Corrupt PGS Exploration UK Ltd Director HR Staff Laura Haswell
Pride defeats its own end, by bringing the man who seeks esteem and reverence into contempt. ~ Henry IV of England
Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest. ~ Benjamin Franklin
I believe that John “Fraudster” Francas, newly appointed Head of Legal, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK), is a liar, cheater, and fraudster. I believe Francas is a mercenary with legal credentials being paid and misused by corrupted interests to obstruct justice. Francas knows what he is doing. If Francas believes my claims are defamatory, then I implore him to make his legal case. Recently, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into full affect 25-May-2018. Francas responded to the GDPR SAR on behalf of PGSUK, which is an affiliate of Norwegian parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). The first GDPR principle states that personal data being processed by data controllers is lawful, fair, and transparent. PGS/PGSUK data processors have been violating this GDPR principle, as well as others for years. I am certain of this, yet the PGSUK data processors are able to continue this practice through a coordinated effort to pervert the course of justice. Typical of PGS/PGSUK executive behaviors, Francas initially did not respond to the GDPR query. Subsequently, I initiated the process through the PGS Global Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke. Perhaps the less than enthusiastic response to my SAR is because I have a history with PGSUK. In October 2014, ten months after leaving my corrupt and inhospitable hosts as a US citizen who had been employed with PGSUK Marine Contract Sales – Africa group sponsored on a Tier 2 visa, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). I contacted David Nicholson, (then) PGSUK Human Resources (HR) Manager and copied Laura Haswell, HR Staff by e-mail to initiate the DPA SAR process. The response that I received to my SAR in 2014 was unbelievable.
The copied contents of my PGSUK personnel file, which I received from the SAR, has inspired a blog writing campaign, reports to UK ActionFraud™ and the UK Serious Fraud Office. I have written other complaints to other organizations regarding the personal data that is being processed. Francas does not have to be trained solicitor to know that PGS/PGSUK agents are processing illegal and non-compliant documents as my personal data. Such conclusions require a simple analysis, starting with the determination as to whether their creation followed prescribed legal workplace processes. In fact, since Francas was not an employee with PGSUK relevant to the dated records being processed, this should be a central issue for his consideration. Such unsigned an unverified records could have been created by Mickey Mouse or Goofy (David Nicholson), he wouldn’t have a legal evidentiary basis to really know. The collective action (conspiracy to defraud) that Francas has signed onto rests on his remaining uncooperative and silent about the specifics, or rather, perverting the course of justice. The simple request entails that Francas authenticate and validate, as legal and compliant, the processes of my personal data. In other words, confirm compliance with the first GDPR principle. However, as with other PGS/PGSUK personal data processors, Francas refuses to produce such confirmation, mainly because he cannot.
Francas and Bjerke are abusing their positions by continuing to be as non-transparent and difficult as possible for the data subject, while protecting corrupt data processors and management. GDPR is about protecting the rights of the data subject. The former PGSUK Head of Legal and Secretary didn’t like being headlined for my blog post article, Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Richards had a more direct involvement in the conspiracy to defraud. Richards resigned from his role as PGSUK Secretary 25-May-2018, the same day on which the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into full effect and replaced DPA. Richards has also resigned from PGSUK as Head of Legal. It seems that Richards has relocated down under, to Brisbane, Australia. Prior to Richards’ resignations from PGSUK, I was sent an e-mail from the purported “Carl Richards”, in which he threatened legal action under his personal name for blog post articles which cited him. The purported “Carl Richards” had even engaged a Thai legal firm (I currently reside in Thailand) to follow-through with his threatened legal action if I did not capitulate and remove the content. All of the blog post articles are published on a dedicated personal website http://nopgs.com, which I control. I have published over thirty-five (35) NOPGS blog post articles in my blog campaign for justice. The first article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”, in title and on main points is revisited in all of the other subsequent articles which revolve around PGSUK knowingly processing illegal fake personal data intended to harm me personally, physically, and professionally and protect corrupt and criminal PGS/PGSUK executives.
Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and politics to mere technique. ~ James MacGregor Burns
Ethics or simple honesty is the building blocks upon which our whole society is based, and business is a part of our society, and it’s integral to the practice of being able to conduct business, that you have a set of honest standards. ~ Kerry Stokes
I knew the threat from “Carl Richards” was always hollow and the articles are still published and accessible. Richards was likely concerned that, as Secretary, he would be principally culpable for any data protection violations, as well as for any criminality in processes. Of course, Richards also likely did not want any bad publicity to be published and accessible after his leaving PGSUK. Within these articles, I have named names and provided evidence. I have called the past and present PGS President and CEO liars, cheaters, criminals, and assholes. I have called PGS executive and compliance team members the same, and continued down the hierarchical ladder to those down that ladder whom I know were directly involved in processing in advancing defamatory personal data. Those named within the contents of the blog post articles or other PGS confirmed executives who hold positions of entrusted fiduciary duty, have never commented nor made an effort to contact me to stop my publication, except one. Nicholson threatened legal action in a letter that he wrote to me 22-Dec-2014 to stop my many queries and challenges that I made regarding data that PGSUK processed in my name. My blog post article campaign speaks to how hollow I regarded his threats, as well. I am intimately knowledgeable of the events describing my narrative. Plus, my personal narrative is something of value to me. I have e-mail and other evidence supporting my narrative. What I believe was carried out was the embezzlement and misuse of resources to bribe legal advisers into processing fake data. What PGS/PGSUK data processors have created and are processing as my personal data is defamatory data intended to harm me and protect wrong-doers from any accountability.
What I have always requested is that PGSUK authenticate – prove the legality – of the data PGS is processing in my name. Forged documents cannot be authenticated. I know with absolute certainty that the documents in my personnel file are not legal or accurate. This means that data processors from three separate data controllers all conspired to process this fake data. This complicates issues, as well as raises the stakes. Francas’ latest response to the recent GDPR SAR challenges his integrity as a lawyer. What it all boils down to now for Francas and Bjerke is what compliant processes are now being used to investigate and resolve how forged documents were created and processed in my personnel file? From my vantage point, Francas and Bjerke have signed on to be coconspirators in PGSUK’s continued fraud uttering of forged instruments. They have agreed to a Faustian bargain. Francas, in his response, evokes the terms and conditions of the SCA which I signed. I do not believe that the SCA is a legal instrument. If PGS had a legal claim against me, they would have brought it when I first began blogging. In fact, if I were not telling the truth, PGS/PGSUK agents would be remiss to not to take legal action. However, it is my viewpoint that because the documents being processed within my PGSUK personnel file are forgeries, then the SCA cannot itself be legal. Unfortunately, SCAs are very binding. Such instruments by design prohibit future legal claims. Three different data controllers, two legal firms and PGSUK, processed the fake data. I have reasoned that the last thing that these data controllers want is to revisit the SCA and actually explain the compliance of the processes and data used to terminate my employment.
On 20-Sep-2013, I had submitted a workplace grievance implicating Nicholson, along with my boss, Edward von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, and his boss, Simon Cather, Marine Contract – Africa President, of workplace gang-bullying. Central to this grievance was the abuse of position through the debasement of the PGSUK performance management system. Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather promulgated defamatory and unsubstantiated statements about my work, harassed and threatened me. I had believed their behaviors breached PGSUK policy, as well as UK employment and contract laws, and threatened my health and safety. Beyond this, Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather, prohibited me from challenging their unfounded assertions. Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather exploited their positions of hierarchical power and denied me my legal rights for redress, consistently misrepresented facts, and withheld information from me. An original meeting had been scheduled 11-Sep-2013, but was delayed until 20-Sep-2013. The 11-Sep-2013 meeting was scheduled within a letter written by Nicholson 24-Jul-2013. My formal grievance was predicated on a distressing and unprofessional event, colloquially referred to in literature as an ambush meeting. The ambush meeting occurred on 13-Jun-2013. It was Nicholson who called the event in his office. Cather and von Abendorff also attended. I refer to this meeting as the ambush meeting within blog articles.
Hypocrisy is a detriment to progress. There’s always a hidden agenda. ~ Larry Flynt
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think. ~ Adolf Eichmann
On 18-Jun-2013, following the ambush meeting, I requested minutes from that meeting, how the meeting conformed to PGSUK policy and procedures, and also mentioned that I wanted to respond to and address the distressing meeting in a formal way. I specifically mentioned submitting a grievance. Nicholson denied me all of these requests. I therefore requested something in writing to respond to. This was what inspired the 24-Jul-2013 letter. I refer to this letter as the ambush letter. My response to ambush letter was my grievance document. The formal grievance was in regard to the behaviors and decisions of Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather, as well as a rebuke of the assertions made during the ambush meeting and ambush letter. These events were chronicled within the contents of the formal grievance, which was finally submitted on 20-Sep-2013. The distribution of the grievance document is memorialized within e-mail communications. Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather all received a copy of the grievance. The grievance was sent to Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global HR and Compliance Officer; Per Arild Reksnes, PGS EVP Marine Contract; John Greenway, PGS SVP Marine Contract; and finally John Barnard, a coworker who I asked to accompany me as a witness. A grievance hearing meeting was scheduled for 14-Oct-2013 by Nicholson.
