Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited
Contact E-mail: email@example.com
The fact is that white-collar criminals are, in general, incredibly good at deluding themselves that they’re good people, even when they clearly aren’t. ~ Felix Salmon
Most targets are forced out of their positions within two years of a bullying and mobbing campaign. Forced out by being fired, resigning, becoming ill, committing suicide or going postal! All of this could be avoided if every working person had a knowledge of “workplace bullying and mobbing”. ~ ABC-AntiBullyingCrusador’s
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited [PGSUK], 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, was trying desperately to hide management malfeasance and contrive a legal appearing way to terminate me from employment. Corrupt executives did not just want me to lose my job with PGSUK, they wanted me never to work again. They had no qualms about endangering my health and well-being, and that of my family. These corrupt and reprobate executives will do whatever they can to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, arbitrary and capricious refers to willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or law or without determining principle. When I eventually did deliver my formal grievance complaining of workplace bullying and harassment, along with multiple departures from PGSUK policy and UK contract and employment laws, I cited that the three principal bullies were, in fact, behaving with arbitrary caprice. At the time, I had no idea that arbitrary and capricious was the practiced executive management philosophy of Norway based Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). PGSUK is an affiliate of PGS. Such evil and cruel behaviors were deliberate and intended to harm a foreign worker and whistleblower, along with his PGSUK sponsored family. This type of workplace gang-bullying, psychological and physical abuse, defamation and blacklisting, executed to protect corrupt and incompetent executives, is wicked, contemptible and illegal. And this is why PGS/PGSUK executives remain silent to this day. They do not want to admit to, nor explain, their immoral, iniquitous and harmful actions.
A corrupt PGS/PGSUK hierarchy, who laud core values as well as an unparalleled regard for workplace health and safety publicly, in practice, will take unprecedented measures to defame and blacklist a whistleblower that sheds light on discovered executive non-compliant behaviors. A whistleblower is an employee who exposes or reports information about their employer regarding corruption, a threat to public interest, a violation of company policy, or a violation of the law. I believe that my grievance, which noted violations/departures from PGSUK policy and UK Labor Law, reached that standard. The tragic dynamic between corrupt organizational hierarchies and whistleblowers is that Company agents entrusted with abiding by the rules, policies and laws advance through not doing their jobs well, while whistleblowers often have their careers halted for actually doing their jobs well, as well as honestly. This PGSUK confidence fraud allowed the corrupt and criminal bullies, PGSUK Directors and Executives total personal victory over their target. They were allowed to preserve their knowingly defamatory narrative and impede their targets career progression, whilst not taking any responsibility for their dishonest, health-harming, and criminal acts. The PGSUK Directors and Secretary misused resources, human and monetary, to conduct non-compliant and illegal actions. How were involved law firms Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) and Landau, Zeffertt and Wier (LZW) enticed and compensated into also behaving corruptly on behalf of the bullies and criminals?
The cabal likely never anticipated that their corrupt actions would be exposed once their hapless target left England in exile. However, I filed a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and their lies were revealed. Corrupt PGS/PGSUK Directors and Executives have yet to demonstrate to me that they have complied with any published Company policy or national laws, by the way that they handled my termination from employment with PGSUK, as well as the events since. I can prove, with dated e-mail evidence, that corrupt PGS/PGSUK personal data processors are knowingly processing inaccurate and false personal data about me. PGS/PGSUK personal data processors are currently defrauding me and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Data controller PGSUK personal data processors are like misguided alchemists trying to change mercury into gold. PGS/PGSUK cannot prove that the data that they are processing under my name is true or accurate. What they can prove more easily, perhaps, is that bribed lawyers will help process false instruments created to provide the appearance of a legal settlement contract agreement and disguise a panicked wrongful termination. This confidence fraud was planned and perpetrated so that PGSUK Directors and Executives would escape any culpability for a litany of wrong-doing. In the final analysis, there is just no legal way to produce illegal records. Crooked lawyers agreeing on a lie does not turn those lies into the truth. It may fool ICO caseworkers, but I believe that what they have actually done is called intentional misrepresentation to a government agency!
The key to forgery is if you have permission, there is no forgery. There was never an intent to defraud anybody. ~ Jere Reneer
We learned about honesty and integrity – that the truth matters… that you don’t take shortcuts or play by your own set of rules… and success doesn’t count unless you earn it fair and square. ~ Michelle Obama
As a Marine Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa, I used to work with Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal and Company Secretary and his legal staff, at the time, Ben Kelly. Richards and/or Kelly would review and recommend amendments to contract terms and conditions for marine seismic/EM data acquisition and processing projects. I was informed that Richards and Kelly had read my written grievance and also recommended that I sign a settlement contract agreement rather than proceed through the grievance process which had illuminated untoward executive behaviors and decisions. Therefore, Richards and Kelly sanctioned, as well as participated in, all of the processes that resulted in creating these false and inaccurate personal data records affecting my termination under false pretenses. PGS Legal Counsel and Compliance at the time, Rune Olav Pedersen, had also similarly read the grievance and likely strongly influenced this course of action. Pedersen’s culprit companion in PGS Compliance, Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global HR, signed a forged memo stating that proper actions were taken to justify my termination. Bjølseth presided over a grievance hearing, along with division head, Per Arild Reksnes, PGS EVP Marine Contract. Reksnes also signed this fake memo which supposedly had been written to my attention. I had never read it, nor ever signed it.
My quest for over two-years of reviewing data, requesting clarification, writing blog articles, writing queries on LinkedIn™ PGS comment section, filing a report and sending emails to PGS Compliance Hotline, and generating several Twitter™ feeds, many with images, has been aimed to get answers. No one, other than myself, seems to want to clearly explain what was the legal basis for the proffered settlement agreement contract, and moreover, what data was used to support and process the contract, and finally, how was the data verified? Did these measures follow the prescribed legal and compliant procedures? There is no way that PGS/PGSUK can answer in the affirmative. For one thing, no legal and compliant formed settlement contract agreement would ever allow such inflammatory publications directed at agents of my former employer and their counsel (WFW), as well as my own counsel (LZW). In fact, one of the conditions that I did not concede during negotiations was the inclusion of a mutual non-disparagement clause. I had even requested that the defamatory materials created by the bullies be expunged. I was claiming defamation, after all. Of course, I did not know that my legal advisors were compromised at the time. The integrity of my personal data, and the processes used to create it, was central to my grievance. Data protection was also part of my contract of employment. However, I was never allowed to see all of the data, even when I requested it. There is no legal and compliant scenario of processes that can accomplish turning mercury into gold, and all of the individuals from PGS/PGSUK, WFW, and LZW, who processed the false instruments that supported the illegal settlement agreement know this.
This is why there needs to be an explanation provided by those in legally responsible positions of authoritative power for there to be closure. These questions deserve responsible and truthful answers for the greater public good. The PGSUK Directors who share PGSUK oversight responsibilities with Richards also serve as executives at Norwegian parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). The current PGSUK directors are Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS President and CEO; Gottfred Langseth, PGS EVP and CFO; and Christen Steen-Nilsen, Chief Accountant. However, much of this accountability pertains to events which happened in the 2012 – 2013 time frame. Jon Erik Reinhardsen, (former) President and CEO resigned as director August 2017. Lawyer Candida Pinto was the PGSUK Secretary prior to September 2013. PGSUK enlisted an experienced employment lawyer to negotiate and finalize the settlement contract agreement on their behalf. Rhodri Thomas, who was with Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW), negotiated and finalized the settlement on behalf of PGSUK. The experienced employment lawyers whom I engaged to help me, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, were with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW). Thomas was the intermediary who communicated directly with both PGSUK HR staff and lawyers, as well as LZW lawyers, during the negotiations. I never had direct communications with PGSUK lawyers or Thomas throughout the entirety of settlement contract agreement negotiations. I relied on LZW lawyers to proceed in the best way to advance my interests. I was intentionally kept very busy with marine contract sales work while the negotiations were going on.
The vast literature concerning whistleblowers shows that, far from weird extremists, they are really quite ordinary people: male and female, young and old, junior and senior, no more nerdy or obsessive than most hard workers. ~ Margaret Heffernan
Cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin. Intellectual cruelty is certainly the worst kind of cruelty. ~ Gilbert K. Chesterton
Central to my grievance was workplace gang-bullying perpetrated by three (3) executives who were abusing their positions and the performance management system to demote me and terminate my employment. The three named bullies were my boss, Edward von Abendorff, PGSUK VP Contract Sales – Africa; his boss Simon Cather, PGSUK Marine Contract President – Africa; and David Nicholson, PGSUK HR Manager. A firm copy of my workplace grievance was delivered in person during a delayed and then re-scheduled meeting to Nicholson, Abendorff, and my witness/coworker, John Barnard, Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa. I sent electronic copies by internal/work e-mail to Cather, Bjølseth, Reksnes and John Greenway, PGS SVP Marine Contract. All the recipients and directors of my delivered grievance document know that its contents contradicts, emphatically, the false instruments which support a false narrative. For those who may not have known how the matter was ultimately resolved, my blog posts clarified this. I published and named individuals within, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015). With this publication, all recipients and responsible people familiar with my grievance were on placed on notice that I knew that things were not alright. When I published Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015), all the cabal knew why. The PGS/PGSUK executives have been running away from the truth and responsibility ever since they were first publicly outed.
