Tag: Tippaya Moonmanee

It is why we are so ambivalent about whistleblowers. Are not they really just whiners and malcontents? For if they are not, then the whistleblower reveals by contrast the cowardice of us all.

Charles Frederick Alford, What Makes Whistleblowers So Threatening?

Landau Law complained that this review violated Trustpilot Policy. Luckily, Trustpilot did not agree. The TRUTH should never violate any legitimate policy. (Thank you Trustpilot for providing qualified assessments to your users.)

DEMAND POLICE INVESTIGATION – SUPPORT WHISTLEBLOWING and the VICTIM OF CRIME. DO NOT SUPPORT CORRUPTION!

Principal, Philip Landau, Employment Law Solicitor was paid by me to represent my interests between October – December 2013 when he was a Principal with Landau, Zeffert, and Weir Law.

I do not believe that Philip Landau represented me well at all. I have only asked one question of Philip Landau and my former UK employer. Can you please show me that legal processes and documentation were used to process the termination of a USA citizen, Tier 2 Sponsored employee? Philip Landau refuses to respond to this “simple” query! Unfortunately, so does ActionFraud (UK Police) and my former UK employer. It’s as though Landau and my former employer are guarding the same secret.

Landau, Zeffert & Weir (LZW) Represented Me?

Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor, Represented a Tier 2 Visa Holder?

Philip Landau – London Employment Solicitor pre-Settlement E-mails

My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial (Updated 9-Apr-2017)

###

PGS’ John Francas, UK Head of Legal, is the first and only PGS agent to contact me directly regarding my blog post articles content. Yet, PGS UK directors and former secretary filed criminal defamation claims in Thailand without any official and legitimate investigation as described within the 2017 PGS Responsibility Report. There was no examination of the published content and/or dialogue with the accused.

Ethics and oversight are what you eliminate when you want absolute power.

DaShanne Stokes

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men. 

John Stuart Mill

One of the most destructive ramifications of evil despotism is the controlling of individual will and freedom through the creation of conditions that force undesirable choices which would never even be contemplated under normal and reasonable circumstances.  One of the most vividly dramatic examples of such despotic evil is depicted in the 1982 movie, Sophie’s Choice.  Sophie’s choice is deciding which one of her two children shall live or die.  If she does not choose one to live, both will die. It is a choice given to her by a Nazi officer upon their arrival to Auschwitz.  Of course, it was really no choice at all, but a cruel and sadistic act of control and dehumanization.  In September 2018, two criminal claims were delivered to my wife’s house in Thailand by a Thai law firm representing the directors of PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK).  PGSUK directors are executives of Norwegian parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS): Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant.  I had just embarked alone on a journey to visit the USA the day before.  I received copies of the claims by e-mail, but they were in the Thai language.  This delivery terrified my wife and my in-laws, and news of it terrified my elderly mother and my family members in the United States.  My mother-in-law went to the hospital and I was on the other side of the world managing this reality.  I have questioned the propriety and legality of these delivered claims.  What I know for certain is that the delivery of these claims did not meet the ethical values test.  Therefore, a company that claims that their decision-making processes are guided by shared Values and a Code of Conduct, and align themselves with the UN Global Compact Principles, cannot be really acting compliant if their decisions and actions do not comport to their published values, but rather deceive, cause terror, hardship, and illness instead.    

The second claim was put forward by Carl Richards, who resigned as PGSUK secretary on 25 May 2018, and apparently also stopped working as Head of Legal for the PGS UK.  (Richards resignation as PGSUK secretary is part of the public record and can be obtained at UK Companies House website.)  On 5 April 2018, I had received an e-mail from a personal (non-PGS company) account purporting to belong to Richards.  Within this e-mail, Richards threatened legal action against me in Thailand for my online blog publications and image cartoons I had published. How can a Thai law firm possibly know what is defamatory regarding Richards, better than Richards himself? Richards requested that I remove content which referred to him personally.  Richards made it clear that he was not acting in his official capacity as PGSUK secretary.  At the time, I actually tried to engage Richards and stated my position as a whistleblower and also requested proof of identity before I engaged in any more substantive discussion.  I never received a response to this e-mail.  On 17 May 2018, I received an e-mail from a person purporting to be a Thai lawyer stating that they represented Carl Richards.  Again, I did not ignore the e-mail.  I stated my position that I claimed to be a whistleblower. I did remove some content, but again also requested proof of identity and credentials before I continued the conversation further.  When there was no response, I reasoned that these threatening e-mails were without legal merit and I began to republish some content.  The issue that bothered me most was that Richards was acting on behalf of himself and not as PGSUK secretary.  Richards had never confirmed his identity and so I decided to e-mail him at his PGS address, which I had remembered from the years we worked together in England.  I received an auto-response from his e-mail which stated that he had resigned.  (Usually, e-mails to PGS / PGSUK agents receive no response.) An auto-response e-mail provided contact information for the PGS EAME legal counsel, John Francas, who has become directly involved in these PGS Thai-UK-Norway legal issues centered around human rights and whistleblowing as a USA citizen working in England.

As alluded to, I am a USA citizen and was sponsored to work in England on a Tier 2 visa by PGSUK.  PGSUK also sponsored my Thai national wife and dependent children.  It is my belief that I was illegally terminated from employment with PGSUK through the use of a fraudulent settlement contract agreement supported by forged documentation for being a whistleblower.  PGS / PGSUK actions have exploited my status as a foreign worker to escape accountability for their alleged criminal acts.  This includes their devious way in which the criminal claims were delivered.  Was it legal for PGS to share my personal (passport) data with the Thai legal firm so that they could stalk me and know my address and when I was departing Thailand?  I see myself as both a victim of crimes perpetrated by company agents, notably the directors and former secretary who put forth the claims in Thailand, as well as a whistleblower.  I have proclaimed this throughout many of my publications.  This was also pointed out to Richards and his Thai legal counsel.  Richards was PGSUK secretary when the e-mails from him, and later his Thai counsel, were received, even if Richards only wanted to act in his own best interest with his claim apart from PGS.  The Confidentiality terms and conditions contained within the PGS UK Personnel Handbook, as well as the terms and conditions of the employment termination settlement contract, apply under the laws of England, where the contracts of employment and termination were both signed.  The terms and conditions expressly protect whistleblowing, citing the UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).  Beyond this, Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and a member of the Compliance Hotline Team, prior to his ascending to become PGS CEO and President.  Pedersen should have a very thorough legal understanding of PIDA, as well as Norway’s Workers Environment Act (WEA), whistleblower protection laws.  However, any such knowledge is not related to me through his actions or responses to queries. Were the claims brought forth in Thailand a breach in the Confidentiality terms and conditions under both the employment contract and subsequently signed employment termination settlement contract, both governed by English Law?

