As the trial of Charlie Javice continues, courtroom testimony focused on Google Drive metadata, student data negotiations, and JPMorgan’s due diligence—or lack thereof—before acquiring Frank, the college financial aid startup at the heart of the fraud allegations. While prosecutors argue that Javice inflated user numbers to secure a lucrative deal, the defense maintains that JPMorgan had access to all relevant data but failed to conduct a thorough review before finalizing the $175 million purchase.
Prosecution: Google Records Reveal Suspicious Edits
The government’s case relied heavily on testimony from Cory Gaddis, a records custodian at Google, who verified the authenticity of Google Drive files linked to Javice and her co-defendant, Olivier Amar. Prosecutors introduced spreadsheets allegedly containing manipulated student application figures, asserting that Javice and Amar deliberately overstated user engagement to mislead JPMorgan.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Micah Fergenson highlighted metadata showing document modifications and access patterns between the two defendants, arguing that this activity points to an effort to fabricate user data before presenting it to JPMorgan.
Defense: JPMorgan Had the Data, But Didn’t Verify It
However, Javice’s legal team pushed back, contending that while the metadata may show documents were edited, it does not prove fraud or deception. During cross-examination, defense attorney Eoin Beirne emphasized that Google’s metadata does not track the specific content of edits, only that documents were accessed or modified.
Further, the defense argued that JPMorgan received the data and had every opportunity to vet the figures before the acquisition. They stressed that the bank’s due diligence team, equipped with financial analysts and investigators, had full access to Frank’s user metrics and failed to identify any discrepancies—an oversight the defense argues is not fraud, but a failure on JPMorgan’s part.
Student Data Purchase: A Standard Business Inquiry?
In another key testimony, Tani Rae Ochs, a data sales representative at Exact Data, provided insight into a 2021 conversation with Javice and Amar about purchasing student data. Prosecutors used this testimony to suggest that Javice was seeking external data sources to pad user numbers, but under cross-examination, Ochs confirmed that no purchase was ever finalized.
This bolstered the defense’s argument that Javice never misrepresented actual users, but simply explored standard business strategies to enhance marketing outreach—a practice common in the industry and not indicative of fraud.
What’s Next in the Trial?
As the trial moves forward, Jennifer Wong, a former Frank employee, is set to testify, which may provide further insight into how the company internally managed its data and communicated with JPMorgan. The court is also expected to rule on whether prior witness statements—potentially reinforcing the government’s fraud claims—can be admitted.
With both sides digging into the role of JPMorgan’s own due diligence in the deal, the trial is shaping up to be a test of accountability: Was this a case of fraud, or a high-stakes acquisition where JPMorgan simply failed to do its homework?
The proceedings resume March 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Stay tuned for further updates.
Wilmington, DE — In the annals of Delaware’s legal history, 2025 may very well be remembered as the year a translation company’s name transcended its corporate identity to enter the lexicon of courtroom vernacular. “Gone all TransPerfect” is the phrase of the moment, as used in a recent story by Chancery Court reporter Jeff Montgomery at Law360, a shorthand for legal fireworks, acrimonious corporate disputes, and the occasionally surreal twists of the Delaware Chancery Court.
A Decade-Old Feud Becomes Folklore
The phrase harks back to the difficult battle that engulfed TransPerfect, a global translation/language services company, and Delaware’s Chancery Court. In 2015, the court, citing irreconcilable differences between the company’s co-founders, took the unprecedented step of appointing a custodian to oversee its sale. What followed was a contentious legal saga that saw one co-founder accuse the court of corruption, mount public campaigns, and ultimately reincorporate the company in Nevada.
The scars of that feud linger to this day, with the TransPerfect case regularly invoked as a symbol of Delaware’s complex corporate law ecosystem. This year, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, Mark Lebovitch, brought the term into the spotlight, quipping that Elon Musk had “gone all TransPerfect on the court” after a bruising legal defeat.
Lebovitch’s remark referred to Musk’s ongoing battle with the Delaware Court of Chancery, which struck down his $56 billion Tesla compensation plan and awarded $345 million in attorney fees to shareholders. Musk, never one to shy away from a public spat, responded with a flurry of accusations, calling the court “absolutely corrupt” and its chancellor a “radical far-left activist cosplaying as a judge.”
