USA POTUS Trump Responds While Norway’s Corporate Corrupt Ignore

Norway’s Irresponsible Equinor, Telenor & PGS ASA Top Corruption List

Norway’s Corruption Problem Denies USA Citizen Whistleblower Due Process and Protects Criminals

The responses received from the Donald Trump White House are not completely generic. Read the two responses and you can see that they are different. The White House had no reason to answer. The Prime Minister of Norway does. After all, it is the people of Norway who are mostly being robbed by the corrupt management of majority state-owned corporations Equinor and Telenor. The common denominator is non-state owned corrupt PGS ASA. The population of Norway is only 5.433 million compared to the population of the USA which is 328.2 million.

No response has ever been received by those whom are publicly disparaged and accused of crimes. All of those named within publications are supposed to be protected by contractual Confidentiality clauses which prohibit such online published disparagement. Of course, the cover-up has persisted because their contract is fraudulent. It is they who have abused their power through remaining silent and not protecting company value and reputation.

– SDK, USA Citizen and Victim of Illegal Norwegian Corporation Whistleblower Retaliation

Fraudulent Contracts Confidentiality Clauses Cannot Protect Norwegian Company Reputation and Value

Second Letter to USA President Trump White House

I wrote a letter from this portal to President Donald Trump.  I am grateful for the response that I received.  When people cry out for justice, receiving a simple acknowledgement is sustaining. For the past several years, I have been ignored.  Exposing corruption and injustice is often what we are told to do as good citizens.  What is not told is how brutal retaliation can be toward whistleblowers and their families.  When doing the right thing and playing by the rules is more dangerous than robbing the public that you are supposed to serve, there is a problem.

I have been the victim of workplace mobbing.  It has been stated that the workplace mobbing is like workplace bullying on steroids.  Workplace mobbing is often used as a tactic to oust victims of harassment.  The only difference between harassment and bullying is whether or not you are in a protected class.

Because I was a USA citizen working in a foreign country, I considered that I was not just bullied, but harassed and discriminated against.  But, it was worse than that.  I was denied my legal due process to challenge and stop the abusers.  Instead, corporate boards of directors denied a USA citizen his human rights and created false defamatory employment records to blacklist him.

In the process, Norwegian company PGS ASA has been able to continue lying to and robbing investors.  I cannot accept a world for my children where evil corruption prevails over honest hard work.

I have written multiple letters.  I have written reports to board of directors of Norwegian companies Equinor, Telenor, and PGS ASA and never received a response.  Apparently, robbing stakeholders is more time consuming than leading the free world.

As a US citizen working in a foreign country, I became a whistleblower.  Not by choice, really.  I was duped into believing leadership wanted to do the right thing.  I have since written to the Norway police, the UK police, and even the FBI.  Nobody answers and nobody investigates.

I have written to the Prime Minister of Norway.  I have written to so many people, the White House actually provided a bit more than a simple acknowledgement.

Norwegian state owned (67%) oil company, Equinor this year “lost” lots of money in overseas operations.  Much of this was in the USA.  Here’s the thing, I KNOW that the Chairman of the Board for Equinor is a criminal.  Jon Erik Reinhardsen has been in my cross-hairs for years.  I have published multiple online articles where he is the topic.  Reinhardsen has never invoked contractual Confidentiality clauses prohibiting disparagement because his contract with me was fraudulent and supported by defamatory forged documents.

I want the FBI to compel Reinhardsen to publicly explain the 25 October 2013 Memo about ME.  And then I want him put into handcuffs.  But, only if it coincides with the laws he has broken in order to harm a USA citizen whistleblower and his family.

Thank President Trump.  Being bound by the lies of corrupted power is like being a hostage.  Please free me and my family from the unlawful retaliation.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Kalavity

###

Open Letter to Norway’s Telenor Board of Directors Regarding Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke

PINTEREST Telenor – PGS Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke

Johnny Cash – God’s Gonna Cut You Down (Official Video)

Attention Telenor Board of Directors: 

Gunn Wærsted (Chair), Jørgen Kildahl, Jacob Aqraou, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Sally Davis, Pieter Cornelis Knook, Astrid Simonsen Joos, Anita Helen Steine, Jan Otto Eriksen

CC:

US Consulate in Norway : [email protected]

Norway Police – The National Criminal Investigation Service: [email protected]

UK ActionFraud (Police): [email protected]   

Knut Arild Hareide, Norway Minister of Transport: [email protected]

Erna Solberg, Norway Prime Minister: [email protected]

Øystein Myrvold, INVESTOR RELATIONS – TELENOR GROUP, Head of Investor Relations, [email protected]

Kristine Devold, INVESTOR RELATIONS – TELENOR GROUP, Investor Relations Director: [email protected]

Ethical guidelines should provide guidance on how employees can communicate with the board to report matters related to illegal or unethical conduct by the company. Having clear guidelines for internal communication will reduce the risk that the company may find itself in situations that can damage its reputation or financial standing.

The Norwegian Code of Practice for
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (2007)

PGS UK Contract of Employment Confidentiality / Whistleblowing Terms and Conditions

This restriction shall continue to apply after the termination of a member of staff’s employment without limit in point of time but, both during employment and after its termination, shall cease to apply to information ordered to be disclosed by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction or otherwise required to be disclosed by law or to information which becomes available to the public generally (other than by reason of the member of staff breaching this confidentiality obligation). Nothing in this paragraph 2.9 will prevent a member of staff making a “protected disclosure” within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 where they are lawfully entitled to do so.

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.

PGS UK Personnel Handbook: 2.9 Confidentiality (2013)

Telenor Board of Directors:

This letter relates to current Telenor director, Jon Erik Reinhardsen and Telenor Chief Compliance Officer, Silke Hitschke.  Reinhardsen and Hitschke should be investigated for criminal retaliation and human rights abuses against a foreign worker whistleblower.  If the whistleblower allegations are confirmed true, then Reinhardsen and Hitschke should be terminated from their roles with Telenor and prosecuted under relevant laws and jurisdictions.  Reinhardsen and Hitschke are accused of violating the laws of several countries:  Norway, United Kingdom (England), United States of America (US), and Thailand.

PGS ASA Does not Respond to nor Investigate Whistleblowing (18 July 2019)
LI PGS Nigeria LinkedIn Slides

On 18 May 2020, PGS ASA (PGS) UK Head of Legal, John Francas demanded that disparaging and defamatory publications be removed from the Internet.  This was the last e-mail directly received by USA citizen and whistleblower, Steven Kalavity (SDK).  Prior to receiving this e-mail, Francas had e-mailed that SDK was in breach of two compromise agreements signed in Thailand on 11 November 2018 to stop the processing of two criminal defamation claims citing Thai criminal law.  One claim was sponsored by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) and the other by former PGSUK secretary, Carl Richards, who resigned from PGS as PGS UK Head of Legal 25 May 2018.  The Directors of PGSUK are currently Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS SVP Chief Accountant.  PGSUK is an English company and its two contracts with SDK are governed by the laws of England.

PINTEREST Watson Farley & Williams
Simon Cather Music Manager PGS ASA Africa Region

SDK is the victim of crimes perpetrated against him and his family in retaliation for whistleblowing.  For several years, US citizen SDK was employed by different subsidiaries of Norwegian company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) globally.  In 2013, SDK was sponsored and employed with contract by PGSUK.  This original employment contract (OEC) was governed by the laws of England.  At that time, the PGSUK Directors were Reinhardsen, PGS CEO and President, Langseth, Steen-Nilsen.  Through 13 September 2013, the PGSUK secretary was Candida Pinto. Richards assumed the role after 13 September 2013.  Through e-mail responses to Francas, SDK pointed out to PGS that their copying of SDK passport to initiate the Thailand litigation was a US federal crime, as were his e-mailed extortion threats.  Similarly, the Thailand legal firm representing current PGSUK directors illegally copied SDK passport information and received SDK in-country residence information so that Duensing – Kippen could stalk and harass SDK and his Thai relatives.  Francas and PGS Data Protection Officer (DPO), Daphne Bjerke, had been provided with SDK personal identification data for the explicit purpose of confirming identity to process a subject access request (SAR), citing the new General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) delivered to PGS in June 2018.