Despots prefer the friendship of the dog, who, unjustly mistreated and debased, still loves and serves the man who wronged him.

Charles Fourier

It is a criminal offence in England and Wales for someone to harass you or put you in fear of violence. The law states that harassment is when a person behaves in a way which is intended to cause you distress or alarm.  To be guilty of the offence of stalking the offender must, on at least two occasions, indulge in conduct that causes the victim harassment, alarm or distress.

Peoplesafe Website

The complaints delivered in Thailand were a composite of several blog posts articles and image files, some published over a year before the delivery. The content was translated from English to Thai language.  Any one of the published articles would have been breach of the Confidentiality terms and conditions within the two contracts signed by me and governed by the laws of England, if not for PIDA.  In 2017, I began a Twitter™ whistleblowing campaign and created and tweeted several image files.  Richards had mentioned that his LinkedIn photo was copy-righted.  So, I did see this as a concern.  The tweets, which often had images including portrait pictures, would either link images or the message to my personal website blogs or a Pinterest™ gallery.  The Pinterest™ gallery would also have other images and links to the different blog post articles.  My first blog post article that named names was,  An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015].  Inspired by my October 2014 submission of a subject access request (SAR) to PGSUK citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Through my SAR, I received the contents of my personnel file.  My personnel file contained fake data.  I complained about the contents vigorously.  Settlement contracts are very binding.  Even if three sets of crooked lawyers agree to illegally process fake data as real data, it seems to take an act from God to unbind any such agreement.  On 22 December 2014, PGSUK sent me a letter and essentially stated that I was in breach of the settlement contract for not accepting fake and defamatory data as my true and accurate personal data, as DPA required.  Several blog post articles later, PGSUK still never took action on any perceived breaches in the termination settlement contract.  In 2014, Richards was PGSUK secretary and Pedersen was PGS General Counsel. They were both in the position to do so. But, in September 2018, the directors and former secretary filed two criminal defamation claims in Thailand?  How can it be legal and compliant to simply bypass company policy and previous legally binding agreements under English law and instead rely on the unsynchronized laws of another country to take away the right under law and contract of protected public disclosure? Further, if Richards, PGSUK directors and PGS Compliance refused to authenticate that compliant processes and documents were used to affect my termination settlement agreement, then what legal basis or documentation supports legal criminal defamation claims in Thailand? The alleged criminal abusers are using every avenue, legal or otherwise, to silence their accuser. 

Processing a subject access request should be pretty straight-forward and not so controversial.  But, when the Company is uttering forged instruments that were used to process a termination settlement contract on false pretenses, it is problematic for all those directly involved in such a criminal conspiracy because it’s a serious crime.  The settlement contract was proffered to me following the submission of a formal grievance complaining of being a target of bullying, harassment, and discrimination based on my nationality and Tier 2 visa status.  I believed that the company performance management system was being ignored, along with UK labor laws.  The company was trying to place me on a performance improvement plan (PIP) so that they could terminate me for cause.  Looking back, accusations of breaking UK labor laws and health and safety concerns made within the contents of my grievance qualified as whistleblowing.  In England, termination settlement contracts require the employee to engage a solicitor.  Of course, as a foreign worker not completely familiar with English employment law, I knew that I needed such counsel.  But, how did fake data that contradicted the data provided to my counsel get processed?  The fake data supported a defamatory performance-based termination.  How can a company simultaneously apply to renew the Tier 2 visa and place the same employee on a PIP?  I do not think that is legal because foreign workers displace non-immigrant workers who themselves could also be trained to perform in the position.  There must have been a conspiracy to process the fake data.  My solicitor recommended an “enhanced” settlement contract agreement in lieu of proceeding through the Company procedures or legal processes.  Of course, as a harassed foreign worker, I was receptive to leaving.  However, I never agreed to the defamatory narrative.  None of the documents relevant to the termination settlement contract bare my countersignature and contradict e-mail records.

It took me too long to realize that what made the termination settlement contract so binding was that all lawyers involved had to cooperate and agree on processing the fake data – or utter forged documents, which is a crime.  I was gaslighted and defrauded by my own hired solicitor.  (1) These claims have been published for some time now, as well. (2)  Philip Landau remains silent, as do all the conspirators. (3)  In 2016, following several accusatory blog publications and comments made in the PGS LinkedIn™ space, I also submitted another SAR and report to the PGS Compliance Hotline contacts.  However, if there had been any non-compliant or illegal acts committed first in 2013, two of the PGS Compliance Hotline contacts, Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources, and Pedersen, would be directly implicated.  The cover-up continued and I again wrote about it in a blog post article, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24 May 2016).  This was actually the second blog post article where I presented evidence and made my case that PGS was processing fake data to support the termination settlement agreement.  The first blog post article was, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II : A Bully Targets Reprise (20 September 2015).  The titles of my publications alone could be a breach in the PGSUK Confidentiality terms, if not for PIDA.  In 2016, I wanted to know if the articles had been read and if responsible individuals had viewed the contents of my personnel file and investigated.  Apparently, nothing like this happened. PGS did not alter or question their personal data processing or provide any additional information to me beyond what was provided with the 2014 SAR, of which the provided contents of my personnel file was almost entirely disputed.  

Loyalty is such a force for destruction because it readily clashes with genuine virtues such as honesty and fairness—all while seeing itself as superior to those virtues.

Rob AsGHar, Loyalty Isn’t A Virtue, It’s The Enemy Of Workplace Ethics

Corruption in oil production – one of the world’s richest industries and one that touches us all through our reliance on petrol – fuels inequality, robs people of their basic needs and causes social unrest in some of the world’s poorest countries.

UNAOIL: THE COMPANY THAT BRIBED THE WORLD

The General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR), which replaced DPA, came into full effect on 25 May 2018.  Since many of the principals involved with the grievance were no longer with PGS, I decided to submit another SAR.  Richards was now gone.  Although, in hind sight, Richards should have been, and likely was, involved in forming the responses for both the 2014 SAR and 2016 SAR.  I submitted the initial 2018 SAR request to Francas, and of course this first request was not answered.  With GDPR, PGS appointed a Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke.  I communicated with her (office) to process my 2018 SAR.  PGS Compliance Hotline contacts, Pedersen and Bjølseth, who were directly involved in the alleged crimes involving both my termination settlement contract and the 2014 SAR, would no longer be direct contacts and able to cover-up – so I hoped.  This would be an integrity test for the DPO to see if DPO would do their job according to their legal responsibilities or shill for their leadership.  I want to point out that I am the data subject.  I know what happened, and I have e-mail evidence which supports my truthful narrative.  Further, I have launched on a multi-year blog campaign stating my case and PGS has never once responded or commented on the queries embedded within the blog post articles.  Eventually, I did get a response to my SAR from Francas.  In my view, PGS once again failed the integrity test and never addressed the authentication issues around the defamatory data being processed in my name within my PGSUK personnel file, which have always been the central issue.

I did complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), again.  However, this time I copied many people on my complaints and queries, in addition to the ICO caseworker.  I copied Francas, Pedersen, Langseth, Bjerke, as well as new PGS UK Personnel Manager, Gareth Jones, and new PGS General Counsel, Lars Mysen on my complaint e-mails to ICO.  I also copied (UK) ActionFraud (police).  These e-mails never received a response, as well.  I also published blog articles and began publishing the unanswered “open letters.”  The 16 July 2018 SAR response also establishes PGS’ position that the terms and conditions of the termination settlement contract, signed 5 December 2013, is still in effect.  This includes PIDA protections.  While in the USA, I also published several “open letters” addressing the recently received claims and inquiring about their propriety, especially with regard to PIDA.  I had ended my visit to the US early and returned to Thailand to address the criminal complaints.  I never received any response to these e-mails / open letters!  There was actually a tight time-frame to prepare which involved my having to also translate content from English to Thai language.  The overwhelming majority of content used to form the complaint pre-dated the 16 July 2018 SAR response from Francas.  This begs the question as to why PGS / PGSUK did not exercise on the “breaches” in the referenced 5 December 2013 termination settlement agreement? 

PGS / PGSUK also never provided any evidence that the contents of my personnel file data had been authenticated.  The complaints keyed in on phrases written and image files, but not the personnel file documents and e-mail records.  PGS never conducted an investigation or provided results.  So, how could the data which comprised the complaint be legal and compliant when it was the product of accused criminals under the laws of England and not legally verifiable and compliant processes? Defamation – the untruth of my base claims – was never legally determined or related to me prior to the criminal complaints being delivered in Thailand. Both the Thai law firm and Francas can only base their legal decisions on the integrity of the source data. Francas provided his SAR report without actually examining the personnel file data and establishing that legal processes and documentation were used to affect my termination settlement contract. I know this – because, I know. No blog campaign could endure so long if everything I wrote was untrue. The reason that the Thai claims were voluminous is because they were created by cutting and pasting from multiple articles and content over a span of several months and years. I have been asking for answers for a long time. Any one of the articles could have been a breach in the Confidentiality terms and conditions. Therefore, I cannot see how the criminal complaints put forth in Thailand by the directors and former secretary of PGSUK were legal, and further believe that they were a form of extortion/blackmail to silence an accuser and victim of crimes.

Unanswered Open Letters: 

Criminal claims were delivered 10 September 2018 with scheduled initial court proceedings 29 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)
• Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and UK Serious Fraud Office (9 October 2018)
• Letter to UK Companies House and Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary (1-Oct-2018)
• Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (24-Sep-2018)
• Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers (16-Sep-2018)
• Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer and ICO Caseworker (2-Sep-2018)
• Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)

Blind belief in a authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

Albert Einstein

Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It’s a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other.

eric burdon

When I returned to Thailand from my shortened USA visit, I had to shop for criminal lawyers in a foreign country because the directors and former secretary of PGSUK did not want to answer simple questions in English by e-mail, but felt that translating pages of content from English to Thai language was a more effective and less expensive way to resolve their issue? Perhaps they thought a criminal trial of a former employee would improve the company reputation and show their values? There was not too much time to fully state my position in the Thai language. I prepared my defense to the claims regarding my published content. However, I am a person who considers process above content. I questioned the propriety of the claims and basis in process. Were the claims the product of legal and compliant processes? I translated previous threats of legal action, such as the 22 December 2014 letter, as well as the 16 July 2018 letter. Both of these letters representing the same company cited the terms and conditions of the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract, which included PIDA provisions. I also had translated the Confidentiality clauses in the PGS UK Personnel Handbook and my termination settlement contract. And I translated information about PIDA and WEA. I also was preparing a defense of the substantive content of my publications and what they were based on. In Thailand, lawyer(s) for the claimants and defendant meet at a pretrial hearing to see if things can be worked-out without a trial. PGS proffered a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) settlement to drop criminal charges. This would save me attorney fees and provide a more certain outcome. I was advised by my lawyer and family to accept the terms of the NDA.

