Biased Investigation

“In nearby Massachusetts Bay, the government disliked the practices of women who used rituals not entirely dissimilar to OM. The Salem witch trials began in 1692. After a splendid year-long 100 percent conviction rate and the execution of 20 witches, juries decided the court of Oyer and Terminer had gone a little too far. They nullified the witchcraft law with consecutive hung juries and acquittals.”

-Investigator Frank Parlato

 

What happens when an investigation begins with a presumption of guilt rather than a search for truth? It mutates into a self-fulfilling prophecy, hunting for—or manufacturing—facts to fit a preordained narrative. A healthy investigation seeks justice for real victims by following evidence wherever it leads. But an unhealthy investigation becomes an inquisition, driven by rumor, innuendo, and a politicized moral agenda. It finds a "crime" to fit the suspicion and punishes individuals or ideas deemed socially undesirable.

The federal investigation into OneTaste, Nicole Daedone, and Rachel Cherwitz is a stark example of the latter—a modern-day witch hunt fueled by media hysteria and societal discomfort with female sexuality. Like the inquisitors of old, today's government and media have weaponized a narrative about women, sex, and power to stoke fear, punish transgressors, and uphold patriarchal norms.

The government’s case against OneTaste is not about justice—it is about enforcing conformity. Unable to find victims or substantive crimes, prosecutors leaned heavily on media narratives, relying on rumor, salacious anecdotes, and alarmist accusations to shape public opinion.

This case, like the witch hunts of old, is not about the actions of individuals but the ideas they represent. The witch trials targeted women who defied social norms; the OneTaste investigation targets a female-led company dedicated to women’s empowerment and its two women leaders for doing the same.

A Biased Investigation: The Modern Witch Hunt Against Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz

 

The Absent "Victims" of OneTaste

The role of a criminal prosecution in the American legal system is to represent the state while pursuing justice for victims of crime. In an inquisition, however, the concept of a victim is secondary—often a mere formality—while the primary goal is to punish thoughts, behaviors, or ideologies that offend the state or its institutional values. This is what we see in the case against OneTaste.

From the start, the investigation was not built on evidence of tangible crimes or victims. Instead, it relied on media-driven narratives, sensationalized accusations, and a presupposition of guilt. Unable to find victims who credibly alleged harm, the government ultimately filed a single charge of “conspiracy to commit forced labor”—a crime with no named victims, no overt acts, and no substantive evidence. This charge hinges on abstract claims of "coercive control," rather than any physical acts of force or violence.

This approach reeks of the kind of moral policing found in the Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of The Witches”) the infamous 15th-century manual outlining procedures for ferreting out and punishing witches. The treatise advised inquisitors to act based on rumor and general clamor rather than concrete evidence. Similarly, in OneTaste’s case, the government appears to have started with a conclusion—that a crime had been committed—and then sought out or manufactured evidence to fit that narrative.

At the heart of the government's case is a striking absence of clear victims. Despite a years-long investigation and an extensive media campaign, authorities struggled to find credible individuals claiming harm. But rather than abandoning the case, the government doubled down, charging Daedone and Cherwitz with a single count of "conspiracy to commit forced labor"—essentially a "thought crime."

According to the government, this alleged conspiracy stretched over twelve years and involved unnamed co-conspirators and the company itself yet conspicuously lacked evidence of actual forced labor. The charges hinge on abstract notions of "coercive control" rather than tangible acts of violence, physical harm or restraint or abuse of legal process.

2018

The Probe Begins

The story of the government’s investigation into OneTaste did not begin with a victim stepping forward or an eyewitness account—hallmarks of legitimate investigations. Instead, it originated in the media. The first public mention of an FBI probe into the company came via Bloomberg on November 23, 2018, a mere five months after the same publication published salacious allegations of abuse at OneTaste. This sequence raises serious questions: Was the FBI responding to genuine evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or were they spurred into action by a media narrative designed to shock and sensationalize?

The Media’s Role as Catalyst

Bloomberg’s initial article planted the seed of suspicion, and its follow-up announcing the FBI probe added an air of official credibility. But beneath the veneer of investigative legitimacy lay a troubling reality: the government’s investigation appeared dormant for nearly five years. Apart from cursory discussions with OneTaste’s legal representatives and sporadic references in subsequent media stories, the supposed investigation seemed to lack momentum, substance, or direction.

The Bloomberg piece set the stage, but it was far from the end of the story. In November 2020, the BBC released a podcast series, dedicating its ninth episode to anonymous allegations against OneTaste and its associates. By May and November 2022, the narrative gained further traction with VICE Media’s televised episode and Netflix’s documentary-style film, both of which focused on OneTaste’s operations. Each outlet repeated the same salacious claims, often without independent verification, and prominently referenced the damning phrase: “OneTaste remains under investigation by the FBI.”

These publications fed into a feedback loop, where the investigation’s mere existence lent credibility to the media’s allegations, which in turn perpetuated the notion of guilt in the public eye. The lack of verifiable evidence and the reliance on anonymous sources highlight a troubling dynamic: a narrative shaped by media sensationalism rather than substantiated facts.

A Shadowy and Stagnant Investigation

Despite OneTaste’s repeated overtures to cooperate, the government’s approach remained opaque. In keeping with DOJ policy, OneTaste offered to provide all facts revealed during its internal investigation, yet the government declined. Instead, it adopted a strategy that seemed more inquisitorial than investigative, issuing a sweeping grand jury subpoena in February 2023 that sought to pierce the heart of OneTaste’s attorney-client and work-product privileges.

Repeated inquiries by OneTaste to the FBI about the status of the investigation were met with silence or vague responses. Faced with this vacuum of information and the looming shadow of unsubstantiated allegations, OneTaste took the initiative to uncover the truth. The company hired a professional outside auditing firm to conduct a thorough investigation of its finances and practices, yielding exculpatory findings that were promptly presented to the government.

OneTaste’s Proactive Internal Investigation

Faced with mounting public scrutiny and an opaque government investigation, OneTaste took the initiative to investigate the allegations itself. Shortly after the Bloomberg article, the company retained outside counsel to conduct a thorough review of the claims reported in the media. The investigation began in the summer of 2018 and continued over the following years as the company sought to address the allegations and cooperate with the government.

OneTaste’s legal team developed a comprehensive factual record by interviewing current and former employees, as well as individuals with relevant knowledge. In early 2022, as the company considered legal action against defamatory media reports, counsel began recording some of these interviews with the witnesses’ consent. Each interview followed strict protocols, including Upjohn warnings, assurances of privilege, and reminders for witnesses to answer truthfully.

Between January and December 2022, OneTaste’s counsel conducted 80 interviews with 63 individuals, revealing key defenses and rebuttals to the media’s claims. Witnesses included employees, contractors, and others implicated in the allegations. Importantly, these interviews were conducted under the oversight of joint counsel for all implicated parties, including Nicole Daedone and the Institute of OM, LLC.

  • The internal investigation uncovered significant evidence countering the media’s claims. Witnesses consistently refuted the narratives of coercion and abuse that had dominated headlines. Instead, their testimonies painted a picture of consensual practices, voluntary participation, and an organization committed to its mission of sexual wellness.

    For example:

    • Witnesses emphasized that any participation in OM or other activities was entirely voluntary.

    • Financial and operational records contradicted allegations of systemic exploitation.

    • Internal policies demonstrated a culture of mutual respect and accountability.

    OneTaste’s legal team proactively reached out to the government after the investigation was announced, offering to cooperate fully. However, the government remained silent for three years, issuing its first subpoena only in 2021. Even then, after OneTaste provided 17 gigabytes of documents at a cost of over $200,000, the government abruptly ceased communication for nearly a year. During this time, OneTaste’s operations were paralyzed by the looming specter of a public, unresolved investigation.

    Prepared to confront the media-fueled allegations head-on, OneTaste’s legal team presented a detailed PowerPoint to the government, addressing the most sensational claims. The presentation included excerpts from recorded interviews that demonstrated the falsehoods in the BBC podcast’s ninth episode, among other allegations. Witness testimony and documentary evidence were presented to debunk claims of coercion and abuse, underscoring the gaps between media reports and reality.

    Despite these findings, the government appeared uninterested in engaging with the results of OneTaste’s investigation. Requests for dialogue were met with silence, and the government instead issued sweeping subpoenas that sought to pierce attorney-client privilege and access the defense’s internal materials.

    Following OneTaste’s December 2022 presentation to the government, Onetaste’s defense counsel voluntarily provided full recordings of seven witness interviews excerpted in the presentation. This gesture was made with the explicit understanding that it represented a limited privilege waiver. In addition, defense counsel provided the names of all individuals interviewed during the internal investigation, demonstrating a good-faith effort to address the government’s inquiries transparently.

    However, the government quickly moved the goalposts. Days after receiving the excerpts, it requested complete recordings of all identified witnesses, not just those referenced in the presentation. This broad demand disregarded the fundamental protections of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, which safeguard legal strategy and internal deliberations from government intrusion.

  • On February 21, 2023, the government issued a sweeping subpoena demanding “any and all audio or video recordings” of counsel’s interviews with every identified witness. This demand struck at the heart of the privilege protections designed to ensure the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and to prevent the government from invading the defense camp.

    Defense counsel promptly responded, explaining in a detailed letter the legal basis for the company’s privilege claim and reiterating its willingness to provide relevant facts learned during the interviews. Despite this proactive communication, the government not only ignored the letter but also filed a Motion to Compel on March 13, 2023, without acknowledging OneTaste’s correspondence or its offers of cooperation.

    The government’s actions in this case raise profound questions about the balance between prosecutorial authority and defendants’ rights. By demanding complete access to privileged witness interviews, the government risks undermining the foundational principles of fairness and due process. The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine are not mere technicalities; they are essential safeguards that enable effective legal representation and protect against government overreach.

    Moreover, the government’s failure to respond to defense counsel’s letter or to acknowledge its efforts at cooperation reflects a troubling disregard for the collaborative spirit that should characterize such investigations. Instead, the government’s actions appear more aligned with a strategy of intimidation and coercion than with a pursuit of justice.

    The government’s refusal to engage meaningfully with the evidence raises an alarming question: Was this a genuine investigation, or a predetermined pursuit of a convenient target? By refusing to articulate specific allegations or provide clarity on the scope of its investigation, the government forced OneTaste to defend itself against a media narrative rather than concrete charges.

    OneTaste’s counsel aptly summarized the gravity of the situation: "The government’s effort to use a grand jury subpoena to circumvent these privileges offends due process, the foundational principles of fairness central to our adversarial system, and the law of this Circuit." Such an invasion of the defense camp is more than a procedural misstep; it undermines the integrity of the justice system itself.

Anatomy of an Inquisition:

The Troubling Origins of the Government's

Investigation into OneTaste

Rumor, Innuendo, and the Basis for Prosecution

The reliance on media reports and public speculation to build a case is perhaps the most glaring flaw in the government's approach. On multiple occasions, defendants have been directed to “look at the media” for an understanding of the charges against them—a clear indication that the government has allowed media narratives to dictate the direction of its investigation.

This method creates a Kafkaesque predicament for defendants, who are forced to disprove a narrative built on rumor, innuendo, and sensationalism rather than verifiable facts. The fabricated journals featured in the Netflix documentary are a prime example. Forensic analysis has revealed that these documents were created years after the alleged events they describe, with input from Netflix’s production team. Yet, they remain central to the government’s case, despite their clear lack of credibility.

Such reliance on false evidence and media hysteria is more reminiscent of a witch hunt than a fair prosecution. Like the inquisitors of the past, who extracted confessions under torture or fabricated testimony to fit their preordained conclusions, the government has prioritized a narrative of guilt over the pursuit of truth.

The Troubled Case of FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis:

Missteps, Allegations, and Implications for Justice

In 2018, FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis took charge of the investigation into OneTaste Inc., tasked with probing allegations of sex trafficking, forced labor, and money laundering. After five years of scrutiny, the result was unprecedented: a single count of forced labor conspiracy against OneTaste co-founder Nicole Daedone and former sales head Rachel Cherwitz—without any substantive forced labor charges. This marks a historic deviation from legal norms, raising questions about the investigation’s direction and the man leading it.

A Checkered Past: McGinnis’s History with the NYPD

Before joining the FBI in 2011, McGinnis served as an NYPD officer with the notorious 75th Precinct, which leads the city in public complaints of misconduct. His tenure ended in controversy. Following allegations of police brutality in a 2009 incident involving a Black man, McGinnis resigned, avoiding a Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) investigation. The alleged victim accused McGinnis and others of severe physical abuse, including being punched, choked, and placed in a body bag while in custody. McGinnis’s resignation shielded him from accountability, but the shadow of these allegations now looms over his FBI career.

