Brooklyn Show of Force: DOJ Turns Protective Order Hearing into a Threat Display

By Juda Englemeyer

What happened in a Brooklyn federal courtroom this week should disturb anyone who cares about constitutional rights, fair trials, or the basic idea that government power must be subject to scrutiny.

On April 29, in the criminal case USA v. Cherwitz & Daedone, the Justice Department sent 20 prosecutors — yes, twenty — to a hearing that was supposed to be about whether defense counsel had violated a protective order. These prosecutors didn’t come to argue; they came to send a message. A message not just to the attorneys for the defense, but to anyone watching: if you challenge the government, it will respond with force.

This case centers on OneTaste, a wellness company whose unorthodox practices made it a media target long before federal prosecutors indicted its executives. A Netflix docuseries, Orgasm Inc., portrayed the company as a cult-like enterprise, and it is now clear that federal investigators relied on that media portrayal to build their case. But as the defense has uncovered, some of the key claims featured in that documentary — and cited in the indictment — have been admitted by the government to be false.

OneTaste’s civil attorney, Ezra Landes, did what any responsible lawyer should do when he suspects misconduct. He sent a private letter to a supervising prosecutor at EDNY, raising serious concerns about fabricated evidence, alleged misconduct by the case agent, FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis, and perjury by government witness Ayries Blanck.

What did the government do in response? Investigate the claims? Correct the record? No. It accused the defense of witness intimidation and demanded that Judge Diane Gujarati gag defense counsel from speaking to the press. The alleged intimidation? The letter itself — which was never sent to any witness or the media, but privately shared with the Department of Justice.

This is not about protecting witnesses. It’s about punishing lawyers who call out misconduct.

Even more disturbing was what happened inside the courtroom. In an apparent effort to dramatize the situation and make an example of the defense, the DOJ lined the courtroom with prosecutors and junior AUSAs — supporters of the junior prosecutor who might have testified at the hearing. Their presence wasn’t about justice. It was about sending a signal: we are the institution, and we are not to be questioned.

That threat didn’t go unnoticed. At one point, Judge Gujarati asked defense counsel, “Who are you trying to influence with these press conferences?” and suggested that lawyers shouldn’t even offer opinions about the case to the public. No gag order was issued, but the chilling effect was unmistakable.

Then the judge turned to two OneTaste attorneys sitting in the gallery — both subject to the protective order — and demanded that they stand and answer whether they had shared materials with Landes. Both refused to answer without counsel, invoking their rights. To her credit, Judge Gujarati ultimately respected their position, but the moment felt like something out of an authoritarian proceeding, not an American courtroom.

Let’s be clear: the protective order exists to safeguard fair trial procedures, not to shield the government from accountability. And certainly not to criminalize whistleblowing about potential misconduct by federal agents and prosecutors.

The defense is reportedly considering calling Agent McGinnis to testify. That’s not intimidation — it’s due process. The idea that criticizing or legally challenging a government actor amounts to intimidation is both Orwellian and legally unsound.

This case is becoming a test of the very principles our legal system is supposed to uphold: the right to a fair trial, the right to speak, and the right to challenge government wrongdoing. The DOJ’s effort to gag defense counsel, its misuse of the protective order, and its retaliatory posturing should alarm every defense attorney — and every citizen.

The real question now is whether the courts will allow federal prosecutors to wield procedural tools as weapons and fill courtrooms as intimidation tactics. Or whether we will reaffirm that the Constitution doesn’t bend simply because a prosecutor feels uncomfortable when their conduct is questioned.

If the answer is the former, then the OneTaste case may become more than just a high-profile trial. It may become a cautionary tale for anyone who dares to hold power accountable.

Juda Engelmayer

Juda Engelmayer

See Full Bio