Frank Parlato
I used the AI program Night Cafe to render artwork to capture the sublime concepts of this unique, ill-advised and perfervid case.
Investigation Launched into Prosecution
The San Francisco-based OneTaste Inc. had retained me to investigate the federal prosecution of its co-founder, Nicole Daedone, and former executive Rachel Cherwitz in Brooklyn.
OneTaste is an adults-only educational company that teaches personal responsibility in decision-making – even involving matters of sex – even for women. Naturally, out of some 16,000 students, a company that teaches such concepts will attract some madcaps.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY had filed an indictment against the two women in 2023 and apparently plans to base their case on the narratives of less than a dozen former students and employees. The government has not disclosed its witnesses. I doubt they even know who they plan to call.
Thanks to a recent filing, I can deduce who some potential witnesses might be.
Some have been clinically diagnosed with longstanding mental illness. Others suffer from drug or alcohol addiction that predated coming to OneTaste. Some are sex workers before and after their contact with OneTaste, where sex work was forbidden.
At least five are suing OneTaste for money.
Prosecutors Allege a 12-Year Attempt Without Actual Forced Labor
US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati has scheduled the trial in the Brooklyn federal courthouse starting on January 15, which is 95 days away.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY charged Daedone and Cherwitz with a single count of conspiracy to commit forced labor. It is the only case ever prosecuted on conspiracy to commit forced labor alone with no other charges. The EDNY did not indict the women for the actual crime of forced labor, but a conspiracy to force labor.
The feds allege that the women conspired over 12 years to force “members” of OneTaste to labor. Evidently, they failed because of the absence of the charge of forced labor.
Questionable Witnesses Mix With Junk Science
Mark Gottlieb is suing OneTaste in civil court. He claims two beautiful young ladies coercively controlled him into receiving oral sex.
Ayries Blanck left OneTaste in 2015 after committing acts of violence against her wealthy ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend. She now claims she was coercively controlled.
Prosecutors Need to Limit Cross Examination
It is an axiom of the law that cross-examination is, in John Henry Wigmore’s words, the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
The prosecutors, however, filed a motion in limine “regarding certain government witnesses,” asking the judge to “preclude and limit cross-examination of these witnesses regarding certain of the information below.”
The “certain information below” is redacted from public view. The names of the “certain government witnesses,” are also redacted.
We only know that the redaction of names and materials is 70 lines long.
It may get longer, for the prosecutors add, “The government is still in the process of identifying its witnesses and identifying material.”
That’s neat. Still figuring out who their witnesses might be? And what documents they need to exclude? Considering they started the investigation six years ago, and they indicted the defendants more than a year and a half ago, it gives me a hint at how their case will flush out.
The prosecutors wrote:
“The Court should limit cross-examination of these victims and other witnesses to avoid, ‘among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.’ Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679.”
In other words, cross-examination is harassment, prejudice, confusion, and unsafe.
They might consider throwing in the towel in their case.
Prosecution Seeks to Spare Accusers While Erasing Burden of Proof
Prosecutors want to adopt the model used in fascist college tribunals and mainstream media which assumes accusers (referred to as victims) always tell the truth.
In this victim-centric model, it is presumed the defendant is guilty. Limiting or precluding cross-examination is justified.
This model is also conveniently helpful to prosecutors. It cuts out the presumption of innocence and helps reduce the high burden of proof to below a reasonable doubt.
I Can See Them Now
Mark Gottlieb on the stand talking about how OneTaste coercively controlled all the young female students of OneTaste not to find him attractive.
Kara Cooper testifying about how she oozed ahead of other women on a waiting list for a room in a desirable San Francisco community house: How did she do it? She bedded three prospective male roommates, one after the other, like a choo-choo train. After the last man exited the caboose, they voted her in with enthusiasm.
“Three cheers for Kara Cooper,” they said, “and bottoms up!”
Now ten years later, she’s a victim? Yes, it was coercive control; she is suing OneTaste for money and by gad, next time she plans to take a plane.
Prosecutors In Need
Without access to the redacted section of the US Attorney’s motion, it is hard to know how far the prosecution wants to limit cross-examination. My guess is that they want the judge to prevent the defense from using the accusers‘ prior inconsistent statements against them.
I imagine the prosecutors want the judge to prevent the defense from reading from documents, texts, emails, or statements the witnesses made in the past, if those statements contradict the witness’s newly fashioned testimony at trial.
This would stop the defense from challenging witnesses about FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis’ summary of their interviews, where they might have said something different than what the prosecutors had them say at trial. Special Agent McGinnis was wise enough to know never to record any interviews.
The prosecution wants to limit the defense from showing the jury that a witness lied, even if they did lie.
The only exception I expect the prosecution will agree to is that if the witness voluntarily admits she lied, then she can be questioned about how she lied.
In other words, the prosecution wants to eliminate basic, NON-hearsay impeachment permitted in cross examination under the Federal Rules of Evidence and allowed in every court in the USA.
The prosecutors are appealing to the court to prevent the defense from flushing out the full truth, sending the case they worked so long down the drain and into the sewers where it belongs.
There is a lot at stake for some very fine, and bright young prosecutors. These are the kind of prosecutors you would take home to mother. Good-looking, bright, eager, likeable.
They are top left-r Sean Fern and Gillian Kassner
Bottom l-r, Kayla Bensing and Devon Lash.
They all come from fine families, and they would never think of acting crazy like their kooky collection of witnesses.
The prosecutors can try to sanitize the witnesses, but they would never expect them to withstand true cross examination. That’s why they need to preclude and limit.
More AI Renderings
Prosecutor with “certain documents” he doesn’t want the defense to question his witnesses about.
Prosecutors are looking for more documents, they might need to stop the defense from cross-examining their witnesses.
Judge Knows What’s Up
The judge, a former prosecutor herself, who got the political support of friends in high places to get the nod to become a presidential-nominated and US Senate -confirmed, lifetime-appointed US Circuit Court judge, should sympathize with the prosecutors.
What white-shoe law firm will hire them if they lose this high profile case in a manner calculated to embarrass everyone?
The path to become judges one day might be barricaded to these otherwise charming young prosecutors, who also have important friends and loving families that care about their future, just like Judge Gujarati did when she moved out of the US Attorney’s Office and into her own courtroom.
If the judge allows a robust cross-examination of “victims,” and she should since the defendants alone face years in prison, and it comes out in cross-examination that the accusers are madcaps, liars, kooks and creepy opportunists, and the prosecutors lose the case, that’s a pretty raw deal for people she sees all the time in her courtroom and in the hallways and chambers.
But can she block all the evidence of this horribly flawed case with its fruitcake witnesses and its even fruitier legal theories – even on appeal?
On the other hand, if this dream team of young prosecutors wins a conviction when so many in the legal community know this case should have been flushed long ago, they could become the new dark angels.
If they win, they win admiration in quarters where winning is everything. As their adage goes, “any prosecutor can convict a guilty defendant, but it takes skill to convict the innocent.”
More to Come
As we wait for more developments, file it under B for bizarre or bullshit, for that is the case, or bluffing, for that is what the prosecution is doing. The case isn’t getting better; it’s getting worse by the minute.
The prosecutors are good people, no doubt, who inherited this case from some who thought it was more than it was. Time proved otherwise. In the interest of justice, the parties should agree, perhaps with somber realization, that mistakes happen and dismiss the case.
Even if the judge grants this motion to curtail some cross-examination, what’s to stop the defense from calling some as hostile witnesses? Even if that is far-fetched, so is this case with its cast of zanies discussing bizarre and kink, with half the nation finding it repugnant, and the other half finding it repugnant that kink in San Francisco is prosecuted in Brooklyn.
The media will come in numbers to this clown circus show, with people like Ayries Blanck getting caught perjuring herself over her phony journal (she will get caught) and forced to have sex with men who will testify she chased and seduced them.
Or old man Gottlieb breaking down like Captain Queeg, talking about girls who ran away from him and love letters he sent, and how when one agreed, he loved it and now he says she forced him to accept blow jobs. The jury will watch and if they don’t laugh they might feel pity for a lonely old fool being used (maybe coercively), not by Daedone, but by the prosecution.
The jury or maybe one of two, may get angry at the prosecution for bringing this filth pile of nonsensical morality policing before them. The prosecution should not be too confident they can dirty up the defendants, and not themselves.
Bringing in witnesses to testify about some guy in California with a BDSM fetish or addiction who might have invested some money and some woman or women walking him on a leash. This is a federal prosecution?
The jury may not have the moral indignation, not buy into the tears of unsympathetic people who grow less so as their lies are exposed.
On a one-count indictment, it’s all or nothing at all. The jury might vote their conscience. All the admonitions in the world might not control. They can refuse to convict, refuse to imprison two women because kooks went amok. If there was a hung jury, would the prosecutors have the heart to try it again?
Now this is one case where not only the defendants have something to lose. The prosecutors and the judge risk something, too – the chance of looking ridiculous, for that is what the case is and will be remembered as.
Call our Next Witness
I spent too much money at classes. All my life, I earned good money and used my head to spend it as I wished, but OneTaste got a hold of my little head and hypnotized it. Maybe they put Viagra in my cream of wheat, but boy was I a stud and I got a girlfriend but she left. What reason could there be other than coercive control? Nothing else explains it. Otherwise, I would have to admit I was a fool and not a stud at all. Sue those bastards. Put them in prison. Can you find me a girlfriend?
OneTaste made me think I was thinking for myself but that was their coercive control, making me think I think for myself. We only thought we were making our own decisions. I was only 40 years old.
I felt coerced to have sex with ugly men but the good looking men felt coerced to have sex with me. Now I realize I coerced the ugly men because I was uglier than them. OneTaste forced me to think this way.
My girlfriend left me not because I am a fool but because OneTaste coerced her. Then they coerced me to cry. Boo hoo.
Let’s cut right to the chase here. Blame it on Daedone and let me get as much money as I can. I was coerced, can you tell?
My boyfriend made me come back from England to San Francisco because he was going to pay my rent and then we broke up and I had to work. It is all OneTaste’s fault. They forced me to surrender my brain and promised I would grow but my natural selfishness and greed did not go away. Now I am more porcine than ever both inside and out. How much can I collect for my testimony, Ms. Prosecutor?
I have to stay anonymous. This way I am free to tell the true story plus add anything you prosecutors want. Just tell me how to say it. Coercive control I get it. No one will know my name, right? I mean that really liberates the tongue. Anything at all, just ask me or tell me what to say.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Nicole Daedone artist extraordinaire
nicole daedone LOOOOves Art!!
Nicole Daedone for better or worse has a social media page rife with masonic hand gestures and illuminati symbolism. For this reason alone I hope she ends up getting fees up the ass if not jail. Additionally, my work friend lived in her little ‘community’. He says he was not allowed to decide who he wanted to mate with and was forced to give hand jobs to women every morning, even ones he wasn’t attracted to and had refused. Or he would have to get kicked out and be living on the street. Isn’t that SA and coersion??? It sounded pretty awful to me. Why would anyone join this cult. ?????? Just go to a swingers conference in Cancun ffs.
If you’re the illuminati symbolism person you’re likely more of a weirdo than she is. Her Instagram page is gorgeous.
You should probably call HR and make sure your “work friend” gets a sexual harassment training.
Why does he think that’s appropriate work talk?
It sounds like not so “Anonymous” is Nicole or her wife. Or you just have bad taste lol “her instagram page is gorgeous” who would come all the way over to the Frank Report to defend or debate any of these characters let alone their lame grandstanding, self-important, performative social media who were not directly related to this case considering it is hardly the cornerstone of deepstate media and no one else gives a shit. Except nobody people like me who hate cults and enjoy calling out abusers : ) I only know about you jerks because you abused my friend. Do better @$$holes. It’s not empowerment to r@pe homless men who go on to become serially depressed. Your ugly fake Instagram photos tell on themselves. You could have just grown a garden and taught classes not orchestrated sex events, people know how to do that on their own. Also I’m sorry about your facial filler accident lol You are ugly on the inside and nothing can fix that. R@ping people and assigning them sex partners against their will is not the same as female empowerment for the female ecstasy/orgasm/pleasure purpose. It’s called CONSENT
News Flash!
It’s strange to read through the comments here, realizing that the words of people ostensibly objecting to anything regarding frank conversations about sexuality are often so foul-minded as to be genuinely offensive. Ironic how these reactions actually help me to understand why an organization focused on sexual health would have to devote time to dredging up perverted views. Obviously sick psyches need air. Thank you for helping me to better appreciate an organization with such intentions. Best of luck.
If it was an org dedicated to sexual health they would not be r@ping the people who were part of their cult. Men can be r@ped and coerced. This man was homeless. And was forced to service women he didn’t want to or made to be homeless again. No.
The Frank Report prefers white toilets and discriminates against all other toilet colors. The Frank Report is against diversity, which is reflected in its choice of toilets. It ignores the fact that 3.5 billion people worldwide have no access to toilets. 419 million have to relieve themselves in the open. In addition to toilets, there are latrines and other forms of toilets, for example in Asia.
“My guess is…”
Hard hitting legal anal-ysis, Frank.
Keep it coming!!!!!!!!!!
Could Happy Sausage have done it better?
What type of a question is this!?
The HAPPY SAUSAGE is BRILLIANT!!!!!!!
Who is this for?
The dead-enders who are trying to convince themselves that all the money they spent on now worthless OneTaste coaching certifications will pay off one day.
This might be hard for you to believe, but no one cares about those special sex ed students.
The only “coaches” trying to get a pay off are the ones trying to sue the millionaire brother and sister pair that bought Onetaste in 2018.
Anyone still holding out for the return of the Onetaste kink klub kult days is probably suffering from Alzheimer’s.
this made me laugh out loud lmao
I wonder if Margot who is commenting is the reject of the other san francisco psychology sex cult that got away
“The dead-enders who are trying to convince themselves that all the money they spent on now worthless OneTaste coaching certifications will pay off one day.”
Suneel must have gotten excited seeing all the toilet pictures.
Is back to wiping Clare’s ass yet?
This is an excellent article, Frank.
Regardless of how sympathetic this judge may be towards the prosecutors, she’ll not likely grant a motion that prevents witnesses from being legitimately ‘impeached’ on cross examination.
Any attempt to limit the defendants from impeaching the credibility of a witness (on cross examination) would be easily reversed on appeal — so I’m not real worried about the judge granting that motion.
The prosecutors can put lipstick on a pig during direct examination —- but they can’t prevent those pigs from being impeached on cross examination.
While most ‘normal’ witnesses (i.e., witnesses without mental issues or bizarre claims) might be protected from being asked embarrassing questions by defense attorneys —- that doesn’t really apply to witnesses like these, as their bizarre personal histories are closely linked to their own testimony.
I’d be shocked if this case really goes to trial.
I’d be shocked if the prosecutors don’t offer a sweetheart plea deal right before this trial begins —- something with no jail time required (cuz the prosecutors are gonna lose this case if they go to trial IMO).
Listen, Retard – if that is your real name. I don’t know if you were just being nice to Frank because yesterday wasn’t Columbus Day. Maybe you felt sorry for him, and decided that the best way to tell him to cheer up was to say what a good article he wrote about the giant Sicilian Super Predator Nicole Daedone.
We can all see she is being hauled off for the offense of running a company that sold Olive Oil based lubricant and that the crime she’s being charged with is a distant runner up to why we are here to talk about her today.
It is important to take pause, now, and recognize the real harm of everyone who would be unwittingly stuck with the flavor of leftover pasta whenever they should choose to engage in undammed cunniligus.
The fact is that you didn’t even have to know who Nicole Daedone was in order to suffer from this terrible scourge.
Thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting members of the public, to this very day, are subjected to constant flashbacks brought on by the one taste of stale breadsticks. And they don’t even know why.
