Frank Parlato
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY filed an indictment against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone in Brooklyn federal court in April 2023. A trial is scheduled for May 5, 2025.
The prosecutors allege forced labor conspiracy, “By means of force, threats of force, serious harm.” But no force is alleged. No threats, bruises, or evidence of violence. The two women did not beat anyone.
There is no charge of actual forced labor, only conspiracy. “By a combination of schemes, plans, and patterns.”
A combination. Meaning, maybe one thing, maybe another.
A conspiracy is a crime with a low bar.
The government doesn’t have to prove anyone was forced to do anything.
They only had to say there was an agreement. Someone might have been coerced. Someone might have felt trapped.
The US Attorney said: “The instant case charges a conspiracy and not a substantive offense. The defendants could be proven guilty if they never forced any victim to do anything—so long as the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they agreed to do so.”
They say people had been “subjected to surveillance.” But what kind? There are no allegations of cameras or emails.
Just the fact that they lived together, worked together, spent their time in the same circles.
They allege “isolation.” But every religion, sports team, every movement, elite university, high-powered job isolates people from those not directly involved.
They speak about how the defendants: “Induced members to incur debt.” But fraud is not alleged. The government’s argument isn’t that loans were forced—only that people willingly took them out for something they believed in. Then no longer believed in.
“They were not paid,” the indictment said. But OneTaste had contracts. Had commissions. Had sales teams and employees. Some made a lot of money. Some didn’t. Like anywhere else.
“They engaged in sexual activity at the direction of the defendants.”
Was it coercion, or choice?
“They groomed members to engage in sexual acts with investors, clients, employees.”
But grooming isn’t forcing. These are adults in sexual education courses.
The government doesn’t allege money was exchanged, or anyone had said no, but were forced, or complained at the time, or that there was anything beyond a suggestion.
Adults have sex. Sometimes they regret it. That isn’t forced labor. There is no charge of rape, sex trafficking, prostitution, sexual exploitation, or any sex crime.
These were adults in sexual wellness courses.
If OneTaste was a criminal enterprise, that it had forced people into labor, into sex, into a life they could not leave—then where are the charges for human trafficking? Where were the RICO counts? Where are the charges for fraud, coercion, extortion, false imprisonment, money laundering, blackmail, sexual harassment, stalking, identity theft, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, or perjury?
There weren’t any.
Instead, there was one count. Conspiracy to commit forced labor. Not forced labor, only conspiracy to commit it.
Conspiracy Is Baloney – Without the Actual Crime
For conspiracy, the government doesn’t need evidence of an actual crime. They don’t need to show that two people agreed to break the law. They don’t need a signed contract, an email, a recorded conversation.
A conspiracy can be inferred from circumstance. From motive. From the way someone looked at someone in a meeting. From a phone call.
No specific act. No victim. It was a broad, open-ended accusation stretched across twelve years.
The government uses words like coercion and manipulation, but cannot say who, how or why they had not left of their own accord.
The case is simple: these women ran an organization, and the government decided what happened was criminal. It is a conspiracy, because the government says so.
But conspiracies are amorphous things. That’s what makes them useful. If a prosecutor can’t prove an actual crime, he can charge a conspiracy.
Judge Learned Hand once called it “that darling of the prosecutor’s nursery.”
In theory, the law requires an overt act—something tangible—to show that a conspiracy was carried out. But the courts have stripped that down to meaninglessness.
Insignificant and noncriminal acts, such as attendance at a meeting or making a telephone call, have been held to satisfy the overt act requirement.
The government indicted Daedone and Cherwitz not for a specific crime, but for creating a culture. For making people believe. For being leaders of something that others had chosen to follow.
They had recruited people, the indictment said. But is recruitment a crime? They had asked for commitment, fostered an ideology, and expected loyalty. Is that a criminal enterprise?
The case relies on inference. It relies on the weight of language. It accuses in sweeping terms, layering suggestion on top of suggestion until the allegations “feel” criminal.
It is only when the words are stripped down that the truth emerges.
“OneTaste promoted itself as a sexuality-focused wellness education company.”
It was a business. It sold classes. People paid to attend. They had encouraged sexual exploration.
The government charged conspiracy to commit forced labor, because conspiracy is an open-ended crime with an open-ended standard. As long as a jury “feels” it happened, that is enough.
Maybe at least one juror will see it.
See through the dirty sex, the innuendo, the moralizing dressed up as law. See that it was not about protecting victims, but punishing the unconventional. See that OneTaste was targeted not for what it did, but because of what it was.
This will be a trial worth watching.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] There are no victims and no underlying crime. […]
The charge of conspiracy in isolation and the lack of standards required to prove this “crime” is a loophole in the legal system that needs to be eliminated.