Image from top right-clockwise: Philip Landau, LZW Solicitors (current Landau Law); Holly Rushton, LZW Solicitors (former); Rhodri Thomas, Watson, Farley & Williams (former); Ben Kelly, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (former); Carl Richards, Head of Legal/Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited; Rune Olav Pedersen, General Counsel/Legal Compliance (former), Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (Norway)
The Crimes of Philip Landau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen
Evidence of Fraud in Human Resources and Employment Law
Referenced images are appended at the end of this article.
While I may not fully understand every detail of the actions of all the actors who participated in a conspiracy and confidence-fraud, explicitly carried out to harm me financially, professionally, and physically, I am certain now that London based employment law solicitor, Philip Landau, played a pivotal role. On 11 October 2013, I contacted Philip Landau who was then with Landau, Zeffertt and Wier Solicitors (LZW). My initial contact was through a comment section of a blog article which Landau had written. The reason why I had contacted Landau was that the previous day I had been offered a settlement agreement in response to a written grievance prior to a meeting with my employer. I was working in a foreign country and was not familiar with UK employment law. While I had experience in negotiating contracts, it did not apply to matters of employment law. I contacted Landau to learn more about my options. Since that day, I have invested substantial time and energy trying to understand how forged documents could become a part of my personnel file? I know that legal and fair processes cannot produce illegal and unfair outcomes. There is never a legal way to process forged documents that support a false narrative. The process to do this has to be illegal. It is not my nature to look back and reconsider decisions already made. At the same time, one should not blithely accept being wronged. Accepting one’s own bad decisions is fundamentally different than accepting being a victim of crime. I have always believed that I was a target of crime and even filed an initial report with UK ActionFraud (police) 24 August 2015. Herein is my understanding of Landau’s significant role in carrying out those crimes.
The previous day, 10 October 2013, my employer at the time, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) had offered me a settlement agreement in response to a formal grievance which I had submitted on 20 September 2013. PGSUK is an affiliate of Norwegian based Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS). Because the grievance and presented document implicated high-level executives of PGSUK, agents of PGS had to be involved as well. A grievance meeting to discuss the points raised was scheduled for Monday, 14 October 2013. High level PGS executives chaired the meeting/hearing via video conference. In my view, PGSUK had offered me the settlement contract agreement to avoid dealing with the grievance. I rejected the settlement agreement offer and opted to attend the scheduled meeting. However, I remained curious about being offered the settlement agreement contract prior to discussing with my employer the points which were raised within my grievance document. I do not recall exactly which article of Landau’s I had read. Landau was a prolific writer and speaker on employment law matters and this had given me some ease of mind in contacting him.
According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), for a settlement agreement to be legally valid the following conditions must be met:
- The agreement must be in writing;
- The agreement must relate to a particular complaint or proceedings;
- The employee must have received advice from a relevant independent adviser on the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on the employee’s ability to pursue that complaint or proceedings before an employment tribunal.
The UK NiDirect government services website states that grievances are concerns, problems or complaints that employees raise with their employer. There is no legally binding process that you or your employer must follow when raising or handling a grievance at work. However, there are some principles you and your employer should observe. An employer’s grievance procedure should include these steps:
- A written and detailed account of your grievance.
- A meeting with your employer to discuss the issue.
- The ability to appeal your employer’s decision.
The PGSUK 2013 Office Handbook elaborated on similar stages:
2013 PGS Exploration (UK) Limited 3 Stage Grievance Process
As I alluded to earlier, I eventually did engage Landau as my legal adviser. I also let him have the reigns in handling my concerns. This decision subsequently resulted in my termination from employment through what I now have determined was a fraudulent settlement agreement contract based on fake events. In essence, a performance based termination replaced a much more serious claim of gang-bullying and harassment. My tormentors were spared accountability because Landau was a double agent who, while engaged by me, was advancing the interests of my adversaries without my knowledge. In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to PGSUK. In addition to several electronic communications, I received a copy of my PGSUK personnel file. What I discovered was that my personnel file records were comprised of forged documents (false instruments) supporting a false narrative. Since this discovery, I have embarked on my project, which has been chronicled through several blog articles published on my dedicated website, to reinstate my accurate personal data that supports a truthful narrative of events. The article which I believe proves that inaccurate data has been processed is The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016) . (It may enhance clarity to refer to this article, as well.) For most of these blog articles, I had been focused mostly on PGS/PGSUK actors. However, I now understand that I had been chasing the white rabbit, so to speak. More recently, I have written blog articles implicating Landau, What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30-Apr-2017) and My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial (8-Nov-2016).
