(READ 3rd) December 7, 2010 U.S. Federal Court decision re: Counter Claim and Third Party Claim by Martin Betancourt against BTU and Wael Al-Mazeedi

From Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) for US Courts  [link: www.pacer.gov]

Full docket text for document 65: Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. After a Scheduling Conference held on 12/7/2010, this court hereby orders that: Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Amended Counterclaims [53] is DENIED.

BTU (Plaintiff) had filed a motion to dismiss Betancourt's counterclaims (they did not challenge the Federal and State wiretap claims). ALL six claims by Betancourt against Ventures and/or Al Mazeedi are moving forward in US Federal Court and are listed below.

1. Misrepresentation (Against Ventures and Al Mazeedi)
2. Wrongful Termination (Against Ventures)
3. Abuse of Process (Against Ventures and Al Mazeedi)
4. Intentional Interference With Advantageous Relations (Against Al Mazeedi)
5. Violation of Massachusetts Wiretap Statute G.L.c.272 Section 99 (Against Ventures and Al Mazeedi)
6. Violation of Federal Wiretapping Statute 42 U.S.C. Section 2510 et. seq. (Against Ventures and Al Mazeedi)

A link to the entire document filed by Betancourt is included at the bottom of this posting.

Introduction section from the document filed in US District Court:

These counterclaims are brought by Martin Betancourt, ("Betancourt") a former executive with the defendant corporation, which was in the business of providing services to investment funds that aggregated the capital of foreign investors for investment in power plants outside the United States.  In the course of his employment, Betancourt detected apparent criminal fraud by his employer, and, as a whistleblower, shared documents evidencing such fraud to counsel for plaintiff investors suing his employer.  As a result of his whistleblowing disclosures, Betancourt's employment was terminated and he was sued in this Court.
He brings counterclaims against his former employer and its chairman/chief executive officer under Massachusetts common law.  Further, during the course of employment, Betancourt, became suspicious that his employer and/or chief executive officer were illegally wiretapping/intercepting his conversations (and the conversations of others) through the use of a listening device planted in his office.  Recently, evidence to support such suspicions [sic] has come to light  (see linked filing from US District Court, pages 2 and 3) in the form of video surveillance footage and eyewitness testimony which reveals that such a listening/wiretapping device was placed in his office during the course of his employment.

Link: DEFENDANT MARTIN BETANCOURT's AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIM