Frank Parlato
ANONYMITY IN THE TIME OF SWORN LIES
The government wanted to let witnesses lie under fake names. Not just lie, of course. Testify. Swear under oath, anonymously.
The judge said no.
The setting is Brooklyn. The judge is Diane Gujarati. The case is U.S. v. Cherwitz et al., a tale about sex, consent, and the terrifying freedom of adulthood.
PAPER MASKS FOR THE ENLIGHTENED
The government filed a motion asking the Court to allow its witnesses to testify anonymously.
No names. No jobs. No addresses. The judge said no. The government asked again. The judge said no again. “The Court denies without prejudice the requests for reconsideration.”
HELLO, MY NAME IS WITNESS
Was the judge right? Why did they want anonymity?
It is not because the witnesses are spies. Not because they’re undercover agents. Not because they’re in witness protection or smuggling plutonium for the CIA.
The government says they need anonymity because their testimony will be “extraordinarily sensitive.” And witnesses are “extremely nervous.”
The government is not saying the witnesses are in physical danger. They are not alleging witness tampering. They are not invoking RICO, ISIS, or MS-13.
They are saying a group of grown adults—who once fluffed, stroked, paid, blogged, and taught about clitoris stroking—are now too fragile to speak their names in Court. Of course, it’s hard to talk about voluntary orgasms when you’re trying to convict people of crimes.
THE GUILT OF BUYER’S REMORSE
The prosecution’s pitch was these are “Victim-Witnesses” expected to recount the horrors of sex they agreed to. They will speak of money they paid, workshops they joined, group houses they lived in, and orgasms they regret.
They were not minors. They were not threatened or in hiding. They were not escaping cartel retribution.
They were just white. And wealthy. They were people who took classes. Did the practices. Went to parties. Some of them BDSM parties. Witnesses who have appeared on podcasts, blogs, in lawsuits, and sometimes in Instagram reels.
They stayed for years voluntarily, left voluntarily, left, perhaps because they met someone who wasn’t into group stroking. They shared beds, mantras, lovers. They learned that women could “get off on any stroke.”
Middle-aged, educated, professional, white “victims” with websites, reputations and career coaches. People who helped grow OneTaste, marketed it, recruited, gave talks, and went on a podcast. They said it changed their life. It opened a part of their body that had been closed. They ran events, gave training, blogged about sex, desire, and stroking.
FROM ASCENSION TO REDACTION
And now—as the trial of OneTaste is about to start in a federal courtroom in Brooklyn in May—they are worried their kids might find out or a future employer might read their name and won’t appreciate their devotion to clitoral awareness. The government argues that any public exposure would cause “undue embarrassment.”
Not regular embarrassment. “Undue.”
So they asked to let them testify not as people with résumés, contradictions, or Facebook pages. But anonymously, with nicknames or first names only—as “Jane,” “Jamie,” “J.”
TESTIFYING BY EMOJI
Then what’s next? To let them testify with screennames: “Jane from Yoga,” “Person B” or “Wounded Flame” or maybe just an emoji. 👁️🗨️
A trial where everyone wears a paper bag over their head?
The whole point is to shield them not from danger—but from you. The public. The press. The nosy neighbor.
Because they no longer want to be associated with the exact things they voluntarily did for years.
The government says let their names be hidden because the truth, if fully disclosed, might be bad for business.
This is not witness protection. This is reputation protection.
SHIELDING THE PAST WITH FUTURE INCOME
They will say they were groomed. They were mind controlled. Their trauma was monetized and weaponized.
But they don’t want anyone to know they used to teach. They didn’t consent to being remembered.
Some of them say: “If I testify with my real name, I’ll lose my career.” But courtrooms don’t work that way.
You want to accuse someone—with prison on the line—without your name. You can’t erase your name just because you’ve changed jobs. You can’t demand justice while staying anonymous unless the danger is real and present—not just professionally awkward.
Not because clients might Google and learn you once got stroked in front of an audience.
LAWYERS WHO FEAR EMBARRASSMENT MORE THAN TYRANNY
The legal logic behind the government’s failed request is: If embarrassment is possible… If a LinkedIn profile might take a hit… If someone might not get a future job selling transformational vulnerability workshops—then anonymity.
THE BRUISED FEELINGS ACT OF 2025
Because you can’t claim to be a life coach when the internet says you once charged for OM.
But names pin people to history and to consequences. It’s easier to say you were brainwashed when no one can say, “Didn’t you write a blog post about how enlightened you were?” It’s easier to cry coercion when the internet can’t find your five-star Yelp review for group stroking in San Francisco.
When you testify as “Just a First Name,” you aren’t cross-examined by your peers. You’re protected from public scrutiny.
Sometimes, the fear of being publicly known is the fear of being publicly disproven.
That’s why the public trial exists.
Not to shame people or ruin lives. But to keep the courtroom honest. To make sure that if you’re going to destroy someone’s future, you show up with your own name.
Thankfully, Judge Gujarati ruled that they must use their names. And they will.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
The prosecution should use this and the journal as their out. “Not our fault. We’re going to eject and drop charges.”
Biba, baba, boob, my name is NutJob.
Hope all is well!
No way I want my bake kniwn. My parents might find it. How embarrssing. Yet I regret the sex I had.
They told me jr wkuke be good. It want.
If I had not had sex my life would be different. My life woukd be better
“You ever notice how we’ve all become these low-grade Peeping Toms? Not hiding in the bushes exactly, but glued to the endless parade of other people’s lives. Used to be, what your neighbor did behind closed doors was their damn business. Now?
Bam! It’s splashed across every screen, every minute of the day. We’re voluntarily mainlining the mundane, folks. Trading our own messy realities for the curated highlight reels of strangers. And we call it ‘connecting.’ Funny how ‘connecting’ can feel an awful lot like just… staring.”
Likely the witnesses thought Rachel and Nicole would have caved to a plea long ago and they’d never have to testify in open court.
Their wealthy white privilege can’t protect them now. They’ll be dropping like flies- not a chance these witnesses will want to be associated with the sexual escapades they once indulged in.