The Thai compromise agreement was signed by SDK under the threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand, with a possible 2-5 years prison sentence.  The compromise agreements main function was to have evidence of criminal behavior de-published and to scare SDK into silence.  Under Norwegian law, such agreements are illegal.  PIDA states that contracts which are designed to silence protected qualified disclosure – whistleblowing – are not enforceable.  PGS has always known that I was a US citizen.  The Thai compromise agreement was written to be enforceable in Harris County / Houston, Texas, USA.  Reinhardsen remains a Director and Chairman of PGS US subsidiary, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (PGSUS), along with Langseth, Steen-Nilsen.  PGS has no offices in Thailand.  But, if the Thailand agreements are illegal extortion/blackmail, Reinhardsen, Langseth, Steen-Nilsen, Pedersen, Mysen, Richards, and Francas should be held accountable for the misrepresentation.  If the SCA is not a legal contract, but an illegal instrument intended to defame and silence a whistleblower, how can the Thailand compromise agreements not be fraudulent as well? 

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

SDKs employment with PGS ended with the signing of a termination settlement contract agreement (SCA) the end of 2013.  The SCA was similarly governed by the laws of England.  Both the OCE and SCA contained contractual Confidentiality clauses which are intended to prohibit an employee from publicly disclosing information that disparages a company or any of its stakeholders.  Being contracts governed by the laws of England, they cited the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) intended to protect the integrity of personal data being processed by data controllers – employers, as well as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which is intended to protect retaliation for whistleblowing.  PIDA is supposed to protect whistleblowers from adverse actions or retaliation by their employers.  Making a disclosure in the public interest, or whistleblowing is different from simply disparaging content.  Workers are to be protected when the public disclosure consists of information where the worker reasonably believes that there has been a criminal offence, breach of a legal obligation, a miscarriage of justice, a danger to the health and safety of any individual, damage to the environment, or the deliberate attempt to conceal any such acts.

Such Confidentiality clauses are sometimes misused by corrupt organizations to retaliate and silence whistleblowers so that they cannot expose wrong-doing.  If SDK published online that Telenor Director, Reinhardsen was a “lying criminal asshole” or that Hitschke were a “lying criminal bitch”, this would be a breach of both the Confidentiality terms and conditions in both the OEC and SCA and PGSUK could take legal action against SDK citing a breach of contract governed by the laws of England.  In fact, SDK has published such content online multiple times since July 2015.  Reinhardsen is the former PGS CEO and President and Hitschke a former PGS Compliance Officer.  Reinhardsen and Hitschke have never been held accountable to invoke contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions intended to protect company – PGS or Telenor – reputation and value.  It can be reasoned that no invocation implies admission that the accusations that Reinhardsen and Hitschke are criminals.  The publications may be disparaging, but the published accusations and evidence are reasonably thought to be true and therefore protected.  So, why doesn’t the Telenor Board of Directors compel Reinhardsen and Hitschke to invoke the Confidentiality clauses to protect Telenor shareholder value and reputation?  Why is Telenor not abiding by the Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance

It was an event of 13 June 2013 that has been the catalyst of SDKs online qualified public disclosure which began 3 July 2015.  On 13 June 2013, SDK was called to a surprise ambush meeting – a tactic used by toxic workplace bullies and harassers.  The ambushers were David Nicholson, PGS UK HR Manager, SDKs immediate supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Africa – Sales and his superior, Simon Cather, Marine Contract Africa Region President.  Following the abusive ambush meeting that did not follow PGS policy, SDK requested minutes of the meeting, how the meeting comported to PGS policy, and a request to file a grievance.  The right for an employee to file a grievance is provided under the laws for England and contract.  PGS did not comply with any of SDKs requests.  On 24 July 2013, in lieu minutes from the 13 June 2013 ambush meeting, Nicholson delivered an ambush letter signed by him on behalf of PGSUK Directors, Reinhardsen, Langseth, Steen-Nilsen.  These events have been the impetus of a whistleblower’s pursuit of truth and justice which the PGS sponsored litigation was intent on obstructing.

In fact, the ambush letter was intended to obstruct SDKs legal right to submit a grievance and proceed through the grievance procedures.  SDK was being mobbed and harassed, lied to constantly and having information withheld, as a sponsored Tier 2 visa foreign worker!  PGS had a legal duty of care responsibility to ensure the health, safety and welfare for SDK and his family.  Workplace bullying and harassment are listed on the top of the list for workplace hazards.  The subject of the ambush letter was the Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan with a scheduled discussion on 11 September 2013.  The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013.    On 13 September 2013, PGS UK Head of Legal, Richards, replaced Candida Pinto, PGS UK In-house Lawyer, as PGSUK Secretary.  On 20 September 2013, SDK delivered a grievance document (“Grievance”) to PGS executives regarding acts perpetrated by PGSUK executives. 

On 15 July 2013, PGS applied to renew their sponsorship for SDK to and his family to remain in England.  A Tier 2 visa requires that the foreign worker possess skills not available in the EEA / resident (non-immigrant) labor market.  In other words, SDK would not have been issued a Tier 2 visa if he was a poor performer.  The ambush letter was retaliation for intending to raise a grievance over workplace bullying, defamatory performance ratings, and the non-compliant ambush meeting.  SDK did not fully realize it at the time, but the Grievance met the PIDA criteria of whistleblowing.  In response to the Grievance, PGS proffered an SCA.  In the UK, the employee must seek the counsel of a lawyer prior to signing any SCA that will end their employment.  Any seasoned English employment lawyer should have recognized the Grievance as whistleblowing.  But, my counsel, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton did not.  Landau recommended that SDK pursue an enhanced SCA and not proceed through the steps prescribed within the PGS UK Personnel Handbook. 

PGS contracted legal firm Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) to negotiate the terms and conditions of the final signed SCA.  Senior Employment lawyer, Rhodri Thomas also seemed not to recognize the 21-page Grievance as whistleblowing either?  One would think that Thomas, Landau, and Rushton would have recognized issues with an SCA for a foreign worker for performance, especially when the Grievance specifically cited misuse of the performance management system, bullying, harassment, discrimination (Equality Act 2010), and a breach of contractual duty of care responsibilities (Health and Safety Act 1974).  SDK was reluctant to sign the SCA as the negotiations just did not seem right.  SDK was also desperate to extricate himself and his family from the hostile sponsors.  SDK made one non-negotiable demand: the contents held within SDKs professional personnel file had to be true and accurate.  Landau, Rushton, and Thomas (PGS) promised that it was on 4 December 2013 as condition for SDK signing the final SCA on 5 December 2013. 

In October 2014, SDK submitted his first SAR to PGS citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).  GDPR replaced DPA in 2018.  Through an SAR, data controllers, such as employers, provide data subjects with copies of the personal data that they process for a data subject, or employee.  The principal data processor for the 2014 SAR was Nicholson.  The same Nicholson who had been accused of malpractice, defamation, bullying, and harassment within the Grievance.  When SDK received the contents of his PGS professional personnel file it was discovered that PGS was processing forged and inaccurate defamatory personnel records.  None of the pertinent documents were signed by SDK.  In fact, most were signed by only Nicholson.  However, there was one significant document, a 25 October 2013 Memo (“Memo”) signed Bjølseth, who was Nicholson’s superior, and PGS EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes, who was Cather’s superior.  Neither Bjølseth or Reksnes were agents of PGSUK.  