The resemblance to TransPerfect’s theatrics is uncanny: high-stakes corporate drama, public denouncements of Delaware’s judiciary, and a larger-than-life protagonist railing against perceived injustices. The phrase “gone all TransPerfect” captures the essence of this chaotic, adversarial spirit.
A Verb is Born
Legal scholars and practitioners in Delaware have embraced the phrase with a mix of humor and trepidation. “When someone says a party has ‘gone all TransPerfect,’ you know it’s going to be a long and colorful case,” said Marina Oswald, a corporate law professor at Tulane University. “It’s shorthand for a scorched-earth strategy, complete with public appeals, accusations of bias, and a general disdain for judicial decorum.”
The term has even inspired a wave of memes among legal insiders, depicting litigants “gone TransPerfect” as courtroom gladiators, wielding press releases and social media campaigns alongside legal briefs.
The Delaware Chancery Court’s Complex Legacy
The TransPerfect saga—and its new verb—also underscores the unique pressures faced by Delaware’s Chancery Court. As the nation’s premier venue for corporate disputes, the court must navigate complex legal questions while balancing its reputation as a fair and impartial arbiter. High-profile cases like TransPerfect and Musk’s Tesla litigation attract intense scrutiny, often placing judges under a harsh spotlight.
“The court’s decisions carry enormous weight,” said Joseph Swanson, who practices corporate governance in Delaware. “But when a case spirals into a public relations battlefield, it complicates the court’s ability to focus on the law.”
In recent years, Delaware lawmakers have even debated reforms to the state’s corporate governance laws, partly in response to criticism from high-profile litigants. Some fear these changes could undermine the court’s authority, while others argue they’re necessary to maintain Delaware’s status as a corporate haven.
From Boardrooms to Pop Culture
The rise of “gone all TransPerfect” reflects a broader cultural fascination with corporate courtroom drama. Shows like HBO’s Succession and Netflix’s The Laundromat have tapped into the intrigue of high-stakes legal battles, turning boardroom disputes into compelling entertainment.
In Delaware, the phrase has already found its way into casual conversations among attorneys, corporate executives, and even state lawmakers. “I had a client tell me they didn’t want to ‘go TransPerfect’ on a merger negotiation,” said Jeremy Cleveland, a law partner who practices Chancery law. “It’s amazing how quickly it’s entered the vernacular.”
What’s Next for TransPerfect’s Legacy?
As 2025 unfolds, the TransPerfect story continues to evolve. The company remains a Nevada entity, thriving under its contentious co-founder’s leadership, while Delaware’s courts face a growing docket of high-profile cases. Meanwhile, “gone all TransPerfect” serves as a reminder of the dramatic, unpredictable nature of corporate litigation.
“It’s a fitting legacy for a case that was as much about personalities as it was about legal principles,” said Oswald. “If nothing else, it’s proof that the law can be just as theatrical as anything on TV.”
For now, Delaware’s legal community seems content to let the phrase run its course, embracing the humor while bracing for the next case that truly “goes TransPerfect.”
Los Angeles, CA — The jury’s recent $6.7 million verdict in favor of Adriana Duarte Valentines against Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals Rescue (D.E.L.T.A) Rescue, a no-kill animal sanctuary in Los Angeles County, has ignited a firestorm of debate, with implications extending far beyond the courtroom. The judgment, if upheld, could threaten the future of one of the nation’s most prominent nonprofit animal sanctuaries.
Adriana Duarte Valentines, 45, is an undocumented immigrant who worked as an animal caretaker at D.E.L.T.A. Rescue from mid-2017 to early 2020. Earning $15 per hour, Duarte alleged she was wrongfully terminated and suffered discrimination due to her pregnancy. The defendant, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue, is the world’s largest “no-kill, care-for-life” animal sanctuary, housing approximately 1,500 rescue animals.
Founded in 1979 by Leo Grillo, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue operates on 115 acres in the California mountains, providing lifelong care for animals that cannot be adopted. Grillo, 75, has dedicated his life to the welfare of abandoned and abused animals, often rescuing them from remote areas where they were left to die. The sanctuary relies solely on donations and receives no government funding. A $6.7 million financial hit could jeopardize its ability to continue caring for its animals.
Duarte filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming she faced pregnancy discrimination, was denied state-mandated breaks, and was owed unpaid overtime. While the jury sided with Duarte, the sanctuary disputes these claims, arguing that Duarte never disclosed her pregnancy until after resigning in January 2020.
