A System Approach
Domain Hijacking is a form of theft where the attacker takes access of a domain name without the consent of the original registrant. Hijacking can happen due to security flaws on your end or the end of your domain/hosting company.
What is Domain Hijacking and how to recover a stolen domain name
…
These days businesses are coming online, and their web properties are a major asset to companies. Hacking into someone’s website is almost equivalent to depriving them of their profits and earnings. So that is why hackers prefer to hijack domains and deprive a company of its internet identity.
“Ethics are never optional,” says John Levy. Unethical board behavior invariably leads to bad decisions and disastrous results. At a minimum, it risks reducing shareholder value. And too often it destroys trust.
Why Ethics Are Not Optional
However, as with everything, there appears to be a gray area. No pun intended of course, but this experience made me wonder how much bad news is too much? If someone comes to you for reputation management, it’s highly likely that they’re responsible for committing the sins highlighted in the SERPs [Search Engine Results Page]. If they were innocent, they’d not be at an SEO firm, but in court, filing for libel.
Jane Copland, The Ethics of Reputation Management (or, “Getting Stuff Deleted from Google”)
I now believe that the two Criminal Defamation Claims filed in Thailand by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards were most likely fraudulent. PGS ASA executives Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, Chief Accountant serve as directors of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Carl Richards is a former secretary of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. The question that must be answered is how competent directors could allow the situation to cause such damage? Nopgs.com was born in August 2016 following several blog publications on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. In August 2016, I was restricted from publishing on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. I sought a platform independent of misinformed gate-keepers who did not possess a knowledge of true events that I believed were being related in my blog post publications. Between April – August 2016, I had e-mailed articles, links, and content to the PGS Compliance team, which was comprised of (then) PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen, as well as PGS SVP Global Human Resources, Terje Bjolseth. I never received any response to my many queries made through my blog post articles which I regarded as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. The subsequent compromise agreements proffered to stop forwarding the Thai criminal claims initiated in September 2018 – three years following the initial LinkedIn publications — by PGS ASA and Carl Richards demanded that all content residing on nopgs.com be removed because it was deemed defamatory. This included content published between July 2015 – August 2016 that had been sent to the PGS Compliance Team for comment and action.
Because of these facts, I now believe that the taking down of nopgs.com was domain theft. PGS ASA and Carl Richards falsely accused me of crimes in Thailand, but never of contractual breaches in England. Each Thai criminal claim held a possible 2-5 year prison term in Thailand. Using such threats of violence to squelch the voice of a victim of crimes and a publicly declared whistleblower is blackmail. I had committed no crimes, and PGS ASA and Carl Richards knew it. PGS ASA and Carl Richards intentionally and maliciously bypassed contractual provisions governed by the laws of England to remove protected public disclosure – whistleblowing – content by misusing the Thailand criminal justice system. Neither PGS ASA nor Carl Richards ever provided an alternative explanation to counter claims made within the blog post articles of corrupt and criminal acts perpetrated by agents of PGS ASA. I am a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and employed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. I believe that I was illegally terminated from employment through the use of a fraudulent settlement contract. My publications have provided substantive evidence supporting these allegations.
PGS ASA has uttered forged documents to support the fraudulent settlement contract which was proffered to avoid criminal and civil liability for contractual breaches, health and safety violations, harassment, and discrimination which were articulated within a 20 September 2013 filed grievance to PGS ASA executives. The settlement contract agreement signed on 5 December 2013 which terminated my employment contained Confidentiality (non-disparagement) clauses precisely to protect the reputation and business interests of PGS ASA (formerly Petroleum Geo-Services ASA). Yet, PGS ASA does not invoke these clauses to stop my publications in a timely manner? My first publication which identified and named PGS and its executives was published on the LinkedIn(TM) Pulse platform 3 July 2015. An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015] first publicly disclosed that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was processing inaccurate personal data in violation of the UK Data Protection Act 1998. Nopgs.com would have never been online had PGS ASA executives responsibly enforced the terms and conditions of the original employment contract as well as the settlement contract agreement.
Nondisparagement agreements have been enforced in court settings at both the state and federal levels. This agreement often gets violated because its wording is vague. Further, many people don’t understand what constitutes as disparagement.
This is usually an essential section of an agreement for many businesses, due to the importance of a company’s reputation. Things like negative publicity can drive potential customers away and lead to a drop in profit. Therefore, many businesses will readily seek to enforce breaches of these clauses.
Non Disparagement Clause Sample: Everything You Need to Know
Nopgs.com was taken down following an alleged breach in the terms and conditions of a compromise agreement which was proffered in lieu of proceeding to trial in Thai Criminal Court. In November 2018, I alerted / blew the whistle to a PGS ASA customer who was negotiating a significant transaction with PGS ASA that I was being threatened with litigation in Thailand for blowing the whistle. I believed then, as I do now, that I was a victim of extortion / blackmail. Nopgs.com content was volutarily taken down to avoid criminal trial as PGS ASA and Carl Richards considered accepting the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement proffered in Thailand. All lawyers involved with this compromise agreement had been made aware of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) and Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA) which are in place to protect whistleblowers. I volunteered to remove content and had taken nopgs.com offline during this period of consideration. (I was actually ordained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand for nine (9) days when nopgs.com was taken down. The criminal proceedings especially traumatized my Buddhist wife and in-laws.) However, I never agreed to nopgs.com being taken down completely. This was done without my consent and I believe was theft. For one thing, I had broadcast the domain for sale – meaning nopgs.com belonged to me and that it had monetary value. Further, the taking down of nopgs.com is not part of the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement.
The compromise agreement signed in Thailand did not provide PIDA protection, and therefore clauses restricting published content are voidable under PIDA 43J. PGS ASA and Carl Richards intentionally misused the Thai legal system to avoid the UK and Norwegian legal systems where my complaints and allegations were well grounded in documentation, as well as contract and criminal law. This is why PGS ASA and Carl Richards, as well as other co-conspirators involved in forming the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement which terminated my employment, do not invoke the terms and conditions for confidentiality and non-disparagement. Valid contracts construed under the laws of England provide whistleblower protection. Invoking the terms and conditions of the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement for breaches would also require PGS ASA and Carl Richards to address the salient issues leading to its proffering and also the supporting documentation. I have long contended that the supporting documentation being processed within my PGS Exploration (UK) Limited personnel file is comprised of inaccurate and defamatory forged documents which render the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement to be an illegal contract. I believe that the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement was proffered to conceal criminal and civil wrong-doing. I also believe that my representative counsel/solicitor Philip Landau was bribed to process the forged documents and illegal contract. My online publications on nopgs.com substantiated my claims of criminal wrong-doing by PGS ASA and Carl Richards with documentation. Regardless, in the final analysis, any damages to PGS ASA and Carl Richards’ reputations could have and should have been addressed in the English legal system referencing the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement and not in the Thai legal system – thus BLACKMAIL.