This is where the great wisdom of the Federal Government that we have to marvel over today comes into play. That when there is no crime, but only a terrible offense, they can still find a way to protect the people more than a decade after a case has gone cold.
McGinnis and Fern – both Irish men – stand in a long line of proud families who came to the USA half staved and twice drunk, ready to take any job that wasn’t good enough for the American people.
One of those jobs that catered to the Irish proclivity for leglessly chasing leprechauns happened to be going after runaway slaves – the enforcement of an antiquated law that the American public had grown to condemn.
To this very day, for the people, the Irish are here to test the loyalty of the people who serve the Law. One of these fine people is the first Indian American to make it this high in justice, the Honorable Diane Gujarati will preside over a case that has a thing or two an Indian American might have some cultural knowedlge, maybe even loyalty to: Gurus, and OM.
Indian people know all about that stuff, right?
I am confident that we will find out just what a Good Indian American Judge Gujarati is, and that this case against the Buddhist Inspired Hindu Named Guru Ran Olive Oil Flavored Onetaste will be brought to a swift conviction and will open the floodgates to lawsuits that will have certain people fleeing the country.
The People just don’t want that kind of thing happening in this country, too bad so sad for them that San Francisco happens to be part of the USA.
A a pretrial hearing that sees the courtroom packed with over a dozen FBI agents ready to stare the Judge and the Defense down should tell you all you need to know about what kind of deal they are going offer.
McJustice will be served, and they won’t care if you want fries with it.
Is that you in disguise, Heidi?
Heidi is one of the few people who bothers writing lengthy & bland word salads as a matter of routine practice (using far too many excessive words to say virtually nothing).
She just can’t help herself.
But if it’s not Heidi —- then it’s definitely a Heidi-worshipper who’s trying to carry on Heidi’s forgotten and unloved traditions.
Oh, please have a nice day. 🙂
Dear both of you, Nicole Daedone is a major asshole with illuminati symbolism in her social media pictures, I hope she goes to jail, I am glad this is costing her lots of money, my friend lived in her disgusting little rat trap, I don’t even know if he had a mattress on the floor, but rape is rape, and he did many things he did not consent to or was going to be out on the street and homeless. He had a full time job but could still not afford a place to live. We worked together. I got a daily play by play of the disgusting hovel she created. I think she is a predator and extremely careless as to others lives and has hurt a lot of people including my friend who was repeatedly raped under her “guidance”
Oh my gosh, this article is hilarious with all those toilet images 🚽
I mean, it would be funny if there weren’t actual unjust consequences hanging in the air… the Feds would do well to let this one fizzle out quietly and leave Nicole and Rachel to live their own regular lives again. All these witnesses sound like they’re using the Twinkie testimony.
The Happy Sausage should get involved in this case. He is a brilliant lawyer.
The Happy Sausage greatly admires rapists, pedophiles and child molesters. He represents child molesters with gusto.
The Happy Sausage fights tooth and nail for the rights of rapists and pedophiles. He believes believe child molesters are very much misunderstood. He believes society should more empathetic to rapists.
If The Happy Sausage were in charge, Harvey Weinstein, Keith Raniere and Puff Daddy would still be walking the streets and still be raping kids.
The Happy Sausage is a very fine man. His wife is very proud of him. She supports him as a spouse and partner.
I’m not clear on how it could possibly be legal to limit cross examination of witnesses who are looking for a payout AND to put two women in prison. As someone who took courses and went to retreats over several years with both Ms. Daedone and Ms. Pelletier, I can honestly say that I did learn quite a bit about speaking up for and thinking for myself, as well as feeling agency over my own body that I had never experienced. I understand that not everyone has the same experience but the only way to get to the truth is through both examination and cross examination. If the witnesses in question truly suffered in the way that is claimed, you’d think they would welcome the questioning. Is this case perhaps really about vilifying women who teach sexual liberation? We can’t have that. Right?!
Onetaste: a company that never discriminated against the mentally ill when they taught classes about partnered clit stroking.