Misconduct Allegations as Lead Investigator In OneTaste Investigation

As lead investigator in the OneTaste case, McGinnis faces a litany of allegations that, if true, undermine the integrity of the government’s prosecution:

  1. Tampering with Evidence: Allegedly swapped and hid digital devices containing “overlooked” or newly added files used in evidence.

  2. Witness Coercion: Accused of threatening a witness with arrest unless she agreed to be designated a victim.

  3. Fabricating Evidence: Allegedly conspired to create and backdate counterfeit documents for prosecution.

  4. Excessive Force: In 2023, reportedly used unnecessary violence during an arrest, pointing a gun at a 115-pound woman and bruising her wrists.

  5. Obstruction of Justice: Allegedly instructed a witness to hide evidence with him, which later surfaced under questionable circumstances.

A Pattern of Deception: A Deep Dive into Agent McGinnis’ Alleged Misconduct in Other High-Stakes Cases

The allegations surrounding FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis’s conduct in the NXIVM case underscore a troubling pattern of investigative practices that could erode public confidence in federal law enforcement. McGinnis, already under scrutiny for his leadership in the OneTaste investigation, has now been implicated in a series of serious violations during the NXIVM investigation, raising questions about his adherence to protocol and the broader culture within the FBI.

McGinnis’s role in the NXIVM investigation highlights a recurring issue: the alleged manipulation of evidence to fit a preordained narrative. In Raniere’s case, retired FBI agents and digital forensic experts have pointed to a series of violations, including tampering with evidence, staging crime scenes, and breaching chain-of-custody protocols. If these allegations hold, they reveal not just individual misconduct but a systemic failure to enforce accountability.

The parallels between McGinnis’s alleged actions in NXIVM and his work on OneTaste are striking. Both cases involve high-profile defendants accused of sensational crimes—cases that naturally attract media attention and public scrutiny. In both, McGinnis faces accusations of prioritizing a narrative of guilt over factual integrity.

A Rogue Agent or Systemic Failure?

The allegations against McGinnis paint a picture of an investigator willing to bend or break the rules to build a case. Yet, they also raise broader questions about oversight within the FBI and the Department of Justice. How could such actions persist without internal accountability? And why would a case with so many red flags proceed to indictment?

McGinnis’s role in the OneTaste investigation underscores the dangers of unchecked prosecutorial zeal. The lack of substantive charges after five years, coupled with the use of an untested legal theory, suggests a case driven more by narrative than evidence. If McGinnis’s actions were as improper as alleged, they cast doubt on the entire prosecution and highlight systemic vulnerabilities in how high-profile cases are pursued.

The potential ramifications of McGinnis’s alleged misconduct are profound. McGinnis’s history—from unresolved allegations of police brutality during his NYPD tenure to his controversial handling of federal cases—highlights the necessity for rigorous oversight of law enforcement officials.  The NXIVM case, if tainted by evidence fabrication and protocol violations, not only jeopardizes the conviction of Keith Raniere but also casts a shadow over other investigations led by McGinnis. The credibility of the FBI and its ability to conduct fair, impartial investigations is at stake.

For Congress and oversight bodies, these allegations demand immediate attention. If law enforcement can manipulate evidence to secure convictions in high-profile cases, what protections exist for ordinary citizens?

  • The most glaring issue in the NXIVM case revolves around digital evidence purportedly altered while in FBI custody. Forensic experts argue that an SD card, central to the prosecution’s case, was accessed without a write-blocker—an elementary violation of chain-of-custody standards. This lapse not only casts doubt on the evidence but also raises questions about the motivations behind the breach.

    Retired FBI special agent J. Richard Kiper, now a defense expert, described the failure to preserve the integrity of the evidence as unprecedented. If true, this violation is not a mere oversight—it is a breach that could undermine the legitimacy of the entire investigation.

  • Equally concerning are allegations that FBI agents, including McGinnis, choreographed crime scenes to bolster their case against Raniere. Expert testimony describes pre-filled evidence logs, staged photographs, and even the mysterious appearance of a key camera nearly a year after the initial search. These actions suggest a calculated effort to manipulate facts to fit a narrative, regardless of whether the evidence supported the allegations.

    The suggestion that a camera—the purported source of incriminating photographs—was planted or altered undermines the credibility of the FBI’s findings. If McGinnis and his team were involved in such acts, it could signal a disturbing willingness to prioritize convictions over justice.