Initially, I provided e-mail evidence to representatives of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee DPA compliance proving that the data held within my personnel file was indeed inaccurate and therefore violated the DPA provisions. However, ICO could not help me. Over time, I came to realize that the real problem was that my legal adviser, Landau, must have agreed with the data being processed. What I also learned is that it is next to impossible to correct and rectify inaccurate data if it has been processed while overseen by a legal adviser. This is why the law requires employees to seek legal advice before signing such agreements. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that inaccurate data continues to knowingly be processed by PGSUK. PGSUK lied to the ICO government agency through forwarding the knowingly false information. It demonstrates that PGS/PGSUK lawyers, as well as lawyers from two firms with legal specialists in employment law have tied a difficult legal knot to untangle because all have no compunction about lying and cheating. This is not really so difficult a puzzle except for the fact that none of the lawyers who were involved are helping me unravel the crime and telling one bit of truth.
I have once again reviewed the 2013 e-mail correspondence between Landau and myself during our past business relationship. But, now from the vantage point of realizing that there was an illegal outcome. Landau had received a lot of information that could have been used to advance my interests. The first substantive communications with Landau were from 14-15 October 2013 following the grievance meeting/hearing. These e-mails are in images (a –g). At this point, I had not formally engaged Landau. Targets of confidence fraud may be inexperienced and anxious, and therefore rely upon the good faith of the con artists. Therefore, I was a good mark for such a confidence trick. Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is manipulated to favor the abuser. Targets of workplace gang-bullying/mobbing, as my grievance articulated, are already beaten down from the lies and manipulation. False information is presented by the con artists with the intent of making targets doubt their own understanding and perceptions. Fraudsters and abusers use gaslighting because they need to destroy their target’s sense of reality. They then are able to substitute their own alternate reality. For instance, they will tell their client that they will be in a stronger position if they depart the recommended stages published online for resolving workplace grievances:
- Wanting to stay or leave determines which action
- Employer’s prefer not to provide a decision to save face
- Being proactive and not waiting for a grievance decision is advantageous
In retrospect, it is apparent that both Landau and PGS/PGSUK agents coincidently decided not to follow the publicly prescribed steps outlined for conducting grievances, or more importantly, those stated in the 2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook. Landau had received a lot of information from me throughout communications which lasted, in total, from 11 October through 5 December 2013. Landau had received a pdf copy of the 2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook soon after he was engaged by me. However, it appears as though Landau ignored all of the information that would benefit me. Through my grievance document, Landau had many things to consider. I see now that I was being lied to and manipulated on both ends. I was between a rock and a hard place, as they say. On 18 October 2013 I still had not received any kind of feedback from PGS/PGSUK with regard to the outcome to my grievance hearing. My witness that attended the meeting along with me had also related no feedback. I did not want to be unreasonable and seem to think I knew more than these seasoned professionals with experience in these matters. However, the workplace conditions were becoming even more unbearable and I needed to move forward. With all this whirling in my head, I contacted Landau and decided to pursue his recommended settlement agreement exit. (The con artists bet that I would.) In many respects, this was done against my better judgment. I had always wanted to actually go through the prescribed processes, but I was being counseled against it. At the same time, Landau had the legal agency and responsibility to provide sound legal advice to affect a legal outcome before he was officially engaged.
I had read and believed that the most beneficial path to follow would align with the published recommendations. Also, I actually had waited and wanted a response from my employer. At the same time, I wanted to get the hell out of my corrupt and toxic work environment! These dual interests played against one-another in forming my decisions moving forward with Landau. On 22 October 2013 Landau stated to me that he had finally completed reading through my formal grievance and would make contact with PGS/PGSUK agents. I find this hard to believe. How would any lawyer give sound advice without some understanding of events? Why would both Landau and PGS/PGSUK align on these departures from policy and recommended steps from the very onset of any possible subsequent negotiations? I was told that there had not been any communications between Landau and PGSUK agents. However, there had to have been. Landau is making an assumption that PGS would not follow recommended practice before being in contact with them? How could any point of advantage be established in predicted settlement discussion without fully understanding the basis and merits of PGSUKs position? The e-mails are establishing PGSUK as behaving reasonable and also having a much stronger case. This is classic gaslighting and confidence fraud.
However, in a 25 October 2013 e-mail (image m) Landau states that he had finally communicated with PGS/PGSUK lawyers. I have inquired about the details and participants of this meeting from all parties. No one will provide any more information. This is a very significant e-mail and was discussed within the fore mentioned blog article as well as another one that preceded it 20 September 2015 . But, I now believe that this e-mail is even more significant than I believed it to be when these blog articles were published. For one thing, the 25 October 2013 e-mail clearly contradicts one of the most important forged documents which PGSUK continues to process. Within my personnel file there resides a forged MEMO which is also dated 25 October 2013 said to be written to my attention. I never received this memo, as is made clear in many other communications with Landau. This is also the last item held within my personnel file, except for a copy of the final settlement agreement. It seems that this likely was a meeting to discuss how to set-up their confidence game.
Excerpt from MEMO
The MEMO is said to be the Conclusions from Grievance hearing 14th October 2013. (Of course, this document is unsigned by me.) The MEMO references an 11 September 2013 meeting, which never took place. I actually mention this meeting within a 24 September 2013 e-mail to Landau (image l). The MEMO also references a 29 September 2013 letter authored by me, which I never wrote. It does reference at least one true event, the 14 October 2013 grievance meeting. The actual 20 September 2013 grievance document, which was provided and finally read by Landau 22 October 2013 (image k) is not referenced in this forged MEMO. No lawyers or Human Resources (HR) personnel who were involved in the processing of the settlement agreement have been willing to comment on this MEMO. (This includes Landau, who represented me, and who was provided all of the accurate information.) The data controller, PGSUK, has refused to remove or correct this knowingly inaccurate data. Since this data is held within the PGSUK personnel file, this also must mean that this was the data processed for my settlement agreement. In other words, fake data was processed and the real data was ignored, all with Landau’s direct involvement.
In this alternate reality created by a group of lawyers and complicit PGSUK HR personnel, there actually was an investigation into a possible Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) 11 September 2013 and I had no witness. Perhaps, I filed a (fake) grievance in response to this investigations finding by letter on 29 September 2013. The conclusion was given and therefore I sought a settlement instead. Was the settlement my response to fore go a written appeal? We will have to ask the fiction writers. But, the recommended stages for a grievance are fulfilled, more or less, within this MEMO. But, is it really in accordance with PGSUK best practices and procedures to process unsigned personnel file documents? That would seem high risk. In hind sight, it is very likely that Landau had actually made contact with agents of PGS/PGSUK sometime between our first contact and the grievance meeting. He must have been recruited to the other team in the very early stages to coordinate the breaking of recommended protocols. Regardless, what I know with absolute certainty to be true in the real world is that most every document pertinent to my leaving employment with PGSUK is a forged/false instrument created to satisfy a false narrative.
What I have always known is that Landau was provided with the actual narrative and accurate information during our communications. This is why it took me some time to connect the dots and confirm in my mind that Landau was a double-agent. However, looking back through a different objective lens, Landau rarely provided substantive feedback regarding the information that was provided to him. Following 25 October 2013, I continue to provide Landau with more information to help strengthen our negotiating position toward that enhanced settlement agreement terms. Within a 26 October 2013 e-mail excerpt, I relate to Landau issues that I have read regarding my Tier 2 visa status (image k) and employer reporting. A 28 October 2013 e-mail (image o) has some personal information redacted. This e-mail states that there has been no communications regarding the grievance and affirms that the MEMO had never been delivered to me. This e-mail contains information regarding a visit to a doctor. It excoriates PGS/PGSUK silence in the grievance matter and makes clear that the reason I have chosen the settlement route was because of PGS/PGSUK intolerable inaction (as they continue to do to this day). The grievance document illuminated duty of care and health and safety issues, harassment citing nationality due to my Tier 2 visa status, breach of trust and confidence, negligence, etc. It was a critique of the abuse of positions through the misuse of the PGSUK “performance management system.”
These were the main issues that I hoped would be considered during the 14 October 2013 meeting and were not. I was especially hoping that they would be considered at some level during the subsequent settlement negotiations. I continued to provide additional information to Landau. Of course, all of this provided information was ignored. The MEMO had already stated the conclusion. PGSUK engaged a private law firm to handle the negotiations with Landau. This surprised and puzzled me somewhat. On the other hand, PGS lawyers were not really attached to HR matters. They were used in the PGS marine seismic contract business and I actually interacted with them frequently in my contract sales role. However, it was related to me that the initial settlement offer had been reviewed by PGS/PGSUK internal counsel. I now believe that enlisting a third-party unfamiliar with true events also allowed PGS/PGSUK to further disassociate itself from confusing statements. Landau would forward communications from Rhodri Thomas, who was with Watson, Farley and Williams. PGS had been trying to force me down a performance based termination for a while. Even so, I was perplexed with the initial e-mail that started the negotiations on 1 November 2013 (image p). However, PGSUK had never officially embarked down a performance based termination path. My grievance addresses this. I respond to Landau to clarify the misguided Thomas e-mail and opening to the settlement negotiation discussions (images q-s).
Nothing after the MEMO is held within my personnel records, except the final settlement contract dated 5 December 2013. The instruments pertinent to my termination are forged documents. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is not held within my personnel file. However, I am led to believe that the grievance is the foundation of the settlement negotiations. Therefore, what is most important to note within the communications beyond the 25 October 2013 date is that there is even more evidence that PGS/PGSUK have been knowingly processing forged documents. I could never really understand why PGS seemed to have a much stronger position at the table than reality would seem to dictate. It was because PGS rigged the game through controlling all the legal counsel. By doing this, lawyers outside the conspiratorial loop cannot see a tort claim because of the special ambiguous language that was used by all the experienced lawyers involved in the confidence trick. My questions, advice, or clarifications are never really considered. This is exampled within the e-mail exchange at the onset of the settlement negotiations. There were then delays between e-mail exchanges (images t-v). Perhaps this was done to suggest that there was consideration over my concerns. Maybe the lawyers did not want the discussions to become fluid.
Once I agreed on the settlement route, I began preparing to leave England and my position. In the 9 November 2013 e-mail, I relate this to Landau (image t). Landau was privy to my objectives and progress in terms of finding another job. What led to my submitting the SAR to PGSUK was my belief that PGSUK was actively interfering in my effort to seek new employment. Originally, this was what I believed to be the purpose of the false documents being processed in my personnel file. In mid-November 2013, I took a full week off from work because I was feeling ill from all the pressure the situation was bringing to bear on me. My immediate supervisor and the HR manager had scheduled a check-up for me with a third-party occupational health nurse. She did give me a check-up and provided a preliminary report. Landau was made aware of my health concerns, as well. When I received my personnel file with my SAR contents I inquired about this report, as it was not part of my record. The OHN was also made aware that I was involved in an ongoing settlement regarding bullying. I later submitted a separate SAR to the OHN. I learned that she had provided a report to the HR manager and requested that a copy be provided to me. I never received a copy while employed by PGSUK. This was also done while Landau was my adviser. Also, within a 28 November 2013 email, I inform Landau that my doctor/GP would be prepared to issue an unfit note to me so we could pursue the constructive dismissal route as another option (image w). Landau was very aware of the health effects from my current workplace and essentially did absolutely nothing.
Within the 28 November 2013 e-mail, I relate to Landau that with no real ties to the UK, my wife and I wanted to leave England with dignity. Most communications are regarding the tit-for-tat of certain settlement terms. Medical coverage was an issue brought up (image x), but PGSUK did not have to relent to anything, really. I also was very concerned about my professional reputation moving forward and wanted items created by individuals named within the grievance expunged. And of course, this was denied. At no time did I ever see my personnel file documents. However, within a 4 December 2013 “without prejudice” discussions, PGSUK and Landau assured me that PGS’ personnel records are its property and must naturally give an accurate record of all an employee’s employment history (image zb). Further, Landau related to me in a subsequent 4 December 2013 e-mail that it was his view that there is very little scope for further negotiations on the terms of the Agreement and that I could accept the current form or continue down the grievance route (image zc). The MEMO was a conclusion to the grievance. So, once again, how did false instruments supporting a false narrative end up within my personnel file? And why won’t PGS/PGSUK authenticate the records held within my personnel file if they were promised to be accurate the day before the settlement was signed?
I did not really even know about the DPA while employed in England. However, DPA provisions were mentioned within my employment contract. PGS/PGSUK management wanted me out of the office. I wanted out of the office – to safety. I signed the settlement agreement contract on 5 December 2013. While I was officially employed through 31 December 2013, I was placed on Garden Leave once the settlement was signed. I was in Weybridge, England, but not in the offices until departing flights Christmas Eve took me, my wife, and two children back to the USA. I had not lived in the USA since 2001. I had worked around the world with various affiliates of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA. In October 2014, I did not know how false instruments supporting a false narrative ended up within my personnel file. However, through my investigation and writings, and the responses from principals who were involved, these false records were processed to affect my termination from employment. Landau, as my legal agent placed a seal of approval on these knowingly forged instruments, and that is at least one crime. One of many that he has assisted PGS/PGSUK to perpetrate against me..
LANDAU EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS