Tag: Josh May
PGS ASA Q2 Results
Norway has a Corruption Problem Named Jon Erik Reinhardsen
Pretending Equinor has a functional corporate governance is corruption
As President and CEO of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Jon Erik Reinhardsen allowed shareholder value to decline and never defended the reputation of the company by invoking contract Confidentiality clauses. Why? Jon Erik Reinhardsen and his supportive board of directors participated in violent and criminal retaliation against a USA citizen whistleblower. Reinhardsen lied to governments in Norway, UK, USA and now Thailand to evade responsibility. A corrupt Norwegian political – executive class are protected and overpaid at the expense of the average citizen and worker. If I am lying, Reinhardsen could invoke the terms of a contract. But, since 2015, this piece of shit has been allowed to abuse my family and rob Norwegians. Jon Erik Reinhardsen should be in jail. Only corruption and inept management explains Equinor losing $20 BILLION USD for USA operations. Remember, one of Reinhardsen’s FIRST decisions as StatOil Chairman of the Board was to give StatOil CEO EldarSætre a big raise.
“Eldar has done a very impressive job,” Statoil’s chairman Jon Erik Reinhardsen told newspaper Dagens Næringsliv (DN) over the weekend. That’s how he justified granting Sætre, who helped Statoil get through the industry crisis set off by the collapse in oil prices three years ago, an extraordinary pay raise of 7 percent, to bring his base pay before bonus up to NOK 8.76 million a year (USD 1.12 million).
Statoil boss gets a big raise, News in English.no (14 October 2017)
Steven,
I am writing to you in a personal capacity, and only about the material you have posted online about me. I am not writing as a representative of PGS. I have no authority to discuss any material you have posted online about PGS or other individuals, nor to discuss your employment / data protection dispute with PGS.
This statement is not true. Carl Richards was acting Secretary for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Richards not only has the authority, but the fiduciary duty to protect the interests PGS and its agents. Richards should have invoked the terms and conditions of either the SCA or OEC if there were a breach. On the other hand, I do not think that an acting secretary can legally make a claim as an individual. This would be false representation.
When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.
Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary was first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.
You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me. I understand that you reside in Thailand. I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me). My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017. They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.
SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?
I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty. However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.
SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.
I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms. If you do this then I will take the matter no further.
Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.
SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.
17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never
s
to Protect Himself and other PGS ASA corrupt executives from addressiing protected public disclosure claims – whistleblowing – in a legal and compliant manner according the laws of England and PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook policy.
Articles which were provided to PGS Compliance directly for consideration were ignored:
- Culture Breathes from Human Resources (24 September 2016)
- The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4-Sep-2016)
- Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) (20-Aug-2016)
- Boycott Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Capital Markets (25-Jul-2016)
- Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)
- Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)
- The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)
- Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (8-May-2016)
- Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Markets and the Anonymous Executive (9-Feb-2016)
- Workplace Bullying is an Agency Problem and Often a Crime (1-Feb-2016)The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11-Oct-2015)
When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.
Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary was first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.
You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me. I understand that you reside in Thailand. I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me). My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017. They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.
SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?
I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty. However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.
SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.
I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms. If you do this then I will take the matter no further.
Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.
SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.
17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never
Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes
Dec 5, 2014
| from: | Steven Kalavity |
| to: | Laura Haswell <[email protected]> |
| cc: | David Nicholson <[email protected]> |
| date: | Dec 5, 2014, 7:16 AM |
| subject: | Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes |
| mailed-by: | gmail.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 proceeding 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 to 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 (SDK) 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 25-June-2013 summary – Should be removed
Meeting 9-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 record. 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.
Typical causes of work-related stress are an overload of work, bullying, lack of support and a bad working environment.
Section 5:
- Replace with current CV. I have provided several updated versions for internal vacancies.