I first published online content critical of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) management 3 July 2015. This could have been a breach in the non-disparagement clauses within the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement. However, the reason for publishing my concerns was because I had already brought-up many substantive concerns regarding the integrity of the personal data that PGS ASA was processing about me. I wrote a series of e-mails to PGS ASA human resources (HR) personal data processors challenging the fidelity and legality of that data from 16 October 2014 through 22 December 2014. I also wrote several e-mails to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about my concerns. I provided ICO with much of the same e-mail evidence that countered the narrative preserved within my personnel file contents as unsigned and unauthenticated documents. In fact, PGS ASA initially threatened legal action against me within a 22 December 2014 letter demanding that I stop probing. Within the 22 December 2014 letter, PGS ASA offered to “solve” my complaints through including one of the more substantial e-mail’s written on 5 December 2014. The 5 December 2014 e-mail pointed out the many factual annd defamatory discrpencies in the personal data being processed by PGS ASA. The 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement was/is an illegal instrument which was intended to block legitimate civil and criminal proceedings against PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. All the lawyers and human resources personnel involved with the negotiating and processing of the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement know that it is not a legal instrument. I have believed for some time that I was a victim of crimes perpetrated by PGS ASA. I submitted my first criminal complaint to UK ActionFraud (police) on 24 August 2014. The dysfunctional criminal justice system of the UK cannot discern that narcissistic / psychopathic criminals are adept liars or contemplate that a fake settlement contract was employed to escape criminal and civil liability. The police refuse to ask the most basic questions. No wonder so much (90%) of cimes in the UK go uninvestigated and punished! UK citizen’s should be more outraged than I am!
PGS ASA General Counsel and Legal Compliance at the time of the settlement contract agreement signing was none other than current (alleged criminal) PGS ASA CEO and President, Rune Olav Pedersen! Lawyer Carl Richards was appointed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary 13 September 2013 to prepare for the conspiracy to defraud a foreign worker whistleblower. I believe that operatives in the legal firm Watson, Farley, and Williams, notably Rhodri Thomas, were bribed to process an illegal settlement contract under false pretenses supported by defamatory forged documents along with my hired solicitor, Philip Landau and his associate Holly Rushton. PGS ASA HR personnel must understand that unsigned and unverified documents would not withstand true legal scrutiny in a legitimate court of law. The perpetrators need only to remain silent and take no action to get away with their fraud. The criminal claims put forward in Thailand, which I believe were illegitimate, were a high risk move intended to scare their victim into silence. It didn’t work. I have now breached every contract PGS ASA has formed because I am fully confident that PGS ASA is illegally processing – uttering forged documents created to defame, blacklist, and defraud a victim of their crimes. If the 5 December 2013 signed settlement agreement were a valid legal instrument, then why has PGS Exploration (UK) Limited not invoked its non-disparagement protections? Similarly, if the two compromise agreements signed in Thailand are valid legal instruments, then why can’t PGS lawyers elaborate on how their litigation in Thailand is legal and compliant and also demonstrate that legal processes and documents were processed for my termination of employment? PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refuse to answer or address the concerns brought-up in the 5 December 2014 e-mail challenging the integrity of the data being processed in my name. In other words, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is running from the truth. This is the opposite of defamation.
I worked in England for 36 months on a Tier 2 visa, eligible through the Shortage Occupation List where companies must specifically require and request foreign expertise where there is no resident eligible candidates. I left England at the end of 2013 shortly after having our family visa’s renewed. Therefore, DPA applies to my personal data processed in the UK. The sixth principle of the DPA gives rights to the individual in respect of personal data the organization holds about them. Toward the end of 2014, I learned more about DPA and submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer to find out what data was being held about me.
An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015]
Most data controllers are inclined to process subject data reasonably. It would not be fair to suggest that how my personal data was processed is common or reflective of normal business practices. For this reason, I believe it is imperative that the data controller and processors involved with my personal data be specifically identified. My employer was PGS Exploration UK Limited, which is an affiliate of the Norwegian company, Petroleum Geo-Services. For the record, Norway adheres to their version of the EU Directive which is similar to the DPA, the Personal Data Act. In my daily work in England, I interacted and communicated with the main office in Norway frequently. I was employed as a Contract Sales Supervisor for the Marine Contract division, Africa region. My boss in England was Edward Von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales Africa. His boss is Simon Cather, Regional President for Africa. The main processor for my SAR was David Nicholson, Human Resource Manager. I also communicated with individuals based in Norway: Per Arild Reksnes, Executive Vice President of Marine Contract, Terje Bjølseth, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, and John Greenway, Senior Vice President, Marine Contract with respect to my processed data.
AN AMERICAN, THE UK DATA PROTECTION ACT, PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES (PGS) AND THE TYRANNY OF “ACCURATE DATA” [3 JULY 2015]
I am not a multinational company, but I have been around the block and around the world. I understand the challenges faced in this climate. I cannot accept my narrative being defined through the tyranny of self-impressed psychopaths. I want control of my narrative. I know what I have done for the past fourteen years and before. For most data subjects the issue is data accuracy, not damages that meet some subjective legal definition. Falsification is damaging, plain and simple. It is clear to me that values and performance are interpreted much differently. This is why any relationship ends and mature people move on. However, this is difficult to do when those on the other side of the relationship team-up and work in the shadows like vampires scared of the light of day. Instead, they chose to maintain secret files avoiding confrontation that would require them to defend their objectives and actions. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were endowed with the courage to challenge tyranny because while they feared the abuse of power, they feared the submission to it even more. I call on their spirit. I am American, and this is MY Independence Day.
AN AMERICAN, THE UK DATA PROTECTION ACT, PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES (PGS) AND THE TYRANNY OF “ACCURATE DATA” [3 JULY 2015]
From April – August 2016, I attempted to contact PGS Compliance Hotline members many times and even forwarded links and posts directly to PGS Compliance Hotline members, including Rune Olav Pedersen. I never received any response regarding my publications from the PGS Compliance Hotline members. However, the litigation in Thailand forwarded by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and former secretary, Carl Richards, sought to remove ALL content, even content which had been published for over a year and only mentioned their names, regardless of context. PGS ASA has no interest in the truth. The truth is that I am a victim of now multiple crimes perpetrated through a dysfunctional criminal justice system that overlooks white collar crimes and contributes to the destruction of honest law abiding citizens, as many whistleblowers often are. It is a travesty and injustice! Demand that white collar criminals are investigated and adjudicated. Criminals need to be punished, not their accusers!
ATTN: Walter Qvam, Chairman
CC Directors: Daniel J. Piette, Holly Van Deursen, Carol Bell, Anne Grethe Dalanem, Morten Borge, Richard HerbertChairman Qvam, et al.:
The PGS board of directors and several senior managers are corrupt and have behaved immorally and criminally to the detriment of the enterprise and its stakeholders.
PGS board of directors and several senior managers, including compliance officers, need to be investigated thoroughly by a third-party for corruption and fraud.
I am writing this letter in order to reiterate directly and publicly my concerns regarding the direction and management of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS).
The PGS Board of Directors, PGS Executive Management, and several other senior managers have abrogated their legal agency responsibilities to the detriment of PGS stakeholders, competitors, the marine seismic service sector, as well as the greater oil and gas (O&G) industry.Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)
As a general rule, given the choice, most would prefer not to do business with evil and dishonest moral degenerates. Thus, the long-term business success and future of PGS is in jeopardy with the current board and executive composition of the enterprise.