The Allegations:
Additionally, edited deposition clips of Grillo’s testimony were played repeatedly for the jury, including comments that critics argue painted him in an unflattering light. According to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue’s legal team, these rulings skewed the narrative and contributed to the substantial judgment.
During the trial, Judge Kristin S. Escalante ruled that the jury could not hear evidence regarding Duarte’s alleged theft, her undocumented status, or her use of a falsified Social Security number to gain employment. In a decision that raised eyebrows, the judge also prohibited the jury from being informed that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue is a nonprofit organization dependent on donations, allowing it to be referred to only as an animal rescue. Critics argue that this omission prevented the jury from understanding the financial ramifications of their verdict on the sanctuary and the animals it supports.
Further fueling controversy, Judge Escalante reportedly referred to Leo Grillo as a “racist” in open court. This statement and the exclusion of key evidence have led D.E.L.T.A.’s legal team to assert that the trial’s proceedings were biased against the sanctuary and its founder.
With insurance covering only $1 million of the verdict, D.E.L.T.A. faces an uphill battle to meet the financial obligation without devastating its operations. Grillo has vowed to appeal, stating, “I will fight this injustice. I promised each animal they would be safe and loved for the rest of their lives.”
Animal welfare advocates are rallying behind D.E.L.T.A., concerned about the potential loss of care for the sanctuary’s inhabitants. Over 75% of the dogs at D.E.L.T.A. are Pitbulls or Pitbull mixes, many of whom arrived severely traumatized and require specialized care.
The case has sparked heated debates about the intersection of illegal immigration, labor rights, and nonprofit operations. Advocates for undocumented workers hail the verdict as a victory for labor protections, while critics argue it sets a dangerous precedent for lawsuits against nonprofit organizations.
Key Questions:
Judge Escalante will rule on post-trial motions by February, including whether to uphold or reduce the monetary award. Meanwhile, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue supporters are mobilizing to raise awareness and funds to ensure the sanctuary’s survival.
As the legal saga unfolds, the fate of D.E.L.T.A. Rescue’s 1,500 animals hangs in the balance, a poignant reminder of the high stakes in this contentious case.
In a high-stakes courtroom battle in Los Angeles Superior Court that occurred November 6th, 2024, Judge Rupert Byrdsong is holding the reins on a complex civil case involving OneTaste, the controversial wellness company, and principal antagonists, including Ayries and Autym Blanck. This case, intertwined with an active federal criminal investigation in New York, has exposed allegations of manipulated evidence, governmental overreach, and deep-seated disputes over document authenticity.
At the heart of the case are journals purportedly documenting Ayries Blanck’s experiences, which have been central to a Netflix documentary, “Orgasm Inc.”—a film that cast a critical spotlight on OneTaste’s practices. However, forensic analysis of the journals has raised disturbing questions about their authenticity, suggesting extensive revisions and edits, allegedly altering their original content. OneTaste’s legal team asserts that the journals have undergone at least 54 major and 500 minor modifications, casting doubt on the documents’ legitimacy. The revelation that the journals may have been significantly altered raises serious concerns about potential manipulation of the narrative and evidence.
In the courtroom Wednesday, Judge Byrdsong expressed frustration with the defense’s delay tactics, which include assertions of attorney-client privilege and work product protection to block the disclosure of key documents. Despite these claims, Judge Byrdsong has ordered an in-camera review, where he will privately examine the contested materials to determine what should be turned over to OneTaste. His decision underscores his commitment to transparency and accountability, even in the face of resistance from defense counsel who argue that these requests are intrusive. Judge Byrdsong’s stance reflects his intent to see the facts, unfiltered, and his warning of potential sanctions signals his determination to hold parties accountable for obstructive maneuvers.
Further complicating the matter, Los Angeles court records reveal that FBI Agent Elliot McGinnis, a leading investigator in the New York criminal case, allegedly advised Autym Blanck to hide the journals from OneTaste by sending them directly to him. These actions, coupled with reports that the FBI agent instructed the deletion of evidence, have fueled OneTaste’s allegations that federal authorities are manipulating evidence to support criminal charges against company founders Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz. Judge Byrdsong ordered the FBI to return the journals to Autym Blanck, who is now required to hand them over to OneTaste, a ruling seen as a victory for transparency amid an ongoing clash over disclosure obligations.
