Frank Parlato
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York has charged Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz with a single count of forced labor conspiracy. If convicted, the women face up to 20 years.
Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 is similar to Franz Kafka’s The Trial, because, like in the novel, the real-life prosecutor, US Attorney Breon Peace, will not tell the defendants what they actually did. He told them the name of the crime and heaped a pile of steamy conclusions into Indictment 1:23-cr-00146, but from it, no one, including the defendants, can have the remotest idea of what they have done that is criminal.
Presumed Guilty: The Prosecution’s Approach
In Indictment 1:23-cr-00146, the defendant is presumed guilty. We told you the crime, forced labor. You figure out the rest.
I imagine that if the prosecutors would speak candidly to the defendants, they would say:
You are indicted. Do not spend much time in discussion with defense lawyers. All their advice and all that they do manage to achieve will be unpleasant and useless. Not knowing this, you probably just want to throw everything away, leave it to the defense attorneys, and lay at home in bed and hear nothing more about it. But that, of course, would be the stupidest thing you could do, and you wouldn’t be left in peace in bed for very long either.
As Kafka, whose world we have modeled our Brooklyn justice system, said, people under indictment are better moving than at rest, since at rest you may be sitting in the balance without knowing it, being weighed together with your sins.
You should be seeking a plea deal, first and foremost. You do not need to bother the court for the details of the crime. Prosecutors don’t make mistakes. Do not think you can appeal for justice to the court. The court has nothing for you. It receives you when you come and dismisses you when you go.
It will end in court with you in handcuffs after the judge sentences you, and we will own you then as we do now. Only if you fight, we will own you longer. There will be a penalty for going to trial.
Take my warning to heart instead, and don’t be unyielding in the future. You can’t fight the Department of Justice. You must confess to guilt. Make your confession at the first chance you get. Until you do that, there is no possibility of getting out of our clutches. None at all.
The Odds of Justice
The prosecutor would not be 100 percent right if he told Daedone the above. There is a slight chance in court: The Department of Justice can boast a 98 percent conviction rate. That means an indictment and a conviction are 98 percent synonymous. That’s almost infallibility.
That means that if we interpret the name – the US Department of Justice – in any manner other than in an Orwellian sense, we must believe that power does not corrupt. It only makes prosecutors better at divination.
So, Daedone and Cherwitz do not need to know what they have done. They are 98 percent convicted anyway.
Frankly, when reading Indictment 1:23-cr-00146, I urge readers to enter the Kafkaesque world of the presumption of guilt towards the defendants. Otherwise, it will be hard to refrain from laughing.
Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 is like presenting an empty pie tin sprinkled with cinnamon, cardamom, and ginger and an apple worm, and calling it apple pie.
Dirty Them Up: The Prosecution’s Strategy
You might think that in writing this article, I am using a tactic the prosecutors used in writing Indictment 1:23-cr-00146, which is to “dirty up” the defendant. Prosecutors do this by reciting legally irrelevant facts to make the defendant look dirty, while skipping what they did that was actually a crime.
But I do not want to do that. I want you to sympathize with the prosecutors. So let me tell you a story. Stanley Ellin wrote The Question. Though I probably forgot a few details, it goes something like this:
The Question
A prosecutor confides to his son that the system is based on plea bargains and conviction stats. Sometimes, in the line of duty, he must indict an innocent man.
His son looks at him in a strange sort of puzzled way. “Only a duty? But you enjoy it, don’t you?”
That was the question he asked.
You enjoy it, don’t you?
The prosecutor ruminates:
You stand there with a universe of discretion.
You look through mountains of documents and decide who to charge, knowing the defendant will have tortured nights and frightened days and spend every dollar to stay out of prison, spend their children’s college funds, and mortgage their home.
You stood there 1000 times, looking at the evidence, thinking how so many facts can show guilt or innocence depending on how you spin them. And you got to be good at spinning, almost too good. So, you figure you must just leave it to the defense to do their spinning, and you do yours.
And console yourself with the fact that if innocence was painstakingly spared, many guilty people would be spared. Ten guilty people would go free just to spare one innocent from prison. The Department of Justice measures its success based on conviction stats, numbers, and percentages of accused who are convicted (98 percent). It would be in shambles if prosecutors were concerned with innocence.
But people do not understand that we are saddled with a godawful name—the Department of Justice. It should be called the Department of Prosecution.
My mind recalls the proffer sessions. The door across the room opens. The defense lawyer brings a defendant in. Usually, he is in a daze. He sees FBI agents and prosecutors as nine feet tall. He starts to sweat. Sometimes, he cries and throws himself at our mercy. Sometimes, they bring in a woman. They all cry when they realize we have the advantage if it goes to trial. It is not easy to have control over the fate of one human being. I have had control over the fate of a thousand. So many. I have forgotten their names.
After we make the plea bargain, I continue my duties.
At the sentencing, I find my eyes glued to the defendant until it is time to argue for longer prison than the defense wants. Then I look straight at the judge. Sentencing is an emotional scene beset with sorrow, tension, and fear.
When the judge sentences the defendant and signals the marshals to handcuff and shackle the slumping man, his family cries. They look at me like I’m to blame.
I have seen it 500 times. They handcuff and shackle the man, and 70 percent of the life current of the body takes a hit of depleting air. Rumpled, shrinking, reduced to barely filling the clothes he came to court in. The head hangs low.
I bow my head, too, in the somber moment, cognizant of the awesome power of the prosecutor.
Sure, sometimes you suspect in the recesses of your mind that he might be innocent, but you banish that specter. There is no way to always know. It is not your job to know. Your job is to prosecute.
What you do know is that when you decide to indict a man, you can see in your mind what the hurtling power of indictment does to any person, and sad as it may sound, it means the innocent get caught in the net, too. This is the price society pays to keep our nation safe.
So, yes, I have had to look at the haunting face of the innocent man hauled away to prison, his life and his family shattered – from my choice to indict him.
Enjoy it?
That was the question my son asked me. That is what he asked, as if I didn’t have the same feelings deep down that we all have.
Enjoy it?
My God, how could anyone not enjoy it?
Dirty Up the Defendants With Dirty Legal Sex
So refreshed by that short story, let us look at indictment 1:23-cr-00146 and watch the prosecution dirty up the defendants.
According to the indictment, Nicole Daedone’s company, OneTaste, Inc.,
“promoted itself as a sexuality-focused wellness education company” and “generated revenue by providing courses, coaching and events related to… ‘wellness practices’ in exchange for a fee”.
Among those “wellness” practices, and it is right at the top of the Indictment – “high up” as we used to say in journalism – is “orgasmic meditation, (‘OM’) a partnered practice typically involving the methodical stroking of a woman’s genitals for a period of fifteen minutes. “
Sex. The indictment starts with sex.
But this is not a sex crime indictment. True, the defendants don’t know what kind of labor they allegedly forced anyone to do, but this isn’t a sex trafficking case.
The indictment does not allege that Orgasmic Meditation is a crime because it is not.
It would be hard to make a case that women are victims, since women, as infantile as the law presumes them to be, pay money to attend classes to learn about orgasmic meditation.
In commercial sex, which is a crime, it is the woman whose task is to stimulate a man’s genitals.
At One Taste, women do not stroke men. Men stroke women.
The men are not victims for the simple reason that while the law assumes women are infants, it assumes men are adults, and when they do something they consent to do, it is not a crime.
Since everyone is an adult who practice Orgasmic Meditation. and, there are more women than men in classes, we can assume that the one and only specific thing in the indictment is a legal practice and is there to “dirty them up.”
Where’s the Beef?
So what did Deadone and Cherwitz do that is a crime?
It might help if we knew when. Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 narrows it down to a 12-year window. Somewhere, sometime, “In or about and between 2006 and May 2018,” the defendants forced a person or persons into labor.
But the prosecutors do not tell us who, how many or what year. We also do not know what anyone was forced to do.
Conclusory Allegations
The prosecutors allege, without evidence, the conclusions that a jury would decide after hearing the evidence. Daedone and Cherwitz “subjected” someone to “economic, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse; surveillance; indoctrination; and intimidation.”
How they did this, when they did it, what they did and who they did it to, we do not know.
Grooming Adults
Then, the indictment returns to dirtying up the defendants.
“OneTaste members engaged in sexual activity at the direction of the defendants.”
They “recruited and groomed OneTaste members to engage in sexual acts with OneTaste’s current and prospective investors, clients, employees and beneficiaries, for the financial benefit of OneTaste and, in turn, the defendants.”
You can groom a dog or a horse. You can groom a child, and if it leads to sex, it is a crime. But these are adults. How do you groom an adult into having sex that is a crime?
You can’t.
If grooming adults to have sex is a crime, half the married people in the world are criminals. After all, they call them grooms.
The indictment never says who Daedone groomed to engage in sex acts, or with whom or how it relates to forced labor. No example is given.
For example, Adam engaged in a sexual act with Eve (who was to blame), and she was an employee of Moses who was going to invest with Sarah in a company that taught about female orgasm. But Jacob was only testing the product when he was forced to stroke Naomi because Rebekah engaged in a sexual act with Paul, who gave the defendant a coat after Ayries lost her boyfriend to Leah.