On 10-Oct-2013, Nicholson called me down to his office alone and proffered a settlement contract agreement (SCA). At this encounter, Nicholson told me that it was the position of PGS legal in both Norway and England that I was in dispute with the Company. The SCA was being proffered to me to discontinue the grievance process. Nicholson also remarked that I would need to engage a legal adviser if I accepted the SCA. I declined the SCA and made it clear to Nicholson that I intended to continue the prescribed grievance process. On 11-Oct-2013, I contacted employment solicitor Philip Landau, who was with the law firm Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW) at the time. Landau was provided a copy of the grievance document with names redacted. Landau also was provided a summary of events which led to my contacting him. Landau was aware of the scheduled grievance hearing meeting. It was Landau who recommended that I pursue an enhanced SCA, and not follow through the grievance process. Eventually, on 22-Oct-2015, I did decide to engage Landau because no one from PGS had contacted me with regards to the status of the grievance process. The only communications that I had had with PGS/PGSUK managers following the delivery of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance was e-mail communications from Nicholson scheduling the grievance hearing meeting. There was no acknowledgement or comment from any of the other grievance recipients, most notably, Bjølseth.
On 25-Oct-2013, Landau wrote to me that he had contacted PGS/PGSUK lawyers and stated that the grievance process was “parked” while terms of an SCA were discussed. Later in October, PGSUK opted to engage Rhodri Thomas with firm Watson, Farley, and Williams (WFW), to represent them for the SCA negotiations. On 1-Nov-2013, SCA negotiations began. My direct communications with Landau, and his assistant, Holly Rushton, were mostly with regard to points raised in the grievance, which at that point I believed would advance more favorable terms for me. The stress of the entire situation was taking its toll, and I was visiting doctors. I took 5-days of sick leave during this time. In mid-November, there were communications regarding my taking sick leave. At the request of Nicholson and Abendorff, HR’s Anna Stokle communicated with me and scheduled an appointment with an occupational health nurse (OHN). In mid-November, I had an appointment with the OHN. During her health assessment, I related to her the current events. I related to the OHN the ongoing SCA. Of course I related this to Landau and Rushton, also to help advance more favorable terms for me. These are the seminal events that mark my final months of employment with PGSUK Marine Contract Sales – Africa. There is documented time-tagged e-mail evidence, or other materials, that confirm these events, as described by me. These are the events that were related to Landau and Rushton. But, this is not the story told within my PGSUK personnel file documents.
The narrative constructs the identity of the character, what can be called his or her narrative identity, in constructing that of the story told. It is the identity of the story that makes the identity of the character. ~ Paul Ricoeur
Grades don’t measure anything other than your relevant obedience to a manager. ~ John Taylor Gatto
My personnel file records are formed by uncorroborated data. None of these documents bear my signature. None of these documents have been affirmed by my supervisor, von Abendorff, either. Most documents are the creation of Nicholson, who signed only some of them. The most damning forgery is a Memo created while Landau and Rushton were advising me. The Memo is signed by both Bjølseth and Reksnes, and is copied to Nicholson and Cather. The Memo is written to my attention. I never received the Memo when dated and it references non-existent events and documents. The Memo – Conclusions from grievance hearing – does not even reference the grievance document, which the SCA does. But, the personnel file contents is bound by agreement of three separate data controllers, and signed by a data subject. And it is this obstacle, that I signed an SCA with the advice if a legal adviser who was compromised, which has delayed a just resolution. It is my firm belief that no HR department or lawyer behaving legally and compliantly would ever process such unverified and illegal documents. It seems evident that there was collusion and conspiracy among the legal advisers and they agreed to process fake data. None of the e-mail records between me and my legal advisers, Landau and Rushton, correlate with my personnel file data. Further, both Francas and Bjerke, in their professional capacities, should recognize whether the personal data meets PGSUK internal compliance standards, because if Francas and Bjerke want the titles of responsibility, then they also need to be held accountable for the inherent duties incumbent to those titles. In a legal organization, running interference to protect corrupt executives is not a fiduciary duty. Such actions are only carried out for one’s own corrupted self-interests. Francas and Bjerke are breaching PGS Core Values, policy, and the law. They are doing the job that pleases corrupt interests.