I agreed to sign the NDA. But, I believed then that it was overly limiting and had a very broad jurisdiction of enforcement in both Thailand and Houston, Texas! I thought it implausible that terms and conditions of a contract signed in Thailand could be easily enforced in the USA. But, I am no lawyer. I was told to remove all content that mentioned PGS or any of its agents. My Thai IP registered website had to be taken offline and any other social media accounts from Pinterest™ to Tumblr™ had to be cleansed. There was a period of time, I think it was 10-days, to firm the agreement. I was simply not happy with the limiting of my published content. My blogs were my voice for justice. I have always felt that I was the one who was violated and wronged. I believed that I was the victim of crimes perpetrated by PGS / PGSUK. I submitted my first report to UK ActionFraud (police) 24 August 2015. (PGS was made aware of this.) For some time, the ActionFraud report was also published online. During this acceptance and repentance period, I tested the NDA by blowing the whistle to a non-PGS entity. Some how, PGS was informed about it. PGS stated that this was a breach in the NDA and threatened to proceed with another criminal trial scheduled for 29 January 2019. At this point, I was becoming frustrated with my hired counsel. For some reason, my lawyers seem to forget or not advance the merits of my position and counsel to capitulate to PGS wishes.

Of course, this traumatized me and my family once again. In December 2018, I became a Thai Buddhist Monk for ten (10) days to gain merit and soothe the Thai side of my family especially. Becoming a monk in Thailand is a big deal, and while the circumstances that brought me to that place were not the best, the experience will be with me for a lifetime. However, while I was at the waht (temple), the Thai registered site was taken down completely. This was before any trial or examination of the content. PGS again decided not to proceed to criminal trial and I wrote two apology notes for my offensive content. However, time passed and I became more and more uncomfortable with the constraints on my published content. I read more about PIDA and discovered that the restrictions on published content was not enforceable. Similarly, WEA states that such agreements are illegal. This emboldened me to test the restrictions in the Thai NDA. That’s where we are now. I do not believe that directors of a UK company can enforce terms and conditions which restrict content. Defamation and unpleasant truths are very different things. I also read that what happened to me in Thailand seems to correlate with extortion. The criminal complaints in Thailand were totally unnecessary and mostly served to terrorize and silence accusations of director and former secretary wrong-doing, just as I had stated a year ago. John Francas has never scheduled a discussion, or answered any of my questions.

Post Thai NDA E-mails/Communications

Communications with PGS engaged Thai Law firm and John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal

Was the nopgs.com website taken down legally?

A report, once again, has been submitted to PGS Compliance. I await their response.

A good company is reflected in its financials, and for PGS, the financials don’t look good. This is a fast-fail analysis, which means I won’t be spending too much time on the company, given that there is a universe of better – https://simplywall.st, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA’s (OB:PGS) Sustainability In Question?

###

Simple Compliance Questions for Norway’s PGS ?

In September 2018, directors and a former secretary of PGS Exploration UK Limited filed criminal defamation charges against me for my online blog content in THAILAND. Upon receiving the claims, I wrote several e-mails to ask questions. Gareth Jones, PGS Human Resources (HR) Manager for EAME, was a recipient of the many e-mails. None of these e-mails were answered and the claims proceeded. Prior to the claims being delivered in Thailand, no one from PGS had ever even attempted to contact me regarding my online publications. Why?

• 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)
• Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and UK Serious Fraud Office (9 October 2018)
• Letter to UK Companies House and Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary (1-Oct-2018)
• Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (24-Sep-2018)
• Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers (16-Sep-2018)
• Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer and ICO Caseworker (2-Sep-2018)
• Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)

The 22 December 2014 letter opened even more questions.

Trying to get answers from PGS Compliance Hotline in 2016

Narcissistic abuse includes psychological manipulation tactics like shaming, isolation, gaslighting and stonewalling.

Echoism Is the Little-Known Condition that Affects Victims of Narcissistic Abuse

###

The Original Employment Contract (OEC) Terms & Conditions were still in effect when the litigation was initiated in Thailand

5 December 2013 Termination Settlement Contract – excerpts

Unanswered Open Letters to Norway’s PGS ASA Directors and Management

Instead of answering e-mails, executives pursued criminal litigation against me in Thailand. It is Simply Irresponsible and Corrupt to Withhold the Truth to Damage Whistleblowers. Is it legal? Is this their fiduciary duty?

What are you afraid of Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Per Arild Reksnes, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Carl Richards, John Francas, Lars Mysen, Gareth Jones, Daphne Bjerke, Terje Bjolseth and Berit Osnes? The truth will set you free – mentally, anyhow.

###

Personal identification data which was provided to PGS prior to processing the SAR was later provided to a law firm outside the EEA in Thailand. I believe this was another violation of the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) processing of my personal data and it was done to harass and stalk me for whistleblowing as a victim of PGS abuse and illegal behavior.

On 1 July 2018, I wrote and e-mail to PGS GDPR and John Francas and copied it to Information Commissioner’s Office Caseworkers.

John Francas e-mailed PGS’ response to my 2018 SAR 16 July 2018, refusing to answer or clarify my numerous questions.

Watson, Farley & Williams, Please Explain …

Law Firm Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) Represented PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) in Providing Counsel for my Tier 2 visa renewal (leave to remain) application (May 2013) as well as the termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013. My Tier 2 status was not considered by PGS/WFW in the proffering and negotiation of the termination settlement contract?

Watson, Farley and Williams begin to counsel in completing my Tier 2 visa leave to remain application for PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) 15 May 2013. PGS UK endorsement letter is sent on 15 July 2013.

PGSUK delivers a letter to me on 24 July 2013, subject, “Investigation into possible implementation of performance improvement plan.” This letter was provided to me following a 18 June 2013 e-mail sent to the host of a 13 June 2013 meeting which I believed was unprofessional and a breach of policy. I requested an explanation about the propriety and legality of the 13 June 2013 meeting, minutes from that meeting, and guidance about submitting a workplace grievance. I was denied all of these requests. I requested something in writing and the 24 July 2013 letter was delivered to me. My subsequent submitted formal grievance was based on the 13 June 2013 meeting and 24 July 2013 letter. The termination settlement was proffered prior to PGSUK following the law and policy regarding handling of a grievance. WFW was aware of the grievance and underlying performance issues predicating the settlement negotiations.

How can a Tier 2 worker be legally sponsored when the sponsor believed that the same employee should be placed on a performance improvement plan?