Jon Erik Reinhardsen is currently the CEO and President of Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). Reinhardsen recently (29 May 2017) announced that he will retire from PGS at the end of August 2017. Reinhardsen is not the only person who needs to retire from PGS. Reinhardsen never understood the cyclic seismic industry so much as financial instruments and legal loopholes. PGS desperately needs a solid and ethical leader and executive team who understand thoroughly the cyclic nature and technology demands of the marine seismic industry. The new CEO should also understand the importance of adhering to core values to serve all stakeholders. Ethics and values are the only stable thing in business, to which Reinhardsen pays only lip-service. It is a sad testament to the O & G industry that Reinhardsen has been picked to chair Norwegian oil company Statoil. This may be the worst decision that the Statoil board has ever made.
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017)
The image which heads this blog article is the screen capture from a Google™ Image search of PGS #Pedersen. By any standard, leadership entrusted with advancing the company, as well as its directors and management’s, reputation would not allow being associated with such imagery and accusations. Therefore, any settlement contract that is intended to end an employment relationship on fair, equitable and reasonable terms, yet allows the employer and its agents open to such public ridicule and criticism would not seem to accomplish its intended objectives. In fact, the outcome of this settlement has apparently left Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and its UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK), agents impotent in constructively resolving such an online tirade. The PGS/PGSUK legal compliance lawyer, Rune Olav Pedersen (PGS #Pedersen) is responsible for this contract and all of the online postings which it has inspired.
Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017)
Having come across an article written by London employment law solicitor, Philip Landau (currently of Landau Law), in October 2013, I contacted and later engaged Landau to help me. I am a U.S. citizen who was working for PGS Exploration UK Limited [PGSUK] in Weybridge, England at the time on a Company sponsored Tier 2 Shortage Occupation List) visa. I was working in a toxic workplace and had filed a grievance citing harassment and bullying, in part, through the misuse of the PGSUK performance management system. Inclusive to the grievance was my claim that an unsubstantiated false narrative regarding my professional performance which was being forwarded by PGS managers to impugn my professional reputation. I believe that this was defamation and this was cited as well within my grievance. The only formal employment action between me and PGSUK was the grievance. There were only threats of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) being investigated, which I qualified as harassment and bullying. The negotiations lasted nearly six-weeks from Oct-2013 to Dec-2013. I left England at the end of 2013 having signed a settlement contract facilitated by Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton (Landau officially signed-off on the settlement). Placing so much trust and confidence in Landau was a disastrous watershed event in my life.
What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement ContractS (30 April 2017)
People with means with integrity and reputations to preserve simply would not allow such published allegations to be left unanswered. Of course, people guilty of wrong-doing also will not engage and place themselves in legal peril. According to the IT law Wiki site, confidence fraud is the reliance on another’s discretion and/or a breach in a relationship of trust resulting in financial loss. It includes a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.
WHAT #PHILIPLANDAU, #LONDON #EMPLOYMENTLAW SOLICITOR TAUGHT ME ABOUT SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS (30 APRIL 2017)
Corrupt and criminal PGS/PGSUK agents have lied throughout all of this. They have lied to me, to UK Border, to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and to stakeholders. They have been able to lie because of Landau’s binding settlement. Corrupt PGS/PGSUK agents have such little respect for stakeholder clients, employees, and shareholders that without shame they highlight grifters like Cather as spokespeople for anti-corruption. Laughing like this only hurts. What Landau taught me about employment settlement contracts is that you cannot trust anyone.
WHAT #PHILIPLANDAU, #LONDON #EMPLOYMENTLAW SOLICITOR TAUGHT ME ABOUT SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS (30 APRIL 2017)
The Norwegian corporate governance Code of Practice is not enforced nor practiced in actual terms. Norway’s corruption is the byproduct of a narcissistic country that relies on a reputation of having little corruption compared to other countries. But, in truth, Norway is very corrupt, especially given its size and population distribution. Norway has an entitled executive class who direct and manage companies with little more oversight than a mythology of how things should be done. There is no other explanation for human garbage and accused criminals such as John Erik Reinhardsen, former CEO and President of PGS ASA, becoming Equinor’s Chairman of the Board.
I have the evidence to prove this, but I am being denied the opportunity to present it through both negligence and the abuse of power by those entrusted with such responsibility and authority. Corrupt and criminal power structures reward the un-professionals who do not protest and who look the other way from injustice. Even those who previously penned internal articles or hang posters in their work space extolling the importance of values and ethics in business submit to the greed of ascending in a corrupt and criminal hierarchy. It’s a disgusting hypocrisy and fall from grace to observe. This is the type of low-integrity professionals that corrupt narcissistic organizations produce, and that soiled industries and professions embrace. These un-professionals pollute and ruin the industry and the level commercial playing field. These un-professionals would rather watch the innocent die than compromise their selfish upward mobility.
Those with integrity are blacklisted out of the profession while the most evil, such as Reinhardsen, are protected and promoted. This needs to change. Reinhardsen never did his job as Petroleum Geo-Services ASA CEO and President, and he is not doing his job as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Equinor. Reinhardsen has never commented nor protested the many critical articles written about him and PGS employees even though employment contracts have non-disparagement clauses. Why not? I contend that he was a principal in a conspiracy to defraud and illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower.
CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF NORWAY’S CORPORATE CORRUPTION, STARTING WITH EQUINOR & PGS ASA.
Marine SEISMIC SURVEY, SDK
I am not a multinational company, but I have been around the block and around the world. I understand the challenges faced in this climate. I cannot accept my narrative being defined through the tyranny of self-impressed psychopaths. I want control of my narrative.
An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015]
If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information? Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules whenever they cannot “win” on their terms?
When Human Resources is Corrupt (10 August 2015)
PGS ASA has recently reinvigorated their dubious legal actions in Thailand to silence and disempower the accuser of PGS ASA board of directors and executives of criminal acts through the misuse of the Thai legal system. PGS ASA is violating my human rights and rights under English law and contract through ignoring accusations of executive criminal acts and whistleblowing claims. I seek to act on and protect my human rights and rights under English law and contract to accuse perpetrators of crimes against me and my family and seek justice. I am further disenfranchised because I am a USA citizen who signed a contract bound by the laws of England. PGS ASA has never exercised on a civil breach of contract using the legal instruments at their disposal governed by the laws of England. The claims put forth in Thailand omit the very important reference of the current legal relationship that exists between the plaintiffs and defendant. I believe that the many omissions of exculpatory facts and evidence intentionally and maliciously misrepresent my publications as criminal when they are known by the plaintiffs to be legal and protected. The claims being advanced in Thailand are fraudulent and intended to intimidate a victim of crimes and whistleblower into submission and silence. The claims’ cited publications are protected under English law through provisions of contracts signed 27 September 2010 and 5 December 2013 between the plaintiffs and defendant. The non-disparagement clauses contained within these contracts provide legal avenues of action for transgressions much less serious than criminal defamation. Most importantly, the cited contracts both reference the UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which protects whistleblowing.