Such contemptible mistreatment and fraud is especially detrimental when focused on a foreign worker. I want it to sink in with Francas and Bjerke, as well as the other named conspirators, I did not do anything wrong. I treated everyone with respect and I followed the rules in my work and in my personal life. The hierarchy is being protected with misused money and lies. It is hard to believe there are any ethical people of influence working with PGS when there is such soulless and irresponsible management at the helm. This complicit support of corrupt leadership by current employees has impacted my family significantly. Where are the PGS Core Values in practice? Where is the collective conscience of the ethical majority? I would like to believe that I would have never remained silent when a former professional and colleague had revealed such corrupt behavior to me. I hope that I would have been their support. I would have never contemplated breaking the law as a condition of my employment. PGS simply did not pay me near enough to give my soul to them. My co-worker, John Barnard, knows for fact the lies being propagated by management. He was my witness into the grievance process which was stopped prematurely. He never spoke-up. I was a foreign co-worker, but he never demanded fair play and the truth. He remained a pawn of those with wicked intent and an instrument of the malevolent – a little Eichmann. What did I ever do to you, John Barnard – or John Francas, for that matter?
So, when I received and viewed the contents of my personnel file from PGSUK in 2014, of course I was astonished and angry. I communicated the many problems with the contents with Nicholson. This is the same Nicholson who was cited within my grievance of promulgating defamatory information about me and abusing his position through his misuse of the PGSUK performance management system! I was outraged and communicated how the personnel records were incorrect. On the day before I capitulated and signed the dishonest SCA with reservations, I queried and was assured that the data being processed by PGS was true and accurate. My personal narrative was the central concern of my filing the grievance in the first place. I requested that several personnel file documents be removed, as I believed they were a violation of the DPA principles. (I still believe this.) Nicholson insisted on maintaining the knowingly defamatory document records, but did agree to place one of my complaint e-mails (5-Dec-2013) into my personnel file folder. I thought this an unacceptable and awkward solution to have two separate narratives in the file. At the same time, is it not also an acknowledgement that the data PGSUK is processing under my name is, in fact inaccurate and a breach of DPA? I complained about this to the ICO caseworker as well, but ICO would not investigate. The real issue, however, is not what personal data is being processed by PGSUK today, but, more importantly, what data was processed by my legal advisers, Landau and Rushton, while negotiating the SCA? The dates point to conspiracy to defraud.
We mute the realization of malevolence- which is too threatening to bear – by turning offenders into victims themselves and by describing their behavior as the result of forces beyond their control. ~ Anna C. Salter
Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. ~ Hannah Arendt
If the current false documents residing within by personnel file were removed, as I believe they should be, there would be nothing relevant to my termination left. The SCA would have been based on no legal documents. Thus, fake data aligned with corrupt PGS management’s interests was processed by three (3) data controllers to support an SCA used to terminate me from employment under false pretenses. None of the data controllers and data processors involved with negotiating the SCA will explain or authenticate the personnel file data being processed. SCAs are valid only if a legal adviser signs off. My legal adviser was co-opted by my employer, PGSUK, and processed their unsubstantiated false narrative. I essentially did not have legal advice for the SCA. Nevertheless, I am left with a very tightly bound SCA sealed by three corrupt and silent data controllers. Essentially, as a foreigner, I am left to navigate through this from thousands of miles away. Corrupt PGS leadership is doing everything within their power to turn a simple data request into a complicated legal problem. Francas and Bjerke refuse to do their jobs. Authenticating the data and processes that produced the outcome should be easy. It is intentionally being made difficult. Many PGS and PGSUK employees from different work groups were involved in creating and processing fake data. I analogized my situation as similar to being a victim of gang-violence within blog post article, Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (28-Oct-2017).
When I received my personnel file documents in 2014, I could have never conceived of the treachery of such vile and coordinated effort by those who I worked in proximity to, and whom I hired as legal advisers. My understanding of events has become clearer as I have looked back and reconstructed events. Nonetheless, I was very aware of the discrepancies between what really happened and what PGSUK was processing as an accurate recounting. Within my personnel file records, PGSUK is processing the relevant document records (listed below) which I had requested removed because they were defamatory. None of the documents are signed by me or my supervisor (von Abendorff). The data is not source referenced and it even contradicts time-stamped and addressed e-mail records.
25-Oct-2013 grievance hearing memo
24-Jul-2013 ambush letter
13-Jun-2013 ambush meeting Notes / minutes
I also noted omitted document records which I felt should have been processed within my personnel file.
