BTU and Almazeedi: their apparent mantra - "one set of rules for us, another set of rules for everybody else"

Almazeedi: making statements he is not allowed to make and can not substantiate

We are picking-up a subject briefly mentioned previously: information included in the "new" btupower.com website.

No information obtained in depositions conducted as part of BTU's ongoing lawsuits can be used publicly.  Customary confidentiality agreements stipulate that such information will be used only in the litigation. Otherwise, we would be at full liberty to place the contents of Almazeedi's forthcoming depositions on this blog.

Almazeedi chose to ignore those agreements when he published the following statement in the btupower.com website that replaced the disappeared btuventures.com:

ORIGINAL btupower.com:  "Recently one such defendant admitted, under oath, that he had initiated and maintained a blog that posted negative and inaccurate content about the BTU Companies and that he had not told the truth in a previously filed affidavit with the courts.  Another such defendant admitted that he had contributed comments to this defamatory blog."

He, perhaps with the assistance of his lawyers, has finessed the language of the site to essentially say the same things in a different way:

MODIFIED btupower.com:  "Following the initiation of the lawsuits, one of these defendants initiated and maintained a blog that posted negative and inaccurate content about the BTU Companies, and re-filed his affidavit with the court to correct inaccurate statements. Another defendant has also contributed comments to the defamatory blog."

Only someone with access to those depositions, Almazeedi and his attorneys WilmerHale, Foley Hoag, Leonard Learner, etc. could make the assertions included in both the ORIGINAL as well as the MODIFIED STATEMENT.

What can we conclude about Almazeedi's actions?

He could easily have posted the "admissions" he mentions in his website:

1. IF THEY EXIST (i.e. if the "admissions" were ever made)
2. IF HE HAS A RIGHT TO PUBLISH

In our opinion this is the easiest thing in the world to do to prove your point.

Other misinformation

Almazeedi mentions that "We have and will continue to take appropriate action against these individuals."  He is referring to the lawsuits initiated against former employes and contractors during the past two years. Those lawsuits did not, and do not, have ANYTHING to do with this blog. 

Conveniently forgetting

Almazeedi purposely obfuscates facts in the following statement "Despite a calculated campaign of U.S. litigation and disinformation by these various defendants.."  It is indeed quite convenient for him to create the illusion of some "grand conspiracy" - for all intents and purposes it gives him license to do and say things that one normally couldn't.

FACTS
The lawsuits filed by Hayat, the 44% owner of BTU Holdings Company and the two former investors in BTU Power Company II had their basis in actions that took place long before Betancourt, Murphy, and McBrearty entered into the BTU picture.

CIRCULAR LOGIC
Perhaps Almazeedi and BTU are forgetting that THEY initiated the litigation against those former employees and contractors.  How can Betancourt, Murphy, and McBrearty have been a part of a "calculated campaign" to get themselves sued by Almazeedi and BTU?