Frank Parlato
This is Part 4 of Frank Report’s series on FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis and his investigation of OneTaste.
Part 1: FBI’s McGinnis: From NYPD Brutality to Rogue Agent?
Part 3 The Missing Image: A Call for FBI Agent McGinnis’ Real Photo in a Tale of Falsehoods
FBI Agent Struggled to Build Case Against OneTaste
FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis interviewed many people associated with OneTaste during his five-year investigation. He struggled to find victims, which could explain why the US Attorney chose to charge Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz with only “planning” or “agreeing” to commit forced labor (called a “conspiracy”), rather than actually “carrying out forced labor” itself.
This approach is unusual. It’s more common to charge someone with the actual crime (forced labor) if there’s strong evidence that it happened. Instead, this case only involves a charge for the plan or agreement to commit that crime, without proving that the crime was ever actually carried out.
It’s reportedly the first time in the US that someone has been charged this way—forced labor conspiracy— without a corresponding charge for the crime they allegedly conspired to commit.
The accusation here is that Daedone and Cherwitz made plans to force people to work against their will—that’s what the “conspiracy” charge is about. But, importantly, there wasn’t enough proof to show that they actually succeeded in forcing anyone to work.
So, while the government says they planned it, they couldn’t find enough solid evidence to prove they ever followed through on those plans. Essentially, they’re being charged for thinking about it and discussing it, but not for actually forcing anyone to do the work under threat or force.
In simpler terms, it’s like charging someone for planning a bank robbery but not charging them for actually robbing a bank—because, in this case, it seems the crime never actually happened.
During the five years Agent McGinnis was investigating OneTaste, as he tried to find victims, sometimes he would visit them in person. Other times, he would call them on the phone, hoping to find someone who could confirm they were forced to work against their will.
But despite all these efforts, he still couldn’t find enough proof to show that anyone was actually coerced or forced to work. That might explain why, in the end, the charges were only about planning to commit forced labor, not actually succeeding in doing it.
Jennifer Slusher’s Positive Testimony Contradicts Forced Labor Allegations
Jennifer Slusher was a student of OneTaste from 2008 to 2014. She lived in a OneTaste community house in San Francisco and held several jobs for the company, including as a chef for community members. During her time at OneTaste, Jennifer would come and go as she pleased.
For example, in 2010, she left OneTaste to attend yoga teacher training in Costa Rica, entirely unrelated for OneTaste. No one tried to force her to stay, as she noted.
When she returned, she began working part-time to recruit students for OneTaste.
“I was always paid for my work.” Slusher said in an affidavit.
Slusher said in her affidavit:
“When I lived at 1080 Folsom [the community home], I was often invited to attend OneTaste courses and events for free and get training on how to apply the philosophy and ideas that I learned at the classes I attended to hosting people and events. The training was fun, engaging and invaluable. I apply skills that I learned from that training in my career and it has earned me a lot of professional recognition from my co-workers and supervisors.”
When she trained as a OneTaste coach, she spent “considerable… time around the OneTaste senior staff as well as Nicole Daedone, who took my training in the application of the ideas I had learned at OneTaste to the next level. The senior faculty and Nicole were always wonderful and caring towards me.
“In April of 2014, I resigned from my (OneTaste) student coordinator job because I was interested in learning about sustainable agriculture and how to grow my own food. I moved to Dinsmore, California to live on a farm….
“The OneTaste staff were kind and supportive when I decided to quit my job and move out of the house I was living in with other OneTaste staff. Nicole Daedone contacted me and wished me well on my path, letting me know if I ever wanted to come back, the door was open. Nobody tried to make me stay, and I was clear that there were no negative consequences for leaving.”
Slusher moved to a farm in California and later to New York and then New Mexico, staying in touch with friends she had met at OneTaste.
Agent McGinnis Calls Slusher
Agent McGinnis called Jennifer Slusher four years after she left OneTaste.
Slusher wrote in her affidavit:
“In late 2018,… I received a phone call from an FBI Agent who identified himself as Agent Elliot McGinnis. I do not know how he got my phone number. During our 30–45-minute conversation, Agent McGinnis told me that the FBI was investigating ‘human trafficking’ allegations related to OneTaste. I spoke to Agent McGinnis about my experience and related the truth of my experience which was positive. I told him that in my extensive experience of OneTaste, I never saw, heard, or suspected any behavior even vaguely resembled human trafficking or any other kind of criminal activity.
“I told Agent McGinnis multiple times that I did not consider myself a victim of OneTaste in any sense of the word. At the end of our conversation, Agent McGinnis told me something along the lines of ‘Thank you very much for telling me… I’m glad you had such positive experience.”
Did Agent McGinnis Document Potentially Exculpatory Evidence?
Whenever FBI agents conduct an interview—whether in person or by phone—they must fill out an FBI 302 Form. This form summarizes what the agent and the interviewee discussed during the interview. The 302 form is not a word-for-word transcript. It’s a summary based on the agent’s notes and their memory of the conversation. The form includes the date, time, place, who the agent interviewed, and what the agent chooses to disclose about what was said.
Agents must fill out this report no matter what the interview reveals, whether it’s helpful or harmful to the defendant. There’s a precedent from Brady v. Maryland, which says the government must share evidence that could help the defense. If an FBI agent learns something during an interview that could help the defendant, the law says he is supposed to disclose it.