SDK complained through several e-mails to PGS Nicholson, PGS UK HR Officer Laura Haswell, and Bjølseth from November – December 2014.  On 22 December 2014, Nicholson again signed and delivered an extortion letter again on behalf of PGSUK.  The extortion letter threatened legal action for a breach in the SCA against SDK if he did not cease disputing the obviously fake contents of his PGS personnel file.  SDK emailed several complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee DPA compliance.  ICO would not investigate!  In August 2015, SDK submitted his first report to UK ActionFraud (police).  The UK police also did not investigate.  However, SDK believed then as he believes now that he was defrauded and defamed by a criminal corporate international conspiracy including PGS, WFW Thomas, as well as LZW Landau and Rushton.

On 3 July 2015, SDK published online the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform his first protected public disclosure.  SDK published on 6 September 2015 and 20 September 2015 articles stating explicitly that Reinhardsen should resign as CEO and President of PGS for malpractice and mismanagement.  No breach of the SCA was ever invoked, in spite of the threats made within the 22 December 2014 letter.  In April 2016, SDK submitted another SAR to the PGS Compliance team.  In spite of the several articles published on LinkedIn™ by that time, PGS did not comment or deliver any data to SDK for the 2016 SAR.  In June 2016, SDK submitted a complaint to the PGS Compliance Hotline claiming that PGS bribed lawyers to process forged defamatory documents used to terminate foreign worker SDK on false pretenses.  SDK suppled substantive documented evidence.  Hitschke, and the other members of the Compliance team, Bjølseth and Pedersen, issued the following response to SDKs substantive complaint:

20 May 2016

Mr. Kalavity

PGS has followed up your complaint through the Compliance Hotline in accordance with our procedures.  No deviation from PGS’ procedures of guidelines were uncovered and none of the documents paced in your personal employee folder was found to contain false or misleading information about you.  No evidence found indicate that you were defrauded.  The case dealing with your complaint is hereby closed.

SDK began posting more questions and facts in the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space.  PGS again did not cite violations in the Confidentiality terms and conditions.  PGS did not chose to respond by non-public e-mails, but instead deleted the comments and questions.  Eventually, through PGS (stakeholder) complaints, SDK was restricted from LinkedIn™ and essentially silenced.  PGS was allowed to avoid litigation under the Confidentiality terms and conditions guided by the laws of England.  PGS has intentionally ignored SDKs questions and concerns.  Not acknowledging, or the silent treatment, is an attempt by abusers to control and harass.  It does not represent anything positive.  Not acknowledging is very harmful. Not only does it demonstrate immaturity and meanness, but such behavior can have serious health consequences for the other person who will tend to feel extremely distressed.  Common symptoms are headaches and digestive problems, along with fatigue and insomnia.  PGS stated that there was an investigation.  This was a blatant lie and cover-up.  No answers were provided for the multitude of questions asked of PGS Compliance.  SDK also shared articles and links with PGS, WFW, and LZW personnel (Landau, Rushton, Thomas, etc.) through the internal LinkedIn™ messaging service.  PGS’ fraudulent response also defamed SDK to the entire LinkedIn™ and oil and gas professional community.

17 August 2016

Mr. Kalavity:

The PGS internal audit team has investigated your complaints following your report to the PGS Compliance Hotline.  The investigation confirmed that PGS policies and legal requirements were followed in the matter you have raised for our attention.  Following the investigation, we have closed the matter in accordance with our procedures for handling reports to the PGS Compliance Hotline.  The results and conclusion have been delivered to you by the Hotline service.  PGS will as such not make further comments in this matter and further posts by you on our LinkedIn site related to the matter may be removed by us.

PINTEREST LinkedIn™ PGS East Shetland Deleted Comments Slides 300×700

Because PGS, WFW, and LZW (Landau Law) took no legal action with respect to the published content on LinkedIn™ that disparaged their professional performance, SDK was able to re-published the articles which had been on LinkedIn™ on a private site, nopgs.com.  Unfortunately, SDK had over 4600 personal professional connection and also hosted a Marine Seismic Survey group with over 1560 members when PGS decided to lie to the professional community on LinkedIn™ and got SDK restricted.  PGS irresponsibly, from both the professional and contractual perspective, did not engage and resolve the issue, but continued the criminal conspiracy and cover-up that continues to damage whistleblower SDK and his family.  Nothing within the Compliance Hotline team issued statement is true.  The Compliance Hotline team (Bjølseth, Pedersen, Hitschke), are obstructing justice and protecting the criminal cabal of which they are all part.  None of document contents pertinent to SDKs termination bare his signature and are unverifiable.  The documents cannot possibly be compliant, because they are forgeries! 

The fake personnel file documents reference events that never happened and documents that do not exists.  No one with qualified privilege from PGS has signed the documents with SDKs personnel file.  The only other official communications directly from PGS regarding SDKs published online content came from Francas in May 2019.  Most threatening correspondence was received from Duensing – Kippen lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee.  Moonmanee had no direct knowledge of events.  PGS provided Duensing – Kippen with an illegal power of attorney to avoid the laws of England which bound her clients.  England has no criminal defamation statute and content published more than one-year was protected from defamation claims by the UK Limitation Act 1980.  The reason that PGS needed to use the Thailand legal system, and not the English legal system, is because there is obviously a problem with the SCA contract.  Telenor’s Reinhardsen and Hitschke are both implicated in the alleged assault, fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement and extortion intended to knowingly harm a whistleblower and his family.  This is why conspirators did not conduct a valid investigation and real report.

Was Withholding my Occupational Health Nurse Report from me OK? (22 April 2019)

Following the meeting, I asked David Nicholson, UK HR Manager, if minutes of the meeting had been taken to record the content and context of the meeting. I was told that the meeting was informal, and as such no minutes of the meeting were formally transcribed and distributed to participants. (Although, HR had annotated notes of the meeting while the meeting was in progress.)


I not only disagreed with the base assertions made during the meeting (and subsequent letter), but I was additionally distressed at the intimidating urgency and tone of the meeting that I was called to moments before it occurred. (There was an apology for my being ambushed into such an intimidating arena.)

Excerpt from 20 September 2020 SDK Grievance

PINTEREST – LI PGS Australia Slides 300×700

PINTEREST – LI PGS Adelaide Slides 300×700

During SCA negotiations, Nicholson requested that SDKs health be assessed by Occupational Health Nurse (OHN), Maggie Bream.  The OHN delivered the assessment report for SDK to Nicholson.  Landau was made aware of this.  The OHN report contradicts the PGS false narrative contained within the forged defamatory documents that supported a performance-based termination and dismissed harassment, bullying, and discrimination claims.  Nicholson never delivered the final report to SDK, as the OHN requested.  (SDK acquired a copy of the OHN report following the 2014 SAR.)  The PGS UK Personnel Handbook and UK law has provisions for stressed employees.  In spite of this, PGS, Landau, Rushton and Thomas did not consider the OHN report during SCA negotiations?  They did not consider news about the physical and mental impact that the PGS toxic work conditions and ongoing gaslighting had on SDK and his family, even though the Grievance which is cited within the final SCA explained these negative effects.  Workplace harassment and bullying can create stress and anxiety.  It is one of the most significant contributors of stress-related health problems, including debilitating feelings of anxiety, panic attacks and clinical depression. In some instances, bullying can even lead to suicide. 

The reason why PGS, WFW (Thomas) and LZW (Landau and Rushton) have not cited any breach in the SCA is because they also know that the SCA is not a legitimate contract.  SDKs was denied legal due process and representation because PGS bribed LZW to support their crimes.  SDK continues to be denied this basic human right in addition to the human rights of the parties all processing fake personal data.  The fake SCA negotiations – gaslighting – lasted from 10 October 2013 until 5 December 2013, when SDK eventually signed the SCA.  Toxic organizations misuse HR and promotions as a payment for covering-up executive crimes.  It starts a cycle where incompetence and unethical behavior is rewarded.  Toxic workplaces cheat to hide incompetence.  In a functional and just system, Reinhardsen and Hitschke would first likely never exist.  But, if such alleged criminal conspirators were thoroughly and fairly investigated, Reinhardsen and Hitschke would be dismissed, and possibly tried, and sent to prison. 