DPA 1998 – Grievance Challenge to Information Processing 20-Sep-13
Dec 6, 2014
| from: | Steven Kalavity |
| to: | Laura Haswell <[email protected]> |
| cc: | David Nicholson <[email protected]> |
| date: | Dec 6, 2014, 12:02 PM |
| subject: | DPA 1998 – Grievance Challenge to Information Processing 20-Sep-13 |
| mailed-by: | gmail.com |
PGS UK Data Controller –
I was unambiguous within my grievance document, submitted 20-Sep-2013, that I challenged the fairness and accuracy of information processed about me.
Printed copies were provided to Eddy Von Abendorff, David Nicholson, and John Barnard.
Copies were emailed the these individuals as well, and also to Simon Cather, Per Arilde Reksnes, Terje Bjolseth, and John Greenway.
Reference contents of email below.
Regards,Steven Kalavity
From: “Steven Kalavity” <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 14:57
Subject: KALAVITY – Form of Grievance
To: “David Nicholson” <[email protected]>, “Eddy Von Abendorff” <[email protected]>, “[email protected]” <[email protected]>
Cc: “Simon Cather” <[email protected]>, “Per Arild Reksnes” <[email protected]>, “John Greenway” <[email protected]>, “Terje Bjølseth” <[email protected]>
Good afternoon,
This afternoon I am attending a meeting scheduled for 3 p.m. (UK time) with David Nicholson, HR Manager EAME, and my immediate supervisor, Eddy Von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa to respond to a letter regarding my professional performance. I have also invited my co-worker, John Barnard, Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa to attend.
I have prepared my response in the Form of Grievance document (attached) to initiate the grievance procedure.
Best regards,
Steven
Attachment: 20130920_KALAVITY-Grievance-2-5.pdf
KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided
Dec 19, 2014
| from: | Steven Kalavity |
| to: | Laura Haswell <[email protected]> |
| cc: | David Nicholson <[email protected]> |
| date: | Dec 19, 2014, 9:02 PM |
| subject: | KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided |
| mailed-by: | gmail.com |
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 20132) Your letter of 29 September 20133) Meeting 14 October 2013
I have not received these referenced items.
Item 3:
I think this is 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
###
Investigate former PGS Exploration (UK) Ltd. Secretary Candida Pinto
Every online whistleblowing publication since 3 July 2015 is the derivative of Candida Pinto’s illegal decision to breach her fiduciary duty as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary and defraud the UK Border Agency and whistleblower SDK. Pinto has had multiple opportunities to invoke Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publication of disparaging content about PGS ASA and her. Pinto remains silent. Whistleblowing is protected under contract governed by the laws of England (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [PIDA])
The fraudulent and defamatory 24 July 2013 retaliation letter signed by PGS ASA UK (2013) HR Manager, David Nicholson on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, PGS ASA CEO & President Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS ASA CFO & EVP Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA SVP Chief Accountant, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and PGS ASA UK In-house Solicitor and Secretary Candida Pinto was illegal whistleblower retaliation that obstructed SDKs right to proceed through the legal grievance procedures SDK sought to end the illegal health-harming workplace harassment and discrimination. The 24 July 2013 letter was written following SDKs explicit request for minutes of the 13 June 2013 “Ambush” meeting, inquiry as to how that meeting conformed with PGS policy and the laws of England, and SDKs request to file a grievance. Pinto allowed the health and welfare of a foreign worker and his family to be harmed. Pinto is a co-conspirator in violent and illegal retaliation and needs to be investigated and if appropriate punished to the full extent of the law (England, Norway, Thailand, USA).
LINKEDIN Candida Pinto, LLB, MBA
The 24 July 2013 letter written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and signed by David Nicholson who hosted a non-compliant bully ambush meeting. Meeting attendees Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather all provided misrepresentations to the UK Border Agency and employed a non-settled worker illegally. Pinto was secretary when these documents of contradicting narrative were processed. The 11 September 2013 meeting was postponed (18 September 2013 DN-SDK e-mail). Carl Richards became secretary 13 September 2013 to carry on with the fraud. SDK submitted a grievance 20 September 2013. However, PGS denied SDK this legal right and terminated his employment for defamatory “performance” reasons in illegal retaliation for blowing the whistle.
Co-conspirator Candida Pinto perverting the course of justice, defrauding and defaming whistleblower and victim of crimes US citizen and Tier 2 sponsored employee, SDK. Pinto participated in defrauding stakeholders and damaging PGS ASA value by not invoking contractual Confidentiality clauses. SDK was defamed and restricted from LINKEDIN so criminals like Pinto could escape accountability.
PGS ASA defrauded the LinkedIn community and whistleblower, SDK. PGS ASA did not follow policy nor contract and invoke the Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publication of disparaging content. In fact, PGS ASA breached the Confidentiality terms and conditions by publishing the lie that they conducted an investigation. PGS ASA did not investigate anything! Candida Pinto knows that PGS ASA is lying because she is a co-conspirator to the retaliation, defrauding, and defaming of US citizen whistleblower, SDK. Nobody truly responsible for SDK publications is behaving responsibly. There is no investigation and content is deleted so it will not be scrutinized.
###
Open Letter to Tina Bru, Norway Minister of Petroleum and Energy
Åpent brev til Tina Bru, Norges olje- og energiminister
USA citizen Equinor and PGS ASA Whistleblower Testimonial
SDK | |
| to: | [email protected] |
| date: | Jun 14, 2020, 8:32 AM |
| subject: | Equinor Overseas Operations – Open Letter to Tina Bru, Norway Minister of Petroleum and Energy |
gCaptain – Norway Demands More detail from Equinor on Overseas Operations
Norway Corporations Export Global Corruption that Results in Financial Losses
Norway’s Harsh and Violent Corporate Whistleblower Retaliation Defrauds Investors to Preserve a Low-Corruption Mythology
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England. PGS ASA know SDK is a USA citizen living in the USA. PGS ASA intentionally has Thailand “law” firm Duensing-Kippen deliver “legal notices” in the Thai language on their behalf to illegally harass and terrorize SDKs Thai Family. PGS ASA illegally copied and provided SDK confidential personal data, including US passport and Texas driver license, to Duensing – Kippen. This is illegal under US Federal law and US Texas state law. This is also a violation of the General Data Protection Requirement that does not allow personal subject data to be transferred outside the EEA. PGS ASA illegally provided this data to Duensing – Kippen. Duensing – Kippen has also illegally copied and used SDK personal data to stalk and track SDK travel and to obtain personal Thailand records. PGS ASA is also in breach of the Thai Agreement that states communications should be done by e-mail. PGS ASA refuse to communicate directly using the English language. Norway allows their corrupt corporations to breaks laws and export corruption globally.
The UK Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730 mandates that English be the obligatory language for use in the courts of England where the laws of England are adjudicated. PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, PGS ASA (former General Counsel) CEO, Rune Olav Pedersen, and PGS ASA UK Head of Legal, John Francas, and former PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary, Carl Richards do not speak or write the Thai Language. PGS refuse to address simple questions in the English language referencing the laws of England or Norway. SDK and PGS ASA have two-signed contracts governed by the laws of England. PGS ASA has ignored and breached these agreements to illegally retaliate against crime victim and whistleblower, SDK. PGS ASA has exploited SDK USA citizenship and misused and weaponized foreign legal systems and courts to obstruct legal due process, break UK and Norway laws, and retaliate.
Norges harde og voldelige whistleblower-gjengjeldelse bedrager investorer for å bevare en mytologi med lav korrupsjon
Why does Norway allow their global corporations to break Norway laws?
The sole purpose of PGS ASA litigation in Thailand against SDK is to retaliate and “gag” SDK legally protected public disclosure under Norwegian, England, and USA law. The two contracts signed between SDK and PGS ASA England subsidiary already contain Confidentiality clauses that prohibit publication of disparaging material. The litigation in Thailand is an unnecessary waste of resources and also a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors. “Whistleblowing” is protected by Norway’s Workers Environment Act 2005 (WEA) and the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
Notice of PGS ASA breach of Employment Contact (2010)
PGS ASA,
PGS ASA (PGS) is a Norwegian based company. SDK was employed by the PGS ASA subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY by contract governed by the laws of England.
The PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook (“Handbook”) forms part of the contract of employment and states that the laws governing the policies within the Handbook are those of England and Wales. Of special note is Handbook section 2.9 Confidentiality, [i];
Each member of staff also agrees that he/she will not, during the course of his/her employment or at any time thereafter either make or publish, or cause to be made or published, to anyone in 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, employees, agents or shareholders.
In this paragraph 2.9, any reference to “Company” includes, for the avoidance of doubt, all companies in the PGS Group and each member of staff’s undertaking to the Company in this paragraph 2.9 is given to the Company for itself and as trustee for each company in the PGS Group.
The provisions of this paragraph 2.9 shall be without prejudice to a member of staff’s duties at common law.
PGS ASA refuse to clarify nor address concerns regarding the “criminal defamation” litigation that they have sponsored against former employee, Steven Kalavity (“SDK”) using the legal system of Thailand
The legal actions PGS ASA have taken against SDK in Thailand are a material breach of the original contract of employment which is governed by the laws of England.
1. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company. PGS refuses delivery of legal complaints in the English. This violates the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730 that proclaims English to be the obligatory language for use in the courts of England where the laws of England are adjudicated.
2. SDK is a USA citizen who was sponsored and employed by the PGS ASA UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) in 2010 on a Tier 2 visa. The defamatory forged documents that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited mean that PGS illegally employed a foreigner. PGSUK sponsored the renewal of SDKs Tier 2 visa and dependent permission to reside in England 15 July 2013. Tier 2 Eligibility requires that the foreign worker have a job offer and Certificate of Sponsorship from a company that is a licensed sponsor in the UK. The company can only offer a job if the foreign worker will not be displacing a suitable settled worker. This means that employers cannot offer a job to a non-settled worker if it means that a suitable settled worker will be turned down for the job or made redundant. In other words, it would be illegal for PGS ASA to sponsor on a Tier 2 visa a foreign worker who could not perform his job at the expense of a qualified settled worker who could.
3. SDK has published content disparaging PGS ASA since July 2015 and never invoked the English contract Confidentiality terms and conditions. SDKs original contract of employment references Confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibit public disparagement of PGS ASA, any of its subsidiaries, agents, customers, or other stakeholders. There is no limit in time to invoke these terms and conditions. However, there are exceptions to these contractual prohibitions. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) 43B, Disclosures qualifying for protection. In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following:
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,
(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,
(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,
(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,
(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, o
(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed
4. SDK first published content online July 2015. PGS inaction means that they do not have a valid defamation claim, even if the published material were defamatory. The Limitation Act 1980
(4A)Time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood. The time limit under section 2 of this Act shall not apply to an action for—
(a)libel or slander, or (b)slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, but no such action shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrues.
5. PGS Exploration is an English company following the laws of Thailand? Under English law, there is not criminal defamation. Criminal libel was repealed in the UK in 2010, when the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into effect and abolished the offences of sedition and seditious libel, defamatory libel and obscene libel. But the law still classes spoken or written statements about others that are not true as defamation.
The contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions are included to protect PGS ASA reputation. PGS ASA is illegally using the Thai legal system to retaliate, defraud, defame, and extort their victim of crimes and a whistleblower. PGS ASA corrupt actions are damaging the reputation and values of PGS ASA.
THE LITIGATION PGS ASA SPONSORS IN THAILAND IS ILLEGAL. PGS ASA MUST PROCEED THROUGH THR ENGLISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
Regards,
SDK
###
PGS ASA: In Breach of Contracts
How could PGS ASA Legally Engage Thai Law Firm Duensing-Kippen?
In September 2018, PGS ASA engaged a Thailand law firm, Duensing-Kippen, to prosecute criminal defamation claims against a USA citizen whistleblower, SDK, who was residing in Thailand. SDK became a whistleblower while working for the PGS ASA UK subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, from September 2010 through December 2013 by sponsorship contract governed by the laws of England. SDKs employment was terminated through a settlement contract. The contract was signed 5 December 2013, but was not executed until SDK had been reimbursed for relocation costs to the USA. SDK nationality was a significant issue and impacted every aspect of the employment contract. The Tier 2 sponsorship for employment of a non-EEA resident worker was conditional upon both worker and PGS ASA satisfying UK legal requirements. Both of the employment contracts contained Confidentiality clauses prohibiting the disclosure or publication of content disparaging to PGS ASA or any of its stakeholders. The legal remedy to protecting PGS ASA reputation is to invoke such clauses in a timely manner and minimize any damage. The exception to such publications are protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The principle here is that corruption devalues PGS ASA, while responsible and legal corporate governance is a value enhancer. How then would a UK subsidiary of PGS ASA governed by the laws of England be legally entitled to prosecute a criminal defamation claim in Thailand using the laws of Thailand?
The UK Data Protection Act 1998 allows incorrect or harmful data to be changed. PGS ASA did not allow any correction during negotiations and through their legal counsel, Watson Farley & Williams, withheld the subjects personal data being processed from inspection and allowing correction. SDK counsel, Landau Zeffert & Weir Law (now Landau Law) was complicit. This implies that PGS ASA bribed counsels to utter forged documents to defame and defraud a whistleblower.
PGS ASA also put a time limit on discussions which was undue influence and fraud. PGS ASA and complicit counsel knew that they did not have legitimate documentation to support the false pretense for the termination settlement contract. SDK was on garden leave until 31 December 2013. PGS ASA had time but forced a quick decision because SDK was contemplating withdrawal from the settlement talks and proceed to tribunal. SDK is a USA citizen and had already informed landlord of his impending move.
SDKs First Protected Public Disclosure Grievance:
PGS ASA has been in material breach of their ethical, financial, and legal obligations to investors and stakeholders to protect the company reputation since at least June 2013 when SDK was retaliated against for exposing non-compliant, unsafe, unethical, and illegal PGS ASA executive behavior. SDK was illegally terminated from his employment and also defamed and illegally blacklisted for submitting a formal workplace grievance on 20 September 2013. The submitted grievance met the standard of protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing as defined by PIDA. PGS ASA illegally perverted the course of justice and obstructed SDK from submitting the grievance. By sure will, SDK submitted the formal grievance. However, even so, PGS ASA denied SDK his legal and contractual right to proceed through a fair grievance process as outlined within PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook. Instead PGS ASA manufactured performance issues and proceeded to proffer a settlement contract to terminate a foreign-worker whistleblower under false pretenses. PGS ASA defrauded the UK Border Agency and SDK both through withholding any such concerns during the Tier 2 visa renewal process July 2013. PGS ASA and all involved counsel has refused to explain their actions.
###
Another Unanswered E-mail to PGS ASAs Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Berit Osnes, Nathan Oliver, Rob Adams and Walter Qvam
The Abominable Narcissistic Management of Corruption and Breach of Contract to Harm a Foreign-worker Whistleblower
Norway’s PGS ASA has no interest in resolving the online publishing of legal and contractually protected public disclosure in a fair and reasonable way. At its core, the dispute SDK has been pleading for justice since June 2013. PGS ASA has been allowed through a dysfunctional and corrupt compliance system and the support of Norwegian government officials to protect the abusers and criminals robbing investors and destroying the value of state-owned enterprises, such as Equinor. If SDK allegations are true and resolved equitably through due process, then SDK is probably owed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of US dollars in damages by the directors and executives who participated in the fraud and defamation to silence a law-abiding USA citizen whistleblower. PGS ASA has been perverting the course of justice to avoid such legal due process. Thus, many PGS ASA directors and executives would be facing time behind bars for the acts which they perpetrated against SDK. PGS ASA has invested substantial resources to protect the corrulipt PGS ASA Board of Directors and management that defrauds and devalues company investors, employees, the oil and gas industry and even the Norwegian people. The Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance has no value nor utility if it is not followed and a small group of corrupt corporate elite are allowed to pilfer the wealth from law abiding citizens who try to play fair globally. Norway’s export of corruption is a terrible thing. As the extent of Norway’s corporate corrupt becomes better known and recognized, Norway’s business practices will not be assumed above board without scrutiny.
###
Norway’s PGS ASA: Irresponsible Silence is Perverting the Course of Justice and Fraud
Silent Treatment is a type of Passive-Aggressive Abuse
The silent treatment is a common tactic used by covert narcissists and other manipulators. The silent treatment is a passive – aggressive power-game intended to control the targets behavior. The silent-treatment is a form punishment that aids the abuser to avoid responsibility and maintain control. Norwegian corporation PGS ASA is a very corrupt organization. PGS ASA had the whistle blown on them in 2013. A corrupt PGS ASA governance and compliance system has never performed their legal fiduciary duties. In fact, PGS ASA have done just the opposite! USA citizen SDK had worked for different subsidiaries of PGS ASA. SDK believes that PGS ASA defrauded, defamed, and illegally terminated him from employment in retaliation for blowing the whistle. PGS ASA breached the employment contract on multiple levels. Whistleblowing was protected and retaliatory actions against a whistleblower was illegal. PGS ASA also provided misrepresentations to UK Border Agency and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). PGS ASA has been very very naughty.
Since July 2015, SDK has published evidence and allegations online. From July 2015 – August 2016, SDK published whistle blowing articles on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. PGS ASA again breached contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions and never did their. PGS ASA promise to employee’s, customers, and shareholders, was to investigate the whistleblowing claims and take actions against corruption. Instead, SDKs legally and contractually protected public disclosure was misrepresented as “defamatory” and SDK was restricted from LinkedIn. SDK started website nopgs.com soon after this restriction and re-published content taken down from LinkedIn and also published new content. SDK also had tried to get the PGS ASA compliance office to do their job from April 2016 – September 2016 through sending several e-mails. From August 2016 – December 2018, SDK published legally and contractually protected articles online. However, in September 2018, PGS ASA and former PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, an company residing in England, lawyer and secretary Carl Richards filed “criminal defamation” charges against SDK while he resided in Thailand.
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017)
PGS ASA again misrepresented legally and contractually protected public disclosure as defamation. PGS ASA again breached their contractual terms and conditions with SDK. Under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand by PGS ASA and Carl Richards, PGS ASAs hired law firm in Thailand, Duensing – Kippen, extorted SDK into signing yet another compromise agreement while two other contracts governed by English law were in effect. SDK has challenged the legality of this contract too. Let’s cut to the chase. If PGS ASA defrauded and defamed SDK, then SDK is owed thousands, if not millions, of US dollars in damages. Those involved also should face prison sentences. PGS ASA has never wanted to resolve their complaints in the English court system. This is why SDK was harassed and persecuted by Duensing – Kippen. Only one person from PGS ASA has ever communicated directly with SDK about the online publications. This person is John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal. SDK is now in the USA and PGS ASA through Duensing – Kippen wants to resolve the issue through the Thai legal system.
SDK was apparently requested to defend his publication in Thailand 25 May 2020. But, there is no travel allowed to Thailand due to COVID-19. PGS ASA has remained silent since learning of this. But, more significant is that the only reason SDK has published so much content is that PGS ASA have refused to contact or comment on the published content. PGS ASA continues to waste and misuse shareholder resources so that they can escape being held accountable for their corrupt and inept direction and management. PGS ASA would demand that SDK spend thousands of dollars to face ridiculous charges in Thailand than actually write a damn letter explaining what exactly is defamatory within SDK publications? SDK does not publish defamatory material. SDK has evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Most of SDKs publications request a full police / third-party investigation. That is not defamatory. A victim of crimes asking for justice is not defamatory. And that is why PGS ASA want a rigged outcome from Thailand to absolve them of many wrongs.
Google Translate
