Thai law with prison terms of 2-5 years each.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) refuse to clarify the legal status of the two contracts governed by the laws of England which contain Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting publication of content that disparages PGS ASA, except for legally protected (PIDA) content.  The agreements signed in Thailand are for the sole purpose of silencing legally protected disclosure.  Such agreements are illegal under Norwegian law and unenforceable under the laws of England (PIDA).  

Content referenced within the original two claims was published on nopgs.com, which was stolen with all evidence destroyed whilst legal discussion was ongoing with SDK in Thailand.  Additional charges were made against SDK in Thailand when he once again exercised his legal right under the laws of England to legally disclose.  Retaliation against whistleblowers is illegal (PIDA), but continues because of the inaction of ICO and ActionFraud.  ICO and ActionFraud are implored to thoroughly investigate.  But, data subject rights are not protected from guesses by ignorant ICO caseworkers.

Regards,

SDK

PINTEREST

No PGS

Ben Kelly lawyer DTN PGS Watson Farley Williams

PGS ASA John Francas

Landau Law – London, Employment Law

PGS ASA John Barnard & Josh May Bully Bystander

Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW

PGS ASA Human Resources Gareth Jones

rhodri thomas london employment lawyer EM Law WFW

PGS ASA WHISTLEBLOWER – December 2020

Telenor – PGS Corrupt Compliance Silke Hitschke

Jon Erik Reinhardsen Equinor PGS StatOil

PGS ASA Q3 2020

Simon Cather Artist Manager PGS ASA Africa Region

2020 Society of Exploration Geophysicists SEG PGS

PGS ASA Business Development VP Sarah Murphy Bids

Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. Houston TX PGS Corrupt

2020 Q3 Norway’s PGS ASA Corrupt CEO Pedersen

DUENSING – KIPPEN THAILAND

PGS ASA Candida Pinto

PGS ASA Carl Richards Accused Criminal

###

What do you think we [UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)] did wrong?

Duress – UK Contract Law

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. 

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

 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)
ICO Casework <[email protected]>
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.

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

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

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

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

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:

  1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
  2. Purpose limitation.
  3. Data minimisation.
  4. Accuracy.
  5. Storage limitation.
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
  7. Accountability.

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.

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.

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, which states that subject data must be,

  1. Fairly and lawfully processed;
  2. processed only for limited purposes;
  3. Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
  4. Accurate and up to date;
  5. Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
  6. Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
  7. Data is kept secure;
  8. 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

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

2.  IC-44927-G3W4

Criminal Pieces of Shit:

PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators

(WAITING FOR THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND CONFIRM)

Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Landau Law / Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

SDK hired Counsel and reason that I am able to publish so much content since 3 July 2015!

Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11
Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism
Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)
PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Duensing Kippen Global Corruption: Racketeering and Defamation Defined (2 March 2020)
Open Letter to Norway’s Telenor Board of Directors Regarding Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke (8 September 2020)
Open Letter to Tina Bru, Norway Minister of Petroleum and Energy (13 June 2020)
Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017) – Republish
Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128

###

PGS ASA: Webcast Details for Presentation of Q4 2020 Results and 2021 Perspectives

A board of directors should exercise reasonable prudence in carrying out their duties to achieve the best interests of the corporation. An officer or director may be held personally liable for failing to exercise reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances, e.g., invoking contractual confidentiality clauses in place to protect company reputation and value.

PGS ASA Customers and Investors are Idiots that allow the Corrupt and Incompetent Board of Directors and Executive Management to Ignore their Responsibility of Protecting Company Reputation and Value.

The “data protection dispute” acting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary, Carl Richards, refers to is the data subjects claim that PGS ASA processed forged and defamatory documents to support a termination settlement agreement. What data did Richards provide to Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen to establish a defamation claim? PGS ASA illegally released SDKs sensitive personal data to a third-party (Richards) who then shared it with another third-party (Duensing – Kippen)? Why is English lawyer and secretary of a company governed by the laws of England relying on Thai laws instead of the confidentiality terms and conditions of the employment contract also governed by the laws of England which prohibit the publication of derogatory content about PGS ASA or its agents/stakeholders?

Commentary and Analysis

Why do PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law agents allow themselves to be called Criminal Pieces of Shit if they are not Criminal Pieces of Shit? Silence is consent ActionFraud (and ICO)!

Criminal Pieces of Shit:

PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Landau Law / Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

SDK hired Counsel and reason that I am able to publish so much content since 3 July 2015!

Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Wake-up and do you your job, ActionFraud!

On or before 4 February 2021, PGS ASA will need to respond to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the transfer of USA citizen and PGS ASA whistleblower, SDK, personal data to THAILAND and USA.

Such transfers can only take place if conditions are met under Chapter 5 of the General data Protection Regulations (GDPR) . ICO has requested that PGS ASA UK subsidiary provide information to demonstrate how PGS ASA have met the conditions of Chapter 5 of the GDPR with regard to the criminal and civil litigation carried out by Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen, as well as (former) secretary Carl Richards (two claims).

More Legally Protected Public Disclosure Content Exposing PGS ASA Corruption and Deception will be added through Thursday, February 4, 2021.

PGS ASA Press Release

President & CEO Rune Olav Pedersen and EVP & CFO Gottfred Langseth will present the results and PGS 2021 perspectives, including company guidance, via a webcast the same day at 09:00 am CET. To join the webcast, copy and paste the link below into your browser, or go to PGS website www.pgs.com.
Webcast link: https://channel.royalcast.com/landingpage/hegnarmedia/20210204_5/

A replay of the webcast will be made available on www.pgs.com shortly after.


FOR DETAILS, CONTACT:
Bård Stenberg, VP IR & Corporate Communication
Mobile:  +47 99 24 52 35

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is a Worthless Organization

ICO Fails to Protect the Human Rights of Data Subjects. ICO Dysfunction Facilitates Data Controller Corruption and Abuse

SDK hired Legal Counsel Philip Landau and Holly Hobson have never represented nor defended client SDK. Philip Landau and Holly Hobson accepted bribes to participate in a confidence fraud. Philip Landau and Holly Hobson are criminal pieces of shit who should be in prison. Their silence is fraudulent and perverts the course of justice. Those who employ these bottom-feeding scum are negligent through poor due diligence and need to be held accountable.

###

In Search of Vindication from “Legal Counsel” Philip Landau and Holly Hobson

An Open Post to Former Agents of Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP

Between the Bully and the Deep Blue Sea (5-Jun-2015)
Aaron Tippin – You’ve Got To Stand For Something (Official Video)

On 22 October 2013, US citizen and sponsored Tier 2 visa worker Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) formally engaged Philip Landau, then with Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors (LZW), a London, England employment law firm. LZW was contacted to advise on a settlement agreement that had been proffered by SDKs employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England, on 10 October 2013. Since this date, SDK has felt like a man convicted for a crime that he never committed. It has been hell! After months of terrible workplace mobbing abuse by his employer, SDK sought redress through his proceeding through the legally and contractually guaranteed grievance process. However, LZW decided not represent the interests of client SDK, but instead aid the abusers. (SDK could have never even imagined such evil back then.) The LZW agents who SDK communicated with directly and principally facilitated the confidence fraud were Philip Landau and Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson) who were professionally engaged as SDKs counsel through the eventual signing of a termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (10 October – 5 December 2013) [SCA]. The reason that SDK is able to publish articles disparaging his former counsel and employer is because the rendered SCA advised on by LZWs Landau – Hobson (Rushton) is an illegal contract supported by defamatory forged instruments. The conspirators were publicly exposed years ago (3 July 2015). Landau and Hobson have never advised that the online publications cease or denied accusations that they participated in a criminal conspiracy to defame and defraud their client. Landau and Hobson have remained silent. This is the main reason that justice has alluded SDK is because he never really ever had legal counsel representing his interests.

The voice of the lawyers involved with negotiating the actual terms and conditions of my termination were Philip Landau, from Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP, representing me and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) which was enlisted by PGSUK.  Every single one of these named individuals has a voice, access to legal counsel, and the capacity to respond and to clarify any of the issues brought-up in my posts.  The base argument is that no settlement agreement contract can be applied to supersede the legal provisions afforded to each data subject through the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).  The DPA does not allow inaccurate subject data to be fraudulently processed by a data controller, e.g., PGS. My contention, however, is that the aforementioned actors – and likely several others – have indeed conspired to accomplish just that.

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (22 June 2016)

Communications between SDK and Landau began on 10 October 2013. SDK had delivered a formal grievance to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 to initiate the formal grievance process. The grievance was prompted by an ambush meeting that occurred on 13 June 2013. SDK had wanted to submit a grievance directly following that ambush meeting, but was obstructed from doing so. PGS refused to provide minutes, or any firm record, of that meeting to SDK as a basis for the grievance. Eventually, on 24 July 2013, PGS delivered, through PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson, a letter, Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan. This ambush letter instead became the referenced basis for the grievance submitted 20 September 2020. The grievance had alleged the abuse of position, bullying / harassment, discrimination, and defamation of SDK mostly by three principals: David Nicholson, PGS UK HR Manager, Edward von Abendorff, SDKs supervisor and Simon Cather, von Abendorff’s boss. A grievance hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. On 10 October 2013 a termination settlement was proffered by the accused PGS perpetrator, Nicholson, to stop the grievance process, which SDK rejected. Following this, SDK did some online research, discovered and then contacted Landau / LZW.

In October 2014, I contacted Nicholson and Haswell to submit my SAR to PGS Exploration UK Limited.  I contacted Landau, just so he would be aware.  I also contacted Bjølseth.  There was a brief acknowledgement from Landau. Bjølseth basically confirmed and approved that Nicholson et. al would address my SAR.  I made it clear that I had many disagreements about my held subject data with the ICO caseworker, as well as with Nicholson and Haswell.  The communications with PGS ended in late December 2014.  Readers must understand that I knew immediately upon receiving my SAR data that something was awry. 

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14 June 2016)

Landau immediately recommended that an “enhanced” settlement agreement be sought, rather than continuing to proceed through the Company grievance procedures through conclusion and then possible appeal. SDK was motivated to extricate himself and his family from the health-harming work environment. However, SDK obviously wanted to do so with the most favorable financial and professional terms possible with his reputation and dignity intact. As a US citizen foreign worker, SDK had no ties nor interest in any prolonged battle or remaining in England. Reluctant to abandon the grievance procedures process, SDK paid Landau to negotiate the most favorable exit that he could, based on his experience and knowledge of UK employment law. SDK finally did act and place his confidence in Landau’s advice to negotiate the “enhanced” termination settlement agreement. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK felt that the garden leave and isolation from office acquaintances was disparaging, especially around the holiday season, but PGS offered to pay an additional month salary if SDK agreed. SDK would have never agreed to such terms and conditions if he lived in England and not been a sponsored foreign worker. SDK and family departed England to the USA on 24 December 2013 never completely satisfied with the outcome, but out of harms way. Or so SDK hoped and believed at the time.

PINTEREST – Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW – Without Prejudice Emails – Confidence Fraud Against Whistleblower

following the initial settlement proffered by one of the perpetrators which SDK rejected.

Diligence, Negligence, and Gross Negligence

My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial (Updated 9-Apr-2017)
Alan Zeffertt – Anthony Gold
Andrew Weir – Andrew Gold

Through a network of bribed and corrupt lawyers / solicitors and human resources personnel justice have perverted the course of justice and denied their victim of violent crimes an opportunity to fight back. PGS, along with their contracted counsel WFW plus LZWs crucial assistance formed an illegal termination settlement contract through gaslighting lies and manipulation. The abuse of SDK and his family has continued through their illegal silence. PGS, LZW and WFW fraud, defamation (blacklisting), harassment and abuse has never ceased. Once in the USA, in October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to receive copies of SDK personal data that PGS was processing. This included SDKs PGS professional personnel file and several other e-mails. (Landau was made aware that an SAR was submitted. ) The documents processed within SDKs PGS personnel file bore no subject SDK signature and were inaccurate and defamatory. SDK sent several complaints to both PGS as well as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in charge of DPA compliance. On 22 December 2014, PGS sent by e-mail and post mail a letter signed/endorsed by Nicholson “clarifying” issues that SDK had discovered following the receipt of data that PGS was processing as SDKs personal data (extortion letter).