20-Sep-2013 grievance document
14-Nov-2013 Occupational Health Nurse Check-up
I wrote the 5-Dec-2014 E-mail a few days after receiving my personal data from PGSUK. It is clear that there were many issues that I noted straight away. Nicholson and Haswell were dismissive of my concerns. The data was so blatantly false. Nicholson, of course, knew very well it was false, and yet he was cavalier in his refusal to correct or address the numerous discrepancies revealed. Nicholson, obviously a practiced liar in his own right, knew that an entire hierarchy of corrupt PGS/PGSUK executives supported him. I complained vigorously to Nicholson/Haswell about the contents. I knew something was terribly wrong. The SCA was an impediment to removing records. I thought this was odd, as well. There was no evidence that these documents actually resided in my personnel file or that I was aware of them when the SCA was signed by me. PGS provided me with no proof of delivery and receipt for documents. The documents could have been placed into the personnel file after the fact. I initially thought the documents were retaliatory, since I had heavily implicated Nicholson of wrong-doing within the grievance.
When corporations refuse to practice due diligence by not establishing grievance mechanisms for remedy of abuses against the hidden 94% of their workforce in their global supply chains, they perpetuate a depraved model of profit-making that has driven inequality to a level now seen as a global risk in itself. ~ Sharan Burrow
You can’t reason with gang violence: you can’t talk to it, sit it at the table, and negotiate with it. ~ Greg Boyle
In fact, the only document that is specifically referenced within the SCA is the 20-Sep-2013 grievance. Yet, as noted earlier, the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is not retained in my personnel file or even referenced in the 25-Oct-2013 Conclusions from Grievance Hearing that is signed by Reksnes and Bjølseth and not me. None of these documents are signed-off by Landau, my legal adviser, either. So, there is no evidence that he even approved of these records. This is why I never focused on Landau until much later. I was perplexed that ICO was not more curious about the many anomalies from fact that the records being processed contained. Following the 3-Jul-2015 article, I submitted a report to UK ActionFraud™ (24-Aug-2015). The I published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015), to make my concerns about PGS/PGSUK management public. At the time, I was publishing on LinkedIn™ Pulse (LI), the particular article was well read. I received some push-back from the LI community, but no one from PGS/PGSUK ever voiced any concerns to me directly. In a follow-up article, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015), I provided evidence to support my claims that defamatory data about me was being processed. This article elaborates on the issues brought forth within the 5-Dec-2014 e-mail to Nicholson/Haswell.
There was still no response or comment from anyone at PGS/PGSUK. I continued my blog writing campaign and began to realize the scope of my personal data issues went beyond PGSUK HR. I also began posting queries in the PGS LI comment sections of their content. The queries were never answered and quickly deleted. At some point, another LI user also identified PGS corruption, and through them, I was pointed to the PGS Compliance Hotline. I completed an online report to Compliance Hotline. I discuss this, and also present previous and new evidence to support my claim that PGS/PGSUK was processing defamatory data within, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). PGS Compliance never conducted an investigation and just wrote me off with a statement there is no fraud. At this point, I simply did not trust or believe the Compliance Hotline group. I e-mailed them directly and even called Norway from Thailand. On 20-Aug-2016, my LI account was permanently restricted due to complaints over content and queries in the PGS LI space.
At this point, I begin my dedicated website and started using Twitter™ to distribute blog post links, as well as news on workplace bullying and harassment, as well as enterprise corruption and fraud. PGS has never reasonably or responsibly answered my queries. I now knew the corruption was broader than I had ever initially imagined. I posted communications between me and my legal advisers within, The Crimes of @PhilipLandau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30-Dec-2017). By this point, it became evident that there had been a conspiracy to process knowingly false data in order to advance a less serious and false claim supporting a performance based termination from employment as the basis of the SCA. All of this is online, as are many unflattering to PGS Twitter™ image files. One of the successes of Richards, before leaving PGSUK, was for him to complain to Twitter™ about using his LI portrait in some of my tweets. Apparently, he has this portrait copy righted. Although, Richards never contacted me directly with proof of identity or copy right. The fall out of this is that I am now also restricted on Twitter™. PGS/PGSUK will not let go of their lies and deception, and most notably, the knowingly false narrative they process as my personal data. PGS/PGSUK does not have the facts or even the law on their side. Francas is acting more as a lawyer for accused criminals than a company internal counsel. This is very unfair. Francas’ job is to make sure that PGSUK is operating legally and not protect corruption. Internal counsels job is to protect and guarantee human rights and rights under contract and employment law. If Francas was true to his title, he would be representing the interests of the data subject. Apparently, dishonest lawyers are not too hard to find in the Weybridge, England area, A Texan’s Run-in with Criminals in #Weybridge, #England (30-Jan-2018).
I’m a true believer that you have a moral obligation to keep your employees honest, and that is why you have controls, so I’m never tempted or put in a position where I could do something to defraud my employer. ~ Frank Abagnale
The important thing about groupthink is that it works not so much by censoring dissent as by making dissent seem somehow improbable. ~ James Surowiecki