Adding another layer of intrigue, OneTaste claims that these journals contain references to sources published years after the alleged journal entries, further challenging their authenticity. For instance, references to the *Post Traumatic Growth Handbook*, a book published years after the purported dates of the journals, suggest intentional alterations or even fabrications. This assertion not only calls into question the journals’ validity but also the ethics of relying on potentially fraudulent evidence in high-stakes legal battles.
Judge Byrdsong’s ruling to examine the journals himself highlights the complexity of balancing attorney-client privilege with the court’s obligation to scrutinize all relevant evidence. As the civil case moves forward in Los Angeles, it remains deeply connected to the federal criminal case in New York, where prosecutors have accused OneTaste of intimidating alleged victims through civil litigation. In a bold defense, OneTaste claims it has been the victim of a smear campaign and that the prosecution’s reliance on potentially fabricated journals threatens the integrity of both cases. With significant financial interests and reputations on the line, both sides are entrenched in a bitter fight that could have far-reaching implications.
In this battle of legal principles, evidence authenticity, and public perception, Judge Byrdsong’s role as a decisive arbiter could set a precedent in how courts handle disputes involving disputed evidence in cases where civil and criminal issues intersect. The case against OneTaste, with its mix of allegations, public interest, and questions of prosecutorial conduct, illustrates the complex intersection of justice, truth, and media scrutiny.
In a world where the scales of justice can sometimes tip towards darkness, as we have been seeing more often lately, Leor Kweller’s story stands as a testament to resilience and the pursuit of truth. For years, his life and that of his family were marred by the looming shadow of wrongful prosecution and conviction. However, on May 30, 2023, the New York State Supreme Court delivered a pivotal decision that would begin to turn the tide in his favor.
Leor Kweller, his brother Yaron and a third individual were accused and indicted for multiple counts of sexual assault. Indeed, the three proclaimed their innocence and challenged the charges as most people would. This case was different, however; the accusers here were alleged to have been colluding with one another to target these men, take accuse them, try them and sue them for financial damages. They pretty much said that to one another and the kicker here is that the prosecutor told these witnesses to delete the evidence of those conversations.
The court, after careful consideration of the arguments presented by his legal team led by Andrea Zellan, Esq. and Elena Fast, Esq., concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges brought against him. This long-awaited ruling marked the end of a harrowing chapter for Mr. Kweller, who had endured years of uncertainty and fear. Leor’s case was dismissed. Yaron and the third party were acquitted at trial.
Still, just as hope began to glimmer on the horizon, the Broome County District Attorney’s Office, under former District attorney Michael Korchak, chose to prolong Leor Kweller’s ordeal by initiating a meritless appeal of the dismissal. That Mr. Korchak was running for reelection may have had something to do with that choice, which cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial process. It extended the suffering for Mr. Kweller and his loved ones. Despite this setback, Leor Kweller remained resolute, knowing that the truth was on his side.
Finally, on April 1, 2024, the Appellate Division of New York State put an end to the baseless appeal, affirming the initial decision to dismiss the case against Leor. This ruling was not just a legal victory; it was a validation of Mr. Kweller’s innocence and a rebuke to those who had unjustly accused him.
The relief that Mr. Kweller felt upon the dismissal was palpable, yet he understood that the journey to full restoration would not be without its challenges. The toll on his reputation, his career, and his family’s well-being was immeasurable. To seek redress for the injustice he had endured, on April 29, 2024, Mr. Kweller filed a Notice of Claim, signaling his intention to pursue legal action against those responsible for his wrongful prosecution.
His legal team, which also includes Karen A. Newirth, Esq. and Oscar Michelen, recognized the importance of holding accountable those who had caused such grievous harm. They understood that Mr. Kweller’s case was not just about seeking compensation but also about catalyzing systemic change to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
Andrea Zellan, who had been by Mr. Kweller’s side throughout the criminal proceedings and now in his civil rights lawsuit, spoke passionately about the broader implications of his case. “Leor’s experience underscores the critical need for reform within our justice system,” she emphasized. “No individual should have to endure what he and his family have gone through.”
Karen A. Newirth echoed these sentiments, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in prosecutorial practices. “Cases like Leor’s remind us of the immense power prosecutors wield,” she noted. “It’s incumbent upon us to ensure that this power is wielded responsibly and ethically.”
Oscar Michelen, known for his expertise in civil rights litigation, emphasized the significance of Mr. Kweller’s lawsuit. “This case is not just about righting a wrong; it’s about ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected against unwarranted accusations,” he stated firmly.