But Audrey fell down dead drunk and sued the ground for hurting her. She would not have had a drink if the defendants hadn’t groomed her into believing that it is more enlightening to be stroked than to stroke.
So, it was forced labor?
Ugly Dirty
Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 continues in its own bizarre, ridiculous vein:
Daedone “instructed” the “OneTaste members to engage in sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive as a requirement to obtain ‘freedom’ and ‘enlightenment’ and demonstrate their commitment to OneTaste and DAEDONE.”
Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 is a model for something prosecutors have long wished to do: ban unconventional thinking.
Is it illegal to have sex with someone ugly?
Did they enjoy it? Did anyone wear a bag over their head? Was Elijah a six when Audrey, who never sleeps with anyone less than a nine, was instructed to engage in a sex act? Or was he a five, and she wanted an eight unless Audrey is drunk, or he has a lot of money? Then she’ll go down on a four unless he has a nine-figure net worth, then it’s a two.
But she wasn’t drunk.
Is that forced labor?
We don’t know. The names are missing. How many times it happened is also missing. In fact, the indictment does not say it ever happened. It just says Daedone encouraged them.
A math question on an IQ test: Twelve OneTaste students were encouraged to engage in sex acts with a butt-ugly person, and eight of them had a notion to do it. How many engaged in the sex act?
The answer is none.
Still, if this is a crime, who is the victim, the one who had to engage in sex acts with someone ugly or the one engaged in – the object of the “victim’s” cruel definition of ugly?
Legal Analysis
This is a brave new frontier for the law.
It raises so many good legal questions that it may survive being preposterous, and the fact that the prosecutors put it in an indictment for no other reason than to dirty up the defendants.
Did they find the ugly person attractive in the morning?
What if one person obtained nirvana by having sex with someone repugnant?
Would they still need to shower?
Did they use contraceptives?
A rubber glove?
What if Daedone told them that if they did not stroke, they’d go blind?
What if the girl was ugly, but she had a sense of humor, and he forgot her looks and got to know her on a different level?
Did anyone engage in sex acts a second time after finding him repulsive the first time because it was fun?
Or he was nice? Or they got past superficial attraction and found something different?
Was the forced labor with ugly people because there was no beer?
The prosecutors will have to show the faces of the allegedly ugly to prove the case.
What if they are not that ugly? Does the jury acquit?
Indictment Says the Darndest Things
Indictment 1:23-cr-00146 is preposterous, because it makes no solid allegations, but only wild and silly statements that deserve to be laughed at.
Even trying to take it seriously, how did Daedone force grown adults to engage in uncomfortable sex acts?
She was not armed. There were no threats of gunplay or brute force. Did she beat them with an ugly stick?
No, according to the indictment, she told them they might get enlightenment.
But prosecutors say, without citing a single instance, that “resistance to the directives of the defendants was not tolerated.” They do not say what resistance is or how it was not tolerated. Or who offered what kind of resistance, and what was the result? There were no murders, deaths, or physical beatings.
But we have the good word of the prosecutors that the defendants subjected unknown victims of unknown resistance to unknownL
“public shame, humiliation and workplace retaliation.”
And “employed harassment and coercion to intimidate and attack OneTaste members perceived to be enemies and critics.”
Coercion. Intimidate. Attack. But how?
Encourage them to engage in sex acts with someone attractive, and not get liberation?
Coercion, Retaliation, Intimidation, Shame, Indoctrination, Surveillance: It makes the acronym CRISIS. But who is having the crisis — the prosecutors?
Witchery
I can write the indictment better and more to the point:
Alleged: Daedone made a pact with the Devil to indoctrinate adults into having sex with ugly people by threatening them with nirvana. Daedone came to victims in a dream with a black cat and a mole where the Devil suckled.
She conducted Sabbaths, where they engaged in sex acts with unhandsome men with gloves who rubbed them the wrong way.
Yeah, I hear you laughing at the prosecutors.
But I know you wouldn’t have become interested in this case of your own free will, and you would never have lost any sleep over the shortcomings of this indictment if I hadn’t groomed you.
You’re here for prurient interest, for the fun of seeing someone punished, especially if they are dirty, and the prosecutors show they are (the defendants, not the prosecutors) instead of telling the defendants what they did that was a crime.
So, in our Kafkaesque Brooklyn way, let us lay at home in bed and hear nothing more about due process.
The Uncommonly Pure
Whatever a prosecutor may be, he is a servant of the Law; he belongs to the Law and is beyond our judgment.
Among our governmental authorities, the prosecutor is the only one immune from corruption. Police, Judges, Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, yes. Even Presidents can be corrupt. Only prosecutors are to be always believed.
But even you are smart enough to know that nobody is that good, not 98 percent good.
