Frank Parlato
Judge Conflict or Innocence: What Matters More?
What if, in the end, we find the judge is conflicted, and the defendant is innocent?
I believe many people view Carlos Watson’s motion before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—where he requests the removal of his trial judge, US District Court Judge Eric Komitee, and the vacating of his conviction—as a secondary issue.
The main issue is not whether the judge was compromised and presided over a trial where the alleged victims were his longtime business partners and friends—something he did not disclose during the trial—but, rather, whether Watson is innocent.
And because a federal judge—and a very rich one at that—ran his trial to please his friends, was an innocent man convicted?
Most people prefer to avoid nuanced due process issues, such as a judge being conflicted or appearing to be conflicted, and most people assume judges are neutral. But what if one wasn’t? Most people might only care if Watson is innocent.
Some might argue that even if the judge wanted Watson convicted, Watson was guilty, so what’s the harm?
Challenging the Assumptions of Guilt
There is plenty of harm. We’ll get to that later.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York made allegations against Watson and Ozy Media, painting a picture of a criminal and his enterprise. But I see a different story.
Based on the evidence at trial, Watson is not a fraudster, and Ozy is not a criminal enterprise.
Watson and Ozy did not engage in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, or aggravated identity theft.
Achievements of Ozy Media Under Watson
Watson, with his family, and hundreds of employees and contractors, built Ozy into a viable company that published five newsletters, produced fourteen television shows, produced top-ten podcasts, built an awards program, put on festivals , and developed more than 200 top-tier advertisers like Coca-Cola, Target, and Wal-Mart.
Watson helped Ozy win an Emmy and submitted two series for Pulitzer Prize consideration.
Ozy was a company BuzzFeed tried to acquire, offering $300 million. Watson had a good reason to turn down its offer. In September 2021, JP Morgan was preparing to value Ozy at $2 billion.
Watson was the visionary and entrepreneur. He oversaw content, set the company’s direction, brought in investors and advertisers, and established a corporate governance infrastructure, engaging reputable outside law firms, investment banks, board members, and accounting firms.
Watson and his family invested their own money each time Ozy raised capital from investors. Watson deferred salary and secondary stock sales to free up funds to hire more people, produce programs, and grow the company’s infrastructure.
Watson and his family invested approximately $20 million in Ozy, including cash, deferred salary, and deferred stock options. Fraudsters do not build companies, establish outside control and accountability, and invest their own, and their families’, money in a fraudulent enterprise.
The Role of Rao and Han in Ozy’s Downfall
By contrast, the government’s cooperators, people who testified against Watson to get a vastly reduced sentence—former Ozy executives Samir Rao and Suzee Han—were responsible for finance, tech, and operations.
As Ozy grew from digital-only to a five-part media company, Rao and Han found they lacked the skills to perform their functions competently. They took shortcuts.
Ozy employees, including some of the government’s witnesses, knew that Rao engaged in his deceptive acts alone. For example, when an executive resigned after discovering Rao created a forged contract, she clarified that Rao had engaged in deceit. She emailed Rao’s wife, underscoring her disappointment in Rao (not Watson), and messaged Watson on LinkedIn to express her admiration for him.
Watson hired top-tier law firms and investment banks to ensure compliance during fundraising rounds. He sought the advice of investors and board members, including Tom Franco, Mike Moe, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Maurice Werdegar. OZY’s board met quarterly or semi-annually on a formal basis, and there were weekly, if not daily, calls.
The Deceptive Acts of Samir Rao
Despite Watson’s efforts, Rao engaged in shortcuts and deception. He did it for his gain and advancement in the company.
Rao admitted to
- doctoring Ozy’s general ledger;
- orchestrating a juggling act to manage Ozy’s loans with merchant lenders;
- fabricating documents
- providing fake invoices
- creating fake UCC termination emails to lenders;
- forging a contract;
- registering a fake website;
- creating fake email personas to impersonate an Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) employee;
- forging the signature of an OWN partner on a contract
- sending the altered contract to Hanmi Bank.
Every crime, every single crime, began and ended with Rao. But Rao and his coconspirator Han made a deal—as cooperators—to blame Watson.
The Real Villains and the Government’s Missteps
Rao is the real villain. Han, his direct employee, was his accomplice. It seems they will escape paying for their crimes by adopting the government’s desire to make Watson the fall guy.
Even so, even without the perjury of Rao and Han, the US Attorney’s Office went out of its way to get things wrong, and Judge Komitee certainly did not try to make things right.
The Truth About Ozy’s Revenue
Ozy’s revenue was not inflated. Watson knew about OZY’s revenue, but Rao and Han were the finance people. Watson focused on Ozy’s vision, content, diversified business model, and key partnerships.
The government ignored the distinction between Watson’s role as a visionary leader and the financial misconduct orchestrated by Rao and Han.
While prosecutors alleged Watson directed Rao and Han to overstate Ozy‘s income, the accounting errors made by Rao and Han did not result in inflated revenue. Between 2016 and 2021, Ozy reported to investors that its gross revenue was $182 million. Prosecutors claimed this was a lie and alleged Watson knowingly participated in this alleged inflation.
However, Watson engaged top accounting firms to review the company’s finances. Their analysis revealed a surprising truth: Ozy‘s income was understated, not overstated.
According to reports by Bland Waxman and TechCXO, Ozy actually generated $186 million—$4 million more than Rao and Han had reported.
Rao and Han, lacking the competence to accurately manage Ozy‘s finances, failed to account for key contracts with JP Morgan, Discover, and Intuit. They also neglected to include millions in barter revenue, failed to distinguish between gross and net income, and conflated cash and accrual accounting standards.
This analysis could have dismantled the prosecution’s central argument—that Watson conspired with Rao and Han to inflate Ozy‘s revenue to mislead investors. Yet, Judge Komitee barred Watson from calling the accountants as witnesses, depriving the defense of a critical rebuttal to the government’s case.
The Goldman Sachs Call: A Turning Point
The prosecution’s case centered on a fraudulent call made by Rao to Goldman Sachs on February 2, 2021. Rao, posing as a Google executive, provided a reference for Ozy to solidify an investment.
It was Rao, not Watson, who did the impersonation and committed identity theft.
Rao confessed in letters and during FBI interviews that the impersonation was his idea alone. He admitted he acted without Watson’s knowledge or involvement. Han corroborated this, stating that Rao had taken full responsibility for the scheme.
Watson addressed the situation immediately upon learning of Rao’s impersonation, notifying both Goldman Sachs and Ozy‘s board on the same day the crime occurred. Watson’s mistake was trusting Rao’s excuse—that he had suffered a mental breakdown.
The Forged Contract: Rao’s Solo Deception
Watson had no involvement in the fake contract Rao submitted to Hanmi Bank. Initially, Rao claimed Watson had asked an employee to draft a legitimate contract, which Rao then used as a template for his forgery.
However, the prosecution produced no evidence linking Watson to the forgery. Despite this lack of evidence, the defense was blocked from impeaching Rao using his initial FBI statements—a move by Judge Komitee that raised serious concerns about the fairness of the trial.
Contrary to the government’s claims, Watson never misrepresented potential investors. He had signed term sheets from prominent figures and organizations expressing interest in Ozy, including Oprah Winfrey, Alex Rodriguez, and Live Nation.
Watson Never Claimed a $600 Million Google Takeover Offer
Watson never claimed to Antara Capital, a potential Ozy investor, that Google had made a $600 million takeover offer for the company. Want proof? Antara, in its due diligence process, created a detailed 35-page investment memo. If Watson had made such a claim, Antara would have highlighted it in the memo, as it would have significantly enhanced the perceived value of their potential investment.
The memo did not mention any such offer. Furthermore, there were no emails, text messages, or other communications from Watson to anyone asserting a $600 million offer from Google.
No Evidence of Watson Directing Fraud
Watson did not direct Rao or Han to alter Ozy’s books, fabricate contracts, engage in forgery, or misrepresent the company’s numbers. The government never produced a single email or text message showing Watson instructing others to commit fraud.
Instead, the prosecution’s case relied entirely on the testimony of two cooperators, Rao and Han, who admitted to committing every act of fraud and deception themselves. These were their crimes, executed by their hands.
The Injustice of Cooperation Deals
In the U.S. government’s prosecution system, cooperators often receive substantial sentence reductions. On average, cooperators see more than half of their sentences shaved off, and in some cases, they receive probation.
Rao and Han were incentivized to blame Watson for their leniency deals. They altered their narratives from exonerating Watson to implicating him. The prosecution’s case rested on these incentivized testimonies, which were shielded from rigorous cross-examination by Judge Komitee.