The legal actions forwarded by directors of PGSUK in the Thai legal system is an overstep of the English company legal jurisdiction. English law has all the avenues of redress to resolve the issues addressed within the Thai criminal claims fairly. If the cited contracts did not provide all pertinent legal protections required, then what was the utility of the fore-mentioned signed contracts including non-disparagement and jurisdiction clauses? This is more of an issue of legal contract management incompetence or criminal cover-up and not defamation. The only victims of crimes in Thailand (fraud, blackmail, extortion, destruction of evidence, etc.), related to the parties of these complaints, are me and my Thai family who have been distressed and traumatized, had their health endangered, and who have also had to find resources (been robbed) to defend themselves against what I believe to be illegally financed false claims. PGSUK directors hold no bona fide legal business interests or citizenship in Thailand. They personally never visited Thailand to even sign the resolution contracts 11 November 2018. All that was required of them was to pay a Thai lawyer to process their illegal (under English law) actions. PGS ASA/PGSUK vindictive and malicious intent is to persecute and harm their USA citizen accuser and his Thai family. I am married to a Thai national and we have three (3) Thai-USA children together. We all lived in Thailand together until recently. These actions by PGSUK have broken our family. The Thai legal system should protect the rights and safety of my Thai family above the rights of corrupt Norwegian executives and directors of an English company who contract out their illegal harassment to a Thai lawyer to avoid accountability for English crimes!
Under the rules of commercial law, an incorporated business must follow the laws and regulations where the company was formed. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY (PGSUK). According to the records held by UK Companies House, PGSUK is registered in England. The Companies Act 2006 forms the primary source of UK company law. A director of a UK company must (a) act in accordance with the company’s constitution, and (b) only exercise powers for the purposes for which they are conferred. The litigation initiated against me in Thai (criminal) legal system violates provision (b) explicitly. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses, such as the ones that was included within the cited contracts, limit disputes to the courts of specific and defined jurisdictions. An exclusive jurisdiction clause intends to provide certainty that parties know where they each can be sued. PGSUK directors and secretary must honor their fiduciary obligations of law and contract based on the laws of England first and foremost. The laws of England must always take precedence in every business decision made by PGSUK, especially contractual terms and conditions specifically citing legal jurisdictions attached to legal rights, such as the General Data Protection Requirement GDPR (formally UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)) and PIDA. Directors of PGSUK do not have legal authority to take away rights under English law and contract. The terms and conditions of the cited contracts remain enforceable under the laws of England, as does my right to blow the whistle.
The most disturbing document is the memo signed by Per Arild Reksnes, EVP PGS Marine Contract (now EVP Operations) and Terje Bjølseth, SVP HR. This memo is a forgery. There are several detectable problems. The Memo is addressed to my attention, but it was never received by me while I was employed with PGS.
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)
The evidence and reasons to support the allegations of breaches in the Code of Ethics have been written about in previous LinkedIn posts, but are grounded in conspiracy and the abuse of position used to discredit and distort my professional standing in retaliation for revealing a number of internal organization policy transgressions as well as violations in the base constructs of the Law of Contract as it pertains to employment. However, in this effort, individuals have also falsified and forged personnel file documents and deceived government compliance organizations as to their authenticity and content accuracy.
The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11 October 2015)
My publications began 3 July 2015 and multiple accusatory publications were provided to PGS ASA compliance for evaluation from April – September 2016. The UK Limitation Act 1980 limits the time for a claim of defamation of one year. The published content cited in the 2018 Thai criminal claim surpasses one-year from its publication date. PGS ASA made a business decision to ignore the published content for several years. No actions referencing published content were ever taken by PGS ASA/PGSUK with regard to disparagement or breach in the current legal agreements. Therefore, no criminal legal breach in Thailand can be warranted nor be even possible legally. How can the defendant not be in breach for disparagement under English law, but be guilty of criminal defamation under Thai law? The publications referenced in Thai criminal claims have pointed out that PGS ASA have not exercised the protective clauses within their contracts for the express reason of avoiding culpability for breaking numerous English laws. PGS is pursuing criminal defamation charges in Thailand which are totally ludicrous. Such defamation implies that I am knowingly publishing untrue and damaging statements about PGS. The Thai claim references excerpts from a criminal report submitted to UK police (Action Fraud) which I published online! Why didn’t PGS complain to the UK police? Why have the plaintiffs allowed such publications since 3 July 2015? My publications are evidence backed accusations of PGS ASA executive and board of director’s violations in English law and contract, although they may in fact be criminal violations in other countries/legal jurisdictions, as well, including Thailand, Norway, and the USA.
Over a year ago, in September 2018, the directors and former secretary of PGSUK delivered to me by e-mail two (2) summons’ to appear in Thai criminal court. The summons’ were delivered to my personal e-mail account, as well as my then registered home address in Thailand. This was done just as I had departed my address of record in Thailand. The e-mail address used had not ever been provided by me to the Thai law firm representing the plaintiffs. My passport and Thai address information also had never been provided to the Thai law firm by me. The summons’ were in the Thai language. As a US citizen, I resided in Thailand on visa. I had not received the actual complaint until I returned to Thailand after shortening my trip. However, the complaint was also in the Thai language. As far as I am aware, plaintiff Carl Richards, a lawyer licensed to practice law in England and former secretary of PGSUK is not legally fluent in the Thai language. I am guessing that current PGS General Counsel Lars Mysen or PGS UK Head of Legal John Francas are not legally fluent in the Thai language either. I do not believe the PGSUK directors and plaintiffs; former PGS General Counsel and current PGS CEO and President Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CFO and EVP Gottfred Langseth, and PGS Chief Accountant Christin Steen-Nilsen are not legally fluent in the Thai language. Nevertheless, these directors have placed the reputation interests of a company governed by the laws of England at the discretion of a junior Thai lawyer who is not licensed to practice law in either England or Norway and who has no first-hand knowledge or legal documentation to support the claims being advanced.
PGSUK and I shared an employee-employer relationship. PGSUK is a company governed by the laws of England. Those laws are written in the English language. We communicated in English for business. As a US citizen, I was a Tier 2 visa sponsored employee of PGSUK. Qualifying for the Tier 2 visa was not a trivial matter. Such employment had to be requested based on unique and/or special qualifications that were not readily available in the local labor market. One of the qualifications for the Tier 2 visa is proficiency in the English language. Would have I qualified for the Tier 2 visa based on the current contents of my PGSUK personnel file? My Thai wife and dependent children were also sponsored. My employment with PGSUK ended through a termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 which I now believe is fraudulent. The claims filed in Thai criminal court reinforce this belief, as does PGS’ silence and inaction in dealing with my online publications and accusations. What is certain, however, is how devastating and abusive PGS’ behavior has been toward me and my family. The illegal termination from employment and subsequent blacklisting impacted me. However, when PGSUK agreed to sponsor my employment as a foreign worker, they also agreed to comply with their duty of care contractual obligations to me as well as my spouse and dependent children. PGS’ fraud was mean spirited and intent on destroying the victim of their crimes professionally and financially. Such abuse obviously robs dependents of opportunities and places their health at risk. It is violent, cowardly and mean abuse of children. Because of this, I refuse to give-up on my pursuit of justice. I do not believe that cowards, liars, and cheaters who abuse children should lead companies and people, even if the government of Norway, Equinor, and PGS do.
However, in spite of having a legal team, human resources team, and contract team, PGS has been unwilling to present definitive proof of compliance and legal behavior, even though they state to the public and to me otherwise. PGS is mostly involved in a cover-up of corrupt and illicit behavior. PGS executives have been uncooperative and silent and demonstrated no interest in resolution, but instead have ran-away from accountability.
The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4 November 2016)
These prose chronicle multiple infractions of corporate governance, as well as provide evidence of serious wrong-doing that should sound alarms whether true or false. Either way, the publications should prompt action and engagement. The articles have been viewed by thousands within and outside the marine geophysical sector.
