Frank Parlato
Indictment of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz
In April 2023, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY indicted Nicole Daedone, co-founder of OneTaste, and Rachel Cherwitz, her head of sales, on a single count of forced labor conspiracy.
The US Attorney did not charge forced labor, but only the standalone forced labor conspiracy charge, alleging Daedone and Cherwitz had conspired for 12 years to force unknown and unnamed people somehow associated with OneTaste Inc. to labor.
Because the US Attorney did not charge Daedone and Cherwitz with forced labor (but only conspiring to force people to labor), the indictment reveals the two women failed to accomplish their alleged goal. They did not force anyone to labor. But they tried, the US Attorney for the EDNY alleges.
Unprecedented Indictment
It is the first time in history that the federal government charged anyone with forced labor conspiracy with no actual substantive crime.
It is a landmark indictment because it charges the defendants with a single non-substantive count of conspiring to commit a substantive crime — forced labor — without committing the substantive crime: forced labor.
One could understand a standalone conspiracy charge in the case of two people conspiring to rob a bank who get caught on the way to the bank before they commit the crime.
But the indictment alleges Daedone and Cherwitz conspired for 12 years to force people (unnamed in the indictment) to labor, but failed.
We know they failed, for the US Attorney would have charged the women with forced labor if they had any evidence they succeeded. They would not have been stuck with a standalone charge of forced labor conspiracy if they had any proof of actual forced labor conspiracy.
Forced labor conspiracy requires an actual victim. There are no victims named in the indictment.
Absurdity of the Charges
The indictment does not name who the intended victims of forced labor would have been if the women had succeeded at any time during their 12 long years of trying.
The indictment refers to an unknown group of unnamed people, OneTaste “members.”
The US Attorney uses the word “members” to refer to OneTaste employees and customers.
Prosecutors with little business experience might not know that “members” is not a legal term of art for either customers or employees, much less both groups lumped together.
If one were a cynic, one might almost think the prosecutors used the word “members” to give the indictment a cult-like feel.
Questionable Terminology
We think of cults having members.
A person who works for a company is not a member. The correct legal term of art is employee.
Similarly, a person who paid for the company’s services is not a member of the company. The correct legal term is customer.
Simply because the US Attorney cannot distinguish between these two different groups from among an unknown number of either group among whom the defendants allegedly conspired to try to force to labor does not mean the US Attorney can use the legally inaccurate term “members.”
OneTaste employees and customers are not OneTaste members.
Of course, the US Attorney’s use of the word “members” instead of “customers” and “employees” may not have been due to a lack of business knowledge. It may have been meant to paint OneTaste as a cult rather than an incorporated for-profit business.
Daedone and Cherwitz are not charged with operating a cult, possibly because the First Amendment protects freedom of religion in the United States. People have the right to teach what they believe if the teaching itself is not illegal.
The defendants are not charged with illegal teachings, though that may be the real motive of the prosecution. Everything they taught, even the part about women being free to have sex with whomever they want, is legal.
Flawed Legal Basis
The US Attorney’s improper use of the word “member” for customers or employees of OneTaste in an indictment lacking a substantive crime reeks of the preplanned use of a pejorative to mask the true intent of the indictment — a First Amendment prosecution.
A foul odor is wafting in the direction of all who might teach unconventional things or employ people to provide those teachings to customers — none of whom are members. This prosecution has the odor of oppression.
Issues with the Time Frame
The conspiracy case is not analogous to the would-be bank robber on his way to the bank with a gun and mask.
The time period of the alleged conspiracy makes that a certainty.
The two women allegedly conspired between 2006 and 2018.
The US Attorney indicted Daedone and Cherwitz in 2023.
If the allegations are true, the women abandoned their 12-year plot five years before the indictment – without forcing anyone — either employees or customers (or, in US Attorney-speak, “members”) to labor.
Those 12 years – from 2006 to May 2018 – might make jurors scratch their heads.
Improbable Timeline
The record shows that Daedone and Cherwitz did not meet each other until 2007. So they conspired the hard way for the first year – possibly through psychic vibrations or astral projections, or, let us not rule it out — time travel.
The last year of the alleged indictment – 2018 – is, as they say in Brooklyn, “too cute by half.”
The indictment names the month the conspiracy ended as May 2018.
Daedone sold OneTaste Inc. in March 2017. Yet the indictment alleges that, though she no longer owned the company, she continued to try to force unnamed OneTaste employees and customers to labor.
Statute of Limitations
It’s cute because the statute of limitations for forced labor conspiracy is five years. When the US Attorney finally indicted Daedone and Cherwitz, after a five year FBI investigation in search of a crime – in April 2023 – it was six years after Daedone sold the company.
Just like the US Attorney added a year to the conspiracy before the two women met, the US Attorney added a year on the end – to May 2018 – to keep it within one month of the statute of limitations.
According to the indictment, the two women started their conspiracy a year before they met and ended a year after they no longer had the company to force anyone, even non-existent “members,” to labor.
Final Lesson
For the education and delectation of aspiring prosecutors, I will use the word “members” as a term or art correctly in a single sentence:
If the US Attorney thinks he will win a conviction based on an indictment alleging that two intelligent women conspired for 12 years to force customers or employees of their company to labor and failed, the US Attorney must think that the members of the jury will all be imbeciles.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
As for the presidential debate, are we all being punked?
The legal intricacies in the case of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz are as tangled as a bowl of spaghetti with fossel-like-noodles twirling in a little loop-(hole) petrifying into the wood used to make a judges gavel hammer out the details of the case. ( what a MOUTH FULL!!! hahahhh!)
Unusual charge of forced labor conspiracy without any actual forced labor taking place!! Questionable terminology used in the indictment, there’s a lot to unpack.
The prosecution’s decision to charge the defendants with a conspiracy to commit a crime that they allegedly never succeeded in carrying out raises interesting questions about the boundaries of criminal liability. Additionally, the use of the term “members” instead of legally precise terms like “customers” or “employees” adds a layer of ambiguity to the case. It should be announced.
Furthermore, the timeline of the alleged conspiracy, spanning over a decade and even involving a period before the two defendants had even met, presents a unique challenge in terms of establishing intent and culpability. It will be fascinating to see how these legal intricacies play out in court and how the defense navigates the complexities of the case.
In the legal arena, where every word and action is scrutinized, these intricacies add a layer of intrigue and complexity to an already unusual and captivating case. TIK TOK TIK TOK TIK TOK
Why don’t they drop the case? The prosecutors are members of a cult.
It’s the prosecutor is never wrong.
What’s the real motive behind the 12 year investigation? Who targeted these women and why?
Since the govt has wasted resources for 12 years they must fabricate charges to justify the time and money wasted. Same game…
The corruption is so blatant they did not concern themselves will the statute of limitations because, as in the Sandusky case and so many others, dates can be moved, changed, and replaced to secure the governments desired outcome, and there is zero accountability.
Hoping these powerful, dynamic women slay the prosecutors. Thank you for exposing the fraud that is eviscerating the judicial process and obliterating our constitutional rights
For clarification ; federal “conspiracy” elements simply require;
-2 or more persons (if only 2, one cannot be the govt or it’s representatives)
AND
-agreement to commit any offense
AND
-the commission of “any act” to further the crime
It’s that simple
But there’s no “act” and there’s no crime. What do you see as the alleged act and crime?
Franks on the spot 😂
What are the odds the government will actually take responsibility for the inaccuracies (lies??) they are telling because they ‘can’? To be able to make up timelines in order to even make a case — that reminds me of something I heard, that prosecutors sit around and make up cases against people to ‘practice’ – versus actually doing diligent research and finding a case. Seems like someone is trying to see if you can fabricate an entire case out of literally nothing and how far can you go with it.