Telenor’s fifty-four percent (54%) Norwegian citizen owned.  The Telenor compliance and governance system that does not investigate Reinhardsen and Hitschke is dysfunctional.  A system that does not conduct thorough due diligence and rewards the corrupt is not serving stakeholders.  It is the very definition of corruption.  It is the most abhorrent kind of behavior.  The victims of executive harassment and discrimination are shocked the policy and values which underpin the contractual relationship are not followed.  It is both a breach and a betrayal of the employer – employee relationship.  All workplace bullying is supported by incompetent and insecure hierarchical authoritative leadership.  It is incompetence that drives most all corruption.  Toxic workplaces do not exist under strong ethical leadership.  Strong ethical leadership is competent, competitive and confident that any challenge to their company reputation and value will likely never happen and if it does, they only need to respond appropriately.

This abuse of power or position can cause such chronic stress and anxiety that people gradually lose belief in themselves, suffering physical ill health and mental distress as a result. Workplace bullying affects working conditions, health and safety, domestic life and the right of all to equal opportunity and treatment.

(Lamplugh, 2002).

In 2013, I could have never even imagined the corruption and criminal behavior that was being orchestrated to silence and harm me and my family.  Being lied to, harassed, bullied, mobbed and gaslighted by the compliance and governance professionals from several foreign organizations for any period of time is very distressing.  Reinhardsen and Hitschke have been obstructing justice and harassing SDK and his family for years.  As a US citizen, the threats and extortion made through e-mail and post, obstruction of justice, abuse of power and misrepresentations constitute violations in the US federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  Unfortunately, whistleblowers are too often brutally retaliated against even when there are laws designed to protect them.  When PGS lawyers Pedersen, Richards, Mysen and Francas, WFW lawyers Thomas and Aulak, and most abhorrently, the whistleblowers own counsel, Landau and Rushton, are bribed to obstruct justice without penalty, compliance programs are merely a façade. Consider being in a foreign country as a sponsored contracted worker? 

Reinhardsen and Hitschke are part of a criminal conspiracy to continue to defraud, defame, physically and financially damage a whistleblower and his family.  Reinhardsen and Hitschke have been allowed to not invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions which would reveal this criminal conspiracy.  Invoking the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions of the SCA would expose that Reinhardsen and Hitschke oversaw the bribing of lawyers and the embezzling of company funds to pay for the mischief.   The original SCA was illegally proffered in retaliation for blowing the whistle and to silence the whistleblower.  The illegal retaliation, silence and harassment of a whistleblower must end.  Demand that Reinhardsen and Hitschke explain the 2016 remarks and produce their investigation report. 

Regards, SDK

from:Steven Kalavity 
to:“Oslo, ACS” <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
AF Team <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[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],
ActionFraud <[email protected]>,
Carl Richards <[email protected]>,
GDPR <[email protected]>,
John Francas <[email protected]>,
Landau Law <[email protected]>,
Rhodri Thomas <[email protected]>,
Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:Sep 7, 2020, 10:56 AM
subject:Open Letter to the Telenor Board of Directors
PINTEREST – PGS ASA 2020

###

Open Letter to the USA Consulate in Norway and Equinor Board of Directors

To:

Equinor Board of Directors: Jon Erik Reinhardsen (Chair), Jeroen van der Veer, Bjørn Tore Godal, Hilde Møllerstad, Tove Andersen, Rebekka Glasser Herlofsen, Finn Bjørn Ruyter, Stig Lægreid, Anne Drinkwater, Jonathan (Jon) Lewis

USA Consulate in Norway, [email protected],

CC:

Office of the Norway Minister of Energy, [email protected]

Office of the Norway Prime Minister, [email protected]

Office of PWC Equinor Audit, [email protected] 

Equinor Board of Directors and USA Consulate in Norway:

My name is Steven D. Kalavity (SDK).  I am a USA citizen and victim of crimes perpetrated against me and my family in retaliation for whistleblowing.  For several years, I was employed by different subsidiaries of Norwegian company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS).  SDK was sponsored and employed by contract by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK).  The original contract of employment (OCE) was governed by the laws of England and cited the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) intended to protect the integrity of personal data being processed by data controllers – employers, as well as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which is intended to protect retaliation for whistleblowing.  Jon Erik Reinhardsen, is the current Equinor Chairman of the Board of Directors.  Prior to 1 September 2017, Reinhardsen was PGS CEO and President.  Reinhardsen also served as a director for PGSUK during that time, along with Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP, and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS SVP Chief Accountant.  Current PGS CEO and President, Rune O. Pedersen, replaced Reinhardsen as PGSUK director.  Prior to being selected to be PGS CEO and President, Pedersen served as PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance.  Reinhardsen continues to be a director and chairman for PGS US subsidiary, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., in Houston, Texas, USA (PGSUS).  Langseth and Steen-Nilsen also serve as PGSUS directors.

In September 2018, PGSUK directors, Pedersen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen had Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen deliver criminal defamation claims to the registered address attached to visa and USA passport.  Prior to this delivery in Thailand, PGS UK Head of Legal and PGSUK secretary, Carl Richards, had threatened litigation in Thailand.  In fact, Duensing – Kippen lawyer, Tippaya Moonmanee, also wrote to me ensuring that Duensing – Kippen was not representing PGSUK, but only Richards as an individual.  Neither Moonmanee nor Richards ever confirmed their identities to me.  Both demanded that all published content disparaging Richards be removed from nopgs.com be removed.  There were many problems with this demand, which SDK regarded as blackmail/extortion.   When the demands were made, Richards was an acting secretary of PGSUK.  The OCE already contained contractual Confidentiality clauses that prohibited (former) employee’s from 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.  This begged the question, why would a lawyer, Richards, licensed to practice law in England, need the services of a Thai legal firm?  Richards had both the authority and duty to invoke OCE breaches to safeguard the reputation and value of PGS.

The publication that provoked Richards to threaten SDK by e-mail was titled, Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018).  SDK first began publishing content that directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Company [PGS] or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents or shareholders, 3 July 2015 while Reinhardsen served as a PGSUK director.  No PGS directors, officers, employees, agents or shareholders had ever even attempted to contact SDK prior to Richards unofficial e-mail contact in 2018.  In fact, it was just the opposite.   Content that directly or indirectly disparaged PGS or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents or shareholders, was published on the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform: Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015) and Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)Richards had been cited within, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (8-May-2016), and no breach in the OCE was ever cited.  SDK tried to report concerns – protected public disclosure – to the PGS Compliance Hotline team, which was composed of Pedersen, PGS SVP Global Human Resources, Terje Bjølseth and Compliance Officer, and Silke Hitschke, PGS VP Compliance and Internal Audit.  SDK also submitted another SAR.  The PGS Compliance Hotline Team stated publicly within the PGS LinkedIN™ comment space that they had investigated my concerns.  SDK wrote about this lie as well, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)

In August 2016, SDK was restricted from LinkedIN™ because the OCE Confidentiality terms and conditions were never invoked to stop the publishing of content disparaging PGS.  Some director, officer, employee, agent or shareholder had complained about the publications to a LinkedIN™ gatekeeper.  SDK began re-publishing content and writing new content disparaging PGS on nopgs.com the same month.  The PGS Compliance Hotline Team was intentionally e-mailed the article and nopgs.com link, The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4-Sep-2016).  No comment.  In late May 2017, Reinhardsen announced his retirement from PGS with his final day being 31 August 2017.  While still with PGS, SDK published, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017), and then finally, Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017)No disparaged PGS director, officer, employee, agent or shareholder ever invoked a breach in the Confidentiality terms and conditions of the OCE.  But, in April 2018, Richards was claiming that SDK had defamed him to a criminal level in Thailand, as defined by laws of the Kingdom of Thailand?  It all seemed absurd, but it is real as the sunrise.  Richards resigned from PGS 25 May 2018, on the same day that DPA was to be replaced by the new and improved General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR). 