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Veneer of Governance (5 May 2016)
First and foremost, the claims put forth in Thailand not only ignore the statute of limitations for claims of defamation of one year in both England and Thailand, but also ignore claims that the content is protected whistleblowing. The principal charges reiterated within several of my publications is that PGS ASA board and officers uttered, and continue to utter, forged defamatory documents that support a fraudulent contract. This fraudulent contract was used to illegally terminate the employment of a whistleblower. PGS ASA has provided material misrepresentations to government agencies in the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, and now Thailand, regarding the integrity of the personal data and processes which I have contended to be false. PGS ASA has made false accusations to defraud the Thai criminal justice system. PGS ASA has omitted material facts, withheld, and destroyed exculpatory evidence to gain advantage and to terrorize their victim and his Thai family by using a foreign legal system. PGS ASA wants to avoid the English legal system where executives have been accused of criminal acts. Evidence of these criminal acts had been processed online at http://nopgs.com/ The legal actions carried out last year by PGS ASA sought to restrict publications and unpublish evidence which support my accusations of crimes perpetrated by PGS ASA. My mantra has always been simple: legal and compliant processes cannot produce illegal and non-compliant outcomes.
The Thai criminal complaint only translated superfluous content from my online publications written in the English language to the Thai language. Certain excerpts were then highlighted and labelled as “defamation”, void of context and supporting evidence. How did the Thai lawyer/law firm, or any lawyer, including PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas know whether the publications were defamatory? The only way for Francas and the contracted (paid) Thai lawyer/law firm to possibly know what is defamatory is if PGS had completed what I had always requested: a thorough investigation. From April 2016 – September 2016, I requested that the PGS Compliance Office (i.e., plaintiff Pedersen, et al.) to authenticate and verify the legality of the processes and documents used to process my termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013. The PGS Compliance Office actually published to a wide LinkedIn™ audience that they had investigated my claim. So, there should be a report ready to send off and provide to Francas and his Thai associate. (However, it would need to be translated into the Thai language first?) There is an important Memo dated 25 October 2013 and signed by Per Arild Reksnes, then PGS EVP Marine Contract and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources. This important Memo forms the basis of my whistleblowing and criminal accusations publications. This Memo is intentionally not even referenced within the Thai Criminal Complaint. This tells me that the Thai criminal claims forwarded by PGSUK directors and Carl Richards are omitting material exculpatory evidence in their CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. PGS ASA and the Thai lawyer knows this. Thus, such intentional misrepresentations and omission of material facts is tantamount to PGSUK falsely accusing me of criminal behavior.
The central thesis behind most every publication which resided on nopgs.com is that PGSUK processed, and continues to process, defamatory forged documents used to illegally terminate me from employment for whistleblowing. No one from PGS/PGSUK ever engaged me prior or during the delivery of the criminal complaint. All communications came from a Thai law firm. The Thai lawyer has no first-hand knowledge of the events chronicled within my publications. From my reading of the claim, particular the highlighted defamatory (nopgs.com) content is extracted from the following articles:
The Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128 was published over one-year prior to the claim delivered to me in September 2018. Why didn’t the PGS ASA directors respond to this letter? Had PGS ASA board of directors responded to this letter truthfully and responsibly, every publication following 18 June 2017 likely would not have ever been published. The delivered claim on behalf of PGSUK directors also cited the ActionFraud report? Why didn’t PGSUK contact the UK police and demand clarification and an investigation? The publications that comprised the criminal complaint are the product of PGS ASA neglect and inaction. The fact is that one of the principal plaintiffs, PGSUK director and PGS CEO and President Pedersen, had throughout 2016, as PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance, been provided with many publications that contained accusations of PGS board of directors and executive criminal acts. Since 2016, Pedersen has never responded to the published claims of executive criminal activity as defamatory. Neither has Pedersen ever investigated and delivered a report exonerating PGS agents of wrong-doing, even though PGS publicly stated otherwise. Pedersen is participating in defrauding the Thai criminal justice system through forwarding a knowingly false criminal complaint. Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and legal compliance at the time of the initial whistleblowing complaint submitted 20 September 2013. Pedersen did not comply with PGS policy and UK law in how PGS responded to my workplace grievance. Pedersen oversaw the creation of forged documents and confidence fraud used to process a false claim and basis for termination:
The authentication of held data records were requested again from CH [PGS Compliance Hotline], and of course could not be provided. Without investigating and providing the source of the contents in the personnel file, along with peripheral communications, the words from the CH investigation are meaningless and only become a continuation of the fraud which began three years ago.
The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)
There are so many variations between the (false) narrative espoused and held within PGS personal data records and the narrative presented within the detailed grievance document. Anyone who had considered both of these narratives fairly, responsibly and honestly, should have easily detected and noted, and subsequently reported on, the many differences. Certainly the individuals who chaired my grievance hearing, Reksnes and Bjølseth, should have attended to this. [Reksnes and Bjølseth are (alleged) fraudsters.]
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)
Nopgs.com first came online in August 2016. Several blog articles had been published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. During 2016, I tried to get the attention of PGS compliance through the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space. PGS never took any official legal action against my publications. However, anonymous complaints eventually got me restricted from LinkedIn™. Nopgs.com published much more content than what the Thai criminal claims included. For a long time, I have published allegations that the 5 December 2013 signed termination settlement agreement was a fraudulent agreement which was illegally proffered and supported by illegal forged documents. I was illegally terminated for blowing the whistle in 2013. The proffered termination settlement agreement did not comply with UK employment law. Yet, lawyers from three firms, including my hired counsel, cooperated in processing the false claim and uttering forged instruments – criminal behavior. I discovered that something very wrong had happened to me when I received the contents being processed within my PGSUK professional personnel file. The claim filed in Thai criminal court is both malicious and fraudulent through its omission of legally substantive material information.
PGSUK directors comprised a complaint that omitted our current legal relationship which is defined by an original contract of employment (OEC) signed between me and PGSUK in 27 September 2010 and a subsequent termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (SCA). My publications, including the 20 September 2013 submitted workplace grievance which is referenced in the SCA, cite material breaches of the OEC by PGSUK and since have alleged that the SCA is fraudulent and was intended to cover-up the OEC breaches and defame me for blowing the whistle on non-compliant, unethical, and illegal acts perpetrated by PGS/PGSUK (agents). To facilitate the use of the fraudulent SCA, PGSUK uttered defamatory forged documents to provide the appearance of a legal basis for the SCA. I am both a victim of crimes and a whistleblower for publicly disclosing such illegal actions perpetrated against me. Very important is the fact that PGSUK and I were already constrained by terms and conditions of contracts governed by the laws of England. Both the OEC and SCA that possessed all of the actionable avenues of legal redress that the Thai criminal claim pursues. The OEC and SCA include actionable Confidentiality clauses that protect parties of the contract from disparaging each other. Disparagement is a much lower threshold than defamation, as the truth of the public disclosure is not a defense. However, both the OEC and SCA by legal requirement under the laws of England include reference to the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) that protects whistleblowing. PGSUK sponsored spurious litigation in Thailand against a whistleblower is an illegal and malicious attempt to bypass numerous accountabilities under English law. I published evidence that PGS was processing forged documents within, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015). I also published, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). I sent these articles specifically to the PGS compliance for consideration. The Thai claim did not reference these articles.