PGS did concede to amend SDKs personnel file documents by including one 5 December 2014 complaint e-mail into SDKs PGS personnel file, but threatened legal action if SDK continued his questioning of the false instruments PGS had already illegally processed. In spite of the double-speak within the extortion letter, placing the 5 December 2014 e-mail highlighting issues with the contents of SDKs personnel file was an amendment/change of SDKs personal data after the fact. PGS essentially acknowledged that PGS, WFW and LZW had processed inaccurate personal data and their solution was to correct it. This was also an acknowledgement that PGS, WFW and LZW has all conspired to defraud SDK. As a condition of signing the termination settlement agreement, PGS, WFW and LZW promised that the contents would be true and accurate. PGS, WFW and LZW all gaslighted to induce SDK to sign the phony contract. Obviously, LZW participation in the fraud was pivotal to its “success.” Records with no subject counter-signature cannot be verified for accuracy and would not be considered legal documents, except within this criminal conspiracy including corrupt lawyers and human resources employee’s. Most documents are signed solely by accused harasser and defamer Nicholson!

PGS did not address that their concession to amend SDKs personal data meant that inaccurate/false personal data had been used to process the termination settlement agreement (fraud). Nevertheless, ICO was and has remained satisfied with this “solution.”

A formal grievance had been delivered to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 and a hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. Landau recommended immediately recommended that he advise on negotiating an “enhanced” settlement agreement (payment) and discontinue the grievance process. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK and family departed England 24 December 2013.

Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism (16 April 2019)
The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24 May 2016)
The Crimes of Philip Landau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30 December 2017)

Because of the binding nature of settlement contracts, there was little more that SDK could do, even though the entire purpose of DPA is to ensure correct data is processed for data subjects. In July 2015, SDK published some of these issues online the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform expecting that the Confidentiality clauses would invoke some response (legal action) from PGS. Nothing happened. In August 2015, SDK submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police). Neither ICO nor the police, to date, have ever thoroughly investigated SDK, claims. From September 2015 through August 2016, SDK published several more articles on LinkedIN™. SDK sent several complaints to PGS Compliance Hotline which were never answered. SDK also submitted several comments on the PGS LinkedIN™ space . These complaints were deleted. SDK even contacted Landau. Landau and Hobson (Rushton) were now with Landau Law. Landau and Hobson have never commented, but have essentially aided PGS in maintaining the false narrative. SDK believes that this silence and failure to clarify SDKs position is itself fraudulent and perverts the course of justice. It also confirms that Landau -Hobson were principle actors in the execution of a confidence fraud against their client. SDK, a USA citizen. SDK was denied due process under English law and contract. SDK was then sent back to the USA out of reach of English justice. This punctuates the claim of discrimination made against PGS. SDKs US citizenship made him vulnerable to such a confidence fraud.

Several e-mails between SDK and Landau-Hobson from 10 October 2013 – 5 December 2013 confirm that PGS is processing inaccurate defamatory data as SDKs personal data.orwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) illegally harassed and discriminated against a US citizen foreign worker whistleblower. To avoid accountability for their violent crimes against US-Thai citizens under their contractual Duty of Care, they bribed lawyers, Philip Landau and Holly Hobson (Rushton) to defraud and professionally blacklist their client, Steven Kalavity (SDK). On 22 October 2013, Philip Landua, then with Landau Zeffert and Wier Solicitors (LZW) was paid money and formally engaged to represent SDK. (LZW later became Landau Law to scrub evidence and launder the bribe money.) SDK was sponsored to work in England by PGS’ subsidiary in England, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY. The criminal conspiracy to defraud foreign worker whistleblower, SDK, was only successful because SDK was a foreigner. Through bribing SDKs counsel, SDK was effectively denied his legal due process. Everything that I am writing can be confirmed or denied by Landau and Hobson. Landau and Hobson silence is fraud. Every question asked of PGS through the subject access request (SAR) sent to PGS October 2014 should have been confirmed by Landau and Hobson. However, since Landau and Hobson were indispensable actors in the criminal conspiracy confidence fraud, they have never come to the aid of their former client. They have allowed SDK to be defamed and defrauded. Landau and Hobson have been accused of criminal acts formally since 2016. Neither has ever protested their innocence. So, why doesn’t UK ActionFraud (police) arrest them when they have never denied that they are criminals. The evidence that SDK has posted online since 3 July 2015 is irrefutable. But, it seems Sherlock Holmes inquisitiveness is only the thing of fiction in the UK.

Equinor should have addressed ‘significant’ problems in U.S. sooner -chairman (9 October 2020) – Norway covers-up their corruption and the PWC audit is meaningless. The same board that allowed the poor investments also selected Reinhadsen to be Chairman

SDK was a foreign worker in a foreign land under significant stress from the hostile work environment. The health and well-being of SDK and his family were continually jeopardized by the illegal workplace behaviors, continual lies and gaslighting. Things came to a head 13 June 2013 when SDK entered into an ambush meeting hosted by HR Manager, David Nicholson and attended by SDKs supervisor, Edward von Abendorff and his supervisor, Simon Cather. An ambush meeting is essentially when corrupt managers abuse their power and without legal license nor evidence threaten a hapless target of illegal harassment and discrimination livelihood and defame them. Following this meeting, SDK requested minutes of the meeting so that he could invoke his legal right under law and contract to submit a grievance. The trio of criminals, Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff breached SDKs contract and perverted the course of justice by obstructing this legal right under law and contract. SDK needed something in writing since minutes of the illegal ambush meeting were withheld. Eventually, Nicholson signed and delivered an illegal letter on behalf of the Company on 24 July 2013 that similarly threatened and defamed SDK. The trio of criminal cowards wanted to escape all responsibility for their illegal behavior and PGS upper management aided and abetted in the fraud and defamation of a foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK did not work directly for Nicholson. Further, since the requested grievance regarded the meeting that Nicholson hosted and participated in, he would not have any qualified privilege. Similarly, the directors and secretary of PGSUK, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Candida Pinto also held no direct knowledge of my work and also held no qualified privilege. They abused their power to intimidate their target of violent health harming harassment through endorsing an illegal and defamatory letter that they ultimately would be accountable. The letters subject line, Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan was strategically named to obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right to submit a grievance which would have obviously revealed PGS breach of contract and defamation. The ambush letter scheduled a meeting for 11 September 2013. SDK had made his intentions clear that he intended to respond to the ambush letter with a grievance. PGS continued to illegally obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right under law and contract to submit a grievance. PGS never aided in the submission process as they are supposed to do. The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. On 13 September 2013, Pinto resigned as PGSUK secretary and Carl Richards assumed the role. From 24 July 2013 SDK had requested co-worker John Barnard to be his witness through the grievance process. Again, Nicholson made several attempts to obstruct the grievance process. However, on 20 September 2013 there was a meeting. PGS never provided any investigation report at the meeting. SDK delivered the grievance during the short meeting.

Again, PGS delayed. Nicholson was a named subject of the grievance citing bullying, harassment, and other contractual duty of care breaches (Health and Safety Act 1974), discrimination (Equality Act 2010), based on SDKs nationality protected class. Nicholson continued to be allowed to direct – or obstruct – SDKs legal grievance process. A meeting / hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. However, Nicholson – a named perpetrator within the grievance – proffered a settlement agreement 10 October 2013 stop SDKs legally guaranteed grievance process. SDK did not accept the settlement offer, but did decide to seek legal advice and came across Philip Landau. Landau immediately recommended seeking an “enhanced settlement.” Email records show that Landau (and Hobson) were provided with both a summary of the grievance as well as the grievance document with names redacted. Landau never requested a copy of the employment contract, which was predicated on my Tier 2 visa sponsorship and also included reference to the disciplinary and grievance processes contained within the employee Handbook. (This would mean not following the grievance procedures would be a breach of contract.) The grievance hearing occurred on 14 October 2013 by video conference with myself and Barnard in England and Cather’s superior, Per Arild Reksnes, and Nicholson’s superior, Terje Bjolseth both in Norway. No minutes or decision from that meeting was ever provided to SDK. Impatient, on 22 October 2013, SDK officially engaged Landau to represent and advise in the grievance – settlement process. PGS had never provided any Performance Improvement Plan, only the grievance process was officially initiated.

I have signed a settlement agreement, or “NDA”. Can I take my story to the media?

In most cases, no. If you have signed a valid settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause this would usually be sufficient to stop you from taking a story to the media. It is possible (and likely) that your ex-employer could sue you for breach of contract and significant damages if you did so.

However, as mentioned above, a settlement agreement cannot prevent you from reporting crime to the police, whistleblowing to an appropriate authority (for example a regulator), or reporting anything that had not yet happened at the time you signed the settlement agreement, for example if you have stayed with your employer and the harassment has continued.

If you are concerned about the validity or enforceability of a settlement agreement you have signed, you should seek legal advice before taking any further steps.

LANDAU LAW SOLICITORS

Settlement agreements are not legally effective unless the employee has received independent legal advice about it.

Ben Kelly lawyer DTN PGS Watson Farley Williams

Settlement agreement discussions and section 111A of the ERA 1996

Section 111A of the ERA 1996 provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.

Claims that relate to an automatically unfair reason for dismissal such as whistleblowing, union membership or asserting a statutory right are not covered by the confidentiality provisions set out in section 111A.

Neither are claims made on grounds other than unfair dismissal, such as claims of discrimination, harassment, victimisation or other behaviour prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, or claims relating to breach of contract or wrongful dismissal.

 Acas Code of Practice on settlement agreements
Brennan Heart & Coone ft. Max P – Fight For Something (Official Videoclip)

###

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (22 June 2016)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (22 June 2016)

This legally protected public disclosure was first published on LinkedIN™ Pulse 22 June 2016. PGS has been in breach of legal and Contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions by not citing either a breach in the contract or investigating whistleblowing claims. Instead PGS and their co-conspirators sought to have the truth de-published so that they could continue defaming and defrauding the whistleblower, his family, stakeholders, and the upstream oil and gas industry. On 20 August 2016, the LinkedIN™ account of Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) was restricted due to complaints over his legally published content. PGS continued obstructing / perverting the course of justice and breached their Norway and UK whistleblower protection laws through their illegal handling of protected disclosure. SDK and his family have been severely damaged by this criminal conspiracy to assassinate SDKs professional character and livelihood. PGS cannot rely on the terms and conditions of their illegal contracts which are supported by defamatory uttered forged documents.

The Symphonic Utterances of Forged Instruments

The PGS Make Believe Events of 11 September 2013 – Boycott PGS

The Holocaust teaches us that nature, even in its cruelest moments, is benign in comparison with man when he loses his moral compass and his reason.

Samuel Pisar

Knowing what’s right doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.

Theodore Roosevelt

Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) (22-Jun-2016), in many respects, was the reiteration of past LinkedIn™ (LI) posts describing the corrupt management practices at the top of PGS.  I have publicly accused a list of PGS employees of workplace mobbing, conspiracy, and fraud.  I have further inquired: Why wouldn’t an innocent person with means defend their honor and character do so if they were really being attacked with false allegations?  It is my confident position that a workplace mob resolved on making me the target of abusive and health-harming behavior and professionally defamatory claims, orchestrated an illegal termination through highly unethical misrepresentations and false instruments to safeguard the workplace mob from responsibility, accountability, and liability.  I had relied on the PGS Code of Conduct and Core Values as a guide in asking for such unprofessional and health-harming behavior to end.  I wanted the Africa sales group to focus on the real objective of promoting PGS acquisition and data processing services for the betterment of PGS.  My allegations are supplemented with documented evidence.  The accused PGS mob personnel, even with (free) legal counsel at their disposal, have chosen to remain silent.  They likely hope that UK Action Fraud (AF) and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will continue to choose not to thoroughly investigate the matter, as seems too often to be the case.  PGS Compliance Hotline (CH) is a farce, as the compliance agents themselves are involved and complicit in the cover-up of the reported corruption and fraud.  