Global Law Firm Watson, Farley and Williams has a branch in Bangkok, Thailand

Unable to answer simple clarifications in July 2018, by September 2018, PGS was able to read several months of online whistleblowing content, translate the publications from English language to the Thai language and submit criminal defamation claims against me in Thailand. How is this possible? Were these claims legal and is PGS perverting the course of justice by withholding the answers to my questions? I think that they are.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Carl Richards, PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary, initially threatens criminal litigation against me in April 2018. Thailand, having never confirmed his identity or even specifically what statements in my blogs were defamatory. No one else from PGS ever contacted me before criminal claims were delivered in Thailand in September 2018.

Unanswered e-mails to PGS Compliance Hotline in 2016

###

I believe that PGS ASA has intentionally defrauded and defamed me for blowing the whistle on them in 2013. This is based on authentic time-stamped e-mail evidence. Now, PGS ASA is harassing me and my family. PGS ASA is trying to blackmail / extort me into silence through their unfounded/fraudulent criminal defamation claims in Thailand.

Explain the 25 October 2013 Memo signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Lars Mysen, John Francas, Daphne Bjerke, Carl Richards, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gareth Jones, David Nicholson, Simon Cather, Philip Landau, Rhodri Thomas, or ANYONE ELSE!

###

RE:  Norway Corporate Corruption

To:

The Office of the Prime Minister of Norway, Erna Solberg

CC:

Directors of PGS Exploration UK Limited:  Rune O. Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA CFO and EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS ASA Chief Accountant

PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen

PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas

Former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary, Carl Richards

PGS ASA Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke

PGS ASA SVP Global Human Resources, Terje Bjølseth (Oversaw grievance process)

PGS UK Human Resources Manager, Gareth Jones

PGS ASA EVP Operations, Per Arild Reksnes (Oversaw grievance process)

RE:  Norway Corporate Corruption

Dear Madam Prime Minister Erna Solberg,

I am a USA citizen who worked for the UK affiliate of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (now PGS ASA) [PGS].  The directors of PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) are Norwegian parent company executives.  PGSUK sponsored me and my dependent family members on a Tier 2 visa from 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013.  My employment was terminated through my signing a settlement contract agreement (SCA).    

I believe that my human rights have been violated and that I was defrauded, defamed, illegally terminated from employment and then blacklisted for being a whistleblower.  What I ask for is a thorough and fair third-party police investigation into my allegations.  Much of the evidence backing my claims is posted on  http://marineseismicsurvey.com/news/.  I regard my postings as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.  PGS governance and personal data processing practices have been proven to me to be non-compliant, dysfunctional and corrupt.  Further, I do not want to believe that the Norwegian corporate executive class is above the law.  Are they?  (Sadly, thus far it seems that they are.)     

My writing to you is an act of desperation.  Sadly, I have found PGS corporate governance and compliance avenues of redress unresponsive to whistleblowing allegations of PGS executive criminal behaviors.  I am a victim of these alleged crimes.  In September 2018, PGS executives who serve as PGSUK directors, Rune O. Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant, filed a criminal complaint against me in Thailand, where I was living with my Thai wife and children, for publications that I contended to be protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.  An additional similar claim was filed against me by former PGSUK secretary, Carl Richards.  I believe that the claims filed in Thailand were illegal extortion intended to silence accusations made by a victim of their crimes.  PGS bypassed the confidentiality clauses of my original employment contract, as well as the terms and conditions of my termination settlement contract which were both governed by the Laws of England.  The UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), which protects whistleblowing, is referenced within the contract confidentiality clauses.  To avoid criminal prosecution in Thailand, I was compelled to sign another agreement that would “gag” my continued whistleblowing and essentially take away my rights under English law and contract.  I contend that the claims forwarded in Thailand breached the terms and conditions of my original employment contract (OEC) and subsequent termination settlement contract (SCA) and otherwise violated the confidentiality clauses which included PIDA protections.  I haven’t the financial resources to defend myself.  However, through online publications, I have challenged the legality (Norway/UK laws) of the claims put forward against me in Thailand.  PGS refuses to answer my concerns clearly and definitively.  Instead, I continue to be harassed and threatened with further criminal and civil prosecution in Thailand by the acting (English company) PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas. 

My persecutor’s have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal to make my life hell.  How can I fight back alone?  The terms and conditions set forth in the Thailand agreement seem to also violate similar protections provided through Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA).  My employment contracts with PGSUK were governed by the laws of England.  As recently as June 2018, Francas signed a letter where he reaffirmed the terms and conditions of the SCA were still in effect.  So, how did I end up defending claims translated from Thai language to English in Thailand last September?  I first published my allegations of PGS wrong-doing online the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform on 3 July 2015.  Any online publication which breached the confidentiality terms and conditions of the SCA should have been actionable.  In fact, it would have been irresponsible for the directors and secretary to not take such actions against publications which disparaged PGS or any of its agents.  Failing to take action until September 2018 seems to be negligence and a breach of their fiduciary duties.  It would also be a betrayal to any named subject who was wrongly accused of non-compliant and/or criminal behavior within my publications.  PGS never took any official action against me for numerous publications that were posted between 2015-2016. 

Throughout 2016, I intentionally made the PGS legal compliance office aware of my concerns and e-mailed them links to my many blog postings, and even sent complete articles for them to comment on.  Pedersen was employed as PGS General Counsel during this time.  I am convinced that Pedersen was directly involved in coordinating the original fraud as well as the creation and uttering of forged documents.  Pedersen has never even commented nor challenged my published online allegations.  Many of my publications focused on then PGS CEO and President and former PGSUK director, Jon Erik Reinhardsen (now Equinor Chairman of the Board) accusing him of wrong-doing.  Reinhardsen and his team never responded!  Similarly, Reinhardsen has never defended his decisions and actions nor stood-up or felt the need to exonerate falsely accused employees since 2015.  But, in September 2018, my publications, including a published and unanswered Open Letter to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors, is criminal defamation in Thailand?  No one on the Board of Directors for PGS can answer simple questions?  It seems legally impossible that such claims can be forwarded in Thailand without being thoroughly investigated and vetted for compliance in Norway and/or the UK.  It demonstrates that directors of PGSUK were not engaged for several years.  These PGSUK directors should be removed and replaced, is the message that I get.  It is worse than that.  The former and current directors need to be investigated by law enforcement for their covering-up alleged illegal and violent behaviors perpetrated against me and my family.  This is shameless behavior.  No agent of PGS had ever even contacted me officially prior to the delivery of criminal claims to my wife’s house in Thailand.  This is not professional behavior aligned to published PGS Core Values and PGS Code of Conduct.  It was violent and mean-spirited.  And I will not be threatened into silence by incompetent and corrupt company officials, even if they reside in “corruption-free” Norway.         