In June 2018, SDK submitted another SAR citing GDPR.  PGS ASA had assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO), Daphne Bjerke, to address the SAR.  John Francas assumed the role of PGS UK in-house counsel after Richards left.  Again, PGS stated that no personal data was being processed by them.  Francas also threatened to invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions of the December 2013 signed termination settlement contract agreement (SCA).  It should be noted that the subject of all of the online publications disparaging PGS directors, officers, employees, agents or shareholders, challenged the legal validity of the SCA.  In fact, SDK publications were intended to be substantive that they could not be ignored.  In other words, SDK always wanted PGS to invoke a breach in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions!  Duensing – Kippen arranged to have the criminal defamation complaints – one on behalf of PGSUK and the other on behalf of Richards – delivered to my registered residence in Thailand immediately after SDK had departed from Thailand.  When SDK rushed and returned back to Thailand from the USA, having shortened his planned visit, he learned that PGS had illegally copied SDKs passport without consent and provided that data to Duensing – Kippen.  PGS had also provided SDKs registered address information to Duensing – Kippen so that SDK travels could be stalked.  Richards claim was also delivered from using the illegally obtained personal data which had been provided to PGS to process the 2018 SAR.

Reinhardsen has been the principal antagonist within my published narratives, which have contended and provided document evidence that I was illegally terminated from employment with PGSUK as a sponsored Tier 2 employee under contract governed by the laws of England for blowing the whistle.  PGS retaliated through the use of bribed lawyers who uttered forged defamatory personal data to support a false basis for termination.  SDK has reported these concerns multiple times to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and to UK ActionFraud™ (police).  However, neither government institution has investigated.  SDK publications have shown-up in first-page Google™ search engine results for the company executives and board members.  The question for the Equinor Board of Directors is, what due diligence was done in respect to the owners of Equinor – the Norwegian people – prior to Reinhardsen being appointed as Chairman?  How is it possible that most every clause of the Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance could be ignored for the largest Norwegian company which is two-thirds (2/3) owned by the public?  A USA citizen and his family want to know?  My Thai mother-in-law was so traumatized by the delivery of the criminal complaints that she went into the hospital and almost died!  What do you have to say to that, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, you lying criminal cunt?  (This phrase has been published with a graphic.  Is this disparaging and a breach in PGS contractual Confidentiality clauses governed by the laws of England?)  Is publishing that Francas is a “Fuckhead” and a “Fraudster” a breach in the contractual Confidentiality clauses governed by the laws of England?  No action has been taken by PGS under English or Norwegian law.

Following PGS’ response to the 2018 SAR and the delivery of the Thai criminal complaints, SDK wrote several queries to directors, officers, employees, and customers of PGS regarding the legitimacy of the claims which cost SDK thousands of US dollars to defend against in Thailand!  Richards and PGSUK stated that they would drop the criminal cases in Thailand if SDK agreed to sign another compromise agreement demanding the de-publishing of content three-years after the initial publications were posted without challenge or comment?  SDK signed the two Thai agreements 11 November 2018, mostly to soothe my Thai relatives.  Even following the signing of the Duensing – Kippen agreements, which caused my family so much harm, no PGS director, officer, employee, agent or shareholder even contacted SDK and directly voiced any concerns about SDKs publicationsThe contracts were not signed by any director or (former) company secretary.  At no time did any PGSUK director or PGS General Counsel, Lars Mysen, and Francas or Richards answer any questions about the litigation:    

Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer and ICO Caseworker (2-Sep-2018)

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers (16-Sep-2018)

Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (24-Sep-2018)

Letter to UK Companies House and Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary (1-Oct-2018)

Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and UK Serious Fraud Office (9 October 2018)

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)

Petroleum Geo-Services and PGS Exploration UK Limited Conceal Illicit and Non-Compliant Acts through Stonewalling – 2014 (20 October 2018)

Norwegian Geo-Services Compliance Team Stonewall Whistleblowing Claims – 2016 (22 October 2018)

There was a ten (10) day period following the signing of the Thai agreement to confirm the terms and conditions.  I did not believe that PGS or Duensing – Kippen has the legal authority to prohibit my contractual legal right under the laws of England to prohibit whistleblowing.  SDK breached the Thai agreement and PGS again threatened to go forward with the two criminal complaints which held 2-5 years prison sentences.  A new hearing was scheduled 29 January 2019.  During September 2018, prior to PGS and Richards final decision about going forward with new criminal complaints, nopgs.com was stolen and taken down.  PGS and Richards decided not to go forward with the new criminal trials.  The Thai compromise agreements were ridiculous and were less powerful than the two prior contracts governed by the laws of England.  The main difference is that the Thai agreements had no whistleblower protection.  Also, the Thai agreements resolution venues were the Kingdom of Thailand and the Federal and state courts of Harris County, Texas (Houston), which was the US residence address attached to SDKs passport.  No lawyer licensed to practice law in the US state of Texas was involved with forming the Thai agreements.  PGS has no business address in Thailand.  However, the PGS US subsidiary where Reinhardsen is a chairman, is located in Houston and they do have legal counsel. 

Under Norwegian law (WEA), gagging clauses to prohibit whistleblowing are illegal.  Under UK law (PIDA), gagging clauses to prohibit whistleblowing are not enforceable.  SDK decided republish nopgs.com and LinkedIN™ content onto marineseismicsurvey.com in February 2019.  Following this, Duensing – Kippen lawyer Moonmanee resumed sending legal notices to the registered address where SDK stayed in Thailand.  SDK did not believe that the Thai agreements were legal and valid instruments.  SDK and PGS were bound by two contracts governed by the laws of England which provided protection to whistleblowers (PIDA).  Norway also has their Working Environment Act (WEA) that provides whistleblower protection.  So, how was it that executives of a Norwegian company governed by the laws of Norway who serve as directors of an English company governed by the laws of England could legally litigate a criminal defamation case in Thailand citing the laws of Thailand?  In May 2019, Francas became the first agent of PGS to have ever contacted SDK directly with regard to the content of online publications on marineseismicsurvey.com.  There were many problems with the Thailand agreements.  PGS demanded the removal of all content that even mentioned PGS. 

The UK Limitation Act 1980 did not allow defamation claims for content published for more than one-year.  There could be no defamation claim.  There is not limit in time that PGS could have taken action with regard to content disparaging PGS.  However, the only reason that there were so many online publications disparaging PGS is because no action had been taken when Reinhardsen was directly disparaged in 2015.  PGS did not want to invoke the contractual Confidentiality clauses because the SCA was not a legal contract.  The main objective for the SCA was to silence and get rid of the whistleblower without having to address the grievance which identified multiple illegal practices by PGS management and board of directors.  PGS obstructed and ultimately denied SDK his legal right to fairly process a workplace grievance, which was actually whistleblowing, which claimed:

On 24 July I received a letter Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan (Appendix 1).

The letter was requested by me in response to an impromptu meeting that I was called to attend on 13-June-2013 with my workgroup Manager, Edward Von Abendorff, Vice-President Marine Contract – Africa, Simon Cather, Regional President, Marine Contract – Africa, and David Nicholson, Human Resource Manager.

During the meeting assertions regarding my performance and competency were discussed. Due to the gravity of these assertions and their impact on both my personal and professional well-being, I felt it imperative that this issue be formalized.

To the extent that Contract Sales – Africa Management has viewed my performance as debilitating to the function of the group, and moreover the deleterious impact of the assessment on my personal and professional well-being causing great uncertainty and stress, I thought that the process should have been managed much better and differently.

uuu

PGS management has breached in practice and principle UK Labour Laws, PGS Core Values, PGS UK Personnel Handbook practices, as well as established best practices as presented through PGS contracted training and development courses.

It is my contention that Contract Sales – Africa work environment is unsafe/unhealthy.

Further, the Contract Sales – Africa Manager has breached his trust and authority through exercising negative behaviors consistent with workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, defamation and negligence.

The predicate for SDKs delivery of a workplace grievance was the receipt of a defamatory letter which impugned SDKs work performance.  This official rebuke delivered on behalf of PGSUK directors, Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen, was delivered nine days after PGS had renewed SDKs Tier 2 sponsorship which allowed him and his dependent family members to legally remain in England for another three (3) years.  Through Tier 2 sponsorship, PGSUK had committed to the government of England that SDK possessed qualifications and skills not available in the resident labor market.  How could PGS legally employ a foreign worker who was a poor performer?  PIDA defines protected disclosure as information about any failure to comply with legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, or criminal offences.  PGS made a concerted effort to deny a victim of injustice voice.  And when SDK threatened to disclose PGS indiscretions, PGS retaliated.  Settlement contracts contain Confidentiality clauses which prohibit the publication of disparaging content regarding the company.  However, settlement contract confidentiality clauses that prohibit protected disclosure are not enforceable under PIDA.  SDK was coerced into signing a settlement contract agreement (SCA) which terminated his employment with PGS.  The SCA references the presented grievance:

The Employee confirms and warrants that hereby abandons and agrees not to pursue the internal grievance raised by him against the Company by way of his grievance document dated 20 September 2013 (or any analogous or substantially similar or other internal grievance), and agrees that neither the Company, any Group Company nor any of the Related Parties shall have any further obligation to him with regard to such grievance proceedings.

This SCA references the content of the grievance document.  However, the quoted content from the grievance document establishes that the grievance was protected disclosure, or whistleblowing.  Clauses intended to silence protected disclosure are not enforceable under PIDA.  Employees have a legal right to blow the whistle which supersedes a Company’s power to silence such disclosure.  The main objective of the SCA that was employed by PGS illegally was to retaliate against a whistleblower and silence legally protected disclosure. 

If the SCA is not a legal instrument, then every representation that it is by PGS is fraud.  The settlement payment is money stolen from PGS (shareholders).  However, this confidence fraud was not perpetrated by PGS alone.  PGS hired law firm Watson, Farley, and Williams (WFW) to advise on matters of employment law.  WFW was directly involved with advising for the successful Tier 2 application process and fully understood employer responsibilities for sponsorship as well as employee qualifications.  As employment lawyers in England, WFW was also fully cognizant of PIDA and DPA.  SDK contacted law firm Landau Zeffert and Weir (LZW), specifically named partner, Philip Landau, to advise on the initially proffered settlement agreement.  Landau was aware that SDK was a USA citizen and sponsored Tier 2 employee.  Landau had been provided with a copy of SDKs submitted grievance documents with names redacted.  As a senior level employment lawyer, Landau would have also understood fully PIDA provisions and at least base Tier 2 visa employer sponsorship and employee qualification requirements.  The submitted grievance cited managements misuse of the performance management system, SDKs Tier 2 status which provided PGS with undue influence in his employment options as a foreign worker.  The submitted grievance cited the UK Health and Safety Act 1974, Equality Act 2010, an employer’s duty of care, duty of trust, defamation, and negligence.  Landau advised that I leave by settlement contract agreement and not follow the legally prescribed grievance process described within the Handbook.  (Landau was also provided with a copy of the Handbook.) 

PGS enlisted WFW to negotiate the final terms and conditions of the settlement agreement on their behalf and SDK enlisted LZW.  WFW and LZW never questioned that the letter which was the predicate for the grievance and defamed SDK contradicted PGS’ legal responsibility to qualify foreign workers for Tier 2 sponsorship.  None of the experienced lawyers involved with forming the final SCA identified the grievance as protected disclosure.  The settlement contract was retaliation for whistleblowing intended to silence the whistleblower, SDK.  PGS, LZW and WFW all conspired to cooperate in the illegal retaliation which breached the terms and conditions of the OCE, notably the PIDA provision, and defrauded SDK in forming the SCA.  Money paid to these lawyers by PGS to process a knowingly illegal contract is a bribe.  PGS, LZW and WFW also all promised that contents of SDKs personal personnel file was legal and accurate on the day prior to SDKs signing the SCA.  In fact, SDK would not have signed the SCA without this promise.  (The without prejudice email communications memorialized this commitment made by PGS, WFW and LZW.)  The SCA was signed prior to SDK and his family leaving England.  However, the base terms and conditions of the SCA were not consummated until a few months later when SDK and his family were in the USA.  Against SDKs desire during SCA negotiations, international moving expenses would be reimbursed and not paid out as a lump sum.  Moving household items from England to Houston, Texas USA took several weeks.

PGS joined the UN Global Compact in December 2013, the day before SDK and his family left from England to the USA.  PGS had just finished defrauding and defaming a whistleblower, the UK Border Agency, and the ICO (creating fake personal data).  E-mail communications between PGSUK and SDK while he was in the USA, with regard to continuing to misrepresent an illegal or fraudulent instrument as a legal one, would violate several US statutes.  Four to five months after signing the SCA and physically relocating to the USA, PGS reimbursed moving expenses.  While in Houston, SDK began his job search and sensed that he was being blacklisted.  SDK did not want to violate the SCA terms and conditions.  But, ten-months after moving to Houston, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing DPA.  The main person who processed the SAR was PGS UK HR manager David Nicholson.  Nicholson was a principal accused of malpractice, defamation, and misuse of the performance management system, etc., within the submitted grievance.  I copied his subordinate, Laura Haswell, in these communications.  What I discovered upon receiving the personal data that PGS was processing as SDKs was a personnel file composed of inaccurate, defamatory, forged documents.  No pertinent documents even bore SDKs signature and could not be verified.  But, PGS Compliance Hotline Pedersen, Bjølseth and Hitschke provided no clarification?  SDK also learned that this fake personal data and the SCA copy had been sent to the PGSUS HR supervisor, Gareth Jones, without my consent and knowledge throughout the period of SCA negotiation.  (Nicholson told ICO that Gareth Jones was an employee of PGSUK when he processed the fake data.) 

What SDK would come to realize much later was that the electronic and standard mailing of fake personal data would constitute US mail and wire fraud.  Nicholson, Haswell, and PGS HR SVP Terje Bjølseth continued to factually misrepresent events and relate that the SCA was a legally viable instrument.  PGS published their 2013 Responsibility Report around April 2014.  The 2013 Responsibility Report includes a letter from CEO Reinhardsen filled with known misrepresentations:

Oil and gas remain essential to the security and stability of modern society, both today and tomorrow. Seismic is a small cog in that great machine, but an important one to help identify new resources and monitor efficient production of the resources we already have.

Finding new oil and gas reservoirs is getting tougher as exploration moves deeper, into more remote and often harsher environments. The structures that we seek to image are getting more complex. Projects and planning take longer and are more demanding than before. Each new frontier brings new challenges to our technology as well as our operations. These changes impact safety and security, and require heightened sensitivity to the world around us.

Our theme for this year’s report is ‘Evolution’ – reflecting those changing challenges and tracking our growth as a corporate citizen. In our second report, we have maintained a commitment to transparency with a focus on the organization and systems. We have made progress, but our journey is by no means complete.

Our key achievements since the last report in 2011 include maintaining an outstanding health and safety

record, strengthening our Anti-Corruption program, as well as our risk management process, securing our ISO 14001 environmental management system certification and reducing energy consumption. In December 2013, PGS signed the UN Global Compact – committing to ten principles in the spheres of Human Rights, Labor, Environment and Anti-Corruption.  We followed this up with a new PGS human rights policy in 2014.  An international corporation like PGS is built of many people across many nations. Our business affects and impacts on even more. If you are one of them, then I would be very interested to hear your views on how we can continue to improve – whether you are a PGS employee, customer, shareholder or another stakeholder.

Jon Erik Reinhardsen

President and CEO

The binding nature of any settlement contract agreement has made it very difficult to challenge its integrity.  This difficulty is compounded by the fact that all lawyers involved in forming the SCA remain silent and protected.  PGS lawyers Larson, Francas, Richards, and Pedersen, WFW lawyers Rhodri Thomas (now with EM Law, London, EC1Y 8AF) and Neeta Aulak, and LZW lawyers Landau and Rushton are not compelled to invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions in response to publications which disparage them.  The criminal conspiracy does not only impact SDK and his family.  Reinhardsen’s 2013 Responsibility Letter marginalizes and continues to damage targets of workplace violence and fraud, while intentionally lying to investors and the oil and gas industry regarding crucial commitments to worker health and safety and anti-corruption initiatives.  Corruption loses money to the majority and concentrates money with the incompetent and corrupt such as Reinhardsen.  Equinor posted huge financial losses in its overseas operations.  Equinor and PGS are also laying-off a large percentage of its workforce.  What is most repugnant is that those who disregard ethical business practices are shielded and promoted while honest, hard-working, and knowledgeable employees lose their jobs.  The very worst in ability and character define the profession and industry.

The Norwegian citizens need to demand that their publicly owned corporations are important to a future of growth and opportunity.  Norwegian corporations must be managed in accordance to the Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance.  When accused criminals such as PGS Compliance Hotline members Pedersen, Bjølseth and Hitschke are allowed to defraud and defame a whistleblower along with global citizens inside and outside of Norway, futures are being robbed.  Pedersen, Bjølseth and Hitschke were promoted for their lies.  Pedersen is now PGS CEO and President.  Bjølseth retired without incident.  Hitschke is now Telenor SVP Compliance.  PGS has acknowledged through their sponsored litigation in Thailand that reputation and value has been damaged.  However, the PGS Board of Directors and several in upper management would like to blame a whistleblower and put him in a Thai prison all so they will not have to explain how the SCA was formed and what documents support it?  Because PGS and Reinhardsen obstruct SDK from the fair legal process, they cannot stop publications that 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.  Reinhardsen cannot do his job to the required standard deserved of investors.  The same is true with PGS.  Confidentiality agreements cannot be used to prevent employees from speaking up about unethical or illegal activities.  Publications that expose Norway’s corporate corruption must continue until corrupt leadership is terminated and rightly prosecuted.  Corruption must be replaced with professionalism and honor for a shared prosperity.

Institutional Betrayal, DARVO, Workplace Mobbing, Gaslighting, and the Geo-Services Professional (24 February 2019)
to:[email protected],
“Eli Moe-Helgesen (NO)” <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[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],
Carl Richards <[email protected]>,
GDPR <[email protected]>,
John Francas <[email protected]>,
Landau Law <[email protected]>,
Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:Aug 27, 2020, 7:16 AM

###

Why Norway’s Equinor Loses Money Overseas

NOT INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION! CORRUPTION IS A MONEY LOSER FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT THE CORRUPT.

If Norway does not enforce the provisions of the NORWEGIAN CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE on EQUINOR and TELENOR that are majority state owned, then Norway is poorly serving its public.

Norway allows a privileged corporate and political elite to cooperate and operate outside the bounds of Norwegian law and export corruption to other countries. Norway does not investigate whistleblower claims and facilitates the harsh and abusive retaliation of whistleblowers, contrary to the laws of Norway and other countries.

PGS ASA and Equinor Board of Directors are so corrupt that they can no longer function to protect their reputation and value. PGS ASA contracts are fraudulent and supported by forged and defamatory documents in order to illegally terminate and black list a USA foreign worker whistleblower. PGS ASA conspired with and bribed lawyers from Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Zeffertt & Weir to utter the forged documents. PGS ASA and the bribed lawyers withheld an Occupational Health Nurse report from their victim placing his family’s health and safety in danger. PGS ASA joined the UN Global Compact immediately following breaching most every principle of the UN Global Compact through mobbing, discriminating, defrauding, and defaming a USA citizen and his dependent family members that they were contractually obligated to exercise a Duty of Care. PGS ASA refuses to litigate in England where they have broken a multitude of laws and engaged in human rights abuses. PGS ASA defrauded UK and Norway data protection agencies and UK immigration Border Agency all to AVOID RESPONSIBILITY! SDK can PROVE ALL OF THIS IN EITHER THE UK or NORWAY. But, Norway is perverting the course of justice and allowing a foreign worker crime victim to not find justice. Jon Erik Reinhardsen knows everything printed is true. But, Norway protects this criminal and robs Norwegians and the global community.

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

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

(20-Sep-2015)

PGS ASA has acknowledged that the Company brand and value has diminished since 2013. In September 2018, PGS ASA and former Secretary of PGS ASA UK subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, engaged Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to file CRIMINAL DEFAMATION charges and civil charges against former employee and whistleblower, USA citizen SDK who was residing in Thailand.

At the time, PGS ASA and SDK were bound by TWO (2) Contracts GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. The contracts governed by the laws of England contained Confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibits former employee’s from publishing content that disparages the Company.

SDK first published legally protected public disclosure (whistleblowing) regarding PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management corruption and fraud 3 July 2015. Initial publications were published on the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform. NO LEGAL ACTION FOR CONTRACT BREACH WAS EVER TAKEN AGAINST SDK. PGS ASA management was not responsive to my claims and never even attempted to contact me. SDK actually made efforts to contact PGS ASA Compliance. (Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance at the time.)

The contracts governed by the laws of England referenced the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), as well as the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). PGS ASA NEVER ABIDED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. PGS ASA never investigated the whistleblowing charges. Instead, SDK was further defamed and defrauded by PGS ASA. SDK was restricted on LinkedIN™. PGS ASA never had to address allegations of criminal and corrupt Board of Directors and Executive behavior in a court of law.

In August 2016, SDK started NOPGS.COM and published his legal protected public disclosure on this site, free from the censorship of ignorant social media gate-keepers. SDK regarded this litigation as illegal extortion / blackmail. However, SDK capitulated to take NOPGS.COM offline from November – December 2018. NOPGS.COM was stolen and content destroyed in December 2018 through the PGS ASA sponsored litigation by Duensing – Kippen in Thailand.

NOPGS.ORG

PGS ASA Board of Directors and Compliance has now referenced SDKs breach of two agreements that he was forced to sign under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand. PGS ASA has never clarified the status of the two contracts governed by the laws of England. However, SDK believes that PGS ASA does not have the legal authority to take away his legal rights governed by the laws of England, including the right to legally publish protected disclosure. PGS ASA cannot give power of attorney to a Thai law firm to take away his legal rights. Further, gagging clauses or clauses that restrict publication of protected disclosure are not enforceable under the laws of England.

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO & President was acting General Counsel and Legal Compliance when it was decided to retaliate against a foreign worker, USA citizen, whistleblower and his family. Pedersen is a trained lawyer and knowingly oversaw serious violent crimes to illegally expel whistleblower SDK. These crimes have included defrauding government agencies in Norway, England, and the USA. More recently, PGS ASA has engaged in bribery, extortion, blackmail, and harassment to AVOID THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF ENGLAND and NORWAY!

The PGS ASA Board of Directors has allowed the value and reputation of the company and many of its employees to be diminished so they will not have to answer serious questions and be held accountable for their many alleged criminal and non-compliant acts of retaliation against a foreign worker USA citizen whistleblower and his Thai family.