Targets of workplace gang-bullying campaigns have become ill, depressed, been driven to suicide, or even gone postal and killed their tormentors. My therapy has been to share the truth on social media and blog posts. I was robbed of my legal right under contract to share the truth and be respected while an employee of PGSUK. My predicament, in no small part, is due to the corrupt decisions of PGSUK lawyers, Richards and Kelly. Their misguided actions were approved by the PGS General Counsel and legal compliance lawyer, Pedersen. I have not completely figured out the role that Pinto played. However, Pinto holds key information needed to have a complete understanding of pertinent events. The gang-bullying behavior of the three named principals involved their departing from published protocols, especially with regard to the prescribed policies relevant to PGSUKs performance management system. I also claimed that the principals were defaming me through chronicling and projecting harmful untruths. Mainly, there were several abuses of authoritative agency power and position and departure from published PGSUK policy and contract breaches, such as duty of care and duty of mutual trust and confidence common contract law provisions. The chaotic and non-compliant behaviors were distressful and affecting my health. This stress was also compounded by the fact that I was a foreign worker and sole provider to my family with limited control or ability to escape the toxic and health-harming work environment. All of these behaviors happened while Pinto was Secretary.
I had been offered the settlement agreement contract to not follow through with the formal grievance process, which was my legal right under contract. It took great effort for me to be able to finally deliver my written grievance. Nicholson impeded my initial queries into submitting a grievance. There were two (2) key events which served as the main basis for my composing the grievance document. The first key event was the ambush meeting, which happened in June 2013, and the second was what I have referred to as an ambush letter, which happened in late July 2013. These events are discussed within the blog post, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). My first query into submitting a grievance was made immediately following the ambush meeting, as is outlined in the referenced blog post. I also asked Nicholson for meeting minutes and how the meeting complied with policy and procedures. Nicholson withheld providing answers to all of these questions. Nothing had been provided to me in writing. The ambush letter was requested by me, in as much as it was something firm that I could reference. The contents were the contents. However, the question for both Richards and Pinto would be how the ambush meeting and subsequent ambush letter were compliant with employment law and PGSUK policy and procedures?
Bullies, when they are managers, love to cheat. They hurriedly call a meeting and mandate that their bullied target attend. No agenda. No stated purpose. Then, Wham! You’re fired! This is the Ambush Meeting, something you should expect and prepare for. ~ Workplace Bully Institute
The respect for human rights is nowadays not so much a matter of having international standards, but rather questions of compliance with those standards. ~ Michelle Bachelet
Nicholson formed the ambush letter which related items brought forth within the ambush meeting. However, there was a significant included difference from the ambush meeting added within the subject line: Investigation into possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). PGSUK was trying to steer me away from submitting the grievance following the inappropriate ambush meeting and inject a disciplinary action. This would make my grievance appear to be a response to a disciplinary action. A meeting was scheduled for 11 September 2013 within the ambush letter. In between the ambush meeting and ambush letter, PGSUK had renewed my Tier 2 visa, stipulated on the shortage occupation list. (This meant that PGSUK did not have to advertise the position locally.) The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. Nicholson knew that my intention was to submit a grievance at these scheduled meetings. It is important to note that on 13 September 2013, Pinto resigned as PGSUK Secretary and Richards assumed the PGSUK Secretary responsibilities. I delivered my prepared grievance document on 20 September 2013. At the time of delivery, the grievance was the only active formal employment action. The 20 September 2013 meeting was very short and no discussions regarding the said “investigation” happened. My grievance document was presented to PGS/PGSUK executives Bjølseth, Reksnes, Greenway, my witness, Barnard and the three principals, Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson.
A grievance hearing meeting was scheduled on 14 October 2013, over three-weeks after the grievance was delivered. However, on 10 October 2013, I was offered a settlement contract agreement. Nicholson had offered me a settlement contract agreement to not follow-through with the scheduled grievance hearing meeting. During this short meeting, Nicholson mentioned that PGS/PGSUK lawyers had read my grievance and considered me to be in dispute with the Company and wanted to terminate my employment this way. I declined the proffered settlement contract agreement. I wanted to proceed through the process. Just after this short meeting I made contact with Landau. I provided some details and also a copy of my grievance document with names redacted. I have published my initial e-mail communications with Landau/LZW within the blog article, The Crimes of @PhilipLandau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30-Dec-2017). I did decide to engage LZW Solicitors, Landau and his assistant Rushton. PGSUK lawyers distanced themselves from the direct negotiations and enlisted aid from long-time customer Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW). Rhodri Thomas, WFW Employment Solicitor was brought in to negotiate on behalf of PGSUK. Landau had been provided with accurate information within my grievance document as well as through subsequent communications. My grievance document included the referenced ambush letter without the date for the follow-up meeting changed. However, Landau was made aware of the rescheduled date through e-mails.
Defamation was a principal component of my formal grievance. Beyond this, a main point of negotiations was a clause regarding disparagement. The initial clause was one-sided favoring PGSUK. I requested a mutual non-disparagement clause, at the very least. Initially, I wanted all content authored by the three principals, Nicholson, Abendorff, and Cather, to be expunged from my personnel records. After all, the grievance was claiming defamation by the three principals. Landau or Rushton, and of course PGSUK, never even suggested that I exercise my legal right to make certain that the data PGSUK was processing was true and accurate and actually see what was being processed. In fact, PGSUK made a concerted effort to not allow my review. This is made clear in my blog posts when PGSUK denied me to review minutes of the ambush meeting. Yet, a version of minutes is currently being processed. Had I been provided with the ambush meeting minutes when I first requested them, then I would have been able to submit my grievance months sooner. My frustration was that I was being prevented from exercising my right to submit a grievance by Nicholson. However, when I finally did submit the grievance, everyone who read the grievance would have known the records being processed were false and inaccurate. This includes PGS/PGSUK lawyers and LZW lawyers. The written grievance clearly contradicts the PGSUK narrative being processed. Further, the ambush letter that PGSUK continues to process retains the original 11 September 2013 meeting date.
The more people rationalize cheating, the more it becomes a culture of dishonesty. And that can become a vicious, downward cycle. Because suddenly, if everyone else is cheating, you feel a need to cheat, too. ~ Stephen Covey
If two individuals enter into a contract to commit trespass, theft, robbery or murder upon a third, the contract is unlawful and void, simply because it is a contract to violate natural justice, or men’s natural rights. ~ Lysander Spooner
It is obvious that data controller PGSUK is knowingly processing false instruments supporting a false narrative. Pedersen, Richards, Kelly, and Nicholson all read the grievance. PGSUK has lied to the ICO, and PGS executives have lied to the Norwegian Data Protection Agency. At its core, however, this is all about PGSUK not wanting to fairly address the issues brought forth within the submitted grievance. The grievance document is also not being processed by PGSUK. PGS/PGSUK have deleted this watershed event out of our shared history. PGSUK, WFW, and LZW lawyers created and processed false instruments framed to make the settlement offer look like a legal performance based termination. But, PGS had absolutely no documents and had not followed processes to support a performance based termination. I always knew this, and therefore was surprised at the way the settlement negotiations (which should have never happened before a grievance process concluded) were going from the onset. This only could have happened to a foreign worker concerned about the health and safety of his family. Also removed from my personnel file is a report from PGSUK’s third-party occupational health nurse. She had detected evidence of elevated stress levels related to my workplace and recommended that I visit a GP. Nicholson and Abendorff had even requested the evaluations themselves while negotiations were underway. Landau knew that my GP was prepared to issue an unfit note and that I had visited different specialist due to sleeping issues. Pedersen, Richards, and Kelly knew about the OHN assessment and withheld her report from me. I had to request from her personally after I had left England.
PGS/PGSUK enticed and compensated, in some way, the other lawyers involved in resolving the settlement contract agreement to legitimize the defamatory data about me. PGS/PGSUK created and processed false instruments uttering defamatory claims to be processed as my legal records. It was a character assassination explicitly orchestrated to blacklist me and marginalize me in my profession carried out by a gang of conspirators and fraudsters who all retained or gained professional status since this confidence fraud game. If a potential employer had contacted PGS/PGSUK and queried about my work history, PGSUK records are the reference. If there were to be a legal claim, PGSUK records are the reference. This is why three sets of lawyers were used to assemble this only legal appearing termination. With true and accurate data, it was a sinister and evil wrongful termination. So, if I interviewed for position under the belief that I signed a settlement agreement because I was harassed, the employer can be suspicious if they have learned that I was terminated for performance based reasons. And by the way, HR staff, Laura Haswell, Gareth Jones, and Anne Stokle (I was told) processed and viewed my personnel file and should have known it did not comply with a legal standard. Nothing was signed by me and the health report was removed. Cather helped produce the forged documents, as well. Further, Jones was stationed in Houston, the job market that I relocated to. Nicholson says he is a PGSUK processor because it would be illegal to share personal data between the US and UK. All this makes the target of bullying look like a liar, when in fact the opposite is true.
This is the type of evil, corrupt, and criminal cowards PGS/PGSUK directors and executives are. There are many negative ramifications of PGS/PGSUK continuing to process knowingly false data which they must have illegally paid lawyers to process. For one thing, it’s all illegal. But, for the target of the confidence fraud, even ICO regards this defamatory data to be legal and accurate. Tragically, when I submitted the SAR to PGSUK, I had to communicate with the same criminal con-artistes who processed my settlement! If PGS/PGSUK ever responded to my queries or posts, I would take notice. If PGS/PGSUK ever publicly accused me of criminal behavior, I would take any/all legal action that I were capable of doing against them. However, I can call the CEO and several executive’s liars, cheaters, cowards, ass holes, and criminals without rebuke? Either PGS/PGSUK, WFW, and LZW lawyers are incompetent, or they are fugitives from justice on the lam. PGS is being directed by a cabal of cowardly lying fraudsters. Unfortunately, a corrupt hierarchy protects each other through bribing loyalty and perverting the course of justice through concealing the truth. Reinhardsen is now Chairman of the StatOil board of directors. Reinhardsen is culpable and should be in jail along with many executives in my view. However, this all does not change the fact that the cold hard truth is bullet proof and never depleted. PGS/PGSUK processing their false instruments only harms them is a fair legal venue not constructed by corrupt lawyers. I seek access to a fair legal venue. However, PGS/PGSUK is still paying salaries and advancing their corrupt operators while still blacklisting a whistleblower.