What if someone called their bluff?
What if Daedone depends on the jury, or if that fails a single juror? It is enough to think that maybe one or two of the jury will think the matter over and vote to acquit for the woeful lack of evidence – even if Daedone is a certified witch.
What if the indictment is a bluff, and there is nothing but silly prudery, and prosecutors enjoy bluffing two innocent women into confessing even if they don’t have evidence of a crime?
My God, how could they not enjoy it?
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
10 years in the practice and OMing, attending almost every course offered, doing contract work for OneTaste, staying in 8 community homes and starting 3 of them. I never saw or experienced someone doing something they didn’t opt to do. Yes sometimes sales was direct and intense, and I’m grateful for that bc otherwise I wouldn’t have signed up for some of the most amazing eye opening and transformative classes of my life bc I was a simp before. Courses opened with “by being here you agree we are all here as adults and will behave of our own volition”. What I did see was people saying yes to ideas and offers they personally were not ready for yet, and then turned victim and blaming. But that’s the mindset to be expected bc that’s where many people came into the programs.
I’m just curious, Noah. How do you account for what happened to Peter? And Chris? And Ayries? And Michal? And Audrey? And Leah? And and and… At what point are we looking at something systemic and not anecdotal, by your measure? Look, I get that it’s a lot to really understand and unpack how coercive control works, I get that eventually it means you’d have to examine the ways you were complicit in that system. I get that it can be more comfortable to claim that it’s not a system, and to skate over examining your complicity with “nothing to see here, folks.” That doesn’t make it true. And your dead friends deserve better.
#1 There was a male stroking practice.
#2 There were male victims.
You have made several incorrect assumptions. First, did you know women did stroke men? And were encouraged and coached to do much more??? I saw it with my own eyes. And stroked men myself.
The case isn’t about any of that. It’s about abuse, manipulation, coercive control, not paying people for hours and hours of work, etc. It was one big mind f*ck. The most abusive relationship I have ever been in.
My guess is you know nothing about what went on here. And those left are a bunch of rich trust fund kids who don’t need an income to keep following the new direction of the cult.
Was this sex trafficking? Hard to say. But I did see women court and have sex with men until they signed up for an expensive course. I saw men “dating” and OMing with women, getting them to sign up for expensive courses. Is that illegal? Not sure.
I know people were not paid even minimum wage. For hours of work. And they Were told to sign up for courses and they could work off the money.
I’m no legal expert. So we will see. But it was and is a classic cult. Abuse. Manipulation. Coercion. But I do believe what will get them is not paying people who worked hours on end. Sadly, for the belief they were apart of a family. A movement.
Again, I don’t know what was illegal. But many people were harmed. Not the thousands who simply took classes. You have to go deeper to the inner workings of One Taste.
100%. I mean… you do and you don’t have to go deeper. OT isn’t at all special in its cultic mechanisms. They’re literally all the same. Once you’ve understood one playbook, you understand them all.
The first words that I heard when I entered the OneTaste classroom – of my own volition and with the rock-solid approval and support of my husband of 40 years – were “Yes or No are both COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE answers, to any instruction. In the nine years since, I have never witnessed ANYONE “forcing” anyone to do anything. It’s time for adults, both male and female, to learn to take responsibility for their own choices, thoughts, words, and actions, instead of blaming others for things that they choose to do and later think better of. How convenient it is to blame others!! And how false. This is the growing up that we need to do as a species, and this indictment is a test, to see if we are up to the task. I pray that we find the strength to take personal responsibility for our actions, rather than continuing to play the shameful blame- game that this indictment represents.
It’s very common in high control groups (aka cults) for there to be levels of participation and involvement in which the experiences of participants vary drastically according to various criteria (length of time involved, proximity to the leadership, demonstrated commitment, etc). OneTaste was no different and while it’s lovely that you never felt any pressure or coercion or threats or tests of your autonomy, scores of others had VERY different experiences than you.
How do you know that every one of them is crying wolf or expressing “buyers remorse” now? Were you present for every meeting, interaction, or conversation between Nicole, Rachel and literally every other person who ever worked under them? Were you part of the staff of OneTaste during the time frame outlined in this case?
If not, then I’m sorry, but you don’t get to decide and tell others what kind of experience they had. You have your experience, they have theirs. And just because theirs doesn’t comport with yours (or makes you question or feel icky in hindsight), doesn’t mean theirs is less valid, or less important, or any less worthy of being taken into account.