The PGS ASA Board of Directors have been able to avoid the defending fraudulent contracts governed by the laws of England and have instead engaged in illegal litigation and blackmail within the Kingdom of Thailand. PGS ASA has NO business subsidiary in the Kingdom of Thailand. The legal actions are a breach of their legal jurisdiction and the terms and conditions of ongoing contracts.

When PGS ASA contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions in place to protect reputation and value become impotent due to Board of Directors corruption, shareholders, the oil and gas industry and its professionals are irreparably damaged and the lives of innocent whistleblowers and their children destroyed. Norway’s system allows violent corporate criminals to be promoted and enriched and not punished. This injustice is repugnant.

###

Accused Criminal Rune Olav Pedersen PGS ASA CEO and President Reduces Company Value

PGS ASA Stakeholders should NOT ALLOW the current incompetent and corrupt PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management Team to sell the multi-client library to TGS.

PGS ASA has acknowledged that the Company brand and value has diminished since 2013. In September 2018, PGS ASA and former Secretary of PGS ASA UK subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, engaged Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to file CRIMINAL DEFAMATION charges and civil charges against former employee and whistleblower, USA citizen SDK who was residing in Thailand.

At the time, PGS ASA and SDK were bound by TWO (2) Contracts GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. The contracts governed by the laws of England contained Confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibits former employee’s from publishing content that disparages the Company.

SDK first published legally protected public disclosure (whistleblowing) regarding PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management corruption and fraud 3 July 2015. Initial publications were published on the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform. NO LEGAL ACTION FOR CONTRACT BREACH WAS EVER TAKEN AGAINST SDK. PGS ASA management was not responsive to my claims and never even attempted to contact me. SDK actually made efforts to contact PGS ASA Compliance. (Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance at the time.)

The contracts governed by the laws of England referenced the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), as well as the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). PGS ASA NEVER ABIDED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. PGS ASA never investigated the whistleblowing charges. Instead, SDK was further defamed and defrauded by PGS ASA. SDK was restricted on LinkedIN™. PGS ASA never had to address allegations of criminal and corrupt Board of Directors and Executive behavior in a court of law.

In August 2016, SDK started NOPGS.COM and published his legal protected public disclosure on this site, free from the censorship of ignorant social media gate-keepers. SDK regarded this litigation as illegal extortion / blackmail. However, SDK capitulated to take NOPGS.COM offline from November – December 2018. NOPGS.COM was stolen and content destroyed in December 2018 through the PGS ASA sponsored litigation by Duensing – Kippen in Thailand.

NOPGS.ORG

PGS ASA Board of Directors and Compliance has now referenced SDKs breach of two agreements that he was forced to sign under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand. PGS ASA has never clarified the status of the two contracts governed by the laws of England. However, SDK believes that PGS ASA does not have the legal authority to take away his legal rights governed by the laws of England, including the right to legally publish protected disclosure. PGS ASA cannot give power of attorney to a Thai law firm to take away his legal rights. Further, gagging clauses or clauses that restrict publication of protected disclosure are not enforceable under the laws of England.

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO & President was acting General Counsel and Legal Compliance when it was decided to retaliate against a foreign worker, USA citizen, whistleblower and his family. Pedersen is a trained lawyer and knowingly oversaw serious violent crimes to illegally expel whistleblower SDK. These crimes have included defrauding government agencies in Norway, England, and the USA. More recently, PGS ASA has engaged in bribery, extortion, blackmail, and harassment to AVOID THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF ENGLAND and NORWAY!

The PGS ASA Board of Directors has allowed the value and reputation of the company and many of its employees to be diminished so they will not have to answer serious questions and be held accountable for their many alleged criminal and non-compliant acts of retaliation against a foreign worker USA citizen whistleblower and his Thai family.

The PGS ASA Board of Directors have been able to avoid the defending fraudulent contracts governed by the laws of England and have instead engaged in illegal litigation and blackmail within the Kingdom of Thailand. PGS ASA has NO business subsidiary in the Kingdom of Thailand. The legal actions are a breach of their legal jurisdiction and the terms and conditions of ongoing contracts.

When PGS ASA contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions in place to protect reputation and value become impotent due to Board of Directors corruption, shareholders, the oil and gas industry and its professionals are irreparably damaged and the lives of innocent whistleblowers and their children destroyed. Norway’s system allows violent corporate criminals to be promoted and enriched and not punished. This injustice is repugnant.

###

Neeta Aulak: Watson Farley & Williams LLP Director of Corruption and Non-Compliance

NOPGS.ORG

UK Police / ActionFraud: Investigate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams, London’s Landau Law and Thailand’s Duensing – Kippen Corruption sponsored by Norway’s PGS ASA and Equinor. This GLOBAL CONSPIRACY of CORRUPTION and BRIBED LAWYERS undermines the entire system of LEGAL DUE PROCESS and JUSTICE! Only Government Law Enforcement can hold Corrupt Organizations Accountable. Corporate Criminal fraudsters are empowered to destroy the lives of the innocent and whistleblowers, defraud government departments and global citizens only when there is NO ACTION and thorough INVESTIGATION by Government law enforcement!

Being Bribed and Conspiring to Misuse Legal Credentials to Protect Criminals and Harm their Victims is Despicable and Should be Investigated and Punished.

Corrupt lawyers who manipulate legal due process to protect criminals should be investigated and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law. Neeta Aulak is allowed to violate most every law and principle of human decency because of her title. No one investigates her lies to the UK government and the global legal community. This lying criminal whore, Neeta Aulak, is allowed to not invoke the Confidentiality clauses in Watson Farley & Williams formed contracts designed to protect Company value because a courtroom would reveal her evil criminal acts and send her and Watson Farley & Williams clients to prison where they belong!

Watson Farley & Williams contracts for PGS ASA UK subsidiary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited are worthless in the court of law because they are fraudulent pieces of shit supported by forged documents created and uttered to protect their criminal PGS ASA clients.

PGS ASA and Watson Farley & Williams, and of course Philip Landau Law London are too frightened to defend themselves with the illegal contracts they generate to harm whistleblowers. They export corruption and bribe Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen to harass and terrorize innocent Thai old people and children. None have the courage to confront their crime victim in a fair fight. Duensing – Kippen acts, sponsored by PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law are a disgrace to the legal profession and Thailand.

Illegal Claims filed against a USA Foreign-worker victim of crimes and whistleblower in Thailand were possible through dysfunctional and corrupt corporate governance and an apathetic UK ActionFraud / Police. NOPGS.COM published allegations and evidence of crimes and non-compliance. Watson Farley & Williams, PGS ASA / PGS Exploration UK Limited, Landau Law and Thailand based Duensing – Kippen refuse to enforce the Confidentiality clauses and contract terms and conditions governed by the laws of England and are ALLOWED to EXPORT CORRUPTION to harass, defame, and defraud SDK and the global market.

###

PGS ASA Q2 Results

Why Investors Should Demand Answers about PGS ASA Violent Retaliation Against a USA Citizen Whistleblower Using Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen

PGS ASA Q2 Results

Narcissistic, Passive-aggressive Organizations and Bureaucracies

Norway has a Corruption Problem Named Jon Erik Reinhardsen

Pretending Equinor has a functional corporate governance is corruption

Articles about Norway’s Equinor (StatOil) Corrupt Chairman of the Board, Jon Erik Reinhardsen

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)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
When Human Resources is Corrupt (10-August-2015)

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.

Qualified Privilege as a Defense in a Defamation Case

Articles which were provided to PGS Compliance directly for consideration were ignored:

 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.
Dealing with workplace stress – your legal rights
Typical causes of work-related stress are an overload of work, bullying, lack of support and a bad working environment.
Stress at work – Landau Law

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.

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.

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 or 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.

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).

The psychology of evil | Philip Zimbardo

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

Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018)
Settlement Agreements
Google: Jon Erik Reinhardse corruption
PINTEREST PGS ASA John Francas

###

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