The Real Reason the FBI Avoids Recording Interviews
That’s why they don’t record interviews. So they can choose not to follow the law.
Because 302s are summaries, there’s an opportunity for convenient amnesia or selective stupidity in failing to understand and omit some important, favorable detail. Who knows how many people McGinnis interviewed who told him there was no forced labor at OneTaste?
When Agent McGinnis interviewed Jennifer Slusher, she disclosed Brady material. Suppose Agent McGinnis didn’t write this in his 302 report, or suppose he even forgot to write a 302. In that case, it might be a Brady violation. But how would one prove it? This is why the FBI uses handwritten notes and summaries, rather than recording interviews.
Selective Summaries Allow FBI Agents to Control the Narrative
It’s not because they lack the technology—they have the tools to record conversations or even use body cameras. The reason they stick with 19th-century tech (pen and paper) is that it gives them control over what gets included in the official record. By using handwritten notes, they decide what does not end up in the report.
When FBI agents write a Form 302, they summarize what they want others to know was said during an interview. This allows them to emphasize specific details, omit others, change details and frame the conversation in a specific way. If the FBI recorded the interview, everything would be on record, leaving less opportunity for selective presentation of information.
If a recording existed, it would be hard to withhold evidence from the defense.
McGinnis Pressures Slusher to Change Story in Follow-Up Call
From the sworn DECLARATION OF JENNIFER SLUSHER:
Jennifer Slusher wrote about the second call she got from Agent McGinnis:
“On August 31, 2023, approximately seven weeks after I heard about the indictment of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, Agent McGinnis called me again. He began the call by reminding me we had spoken once before. He then referenced the indictment of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz and informed me they had been charged with conspiracy for forced labor.
“Agent McGinnis then informed me that the purpose of his call was to provide me with ‘victim assistance’ and that he was ‘calling everyone’ to offer them these services.
“Agent McGinnis told me these victim assistance services were for ‘this type of crime,’ referring to conspiracy for forced labor. I immediately told Agent McGinnis that I was not a victim of anything and that I did not want or need victim assistance.
“Agent McGinnis seemed surprised to hear me say this and then proceeded to push back on my assertion that I did not qualify myself as a victim in need of these services.
“Agent McGinnis then told me something like, ‘Oh, well, I thought in our last call you told me you felt like a victim.’ This was shocking to me, as my recollection of our first conversation is crystal clear, and I am positive there is nothing I said that could have been construed as identifying myself as a victim.”
Potential Recording Could Expose Inconsistencies in McGinnis’s Reports
Yes, it will be curious to see what FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis wrote in his two 302s about his two conversations with Jennifer Slusher.
Under Colorado law (CRS § 18-9-303), it is legal to record a conversation if you are a participant without informing the other participants.
It is unknown if Slusher recorded the conversations with Agent McGinnis, but it was within her legal right to do so. If she did, it might compare curiously to the 302s Agent McGinnis made of the calls.
To be continued…
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I was interviewed as well. The actual charges were never named. There was never a word from McGinnis about human trafficking or forced labor. He said he just wanted to talk with me about my time there. I would be surprised if he asked the question as JS stated. He also called after the indictment and simply said it’s part of victim AND witness services. There are many witnesses who are not victims.
As always, Frank is twisting the truth. Where did he get this affidavit ?
Hold on
Are you saying that Jenny Slusher, the sex-cult drop out who moved into her parent’s basement and hasn’t even been able to hold down a job as a barber, might be an unreliable source?
Makes sense to me.
I support the Blue.
Frank supports fag rapists and sex cults.
And Franky is too afraid to post this comment like the faggot that he is.
Found Elliot’s alty
As a NYPD officer McGinnis nearly beat an innocent man to death and after a year in service he resigned to avoid prosecution.
The disgraced police officer is then welcomed into the FBI where McGinnis continues to be McGinnis- the unethical scoundrel who will do whatever is called for to serve his masters.
MANY people have been charged with conspiracy but not the second crime. Conspiracy, because of paper trails, is often easier to prove. I think there will victims. They didn’t have very many employees (it has to be someone who worked there), but they only need one for one charge. Conspiracy is a serious crime because it involves more than one person cooperating to commit crimes. Plan crimes. Knowing commit crimes. It’s AS serious as forced labor. If not more. It’s the epitome of INTENT. You can parade a bunch of people who say they were not victims of forced labor. I doubt those who were would agree to talk to Frank.
“It’s reportedly the first time in the US that someone has been charged this way—forced labor conspiracy— without a corresponding charge for the crime they allegedly conspired to commit.”
– government overreach, manufacturing need for punishment void of any victim.
More taxpayer dollars diverted to punish the innocent for victimless crimes. Lock them up. Own us all when no one is being hurt.
This is where the “rules” or lack thereof, are designed to encourage abuse, cheating, and deceit. With modern technology recording of all interviews should be mandatory but instead at best we are left with a subjective account from a person with a clear agenda, eliminating objectivity.
In court we see this all the time where “status conferences” are recorded or not recorded by the whim of a judge and typically these meetings exclude the litigants. It’s where back room deals are made.
Leave innocent mcginnis alone and bail out your {redacted}