Frank Parlato
Becky Uma Halpern was a grown woman, not a prisoner of war. The jury heard her talk about how she met her husband and found meaning in life because of the people on trial. She took every OneTaste course because it helped her. She loved the community, the practice.
Becky Uma Halpern said she was happy. Happy in the way people rarely are when they speak under oath.
She testified, “I was so happy. Like, I loved it there. I loved my friends. I loved — I loved Rachel. I loved Nicole. And so the happiness was real. And all those videos, like, that’s what’s making me emotional looking at it. It was nice. Like, I had a great time.”
Imagine a courtroom where love and abuse are recited in the same breath, where happiness is remembered—and prosecuted.
The government insists she is a victim. But Becky Uma Halpern was not caged. She did not scream, “let me out.“ She was an adult.
Love Was a Symptom of Brainwashing
In the redirect examination, government witness Rebecca Uma Halpern appeared visibly shaken as she recounted her experience with OneTaste.
She sat there, crying, and when it came time to explain how she could be happy in a place she now said hurt her, she said she was brainwashed.
She testified: “So the happiness is part of the brainwashing. Right? Like, it’s — that’s — because people don’t stay in places where they’re not happy.”
She was smiling, thriving, orgasming her way through life—but now, years later, it was trauma in disguise. To love and to be destroyed—simultaneously.
She loved them. She hated them. She said they were good to her. She said they broke her. There are moments when language fails.
When a witness, overwhelmed by the need to justify her contradiction, reaches for a word that says everything and nothing.
“Brainwashed,“ she said.
Defense Presses Halpern: “Do You Even Know What Brainwashing Means?”
Defense counsel Celia Cohen pointed out that in Halpren’s 11 interviews with the government between 2018 and 2024, she never said she was brainwashed.
Somewhere in the last five or six months, she picked up this word to explain how she could be happy and still have everything be OneTaste’s fault.
During defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean’s recross, she asked Halpern for a definition of brainwashed.
Q Can you provide me with an accepted definition for the word “brainwashing”?
A I can provide you with my own definition.
Q I’m not interested in your own. I’m interested in an accepted definition of the word brainwashing.“ Do you have one to provide?
A I’m not claiming to be an expert.
Q Okay. So this is just you using it …to make a point, right?
A I’m saying that’s my understanding and that’s my experience.
Q Right. But again, just based on your own definition that none of us know what that is, right?
A I think it’s a common word that people understand.
Q Is it? … – then …What is the definition of brainwashing?
A And I’ll say again: I’m not claiming to be an expert.
Q So you don’t have a definition for the word “brainwashing,“ right?
A Do you want my definition?
Q I want to know if you have an accepted, widely-accepted definition for the word brainwashing“ to provide us.
A We’re just repeating the same.
Q So that’s a no?
A No to what question?
Q Whether you can provide us with an accepted definition of the word “brainwashing,“ meaning accepted amongst the public and all of us here in this room, other than your personal definition.
A No. What I can provide is my own personal definition, yes.
Witness Says No Regrets, Then Cries
During final recross-examination, Halpern told the jury she did not regret an orgasm-based meditation practice she did for three and a half years. She said she practiced OM hundreds of times, enjoyed most of them, and doesn’t regret her experience.
She loved the defendants. She said it again and again. Then she said she was brainwashed. And ended by saying she had no regrets. She cried as she left.
The jurors, like everyone else, were left wondering who she was crying for. They didn’t know which part of her to believe.
The woman who smiled and remembered, or the one who wept and said she was brainwashed, based on whatever that means, a woman declaring both agency and erasure. A happy participant, then a wimpering pawn.
She had become everything OneTaste had taught her not to be.
The OneTaste Trial #2: Prosecution’s Secret Weapon: Presiding Judge Diane Gujarati
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I wonder if Scott ever tried to interview
NutJob……
I believe this to be worthy of consideration.
Of course he asked me to be on his show. I think he even asked Flowers. That’s why he hated me and everyone else who declined his generous offer.
Lmao!!!
Had no idea!
Thx for responding!
NutJob & Frank,
Cleaning out my old notes, junk box thing, and came upon this, circa 2019:
My(Scott Johnson’s) latest important podcast!!!!!
RE New Tools Scam:
On this show I explain the intricacies of how tic-tac-toe is secretly a Jewish tools scam – to sell pencils and paper, including Tic-tac-toe strategy books to the unsuspecting public.
I’m not a tool scammer, I’m just a tool. That’s all for now!
***
Ahhh the good old days, lov’in nostalgia!
Not really.
Important Fox News Story:
Democrats are handing out condoms to Mexicans…
So when they rape white women, they won’t have to pay child support…..
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-08-20/dnc-democrats-gop-abortion-rights
There’s a serious cult quality to this group whether Ariel wrote the journals or not. They targeted a vulnerable population and provided them with a place they “belonged”- exactly what they yearned for. But when the demands of belonging to the group evolved, they would risk a return to isolation if they didn’t comply. Attention would be paid to those who gave the responses wanted by Nicole. The push to pay for courses and participate in courses regardless of finances was what was most important and failure to participate would leave you on the outs. This wasn’t simply energy and higher consciousness gained from clitoral stroking – as they’d like you to believe. This was extreme sexual practices that many never “signed up for” – yes they’re adults but they were vulnerable adults- many with known sexual trauma – and Nicole exploited this population with reckless disregard for their emotional safety and well being. She promoted an altered set of values and beliefs and rewarded those who participated the most- creating the need to comply or risk loss of love and acceptance tied to whatever fettish or practice Nicole led.
I started a blog to slander my former friends after I got my feelings hurt. I spent thirty years promoting the lifestyle before I one day woke up and decided I had to blame someone for my life. Now we have this path of endless slander and denigration.
Becky’s a diamond. Sad to believe she’d want them to go to prison.
The witness yesterday claimed “brainwashing” to explain her happiness too. This seems to be the strategy of this young prosecution team? Lord help us what legal precedents would be set if this goes all the way through.
I was hoping the defendants would be winning this case easily.
But based on Frank’s reporting (and his tone), it sounds like the government’s witnesses aren’t performing nearly as badly as I had anticipated.
In fact, that whole line of questioning about the definition of ‘brainwashing’ (during cross examination) kinda sounds like repetitive badgering of the witness —- while basically ‘splitting hairs’ about how to define that word.
The answer provided by the witness was reasonable and composed, IMO. The defense didn’t score any major points there.
To be honest, I thought the defense attorney’s question was both petty & silly (lacked any real substance).
The witness offered to define ‘brainwashing’ as she understands the word (which is how most people would offer to define a word) —- yet the defense attorney insisted on a dictionary-like definition of the term, LOL, which made it sound like the attorney had nothing better to impeach this witness with.
That whole episode made me think that the attorney was afraid to let the witness answer in her own words —- and was instead trying to berate her for not being a walking dictionary, LOL.
Make no mistake, that witness did much better than anticipated. She was totally composed. I was not impressed by the lawyering there.
Frank’s reporting is kinda shallow though. I wish he could frame the trial in a way more favorable for the defendants.
As an aside… Frank, please eliminate all bread from your diet. Carbs are gonna make you fat as a house. Stop stuffing your face with carbs you asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
Have a good day. 🙂
I had the exact same thoughts about the brainwashing. In all seriousness, I’d rather have had Aristotle’s Sausage asking the witness questions.
The defense attorney came off as annoying AND dropped the ball on what should have been an easy W. If they already fucked up the layup, how much confidence should we have in the defense attorneys?
I concur!
Is nutjobjob flirting with Bankock?
Wow the witness seems as confused as the judge in this case
ATTENTION!!!
RE Juror Question:
I think the jury members need to ask themselves “at what point is someone responsible for themselves….?”
1. No one was harmed physically.
2. No one was threatened.
3. No one was blackmailed.
At what point is someone ‘responsible’ for their choices?