Frank Parlato
The new defense attorneys for Rachel Cherwitz, Celia Cohen, and Michael Roboti filed a request on January 18 with U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati to postpone the trial set for May 5, 2025, to September 2025.
Both attorneys are partners at the law firm Ballard Spahr and were previously prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York charged Cheriwtz and co-defendant Nicole Daedone with conspiracy to commit forced labor. Cohen and Roboti contended that the complexity of the case, its vague allegations, and the volume of evidence require additional time for proper preparation.
“Since being retained, we have quickly learned that this is not an ordinary case. The government has charged one count of a forced labor conspiracy over a twelve-year span, without providing any critical details about the force that occurred and how it specifically induced any labor. …
“Four months is insufficient time to prepare for trial …especially given recent information that has come to light about manufactured and mishandled evidence.”
Key Issues with Discovery
There are also evidentiary issues that need resolution, along with important and extensive discovery that has not yet been provided to the defense or reviewed, according to the defense.
Counsel also pointed out possible Brady violations, citing Brady v. Maryland, which requires the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
“To prove this charge at trial, the government is calling witnesses who have engaged in the fabrication of evidence, have received significant benefits from the government and from telling their ‘stories’ in the media, and have been exposed as perjurers in a parallel civil lawsuit.
“Accordingly, these issues will require the defendants to call defense witnesses to rebut each and every claim by the government, which will take months to develop….”
Attorneys Cohen and Roboti emphasized the substantial volume of materials in the case as a major challenge for the defense. They specified the government’s production of:
- 400,000 pages of discovery material,
- 80,000 pages of government exhibits,
- 5,000 pages of material under 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and
- 82 hours of video footage.
Ayries Blanck Hard Drive
The defense emphasized the government’s failure to provide the complete hard drive of Ayries Blanck, a key witness in the case, as fuirther evidence of suspicious disregard for discovery obligations.
Although the government has had the hard drive since April 2024, it has withheld it, claiming that some materials may fall outside the search warrant. The defense argued this refusal is unjustified.
“The government has manufactured a Fourth Amendment barrier to production where none exists,” they stated. They emphasized that the government has both the legal authority and responsibility under Brady, Giglio, and § 3500 to review and produce the entire drive.
The hard drive is important, for the contents may reveal the proof that Blanck fabricated evidence.
The defense wrote:
“The government continues to fight to admit the Fake Handwritten Journal as authentic and reliable evidence, based on various hearsay exceptions that could apply only if the journal was written in 2015. …The Fake Handwritten Journal, however, cannot possibly have been written in 2015; therefore, it is inadmissible at trial.
“The Fake Handwritten Journal directly matches a final typed journal that the government concedes was created in April 2022, edited in May 2022, and finalized on March 9, 2023. …A comparison of the Fake Handwritten Journal to the typed journal reveals that it matches the final edits made on March 9, 2023.
“The Fake Handwritten Journal refers to a book published in 2019, despite the government’s claim the journal was written in 2015; (2) the handwriting and linguistics of the Fake Handwritten Journal do not appear to match other known handwriting of Ayries Blanck; and (3) Ayries Blanck kept another journal that has entries from some of the exact same dates as the Fake Handwritten Journal, and the two same day entries directly conflict with each other regarding her experience at OneTaste.”
The defense further argued in their letter that the government has not provided all written communications for individuals it alleges are victims. One example is that the government failed to turn over a lengthy June 5, 2024 email between Ayries Blanck and FBI Special Agent McGinnis, during which Blanck attempts to explain why a book to which her fake journal refers was published in 2019, when she claims to have written the journal in 2015.
Missing USB Drive with Critical Information
It is unclear how frequently the FBI loses thumb drives, but one is currently missing. Mitch Adelbaum, a former OneTaste student and IT contractor, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury, said he handed a thumb drive to FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis in 2021.
The declaration included several details:
- Aidelbaum confirmed the possession of a document labeled “Attorney Client Privilege,” referred to as the “Stolen Privileged Document.”
- Aidelbaum took it after leaving OneTaste.
- FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis gave Aidelbaum a USB drive to copy the stolen document.
- Agent McGinnis took the thumb drive with him, but apparently hid it from his supervisors.
- The document because it was marked Attorney Client Privilege should have gone to a “taint team” to examine whether it could be used as part of the investigation. McGinnis preferred to forgo that requirement and instead use the document secretly to conduct his investigation. He now claims he does not recall the thumb drive, or if he did recall it, he does not know where it is.
Cohen and Roboti claim the FBI relied on the Stolen Privileged Document to build its case.
Postponement Needed
“In short, it would be unjust to cripple Ms. Cherwitz’s right not only to properly fight the charge in this case, but also to fully explore the government’s use of the Stolen Privileged Document and the Fake Handwritten Journal to build this entire prosecution,” Cohen and Roboti wrote.
The court has not yet decided whether to postpone the trial date from May 5, 2025, to September 2025.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
This case is only about the Defense Attorneys charging tons of money for legal fees .
I’m sure Attorney Celia Cohen and Mike Roboti would love to sort through 100s of 1000s of discovery for an $850.00 per hour fee.
The judge probably isn’t going to go through all that information and probably doesn’t care either way.
Once when these defense attorneys meet their own personal goals in this case with their legal fees…. those defense attorneys will send the predetermined script to the judge to sign to grant dismissal.
Hell … those defense attorneys could probably send the predetermined script to the judge today… but the personal goals of the defense attorneys aren’t met yet in the case.
Unfortunately, this case is probably only about the defense attorneys milking their clients out as much as possible.
These private attorneys probably still have inside connections to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The motion was denied. Oh well.
I do not understand the speedy trial issue. The government takes its time. It develops fake evidence and hides other evidence.
Then the judge ought to give the defense the time it needs. Something is fishy and her name is Pisces – er I mean Ayries
The government has had plenty of time to prepare their case. If these women are guilty the government should be able to prove their guilt in May or September. Allow these attorneys the time needed to study the material and prepare their defense.
With years in prison on the table for a thought crime, an additional four months to understand and challenge questionable evidence is more than reasonable.