Frank Parlato
Jennifer Bonjean represented Nicole Daedone. She was cross-examining Ken Blackman—the OneTaste trial.
Blackman grew up in Berkley, graduated from junior college, and worked for Apple for a time. Now, he was in Brooklyn, a witness for the prosecution.
He had been an instructor at OneTaste and lived in the community. He left 13 years ago.
Defense: And you were a nerdy guy?
Witness: Sure.
Defense: You had a hard time relating to women… in your early twenties, right?
Witness: Yes, I did.
Forced Jealous Conspiracy
He had handed thousands of text messages to the prosecution.
The government introduced the texts as evidence of a forced labor conspiracy perpetrated by the defendants Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz.
If this was a story of coercion, the thousands of texts showed that OneTaste was a culture where communication was encouraged. Everyone used their phones like everyone does now.
The Blackman texts reveal they called each other. They text messaged. And somewhere in all that talking, the prosecutors decided it meant chains.
Bonjean probed some of the witness’s texts, previously introduced by the government.
Defense:… in the first part of these messages, you’re complaining about Yia, right?
Witness: I wasn’t complaining. I was lamenting.
Defense: You were upset that she was exploring sexuality at OneTaste?
Witness: I was. I was feeling the jealousy that she intended that I feel.
Jealousy. Not coercion. In this courtroom, heartbreak stood trial.
Defense: So it’s your belief that she wanted you to feel jealous?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Maybe she just didn’t want to be with you. Don’t you think that’s a possibility?
Prosecution: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
Witness: No.
Defense: So, you’re absolutely confident that Yia was not with Rob because she wanted to be, but just to make you jealous, is that your testimony?
Witness: I didn’t say she didn’t want to be with him...
As this went on, the jury may have felt they were not in a courtroom but in high school.
They had called him to testify about forced labor conspiracy. He was testifying about heartbreak.
Forced Vacation Conspiracy
The testimony drifted to his employment, and the witness, allegedly under coercive control, took personal days off from work.
Defense: Rachel Cherwitz asked you about whether you have the day off on Thursday, and you said: No, but I’m taking tomorrow and Friday off this week…
Witness: Yes.
Defense: First of all, you… could have had a day off on Thursday, right?
Witness: I don’t know why I wasn’t taking Thursday off.
Defense: All right. But you were taking two days off.
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Okay. You just told Ms. Cherwitz that you were taking those days off, right?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Okay. You could take days off, correct?
Witness: Sure.
No threats. No punishments. He could’ve taken Thursday off.
No coercion. The government was calling it forced labor. But he had personal days – and he chose them.
Forced Class Size Conspiracy
Then there were the texts about classroom sizes with Cherwitz – the woman accused of forced labor conspiracy. Blackman wanted to limit his class size and got into a text war with Cherwitz.
He didn’t want too many students. That was the fight. Not about sex, not about power. About class size.
He wanted to teach fourteen students. Cherwitz wanted twenty. They fought. Not with fists or poison. With messages and stubbornness. It wasn’t elegant. It wasn’t inspired. It wasn’t sinister.
Forced Handjob Conspiracy
The prosecution had elicited testimony from Blackman and read from his texts about how some women gave handjobs to Daedone’s boyfriend, Reese Jones.
In OneTaste, handjobs were also called male OMs.
While the prosecution showed the texts to reveal the shocking horror of adult women consenting to giving handjobs to Daedone’s boyfriend -the texts revealed something else. Blackman himself sought handjobs.
Rather than a hierarchy enforcing orders, Blackman’s messages revealed a peer-to-peer dynamic marked by consent, rejection, and casual dialogue. He asked women if they might stroke him.
Sometimes, they declined. Sometimes they said yes. No one was forced.
Male OM – a handjob – wasn’t some secret underground scheme. It was discussed. Requested. Voluntary.
Defense: Now, you were also a big proponent of male OM, right?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: And OneTaste had discontinued male OMing as a course, right?
Witness: That’s right.
Defense: And you didn’t like that, did you?
…
Witness: There were lots of guys there who were like, ‘oh, why can’t I get stroked?’ and I was the one who would explain to them this (OMing) is a clitoral stroking practice.
Defense: Kind of a different practice, right?
Witness: Yeah.
…
Defense: But you wanted to make it more on par with the clitoral stroking?
Witness: Correct….
Defense: These were men requesting it?
Witness: Men and women. Women would come to me and say, “I really want to stroke my partner,” and I would talk to them about the fact that we were putting a course together where they could learn how to do that.
Defense: Okay. And, so, you talked about the fact that Mr. Jones had handlers that stroked him –– or a handjob…?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: But you routinely, yourself, asked members of the community to stroke you; isn’t that right?
Witness: No. That’s not correct.
Defense: You sure about that?
Witness: Yes.
Defense:… Mr. Blackman, isn’t it true that you asked Justine Dawson to stroke you…. on November 27, 2009?
Witness: I don’t recall that, but I don’t doubt that it happened.
…
Defense: She agreed, right?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: … May 17, 2010, did you text Ms. Vang and say would you stroke me?
Witness: I don’t recall it.
Defense: You don’t doubt it, though, right?
Witness: If you have a text, I can see it.
Defense: Sure.
He looked at the text. Sure enough, he asked the woman who made him jealous to give him a handjob, a Male OM. But he did not stop with the woman who made him jealous.
Defense: On July 3, 2010, you asked Rachel Cherwitz to stroke you or a male OM, right? I can show you.
Witness: Yeah, I would like to see it.
Defense: This is Defendant’s Exhibit 24-AN.
Witness: Yes, I see it.
Defense: There were times when you asked Maya Gilbert to stroke you. Do you remember that?
Witness: I don’t, but I’d like to see the text.
Defense: What about Kelly Notaras?
Witness: Again, I don’t remember.
…
Defense: I’m going to have you look at Defendant’s Exhibit 24-AR.
Defense: Does that refresh your recollection? You asked Kelly Notaras to stroke you?
Witness: I again don’t remember it, but I see it in the text.
Defense: You said you don’t remember asking Maya Gilbert?
Witness: Correct.
Defense: I’m going to show you what’s marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 24-AQ?
Defense: Did you ask her to stroke you?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: She didn’t want to stroke you, right, or said she couldn’t, made up something?
Prosecution: Objection to the characterization.
The Court: Sustained.
Defense: How about Aubrey Fuller? Did you ask her to stroke you?
Witness: I don’t recall.
…
Defense: Want something to refresh your recollection?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Defendant’s Exhibit 24-AS.
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Do you remember texting Ms. Daedone in March of 2011 advocating lifting the ban on male OMs?
Witness: I don’t remember the conversation, but —
Defense: Okay, and that was the same day you asked Kelly Notaras to stroke you again. Do you remember that?
Witness: Okay.
Defense: Do you remember, or would you like to —
Witness: I’d like to see it.
Defense: Defendant’s Exhibit 24-AT.
Does this refresh your recollection about whether or not, in March of 2011, you asked Kelly Notaras whether she would be willing to stroke you? You can look at the screen if it helps.
Witness: I’m a slow reader.
Defense: It’s only about six words.
Witness: I’m looking at the next text that’s also —
Defense: My question right now, and I’ll give you an opportunity to look if necessary, did you ask Kelly Notaras if she would be willing to stroke you?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: And also, that same day, I would like you to look at the text from Ms. Daedone.
Witness: Yes, I’m looking at it.
…
Defense: Mr. Blackman, do you remember asking Kelly Notaras again on May 26, 2011, to stroke you?
Witness: Yes.
Defense:… What about Aubrey Fuller, again in June of 2011? …
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Okay. What about in October of 2011, Rachael Hemsi?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: In October of 2010, you asked Rachel Cherwitz to be a stroker for a male OM demo you wanted to do; is that right?
Witness: Yes, for a course.
Defense: Okay. Was that in April of 11 you asked Justine Dawson to stroke you again?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: You asked her again in October of 2011.
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Rachel Cherwitz, again in April of 2011?
Witness: Yes.
Defense: Justine Dawson again in November of 2011, right?
Witness: Yes.
He asked. He didn’t command, didn’t force, didn’t threaten. He asked.
That’s how the world works when people are free.
Blackman asked for what he wanted. Sometimes he got it, often he didn’t. There’s no coercion in asking. No labor in decline. No crime in a community of shared exploration.
Isn’t that what freedom means?
What’s criminal is twisting consent into a conspiracy – what the government is doing.
In this courtroom, consent becomes confession. A request becomes a command.
The principle of mutual agreement is inverted until desire is treated as a threat.
Forced Wife Clitoral Conspiracy
After he left OneTaste, Blackman took the skills he had learned and went into business on his own,
Defense:…You are currently still in the business of teaching clitoris-based activities or sex, right?
Witness: Rarely does it come up in my coaching, but if it’s something I think a couple can use, then I will teach it.
Defense: And is that something you do with your wife?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecution: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. What’s the something?
Defense: Clitoral-based teaching.
Witness: I stroke my wife’s clitoris.
Defense: I should hope so.
Forced Prosecutorial Gutter-dwelling Conspiracy
Have we reached the bottom of the sewer yet? Hell no—we dug right through it and popped out in North Korea. Maybe. Or maybe the sewer was the courtroom i in the hearts of the projecting prosecutors all along.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
It’s really interesting to remember precisely when both Ken and Rob came around. All of the experiences we had together and now having the experience of watching them take their place in putting their former friends in prison. I wonder how that feels. But not too much really. I’m sure they have an elaborate justification for how they still teach the information they learned from them and why there is no conflict. Perhaps they can mention that on their personal instructional websites.
With many of the prosecution witnesses, That which you are unwilling to confront is destined to repeat itself.
Damn. Sunk cost or more likely Ego fallacy the only thing sustaining the govt’s overreach at this point. Punish and make them pay for OT’s costs and damages !
It should say
‘I Stroked A killers ex Wife’s Clitoris’ for years I tell know lie. Ate at why daily and serviced 3 times daily. After showers a clean out
What seems to be happening is that a story made up in the mind of a “victim” is becoming the responsibility of the person that said something. This happens all the time in relationships since that’s basically all jealousy is, a made up story in the victims head. But we don’t call it coercion. We say that person got triggered.
If anyone wanted to “coercively control” a woman into OMing them, sending a text request which allows for time, distance, excuses and avoidance wouldn’t be suggestive of controlling behavior.
I believe Ken accepted no/rejection for an answer – no threat, no punishment for declining his request.
This whole case is an embarrassment to our judicial process and a complete waste of taxpayer money.
The govt needs to be prevented from inducting innocent people without substantial evidence.
Because once the make sn indictment- no matter how weak- they will not ever admit error —. The outcome are cases just like this that go on throughout our country with no oversight. Serving to fill our prisons with innocent people and fill the wallets of prosecutors and judges.
Rough day for the prosecutors who watched their case “come” undone, one request for an OM aka handjob at a time—- where women CHOSE to jerk Ken off or more wisely decline.