Frank Parlato
In a letter to US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati, Brooklyn federal prosecutors have denied allegations that an FBI agent participated in a Netflix documentary while investigating a case.
Netflix filmed and broadcast “Orgasm Inc: The Story of OneTaste” in the fall of 2022. At the same time, the FBI was conducting a multi-year investigation into the San Francisco-based wellness and meditation company, whose teachings include feminine sexuality practices.
Six months after the documentary aired, the US Attorney for the EDNY indicted Daedone and Cherwitz on a single count of forced labor conspiracy – an alleged 12-year plot to force people to labor that failed.
The Netflix documentary was highly critical of Daedone and Cherwitz and the company.
In a letter alleging misconduct, Daedone and Cherwitz claim the lead case agent, FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis, participated in the documentary while his investigation was ongoing.
The US Attorney for the EDNY was firm in their June 18 letter that “Special Agent McGinnis had no involvement with that film or any other news or media report about OneTaste.”
The US Attorney says Daedone and Cherwitz made “wildly inaccurate misrepresentations” about Agent McGinnis.
Evidence from the Netflix Documentary
The film, however, might lead one to believe otherwise.
In the Netflix film, a former OneTaste employee, Audrey Wright, says, “I’m back in Tucson, where I grew up. I’m about to have a phone call with an FBI agent who’s based out of New York. He contacted me about two months ago.”
Next, the film shows Wright talking to someone on the phone about OneTaste about a potential crime.
As she talks, the film shows her hand holding a pen and writing “McGinnis” in a notebook.
In a March 1, 2024, sworn declaration filed in the California Superior Court (LA County), in the civil defamation case, OneTaste versus Netflix, the executive producer of the Netflix film, Sarah Gibson, declared under oath that:
“Ms. Wright was filmed as she spoke on the phone to an FBI agent based in New York who was investigating OneTaste. The scene in the Documentary includes Ms. Wright’s side of the conversation.”
FBI Special Agent McGinnis is the FBI agent in New York who was the case agent in charge of the investigation.
Possible Scenarios
Since the US Attorney says FBI Special Agent McGinnis “had no involvement with that film,” then one of the following facts is true:
- Gibson perjured herself by swearing Wright was speaking to an FBI agent in New York investigating OneTaste when she knew that was false.
- Wright deceived the producer and spoke to someone else or no one – while maintaining she was talking to an FBI agent. The Netflix film crew filmed the fake call, unaware of her deception.
- Wright called another FBI agent in New York investigating OneTaste and wrote McGinnis on a notepad for another reason. Since the FBI keeps a record of phone calls with potential witnesses, the FBI can identify the agent she spoke to. If this is the case, the defendants’ accusations that the FBI participated in the film remain substantially true.
- Wright spoke with FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis or another agent but did not tell them Netflix was filming the conversation.
Unanswered Questions
Supposing that she and Netflix did not tell the FBI agent, didn’t the FBI find out later?
Were the FBI and the Department of Justice unaware of a Netflix film about targets they indicted months later and in it a woman reports a potential crime to an FBI case agent investigating the case?
The Need for Transparency
Why not examine it forthrightly instead of calling it a wildly inaccurate accusation?
A Netflix documentary claims a woman is talking to an FBI agent in NY investigating OneTaste. She writes the name McGinnis in a notebook.
Rather than saying it is wildly inaccurate, why not take a moment to explain how that happened?
There is nothing absurd about concluding that the FBI participated in the film.
Anyone watching would conclude that. In fact, that is precisely what the producers wanted viewers to believe.
The FBI owes the public, if not the federal court, an explanation.
Do their agents participate in documentaries about their targets, or did Netflix deceive its audience?
According to the DOJ’s Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy, DOJ personnel, including FBI agents, must obtain prior approval from the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General before communicating with the media about a pending investigation or case to protect the integrity of investigations, avoid prejudicing defendants’ rights, and prevent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information.
Did the US Attorney authorize the FBI to appear in a documentary filming a call with an FBI agent investigating a case that the DOJ later indicted?
To dismiss this as “wildly inaccurate” without addressing the substance of the concern is anything but forthright.
Stay tuned.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
What’s wrong with the FBI going on a documentary? It might help them catch criminals. I
What’s wrong with the FBI going on a documentary? It might help them catch criminals.
Bless your hearts. 😘
They say to the seers: “See not,”
and to the prophets: “Do not give us true prophecies;
speak pleasing things to us, prophesy illusions for us!”
When did Nicole say that?
1. FBI agents investigate crimes.
2. “OneTaste” owners committed crimes.
The FBI in any of your scenarios didn’t participate in the movie. Audrey was on a phone call. There was no voice or image of the agent. This article is grasping at straws. And trying to make something out of nothing. Many reps from OT have said themselves the doc is more acting and drama than actual truth. So are they saying this is the one part of the movie that is true???
Audrey Wright is FAT and UGLY and she wanted Nicole Daedone, who is THIN and BEAUTIFUL, to take care of her FOREVER
This is big Frank. The FBI shouldn’t get away with this. They are being investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, and punisher all in one. Way too much power.
These casual phone calls they are having with all these potential witnesses all seem suspect to me. Is this proper procedure for working with a witness? Are they allowed to just call people up and chit chat and give the witness information about the case that might influence their testimony?