In the USA, citizen’s have no qualms about speaking truth to or criticizing those who hold political power.  What is often more dangerous for whistleblowers is speaking truth to those with entrusted corporate power.  I could have never imagined the events of the past five years that have exacted such a toll on me and my family.  I am depressed and losing hope.  I have told PGS this.  Nonetheless, PGS just want me to be silent and let them live in their fantasy world of never being caught.  When I submitted my workplace grievance in 2013, I elaborated on the health issues and risks to organizations that workplace bullying and harassment cause.  PGS withheld health advice and care following my delivery of the formal grievance in 2013.  Rather than behave ethically and in accordance to the published policy, procedures, and values, PGS leadership decided to place my health and the health of my family at risk before accepting responsibility.  This is sick and evil behavior.  It violates the Norwegian Corporate Governance Code of Practice.  But, somehow, Reinhardsen escapes investigation and inquiry and ascends to become the Chairman of the Board for Norway’s largest corporation which is largely state owned?  Such allegations are a blemish to the reputation of Norway and should be investigated.  If the allegations are true, and I believe that they are, then Norway is operating in a mythology which disrupts the reality of real-time commerce.  We cannot accept, globally, despotic and corrupt corporate leadership.  There may be a lot more corruption in Texas.  I do not know.  What I do know is that I am a Texan who believes he is a victim of crimes perpetrated by executives of a Norwegian company.  My justice requires the attention and help from the Norwegian government.  Please help me.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Kalavity

###

PGS ASA Corruption is Protected through the Cooperative Abuse of Power

###

One trick is to pull a little bait and switch on your own brain. It goes like this: When the urge comes to do the counterproductive thing, don’t resist. Instead, replace.

CARL RICHARDS

When a person trusts that a system designed to defend, respond, protect, or seek justice will do its job after an interpersonal trauma, and when that system either chooses not to respond (omission) or worse, chooses to lay blame at the feet of the victim (commission), institutional betrayal occurs.

According to research by psychologist Jennifer Freyd, PhD, when wrong-doers are confronted with their acts (which may be criminal), they show a pattern that can be abbreviated as DARVO, which stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.  Victims of wrong-doers have a need for the truth to be revealed and for justice.  But, the proclivity of the toxic and narcissistic organization is to suppress such truth, protect the wrong-doers and evade responsibility by denying the truth and attacking the victim.  Therefore, rather than a victim making specific public allegations that will invoke such focused attacks and reprisals, it is perhaps safer and more productive to illuminate patterns of behavior, grounded in research, that will enlighten and protect potential future victims of institutional betrayal, while giving credence to current victims’ narratives.   In institutional betrayal, power and prestige within the institution is preserved through protecting the wrong-doer over the victim.  Victims place their trust in institutions based on expectations that the institution is worthy of their trust.  Stakeholders in the institution trust that the published institution core values, policy, and procedures are in place to protect their own, as well as other institutional stakeholder’s, vested interests.  After all, the main objective of publishing such information within business proposals and annual reports is to inculcate such feelings of trust in the values of the institution and its leadership.  When institutions do not respond in accordance to their espoused values, they betray this trust and in such cases, this betrayal of trust can be more traumatizing to the victims than the initial perpetrated wrong-doing, according to Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT).   

Mobbing is the nonsexual harassment of a coworker by a group of other workers or members of an organization of the one who is targeted.  The term psychological terrorism is also used to describe workplace mobbing.  Mobbing is not a conflict over facts and reasons.  Mobbing is a form of genocide where the objective is to eliminate the target that poses a threat to the power structure, influence, and reputation of the institution, and more precisely, its leadership.  Workplace mobbing tactics often are used against whistleblowers – workers who report concerns about illegal or unethical behavior in the workplace.  Mobbing requires the support of top management.  Mobbing cannot be sustained without the permission and/or direction from top-management.  The damage done to a person through workplace mobbing is an injury, not an illness.  Fundamentally, it is a workplace health and safety issue.  Therefore, there is always an effort by top-management to skirt responsibility and accountability for their intentional or negligent injurious actions.  The objective is to make the workplace so miserable for the target that they will leave voluntarily without a fight.  Workplace mobbing and bullying results in a number of health injuries and consequences for both the target, as well as his/her family.   The fabric of relationships within the organization is damaged and the victim of mobbing has suffered an injury that can be life threatening.  Victims of mobbing are documented to become ill and die prematurely or commit suicide.  Mobbing is violent health-harming abuse perpetrated through the abuse of authoritative power and a profound breach of trust.

Gaslighting is an insidiously cruel form of sociopathic narcissistic psychological manipulation and abuse often practiced to gain power and control over a target.   The objective of the gaslighting is to cause the target to lose their sense of identity and perception of what’s really happening around them.  The term originates from the 1938 stage play, Gaslight.  In the play, a husband dims the gas lights while he searches for jewels that he believes were hidden in the attic by his wife’s aunt, who was murdered in the apartment which his wife inherited.  The wife notices the dimming gas light, as well as other strange goings-on.  The husband tries to persuade her that she is imagining the light change, and other things.  The objective is to replace the truth with a lie.  The term gaslighting is now used colloquially to describe efforts to manipulate someone’s perception of reality.  Gaslighter’s will use persistent lying, denial, misdirection and contradiction to destabilize the victim’s beliefs and make them doubt their perceptions of events.  In the workplace, for instance, an individual who reports or discloses being harassed and bullied, or other workplace behaviors that may contradict their understanding of policy, or even the law, may become targets of gaslighting.  Gaslighter’s may try to make the victim believe that no wrong-doing has occurred and that they are just coping badly with “work performance” or other unrelated issues.  Gaslighting and workplace mobbing, or gang-bullying, can be applied together in a collective effort to force the target out of their job in retaliation for disclosing and revealing such wrong doing.  Mobbing and gaslighting are tactics used to force whistleblowers out of the workplace.