The core actors / perpetrators around my claims have been identified by name and position: CEO and President, Jon Erik Reinhardsen; EVP Operations/Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes; EVP General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen; SVP HR, Terje Bjølseth; SVP Marine Contract, John Greenway; Marine Contract President – Africa, Simon Cather; Marine Contract Sales – Africa VP, Edward Von Abendorff; HR Manager EAME (ret.) David Nicholson; Head of Legal (UK), Carl Richards; Legal Associate, Ben Kelly; HR Officer, Laura Haswell; HR Officer, Anna Stockle; and HR Officer, Gareth Jones.  The voice of the lawyers involved with negotiating the actual terms and conditions of my termination were Philip Landau, from Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP, representing me and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFG) which was enlisted by PGSUK.  Every single one of these named individuals has a voice, access to legal counsel, and the capacity to respond and to clarify any of the issues brought-up in my posts.  The base argument is that no settlement agreement contract can be applied to supersede the legal provisions afforded to each data subject through the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).  The DPA does not allow inaccurate subject data to be fraudulently processed by a data controller, e.g., PGS. My contention, however, is that the aforementioned actors – and likely several others – have indeed conspired to accomplish just that.  Substantial resources have been devoted to make me feel bad and look bad professionally.

The principal issue at stake throughout my ordeal, which began when I was a target of workplace mobbing, and has continued since my paid employment officially terminated through a negotiated (on fraudulent basis) settlement agreement contract at the end of 2013 has always been the truthful narrative constructed from accurate data.  This is highlighted within pasted excerpts from my grievance document shared in the LI post, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016).  The procedural and legal integrity of the PGSUK performance management system, along with its unsubstantiated and defamatory narrative, is what was always being challenged.  The proffer of the settlement was done to avoid the unattainable burden of proof to support any legal termination. The narrative and basis for settlement rested wholly on conspired executive mob fantasy.  While employed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Marine Contract Sales – Africa group in Weybridge, England, as a USA citizen on a company sponsored Tier 2 visa, my voice and accurate narrative was, and continues to be, deliberately suppressed.  Through a litany of abusive and unethical behaviors, my legal rights under contract were ubiquitously obstructed and subsequently denied.  This process to eliminate real events and replace them into a deviant functional narrative contrived of falsehoods is parochially referred to as gaslighting.  This mobbing, fraud and gaslighting was principally sponsored and executed by high-level actors within the Legal, Marine Contract, and Human Resources (HR) work groups in both England and the PGS corporate headquarters in Lysaker, Norway.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse which attempts to deceive someone that false events actually occurred, and that real events are false. Gaslighting is ongoing and requires some prior knowledge of the targets experiences. There must be a deliberate, dishonest aspect to be considered gaslighting.  In other words, there needs to be a lying.  Gaslighting is seen in domestic abuse cases, and in fact the naming of this psychological phenomena is derived from the 1944 movie Gaslight.  In the movie a woman’s husband slowly manipulates her into believing that she is going insane.  The husband does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people. He does not allow his wife to go out or see visitors, especially past acquaintances who might provide her help and support.  Meanwhile, he searches for jewels which are thought to be hidden somewhere in their house attic.  His wife hears his footsteps up and down and notices the flickering gas light caused when he uses the attic light.  However, he tries to manipulate her into believing that she has imagined the gaslights flickering.  (Watch the movie.)  Gaslighting mainly is aimed at denying something factual, not simply the emotional state of the person receiving the criticism.  It is used by narcissistic bullies to instill an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion in their targets. 

A sociopath is one who sees others as impersonal objects to be manipulated to fulfill their own narcissistic needs without any regard for the hurtful consequences of their selfish actions.

R. Alan Woods

I think a lot of self-importance is a product of fear. And fear, living in sort of an un-self-examined fear-based life, tends to lead to narcissism and self-importance.

Moby

When the highest levels of the organization supports mobbing and collusion to harm you, there is first and foremost a great feeling of betrayal.  It is intentionally distressing and destabilizing.  The mob persona that best describes the mob behavior which orchestrated my termination would be narcissist.  There are several definitions of gaslighting, but in a nutshell it refers to the act of trying to deceive someone into a false reality.  Through the abuse of position and countless manipulations, the perpetrators breached their legal responsibility to maintain fair and accurate personal subject data, as DPA requires.  The PGS mob also intentionally deceived several third-party actors, including caseworkers for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who monitor DPA compliance, agents of the UK Border Agency who approve and administer worker and sponsored family visas, as well as contracted agents who are trusting PGS to provide truthful information required for preparation of the actual visa applications.  Approval is not automatic, but is contingent on several factors reliant on truthful information.  There were also credit checks for lease approvals where PGS agents signed-off that a potential tenant’s continued employment is not known to be at risk.  The PGS mob deceived these agents.  PGS also contracted with an occupational health nurse practitioner to monitor the healthiness and wellness of their workers, but subsequently ignored recommendations and destroyed a report in my case.  The web of deceit is far-reaching and has serious implications that effect the successful operation of the enterprise.  Not least of these is PGS’ company reputation.  PGS reputation effects worker morale and stakeholder willingness to invest in PGS.  PGS’ inability to sincerely and transparently address these allegations responsibly diminishes trust and employee morale even more.  Of course such irresponsible and deviant behavior contradicts categorically the pledges made within the PGS website.  The betrayal is felt throughout and beyond the internal organization and individual target.

If one imagines what it is like for someone to describe your professional life with complete falsehoods whilst never being allowed to correct or challenge such aspersions, then they might imagine the frustration and anxiety of my working within the Marine Contract Sales – Africa group.  Since I am the principal actor in my narrative, I actually do know what transpired.  The PGS mob has focused on my professional character assassination.  There is safety in numbers which allows these lying thieves and cowards to abuse their power and break all the protocols of legal workplace civility.  Simply, the mob decided to be mean and hurt me.  If this were not the case I would never have been so inspired, or even been allowed, to accuse the PGS mob of such transgressions.  But, the sheer spitefulness of their collective calumniation drives me toward a day of reckoning.  Since reviewing my personnel file, I have wondered why the PGS mob has remained so adamant about continuing to process – utter false instruments – and share a false narrative as part of my personal subject data.  After all, the damage was done.  I had already signed a settlement contract agreement and left England.  I had to come to terms with the full-dimension and power of the mob that invested so much thought, (PGS) resources, and energy into harming me and my family. 

In truth, there are very few documents within my personnel file.  Likely, it is the bare minimum required to affect the appearance of a legal termination.  Also, there needs to be a reasonable minimum amount of time allowed for a once competent employee to crash into incompetence.  The downward trajectory toward my PGS exit firmly began during an ambush meeting, as is often the case with bully targets.  This event is covered in some detail within my LI post, Petroleum Geo-Services CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – Evidence (20-Sep-2015) and then again within, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016).  When I was asked for minutes from this ambush meeting, they were withheld.  No documentation within my personnel file which would be applicable to affecting a legal termination was reviewed or signed by me.  None. 

A legal document is usually only considered valid if the signatures of all parties involved are on it. Signatures verify that everything in the document has been agreed upon and shall be followed by all the parties involved.  This had always been a requirement of PGS, as well as other employer performance appraisals.  However, the PGS CH team with EVP General Counsel and SVP HR cannot see any issues with documents about me that do not bare my signature.  The only signatures which appear on these documents are by Nicholson alone, and Bjølseth with Reksnes.  My boss, Von Abendorff did not sign any pertinent document following the ambush meeting, even though he would have been the only person who could provide first-hand knowledge of the issues described.  So, where is the source information?  Pulled out of thin air.  Every utterance since the ambush meeting would be unsubstantiated hearsay, at best. 

So obscure are the greatest events, as some take for granted any hearsay, whatever its source, others turn truth into falsehood, and both errors find encouragement with posterity. ~ Tacitus

All your life you live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye, and when something nudges it into outline it is like being ambushed by a grotesque. ~ Tom Stoppard

I was very close to pulling-out of the settlement negotiations because the feedback seemed so strange.  I had engaged a solicitor of some repute and essentially trusted his experience and credentials.  I was kept quite busy with contract sales work during the settlement negotiations and was not directly involved.  However, by the time both parties had reached settlement discussions I was motivated to finalize and leave England for the health of myself and my family.  Also, the USA and UK school year schedules shared a common dividing point between Christmas and New Year.  PGS was aware that I wanted finalization since it was mentioned within the occupational health nurse (OHN) report.  In fact, Nicholson-Von Abendorff requested the report during the negotiations.  The OHN had requested that the report be forwarded to my home address and had recommended a follow-up health check-up.  This OHN report was withheld from me.  The OHN report was never received by me, and apparently it was destroyed by PGS.  Nicholson denied its existence during my queries following my subject access request (SAR) to PGS.  Of course, when I did receive my personal data, including certain e-mails and my official personnel folder, I noticed the main issues with the documents right away.  One peculiarity has stood out especially.  The original scheduled date for my grievance presentation had been 11 September 2013.  The invitation for this meeting was included in the ambush letter which I had received in lieu of the minutes for the ambush meeting, which I was denied. 

Perhaps the noteworthy date was intended to play on my emotions as a USA citizen. Who knows?  But, the real issue is that the meeting never happened.  It was postponed until 20 September 2013.  Thus, I never considered the date too much once the meeting was cancelled.  My grievance was a response to the unsubstantiated claims made within the ambush letter and also indirectly to the claims and propriety of the ambush meeting.  I did reference the ambush letter directly in my grievance.  However, I never received a new letter with a changed date.  The ambush letter copy held in my personnel file also retains the original date because I never was sent a corrected letter/invitation.  (This was an oversight by me that set the stage for the mob plan.)  My grievance response is not included in my personnel file.  The (forged) memo response to my grievance hearing is signed by both Bjølseth and Reksnes and has many issues.  One of the issues is that it references a meeting held on 11 September 2013.  Of course, no minutes of the meeting are held within my personnel file.  Also, PGS did not provide the emails where the date for the meeting was changed with my SAR.  I had forwarded them to personal email for records.  Another note worthy of mention, is there were no minutes of the grievance hearing chaired by Bjølseth and Reksnes in my file.  I should have received these along with the memo, but in reality never received either.  I was supposed also receive a letter telling me that I could appeal the grievance decision, as well.  Of course, I did not receive this.  One would expect an SVP HR to know these protocols or at least clarify them.  This never happened.  I believe that PGS had been negotiating on the basis that there actually was a meeting held about my performance on 11 September 2013 that preceded my grievance presentation 20 September 2013.  This would make my grievance appear to be a reaction to the negative outcome of the meeting. This is what the documents in my personnel file point to.  But, again, this is not what happened at all.  It is all a bit hard to accept and get my head around. 

Richards was appointed secretary for PGSUK on 13 September 2013.  He vetted the settlement process along with Kelly, and based on what Nicholson shared, Norway legal.  Directors for PGSUK are Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, and Cristin Steen Nilsen.  Honestly, I cannot be sure as to whom actually signed the settlement contract on behalf of PGSUK.  My final days working at PGSUK for Marine Contract Sales – Africa were idiosyncratic.  There had been no meetings with my boss Von Abendorff following the ambush meeting that spoke directly to the serious issues brought-up during the meeting.  Certainly nothing documented or signed.  After the presentation of the grievance there was an awkward silence in the work area.  I was not moved outside the work group or anything.  Work carried-on with business as usual, which was rather surreal in itself.  As the settlement negotiations dragged-on, everyone was anxious to finalize.  On the other hand, I had no real interest in leaving before the school term finished for my children.  PGS placed me on garden leavewhich kept me employed, but out of the office and unable to say final good-byes or talk about what was going on with anyone in the office either.  I would miss the office Christmas Party.  However, I was in Weybridge, England, and could have attended the recommended appointment with the OHN.  But, as was stated earlier, the report was never delivered to me, even though the OHN had specifically requested Nicholson to do so.  The parties did not congregate for the document signing.  I mailed-in my signature page, PGS phone, and PGS work identification.  I suspect Richards signed-off on the settlement on behalf of PGSUK.  It seems PGSUK is really unkind –demonic it seems – to employees who do not perform to their (arbitrary) standard.

