The Crimes of Philip Landau Law #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen
Contact E-mail: email@example.com
Evidence of Fraud in Human Resources and Employment Law
This website, and the majority of the published blogs which reside on it, is possible and inspired because of a settlement agreement contract that Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, who were with LZW Solicitors at the time, helped form on behalf of the author. It is my firm belief that LZW Solicitor lawyers colluded with lawyers of my former employer, PGS Exploration UK Limited and the firm which they hired to forward the negotiations, Rhodri Thomas of Watson, Farley & Williams. Landau has never clarified or contested any of the content presented, nor have other lawyers involved.
Referenced E-Mail image files 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 with inaccuracies highlighted. Landau and Rushton were engaged when the MEMO was dated. I never received the MEMO on the date, as correspondence between LZW and myself shows. Also, correspondence shows that LZW had been provided with the true and accurate data.
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
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.
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