I’m not trying to tell others what kind of experiences they had. But I am left with the question: what were the yes’s and what were the no’s that got people into situations they didn’t want to be in? And who do they think Is responsible for those yes’s and no’s that came out of their mouths? What were their motivations, and what were their expectations? Were those realistic? What agreements were in place, and how clear were they? Were actual contracts broken or written legal obligations reneged on? These are the kind of specifics that justify a court case and penalties to make good on any broken legal, contractual agreements, and they have not yet been demonstrated, to my knowledge.
Apologists for abusers are always “left with questions”, aren’t they? It suddenly seems so difficult to define what abuse even is, amirite? I mean, there’s so many variables at play, WHO’S TO SAY?
Thankfully, we already have an early indication that the facts presented to the court thus far are clear enough since the judge already rejected the defendant’s attempted “we don’t see what we did wrong” argument and DENIED their motion to dismiss the case a couple days ago.
Maybe by the time there’s a trial and the case is actually presented to the public, you and many others will get more of your lingering questions answered. One can hope, anyway.
Cutting sarcasm does nothing to address the questions that I raised, which are valid and genuine questions. Goes along with name-calling, as an attempt to put down the thoughts and perspectives of the other person and dismiss them – make them go away or shut up, through emotional Intimidation. These are signs of a smear campaign – not of an argument or position that is actually very strong.. “Amirite?”
Yes, we will see what the trial reveals, but I hope that the level of argument and the information revealed there will be more substantive than this!
And I hope that, in the end, adult people learn to take personal responsibility for their own yes’s and no’s, and stop putting the blame for their choices, actions, behaviors, and decisions on others.
I was pressured by them and did say no. It’s still wrong that they pressured me (and others).
Sounds like someone’s not taking responsibility for their choice to engage in this conversation, perhaps because they lack the personal strength required to grow up and be an adult and own their yeses and their nos. If you can’t handle the way I’m speaking to you, no problem. Just say the word and I will dial it back.
Do you notice how it feels when someone uses cutting language to belittle your ideas or dismiss your thoughts or questions? It sucks, doesn’t it? Now…imagine how it would feel to have those above you do that to you systematically and daily if you dared to question or give voice to anything that wasn’t in lockstep with what the leader deemed the groupthink was supposed to be (or really, if you didn’t meet their expectations for any reason).
But you know, freedom isn’t for everyone and maybe the way I’m speaking to you (which, honestly, is only intended to free you, after all) is too much for your delicate sensibilities and that’s totally OK.
Having my own experiences, I can speak to the trained manipulation or gas lighting of the coaches and staff to push me and others to go past our comfort zone of saying no, thank you, as well as sharing fantasies. Public shaming as an example of a sexually repressed person denying themselves pleasure and unwilling to grow was common-place. The more orgasmic experiences in or out of the classroom, the more money, success and love will flow to you was often discussed. I was encouraged to have private sessions being told that if I were to let go orgasmically with a wealthy man that he would pay for my course and this would be honoring me as a sensual, desirable Goddess receiving. I was also offered to be a model at a demonstration (with a 100+ people) where I would have laid on a table with my legs spread allowing people to come stroke me. If I did this then my course would have been free or heavily discounted. I was definitely shunned and mocked by my coach and others for not going further. I was encouraged to participate in fantasies of high paying participants. I was offered to practice tantra with men being introduced to me over a dinner at a fancy restaurant… it would be suggested they could put me up in an apartment. My core values kept me from participating and ultimately had me dumped as a friend by the friend group. It was clearly stated that if I wasn’t going to take all these offers and participate then I wasn’t worth their time as friends trying to help me. It felt coercive and mean. If I were a less strong woman, they could have easily manipulated me and had me doing things that benefitted their purpose with doubt on how I would have truly benefitted beyond feeling like a prostitute. The theme of flowing in abundance of orgasmic energy, which is a state of mind, is rooted in eastern philosophy and can be practiced and achieved without high priced courses or using the intimacy of your body to pay for classes or get men you are encouraged to have sex with to buy you presents or pay your bills. We all travel our own journey and make our own choices. Being dropped as a friend, definitely hurt, however, being judged by my sexual prowess and intentionally shunned with comments to making me out to be less as a woman (compared to them) is wrong. Thankfully, it only fucked with my head and not my body. The positives from the entire experience is allowing myself pleasure on my own terms within a relationship that feels nourishing to me along with a better understanding of the sexual power women do hold and how this should translate to men treating women special.
“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Diane Gujarati: Status Conference as to Rachel Cherwitz (1) and Nicole Daedone (2) held on May 3, 2024 before Judge Diane Gujarati. AUSAs Gillian Kassner and Devon Lash appeared on behalf of the Government. Jenny Rebeca Kramer and Rachel Finkel appeared on behalf of Defendant Rachel Cherwitz (1). Julia Gatto appeared on behalf of Defendant Nicole Daedone (2). Both defendants present and on bond. As set forth on the record, Defendants’ Joint Motion, ECF No. 68, was DENIED. The Court informed the parties that the trial date of January 13, 2025 is now a firm date. Next Status Conference set for November 15, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Diane Gujarati in Courtroom 4B South. (Court Reporter Charleane Heading.) (AD) (Entered: 05/03/2024)”
So the weak and specious legal reasoning that Daedone and Cherwitz’s lawyers tried using to argue for dismissal of the case (which Mr. Parlato has been parroting pretty much verbatim in his recent “articles”) has been resoundingly rejected by the court and the case is proceeding to trial.
WOMP WOMP
What do you know about the legal process? Are you familiar with and do you understand the guidelines for dismissing a case?
I know enough about the legal process to be certain that the judge in this case isn’t basing their decisions and rulings *solely* on what the defense team is arguing. Mr. Parlato, for some reason, seems to have only bothered to tell his readers about what the defense presented to the court, and yet so many commenters here seem to think he’s doing some kind of significant exposé on this case, while totally ignoring the relevant, meaningful information and arguments presented by the prosecution.
Just because you don’t *like* what the prosecution side is arguing, doesn’t mean it can simply be dismissed or ignored. That’s tantamount to sticking one’s fingers into one’s ears and yelling, “lalalalalalala!!!” It might be somewhat soothing for the moment, but it doesn’t make whatever you don’t like hearing magically disappear.
The lack of clarity & definitive information in this case had me feeling appalled that it was even brought forward. Thank you for shining a light on this.
It really is a witch trial, isn’t it? Nobody is perfect, and maybe there were some wrongdoings. But if there is wrongdoing at the legal level of a Federal indictment, oughtn’t they have the gumption to present the detailed and compelling evidence?
This case was under investigation for 5 years before the indictment. Of all the investigations and questions over those years, they came up with one legal wrongdoing. So at least give us the details! If this entire multi-year case is going to continue, give up the goods!
Thanks Frank for covering this, just to show how ridiculous this whole thing is, at least at the Federal level. Like I said, there may be hurt feelings and wrongdoing, but it sounds like it was at a more personal level. There may or may never be apologies and accountability. But these are not Federal crimes. So why is taxpayer money wasted on it as such?
Thank you so much for writing this. My photo is one of the photos used in this piece you just wrote. And it’s been so frustrating to have my name and my image associated with all of these legal shenanigans that feel untrue to the organization I know I was a part of.
I am grateful for someone, you, actually doing the journalistic deep diving to find the pieces of the story and tell them.
Yes, it was a wild ride. Yes, communications could have been better. Yes, playing with feminine sexuality in the mainstream is a risky radical act. Yes, it’s a wild practice in the modern world to stroke genitals. Yes, yes yes all of this is true.
And the criminal pursuit of this seems so over the top and has been a damper on employment opportunities with this on my résumé. And that is so mild compared to the women actually accused of the crimes and how that has impacted their lives.
“Communication could have been better.” — OT participant and resident, jumping off bridge
It’s not the indictment casting a shadow on your resume, dear. Sigh… But you can’t rush deconstruction. You’ll arrive at that conclusion in your own time.
I really appreciate this perspective and the writing is excellent. I look forward to reading more!
Thanks for being Frank with us!
Frank wrote:
“The Department of Justice can boast a 98 percent conviction rate. That means an indictment and a conviction are 98 percent synonymous. That’s almost infallibility.”
The premise is that there is no justice at the DOJ. This is ignorant and fails to take into account the way the DOJ works. Assistant US Attorneys do not seek indictments unless conviction is all but assured (98%). The point Frank is missing is that those same facts would result in convictions in state courts, again because conviction is all but assured (98%). But local prosecutors file hundreds and even thousands more cases per quarter than the feds in the same jurisdiction, in many of which conviction is not assured.
One anecdote, albeit somewhat dated, but it proves the point. In the 1990s Diane Feinstein declared war on meth labs and got congress to fund about $30 million to the DOJ for the Central District of California (DEA, FBI, US Attorneys for Los Angles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange counties) to prosecute offenders. The follow year, the feds indicted 23 meth lab operators. That same year, the state courts in those counties filed indictments or complaints against 1,100 meth lab operators. Different systems. Different results. The feds convicted operators in all 23 cases. The state convicted between 70%-80% offenders in all cases.
Related point: DEA files more cases in state courts every year through local jurisdiction law enforcement officers working on DEA task forces than it does in federal courts. This is because AUSAs only file winners. County prosecutors file against offenders.