  • The NXIVM allegations are not an isolated incident for McGinnis. His leadership in the OneTaste investigation has similarly been criticized for a lack of substantive evidence and a reliance on media narratives. The eventual indictment of OneTaste’s leaders on a single count of forced labor conspiracy, without substantive charges, mirrors the shaky foundation of the NXIVM case.

    McGinnis has been implicated in multiple instances of providing misleading or false information to courts and his superiors. In one case, he allegedly lied to the Justice Department about a privileged document’s possession and use. The document, central to the investigation, reappeared on an FBI digital workspace years after McGinnis denied seeing it. Such incidents suggest not isolated errors but a pattern of behavior that could erode trust in the investigation.

The Prosecution Team’s

Mishandling

of Privileged Documents

The prosecution of OneTaste’s Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz on a single count of forced labor conspiracy has been marred by allegations of FBI misconduct that now threaten to unravel the case entirely. Central to these allegations are FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis and the Prosecution Team, whose actions regarding stolen attorney-client privileged documents have raised serious questions about the integrity of the investigation and the broader justice system.

The prosecution of OneTaste executives Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz has been tainted by a cascade of legal and procedural violations, centering on the FBI and prosecutors’ mishandling of a stolen, attorney-client privileged document. This critical error, compounded by the government’s evolving and contradictory explanations, has raised serious questions about the integrity of the case.

A Tale of Theft and Mishandling

In 2018, the FBI began investigating OneTaste after a sensationalized Bloomberg article leveled unverified allegations against the company. For the next two years, the investigation remained largely dormant. However, in early 2021, the FBI obtained a stolen document marked “Attorney Client Privilege: Confidential and Privileged”—a moment that significantly altered the trajectory of the case.

The trouble began when Mitchel Aidelbaum, a former OneTaste IT contractor turned disgruntled hacker, confessed to FBI agents McGinnis and Colleen Sheehan in January 2021 that he had illegally accessed OneTaste’s cloud storage. Among the materials he stole was a document explicitly labeled “Attorney Client Privilege: Confidential and Privileged.” Rather than following the Department of Justice’s strict protocols for handling potentially privileged materials, McGinnis appears to have not only reviewed the document but used it as a roadmap for building the case against OneTaste.

According to defense filings, the document, was treated as a “Rosetta Stone” by investigators, guiding interviews and shaping the eventual indictment. Yet, its acquisition and use were fraught with violations of DOJ policy and due process rights.

Building a Case on Stolen Documents

Within days of obtaining the document, McGinnis began issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses in ways that closely tracked the stolen document’s contents. Defense attorneys later discovered that the indictment against Daedone and Cherwitz mirrored the language and claims in the privileged document—a revelation that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the charges.

The document itself has become a legal hot potato. Although McGinnis initially hid its existence, the stolen materials resurfaced nine months later when Kara Cooper, a former OneTaste student, provided FBI agents with screenshots of the same document. Cooper’s emailed screenshots forced the FBI to acknowledge the document’s existence, but by then, the damage had already been done.

A Pattern of Misstatements

The government’s narrative regarding the privileged document has shifted repeatedly:

  1. Initial Silence: Early government filings made no mention of possessing the document or anything marked as attorney-client privilege.

  2. First Admission: In late 2021, prosecutors acknowledged receiving photographs of the document from a former OneTaste student, Kara Cooper.

  3. Revelation of FBI Possession: A defense investigation uncovered that former OneTaste IT contractor, Mitch Aidelbaum, had given the document directly to FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis in January 2021. Aidelbaum admitted he stole the document from OneTaste’s servers, a fact McGinnis allegedly ignored.

  4. September 2024 Search: Following mounting pressure, prosecutors conducted a manual search of FBI files and discovered the document in an electronic workspace associated with the case. An FBI agent involved in the original interview with Aidelbaum admitted they likely reviewed or possessed the document at the time.

  5. October 2024 Filing: A subsequent search revealed that copies of the document were saved to a segregated workspace within the US Attorney’s Office case file, allegedly restricted to a Privilege Review Team. This admission came just weeks before trial.

Each new disclosure contradicted prior statements, highlighting a troubling lack of transparency and oversight.

Cover-Up or Incompetence?