I would interact with Richards along with his associate, Kelly, frequently, especially during the tender preparation process.  I recall taking a Negotiation course along with Haswell and others.  Haswell was a zero-sum negotiation advocate at the onset and during the course.  Zero-sum is game theory which looks at the item of consideration as fixed, like a piece of cake.  Zero-sum would mean only one party walks away from the table with a piece of cake, the other with nothing.  There is a definite winner and loser in this scenario.  Maybe, HR promotes zero-sum negotiations and see no value in good parting relationships.  Of course, the purpose of the class exercise was really to show the folly of zero-sum negotiation, especially for service providers.  The objective is win-win, because in actuality negotiations are not fixed, as parties have different non-conflicting objectives.  The idea is to make a value proposition such that one-party profits from the other parties procurement of services in mostly equal terms as how much the other party gains from the services which are provided.  Both walk away as winners who achieved what they needed to solve their problems.  Long-term relationships and repeat business generally comes from a win-win approach.  Cheaters and bullies demand zero-sum outcomes – they win and their target loses.   Narcissistic personalities tend to discard relationships once they are used-up.  They want to get rid of the targets ability to influence future relationships.  This is why they are not satisfied by simply eliminating targets from their immediate network, or organization, and want to damage targets so that they cannot influence the overall network.  Even narcissists understand the influence and dangers of past targets of abuse.  The objective of the mob is to eliminate the target from the workplace followed by professional character assassination to purge any target threat from the professional landscape.

There are two kinds of people: eaters and bakers. Eaters think the world is a zero-sum game: what you eat, someone else cannot eat, so they eat as much as they can. Bakers think that the world is not a zero-sum game—they can just bake more and bigger pies. Everyone can eat more. People trust bakers and not eaters.

Guy Kawasaki

Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.

Robert D. Hare

According to the UK Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), there are certain requirements for offering a settlement agreement contract.  One requirement is that the settlement agreement contract must relate to a particular complaint or proceeding.  At the time when the settlement agreement contract was offered to me by PGSUK, the only officially active complaint or proceeding was the grievance which had been only presented, but there had been no hearing.  The settlement agreement contract was offered the day before the scheduled grievance hearing.  I do have a copy of the email which I sent and the intended recipients with regard to the grievance and the document itself attached to that email.  PGS has no record beyond a date typed into two false documents.  My grievance document has been removed from my personnel record and destroyed.  How can this be if the settlement was based on my grievance?  The details provided within the grievance could have been discussed and perhaps some misunderstandings discovered and resolved. However, the mob did not want to entertain such a discussion.  They had formed another plan.  They offered an untimely settlement premised on multiple deceptions.  My request to file a grievance had always preceded PGS’ attempt to redirect toward a performance based termination that rested on defamatory claims.  Only through misrepresentations and the abuse of position, and finally, the fabricating of instruments used in uttering a false narrative, complete with forged documents, could the termination be affected on their terms.  Unbelievable, but what appears to be true.  The mob’s deception is given credibility only through their collective voices all shouting the same false narrative.  But, indeed, it is a false narrative and the chickens have come home to roost.  I will not allow my life story to be rewritten by a corrupt and maladroit mob intent on harming me and my family without a fight.  I have presented my narrative with evidence.  The mob remains silent.   

Narcissistic personalities will invoke the silent treatment as a cruel way to control, manipulate, and impact the psychological health and professionalism of their targets.  It is an intentional attempt to exact control and further damage their target’s credibility.  The silent treatment is a method of passive-aggressive control whereby their false-narrative is maintained while the protestations of their targets are marginalized as just some menial disenchantment of an ex-employee.  There is the reputation power-imbalance of the contented, albeit corrupt, employed mob against the disenchanted ex-employee.  The ex-employee must be the one with the problem, since the mob is viewed as professional and content.  It is even worse when the mob actors have adopted the narcissist’s strategy.  In this case, where multiple actors are all essentially watching the target drown and nobody can muster the character or courage to throw in a life-preserver.  Corporations with incorruptible compliance officers and a functioning compliance program should not be allowed to be silent, for one thing.  It is irresponsible and actually another form of fraud whereby one’s agency and position within the legal corporation demands clarification to all stakeholders.  Silence is used as a guard against self-incrimination for criminal proceedings.  But, for a legal corporation and its agents to respond this way is pathetic. 

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?  And this is where the gaslighting mob becomes the most dangerous.  The mob exists in a make-believe world and then makes their decisions based on the fabricated self-delusion that they do not.  PGS executives say that they have core values, but they do not apply them to their decisions.  PGS executives say that their health and safety statistics are above industry standard, but they suppress and remove health and safety concerns from consideration and publication.  In fact, the PGS mob does not hold to any of their values and they are likely not guided by health and safety concerns.  It is a dangerous deception for all stakeholders when the delusional mob occupies the highest level an organization.  In what professional relationships or transactions does the integrity kick-in?  Who knows?  So, next time a PGS executive cancels a meeting, be certain to save that mail in a safe place.  If you do not, there is no telling what one may later find out was discussed.  And a mob symphony will make you look like you forgot that you weren’t even there and you’ll have no idea what you agreed to.  That’s what mob gaslighting is about.

Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving.

William Shakespeare

You have undertaken to cheat me. I won’t sue you, for the law is too slow. I’ll ruin you.

Cornelius Vanderbilt

###

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14 June 2016)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (16 June 2016)

This legally protected public disclosure was first published on LinkedIN™ Pulse 16 June 2016. PGS has been in breach of legal and Contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions by not citing either a breach in the contract or investigating whistleblowing claims. Instead PGS and their co-conspirators sought to have the truth de-published so that they could continue defaming and defrauding the whistleblower, his family, stakeholders, and the upstream oil and gas industry. On 20 August 2016, the LinkedIN™ account of Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) was restricted due to complaints over his legally published content. PGS continued obstructing / perverting the course of justice and breached their Norway and UK whistleblower protection laws through their illegal handling of protected disclosure. SDK and his family have been severely damaged by this criminal conspiracy to assassinate SDKs professional character and livelihood. PGS cannot rely on the terms and conditions of their illegal contracts which are supported by defamatory uttered forged documents.

A Narrative About Workplace Mobbing and Fraud 

I believe that bullying – at school or at the workplace – is a question of values. It indicates a lack of empathy, which, in the final analysis, comes down to a lack of tolerance and respect for other people. Bullying is about how we treat each other on a day-to-day basis. At its deepest, most profound level, it is about human dignity. – Former Norway Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.

Abraham Lincoln

The return on my investment from writing on LinkedIn is being heard.  That is the synopsis of Dustin Mckissen’s reason for writing 200 posts on LinkedIn™ (LI).  Being heard.  His thoughtful prose about the value of writing and sharing on LI resonated with me.  Some people have wondered about why I write and post on LI.  What is my end game?  Is railing against a former employer, as some of my posts do, professional?  After all, LI is a network for professionals.  Business is about relationships.  One of the most important relationships is the employer-employee relationship.  Business is about a trust and confidence that assumes that in the relationship parties will be honest and play by the rules.  We conduct business with cultures that manifests products and services that solve a problem.  Culture transcends the product and service because it is the culture that delivers and builds the trust.  Employers and employees both have their brands.  Large companies have websites and marketing teams to project their brand.  Large companies also have human resources departments and managers that project the employee’s brand, whether the employee agrees or not. Unscrupulous employers will actively try to diminish the brand of employee’s whom they have intentionally harmed.  They are allowed to do this through the back-channels. Such unethical behavior is patently unprofessional and true professionals need to cooperate to expose such bad behaviors and wrong-doing for the good of their professions and industry.  Such information needs to be shared and heard.  Workplace bullying and mobbing is epidemic and a huge health risk to workers.  Workplace bullies and the companies that provide their safe harbor need to be exposed and held accountable.

My former employer is Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS).  PGS senior executives continue to engage in a ruthless campaign of mobbing and bullying through the creation and retention of false instruments that are part of my professional record.  It has been a coordinated and a concerted effort to protect executive wrong-doing focused around illegal and unethical workplace bullying and harassment behaviors.  PGS senior executives and board audit committee members are aware of these claims and have been implored to respond responsibly.  They have, thus far, chosen the irresponsible response of remaining silent.  PGS has dysfunctional corporate governance inclined to cover-up non-compliance issues rather than to address them according to Code of Conduct, Core Values, or PGS policy. PGS senior management believes that they are entitled to diminish my brand through, lies, cheating, forgery, and fraud.  This is the way that workplace bullies and mobs work.  They enjoy, no, they are allowed, to ruin their target’s lives – or at least try.  PGS senior executives believe that they are entitled to oversee an unsafe and health-harming workplace and inflict harm.  It is a cooperative effort of collusion and destructive actions with an intention to ruin a career and livelihood.  They may hold the purse-strings of a corrupted enterprise.  However, they no longer have the authoritative power to control the ink-filled truth.  The Genie is out of the bottle.  The power of voice is a great equalizer.  The First Amendment of the USA Constitution gives power to voice because it is the most effective weapon against the abuse of authoritative power.  Abuse of authoritative power is essentially what workplace mobbing and bullying is. Workplace bullies are too often not held accountable precisely because they occupy positions where they are supposed to be held accountable.  That is the responsibility that senior executives run from.  Workplace bullying and mobbing negatively impacts the health, safety, quality, and productivity of every professional, industry, and market.  It is in the best interest of all professionals and investors to rid every workplace of this epidemic.  Targets need to be heard.

Swedish professor Heinz Leymann pioneered research into workplace mobbing in the 1980s.  Leymann’s detailed case studies focused on several nurses who had committed or attempted to commit suicide due to events at the workplace.  Leymann’s research also noted that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as one of the frequently misdiagnosed side-effects of mobbing and bullying.  The International Labor Organization (ILO) recognizes that both workers and employers understand that psychological violence is a serious form of violence. Psychological violence includes bullying or mobbing, which is also referred to as group psychological harassment, has severe psychological and occupational consequences for targets especially.  The toxic work environment also affects other workers throughout the enterprise.  Mobbing is characterized by a coordinated campaign of humiliation, ridicule and criticism by more than one person.  Targets of more extreme workplace mobbing account for 30% of workplace bullying incidents.  However, I believe this is a too low a number.  Bullying is a management and work culture problem.  From a systems perspective, 85-99% of the outcome is the derivative of management of the system.  Bullying must be enabled from where the authoritative power and decision-making over the processes and resources of the enterprise rests. 

Mobbing is “bullying on steroids,” (as Dr. Sophie Henshaw describes).  In workplace mobbing, management not only enables the workplace bullying, but actively colludes and participates in the relentless campaign of psychological terror against the powerless target (in terms of the authoritative power within the organization).  Workplace bullying is either tolerated or it isn’t.  Workplace bullying and mobbing requires a cooperative workplace regime, almost always inclusive of human resources agents.  As most all who have read about workplace mobbing or bullying know, HR is not your friend. HR represents the interests of management and no matter how abusive if not illegal managerial practices are, the HR employees will abide by what management desires.  

Targets of bullying and mobbing experience depressions, hyperactivity, compulsion, suicides, and psychosomatic illness.  There is some evidence that experiences derived from these toxic work environments have an effect on the targets immune system.  The target is made to feel isolated and inferior, and eventually many employees subjected to mobbing are forced to leave their organization and often the profession.  Bullies and mobs want to ruin their targets. It’s their sick sport.  They do not want their targets to just leave, but to be disenfranchised from their profession and professional connections.  Mobbing and bullying are corrupt director and executive sanctioned acts of workplace and professional degeneracy.  By all reasonable measure, directors and senior management who neglect workplace culture, bullying, and mobbing, are the real enablers and accomplices to workplace violence and sometimes murder. Such toxic environments are nowhere close to a healthy and safe workplace culture.  Moreover, it is not an ethical, professional, or efficient culture to deliver high quality products and services safely and effectively to customers.  This is what should be the highest priority of any legitimate enterprise that serves stakeholders responsibly. 

The truth is that there is a general awareness of both the damage as well an enterprises legal liabilities held with regard to workplace mobbing, workplace bullying, and harassment.  Yet, workplace bullying is known as the silent global epidemic that is experienced in every sector and type of business.  The very essence of responsibility is to accept both the benefit and consequences of one’s decisions and actions.  And responsibility as well as compensation rises with one’s hierarchy within the enterprise in most cases.  Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.  Why is it that too many workplace executives cannot manage responsibly with integrity, but instead abuse their positions of trust and authority?  Why is workplace bullying epidemic?  Directors and executives are compensated highly even when they behave irresponsibility because they are allowed to self-govern themselves.  Psychological abuse is most often associated with situations of power imbalance.  Similarly, corruption is the abuse of entrusted power.  Mobbing involves the collusion and coordination of multiple actors.  This is my experience with PGS.  Several agents from the enterprise became actors in the mobbing so that upper-management could remain unaccountable.  The central allegations are that defamatory and illegal false instruments are held as records within my personnel file and that these false instruments were used to force a more favorable – for the main perpetrators – (fraudulent) separation settlement contract agreement. 

One would not expect a victim of rape to have to single-handedly identify, trace, catch, arrest, prosecute, convict and punish the person who raped her. Targets of bullying often find themselves doing all of these whilst those in positions of authority persistently abdicate and deny responsibility.

Tim Fields

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

Albert Einstein

I have written extensively about this within previous LI posts.  At the very least, the creation, use, and retention of these false instruments involved EVP Operations/Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes; EVP General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen; SVP HR Terje Bjølseth; SVP Marine Contract, John Greenway; Marine Contract – Africa President, Simon Cather; VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, Edward Von Abendorff; UK HR Manager (ret.), David Nicholson; Head of Legal (UK)/Director, Carl Richards; HR Officer, Laura Haswell; Marine Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa, John Barnard; Legal Associate, Ben Kelly; HR Officer Anna Stockle; and US based HR Officer, Gareth Jones.  Each one of these individuals has enough direct knowledge of events to corroborate portions of the content within the posted articles but instead have all chosen not to.  PGS has presented the contents of these false instruments to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as accurate and has also misled the UK Border Agency of my legal immigration status to obtain a work visa, according to the false instruments.  These are my accusations.  It takes a village – a mob – to illegally terminate a perfectly competent and hard-working targeted professional.  It takes a mob to allow a contract to be breached, withhold information, maintain false instruments, and then apply them in contract negotiations.  The actions and cover-up has required that these actors participate in the illegal acts of conspiracy, forgery/fraud, embezzlement, and perhaps even bribery, as certain agents seem to have a special taste for this.    

  1. An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (03-Jul-2015)
  2. When Human Resources is Corrupt – Why it Matters in the Seismic Industry (10-Aug-2015)
  3. Petroleum Geo-Services CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (06-Sep-2015)
  4. Petroleum Geo-Services CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – Evidence (20-Sep-2015)
  5. The SEG Should Expel PGS CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11-Oct-2015)
  6. Workplace Bullying is an Agency Problem and Often a Crime (1-Feb-2016)
  7. Petroleum Geo-Services Markets and the Anonymous Executive (9-Feb-2016)
  8. Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (8-May-2016)
  9. 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.]  The grievance hearing report is a false instrument.  It was addressed to my attention, but was never received nor reviewed by me.  Not only are none of the many contrarieties highlighted in their report, the forged document references false dates and documents as well.  It is a complete fabrication.  Further, and perhaps most noteworthy, is that the (false) conclusion to the grievance hearing document does not even reference the my written grievance document (?).  Nicholson has stated that, in fact, the grievance document is not part of my personal data record held by PGS and has been destroyed.  It is my understanding that PGS/UK companies are also supposed allow for an appeal and notify the griever in writing if there were a legitimate conclusion.  Of course, none of this was ever done, and therefore no personal data records delivered through the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) subject access request (SAR) was delivered.  Surely, HR would want to clarify the propriety of their actions if they were indeed completed as to law and policy.

Since PGS stands by the dates affixed to the (alleged false) instruments held as my personal subject data records (alleged illegally), this would mean that these instruments were then referenced during the settlement contract negotiations.  The entire settlement process was promoted by PGS and really never by me.  It was rather a last resort forced by unresponsive, manipulative, and dishonest PGS agents – mobsters.  I was intended on using the process of grievance, which while obstructed and delayed, was my legal right to do under contract.  As an aside, according to the literature, the grievance process, as used to resolve issues of workplace mobbing, bullying, and harassment, is most always unsuitable and contaminated by management and HR manipulation.  Fighting the mob is not meant to be easy or fair.  I was offered a settlement agreement contract to avoid the grievance hearing (by Nicholson who was implicated), which was scheduled for the next day.  Nicholson related that the PGS legal team; Pedersen, Richards, and Kelly et. al, had reviewed the grievance and drafted the settlement.  (PGS gave me an offer which I could refuse.  And I did.)  The hearing happened as scheduled.  It was during the wait for the outcome of the grievance hearing that I came across an article about workplace bullying authored by London based employment lawyer, Philip Landau, and reached out to him for advice.  Landau was with the firm Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP at the time.  Landau was of course provided with my grievance document.  Landau has since moved on to his own firm, Landau Law.  He is still a wordsmith and writes, as well as presents on issues of employment law.  While the PGS legal team had initially responded to my grievance document, an outside firm, Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) was enlisted by PGS UK once the settlement route was decided.  Landau et al. and WFW agents representing PGS would obviously know which documents were referenced and the substantive discrepancies between the two narratives.  I was not directly involved with any negotiations or vetting once professional and experienced services were procured communications were by phone but mostly e-mail.

People are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers, instead of their conscience, be their guide.

Will Rogers

What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good lawyer can make it last even longer.

When I reached Houston, Texas, January 2014, I was ready to put the past behind me and look ahead.  I did not communicate with past co-workers much.  I actually tried to stay involved and volunteered and attended events with the Geophysical Society of Houston as I looked for opportunities.  In October 2014, I contacted Nicholson and Haswell to submit my SAR to PGS Exploration UK Limited.  I contacted Landau, just so he would be aware.  I also contacted Bjølseth.  There was a brief acknowledgement from Landau. Bjølseth basically confirmed and approved that Nicholson et. al would address my SAR.  I made it clear that I had many disagreements about my held subject data with the ICO caseworker, as well as with Nicholson and Haswell.  The communications with PGS ended in late December 2014.  Readers must understand that I knew immediately upon receiving my SAR data that something was awry.  I did discuss things with solicitors.  Lawyers are not cheap and I was in Houston, not London.  The fact that there had been a settlement agreement made redress even more difficult.  As mentioned, the false instruments were dated to appear that they created and acknowledged prior to the settlement.  On 3-Jul-2015, I posted my first article that named names.  I have continued to post articles asserting that PGS executives were assholes (re: The No-Asshole Rule), bullies, liars, cheaters, fraudsters, to name just a few.  I have tweeted and commented on the PGS LI space regarding my allegations.  Not a peep from PGS or anyone else.  Finally, I was more recently acknowledged and submitted my issues to the PGS Compliance Hotline.  The PGS Compliance Hotline agents provided a brief response.  However, the response did not clarify anything.  PGS has never chastised or threatened me about what I wrote.  I have written and posted articles on LI describing all of this. 

LI sent me a mail to help me re-connect with people who I had disconnected with.  I have been experimenting with using LI applications to help stay in touch, such as birthday and job change acknowledgements.  These LI applications are helpful, even if they are not completely authentic, especially as one’s network grows.  So, I decided to use the application.  I received one especially interesting response from Reksnes.  This is perhaps the longest non-verbal exchange that I have had with him, and this includes directly following my grievance delivery.  I am assuming that this real, because he really is a past connection of mine.  Receiving this note from the silent executives of PGS was quite a surprise.  As for Reksnes and other PGS executives, what a tragic legacy to not have anything to say and no honor to defend.  So, here is our brief exchange:

My reason for writing my posts had been to get a response.  These issues were all brought-up with Nicholson, Haswell, and Bjølseth off-line during the SAR process.  Certain PGS executives and others have disconnected with me and I have disconnected and blocked others over time.  But, PGS agents who have been named in my posts, especially, are invited to respond or comment.  I have actually tried to connect/reconnect and write to them in private for this reason.  It has all been very frustrating.  As Reksnes and Bjølseth both signed one of the main (alleged) false instruments, I thought that Reksnes would have been more aware.  What is most interesting about this exchange is that at first Reksnes is aware of my posts.  But, then not really.  Why?  This exchange with Reksnes followed my report submission to the PGS Compliance Hotline (CH) where I explicitly requested that they authenticate documents held within my personnel file.  I also referenced the 20-Sep-2015 post where portions of the received SAR content was pasted into the article. (1) I assert that Reksnes has created false instruments and has engaged in fraud.  (2) I request that CH investigate.  (3) CH follows procedures and determines no fraud occurred.  CH procedures apparently do not include actually discussing these allegations with Reksnes. The other interesting fact is that Reksnes has had the day or so to read the articles thoroughly and has found nothing to comment on.  I could sense some fear in Reksnes’ message.  He should worry because without constructive communication there is no resolution.  

I have now expanded my posts mailing list to be addressed to the CH contacts, the PGS board of directors audit committee members, the PGS board chairman, and lastly, UK Action Fraud.  PGS remains silent.  This has given me time to speculate on the full breadth of the deceit throughout PGS.  They say that the apple (character) doesn’t fall far from the (corporate) tree.  Francis Gugen was board chairman of PGS for the years that I worked.  I have met him in passing during visits to different global offices and found him pleasant and positive.  However, Gugen also sits on the board for SBM Offshore, a Dutch company, which recently settled the largest bribery scandal in Dutch history for $240 USD million.  Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS president and CEO also sits on the board of Cameron.  Both SBM Offshore and Cameron have been implicated in the Unaoil bribery scandal.  Pedersen is a director for the PGS subsidiary Azimuth Limited which shows up in the Panama Papers.  When one maps these associations with the additional knowledge and experience of interacting with their true character there is a mismatch.  Seeing how the directors and the executive team address serious allegations of executive wrong-doing creates a mosaic where shared connections reveal true business practices.  Questionable business practices, such as bribery, are simply kicked into the long-grass only out view, but accepted if it helps selfish business interests.  And if the executives and directors are caught? The honest stakeholders seem to pay the penalty anyhow.

How PGS actually does business does not to match the content published within the glossy Responsibility section found on the PGS website and within their presentations. In recent quarters especially, PGS has been actively promoting investment into Azimuth Limited, a Bermuda registered company with no listed book value.  PGS has sank over $93 USD million into Azimuth Limited since 2011.  The majority owner of Azimuth Limited is Seacrest Capital which owns 55%.  PGS executives cannot tell investors a plausible book value and ROI for Azimuth Limited.  Neither can they authenticate the signatures that are signed by their EVPs and SVPs.  These are the issues that should concern stakeholders, if for no other reason than the lack of understanding of value combined with transparency issues. And then there is Pedersen.

When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation.

Atifete Jahjaga     

Three conditions are necessary for Penance: contrition, which is sorrow for sin, together with a purpose of amendment; confession of sins without any omission; and satisfaction by means of good works.