DARVO also exists on an organizational level. When a company or organization is complicit with the accused who employs the same strategy, it’s “institutional DARVO,” and what Freyd calls a form of betrayal.

Ashley Judd

And leadership is even more frightened that they might lose power, so any signs of “trouble” can easily be perceived as threats to that power.

Janice Harper, PhD, Just Us Justice

What is the difference between lying and fraud?  At what point does telling lies go from being a poor decision to a violation of the law?  Fraud is an intentional false representation intended to mislead the receiver to their detriment.  Courts will often look at what the liar(s) gain if the lie is believed and what harm is caused to the person who relied on truthful information.  If the victim believed the lie and acted as if it were true and suffered some sort of injury because of the betrayal in trust, there could be liability for fraud.  Denying or ignoring the truthful narrative of a victim is a lie and a betrayal, and a particularly pernicious form of denial is DARVO.  Organizations, like people, have an incentive to protect their ideal image.  Organizations have attributes and personalities formed by the decisions and actions of directors and top-management.  It is these decisions and actions which form the institution or corporate character.  This is not to be confused with the published corporate values, mission statements, and annual reports, which are created to form an ideal perception of the corporate character.  Narcissism describes a self-absorbed person.  Narcissists are prone to frequent lies and exaggerations and enjoy getting away with violating rules and social norms.  Narcissists project a false idealized image of themselves and use or control others as an extension of themselves.  The narcissistic organization becomes similarly self-absorbed in protecting an ideal identity above dealing with contrasting reality.  When agents of organizations gang-bully and gaslight targets in the workplace, it above all involves a conspiratorial myriad of intentional false representations intended to mislead and change the targets perception of true events to their detriment.

Participants in the atrocities and genocide carried out by Nazi Germany justified their actions on following the orders of superiors, or obedience to authority.  Could it be that the millions of accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?  In 1961, US Yale University psychologist, Stanley Milgram, began his famous experiments into analyzing obedience to authority.  The Milgram Experiment wanted to determine if ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.  People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.  The experiment concluded that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Ordinary kind and humane people can easily become sadistic under certain conditions.  When someone in a position of leadership makes it clear that certain individuals are undesirable, these targets may be mistreated, shunned, and even falsely accused of misconduct and crimes.  If people believe that they will not be held accountable for their actions, and the more they see others acting aggressively without sanction, the more likely they will behave aggressively.  However, if people were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey. 

It is important to remember that the heinous genocide and elimination of those deemed socially undesirable during of the Holocaust was not only legal, but also a principal objective of the authoritative Nazi regime in power.  There was, and would have been, reprisal and punishment to those citizens who thwarted those objectives.  Nevertheless, many charged in carrying out these objectives were punished, and even executed, following the Allied trials that followed the conclusion of the Allied victory of World War 2.  In the Milgram experiment, teacher subjects were allowed to dispense punishment to “learners” under the direction and authority of the Yale University researcher.  Yale University’s reputation provided additional allegiance and obedience to follow these instructions.  Further, the teachers were not enfranchised in the Yale University organization.  They were not fellow researchers with an understanding of the experiment or knowledge of human psychology.  Mobbing and gaslighting behavior may be authorized by leaders – those holding authoritative decision-making power – of organizations, but those who follow the sole instruction of authority are also agents who have pronounced their commitment to uphold laws, organization policy, and organization values. 

We should never forget that everything Adolph Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Retaliation against whistleblowers is common and severe and includes negative job performance evaluations, micromanagement, isolation, loss of job, and blacklisting.

Kathy Ahern, PhD., RN, Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting: Why Whistleblowers are So Traumatized

Gang-bullies and gaslighter’s breach all of these commitments and provide their allegiance to corrupt wrong-doers with authoritative power.  Categorically, this not “professional” behavior.  Beyond this, the law and organization policy most certainly advocate the intervention by professionals to not follow lawless, arbitrary and capricious authority that can seriously endanger the health and well-being of a coworker.  For any policy not to state this would be malpractice.   (This was not the case in Nazi Germany.)  Joining the mob and protecting corrupt leadership may enable employees to secure benefit and promotions for helping management eliminate a “difficult” employee – the whistleblower – or the target of discriminatory or abusive treatment.  Isn’t this bribery for the purpose of perverting the course of justice? Anyone who threatens the narcissistic delusion of the organization has put themselves in jeopardy.  In a safe and functional organization, disclosures are handled according to both the law and policy.  Whistleblowing tends to refer to disclosures which are not handled appropriately and result in acts of retaliation and reprisal against those who make protected disclosures.  So, why is providing protected disclosure – or whistleblowing – about organization wrong-doing so dangerous and damaging for professionals who do so, when just the opposite should be true?

When what should happen is quite the opposite to what the employee who discloses wrong-doing is experiencing, cognitive dissonance is created.  There is a betrayal of trust which undermines one’s sense of reality and confidence.  Most whistleblowers disclose with the belief that the organization leadership will be just as troubled by the reported behavior as they are.  The whistleblower has been promised by the organization that disclosures will be handled fairly and effectively.  It is a legal and fiduciary promise made by leadership.  When the whistleblower begins to see the published proclamations as false assurances and is at the receiving end of unabashed reprisals, this distresses the whistleblower immensely.  Many whistleblowers experience long-term Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD).  Disclosing organization wrong-doing often implicates higher level executives, directly or indirectly.  DARVO occurs when the perpetrator, which could be an organization, literally accuses the victim of doing something specific that they did.  For instance, if you accuse perpetrators of defamation for evaluating your performance arbitrarily and not in accordance to the organization performance management system, as is common for workplace bullies and the mob, the perpetrator will deny the bullying and claim your accusations are defamatory.  The organization will protect the improperly empowered wrong-doers.  There will be no fair investigation or resolution, in contradiction to the written policy.  The victim of harassment/bullying by the mob will likely be terminated and blacklisted, all the while the narcissistic organization will preserve the myth of being guided by high values and fairness.  This is an orchestrated deception.

