Frank Parlato
The Justice Department, through the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY, has charged Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz with “conspiring to commit forced labor”—except they forgot to include one small detail: the actual forced labor.
And what’s their proof? Not physical coercion. Not financial bondage. Not threats. They’re going after hurt feelings.
The government says consent didn’t count because OneTaste members were so brainwashed that “yes” meant “no.”
Prosecutors say this is forced labor but describe nothing more than bad financial decisions and awkward relationships.
They can’t prove forced labor, so they’re hoping a jury will convict based on icky feelings about sex and alternative lifestyles instead of actual evidence.
If the DOJ wins this one, get ready for the “regret police” to start making house calls.
Ever regret taking out a student loan? Forced labor.
Regret signing up for a multi-level marketing scheme? Conspiracy.
Have a bad breakup with someone into weird stuff? FBI SWAT team incoming.
The feds are criminalizing persuasion, voluntary relationships, and personal choices—and if we don’t call it out now, they’ll use it on the next unpopular group, and the next, and the next.
Charge in Search of a Crime
From the start, the government has tried to sell this case as sex trafficking—despite one glaring fact: no one has been charged with sex trafficking.
Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz face “conspiracy to commit forced labor”—a charge so vague it has no real precedent.
Think about that: No one is charged with actual forced labor. The claim is that they conspired to commit something that allegedly never even happened.
And how does the government plan to prove this? Not with direct evidence. Not with victims saying they were physically forced. Instead, they’re relying on:
- Psychological harm theories that require mind-reading.
- Murky claims of “coercive control.”
- A relentless campaign to criminalize alternative lifestyles.
This case is so weak that prosecutors don’t even want the jury to hear basic facts that might contradict their narrative.
The government is actively trying to block:
- Any positive experiences from OneTaste members.
- Any evidence of consent.
- Any discussion of the FBI’s questionable investigative tactics.
- Any mention of the government constantly shifting its justification for this case.
The SWAT Team Tactics: Intimidation, Not Justice
Consider how the government went after Rachel Cherwitz.
FBI agents in full SWAT gear. Helicopters. Convoys of black SUVs.
All this despite her already offering to cooperate through her attorneys.
That’s not law enforcement. That’s a message: Don’t fight back. Don’t question us. Or we will destroy you.
A Case Built on Netflix Propaganda
The government’s case hinges on a star witness: Ayries Blanck.
Years after the fact, she “miraculously” found handwritten journals detailing her alleged victimization—just in time for a Netflix documentary. And here’s where it gets interesting: Her “journals” reference books that hadn’t even been published at the time she supposedly wrote them.
The Google Doc versions? Revised over 50 times—with input from people producing the Netflix film.
The FBI coached witnesses on how to hide evidence from legal review by moving documents out of reach of subpoenas.
This isn’t an investigation. It’s a Hollywood script with a federal budget.
A Thought Crime Trial
Let’s be clear:
No one was physically forced to do anything.
No one was prevented from leaving.
No one was in financial debt to OneTaste.
No one has testified that Daedone or Cherwitz threatened them.
So what’s the crime?
The government argues that OneTaste created an environment of psychological coercion so strong that people “consented” to things they didn’t truly want to do.
Think about what that means:
If you bought a self-help course you later regretted, you were a forced labor victim.
If you took a bad job and didn’t like the boss, guess what? Psychological coercion!
If a company convinced you to spend money you later wished you hadn’t, that’s human trafficking now.
This is dangerous legal territory. It criminalizes persuasion, belief systems, and group dynamics—not actual crimes.
A Pretext to Police Sexuality
The real reason this case exists? Moral panic.
Sex trafficking laws have become the government’s go-to excuse for unconstitutional prosecutions. Prosecutors are literally arguing that Daedone’s spiritual beliefs about sex should be criminalized.
They claim that if someone later regretted a sexual encounter, they must have been a victim—even if they consented at the time.
They want the jury to believe that adults engaging in an unconventional lifestyle is an illegal conspiracy. This isn’t about justice. It’s about controlling people’s private lives.
Bait and Switch Prosecution
The government knows its case is weak. That’s why it blurs the lines between what’s charged and what’s implied.
They imply sex trafficking. But they don’t charge it.
They imply financial fraud. But they don’t charge it.
They imply physical coercion. But they don’t charge it.
Instead, they hope the jury fills in the blanks with moral outrage.
A Dangerous Precedent
If this case succeeds, it sets a terrifying legal precedent.
Any company could be accused of forced labor based on how employees feel after the fact. Any spiritual or self-improvement group could be labeled a criminal enterprise if its teachings push personal boundaries. Any alternative community could be dismantled—not because of actual crimes, but because of government disapproval.
This isn’t a trial. It’s a First Amendment prosecution. And if they get away with it here, they’ll do it again.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] later reinvented herself as a victim, selling her story to Netflix for $25,000. She fabricated a fake journal—exposed as a 2022 creation—and falsely claimed it documented her time inside OneTaste in 2015. […]
These continue to be excellent and right on the money. Keep going!
Anthony Ricco is resigning from Da Diddler’s case, but Marc Agnifilo remains.
Maybe Ricco can join Team OneTaste and let the justice roll down like mighty waters!!!!!!!!!
I regret all the time and energy spent on the Frank Report comment section over the years. It is clearly Frank’s fault that I feel compelled to write polls and take runs at Bangcock. Frank’s been conspiring to get us to work for him for free. How many of us skip over some of Frank’s articles just to read the comment section? Gravy train’s over, Frank. Where’s my money? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjX1ITzuJ_k