Frank Parlato
On Friday, November 7, US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati conducted a pretrial hearing at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.
Judge Gujarati set the trial to begin on January 13.
The purpose of the hearing was to resolve disputes regarding evidence, cross-examination, and whether the witnesses for the prosecution could use a fake name at trial.
Kayla Bensing, an Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, made the arguments, and two other prosecutors joined her, Assistant US Attorneys Sean Fern and Gillian Kassner.
Attorneys Jennifer Bonjean and Imran Ansari represent Nicole Daedone, co-founder of OneTaste, and Rachel Cherwitz, former head of sales for the San Francisco company.
The prosecution charged the two women with a one-count indictment of conspiracy to commit forced labor without charging forced labor.
Coercive Control Allegations
The government plans to portray OneTaste as an organization based on coercion and control, claiming OneTaste’s teachings of Orgasmic Meditation (“OM”) as the method through which Daedone and Cherwitz conspired to control their employees and customers.
The defense plans to show the jury that OneTaste practices a consensual lifestyle, albeit controversial, developed by Daedone, which aims to help practitioners enhance their sexual wellness and spiritual awareness.
Thousands have taken OneTaste’s courses and learned OM, with many committed to daily OM practice and saying they experience benefits.
Many students did not continue long-term but acknowledged it was a learning experience and a consensual adults-only practice.
A small minority had different experiences, and though they voluntarily stopped taking courses or quit their employment at OneTaste, the “victims” claim they remained longer than they wished and did things they now regret they had done.
Consent Is the Same for Women and Men
The defense plans to show that OneTaste maintained policies regarding consent and taught courses about consent, personal responsibility, and the importance of making informed, autonomous decisions as adults. Perhaps uniquely, it held that women must abide by the same consent standards as men.
OneTaste taught all practitioners of OM, all customers, and employees that anyone could decide not to participate in anything, and one word, “no,” is the simple response to anything they do not want to do.
Thousands of OneTaste customers and employees said no thousands of times, any day and every day, whether by turning down a request to OM, deciding against buying an additional course, leaving a course that did not please them, deciding to work for or leaving their employment with OneTaste, or moving on from the practice of OM and OneTaste altogether.
“Victims” Left OneTaste When They Chose
Every “victim” the prosecution plans to put on the stand did precisely that. When they decided they did not want to work at or take classes, they left, the defense intends to show.
The defense plans to show that the “victims” left without repercussions.
The prosecution wants to ensure that the defense does not present satisfied customers and employees who had good experiences with OneTaste to the jury.
The prosecution does not want their “victims” to be contradicted by satisfied customers and employees.
The forced labor statute requires the jury to consider the reasonableness of each supposed “victim’s” actions concerning their background and circumstances.
The jury judges whether “reasonable people of the same background and in the same circumstances” would be capable of saying no.
If the overwhelming majority of OneTaste customers and employees, working simultaneously and in the same roles as the “victims,” said no all the time, the jury might acquit the defendants.
Judge Rejects Prosecution’s Expert Witness
The prosecution had planned to bring in an expert witness, Dr. Chitra Rhagavan, to demonstrate how “victims” react to coercive control to show how reasonable it was that a few victims could not say no.
Defense attorney Bonjean argued that coercive control has never been applied to an organization and is an unestablished scientific concept.
The judge inquired how the prosecution intended to use their expert.
The prosecution replied their expert would not discuss specific events at OneTaste but would talk about coercive control tactics and their general effects on people.
The judge asked the prosecution, “What makes you think the jury would not understand what coercive control is simply by the witnesses’ testimony?”
Bonjean interjected, “This is ridiculous. There are things like manipulation in a relationship—everybody knows what manipulation in their relationship is. There are things like coercion—everybody knows what coercion is. That you need an expert witness here will only muddy the field.”
The judge agreed and ruled there would be no expert witness on coercive control.
Government Argues for Using Fake Names
The prosecutors argued they needed to conceal the identities of their witnesses to alleviate discomfort related to testifying about “sensitive” matters.
The prosecutors added that some courts, mainly in the Eastern District of New York, have allowed victims to use pseudonyms.
The government pointed to US v. Dan Zhong, US v. Almehmeti, US v. Pepe, and US v. Navarrao. The cases had some distinguishing features from the OneTaste prosecution.
The government charged Zhong with forced labor and alien smuggling by bringing Chinese workers to the United States to work for his construction company. The judge approved victims using pseudonym because Zhong’s company had kidnapped victims after they escaped from the company.
In Almehmeti, the courts allowed undercover police officers to testify using pseudonyms so that they could continue to work as undercover police officers.