Betrayal is very threatening to our survival as humans.  When former colleagues and professionals assist in the elimination of the betrayed target, it comes as a shock.  It is very painful and confusing to the target who cannot understand what’s going on?  The betrayed target is likely to be enraged at the trusted institution and fellow employees who have breached their trust and demonstrated cowardice and lack of moral fortitude.  Once former colleagues align themselves with the immoral mob, there can be no redemption.  An initial moment of guilt may occur with the initial small betrayal.  This is followed by anger at the target because being angry with the corrupted power structure and calling them out is too risky.  The anger is fueled by fear and guilt that they have become accomplices in evil and compromised their own principles by betraying the target.  Following the initial betrayal, the subsequent lies and betrayals increase in intensity.  The problem is that eventually the betrayals will be discovered.  The mob must create justifications for their decisions that support the false narrative of events aligned with the corrupt power structure that oversaw the gaslighting and manipulation in the workplace which was orchestrated to eliminate the target.  The mob would like to frame the targets reaction as unhinged, when it is entirely normal for a betrayed person or victim to act as a betrayed person or victim.  The participants within the mob must collectively maintain the mythological institution identity or face internal or external legal reprisals and accountability.  They do this knowingly to protect a hypocritical and corrupted power structure and false institution identity at the expense of the victim.                          

Every life is a test but, in the workplace, few are tested more than whistleblowers.  The act of whistleblowing is a comprehensive test of the whistleblower’s values, loyalties, and above all their self-worth.  The whistleblower who survives, survives these tests. 

K. R. Sawyer, The Test Called Whistleblowing

Whistleblowers are “not” wimps. They are mighty men and women of valor as Jesus Christ was when He overturned the tables of “The Den of Thieves” who were using His Father’s House to make money.

Margaret Kannaday, Jesus: The Whistleblower

Mistreatment of workers in the workplace has always existed.  At the same time, more recently a growing attention has been given to issues such as workplace harassment, bullying, and mobbing.   In 1976, Carroll M. Brodsky, a psychologist and anthropologist, opened the discussion of workplace abuse with his book The Harassed Worker looking at the outcomes and accidents from worker stress and exhaustion.  In the mid-1980s research by psychologist and pedagogist Heinz Leymann began further investigating workplace stress and introduced our modern concept of workplace bullying and mobbing.  Workplace bullying and mobbing are identified as principal workplace health and safety hazards.  Workplace environments where mobbing and bullying occur have been antecedent to both the Piper Alpha (1988) and the Deepwater Horizon (2010) offshore oil rig disasters.  The Piper Alpha disaster cost the lives of 167 offshore workers and was the deadliest offshore disaster.  The Deepwater Horizon is the largest offshore environmental disaster and it also cost the lives of eleven (11) offshore workers.  Workplaces environments where there are feelings of economic uncertainty from downsizing and restructuring leave fewer people to do more work and also make the competition for positions intense seem to fuel harassment, bullying and mobbing cultures.  While the cyclic oil and gas industry that employs geo-services professionals is not unique in terms of harvesting workplace conditions conducive to workplace harassment, bullying and mobbing, but is especially susceptible during down cycles which exacerbate uncertainty.

Much of the research work by Freyd focuses on sexual offenders and identifies a form of institutional betrayal, which is a negative reaction when an assault is reported.  This negative response by the organization adds additional trauma to the victim beyond the interpersonal violation.  The comment that is often heard, “The rape was bad, but what was even worse was how I was treated after the rape occurred.”  Institutional DARVO occurs when DARVO is committed by an institution (or with institutional complicity).  Institutional DARVO is when an institution minimizes – sometimes to the point of ignoring – the harms done to the victim(s) and frames the alleged perpetrations in such a way to blame the victim and protect the perpetrators.  An example of institutional DARVO would include to institutional leaders responding to disclosures by gaslighting victims into thinking they do not have a sufficient understanding of policy and practice and that there was no non-compliant or illegal behavior.  In the case of bullying and mobbing, the ruse of “poor performance” is often used as a justification for mistreatment.  Institutions may also obstruct the victims redress through outright lying about policy and legal obligations of the institution.  Institution betrayal really boils down to leadership corrupting the processes of redress in order to avoid culpability.  The institution does not follow their own rules and decisions are made with arbitrary caprice. 

Milgram demonstrated the power of authority over the minds and wills of ordinary people.  Milgram’s experiment was conducted following the trial of Otto Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem.  Eichmann was executed in 1962.  The trial was followed closely by the media and was the inspiration for several books.  One of the more famous books was written by Hannah Arendt.  Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem coined the phrase “the banality of evil” to describe Eichmann.  Banal evil is characterized by a belief that what one is doing is not evil, rather, what they are engaging in is a behavior that is, or has been, normalized by the society in which they reside.  The horrors of the Holocaust, to which Eichmann assisted through overseeing the deportation of many of the Jewish population to the Auschwitz concentration camp, resulted in the murder of about 75 percent upon arrival.  Eichmann was loyally following the laws and carrying out the evil objectives of the Nazi regime.  Institutional betrayal and acts of psychological violence in the workplace, such as harassment, mobbing and bullying is different.  Those who follow the evil dictates of authority are usually acting against the policy and laws.  Such “professionals” are actively and willingly complicit in the destruction of the victim’s professional life and reputation, as well as the family and loved one’s who depend on their betrayed victims.  These acts are evil.  Such behavior is only normalized through the indifference of legal authorities to pursue such evil institution leadership and mob participants.  Scientific research has determined proclivities and patterns followed by abusers and criminals.  Now, institutional governance bodies and law enforcement must actively embrace the research and the body of knowledge it provides to aid victims.  For institutional governance and law enforcement not to do so is a further betrayal to victims and a miscarriage of justice.  Being a victim or doing the right thing should not be dangerous. 

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.

Hannah Arendt

Consecrated persons, chosen by God to guide souls to salvation, let themselves be dominated by their human frailty or sickness and thus become tools of Satan.

Pope Francis, 2019 Sex Abuse Summit

###