OneTaste vs. The Detractors: A Tale of Accusations and Motives

OneTaste, a San Francisco-based educational company founded in 2005, had more than 35,000 people attend its events, and about 16,000 attended its classes before detractors combined to destroy it.

Some 1400 people took advanced coaching classes. The company had about 150 employees.

Out of this combined group, there have been some 16 known detractors.

About half are known to the public, while the others quietly worked behind the scenes to provide materials, some stolen from the company, to the media and the FBI.

FR plans to cover the stories these people told the media, the courts, and law enforcement, and investigate their integrity and the accuser’s agenda.

Is it a pure motive to thwart what they believe is a bad company, or financial opportunism, and vengeance, with a mix of regret that absolves one of adult decisions by blaming it on others?

Among the people openly accusing OneTaste are:

And others…

FR will examine their public statements and compare them with documents and eyewitness accounts to allow the public to evaluate whether they are telling the truth or, if not, perhaps help readers gain insight into their motives.

These individuals have all stepped out into the big-time public stage and participated in media, in the courts, or with law enforcement to win money or imprison two women, OneTaste co-founder Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz. Their accusations are damning, but does the truth support their claims?

Actual investigative protocol directs the examination of accusers with the presumption of innocence granted to the accused.

Good investigative technique decries anonymity for accusers, and the current practice of labeling accusers “victims” on their word alone.

The labeling of accusers as victims obliterates the presumption of innocence and when brought into the courtroom as a mandatory label assumes as a fact something (their being victims) before the jury hears any evidence.

Yet the entire courtroom proceeding is to determine whether accusers are victims or not.

If we call accusers “victims” at the start of a trial we might as well call the defendant perpetrator, offender, or criminal, or, perhaps, culprit.

To call an accuser a victim before the defendant has been convicted and preserve their anonymity (if adults) is not only highly prejudicial to the accused, but also an incentive to false accusations.

A person presenting the truth should always stand behind their accusations, especially those who seek monetary awards in civil lawsuits, such as Caitlin D’Aprano, who prefers to hide behind a “Jane Doe” status that money-seekers should not be entitled to cower behind.

We have been examining accuser Ayries Blanck in several stories, and will soon report on the others. But now to quench the appetites of readers starving for more on the notorious liar Ayries Blanck, we will not disappoint. Stay tuned for our next in the Ayries Blanck series.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio