BP Document preservation order for contract workers

yay for dumpster diving! Nice find. The whole things creeps me out, but the worst to me, is the fact that you are FOREVER subject to search. Even after you are no longer a BP employee.

thanks for the document but I dont this is really relevant

for any kind of operation like that, you need to have control over the information to not let it get leaked ... so I think this is standard to all organization ...

but thanks for posting it here ... its always nice to see some real content

[edit on 9/7/10 by Faiol]

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Guys I found this in the trash outside a BP site in LA. I guess whoever had it read it and fully understood what would happen if they signed it. I was going to submit this to Wiki leaks but I could not get the site to connect. So I though If I posted it here on ATS the members could make this go viral via the Internet.
I have never worked for BP or any Sub-contractor of BP and I believe the Public have a right to know so that is why I am posting it. I am tired of seeing Big Government and Big Corporations Crap on the "little people".

We have a right to know what is going on and asking worker to help in BP's cover up is asking them to commit treason.

I am sure BP will figure out who I am but I offer a warning:
Don't Tread On Me...
Trust me on that one. It's not worth it.
Now for the Goods:

Link to full image

Link to full image
Edit to resize Images Thanks endisnighe
[edit on 9-7-2010 by SWCCFAN]

The only person committing "treason" is yourself, for militating against the law of the land, in dealing with what caused the Deepwater Horizon spill. BP are quite right to request that all its labour force comply with the request made in the document, which you allegedly found, or more likely were given directly from BP, since I suspect that you work for Halliburtons, who are subcontracted by BP, and let us remember that Halliburtons are believed to have been cutting work procedure corners which led to the blow out preventer failing. I have read the document and cannot find anything wrong with it, or offensive about it. It is basically obsurd that you believe BP are guilty of "treason" ? If I am reading the document correctly, then by publishing the document on ATS, you are in breach of your employment contract, and since you apparantly refuse to sign the document, which is why you contrary to it, publish it on ATS, I thus presume that BP, or its subcontracted, will nolonger wish to employ you any further. BP are not the cause of the spill at Deepwater Horizon 252. The spill was as a result of the failings, and perhaps corruptions of, workers, working for Halliburton, and others, subcontracted by BP. BP are thus quite right to issue the above document, in their efforts to establish exactly who amongst their workers, are responsible for the blow out.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by CAELENIUM]

When they say "computer" in 7 I assume it's the computer that bp gives you to work.

But it's not explicit...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ickylevel]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Wow...what a find.

Okay, at a quick glance? It looks like a standard order given to companies to save ALL documents period that is typically used when there is litigation in process or pending against the company. It's intended to prevent the company from destroying or hiding incriminating material. This happened to a company I once worked for. We could not shred, erase, delete, throw away, burn, or otherwise get rid of ANYthing. What a paperwork mountain that was. It went on for over 7 years.

However, some of the wording looks rather odd. I'm going to give it another look. I only managed to zoom page 2 so far.

You hit the nail on the head. This is a standard document that is used for pending/threatened litigation to make sure the defendant can't be accused later of destroying or hiding documents harmful to their cause. I was involved as an expert witness in a case in the early 80s resulting from a fatal crash of a Piper Cheyenne in Shannon, Ireland. Piper lost, not because of negligence in the design or manufacture of the aircraft, but solely because they hid or destroyed documents. Look at CARLUCCI, etc., Plaintiff, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant; James ALLABY and Sheila Howe, Plaintiffs, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant; Mary Alice CHERTKOW, etc., Plaintiff, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant;
Nos. 78-8370-Civ-JCP, 78-8371-Civ-JCP, 78-8372-Civ-JCP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA102 F.R.D. 472; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18026; 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1654(March 30, 1984)
This is not evidence of some nefarious actions by BP. It actually shows some evidence of good faith in attempting to comply with discovery requirements of the FRCP and the La Code of Civil Procedure. Of course, they were probably screaming at their own lawyers for having to do it

reply to post by CAELENIUM

Hello BP lawyer. First, the document in the image isn't signed. Second, OP never said he signed anything for BP at all, in fact he claims to have found the paper in the trash bin. Therefore he can't be the traitor.

However thank you for putting all the BP conspiracies to rest by providing plethora of factual evidence proving BP's non-involvement in the so called accident.

Sorry for my cynicism but that is only consequence of myself reading your post.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by SassyCat]

reply to post by SWCCFAN


In my case, I've never been asked to sign anything. They just ask that we preserve documents and if we have anything that might be important, to notify the legal folks.

I'm just a software developer. Writing code is much easier to do than to trying to understand the legal system

reply to post by CAELENIUM


Located in the UK I can Understand your Bias. However I think you will change you tune in several months when BP's oil washes up on UK shores. Personally I think whomever made the decision to use dispersant and those that continue to allow their us should be executed for crimes against Humanity.

That Corexit is some real bad stuff.

reply to post by pajoly


I suggest you read and then have an Attorney read page 2 Clause 7.

BP has the right to search "my computer" I don't think so ... For clean up workers? Come on ....

What is some of the Workers want to keep a log of their daily activities and or symptoms should they start getting sick? Does BP have a right to that? What if they take photos or audio that proves a cover up.... I bet BP might want those.

Back when I was a DOD contractor I didn't have to sign anything like that but my electronics were gone through when I departed the ship.

Google Cory Chouest and you will see why.

Regardless of the message being relayed within, I personally (partially) doubt the authenticity of this document.

And this is why:

1.Said document is lacking a BP seal, stamping, file coding and all other official markings. There isn't even a header.

2. In the document a person named Kelly Pritchard is mentioned; In the context that for further questions, she is whom to contact. A simple Google search yields no definite matches of a Kelly Pritchard when searching her name alongside that of BP. (..Nor when searching her name alongside the US DILM [see below])

3. Also in the document there is a phone number given (that of Kelly Pritchard), and upon Google'ing the number mentioned, you will yield results affiliating the number to a man named Tom Harting at the US Dept. of Interior Land Mgmt. Not that of BP. Although admittedly, it is somewhat related. But what does the the US DILM have to do with BP's legal docs? ...And why would they be responsible for answering questions relating to it?


Sidenote: While searching for file name BP MC252 does yield information correlating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, I still doubt that this document us authentic. As any hoax-er would easily be able to riddle in bits of truth.

It's condition alone should be a red flag...



edited to make clarifications.

edited (again) to add: That I find it striking how for nearly 2 pages every poster commented on what the text of the document said before even checking to see if any of the document itself was even authentic. Had noone else really done any side work to see if anything mentioned was even true?


[edit on 9-7-2010 by from here to infinity]

Originally posted by CAELENIUM

The only person committing "treason" is yourself, for militating against the law of the land, in dealing with what caused the Deepwater Horizon spill. BP are quite right to request that all its labour force comply with the request made in the document, which you allegedly found, or more likely were given directly from BP, since I suspect that you work for Halliburtons, who are subcontracted by BP, and let us remember that Halliburtons are believed to have been cutting work procedure corners which led to the blow out preventer failing. I have read the document and cannot find anything wrong with it, or offensive about it. It is basically obsurd that you believe BP are guilty of "treason" ? If I am reading the document correctly, then by publishing the document on ATS, you are in breach of your employment contract, and since you apparantly refuse to sign the document, which is why you contrary to it, publish it on ATS, I thus presume that BP, or its subcontracted, will nolonger wish to employ you any further. BP are not the cause of the spill at Deepwater Horizon 252. The spill was as a result of the failings, and perhaps corruptions of, workers, working for Halliburton, and others, subcontracted by BP. BP are thus quite right to issue the above document, in their efforts to establish exactly who amongst their workers, are responsible for the blow out.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by CAELENIUM]

Greetings friend,

Just to play Devils Advocate

Surely if the OP worked for Halliburtons this would not be presented to him? Everything to do with this notice is for a member/worker of BP, surely if the OP worked for Halliburtons then he wouldnt be issued with this, instead it would be issued from Halliburtons, right? I mean, if he doesnt work for BP then he would get this notice?

You do make some interesting points though

I do see tow sides of the story here, and one needs to be careful on the internet

Be safe and be well,

Spiro

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Spiro]

Miller Oil Spill Clean Up Contract a must read!

I found this document too at the same place but I had to discuss it with friends before I posted it. Its pretty bad...

reply to post by from here to infinity


Finally someone with some brains! The whole time I was reading this I was thinking, wow, I could type this up on my own computer in less than half an hour. I also want to call into question the fact that they refer to themselves as "BP", I mean really guys, if BP is putting out things like this, I am sure that they would use their full name not shortcut lingo. Seriously, if this is to be a "legal" document, they would NOT use "BP"!!!

Those cheering and starring and flagging are just plain dumb dumb babies!

reply to post by Spiro


Wrong mate. As a Sub-Contractor, you would have to sign one of them. Even if you are working for Halliburton, for all intents and purposes, BP would be your "boss", since Halliburton signed a work contract with them. I had to do the same thing when I recently was working for a Belgian dredging company here in Sydney. Even though I was still employed by my Dad, we were sub-contracted to the dredging company, so therefore I had to follow their instructions. And do all the safety inductions involved. It's basically standard procedure.

As for the document, well, just looks like it is a basic legal document covering BP's arse for when things go to court, WHICH THEY HOPEFULLY WILL. That way, when things get to court and some documents are missing, they can then show the court that, say, the Chief Engineer (or whoever was in charge of the documents from whatever department), didn't follow procedure.

And why is it such a problem that BP has this document, if it turns out to be truly from BP???? If the workers didn't like it, well they didn't have to sign. Simple as that. Sure, they would probably be out of a job, but I doubt many of the workers would have such a problem signing such a document.

You would be interested to find how many companies have documents like this inserted into their contracts. Everyone check out any documents they signed for work, and see what kind of clauses etc. have been inserted into it basically saying the same thing, just with different wording.

reply to post by from here to infinity


Well Since you just joined yesterday .... I will take your comments for a grain of salt. If the mods would like a clarification they can contact me.

Do you work For BP?

Have you called that number?

What are your true motives?

I find it very unusual that such a new member jumps in to a subject like this head first.

This is a standard disclosure document sent to all employees during any litigation. If signed, clause 2 supersedes clause 7, and that ordering is done on purpose. In this progression, you sign onto the act of storing all electronic, relevant data separate from personal use (clause 2). In fact, to make it easier for company lawyers to be in compliance with subpoenas, clause 3 identifies a specific folder to be made to place such data. Clause 4 specifies that all electronic communication related to your work be done through BP sanctioned e-mail (a demand that is hopefully made at the beginning of a contracted employee's career, but you never know), which would also make it easier for the company to be in compliance of a subpoena. Clauses 5 and 6 demand that all other data also be segregated from irrelevant and/or personal information, properly labeled, and stored securely. It is assumed if you sign the document and have relevant data pertinent to Deepwater, you are already in compliance with clauses 2-6. Clause 7 simply gives BP (read: their lawyers) the right to these data previously discussed, so that they, again, can be in compliance with any subpoenas. See the nice logical progression?

This is not a sinister document. In fact, it looks like BP is trying to cover all of their bases if this is ever brought to a civil court. If ever questioned about destruction of information, they can submit this blank document showing that in good faith they took the steps necessary to secure relevant information. If there was further suspicion, I could see where a request would be made for a list of those who signed the document. In my judgment, not signing the disclosure would bring undue attention to yourself, especially if you are deemed to have in your possession or have access to pertinent data which could be relevant to the rhetoric either side is trying to form.

Slightly OT, but...
Worried about your company invading on personal communications and data? Don't surf the web for entertainment at work on your work computer using their internet. Don't use work e-mail for personal communication, even if it is to a coworker. If there is ever a subpoena given to the company, a set of words is used to search the entire e-mail database. Suspicion is raised when e-mails deemed as personal communication are brought up during these types of constructive searches. It's also not the best idea to use flash drives to store pertinent work data, though I can see where it becomes a necessity. If you work from home or bring your work home, request a company laptop to use. Anything you do at work is technically the property of your employer. Courts have repeatedly sided with the corporation/ business on this issue.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7


Bravo, I completely overlooked the usage of them referring to themselves in the abbreviated form. I couldn't agree more, surely if this were genuine British Petroleum would have been utilised in its place. Unless, there was a legal name-change rendering BP the new name and not the abbreviated form. Of which I am not entirely certain.

reply to post by Inamorata


Exactly what I was trying to say, but put more succinctly. Well in!

Line 2 >.>

Originally posted by from here to infinity
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7

 

Bravo, I completely overlooked the usage of them referring to themselves in the abbreviated form. I couldn't agree more, surely if this were genuine British Petroleum would have been utilised in its place. Unless, there was a legal name-change rendering BP the new name and not the abbreviated form. Of which I am not entirely certain.

Yes, but if you look at actual Legal Documents from BP, throughout them they would use BP. At the start of any of the documents, they would mention British Petroleum, and then in brackets would have BP, like this (BP).

From then onwards, they would just use BP, to save time and space. But I can see where you are coming from.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


My motives are not sinister, if that is what you are kindly implying. Rather I chose this topic merely because it is listed on the front page and seemed interesting. No more, no less. If you'd like to talk more about it feel free to U2U me. If not please feel comfortable posting any other questions you may have. Oh, and I can assure you I do not work for BP or any of its affiliates or any Governmental branches whatsoever.

With that said, fellow ATS members, don't you find it striking that when one of your own attempts to find truth (in this case, whether or not the document in question is authentic or not), they come under ridicule? Sure it may not have been insulting ridicule, but to question my livelyhood and imply that I have alter-motives, is the exact time when you should raise concern...

Now OP, if my denying of ignorance caused you to be suspicious of me, then perhaps it is I that should be suspicious of you...



edit to add (and please read): No I have not called the number listed, have you? Afterall you are the thread creator, I would have presumed you would have at least verified its authenticity prior to posting...


[edit on 9-7-2010 by from here to infinity]