Thomas Aquinas

Workplace bullying in of itself is a form of corruption that allows management to misuse resources that reduces productivity along with placing the enterprise at higher risk.  Management would not jump through so many hoops to avoid culpability otherwise.  According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI)  most targets of workplace bullying are competent, independent, and not subservient to the bullies.  Targets are ethical and honest, as well as more technically skilled than the bullies.  According to anti-bully advocate Tim Field, “bullying consists of the least competent most aggressive employee projecting their incompetence on to the least aggressive most competent employee and winning.”  But, this is the bully/ies winning and not the organization winning.  Management based on ego and position and not facts is high-risk.  Only the bullies can tell why they chose to make me as their target.  I was an outsider.  A US citizen who had transferred from the data processing offices in Malaysia.  I had only been in the role overseeing the quality management system for a relatively short time.  But, I really was looking for the opportunity to promote PGS products and services.  I had worked in the PGS centers in Lagos, Nigeria and Luanda, Angola and the opportunity in contract sales with the Africa group seemed like a good fit.  My wife wanted to stay in Malaysia.  I brought with me my quality management system experience with its focus on continual improvement into the business unit thinking there would be common objectives on this front.  Analytically minded and a proponent of fact-based decision making, I took special interest in the risk assessment and project price modelling.  I also tried to understand competitor technologies to leverage the benefits of PGS solutions.  I rewrote and created reference materials for building the tender documents.  In spite of whatever Von Abendorff and Cather might say, I contributed a lot.  And they knew it.

I have tried not to be overly detailed about the specific issues within the work group.  The long and short of it was that my boss, Von Abendorff created pricing models that were often out of left field.  He’d save them in piles around his desk, I suppose to display how serious and methodical he took the process. Operations and project management risk warnings were too often ignored, pricing variables were grouped together, and his models were quite frankly difficult to comprehend.  But, it was his thing – he finalized the pricing models most all of the time regardless of their fidelity.  He took great pride in his finalizing.  The problem that I saw was with granularity.  When margins are tight, the model should be tight.  It is a quality management issue, at its base.  Projects would either make more than the model or make less, but there was a large swing.  For one period that I analyzed the variation between the price models and completed projects was over +/-40%.  Unless you are working with margins over 40%, this is pretty high risk.  I am not the only person that noticed such problems.  How risks were identified and actually mitigated within pricing models was not stable.  And in the months before I left, there was an initiative to align the risk assessment and pricing models to reduce the variation between the project models and project actual costs.  This problem is likely still an issue because the overall pricing and planning model has turned on its head a few times since mid-2014. 

PGS CEO and President Jon Erik Reinhardsen has even addressed some issues with cost structures and pricing during quarterly reporting since the decline in oil prices and fleet adjustments.  The business case as to why workplace bullying is so destructive to organizations is that resources which should be devoted to improving the understanding of the business environment and optimizing the way products and services are delivered is instead misspent sabotaging and marginalizing target(s) in the work group.  Performance outcome is overwhelmingly the product of how processes and resources are managed. There can never be optimum outcome from a destructive and dysfunctional managed work environment. Never.  When paddlers in a row boat are paddling in different directions, there is no progress and they do not win the race, unless their competition is encumbered and mismanaged in the same way, or they cheat somehow.  Workplace bullying and mobbing is counter-productive and loses the enterprise money.  It’s really that simple.  But, the mob-interest is never about what is most beneficial for the enterprise as much as what is best for themselves.  It usually means allowing themselves to not being held accountable.

Employment relationships are like most any business relationship.  People expect professional business behavior underpinned by demonstrable honesty and commitment to deliver the product or service agreed.  Oral agreements require a high-trust relationship.  Therefore, most business relationships rely on written contracts to mitigate the uncertainties about the trustworthiness of the other party.  Written legal contracts state the expectations of both parties and how negative situations will be resolved.  When negotiating the terms and conditions of the contract agreement, the base starting point of the agreement must also be understood and agreed.  Just like surveying an area offshore, the scope of the project is determined by stated geodetic limits, not just the spatial area.  The contract is not honored if an arbitrary spatial area is surveyed.  In my case, the base starting point was really the narrative as presented within my grievance document.  This document essentially requested that my employer back-up their claims by accurate data.  If the agreement was reached from inaccurate and fraudulent data, then nothing was ever really agreed and no settlement contract agreement was honored.  The original contract was also breached.  PGS destroyed the grievance or all points of disagreement.  It was not even referenced within my personnel records.  I cannot say with certainty at what point the unsubstantiated and fallacious narrative was introduced into my personal data record.  We must go by the dates assigned.  I cannot be responsible for policing every business which I encounter in a foreign country while under such duress of being a target of mobbing.  All I can do against a corrupt and silent mob is shout the truth.  If not for LI, it would be an echo chamber.  But, because of LI, my voice is heard.  LI has saved my narrative and my life story.  In the end, that is all any of us really have that is truly our own; our brand and how we manage our relationships, business or other.

A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.

Robert A. Heinlein

The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It’s the age-old struggle: the roar of the crowd on the one side, and the voice of your conscience on the other.

Douglas MacArthur

 ###

Open Letter to CGG and TGS Board of Directors

Institutional Betrayal, DARVO, Workplace Mobbing, Gaslighting, and the Geo-Services Professional

PINTEREST NO PGS

Grievance Document Presented to Petroleum Geo-Services / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited
[20 September 2013] – was Whistleblowing
Open Letter to EM Law Regarding Employment Lawyer Rhodri Thomas and a Firms Responsibility to the Public Good (20 September 2020)
Open Letter to Norway’s Telenor Board of Directors Regarding Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke (8 September 2020)
PINTEREST: PGS ASA John Barnard & Josh May Bully Bystander
The Unbearable Lightness of Being a Nazi (2008)

“Without Prejudice” E-mails LZW Law –> Landau Law; Philip Landau / Holly Rushton [Hobson] and Watson Farley & Williams; Rhodri Thomas

Partnership with Corrupt PGS is an Irresponsible Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Regarding the 14 December 2020 Announcement of a Strategic Partnership for shared MultiClient Data Offerings between PGS, TGS and CGG

ATTN:

CGG Board of Directors:

Philippe Salle, Chairman of the Board; Sophie Zurquiyah; Anne-France Laclide-Drouin; Mario Ruscev; Colette Lewiner; Helen Lee Bouygues; Heidi Petersen; Michael Daly; Patrice Guillaume

TGS Board of Directors:

Henry H. Hamilton III, Chairman of the Board; Wenche Agerup; Mark Leonard; Vicki Messer; Torstein Sanness; Irene Egset; Christopher Finlayson

CC:

PGS Board of Directors

Walter Qvam, Chairman of the Board; Anne Grethe Dalane; Trond Brandsrud; Richard Herbert; Marianne Kah; Anette Valbø; Grunde Rønholt; Hege Renshus
CGG and TGS Directors:

My name is Steven Kalavity (SDK). I am a USA citizen who worked with Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) for several years globally. SDK has ascertained that his employment with PGS ended illegally 31 December 2013 for blowing the whistle. The fact that SDK remains able to publish content online that disparages PGS reveals how woefully corrupt and inept the PGS corporate governance system is. PGS is processing defamatory forged documents that support an illegal termination settlement contract intended to defame and blacklist SDK from employment. SDK is the one who has abided by the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Code of Ethics, PGS Core Values, and PGS Code of Conduct. SDKs original contract of employment contained Confidentiality terms and conditions that prohibit publishing content that disparages PGS. The exception to this is the publishing of legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. SDK has been publishing such legally protected content online since July 2015. However, PGS has never honored contractual terms and conditions in place to protect company reputation and value. PGS’ fiduciary duty is to either cite a breach in the contract to stop future publications and protect company reputation and value (if the publications are not legally protected) or thoroughly investigate valid whistleblowing claims. PGS has taken neither of these steps. Instead, PGS has relied on social media manipulation and deletion of legally protected content without consideration. In other words, PGS is intentionally deceiving stakeholders and investors through their maintaining a false narrative and refusing to perform their fiduciary duty and investigate whistleblowing claims which expose PGS director and executive corruption. In the process, PGS also intentionally defames and defrauds SDK. The PGS board of directors and several key executives are a disgrace and should be replaced and investigated. At the same time, an industry and PGS principal shareholders who accept such publications not being fully investigated are also similarly abrogating their duties.

Because of PGS’ irresponsible contractual breaches and poor fiduciary oversite, SDK continues to publish content in his quest for truth and justice and bringing honor and dignity back to himself, the industry and profession. (The truth should be non-negotiable, yet PGS’ “quest” is obstructing justice and escaping accountability through the support of a false narrative presented through forged defamatory documents.) PGS is a corrupt organization that defiles both the industry and geoscience professional ethics. While PGS’ illegal and unethical retaliation of a whistleblower is especially damaging to the whistleblower and his family, PGS’ main objective in silencing legal protected disclosure is to allow PGS to continue their deceit of customers and shareholders. PGS is a cowardly and dysfunctional organization that hides behind lies and embezzled resources. PGS agents accept their own and PGS’ disparagement as a condition of employment by a criminal syndicate masquerading as a technologically focused marine geophysical company. PGS agents are rewarded for breaching their own employment contracts, including PGS policy, PGS Code of Conduct and PGS Core Values. PGS agents have never even attempted to confront published allegations disparaging their own and PGS character even though Confidentiality terms and conditions embody their employment contracts. Ignoring such accusations should not be tolerated by business partners nor shareholders. The entire purpose of including Confidentiality terms and conditions is to ensure stakeholders that company value will be protected from the disparagement of a whistleblower, but also from the damage of corruption which the whistleblower reveals. This is why Confidentiality clauses cannot be used solely to silence whistleblowing. PGS is in breach of their commitments to all stakeholders, but especially to investors and business partners, through taking no affirmative action on published content which disparages the company.

The current PGS Chairman of the Board, Walter Qvam, has been referred to as a criminal moron within online publications. PGS CEO and President, Rune Olav Pedersen, and CFO and EVP Gottfred Langseth, have been publicly exposed as criminals within several online publications. Likewise, current PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas, has been referred to as a fraudster and a fuck-head. Former PGS UK Head of Legal, Carl Richards, has been called a lying criminal pussy. Since July 2015, former PGS CEO and President Jon Erik Reinhardsen has been publicly accused within online publications of criminal behavior and more recently has been referred to as a more vulgar lying criminal cunt. All are accused of criminal blackmail, embezzlement and fraud. Such online published content online is not considered disparaging and a breach in the employment contract Confidentiality terms and conditions? The PGS cabal members may be fine with being called such things and none have invoked the terms and conditions of their employment contracts, as duty requires. The point of Confidentiality terms and conditions is not about how much Reinhardsen (now remarkably Chairman of Norway’s Equinor – Norway’s largest company – board of directors) values his own reputation. As an employee, and especially as a director and key executive, one’s contractual duty is to protect the reputation and value of PGS! Yet, the corrupt are allowed to breach their contracts routinely without scrutiny nor rebuke of stakeholders. It’s a disgrace that has allowed accused corporate criminals to continue abusing and damaging their victims.

None of these Named Accused Criminals Care about the Reputation and Value of their Employer or their Own Reputation to Invoke Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions even when it’s their Responsibility to do so? Is it a Breach of Contract and Fiduciary Duty?

Google Image Searches

PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators
Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators
Legal Firm Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) and Landau Law Accused Criminal Conspirators (SDK hired Counsel)
Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)
Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) [22 June 2016] – The Business, Health and Safety Case for Thorough Due Diligence 

PGS’ corrupt and irresponsible stonewalling in addressing what should be simple issues is destroying company reputation and value. Therefore, SDK is concerned with the CGG and TGS executive decision to form a business partnership with PGS. Such a partnership with corrupt PGS risks devaluing the reputation and share value of both CGG and TGS, as well as diminishing the reputations of their own global geoscience professionals substantially. Since at least 2013, PGS has been actively defrauding the marine seismic industry. The annually published Responsibility Reports are remarkably deceptive works of fiction. The truth is that the PGS board of directors have, and continue to abrogate their of fiduciary duties on behalf of all their stakeholders. PGS’ dysfunctional and corrupt corporate governance system has already damaged their own company value and reputation. PGS has been provided license to pathologically deceive their stakeholders and the seismic industry in general. No PGS customer nor partner has responsibly demanded that simple compliance questions be addressed. So, exactly what is the function of due diligence if no evidence of compliance and a functional corporate governance system is required in forming partnerships?

Firstly, PGS has acknowledged severe damage to the company reputation and value through their sponsored criminal defamation litigation against whistleblower SDK in Thailand! PGS has never cited a breach in their contracts governed by the laws of England where the threshold for disparaging content that is much less than criminal defamation. There is no criminal defamation under English law. Rather, PGS cited the laws of Thailand where SDK resided as a US citizen, but no legal PGS subsidiary resides. (SDK regards the Thailand litigation as fraudulent extortion/blackmail with the main purpose to be to force the de-publishing of legally protected public disclosure or whistleblowing.) PGS is a Norwegian company where whistleblowing is protected through the Working Environment Act (WEA). SDK is a USA citizen who was sponsored by PGS’ UK subsidiary and was allowed to work and live in England with his family. By law and contract, the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) allows protected disclosure. Directors of SDKs employer engaged a Thai law firm to file claims of breach in Thailand law. Thailand law? SDKs employment contracts were governed by the laws of England. PGS is avoiding the English legal system that would reveal director and executive criminality. It also seems that the Norwegian government is aiding and abetting in crimes against US citizens. This is demonstrated by the promotion of criminals directly involved in violent criminal acts against USA-Thai citizens – the whistleblower and his family and not responding to email complaints.

SDK remains astonished by the hubris and idiocy of Norway’s corporate-political elite and their lack of understanding and judgement. First of all, the average lawyer and human resources professional is not as clever as the average geophysicist, as morons like Rune Olav Pedersen and Terje Bjølseth have learned. PGS putting their great confidence fraud in the hands of idiots like David Nicholson, Gareth Jones, Simon Cather and Carl Richards also showed more stellar poor judgement and over-estimation of their abilities, even added to their advantage in resources and controlling the narrative. The conspirators obviously did not anticipate a fight launched online by a tenacious victim of their crimes who would publish evidence of their wrong-doing. PGS obviously did not anticipate SDK submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 and actually receiving the proof of their fraud. At the same time, SDK did not realize the depth of actors involved in the confidence fraud. SDK also did not realize how feckless and uninquisitive Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) caseworkers and the police (ActionFraud) would be upon receiving the evidence of wrong-doing. SDK was astonished that contacted lawyers did not see any problem with a personnel file populated with documents not signed by the subject. Much of this was likely due to the fact that all the lawyers involved from Watson Farley and Williams and SDKs counsel, Landau Zeffert & Weir had been bribed by PGS to support the false narrative and intimidate others to accept it.

Second Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Carl Richards and UK Serious Fraud Office (16-October-2018)

PGS likely thought that they were the smartest guys in the room having covered all lose ends. In 2013, PGS CEO was Jon Erik Reinhardsen. In 2020, it was revealed that Equinor, the largest Norwegian company, where Reinhardsen presently serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors, lost over $20 billion USD in their US projects. Reinhardsen had been similarly misguided while PGS CEO. There was a steep decline in oil prices in mid-2014 that sent the industry reeling. PGS had already expanded their fleet size with the purchase of four new build Titan class Ramform vessels between 2013 – 2014. However, PGS continued their fleet expansion even more through assuming leases on vessels operated by Dolphin Geophysical following its descent into insolvency when most vessel operators stacked vessels. CGG reduced its fleet consecutively following the 2014 crash. (TGS has never owned a fleet of seismic vessels.) The Norwegian oil and gas industry seemed to be overly optimistic about a quick recovery, which meant that more and higher risks became acceptable.

Rapid growth for a period led to significant control problems. The board and management should have seen and addressed this sooner.

JON ERIK REINHARDSEN, EQUINOR CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (9 OCTOBER 2020)

Reinhardsen became Equinor Chairman of the Board 1 September 2017. (StatOil was officially renamed to Equinor in May 2018). On 6 September 2015, SDK published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign. SDK has published several other articles prior to Reinhardsen being appointed Chairman:

PGS never cited a contractual breach in the Confidentiality terms and conditions while Reinhardsen served as PGS CEO. However, in September 2018, two claims were delivered to the residence in Thailand where SDK was staying immediately following his departure from Thailand. The first claim was sponsored by Carl Richards, PGS UK Head of Legal and secretary of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary until 25 May 2018. The second claim was sponsored by the directors of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen. These were both complaints claiming criminal defamation under Thai law. The claims only cited a sample of the volume of published online legally protected disclosure. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England and therefore, the UK Limitations Act sets a one-year time limit from publish date to file defamation claims. The reason that there were several publications to “reference” within the Thai claims is due to the non-action of directors from July 2015 – September 2018 when PGS was obligated to honor their contract Confidentiality terms and conditions! Beyond this, Richards should not have been able to file a separate second claim as a private person referencing content that was published while he was a secretary. This was misrepresentation, but also meant SDK had “defend” and finance two illegal claims. SDK was forced to sign another compromise agreement governed by Thai law, but with adjudication venues also in Texas, USA?! (SDKs US home of record.) SDK does not regard the PGS sponsored Thai agreements to be legal.

There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat.

John Tuld, character in “MargiN Call”

The StatOil Board of Directors nevertheless selected incompetent and corrupt buffoon Reinhardsen to be their Board Chairman! The same incompetence that approved the bad investments leading to $20 USD billion losses also appointed an accused criminal as Chairman! And now Norway’s Oil Minister Tina Bru is surprised at a bad outcome? First of all, in business no money is ever really lost. Money is redistributed for the value placed on a transaction by every party involved. If Equinor paid too much for US assets, then US firms or operatives likely profited. And here is where Equinor hubris comes into play. The population of the US is 328 million. The population of Texas is 29 million. Texas is sort of the hub of the US oil and gas industry and as a US state is the tenth largest world economy. The population of Norway is 5.4 million and boasts the 45th largest world economy. When one cannot compete on a level playing field, those with lower ability and character cheat. But, one still has to be clever to get away with cheating. Had SDK not already formed an assessment of Norway corporate culture, bad investments would be aligned to bad luck. However, Reinhardsen had already exposed himself as a corrupt fraudster to SDK. Therefore, one must follow the money and see if Equinor “losses” lined the pockets of the Norwegian corporate – political elite.

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

When PGS decided to manipulate a sponsored US citizen and Thai family members personal passport and visa information, the cabal began breaking international laws and abusing their human rights. To hide this illegal behavior, the morally decrepit PGS board of directors signed onto the UN Global Compact. This was included within a the 2013-2014 PGS CEO Reinhardsen Responsibility Letter to deceive stakeholders and investors with a false image of integrity and interest in rooting out corruption. PGS signed onto the UN Global Compact two-weeks after defrauding a whistleblower and victim of harassment and discrimination! If one were to characterize the PGS organization as an individual, PGS is a narcissist. Narcissists generally lack empathy and tend to have unrealistically high opinions of themselves. Narcissists lie pathologically. Narcissists also tend to form shallow relationships to exploit and manipulate others. Narcissists are generally not impulsive, aggressive, or habitually deceitful.  Principally, narcissists characteristically have a strong need for the admiration, esteem, or envy of others. PGS has never denied nor even commented on publicly disclosed accusations that PGS Board of Directors and key executives have been involved in illegal acts, including bribery, fraud, embezzlement, blackmail, and extortion.

If Norway’s corporate governance were functional, there is no way that so much content disparaging PGS, and anything connected to PGS, would populate the web. But, such content does populate the web. The PGS solution to this has been to delete and hide the truth from investors. But, the sheer amount of content published overwhelms such attempts to hide. PGS’ solution has failed miserably. Norway has always seemed like a nice country to SDK. However, Norway’s political – corporate support of criminals who intentionally harmed a US citizen and his US-Thai family cannot be tolerated. Norwegian citizen’s need to demand an investigation of the political – corporate elite, starting with Reinhardsen and his cabal. Reinhardsen may be a big deal in Norway. However, in the eyes of this Texan, Reinhardsen is a stupid and cowardly criminal who thinks it’s okay to harm innocent children and old people. Reinhardsen and his cabal are luckily (for them) protected. SDK has invited Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen to present their claims in the Texas courts. The Texas courts are referenced within the Thai compromise agreements that SDK was forced to sign under threat of imprisonment (2-5 years per claim) in Thailand. Clearly, it should be easy for PGS and Carl Richards to prove breach of contract for disparagement if PGS (Equinor and Telenor) believed that they and Carl Richards actually have valid criminal defamation cases in Thailand?

SDK worked for PGS over fourteen consecutive years until his illegal termination for whistleblowing 31 December 2013. How is it possible that SDK can continue to breach contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2020? PGS has taken no legal action on contracts governed by the laws of England and allowed PGS directors, executives, as well as contracted businesses, to be accused of corrupt and criminal acts. It is intuitively obvious to anyone with their eyes open that there is corruption and incompetence. PGS has allowed the reputation and value of company employees and stakeholders to be diminished. Never once has a director or key executive intervened to protect shareholder value. The corrupt and moronic PGS Board of Directors should have been fired years ago! CGG and TGS will open themselves up to such disparagement if they do business with PGS. SDK will guarantee it. This is about honoring the geophysicist profession and the industry that employs them. The future that SDKs sees for his children is one where evil idiots and their minions are punished, not their victims. CGG and TGS will have to explain why they support and finance evil corruption that places the industry and professionals at risks? Or CGG and TGS can demand answers through thorough due diligence and be the righteous defenders of integrity for the industry and its professionals. Do your (fiduciary) duty!

from:Steven Kalavity <>
to:[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]>,
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]>,
[email protected],
%[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
date:Dec 25, 2020, 1:20 PM
subject:Open Letter to CGG and TGS Board of Directors

###

Where is the Voice of Former London LZW and Landau Law Employment Lawyer Holly Hobson Currently with BDBF?

Holly Hobson Formally Practiced as Holly Rushton

ActionFraud Report (Posted November 2017)

PINTEREST: Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)

Holly Hobson is accused of defrauding and defaming her foreign worker USA citizen client SDK. These protected public disclosure and accusations have been published online with evidence since 2015. Hobson has perverted the course of justice and remained fraudulently silent. Hobson participated in a confidence fraud to illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower through a fraudulent settlement contract supported by defamatory forged documents. Through a subject access request citing the Data Protection Act 1998, SDK received the contents of the PGS professional personnel file. None of the pertinent documents bare SDKs signature. The documents reference meetings that never occurred and letters never written. All of the documents were signed and created by the HR Manager, David Nicholson, accused of workplace bullying, discrimination, harassment, and breaching UK labour laws. SDK did not work under Nicholson and he possesses no direct knowledge of SDK work and responsibilities and otherwise has no qualified privilege. Nicholson and Hobson even withheld a medical report from consideration during the fake settlement contract negotiations which obstructed her clients legal and contractual right to submit a grievance and proceed through the legal process. SDKs legal and human rights were denied so that Hobson could receive her bribe money! Hobson placed the life of her client and his family at risk and broke numerous international laws!

Does BDBF conduct any due diligence on their attorney’s? Or does BDBF support lawyers who accept bribes and defraud their clients? Investigate accused criminal Holly Hobson!

SDKs employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, has ignored contractual confidentiality clauses. This is because Hobson’s (Rushton’s) “contract” was unenforceable. The entire intent of the illegally proffered settlement contract was to silence whistleblowing. The settlement contract is not enforceable. Subjects named within SDKs published articles are not protected from disparaging publications. They remain silent to AVOID the English justice system.

PINTEREST rhodri thomas london employment lawyer EM Law WFW
Philip Landau & Holly Rushton (Hobson) Were Bribed and Misrepresented, Defamed and Defrauded a Foreign Worker Whistleblower
ActionFraud Report (Posted November 2017)
Evidence Philip Landau Law, London Employment Solicitor, Conspired and Accepted Bribes from PGS ASA to Defraud his Client SDK (20 May 2020)
Evidence Philip Landau Law, London Employment Solicitor, Conspired and Accepted Bribes from PGS ASA to Defraud his Client SDK (20 May 2020)
PGS ASA Q2 Results (11 July 2020)
Open Letter to Norway’s Telenor Board of Directors Regarding Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke (8 September 2020)
Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)
Lars Mysen, Norway ‘s PGS ASA General Counsel, Perverts the Course of Justice (21 April 2020)
Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism (16 April 2019)
The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)
Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October2017) p120-123
14 May 2020 Email SDK – PGS ASA & Duensing – Kippen Thailand Claim Documents (18 May 2020)
My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial ( 8 November 2016 updated 9 April 2017 )

###

Protest Norway’s PGS ASA Scheme to Implement Financing

Commentary Addressing PGS ASA 26 November 2020 Public Announcement

Marine Seismic Survey Front Page Provides a Listing of Protected Publications with Links

Matters related to corporate responsibility can greatly impact the ability of a company to create profitability and shareholder value over the long term, and investors are therefore increasingly attaching importance to these matters when making investment decisions. Oslo Børs has produced this guidance on the reporting of corporate responsibility in order to help increase transparency and improve reporting. The guidance is intended to be a practical tool that companies can adapt to the nature of their business and their size.

Bente A. Landsnes, President & CEO, Oslo Børs

Open Letter to Lucid Issuer Services Limited, 27 November 2020

ATTN: Victor Parzyjagla, [email protected]

Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) is a USA citizen who had worked with different affiliates Norwegian company PGS ASA (formerly Petroleum Geo-Services ASA) [PGS] globally since 2000. In December 2013, SDK was illegally terminated from employment with the PGS ASA UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England [PGSUK]. PGSUK had sponsored SDKs Tier 2 visa which allowed him to legally work in the UK and also allow his family dependent members to also live in England legally. In September 2018, directors of PGSUK sponsored illegal criminal and civil litigation in Thailand against SDK. SDK has been publishing online legally protected content revealing PGS ASA corruption and fiduciary neglect since 3 July 2015. PGSUK is an English company governed by the laws of England. As such, whistleblowing is protected through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). However, Norwegian law also provides protections for whistleblowing through their Working Environment Act 2005 (WEA).

Any PGS ASA refinancing scheme must demand PGS ASA full disclosure regarding allegations of PGS ASA board of directors (BoD) corruption and fraud which imperils the future financial standing and success of the company. Non-transparency is a significant financial risk that must be accounted for by lenders. PGS ASA has illegally breached both PIDA and WEA whistleblower protection provisions and fabricated charges of criminal defamation in Thailand, where SDK was living with his family at the time. Silencing the truth which SDK publishes is required so that PGS ASA is able to continue defrauding investors through disinformation regarding PGS ASA real business practices. The main objective of the illegal litigation was to hide the truth from the public and continue their deceit of investors. The litigation in Thailand misrepresenting legally protected public disclosure under Norway and UK law as criminal defamation under the laws Thailand was wholly unnecessary and illegal.

The intention by PGS has been the continued deceit of their investors and stakeholders. PGS’ corrupt business practices, as highlighted by their extortion by illegal retaliatory sponsored litigation in Thailand, has diminished PGS value and reputation, as well as seriously damaged the upstream oil and gas exploration industry fair market. PGS ASA has already acknowledged that the reputation and value of PGS has been damaged to a criminal level punishable by 2-5 years in Thailand prison. So, the cited damage is significant. However, what remains left in doubt is who should be accountable for this significant damage to PGS ASA value and reputation? It is the duty and responsibility of the organizations BoD and executive management to make decisions that enhance company and shareholder value. To maintain a competitive advantage, businesses have a vested interest in keeping working projects, innovative ideas, or exciting new products secret lest they fall into the hands of a competitor. For this reason, employers require their employees to uphold Confidentiality Agreements or Clauses as part of their contract of employment that prohibit current or former employees from disparaging the company and disclosing their negative experience, even if it’s truthful. The PGSUK employment contract with SDK contained such Confidentiality provisions.

In Norway, it is illegal for contractual Confidentiality Agreements or Clauses to be used to silence whistleblowing. In England, such contractual provisions are not enforceable under English law. In other words, Confidentiality Agreements or Clauses cannot be legally used to protect corrupt actors from being exposed. Organization corruption always negatively impacts the company financial standing and future viability. Lenders must know the veracity of any alleged breach in the fiduciary duties of the BoD and executive management when considering proposed financial schemes that impact lending decisions. PGS has misused Confidentiality Agreements or Clauses to silence whistleblowing and deceive stakeholders. Principal PGS shareholders and investors have been complicit in the deception through not taking definitive actions predicated on the revelations made through numerous online publications. PGS cited the numerous online publications to be (criminally) defamatory, not just disparaging. PGS has never invoked contractual Confidentiality clauses governed by English law to stop the publication of “defamatory” content even when former employee’s who violate such terms and conditions risk facing hundreds of thousands of UK pounds in fines.

It should not be surprising that principal investors are aligned to the proposed financing scheme when they have ignored the numerous publicly disclosed online allegations of PGS mismanagement and corruption. PGS has instead employed subversive methods to deceive stakeholders and silence whistleblowing allegations. First of all, PGS legal compliance headed by now PGS CEO and President Rune Olav Pedersen, did not respond to numerous reports made online and through e-mail. Had the PGS Compliance Hotline abided by the contractual Confidentiality clauses responsibly and responded to several online publications and e-mails, there would have been no need for the subsequent “defamatory” online publications to follow. PGS never commented nor responded to several articles citing PGS corrupt practices published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform from 3 July 2015 through 20 August 2016. Instead, outside actors complained to LinkedIn™ content moderators. The defamatory complaints against SDK misrepresented published legal and contractually protected public disclosure as simply the misguided rants of a disgruntled former employee. This misrepresentation to the LinkedIn™ global community resulted in SDKs LinkedIn™ account being restricted and all published content being removed.

These actions were in fact a contract breach by PGS. PGS did not act on public disclosure in accordance to Confidentiality clauses. PGS intentionally avoided the English legal system. Litigation revolving around the Confidentiality clauses would have revealed PGS corruption, fraud, forged documentation, bribery, embezzlement, and all sorts of malpractice and mismanagement. SDK had been temporarily restricted on LinkedIn™ prior to the final and permanent restriction in August 2016. To avert LinkedIn™ content control, SDK created nopgs.com where LinkedIn™ content was republished and along with new content. The main result of PGS illegal litigation against SDK in Thailand was the theft of nopgs.com and the destruction of evidence consisting of published content and archives which would have been cited had PGS and SDK proceeded through trial in Thailand. The directors of a an English company registered with Companies House and governed by the laws of England sponsored a Thai legal firm to pursue criminal defamation charges under Thai law against a whistleblower when both remained bound by the terms and conditions of contractual Confidentiality clauses. There is no criminal defamation under English law. Beyond this, how can there not be a breach in the contractual Confidentiality clauses governed by English law and also be criminal defamation in Thailand?

PGS compelled SDK to sign yet another Confidentiality Agreement governed by the laws of Thailand and the laws of the USA state of Texas(?) to supersede the Confidentiality clauses of the original employment contract governed by the laws of England. SDK does not believe that the Thailand Agreement signed 9 November 2018 is a legal instrument for a number of reasons. Again, PGS is misusing Confidentiality clauses to illegally silence protected public disclosure of PGS corruption and malfeasance. The Thai Agreement was obviously signed under duress and the threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand with a potential 2-5 year prison term if found guilty for each claim by the former PGSUK secretary AND PGSUK directors. It should be noted that litigation in Thailand was first threatened by the acting PGSUK secretary as an individual divorced from PGS. SDK believes this was misrepresentation. An acting secretary cannot legally divorce himself from legal actions regarding the company which he represents. Litigation forwarded by a former PGSUK secretary and then English company, PGSUK, governed by the laws of England, including that legal proceedings be conducted in the English language, was delivered to USA citizen SDK in the Thai language to be defended in the Thai criminal and civil legal system?

At this point in time, several articles had been published from 3 July 2015 through October 2018 that never received comment by PGS. This included several Open Letters requesting legal clarifications for many of the fore-mentioned concerns. The claim put together by PGS does not include several published articles, nor reference any of the numerous attempts to communicate with PGS Compliance Hotline. Further, PGS has refused to present any claims in the English language. SDK believes that the litigation forwarded by PGS in Thailand is illegal extortion (UK blackmail). SDK never abided by the terms and conditions of the Thai Agreement. In fact, during the 10-day agreement certification period following the signing of the Thai Agreement, SDK breached the agreement through exposing the illegal litigation to PGS customer JOGMEC. PGS was in the process of negotiating the sale of a seismic vessel to Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC). PGS again illegally retaliated against SDK for blowing the whistle, which is protected through both Norway’s WEA and UKs PIDA! PGS threatened new criminal and civil prosecution in Thailand for SDKs “breach” of the illegal Thai Agreement. A new criminal proceeding was scheduled for January 2019. However, PGS and the former secretary decided to not forward the new criminal proceedings.

Nopgs.com had been taken offline following the “breach” of the Thai Agreement. Around mid-December 2018, SDK discovered that nopgs.com had been stolen and all evidence necessary for defending against the new charges was destroyed. PGS did not move forward with the criminal and civil trials. SDK did incur substantial financial loss through the litigation forwarded by PGSUK and the former secretary. The Thai litigation also traumatized SDK Thai relatives to the point that one went to the hospital! SDK began to republished nopgs.com content and write new content in February 2019 on marineseismicsurvey.com. While the intention was to republish all material as it appeared on nopgs.com, some content was lost through the domain theft and edits or addendums to nopgs.com content may differ from offline archives. The Thai legal firm and PGS UK Head of Legal continued to cite SDK breaches in the Thai Agreement. In July 2019, SDK moved back to the USA. PGS continued delivering “Legal Notices” to SDK Thai relatives in his absence. In February 2020, PGS demanded that SDK return to Thailand to answer charges. As late as April 2020, PGS cited that SDK was in breach of the Thai Agreements.

PGS has never abided by their legal agreements with SDK governed by the laws of England. Because the proposed financial scheme Lock-Up Agreement for PGS must be sanctioned by an English Court, it is essential that it is established that PGS has been abiding by English law and that they invoke Confidentiality clauses terms and conditions governed by the laws of England. Several reports have been submitted to UK ActionFraud (police) that must be investigated thoroughly prior to any substantive agreement. Additional reports have been submitted to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office citing PGS Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) violations involving the processing of forged and defamatory SDK personal data that was used to support an illegal employment termination settlement contract. Copious amount of material has been sent to ICO caseworkers to support SDK allegations of PGS fraudulent and illegal actions against a whistleblower. This has included the illegal use of USA and Thai passport data, illegal reporting to UK, USA, Norway, and Thai government immigration agencies and processing of false / forged instruments as personal data.

PGS initiated criminal defamation claims using the Thai legal system even though whistleblower SDK and PGS are bound by agreements containing Confidentiality terms and conditions governed by the laws of England. Lenders must have confidence that PGS is in compliance with the laws of England proceeding any Lock-Up Agreement requiring the approval of an English Court. SDK never defamed PGS! SDK exposed PGS corruption to the benefit of lenders and shareholders mostly, but to all industry stakeholders generally. The English Court must demand answers and adjudication within the English legal system regarding PGS’ misuse of Confidentiality clause terms and conditions in place to protect company reputation and value, but being employed as an instrument to deceive lenders and investors. I invite the English Court to conduct a simple Google™ image search on pgs asa and ask why no legal action has been taken against SDK using the English legal system? SDK implores the English Court to conduct appropriate due diligence and establish the integrity of PGS business practices prior to any approval of a Lock-Up Agreement.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Kalavity, PGS ASA Whistleblower

Demand that the PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management Team be Investigated

Neeta Aulak: Watson Farley & Williams LLP Director of Corruption and Non-Compliance (24 July 2020)

Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary, is Accused of Initiating Illegal Criminal Defamation Prosecutions under Thailand Law for a Company Governed by the Laws of England to Retaliate Against his USA and Thai Citizen Crime Victims

John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal, Ignorance and the Fraud of Omission (4 October 2019)

###

English English Français Français 日本語 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk bokmål Português Português ไทย ไทย