But to Frank’s point over and over – why is this such a divergent approach to most indictments? Things are incredibly unclear. Perhaps as former counsel you would be willing to clearly outline what you believe would be the purpose of withholding this very relevant information? Don’t people at least deserve to know the details of what they are being prosecuted for? Right or wrong is for a jury to decide, but if their cases are iron clad then why not clearly lay out the details of the allegations including specific dates of specific crimes. Otherwise doesn’t that start to erode the public’s trust of the concept of the 6th amendment – “…which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him”…
or her.
But maybe it’s the “him” part at the end that this case isn’t covered by? Hmmmm…
For many of us lay…men/women this looks like a historically unbalanced approach to what AUSAs would spend massive time and resources on. I mean they are going after something that seems pretty darn benign compared to the thousands of meth labs you just described. Even stranger is that after only taking 26 of those cases on, that same group is funneling lots of our US tax dollars toward this murky and mysterious labor issue with no specifics. Don’t get me wrong – I love 100% success as much as anyone, but there are a lot more incredibly dangerous and societally detrimental meth labs than clit stroking “cults.”
But maybe it’s just orgasmic. I mean, orgasm certainly does make a great headline… especially right on the heels of a Netflix documentary. People love to hear the word orgasm… and of course we all know that sex sells when it comes to publicity.
So, I understand you are defending the career you were in and that’s totally fair. I am calling you out a bit here but I also appreciate the hard work you did to help keep us all safe. However, it just seems like there are so many bigger priorities out there for public safety. And… if this is such a big priority then why not just clearly say why?
One thing is certain, this drivel about the OneTaste case that Mr. Parlato has squandered his credibility by writing will certainly play well with the acolytes and sycophants who still regard Nicole and her ever-faithful enforcer as poor, innocent victims. They’ve long since stuffed their ears with cotton lest they hear so much as the tiniest peep from anyone among the growing number of ex-OneTaste members and employees who’ve failed, despite *repeated* efforts, to get Nicole or any of the so-called leadership of the organization to hear their honest accounts and accept some level of accountability.
But as Nicole herself used to teach, the truth has a way of increasing in volume and intensity until it can’t be ignored any longer and this will be no exception. The inevitable consequences of their past abuse, gaslighting, and hamfisted attempts to shift blame to the abused are, even at this very moment in a courtroom in Brooklyn, NY, catching up with Nicole and Rachel. And in lieu of their endless denials, misdirections, avoidances and exhaustive efforts to escape culpability, the truth – the ACTUAL TRUTH – will make itself known, with or without the cooperation of those who’d prefer not to hear it.
Oh please – talk about ham-fisted, say nothing rebuttal to an article.
Your response to the article is thick with accusations and contains zero mention of the contents of the article.
THE WIND doth blow…
I can think of no better rebuttal to Mr. Parlato’s ham-fisted regurgitations of the weak and shoddy legal theories defense lawyers tried to sell to the court, than the one delivered yesterday when Judge Gujararti DENIED defendant’s motion to have the case dismissed.
As I said, while Mr. Parlato’s unqualified legal musings might play well to those whose biases are primed and ready to be confirmed, all this talk of the case’s faults didn’t sway the court, who seemed to agree with the prosecution that there’s sufficient cause, ample evidence, and correct charging laid forth by the prosecution and the case will proceed to trial.
Its hardly a rebuttal. And it does seem clear that you don’t really get how these things work. Read up on it. Its common for cases with as sparse actual particulars as this one for the defense to ask for a dismissal. Its well known its very uncommon for them to be dismissed. The thing the defense is often angling for is to be provided with a bill of particulars. So really, Frank is actually pointed in the right direction. There is a severe lack of information in the indictment about then what when and how of the alleged crime. If you’re indicted for something, the government is obligated to tell you immediately what you did, how they know you did it, what the evidence is exactly so that you can prepare a defense. These are rights everybody is entitled to under the constitution and your blindness to this basic, primary fact shows your bias, whoever you are, that whatever your views on the issue are, that you’d stand for that kind of injustice exposes your bias.
Please, by all means, tell me what I’m not getting. The judge literally rejected the argument you’re parroting from Mr. Parlato, which he has been parroting from the defense lawyers.
And yet…here Judge Gujararti is quoted from the bench on Friday saying the following:
So their “angling” for a bill of particulars was ALSO DENIED by the court. But please, do tell me where I should “read up on it”. Should I have read this filing from the prosecution citing specific and relevant case law…
You’re right that I do have a bias (and anyone who claims to have none is BS’ing you). My bias leans towards the revelation of all of the facts and truth surrounding the matters related to this case and to everyone getting an honest account of the events that took place at OneTaste during the time period the case covers.
And whether you believe me or not (I don’t care, either way), I am watching and following this case as it unfolds and very consciously making an effort to NOT draw any conclusions or judgments about anything until everything relevant has been fully revealed at the forthcoming trial. See you in January.
I am not an acolyte or a sycophant. I am a self-determined adult woman who has finally found a community of truthful, honest people with whom I am honored and grateful to associate. People who accept me as I am and respect my choices, whatever they may be – not theirs, or yours, to judge. Stop calling names – it’s childish. Start respecting and taking responsibility for individual freedom of choice, including your own. No-one is ‘forcing’ you to be part of this if you don’t want to. Perhaps you were in the past, and no longer wish to participate. Perhaps you now regret some choices YOU MADE. If that’s the case, stop shifting blame and instead take responsibility for your own inner motivations and your own decisions, actions, and expectations. To base a case on name-calling, and character assassination of people you don’t even know (or people you do!) is symptomatic of the childishness of this entire conversation. In the world of adults, you are responsible for what you do. As am I.
Your sanctimonious pearl-clutching over “name-calling” carries absolutely no weight so long as you’re not also calling out the absolutely vile and completely unnecessary name-calling and character assassination being carried out by Mr. Parlato in these so-called “articles”. And if you’re not an acolyte or a sycophant, why would you feel judged? If the hex fits, wear it, I guess.
What if the actual truth comes out and it proves Nicole and Rachel innocent?
What if they are sent to jail, then years later, the real story comes out and the government realizes they sent innocent people to jail? It’s a common occurrence for the government, creating laws that conveniently serve only them and not the people. Sending innocent people to jail for false crimes. WHO is holding the government accountable?
I’ve honestly had severely abusive jobs while working in restaurants and offices. Very underpaid, unpaid, sexually harassed, mentally emotionally abused, manipulated and belittled by managers, coworkers, and customers. But somehow the owners of those businesses are never prosecuted.
How bout our taxpayer money is put to better use to investigate actual crimes.
How about we investigate the government officials and make public all the crimes they have committed.
I would love to see this article picked up by more journalists.
It’s fun to read your writing, Frank, and less fun that my friends Nicole and Rachel are having to go through this with no specifics on the forced labor indictment.
Your point about everyone being fallible except prosecutors was great… somehow they got the immune-to-the-human-condition gene. Which could be a great perk of the job if it didn’t potentially destroy people’s lives.
Nicole and Rachel care about their own spiritual liberation and supporting that of those of us who also want that. Without their instruction, I would be a more entitled, bratty, and childish version of myself. I would continue to be hateful and blaming towards women who are just like me. I am so deeply grateful to these women for teaching me how to be a woman who prioritizes love, generosity, compassion, and most of all forgiveness.
I think the prosecutors have the right idea. Women can’t teach this kind of stuff it’s corruption of morals. It’s moral turpitude. Women should be chaste and act like women.
At last we have a prosecutor who will stop this wave of females acting like sluts.
Nicole is one step from the gutter. So dirty. The history about Salem is all wrong.
There were women like Nicole and our men weren’t safe. They didn’t even have to be married. Nicole is witch and she must be stopped not for forced labor but for subversive teachings.
lol you exist?!
I couldn’t tell if this was meant to be sarcasm or “wit”…
Name-calling again. “Moral turpitude”. “Sluts”. “Gutter.” “Dirty.” “Witch.”
What does it mean to “act like women?” And – most importantly – who decides what that is? You???
Who are you to Judge? God Him(Her)self?
God(dess) created a World of incredible diversity – and Incredible beauty in its diversity.
Here in the Land of the Free we have Constitutional Rights to freedom of choice and of expression. We can choose what teachers to learn from, what thoughts to think, and what actions to take, as long as they don’t harm others. And we have the freedom to turn away if what we’re taught isn’t satisfying. We rely on ‘free markets ,’ including the ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Like this chat forum – it’s a marketplace of ideas. In my strong opinion, ideas which have to rely on insinuation and name-calling must not have too much actual substance to stand on! If the ideas offered by Nicole Daedone don’t serve or suit you, turn elsewhere. That does not entitle you to disrespect her or people who do find value in her ideas by calling them rude names. They think differently than you do. That’s all. Stop calling names and bring some actual information, if you have any.
Frank. This is amazing, comedy gold indeed. Well written and well played, particularly this thread…
“It would be hard to make a case that women are victims, since women, as infantile as the law presumes them to be, pay money to attend classes to learn about orgasmic meditation.”
“The men are not victims for the simple reason that while the law assumes women are infants, it assumes men are adults, and when they do something they consent to do, it is not a crime.”
Thank you for this.
You can tell this reply is a OT insider. Nicole has been using this language of women as infants a lot lately. I wonder who?????
There are men who were victims.
And some will categorically be unable to testify, sadly.