As Mr. Kweller navigates the path ahead, he does so with a mixture of relief, determination, and hope. The scars left by the wrongful prosecution may heal over time, but the memory of his ordeal will endure as a catalyst for change. His story serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of justice and the resilience of those who fight tirelessly for truth and vindication.
In the face of adversity, Leor Kweller emerges not only as a survivor but as a symbol of courage and perseverance. His journey from injustice to justice is a testament to the indomitable human spirit and the enduring pursuit of what is right. Even if he wins this suit, he has a long way to go to rebuild his reputation and regain the public trust this case cost him.
The turmoil surrounding the border of Palestine and Israel has been a persistent issue since early 2023, with reports of fighting, smuggling operations, and various other security challenges plaguing the region. Amidst this chaos, there are unsung heroes working tirelessly to combat these threats and ensure the safety of both nations.
The General Intelligence Services (GIS) forces have been at the forefront of the battle against cross-border smuggling operations, including the trafficking of weapons, drugs, and humans. Their efforts have yielded significant success, intercepting illicit goods and disrupting the networks responsible for their movement. The targeted destinations for these smuggling operations are primarily the ports and borders of both Palestine and Israel, serving to bolster the activities of groups like Hamas and Jihadists.
Behind these smuggling operations lies a web of funding and support, with entities like the EIG Global Energy Partners (EIG) and elements of the Rapid Support Forces providing resources to sustain these illicit activities. This financial backing not only fuels criminal enterprises but also poses a direct threat to the security and stability of the region.
The gravity of the situation became apparent on 7th October 2023 when the General Manager of GIS alerted Israeli authorities to an imminent terrorist threat. Evidence pointed to a planned attack against the state of Israel, prompting swift action from security forces. Seven individuals were apprehended and subsequently confessed to their involvement in the smuggling operations, shedding light on the intricate network of criminality that permeates the region.
However, amidst the chaos, there are glimmers of hope. In a meeting held in September 2023 in Egypt, it was revealed that Sudan has been embroiled in conflict since April of the same year. Despite this turmoil, the General Manager of GIS managed to secure internal funding to bolster border security measures. This proactive approach underscores the commitment of GIS to safeguarding not only their own nation but also their neighboring countries, including Israel.
Yet, challenges remain. The GIS forces require advanced training, technical support, and adequate funding to effectively combat the myriad threats they face. The border regions are vast, and covering them comprehensively requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders involved. Additionally, addressing the issue of illegal immigration adds another layer of complexity to an already daunting task.
In light of these challenges, collaboration and support from the international community are crucial. The stability of the region is of paramount importance, and concerted efforts must be made to address the root causes of conflict and insecurity. By investing in security measures, promoting dialogue, and addressing socio-economic disparities, lasting peace and stability can be achieved.
As we reflect on the events of 7th October 2023 and the ongoing struggles in the region, let us not forget the bravery and dedication of those who risk their lives to uphold peace and security. Their sacrifices serve as a reminder of the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity, inspiring hope for a brighter future in the troubled lands of Palestine and Israel.
Recently, a concerning incident unfolded as detainees were unexpectedly released from the intelligence detention center at the Shendi General Intelligence Services station by the Rapid Support Forces. This move, deemed highly dangerous, involved an attack on a heavily fortified detention center, resulting in the release of wanted terrorists affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The individuals released were reportedly involved in various nefarious activities, including attempted attacks on the United States Embassy in Khartoum, as well as the facilitation of human trafficking and weapons smuggling operations, with weapons intended for use against the stability and security of Israel. These actions have raised alarm bells, posing a significant threat to regional stability and potentially straining Sudan’s relations within the international community.
Lieutenant General Mufaddal, the General Manager of the GIS, has issued a stark warning about the repercussions of releasing these 17 terrorists. He emphasized the grave threat they pose to national security, highlighting the potential for attacks within the country and the broader region. Immediate measures have been taken to address the situation, including the imposition of sanctions on the individuals and offering rewards for information leading to their apprehension.
The individuals of concern are:
This alarming development underscores the urgent need for heightened security measures and international cooperation to counter the threat posed by terrorist organizations and prevent further destabilization of the region.
It is claimed that the government manufactured evidence to gain a conviction in a case before the Eastern District of New York. The trial judge just decided that normal discovery rules do not apply.
“What are the consequences if government agents conduct unauthorized operations with no errors, setting a precedent where evidence alterations go undetected and unchallenged?”
— Suneel Chakravorty
On March 7, 2024, Eastern District of New York Senior Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled in the case of US v. Raniere, setting a potentially precedent-setting stance on evidence handling. I assure you that if this were any other run of the mill case, it would get attention. Yet, because it deals with highly toxic content and subjects, the media stays away for fear of being on the wrong side of a social agenda. This is another case of trial by media, with fears of cancellation and protests. While not the same topic at all, we see this happen with many politicized issues today, where the angry mob gets to dictate policy, legislation and jury decisions because the majority who may disagree are too timid to open their mouths for fear of being attacked.
In this case, the Federal government secretly used an unidentified FBI “photograph technician,” who is being accused of altering and forensically manipulating an unpreserved, key piece of evidence. The agents who were involved in this kept the FBI “photograph technician” off of the chain of custody. (See Doc 1230, 1233, and 1235, linked below.) This operation, and the existence of this FBI ‘photograph technician’ remained hidden until four years after the trial, challenging the integrity of the legal process.
However, senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Nicholas G. Garaufis, just ruled that the government is not required to turn over any discovery materials relating to this operation. (See Doc. 1238)
This establishes a concerning precedent in the Eastern District of New York, allowing prosecution teams or FBI agents to involve unauthorized internal or external experts in the examination of original, unpreserved evidence while excluding them from the official chain of custody records. Furthermore, should such involvement be uncovered in the future, there is no obligation to disclose the identity of these experts or details regarding their actions.
In the Raniere case, the mishandled evidence at issue is a Canon camera and memory card, which the government argued was the source of alleged contraband and established the link between the photos and the defendant. This item was crucial evidence, which the government said was “at the heart” of their case. The government has conceded it was altered in FBI custody, and seven Defense forensic experts, including four former FBI forensic examiners, have further concluded that the memory card was intentionally tampered with.
The government disclosed the existence of the secret operation only when responding to the Defense’s motion for a new trial, which showed that file dates on the camera card had been altered while in FBI custody. The government’s revelation was made to assert that the mishandling and alteration of evidence was innocent – not “law enforcement ‘tampering’.”
This situation poses a stark question that may affect future cases: What are the consequences if government agents conduct unauthorized operations with no errors, setting a precedent where evidence alterations go undetected and unchallenged?
Mr. Raniere is represented by a formidable legal team, including Professor Alan Dershowitz, Arthur Aidala of Aidala Bertuna & Kamins, PC in new York, and Joseph Tully, of Tully & Weiss in California.
Links to relevant legal motions and filings cited above are available here for Case No. 1:18-cr-00204: https://linktr.ee/fbiphototech
In a dramatic turn of events, Ozy Media’s charismatic founder, Carlos Watson, has vehemently denied defrauding investors in his now-defunct media venture. Watson, a former MSNBC and CNN host and an Emmy-winner, finds himself entangled in a federal criminal case that he claims is racially motivated. He insists that the charges against him are part of a broader issue that disproportionately affects people of color and marginalized communities.
Watson’s arrest in February followed the guilty pleas of two high-ranking Ozy executives, including former COO Samir Rao. Prosecutors allege that Rao impersonated a YouTube executive during a reference call with potential investor Goldman Sachs. Watson’s defense team contends that he is being unfairly targeted due to what he describes as “entrepreneuring while black.”
In a written statement, the 54-year-old Watson argued that he is a victim of racial profiling, stating, “While it’s horrifying to think that white prosecutors would target me, every person of color knows that it happens.”
Watson’s attorneys filed a motion to dismissal the case, claiming that he is being charged for behavior that is common in the world of media startups. Federal prosecutors have vigorously denied these claims, asserting that Watson is facing charges solely for his alleged criminal activities.
The upcoming hearing in Brooklyn on Thursday, October 26, 2023, will address Watson’s motion to dismiss and another motion to suppress evidence that he claims was illegally obtained. The US Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, where the charges were filed, declined to comment on Watson’s allegations.
To support his argument that the case should be dismissed on Constitutional grounds, Watson’s attorneys pointed to their analysis of prior cases handled by the three prosecutors assigned to Watson’s case. They claim that 90 percent of the defendants charged by these prosecutors were non-white, a stark contrast to the overall non-white population in the district.
Prosecutors rejected this statistical analysis, contending that Watson’s attorney, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., “ignores the well-documented fact that crime rates vary among racial groups“, and should not be used as a sole determinant. Sullivan argued that racial disparities in criminal conviction rates are often the result of discriminatory policing and prosecution practices, rather than differences in crime rates among racial groups.
The indictment against Watson, unsealed in February, includes charges of conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. Watson is also accused of identity theft related to an Ozy executive’s alleged impersonation of a media executive. Watson emphasized that he has faced racism throughout his life and overcame various challenges to attain success.
After working at McKinsey & Company and Goldman Sachs, Watson embarked on a career in media, initially as a political commentator on cable news and later as the anchor of an MSNBC show. He founded Ozy in 2012 with financial support from investors like Laurene Powell Jobs.
Ozy was conceived as a platform for “the New and the Next,” providing fresh perspectives, introducing rising stars, and offering new insights into various topics. However, the company struggled under a mountain of debt and questions regarding its fundraising tactics.
The New York Times reported in October 2021 that one of Watson’s top aides, Samir Rao, posed as a YouTube executive while Goldman Sachs was making an investment reference call, dealing a significant blow to Ozy’s reputation.
US Attorney Breon Peace, himself African American, characterized Watson as a “con man” who had run Ozy like a criminal organization. Watson’s attorney Sullivan, however, argued that Peace might not be aware of discriminatory practices occurring within his office. He likened the situation to saying that a police chief’s race ensures non-discriminatory policing within their jurisdiction.
Sullivan also questioned why the case was brought in Brooklyn when Watson and Ozy were based in California, suggesting that prosecutors ignored other cases of fraud involving New York-based companies. Watson’s defense has compared his situation to other media firms, such as Vice Media and BuzzFeed, which had reportedly employed questionable tactics to attract investors.
Carlos Watson, who remains steadfast in his denial of the charges, sees this legal battle as a larger struggle for racial equality. He stated, “The beauty of adversity is that it reveals who you truly are. Every morning, I look in the mirror and remember why I started OZY – to give a voice to the voiceless and bring light to dimly lit corners of the world. That mission is larger than me, larger than these charges, and it fortifies me each day.”
In a contentious legal battle with wide-reaching implications, Carlos Watson’s claims of racial bias will be closely examined as the case unfolds in Brooklyn.
In February 2022, Binghamton, New York police charged brothers Yaron Kweller and Leor Kweller with rape in the third degree; a class E felony, 42, and Jordan Ringden with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree; a class B felony and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree; a class D felony based on allegations made by two women stemming from a gathering on November 27, 2021. We cannot undermine the importance of protecting victims and understanding how difficult it is for people who have been through trauma to come forward. It is also as important for due process and the rule of law to be at the heart of any investigation and public accusations. It is admittedly, a difficult balancing act – how do you ensure equity and fairness, justice for a victim and for the accused at the same time, while managing public expectations and political pressures. The @Metoo movement enabled people who had no voice to be heard, but it also made it possible to cause malice and harm to those accused when the allegations are false. Traditional media and social media alike have hit some of those wrongfully accused like a tidal wave, as pressure to protect a movement became more important than protecting the innocent. Some public officials, those who care more about popular opinion than facts and law, have become as complicit as the media in this when it is convenient. We once abided by what is known as the Blackstone Ratio, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers” Now, unfortunately, for what I am certain are many good and bad reasons alike, there is a significant part of society that feels it is more important to let an innocent man suffer if that means more truly guilty men go to prison. Last week, in the ongoing case in Broome County, New York, the defendants moved for the dismissal of their charges. They argue that prosecutors have withheld exculpatory Brady evidence and have acted overzealously in their attribution to the @MeToo movement. In this case, it just might be true. Leor and Yaron Kweller have maintained their innocence since first charged, and recent evidence suggests that indeed they may not have been involved in the alleged crime. According to court documents, a DNA test has confirmed that neither Kweller could have been involved, and that in fact, two “other samples” were present. Additionally, and even more substantial, are messages between the alleged victims have been revealed, detailing a plan to set these people up. The messages were detailed and do not paint a sympathetic picture of the accusers. The evidence was only obtained through various attempts at discovery and Broome County District Attorney Mike Korchak, who is running for reelection this Spring, was fighting to prevent the defense lawyers from seeing it. The motion in redacted form is attached here. It is worth a read, as anyone who sees might appreciate why DA Korchak tried to squash it. These are just some of the messages between the accusers:
Digital Replacing Print
Marc Lotenberg