At this point, I believe laws of Thailand have also been broken. All publications regarding these actions by PGS/PGSUK I regard aids protected public disclosure allowed through signed legal agreements governed by English law. So, what is the Thai lawyer’s legal role and how are the legal interests of PGS/PGSUK being advanced by this litigation which I regard as illegal blackmail under the provision both Thai and English law? Corrupt PGS board and executives are doing anything possible to silence their accuser of crimes through ignoring bona fide, data supported criminal accusations and whistleblowing claims under the laws of Norway and England. PGS board and executives are abusing their power and delivering false accusations supported by fraudulent documentation into the Thai criminal justice system. John Francas and his Thai lawyer associate did not do what their legal agency requires and determine the validity of my accusations rather than silence them. All that the board and executives of PGS must do is to authenticate the processes and supporting documentation used to terminate my employment by settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 signed by PGSUK and myself. This has always been and remains the objective of my publications. These accusations are not defamation. PGS’ criminal complaint holds no real evidence that demonstrates my claims are false either. PGS’ misuse of the Thai criminal justice system is appalling. These claims are intended to suppress the truth which is the opposite of defamation. PGS has used the Thai criminal system to take away my rights under English law to make public interest disclosures. The Thai criminal justice system has also been used to illegally destroy and unpublish evidence of PGS board of directors and executive criminality. My children are Thai citizens and I cannot allow PGS corruption to destroy the Thai system of justice. The Thai police need to investigate PGS ASA and their representative counsel for criminal acts of false criminal claims, fraud, blackmail, extortion, and destruction of evidence. I AM THE VICTIM.
Reputation management of the corporate brand and the executive team is paramount. However, in the absence of real professional integrity, silence is the best way to maintain the appearance of being reputable. Dismissing criticism simply allows employed professionals to get-on with running the company. No time for distractions. But, if there is no time for dealing with criticism, then why does the PGS CEO letter suggest that there is both time and willingness?
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)
I have alleged PGS executives to have obstructed legally guaranteed processes, forged official records, conspired to defraud, provided material misrepresentations, breached internal policies and several UK employment and contract laws. Most of all, PGS executives have abused their positions and violated their agency responsibilities of trust and confidence and duty of care to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. Forgery and the uttering of forged instruments is criminal behavior.
The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4-Sep-2016)
ATTN:
UK Serious Fraud Office
Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)
Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) former Secretary
CC:
Caseworker(s) Information Commissioner’s Office
Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager
Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer
John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal
Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel
UK Companies House
UK ActionFraud
Society of Exploration Geophysicists – Whistleblower
RE: Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Abuse of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Misrepresentation
My name is Steven D. Kalavity. I am a citizen of the United States of America (USA). I currently live in Chiangrai, Thailand on visa with my Thai wife and three Thai – American children. From 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013, PGS Exploration UK Limited sponsored me and my family dependents on a Tier 2 visa.
On 29-Oct-2018, I am scheduled to attend a hearing in Thai Criminal Court for defamation claims made by PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, K.T13 0NY.
I am a whistle blower. I am the victim of crimes and my human rights continue to be violated through aggressive and unnecessary court actions forwarded in Thailand by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and secretary (“directors”).
I believe that PGS Exploration UK Limited directors violated my human rights and breached General Data Protection Requirement regulations through illegally providing my passport and address information to the Thai legal firm. I had provided this information to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer (DPO) to process a recent subject access request. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA DPO provided no requested personal data, nor addressed my numerous questions. Instead, my passport and Thailand address information was used to track my travel plans.
The Thai case documentation was sent to my registered address when I was not in Thailand. The Thai legal firm photocopied my passport and it was included within the complaint. This data made locating me in Thailand easier. The Thai court date documents were sent to me by e-mail in the Thai language. I would need to return to Thailand to translate these documents and actually view the case documents. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are using every devious trick to expedite these proceedings and limit my ability to defend myself. PGS Exploration UK Limited has not provided me with any answers, yet they are able to forward a defamation case as if the facts have been resolved.
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have provided NO responses to the recent e-mails delivered to them:
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors had to process this case in the Thai language. This process initiated long before I left Thailand for travel. I was never formally made aware of any such impending case. There is very little preparation time available to me to actually find if their actions are even legal. I do not believe that they are. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have given the power of attorney to a Thai lawyer who has no knowledge of the merits of my whistle blowing claims. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are abusing their fiduciary duties through providing such power of attorney to operate outside their legal jurisdictions as fiduciaries of an English company governed by English law.
The PGS Exploration UK Limited directors’ fiduciary duties are prescribed through the Companies Act 2006. English law covers claims of defamation or malicious falsehood. The settlement contract agreement at the center of the dispute is governed by the laws of England and contained mutual non-disparagement clauses. It is totally unnecessary and irresponsible for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors to engage a legal firm in Thailand to handle this issue. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have no vested business interests in Thailand beyond persecuting me. Far less effort and resources would be involved to actually show proof that the settlement contract agreement, as well as supporting documents and processes, used to terminate my employment from PGS Exploration UK Limited as foreign worker was legal. The actual fiduciary duty of PGS Exploration UK Limited directors is to investigate and resolve whistle blower complaints.
The effort to destroy me and my family involves PGS Exploration UK Limited engaging a Thai law firm to translate several court documents and excerpts from my online publications from English into Thai. Aren’t Carl Richards and Rune Olav Pedersen qualified lawyers? What justifies this expense of money and resources? I still need to prepare for the case on 29 October 2018. There is another case 12 November 2018 if mediation discussions on 29 October 2018 are not successful. I will also have to incur the expense of translating my defense and defending content which I never published in the Thai language. All my content was published in English intended mostly for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors. I will not be able to confirm the quality of the Thai translation. I believe PGS Exploration UK Limited directors translating my content to Thai is fraudulent misrepresentation. Everything about this effort is unethical and mean-spirited. These actions are intended to break me and destroy my family. These are Petroleum Geo-Services ASA new values.
I have long contended that the settlement contract agreement between PGS UK Limited and me was not a legal instrument. I have found evidence that my rights to file a grievance were obstructed and denied and that the documents which occupy my PGS Exploration UK Limited personnel file are fabrications which support a performance based termination. The workplace abuses of harassment and bullying, along with contract breaches and health harming behaviors brought to light in my grievance document are not part of my PGS Exploration UK Limited personal data history. My human and legal rights of due process following my submitting a workplace grievance continue to be denied by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors.
My online publishing campaign was initiated because of the irresponsible and negligent behavior of PGS Exploration UK Limited directors. In over three years of sending e-mails, articles, and publishing content to get the attention of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents there has been no response before the Thai legal action. The blog campaign could have never persisted this long had PGS Exploration UK Limited directors been doing their duty. I need help, but I do not know who to call anymore. Like a small flame left unattended, there is big fire. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have over three years of published content to try to extinguish the flames. I am sad that my complaints and reports over the years to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, UK ActionFraud, and UK Serious Fraud Office were not investigated. I am disappointed by the lack of courage and core values of my former hosts and work colleagues who have ignored the death of me and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA. If I die or commit suicide, PGS Exploration UK Limited and the English justice system murdered me. And all I ever really wanted was to send postcards from Thailand to remember our work and travels together.
Best regards,
Steven D. Kalavity
UK ActionFraud
UK Serious Fraud Office
Norway Police
Caseworker(s) Information Commissioner’s Office
Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director
Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)
Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) former Secretary
CC:
Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager
Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer
John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal
Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel
Transparency International – Norway
SEG Whistleblower – membership
My name is Steven D. Kalavity. I am a citizen of the United States of America (USA). I currently live in Chiangrai, Thailand on visa with my Thai wife and three Thai – American children. From 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013, PGS Exploration UK Limited sponsored me and my family dependents on a Tier 2 visa.
PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, directors and former secretary have engaged in aggressive and inhumane vexatious litigation in a foreign country to suppress protected public disclosures. I have made allegations that the Company directors and former secretary have engaged in criminal behavior. I am a whistleblower.
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are executives of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, based in Lysaker, Norway. I am asking the authorities in England and Norway to immediately demand that PGS Exploration UK Limited directors withdraw all their legal claims made in Thailand.
The claims put forward in Thailand are in breach of PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policy, and therefore the directors have no fiduciary authority to authorize or advance their complaint in a foreign jurisdiction. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors are abusing their positions and are in breach of their fiduciary duty. In doing this, PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have also authorized the illegal use of PGS Exploration UK Limited resources.
Two claims of criminal defamation have been initiated against me in Thailand by a Thai lawyer whom has been given power of attorney by the PGS Exploration UK Limited current directors and former secretary. The Thai lawyer has no knowledge of the veracity of my public disclosures. None of the directors reside, nor have professional interests, in Thailand. All of the public disclosure has been made in the English language and has been intended for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and agents, as well as the Petroleum Geo-Services board of director’s members and executives.
The first claim made against me in Thai criminal court was forwarded by the current PGS Exploration UK Limited directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen. The second claim has been made by former PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary, Carl Richards, who resigned 25 May 2018. The initial mediation court date in Bangkok, Thailand is scheduled for 29 October 2018, with a follow-up proceeding scheduled on 12 November 2018, in Chiang Rai, Thailand, depending on the outcome of the 29 October 2018 proceeding. I reside in Chiang Rai, Thailand, with my family. PGS Exploration UK Limited could have scheduled the first hearing in Chiang Rai, Thailand.
I believe that the proceeding scheduled in Bangkok, Thailand is an intentional attempt by PGS Exploration UK Limited to further harass and bully a whistleblower and harm the health and wellbeing of me and my family to the greatest extent possible. PGS Exploration UK Limited and Carl Richards are being as mean, vindictive, and unethical as possible to try and quiet my public disclosure. They have casts aside their contractual obligations to abide by the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Core Values, PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policies, and their commitments to principles of the UN Global Compact to persecute me and my family. It is a selfish and repugnant abuse of position and abrogation of their fiduciary duties.
Most of the public disclosures referenced within these claims were produced while Carl Richards was acting as PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary. The public disclosures relate directly to the performance (or malpractice) of his fiduciary duties. The Thai lawyer was provided with my personal passport data, home address, and e-mail address by Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Data Protection Officer (DPO). This personal private data had been provided to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, DPO in relation to a recent subject access request citing the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR). I believe that the use of my personal subject data to launch a claim outside the authority of the director’s legal fiduciary duty is a violation of my human rights and the GDPR. Providing my personal data to Carl Richards, as a private person, is an even more egregious violation of my human rights.
I am currently disputing the propriety of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA processing of my personal data and have been corresponding with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and legal counsel have been included in these communications. Much of the public disclosure has been in regard to my belief, supported by e-mail and other documented evidence, that PGS Exploration UK Limited human resources and legal counsel have knowingly created and processed non-compliant and illegal personal data about me. This fake data was used to advance an illegally proffered settlement agreement contract used to terminate my employment.
ICO has been aware of my disagreement with the personal data PGS Exploration UK Limited is processing in my name for some time. I also raised these concerns with UK ActionFraud 24 August 2015, and have periodically updated this complaint. In 2016, I submitted several complaints to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA legal compliance. This followed numerous complaints made through the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA LinkedIn™ social media comment space. Most queries were not answered. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA contends there was an investigation. However, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA refuses to share their investigation report. I do not believe that there was a valid investigation and that Petroleum Geo-Services ASA legal compliance has been directly involved in the alleged illegal acts. I also submitted a report to the UK Serious Fraud Office in 2017. PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA were made aware of these claims prior to their launching their Thai claim.
Most of the public disclosures regard PGS Exploration UK Limited director’s violations of English contractual and employment law and internal policy. This includes, but is not limited to, the UK Data Protection Act 1998, and now the General Data Protection Requirement , the Companies Act 2006, the Equality Act 2006, the Fraud Act 2006, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and of course the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Thai court system is not the appropriate legal venue to adjudicate matters of English law. PGS Exploration UK Limited is misrepresenting their claims as though their claims are truthful and not disputed. The irony is that PGS Exploration UK Limited and Carl Richards have refused multiple requests to demonstrate that they are processing legal and compliant data derived from legal and compliant processes. In other words, they refuse to prove that they have behaved legally in accordance to the laws of England and PGS Exploration UK Limited internal policy. It should be clear that there must be nefarious motivations for PGS Exploration UK Limited directors to exploit the Thai criminal justice system.
PGS Exploration UK Limited within a 16 July 2018 e-mail response to a subject access request citing the General Data Protection Requirement remained committed to not clarifying issues or answering questions thoughtfully brought forth originally by a subject access request submitted in 2014 citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998. PGS Exploration UK Limited states in their response to my subject access request:
Excerpts from the 16 July 2018 PGS Exploration UK Limited response to my 2018 GDPR subject access request
We have determined that the applicable law allows us to deny your request on the basis that processing of your personal data, if any, that may have occurred since your previous request on 10 October 2014 (the “2014 SAR”) would have only been performed in order to seek privileged legal advice in respect to your various direct and indirect communication with or about PGS and/or its employees. Accordingly, we are denying your request under Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a).
(…)
You should also note that under the terms of the settlement agreement between you and PGS dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”) you agreed not to further pursue your grievance or any analogous or substantively similar or other grievance against PGS and that PGS, nor any other company in the PGS group, shall have any further obligations to you in respect of such grievances.
(…)
You further agreed not to divulge confidential information or the existence or terms of the Settlement Agreement, nor to make or publish any statement that directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation of PGS or any Related Party of PGS.
(…)
PGS reserve its rights to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement in respect to any breaches by you of the Settlement Agreement.
(…)
Bluntly, I have not regarded the referenced settlement agreement contract as a valid legal instrument for some time. My public disclosure has stated this in many different publications. My public disclosure has also stated that I regard my public disclosure as protected, or that I am a whistleblower. My claims of director and executive criminal conduct were first publicly published in 2015 through the LinkedIn™ Pulse publishing venue. This would have constituted a breach in a legal settlement contract agreement. PGS Exploration UK Limited made similar threats to me following my complaints regarding the data being processed in my name within a 22 December 2014 correspondence. Within the 22 December 2014 letter, PGS Exploration UK Limited states that they will not alter or remove any of the data which I identified as inaccurate and non-compliant.