The Judge’s Conflicts of Interest
Judge Komitee’s financial ties to Goldman Sachs, a central “victim” in the case, cast a long shadow over the trial. His disclosed net worth of up to $102 million is largely tied to investments directly or indirectly connected to Goldman Sachs and other Watson-related alleged victims.
Komitee’s role in the trial went beyond mere oversight. He acted as a de facto prosecutor, ensuring that key witnesses and evidence favorable to Watson’s defense were excluded.
Judicial Integrity
When a judge with clear conflicts of interest refuses to recuse themselves and presides over a trial with apparent bias, the defendant’s guilt or innocence becomes secondary. The integrity of the judiciary is paramount.
In Watson’s case, the evidence—once the perjury of Rao and Han is stripped away—strongly suggests his innocence. But even if that were not the case, the judge’s failure to disclose his financial entanglements and his active role in favoring the prosecution demand the conviction be vacated.
Most of his wealth is directly or indirectly tied to Goldman Sachs – the headline victim in Watson’s case.
In Watson’s case, the judge acted as a prosecutor. The investigation into why Komitee was conflicted, and possibly worse, traces back to his history with Goldman Sachs and his desire to please his longtime partners and friends.
We will provide more information later.
However, it’s important to note that one of the wealthiest judges in America amassed his fortune through Goldman Sachs, which is considered a supposed victim in the Watson case. Judge Komitee went out of his way to remain involved in the case when he should have recused himself, and he took additional steps to ensure Watson was convicted.
This case involves two perjuring criminals who were essentially given “get out of jail free” cards.
Is He Innocent?
Additionally, there is one crucial point that should be mentioned, even though it may seem unrelated to the due process requirement for vacating Watson’s conviction.
When an outlier judge takes the law into his own hands and behaves in a way that warrants impeachment, the innocence or guilt of the defendant becomes irrelevant. The case must be dismissed. Upholding an honest judiciary is more important than ensuring that every guilty person is convicted.
On top of everything else, once you discount the lies of Rao and Han (which the jury would have done if the defense had been allowed to conduct a proper cross-examination), the evidence strongly suggests Watson is innocent.
In a warped world where the prosecution and the judge want the same result, things like this are bound to happen.
An innocent man is convicted, and an arguably corrupt judge will continue to increase his net worth by short-selling stocks and justice.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
This case is bigger than Carlos Watson. It’s bigger than Judge Komitee. It’s bigger than Goldman Sachs. What we’re watching, what we’re living throughis the slow erosion of everything we were told to believe in: justice, fairness, accountability, and the rule of law. And the worst part? Most people don’t even notice. They’re too busy scrolling TikTok or doomscrolling headlines that make them shrug and move on. But I can’t move on. I won’t.
You want provocative? Fine. Here’s the real truth: the American Dream is a fraud. It’s a shiny billboard that tells you to work hard, build something, rise up from nothing, and you’ll be rewarded. But Watson did all of that. He took his family’s money, his blood, his sweat, and his tears, and he built a company…a company that won awards, created jobs, and inspired people!!!! And where did it get him?
Convicted.
Labeled. Destroyed.
And why? Because the system wasn’t built for people like Carlos Watson to succeed. Sure, they’ll let a few of us through the gates if we can dance, dribble, or entertain them enough to distract from the reality of their power. But the second you become a threat? The second you rise too high, say too much, or disrupt their narrative? They’ll find a way to cut you down.
You think I’m angry? You’re damn right I’m angry. I’m angry because I grew up believing in a lie. I believed that if you played by the rules, you’d win. But what happens when the rules are rigged? What happens when the referee, the judge, the arbiter of fairness, is in bed with the other team?
Judge Komitee should never have presided over this case. Period. Full stop. His financial ties to Goldman Sachs aren’t just a conflict of interest—they’re a neon sign flashing “CORRUPTION” for anyone paying attention. But here’s the thing: most people aren’t paying attention. They don’t care if a Black entrepreneur gets railroaded by a rich, white judge with a $102 million net worth. They don’t care about the integrity of the judiciary until it affects them directly. And that apathy? That’s how systems like this survive.
But let me be clearthis isn’t just about race. It’s about power. It’s about who gets to hold it, who gets to wield it, and who gets to be crushed under its weight. Carlos Watson isn’t just a man; he’s a symbol of what happens when someone outside their club gets too close to their table. They’ll flip the whole damn table over before they let you eat.
Its heartbreaking to live in a world where institutions you thought would protect you are the same ones designed to control you. It means understanding that justice isn’t blind—it’s selective. It sees skin color, bank accounts, and connections. It sees power and does everything it can to protect it.
And what about the rest of us? What about the dreamers, the builders, the kids like me who grew up believing that hard work would lead to success? What are we supposed to do when we realize the game is rigged?
Here’s what we do: we fight. We speak. We refuse to let stories like Watson’s be buried under a moountain of headlines about celebrities and scandals. We demand accountability—not just for Judge Komitee, but for every judge, every prosecutor, every politician who thinks they can play with people’s lives like it’s just another day at the office.
I’m not naive enough to think this one case will change everything. But maybe, just maybe, it’ll wake some of us up. Maybe it’ll remind us that the system doesn’t fix itself. PEOPLE DO!!!!! And maybe it’ll inspire a new generation of dreamers who are willing to fight for a world where the Carlos Watsons of the world can succeed….not despite the system, but because of it.
Until then, PLEASE keep writing.
Conflicts of interest are a slippery slope. I know how important it is for justice to not only be done but to appear to be done. If the judge’s connections weren’t disclosed, this case should be retried. Even if Watson were guilty, a biased judge taints the process. It’s a mess we can’t ignore.
The judge’s financial ties to Goldman Sachs are the kind of plot twist you’d expect in a cheap thriller, not a courtroom. Watson’s story is one of ambition and perseverance, yet it’s overshadowed by a system that cares more about appearances than truth. Welcome to USA.
I’ve lived through Jim Crow and watched our justice system fail Black men time and again. This not new. Rich man judge protecting his friends while a brother gets thrown under the bus? Oldest story in America. But let me tell you something, glad see the truth come here quick.
Not just about Carlos Watson; this is about every defendant who has faced systemic bias in our justice system. When judges are allowed to preside over cases where they have clear conflicts of interest, it erodes public trust in the judiciary. This case is a glaring reminder of how wealth and power can manipulate outcomes. We must demand an impartial judiciary to ensure that justice is not for sale!
Oh, sure, because nothing screams ‘fair trial’ like a judge with a net worth of $102 million tied to the ‘victim.’ Maybe next time, we can let the prosecution pick the jury and hand out ‘guilty’ T-shirts at the door. $$$ All it is.
This isn’t just a miscarriage of justice, it’s a train wreck. The judge’s behavior is indefensible, and the government’s reliance on cooperators who are clearly lying is laughable. If Watson’s conviction isn’t overturned, we might as well start calling the U.S. justice system the U.S. Circus System.
This case transcends the individual and speaks to the very fabric of our judicial system. When a judge’s integrity is compromised, it is not merely one man who suffers—it is the foundation of our democracy. Justice must not only be impartial; it must be seen to be impartial. This case requires a retrial, if only to preserve that principle. We must not loose sight of our principles.
Go, Carlos! Don’t let them tear you down! You built something amazing, and we see the truth. The world needs more visionaries like you!!!! Keep fighting the good fight! We know you’ve got this!!!!!!
This case breaks my heart. Carlos Watson is the epitome of what we tell our children to aspire to~hard work, be innovative and value integrity. And yet, he’s being punished for someone else’s crimes. We must fight for him because his story is our story!!!!
So, a multimillionaire judge sides with his old friends and takes down an innocent man. Surprise, surprise. This isn’t about justice- it’s about power and money. Watson never stood a chance. Horrible.
Regardless of Watson’s guilt or innocence, the judge’s conflict of interest is a huge issue. If we allow this kind of behavior to slide, we set a dangerous precedent. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter how wealthy or connected the judge might be.
Shucks-I feel like our generation is constantly being told to trust institutions, but then stuff like this happens. It’s really really discouraging. Whether Watson is guilty or not, how can we believe in justice when the people in power are so corrupt? Honestly, this feels like a Black Mirror episode
Deleted
This case was a sham from the beginning. Watson is clearly being targeted, and now we find out the judge has deep ties to Goldman Sachs? How does that not disqualify him? Watson deserves a fair shot. We ALL do. This is bullshit.
The judge had undisclosed ties to companies involved in the case, and nobody bats an eye. The system isn’t broken it’s working exactly as it was designed to. PERIOD.
Always, always the same story when a successful black entrepreneur rises to prominence- they find a way to knock them down. Carlos Watson created something groundbreaking with OZY. Instead of celebrating his achievements, they’ve turned this into a modern day lynching.
Hard to tell with all these lies everywhere.
Don’t get me wrong, maybe Watson done some stuff he shouldn’t, but this trial just don’t make sense. Judge making money off banks? How is it even possible they let him stay on the case?
Man, no lawyer, but even I can see this don’t add up. If the judge got his money tied up with these big-shot banks, how’s that fair? It’s like puttin’ a fox in charge of the henhouse. I’m not saying nobody is perfect, but it sure look like they set him up.
This case is another example of how money and power corrupt everything. A judge who’s worth Million$ $itting on inve$tment$ connected to the $uppo$ed victim$, gets to decide Watson’s fate? Meanwhile, the real criminals—Rao and Han—walk away with deals???????????????????????????????????????/???????!!!. It’s disgusting. And don’t tell me this doesn’t affect all of us. When the rich and powerful can manipulate the system, NO one’s safe!!!!!!!!! The people need to demand better.
Justice isn’t blind. It’s an actual theatre, a grotesque performance on a crumbling stage. Kafka wouldn’t know whether to laugh or weep.
Shocking backroom deals, in Judges chambers–where the sound of sin clinks as two smegma cocktails splash onto graveyard grey floors- soaking up all principles.
Mr. Carlos Watson’s trial is sadly nnot just a case of judicial bias , but a horrific example of the corruption within the justice system itself. Ther parallels to the Jerry Sandusky case are like a lightening bolts(dangerous/unforgiving/blazing/obvious) Both cases showcase how powerful individuals and institutions manipulate outcomes, leaving public trust in shambles and yet people just turn the other way from the hot pink OMNI elephant in the room? Or maybe we “see” the systemic failures, conflicts of interest, and deliberate missteps marred the pursuit of true justice.. but cant handle the truth, so we call it a pig, slap some lipstick on it, throw a Santa Claus hat on his head while singing ” I believe. I do believe!”
Is our nation paralyized by magical thinking? Is it easier to believe the Powers That Be have our backs ? Are we too naive? Or maybe too lazy to FINALLY wake up. Whatever it is? These so called “lawmakers” , poliiticains, law enforcemers, lawyers, DA’s count on our magiacl thnking–count every penny, all the way, all the way to the bank!
What a sham this Judge Eric Komitee! His undisclosed financial ties to Goldman Sachs, a central “victim” in this case, should have immediately disqualified him from presiding. Goldman Sachs is not a neutral party here, and the judge’s personal wealth being directly tied to its success creates a conflict of interest so glaring it should make any objective observer’s head spin. This is textbook 101 violation of judicial ethics. How can a judge fairly adjudicate a case where their financial interests align with one of the litigants? The Sandusky case featured similar failures, where investigators and institutions had vested interests that clouded impartiality, prioritizing public image over truth.
Apples and Oranges-Sandunsky & Watson.
Waton: The prosecution’s case hinges almost entirely on the incentivized testimony of two admitted fraudsters~Samir Rao and Suzee Han~who literally forged documents, IMPERSOANTED EXECS and orchestrated lie after lie-at everey turn! (Are we so destentizteted by our video game culture its just par for the course?) These individuals committed the crimes yet were REWARDED with leniency for their cooperation!!!. This is disturbingly reminiscent of how all the key witnesses in the Sandusky case were coached or incentivized ( $$$$109 MILLION Franklins$$$$$$$$) to present specific narratives that bolstered institutional cover-ups rather than exposing the truth!
In both cases, individuals who should have been scrutinized became tools for shifting blame.
Rao and Han’s admission to forging contracts, impersonating high-profile executives, and fabricating documents paints them as the real villains. Watson, by contrast, invested his OWN money, deferred his SALARY and sought top-tier legal and financial oversight to ENSURE compliance. Why would someone so heavily invested in the success and credibility of their company orchestrate its downfall through fraud? It defies logiC!! Jjust as it did in the Sandusky case (!!!) where accusations were contradicted by timelines and evidence that were ignored in favor of sensationalism!!!
Consider the broader implications of Judge Komitee’s actions. By barring Watson from calling accountants to disprove the inflated revenue allegations and blocking evidence that would have dismantled the prosecution’s case, he acted not as an impartial arbiterr but as a “de facto prosecutor!” This deliberate suppression of the defense is just how the same LYING Santa Cluse System manipulated the Sandusky case —controlled the narrative, withholding/ manipulating evidence to ensure predetermined outcomes!!!!. The judiciary in both instances has failed to uphold its most sacred duty~to ensure a fair and unbiased trial!
Even more egregious is the government’s willingness to overlook Rao and Han’s deceit while pinning the blame on Watson. Watson notified Goldman Sachs and his board immediately upon discovering Rao’s impersonation of a Google executive. His mistake was trusting Rao’s claim of a mental breakdown—an act of misplaced COMPASSION, not complicity! Yet, the prosecution twisted this into a narrative of leadership culpability, much like how the Sandusky case turned systemic failings into individual scapegoating to shield larger entities. And the numbers don’t lie. The government accused Watson of inflating OzMedia’s revenue, yet independent analyses revealed the opposite~Ozy’s income was understated by $4 million due to accounting errors by Rao and Han. This KEY evidence, which COULDhave dismantled the prosecution’s central argument, was BARRED by Judge Komitee. HOW is this justice? AND How is this different from the selective evidence and biased procedures that plagued the Sandusky trial? ( DOES ANYONE SEE or care about the patterns? If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone)
In both cases, theres a dangerous precedent~~WHEN the system prioritizes optics, conflicts of interest, and personal gain over fairness, innocent people pay the price!!!! Watson’s conviction is not just an injustice to hiM it’s a stain on the entire legal system. (and to them? that “stain” is just the mark of the beast-another rat in their pissing contest -trying to prove their veritas -one for the team. ie -aka the dont give a rats piss about you or me)
The Sandusky case showed us how institutions will twist facts and shield their own to protect reputations, and here, we’re witnessing A G A I N how a judge’s personal financial ties and prosecutorial overreach can do the same!!
This isn’t just about Carlos Watson!!! It’s about a system that allows biased judges to preside over trials, incentivizes criminals to lie in exchange for leniency, and suppresses evidence that could exonerate the innocent. It’s about a judiciary that has forgotten its mandate to uphold impartiality and fairness.
IF WATSONS CONVICTION IS NOT VACATED???
If Watson’s conviction isn’t vacated, what message does that send? That judges can prioritize their financial interests? That criminals like Rao and Han can commit fraud, point fingers, and walk free? That justice is just another commodity to be traded among the powerful?
It’s time to hold the system accountable. If we don’t learn from cases like Sandusky’ and now Watson’ we’re doomed to repeat the same cycles of corruption, bias, and betrayal of public trust. Justice must be more than a spectacle!!! It must be a truth-seeking, even at the expense of the prosectuors cozy homes in the Hamptons, the trips to the Carrieban and their insatiable egos!!! Until then, the system will continue to bite off the head’s of justice.
Public perception played an equally significant role in both trials
When this thing unravels Komitee might end up where he wants Watson. Komitee is playing a dangerous game.
Judges having investments isn’t unusual, but when those investments are tied to a major player in a trial they’re presiding over, it’s an issue. As someone who works in finance, I can’t imagine Goldman Sachs’ involvement didn’t weigh on the judge’s decisions. This kind of conflict of interest is unacceptable in any professional setting. This can’t be happening!
https://youtu.be/tMDFv5m18Pw?si=DaJIarsAmOciiirK
This a Vamint system –..if we let them, they’ll continue to bite off the heads of the innocent –just like one of Ozzy Ozbourne’s bats!!
He’s being punished for trusting the wrong people.
It’s sickening to think that their lies were taken as gospel while Watson wasn’t even allowed to present key evidence to defend himself. This entire case screams injustice, and I hope the appeals court does the right thing. I hope people protest this. If it can happpen to here, can happden to me, to my family, to me friends, to you.
This makes you think about how much power prosecutors and judges have to manipulate outcomes. Obviously. Watson built something incredible with Ozy Media, and it seems like he’s being punished for trusting the wrong people. Rao and Han are the real villains here, and the fact that they’re walking free while Watson pays the price is absolutely disgusting.
Reading about Carlos Watson’s trial honestly feels like a mirror to my own life. The system work against people like us. I know firsthand what it’s like. I was victimized in the court system. My case was worse. I was the biggest victim there ever was. I could start a blog just about me.
This infuriating!how can we trust the system when judges with blatantly obvious conflicts of interest are allowed to preside over cases? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!??? The EVIDENCE PROVES he’s being scapegoated..
If a judge’s personal financial ties can overshadow justice, then no one is safe from this kind of bias! The fact that Rao and Han..who admitted to committing fraud (!??!! Hello!!!??) are walking free while Watson takes the fall is beyond disgusting. This isn’t just a failure of one case!!! it’s a failure of the system. OUR SYSTEM!!!
No justice in this country.