In Pepe, the judge required the witnesses to give their true names, but they did not have to provide their home addresses because they were in the witness protection program.
In Navarrao, the judge required a witness to give his name, but he did not have to provide his home address and place of employment because he was a government informant.
Alleged Fear of Reporter
The government cited the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, arguing that the judge must implement procedures that protect victims from the accused.
They cited Ghislaine Maxwell, Keith Raniere, and R. Kelly.
In the OneTaste case, the prosecutors did not allege that the witnesses feared for their physical safety, were undercover police officers, or in the witness protection program.
Instead, they pointed out that a journalist, Frank Parlato by name, had written about this case and used words like “foolish,” “petty,” and “greedy” to refer to individuals who might be witnesses.
The prosecution argued that the distress of a “victim” testifying should be an overriding concern in a criminal prosecution that aims to convict and incarcerate the defendants.
The defense raised a point: The government failed to identify anyone who would qualify as a “victim.“
Under the statute they cited – 18 U.S.C. § 3771 – a “crime victim“ means a person directly or proximately harmed by the commission of a federal offense.
But the prosecution charged Daedone and Cherwitz with forced labor conspiracy. Not forced labor.
Commission of conspiracy does not result in “crime victims“ as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. “Intended victims“ are not “crime victims“ under the statute.
Regardless, the defense argued, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 speaks to the need to protect a victim from the defendant – not the media, even if a particular investigative journalist writes critical, truthful content that upsets them or exposes their inconsistent narratives.
Government Invokes Raniere, Maxwell and R. Kelly
The government referred to its witnesses as “victim-witnesses,“ arguing that “courts in this Circuit routinely grant motions for victim-witnesses to testify using pseudonyms in cases involving explicit subject matter or where the victims have legitimate fears of media harassment or employment consequences from trial publicity.”
In each case cited by the government, Terranova, Maxwell, Raniere, and R. Kelly, the government charged sex trafficking or child exploitation offenses – substantive sex offenses.
But the government did not charge the OneTaste defendants with sex trafficking case. The government did not even charge forced labor – but only that the women conspired to commit forced labor, but never did it.
The case does not involve minors. Not every witness will testify about sensitive matters, let alone matters so sensitive that they should be allowed to testify anonymously.
Can Shame Force Adults to Have Sex?
The defense argued that if any witness testifies about the act of OMing or any sexual act, the defense will show these acts were consensual.
The government claims the defendants conspired to get adult men and women to do certain sexual acts through vague and hazy tactics like “manipulation“ and “shame.”
The defense will argue that intelligent women and men explored their sexuality and the meditative practice of OM of their own volition with consent.
The government claims that “requiring [witnesses] to provide identifying information would only harass, embarrass and humiliate or annoy the Victim-Witnesses.”
The government has provided no support for the claim that there is any risk of physical harm to their witnesses by the defendants, or that they will suffer any harassment by defendants.
Frank Report to Blame
The government however pointed to a website called the Frank Report, which published critical and truthful articles on the government’s prosecution. These articles include less-than-flattering references to Ayries Blanck, who is known to the public through her outreach to the media. She appeared in a Netflix movie, where her “private and sensitive” journals were read on screen with her blessing – with her name prominently mentioned.
Blanck has also publicly told her story to numerous news outlets, including Bloomberg, Playboy, the BBC, and through her sister in the Netflix film.
Criticism, discussion about inconsistent narratives, and even mild name-calling by a journalist is protected speech under the First Amendment and not “harassment“ that allows witnesses to testify anonymously in contradiction to the Sixth Amendment.
The Judge Decides
The judge ruled that the government cannot have a blanket ruling that witnesses can testify using fake names.
The defendants have the right to confront their accusers, and the public has the right to know the accusers and the defendant in a public trial.
That is the purpose of a public trial – to know both the accused and the accusers – not just the accused.
Ayries Blanck and the others who have accused Daedone and Cherwitz will have to do so in their own name, and this is poetic justice, since Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz had taught them to take responsibility for their actions and not hide behind being a woman or the coward’s shield of anonymity where lies are harder to scrutinize.
The prosecution has already mentioned that some of their “victims” won’t show up to testify, since they would have to plead the 5th (meaning they lied) and in their place they have asked the judge to excuse the liar-victims and offer their writings, such as texts, emails, and a journal instead.
The government wants to set a new standard for trials. When you have a lying witness, like Ayries Blanck, do not call them to the stand where they could get charged with perjury – or be forced to plead the 5th – just present their journal and dirty up the defendants as if the journal was what Blanck thought she endured.
In our next post on the pretrial decisions of Judge Gujarati we will explain what happened with that novel idea of removing the 6th Amendment from the jury trial. And we will also cover the quest of the prosecution to presents BDSM masters and sex workers as people with no sexual history at trial and how that fared.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I don’t understand how the witnesses could back up the prosecutions conspiracy charge. If the witnesses were abused why the conspiracy charge?
Frank, could you tell us about the difference between how OneTaste treated a paying customer as apposed to how they treated an employee? It seems like these disgruntled “employees” were treating their employer like they expected them to treat them like paying customers. They saw OneTaste support customers through difficult transformations, which those customers paid for, and then complain when they didn’t get the same “support” as an employee. There are laws that prevent employers like OneTaste from meddling in an employees personal decisions, which they did good at keeping separate from paying customers, who wanted them to meddled. Employees saw paying customers do some daring things, and tried things for themselves, that was none of OneTaste’s business.
For this case, can we get clear on how OneTaste treated customers as compared to how they treated employees? Let’s be sure not to clump them all together. Employees only saw part of the whole journey that customers went through. That could confuse them.
Ayries Blanck is beautiful from the feet down. But when she moves her mouth she is icky as could be.
Maybe if she didn’t lie so much she’d be a nicer person. Her husband must be wondering what he got himself into.
A great article, Frank.
If those weirdo witnesses are the ONLY evidence that prosecutors have — then I predict a full acquittal will be forthcoming.
But… Frank has a tendency to sometimes omit (hide) details that don’t fit with his story.
So… In his next article, I’d like Frank to confirm if the prosecutors have additional evidence (other than witness testimony and journals) against the defendants?
For example, do the prosecutors have emails, text messages, or other ‘documents’ to prove their alleged ‘conspiracy’ of forced labor?
If not, how else can they prove that the defendants ‘conspired’ together?
IMO, the defendants will easily be acquitted IF Frank has truly presented all of the evidence.
But… That’s kinda why I think Frank may be hiding something from us — because IF these prosecutors are so DUMB that they’re willing to go to trial with nothing more than a handful of weirdos as witnesses, then something smells wrong.
I anticipate that Frank probably won’t answer this question for us.
Why not? …Because Frank has become a DICKLESS geezer in his old age.
Frank is no longer capable of debating like a fierce & manly journalist.
Frank is no longer the man he was 5 years ago.
Frank is a dinosaur. He’s a relic of times past.
In fact… Frank is so old that I’m thinking about sending him a walker for Christmas this year.
Have a good day. 🙂
The thing with onetaste is that desire as a compass removes free will. Choosing against your desire is too expensive. In that way freedom is handicapped.
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Expressing desire is LITERALLY and act of free will.
Nicole used to tell people to run. It’s a double entendre. Sure it’s hooky and edgy but it’s also true. Waking up isn’t ascending into greater freedom.
Okay, who let Raniere on the computer?
The Ship of Does ran aground on the Shoals of the Sixth Amendment. Prosecution Team moves to salvage what it can.
Absolutely scorching
“Liar-victim” is a worthy addition to the legal dictionary.
Is that a rolled up sock in Tender Flame’s parachute pants?
I read the article again. It’s thorough and comprehensible court reporting on government attempts to bulk obfuscate and misrepresent that the court declined to rubber stamp. Plus the comments are always good. And the photos.
Fantastic piece!
Few things I especially liked-
Calling out the irrelevance of the gov’ts case law to promote their “Jane Doe” protection
The judges sobriety around coercive countrol, signaling all eyes will be on witnesses no PhD to back them up
That the governments attempt to “protect” the witnesses from public scrutiny (via frank report and elsewhere) fell flat — they will face the sting of accountability
And of course, Gowers great photo caption
Tender Flame is an EDNY unicorn: victim-witness-expert in coercive control
They’re all creepy.
The Whole Truth to the prosecution is like eating a prune pit and all.
The truth is a distant fart in the wind
I think it’s only natural that the prosecutors won’t want to show Flame Tender to the jury but only Mr Gower. It hurts their whole case if the jury knows he is a sadist kinky guy They need to show him as a straight pacer dude who never even knew what BDSM means. Best Definition of Sensitive Man .
It’d just a way for the prosecutors to lie to the jury. But if they don’t lie how else do they convict the innocent?
In some weird way, i feel like Aryes has committed a new form of crime that deserves a new name in the law books
Ayries will be exposed. She created a calendar to have sex every day for 30 days. SHE inititaed sexual contact, now she wants us to believe she was coerced? Nah. Just nah.
I used to blame Frank Report for all of my moral delimas, until i found OM. Now my moans are identified as OM’s and im better for it. I not only control my own OM but also my husband’s.
Please continue to blame Frank, the prosecutors at EDNY do for the likely loss of this case.