When I worked within the Contract Sales – Africa group, the legal team could often review substantive marine seismic data acquisition contracts generally in less than a week. Further, I had never expressed any animosity or disagreement with any one of the PGSUK legal team. I respected their knowledge and ability, as well as understood their important contribution to the Marine Contract Sales – Africa group. Therefore, it has been very disappointing to discover that both Richards and Kelly played key roles in assisting corrupt gang-bully executives escape accountability for not following PGSUK policy and protocols, and the law. Richards and Kelly, with full support and direction from PGS legal, Pedersen, decided to join the bullies and engage in abhorrent and corrupt behaviors directed at harming me and my family, all while protecting and participating in violent and health-harming workplace behaviors. Pedersen, Richards and Kelly, have demonstrated a complete lack of character, honesty, or courage, along with their corrupt and complicit HR gang-members.
Pedersen, Richards and Kelly are a scar on the legal profession, as are Thomas, Landau and Rushton. They have practiced the very definition of arbitrary and capricious behaviors. None of them deserves any sympathy whatsoever for any negative actions or publicity which has effected them. My hopeful objective is that actors in this confidence fraud game go to jail/prison. This would be justice as a byproduct of their collective illegal decisions and actions. They are dishonest, unprofessional and despicable cowards. They have, thus far, unjustly benefited from their pillage and misuse of PGS/PGSUK resources. This is because the entire PGS/PGSUK power structure was complicit to the fraud. And therefore, those who have cooperated and remained silent have also benefited. Neither Pedersen, Richards nor Kelly will comment or explain their actions. (Very disrespectful.) Instead, they have been enabled to slither away from their legal responsibilities and accountability and this is the greatest threat to a fair market and industry: corruption rewarded.
Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility. ~ Peter Drucker
The humanities teach us the value, even for business, of criticism and dissent. When there’s a culture of going along to get along, where whistleblowers are discouraged, bad things happen and businesses implode. ~ Martha C. Nussbaum
# # #
Carl Richards’, Secretary, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Silence Implies Agreement and the Abrogation of Fiduciary Duty
The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied. ~ Sir Thomas More, A Man for all Seasons
Silence can be either protest or consent, but most times it’s fear. ~ Paul Beatty, The Sellout
Corporate directors, secretaries, and key executives hold a fiduciary duty to stakeholders. A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. It is in the charge of such fiduciaries to conduct business according to all applicable laws and regulation and Company’s policies. Fiduciary duty principally includes both a duty of care and a duty of loyalty and overall is interpreted to mean that directors shall act in the best interests of all stakeholders. The duty of care requires that directors are informed through all material information reasonably available to them before forming business decisions. A director should not simply accept information, but rather must critically assess the information to protect the interests of the corporation and its stockholders. The duty of loyalty does not permit key executives and directors to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interests. Peremptorily and inexorably, the conscientious and steady devotion to one’s duty of loyalty is not only to appropriately protect the interests of the corporation, but to also refrain from any actions which would intentionally injure the Company’s business, its interests, or its reputation.
Qui tacet consentire — the Latin maxim of common law states that s/he who is silent is taken to agree. However, keeping harmful truths secret is significantly different than speaking truth to power and revealing those secrets. Speaking truth to power is dangerous for the disempowered. Those with power keep secrets to preserve and/or increase power. For the fiduciary, remaining silent when the truth is known is a form of abuse of entrusted power, the very definition of corruption. This is the problem with the concept of internalized corporate governance and legal compliance. Silence implies consent is a dangerous phrase because it protects the powerful and tends to harm the disempowered and marginalized. This is the dilemma that most whistleblowers face. Resolution requires that the corrupt cede their power and knowledge of the truth – their secrets – and accept requisite accountability. We would never really expect that a convenience store robber would drive himself to the police once s/he were identified from a hidden video camera recording. But, for some reason, there is the belief that white-collar criminals can police themselves. White collar crime is considered more as a mistake or an oversight, and not intentioned, planned and executed to harm others. This baseless and incorrect assumption is another reason why whistleblowing is such a high-risk act.
The directors and key executives of PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK), 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY are not fulfilling their fiduciary duty, and similarly, neither are the directors and key executives of their parent company, Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). Since my initial blog post article made public charges of wrong-doing, a deafening silence from those with fiduciary duty has been accepted by stakeholders. Publicly decrying key executives as liars, cheaters, fraudsters and even referring to the past PGS CEO and President as an asshole warrants no reply? Even if Jon Erik Reinhardsen was not personally bothered by such insults, what does it say about his leadership and fulfillment of fiduciary duty? If the named executive are not liars, cheaters, and fraudsters, why doesn’t he stand by them and for them? After all, the duty is not about himself, but an obligation to stakeholders to uphold the reputation of the company as represented by its employees. (For the record, most non-criminals and honest people of integrity do mind being called liars, cheaters, and fraudsters.) On the other hand, if the named employees actually are liars, cheaters, and fraudsters, then there is another and more serious abrogation of fiduciary duty. And this is proof for why silence by those beholden with fiduciary duty is corruption.
Not all people handle power and money with grace. Some use their power to exploit and maltreat, knowing they can get away with it, and some getting off on it. ~ Dr Shailla Cannie
In my mind, there is only one mountain top in a company. The buck ends at the corporate board. It sounds like a profound grasp of the obvious. But there is a lot of nuance to this issue. ~ Michael Volkov, Corporate Board Responsibility for Compliance
My initial public accusations of executive malfeasance was published on LinkedIn™ Pulse (LI), An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015). Now, over twenty-five (25) blog posts have been published and reside on a dedicated unflattering website, www.nopgs.com. PGS/PGSUK directors have never officially commented on my blog posts articles. In fact, it was my attempts to force an official response from PGS/PGSUK agents which led to my eventual restriction from LI and then prompted me to develop my own independent website free from third-party censorship. My published blog articles are now available at, http://nopgs.com/nopgs-blog/. PGS/PGSUK are allowed to choose censorship and silence to engagement. Engagement should exonerate those who are indeed fulfilling their fiduciary duty. Silence implies agreement that the accusations of corruption are true. So, how is the silence tolerated? If the corrupt control and contain, then any negative repercussions of accountability exists only from outside the purview of the corporate governance that the corrupt control. Stakeholders must take control and demand such an engagement and accounting.
The inspiration behind all of my published blog articles arose from the fact that my employment with PGSUK terminated through settlement agreement contract which had been proffered to interrupt a formal grievance process. Central to my formal grievance were claims of workplace gang-bullying and the abuse of position, misuse of the PGSUK performance management, neglect of core values and policy, and the recording and dissemination of defamatory information intended to harm me personally and professionally. Ten-months after my employment ended, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). When I received the contents of my personnel file, I discovered that the data that was being processed as my personal data by my former employer was essentially the same defamatory content that inspired my formal grievance in the first place! The data being processed was neither true nor accurate. It is knowingly defamatory. I know this with absolute certainty. Something had gone terribly wrong with the processes to result in such an outcome. And so began my pursuit of the truth and my blog article writing campaign. The fact that so many articles have been published without any reaction reasons such a conclusion intuitively obvious to anyone with even a casual interest in PGS/PGSUK anti-corruption or reputation, especially those entrusted with fiduciary duty. I have continued to introduce more evidence and raise the level of insult to attract some official comment.
There have only been a couple of communications between myself and (alleged) agents of PGS/PGSUK since my blog post articles were published. One of these was received recently. Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal and Secretary, sent a threatening e-mail to me. I will assume that it was in fact him who sent the e-mail, but of course will make any corrections if I am informed otherwise. As PGSUK Secretary, Richards is the one entrusted to guide the legality of director actions. At the time of the settlement agreement contract negotiations, PGSUK directors were composed of PGS executives Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; and Christian Steen-Nilsen, Chief Accountant. Rune Olav Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance. Reinhardsen retired from PGS last year and Pedersen was selected to become the current PGS CEO and President and also replace Reinhardsen as a director for PGSUK. Richards had been named in other blog post articles because I had been informed that he had reviewed the referenced settlement agreement contract. However, his name was featured within the title of one of my more recent posts, Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24-Feb-2018).
If justice takes place, there may be hope, even in the face of a seemingly capricious divinity. ~ Alberto Manguel
Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken. ~ Abigail Adams
The received e-mail (purporting to be) from Carl Richards, PGSUK Secretary, was never confirmed. Of course, this is no surprise to me. Defamation is generally defined to be a false and unprivileged publically written or spoken statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation. The claims made within my blog articles reference and are backed-up by e-mail evidence. My blogs are whistleblowing. Further, what damages has Richards suffered? He remains gainfully employed in spite of public allegations that he aided and abetted in a fraudulent wrongful termination. His actions subverted my legal grievance process. Richards was aware and involved with the subsequent proffering of an illegal contract where forged documents were processed to support it. As PGSUK secretary, Richards also was ultimately responsible for defrauding the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) caseworkers and also misleading UK Border Agency. These are the issues that require his comment and actions as a fiduciary of PGSUK. Richards’ license to remain silent is repugnant and cowardly and an abrogation of his fiduciary duty. My main request of PGS/PGSUK agents has always been for PGS/PGSUK to authenticate the processes and documents used to affect my termination from employment as legal and compliant. Of course, this is impossible to do with forged documents which bear no counter-signature or corroborating data. And this is why they remain silent and also try to silence and censor my accusations.
None of my blogs would have been written if there were not real substance to them. Another issue is that the settlement contract agreement that I signed applied to UK laws. The inclusion mutual non-disparagement clauses was a main discussion point for a mutually acceptable settlement agreement contract. The PGSUK Head of Legal obviously knows that the best way to deter my publications is to demonstrate I was in breach of the settlement agreement contract clause(s) and stop further publications and also seek damages. This would be the most obvious legal action that a party in breach would expect to be done if the processes and documents used to affect my termination from employment through a settlement contract agreement had been both legal and compliant. Any such action based on the settlement agreement contract would expose these things. Whistleblowing is excluded from the mutual non-disparagement provisions, noting a substantive difference between accusing persons of non-compliant or illegal behavior with evidence versus without evidence. Richards is perhaps embarrassed and scared, but as a lawyer directly responsible for forming the referenced settlement agreement contract, Richards understands these distinctions. However, my claim is that one cannot simultaneously fulfill their requisite fiduciary duties and also cover-up known corrupt and criminal acts.
Also, I have presented evidence showing that there were intentional misrepresentations and withholding of material information which was a breach of my original contract of employment with PGSUK. PGSUK consciously suppressed and obstructed my legal right to submit a workplace grievance. Once I finally initiated the grievance process, with no guidance and by sheer will, a settlement agreement contract was proffered to further obstruct the grievance process to fair resolution. The settlement agreement contract was fashioned to be employed as a mechanism for executives to bypass accountability for the multiple contract breaches and breaches in UK policy and national laws which were identified within the grievance document. My claim of defamation was a central component discussed within the grievance document. However, I was never allowed to actually see the contents being processed and instead was made to rely on the lawyers involved assuring that the data being processed was true and accurate. This was yet another breach of my original contract of employment. I have also showed evidence that my legal advisor ignored and did not advocate the information that was provided during the settlement agreement contract negotiations and allowed the false narratives and forged documents to be used as a basis for the settlement agreement contract and allow them to become legally binding true and accurate data.
E-mail by David Nicholson confirms 11 Sep 2013 meeting was cancelled. However, a Forged Memo signed by (then) PGS EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes and PGS SVP Global HR. Terje Bjolseth. The Memo is addressed to PGSUK Marine Contract – Africa President Simon Cather and PGSUK HR Manager Nicholson references this meeting. This Memo was never presented to Kalavity on 25 Oct 2013.The personal data that PGSUK is processing in my name does not include the noted grievance document. So, how could it be reasonably established if I were in breach of this clause? Further, my blog articles referenced a (forged) Memo (Conclusions from Grievance Hearing 14th October 2013) that prominently resides within my official personnel file. (This Memo is discussed with some detail within, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016).) This Memo does not even reference the document which is highlighted within the settlement agreement contract. However, it does reference a meeting that never occurred and a letter that was never written! A meeting was originally scheduled within the ambush letter on 11 September 2013. However, this meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. The ambush letter remains in my personnel file without my response in the form of the formal grievance document submitted 20 September 2013. This document disputes the base claims made within the contents of the ambush letter. The ambush letter is being processed with the original scheduled meeting date uncorrected. The formal grievance document submitted 20 September 2013 was also the basis for the settlement agreement contract to be proffered. However, since the grievance identified multiple contract and employment law breaches, as well as departures from PGSUK policy and constitutes whistleblowing, the document has disappeared. My claim is that a fraudulent settlement agreement contract was proffered to hide a wrongful termination and to bury the multiple whistleblowing claims made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance document.
Criminals look at identity theft and say only 1 in 700 criminals gets convicted of it. And they look at check forgery and they know that for every 1,400 forgers arrested, only about 123 get convicted and about 26 go to jail. So the rewards are great, but the risks are very slim. So that’s one of the reasons that make it very popular. ~ Frank Abagnale
Human cruelty and treachery surpassed all understanding. There were no answers. Only excuses. ~ Dean Koontz
There were, and remain, many deceptions regarding the processes and documents that were used to affect the settlement agreement contract which I eventually signed and that ended my paid employment PGSUK. (I contend that I was wrongfully terminated.) There is no other explanation to explain how I am able to generate, publish, and disseminate so many blog articles through Twitter™ (@boycottpgs) feeds and images that broadcasts and advertise them, along with my website. I even have published and dedicated a webpage, Know Petroleum Geo-Services. The published content has exposed nefarious and questionable actions and decisions by not only PGS/PGSUK agents, but also PGSUKs hired counsel from Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), Rhodri Thomas, and especially the legal counsel whom I hired as my advocate, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, who were with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW), at the time of the settlement. I believe that there was a criminal conspiracy to defraud and defame me, as well as endanger the health and safety of me and my family. The acronym actually stands NO Psychopaths in Geo-Services (NOPGS) and advocates against workplace harassment and bullying. Most of the @boycottpgs Twitter™ feeds contain links to articles about these topics, as well as content about corruption and whistleblowing.