At the same time, however, PGS Exploration UK Limited, did state that they would add one of my complaint e-mails (5 December 2014) into my professional personnel file. So, PGS Exploration UK Limited did not refuse to alter my personal data. What they did was place accurate data into the personnel file after inaccurate personal data was used to process the settlement contract agreement. This challenges the legality of the settlement contract agreement, in my view. Why would PGS Exploration UK Limited agree to alter my personnel file data with inaccurate data? There are many other compliance issues raised within this 22 December 2014 correspondence which PGS Exploration UK Limited refuses to clarify. I began publicly publishing my complaints and frustrations about these matters because PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA refuse to answer my reasonable questions. Recently, I have copied ICO caseworkers on e-mail communications with PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, with regard to the latest response to my subject access request so they can witness firsthand the irresponsible actions of these data controllers.
According to a confusing 22 December 2014 email written to me requesting that I stop my questions, PGS Exploration UK Limited states that they do not even process the 20 September 2013 grievance document within my professional personnel file. So, exactly what will be considered similar to it? I believe that the 20 September 2013 grievance which identified manager misconduct, policy and contract breaches, and breaches in UK employment and contract law was also whistleblowing. Many of my queries have been in regard to the 22 December 2014 email which has opened many questions. I believe that the referred settlement contract agreement was proffered illegally to terminate my employment without following my legally guaranteed process of grievance. Termination for whistleblowing is automatically an unfair dismissal.
With regard to PGS Exploration UK Limited’s alleged violations of internal policy and the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act through initiating defamation claims in Thailand, reference the PGS Exploration UK Limited Policy Handbook (2013):
2.9 Confidentiality
During the course of their employment, each member of staff will have access to and become aware of information which is confidential to the Company. Without prejudice to his or her common law duties, each member of staff undertakes that he/she will not, save in the proper performance of his duties, make use of, or disclose to any person, (including for the avoidance of doubt any competitors of the Company), any of the trade secrets or other confidential information of or relating to the Company, or any user of the Company’s services or any company, organization or business with which the Company is involved in any kind of business venture or partnership, or any other information concerning the business of the Company which he/she may have received or obtained in confidence while in the service of the Company. Each member of staff will use his/her best endeavors to prevent the unauthorized publication or disclosure of any such trade secrets or confidential information.
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.
For a disclosure to be protected by the Act’s provisions it must relate to matters that ‘qualify’ for protection under the Act. Qualifying disclosures are disclosures which the worker reasonably believes tends to show that one or more of the following matters is either happening now, took place in the past, or is likely to happen in the future:
A qualifying disclosure to the commission will be a ‘protected’ disclosure provided the worker:
I have submitted several complaints to UK and Norwegian bodies to no effect. I am very certain about the integrity of the documentation being processed within my PGS Exploration UK Limited professional personnel file. None of the documents which I requested removed bare a counter signature and contain factually incorrect data, most notably a meeting date of 11 September 2013 that is referenced in two documents. The 11 September 2013 meeting never happened. The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013, the day on which I submitted the referenced formal grievance. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is specifically referenced in the settlement contract agreement, as well as the 22 December 2014 correspondence from PGS Exploration UK Limited, and more recently in the 16 July 2018 correspondence from PGS Exploration UK Limited. However, it is not mentioned in the body of documentation contents of my personnel file and, as stated by PGS Exploration UK Limited, is not being processed currently as part of my personnel file.
An occupational health nurse report requested by the manager of human resources submitted to PGS Exploration UK Limited 16 November 2013 also mentions the grievance document, as well as reports on my personal health issues and stress experienced in the workplace. PGS Exploration UK Limited does not process this health report which they requested and also did not follow policy guidelines regarding employee stress. This endangered my own health and wellbeing, as well as that of my family. PGS Exploration UK Limited has suppressed and destroyed all personal data related to the 20 September 2013 grievance document and supplanted non-compliant fake data supporting a defamatory performance based termination. I had been led to believe that the settlement contract agreement was with regard to the substance mentioned within the 20 September grievance document. PGS Exploration UK Limited on 15 July 2013 also did not report any performance issues to UK Border Agency for the renewal of my Tier 2 shortage occupation list visa, and those for my dependent family members. Clarification on these issues is what PGS Exploration UK Limited has been withholding which I believe constitutes the deliberate concealment of information tending to show illegal and non-compliant acts.
PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and Carl Richards are expediting their claims in Thailand through subversive tactics which do not correlate to PGS Core Value. They collective, including the Thai lawyer, stalked me by misusing my personal data. None of the directors had formally contacted me and identified themselves and their concerns prior to launching their claims in Thailand. The Thai lawyer also never confirmed her identification and credentials in previous communications which regarded a potential claim by Carl Richards. I asked the Thai lawyer many questions, stated that I regarded my public disclosures as protected whistleblowing. Further, I rejected claims made by Carl Richards as a private person because my public disclosures have always been in regard to his professional capacity as PGS Exploration UK Limited Head of Legal and secretary. I had just departed Thailand when I received an e-mail with the court proceeding information documents written in the Thai language attached. I was not in Thailand when the court claim by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors was delivered.
I had never received any communication from PGS Exploration UK Limited directors regarding my public disclosures prior to this claim being delivered in my absence. The Thai lawyer had withheld information that she was also acting on the behalf of PGS Exploration UK Limited directors in previous communications. Had she revealed this, I of course would have been more receptive to dialogue, just as I would have if Carl Richards was representing himself as secretary. Carl Richards’ complaint, as a private person, was actually the second complaint. It was received weeks after the court documents were delivered by e-mail. I believe this behavior has been, at the very least, inconsiderate, irresponsible, and unprofessional. It seems to transgress the actions of their true fiduciary duties. They should have behaved differently and used better judgment. PGS Exploration UK Limited directors’ actions have been clandestine and purposefully harassing.
In specific regard to the criminal defamation claims made in Thailand, most all of the referenced published content in the complaints pre-dates the 16 July 2018 correspondence received from PGS Exploration UK Limited in response to my subject access request. The 16 July 2018 correspondence cites no specific content which even breaches the terms of the settlement contract agreement. However, they warn me that the confidentiality nondisclosure conditions are still in effect. However, in September 2018, the content reaches the level of criminal defamation in Thailand? How is this possible? Much of my public disclosure has warned Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited that they should be more proactive in addressing the online content published because it is harmful to their reputation. Three-years later, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited wakes up and blames their criminal negligence on me – in Thailand? Unless PGS Exploration UK Limited can confirm the legality of the processes and documents that support the settlement contract agreement they are making fraudulent misrepresentations within their 22 December 2014 and 16 July 2018 responses to the subject access requests.
The fact that PGS Exploration UK Limited is not acting on the warnings given through their responses to me subject access requests to pursue breaches of the settlement contract agreement should be telling. No claim of non-disparagement in England, but criminal defamation in Thailand? Whatever damage has been suffered is a product of their collective fiduciary negligence. To that end, only I have lost my job and livelihood while Pedersen has ascended from Petroleum Geo-Services ASA General Counsel to President and CEO.
In light of the recent aggressive actions taken by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors and former secretary in Thailand, there needs to be an equally aggressive investigation conducted in England. I really need some consideration. I am a victim of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited abuse. As a foreigner, I have always been more vulnerable. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA has had to disregard published values and policy to pursue their vindictive hunt to destroy a whistleblower who did nothing wrong. I have been the only one advancing Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Core Values and reputational interests.
I need help – NOW.
Best regards,
Steven D. Kalavity
