Frank Parlato
The jury returned with a verdict on the OneTaste case—Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz.
Verdict: Guilty.
The charge was conspiracy to commit forced labor—maximum penalty of 20 years.
The government claimed the two women conspired to force employees and students of their sexual wellness company to labor amid the threat of serious harm. The government alleged that the harm was not physical but shame, embarrassment, fear of spiritual regression and loss of friends in the OneTaste community.
The US DOJ prosecuted the case in Brooklyn—though almost all the alleged events occurred in San Francisco. Victims—all female, about nine in total—claimed Daedone “brainwashed” them.
Several said they loved doing what they were doing at OneTaste but realized later that they were under the spell of the women. Several “victimns” referred to Daedone and Cherwitz as potentially practicing witches.
No Violence, No Locked Doors—Just Regret and Prosecution
While the government alleged that Daedone, the founder of OneTaste, and her chief of sales, Cherwitz, coerced and “groomed” consenting adults into performing labor and sexual acts, the defense argued that those adults freely chose to participate at the time. Notably, there were no underlying criminal charges of assault, trafficking, or actual forced labor.
Only a theory that a group of women were slowly manipulated over years—through what the DOJ now calls “emotional” or “psychological” coercion.
The charges relied heavily on the abstract, “surveillance,” “indoctrination,” and “intimidation.” No force. No locked doors. Just adult women who later decided they regretted their choices—and a government seemingly eager to punish unorthodox sexual communities that don’t conform to corporate, therapeutic, or political norms.
Judge Diana Gujarati did not immediately remand Daedone and Cherwitz. The jury had been out for two days.
The government is not seeking the defendants remand before sentencing. The judge set sentencing for September.
Sentencing Uncertain; Legal Fallout Begins
Though forced labor conspiracy carries an up to 20-year penalty, with both defendants being first-time offenders, it will likely be significantly less. The prosecution will submit a calculation of sentencing guidelines for the judge’s approval.
Without violence, guidelines may fall in the 2-5 year range. The possibility of a downward departure exists. Probation is an option for the judge.
In addition, an appeal is likely, and in later posts, we will examine some of the issues that might spark a reversal of the conviction.
On top of that, President Trump has instituted new policies to reverse unfair DOJ convictions. The OneTaste prosecution has gotten much attention from leading Trump supporters for its precedent-setting possibilities.
Law by Mood, Not Statute? The Broader Implications
The government alleged that two women leading a wellness company focused on sexuality, somehow coerced others into performing “labor” through non-physical means like shame and emotion—whatever that now legally means.
The precedent is that if the government now believes that emotional influence and consensual sex, revisited years later through regret, can constitute “forced labor” it broadens the government’sd power to prosecute other non conventional groups.
Among the serious harm alleged by victims is that they felt that if they did not do what Daedone instructed, they would reap spiritual consequences – something not different from what religions say to get compliance to their teachings.
Based on this case’s serious potential of government deciding instead of adults what is mental coercion, a commutation of a sentence or an outright pardon is possible.
In the meantime, the two defendants stand convicted of forced labor conspiracy. The defendants are due in court tomorrow to discuss continued bail while awaiting sentencing.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] Former federal prosecutrix, Judge Diane Gujarati presided—and delivered every ruling the government wanted. […]
Frank, your inability to see the parallels between how this case and the NXIVM case were mis-prosecuted astounds me. How can you so clearly see it here, but not in the Raniere trial?
Seems like every job has pressure to meet deadlines, etc. Forced labor. Wow. This is insane.
Orgasmic meditation, LOL! People spent money on this sheet? No wonder they’re pisst.
Late night pow-wow for judge and prosecutors.
The verdict was read yesterday. The prosecutors said they were not pushing for Nicole and Rachel to be remanded. The judge could have cuffed them following the verdict but opted not to.
After a midnight chat, the prosectors returned with concerns not mentioned yesterday- essentially contradicting yesterdays position and the judge returned with venom in her veins.
Her pent up wrath and boiling bias exploded for all to witness – her rage was seen in her blatant punishment for those exercising rights under the first amendment. Freedom of association is also taboo with this judge who interpreted the loyalty and concern of friends and family who supported Rachel and Nicole into threats and co-conspirators whose presence may intimidate the witnesses!
Such outrage and blatant violation of or constitutional rights!!
The judges bias resulted in her limiting the number of people allowed in the gallery. Where were the rights of the people as seats remained vacant?
The term “serious harm” is purposefully open to subjective interpretation. In this case their loss of friends, community and belonging should they leave their “job” was the serious harm.
We are giving far too much power to the government. This sets a dangerous precedent and any one of us can be targeted for “thought crimes” and the interpretation of serious harm is subject to discretion.
In US federal law, “serious harm” is defined as any harm, whether physical, nonphysical (including psychological, financial, or reputational), that is sufficiently serious to compel a reasonable person to take or continue working to avoid that harm. This definition is primarily used in the context of forced labor laws, particularly in 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
18 U.S.C.§ 1589 – U. S. Code – Unannnoted Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1589. Forced labor
(a) Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means–
(1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person;
(2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person;
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or
(4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint,
shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).
(b) Whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of the means described in subsection (a), knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the venture has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of such means, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(c) In this section:
(1) The term “abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process” means the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action.
(2) The term “serious harm” means any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm.
(d) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from a violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnaping, an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
If I leave my job in the city I would lose the friends there, the community there, the salary. Am I thus threatened to remain with serious harm? Case is a joke. Judge is a joke. FBI and Prosecution is pure corruption.
https://www.courthousenews.com/sex-cult-lawyer-being-mean-is-not-a-crime/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-sexual-wellness-company-onetaste-and-former-head-sales-convicted-forced-labor
RE Guilty Verdict:
This case should have never gone to trial.
There is no blackmail nor threats physical violence. The “intimidation”
What are they truly guilty of, being mean?
Daedone and Cherwitz are morally bankrupt.
Being morally bankrupt does NOT make someone a criminal or GUILTY of a crime.
Receiving a 20 year sentence for not being nice is a miscarriage of justice!
Anyone who wasn’t sitting in one of the juror’s chairs for EVERY minute of ALL five weeks of the trial gets to STFU about the entire thing. The jury was privy to and considered 100x as much information and evidence as any outside observer of this case has seen (especially the special ones who damage their brains by reading and/or believing the crap that Parlatto spews here). And after barely one day, they concluded that the prosecutors proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant’s violated the law by breaking both parts of the statute under which they were charged.
You didn’t like the outcome. Boo-hoo. AND, no one is seeking the approbation of morons who not only weren’t at OneTaste at the time to witness the abuses and manipulations first-hand (which I was, btw), and aren’t even capable of understanding why facts, evidence and credible testimony carries so much more weight in court than the hodge-podge of feelings and opinions based on motivated reasoning that Nicole makes sure to spoon feed to her dwindling base of followers to keep them in line.
Anonymous-
I sincerely appreciate your candor.
Thank you!
Please provide me with link to the abuse and blackmail evidence.
This trial received no publicity or media exposure.
There are two types of people in prison: those we fear and those we are angry with.
I don’t fear Nicole Daedone or Rachel Cherwitz.
Do they deserve 20 years?
I would rather see individuals like Keith Raniere, Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Cosby imprisoned for 20 years, as those men, rapists, are actually a scary,
Rapists and murderers deserve 20 years!’
Not two women who are simply manipulative users.
.
Bail be increased? How long did jury deliberate in total
I don’t get it?
Your humor runs dry.