This confidence fraud involved complicit agents from PGS/PGSUK, WFW, and LZW to process the forged documents promulgating a false narrative which supported their illegal settlement agreement contract. None of the accused actors will explain or confirm the processes and documents used to affect the settlement contract agreement. None of the lawyers involved will even confirm who signed this questionable settlement agreement contract on behalf of PGSUK. Most notably, my legal advisers, Landau and Rushton. At the same time, this actually comports to the original signing of the settlement agreement contract, where I was required to provide my signed page separately, which I even found odd at the time. Because PGS/PGSUK commandeered the avenues of normal legal redress through their compromising my legal advisers, finding justice has been difficult. However, I continue to persist in my claim and get answers, albeit slowly and indirectly by how my publications are responded to. There would be serious consequences to me and my family if my allegations were completely unsubstantiated.
No principal wants to own the responsibility for this instrument that ended my career and which all named lawyers participated in forming. Ultimately, Richards reviewed and approved the processes and settlement agreement contract. The named individuals prefer to be called liars, cheaters, and fraudsters within my blog articles, rather than actually engaging and explaining. These persons are allowed to remain silent. This implies agreement with my allegations, and an acknowledgement of guilt. But, their collective silence exempts them from any legal or civil repercussions. Again, this is only possible if multiple agents are colluding and agreeing to not fulfill their fiduciary duties and instead protect corrupt and criminal actors and acts. The fore mentioned Memo was written to exonerate the three named workplace bullies and harassers. My grievance claimed that they abused their positions and breached their contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence. I also claimed that they breached their duty of care responsibilities. I outlined how they did not follow policy and also departed from other prescribed practices assumed by employment laws. These combined to create a stressful and health-harming work environment.
The trite saying that honesty is the best policy has met with the just criticism that honesty is not policy. The real honest man is honest from conviction of what is right, not from policy. ~ Robert E. Lee
Leadership without mutual trust is a contradiction in terms. ~ Stephen Covey
These named perpetrators were my boss, Edward von Abendorff, PGSUK VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, his boss Simon Cather, Marine Contract Africa Regional President, and the PGSUK Human Resources Manager, David Nicholson. My grievance had been delivered to the three implicated, as well as Cather’s boss, Per Arild Reksnes, PGS EVP Marine Contract and Nicholson’s boss, Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global HR. A copy was also delivered John Greenway, PGS SVP Marine Contract, who often participated in group strategy meetings. And finally, a copy was delivered to my co-worker/witness, John Barnard. Beyond the PGSUK directors and secretary, the recipients of the grievance document, and of course, the workplace bullies themselves, the other actors who participated directly with the deceptions involved with the settlement agreement contract worked within the weaponized HR department. The HR staff that I was informed processed my personal data and were also participants of manipulating and/or removing data that would benefit my position in a legitimate settlement agreement contract discussion were Laura Haswell, Anne Stokle, and Gareth Jones who all worked under Nicholson.
Bjølseth and Reksnes both signed the forged Memo that is being processed within my personnel file. Nicholson was one of three who was directly implicated/named within the 20 September 2013 submitted grievance document. Nicholson seems to be the author/creator of the pertinent false instruments that are also being processed within my personnel file. Although, Cather and von Abendorff are recipients of most of the documents, as well. So, there was conspiracy and collusion in their creation. These documents were created to support a false narrative to base the fraudulent settlement agreement contract on. Nicholson and Cather were labeled as recipients of the Memo, even though they were two of the three implicated in the grievance document. No documents relevant to the settlement agreement contract negotiations, including the Memo, bear my counter-signature. This seemed to have passed by the view of lawyers and HR staff who processed these documents anyway. These documents were intentionally withheld to bypass my critique and/or objection. None are corroborated by e-mail or other evidence. But, they were approved and processed by all lawyers, including Richards and Pedersen.
Even though Nicholson and Cather were directly implicated within the content of the grievance document for issues such as defamation, the misuse of the performance management system, and of course workplace harassment and bullying, they were allowed to continue this corrupt behavior and bypass standard document authentication and process verification. Nicholson never really lost control of driving the illegal processes which were principal to the grievance document. Were they also directly involved with their own exoneration? If I have written or broadcast defamatory information about Secretary Richards, or anyone, then break the silence, protest, and prove what these falsehoods are. But, of course, one must also ask themselves why have you waited so long? Fiduciary duty is about serving the interest of the PGS/PGSUK stakeholders, including employees. It is not about what makes the personal Carl Richards feel damaged. The question for the directors and secretary of PGSUK is when will you begin fulfill your fiduciary duty? It starts with ending the silence and presenting the truth for all stakeholders. Were the processes and documents used to form a termination from employment legal and compliant? This is the only professional courtesy that really matters at his point.
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
With integrity, you have nothing to fear, since you have nothing to hide. With integrity, you will do the right thing, so you will have no guilt. ~ Zig Ziglar