In recent court filings, the government admitted that McGinnis and Sheehan had likely viewed or possessed the stolen document during their January 2021 interview with Aidelbaum. However, neither agent could explain what happened to the thumb drive containing the original document. The document eventually surfaced on the FBI’s electronic Sentinel system, but questions remain about when it was uploaded, who uploaded it, and whether it had been altered.

This series of events suggests either a deliberate cover-up or gross incompetence. Both possibilities undermine the credibility of the investigation and prosecution.

  • DOJ policy is explicit: when agents encounter potentially privileged materials, they must immediately transfer them to a “Filter Team” to determine their admissibility. McGinnis and the FBI failed to follow these protocols. Instead, the document was retained, reviewed, and used to drive the investigation.

    Defense attorneys argued that the entire indictment was irreparably tainted, as it mirrored the privileged document’s contents. The government’s failure to address this issue promptly exacerbated the problem, casting doubt on the case’s foundation.

  • The mishandling of privileged documents has far-reaching consequences. Defense attorneys have argued that the indictment itself is tainted, as it was built on improperly obtained and misinterpreted materials. The prosecutors’ belated attempts to distance themselves from McGinnis—such as setting up a Filter Team years after the document was first obtained—do little to address the foundational issues with the case.

    The government’s insistence that “no harm was done” because prosecutors supposedly did not review the privileged materials strains credulity. The defense’s discovery of the stolen document’s contents in the indictment strongly suggests otherwise. If the court agrees that the prosecution relied on tainted evidence, it could result in the dismissal of the case.

    In an August 2024 motion to dismiss, the defense laid out a compelling argument that the indictment stemmed directly from the tainted investigation. The motion asserted that without the stolen document, the government would have lacked the evidence to sustain its case. Despite these claims, a judge dismissed the defense’s motion without directly addressing the government’s repeated misstatements and procedural violations. The decision, covered in-depth by Legal Reader under the headline “Court Ruling Highlights Ignored Allegations of FBI Misconduct in OneTaste Forced Labor Case,” sparked widespread controversy.

    The mishandling of privileged documents is not merely a procedural error; it strikes at the heart of defendants’ constitutional rights. By using a stolen, privileged document as a blueprint for its investigation, the FBI and prosecution have undermined the integrity of the legal process. The government’s inability—or unwillingness—to provide a consistent account of its actions further erodes public trust.

  • The privileged document’s role as the linchpin of the government’s case, despite being obtained unlawfully, underscores the dangers of such practices.

    As the trial date approaches, US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati faces a critical decision. Will the court address the profound due process violations at the heart of this case, or will it allow the prosecution to proceed on tainted grounds? The outcome will have significant implications not only for Daedone and Cherwitz but also for the broader principles of justice and accountability in federal prosecutions.

    In a justice system that promises fairness and impartiality, such glaring misconduct should not go unexamined. Whether by dismissal or evidentiary hearings, this case demands a reckoning.

Conspiracy Without a Crime:

Thought Policing or Justice?

The prosecution of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Breon Peace, has launched America into uncharted legal territory. Charging the co-founders of OneTaste with a stand-alone conspiracy to commit forced labor, the case tests the boundaries of criminal law by prosecuting alleged intent without evidence of the actual crime itself. This unprecedented case, hinging on the controversial practice of Orgasmic Meditation, raises questions about prosecutorial overreach, due process, and the potential weaponization of the justice system.

A Charge Without a Crime

The indictment against Daedone and Cherwitz charges them with conspiracy to commit forced labor but not the act of forced labor itself. This distinction is not just unusual—it is without precedent. Historically, conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1594 have been paired with substantive crimes, such as forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) or sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591). This case marks the first time that a U.S. Attorney has sought to prosecute a conspiracy to commit forced labor as a stand-alone charge.

Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent: punishing individuals for intent alone, with no evidence of an actual crime or victim. As the indictment explicitly states, Daedone and Cherwitz could be convicted even if they never forced anyone to do anything, so long as the government can prove they agreed to do so. Such logic seems more at home in dystopian fiction than in a legal system that purports to value due process.

The Role of Repugnance in Prosecution

Orgasmic Meditation (OM), the centerpiece of OneTaste’s teachings, is not illegal. It is a consensual practice marketed as a path to spiritual and sexual enlightenment. Yet its unconventional nature has made it an easy target for moral outrage. By leveraging the societal discomfort surrounding sexual practices like OM, the prosecution risks conflating personal repugnance with criminal behavior.

In Brooklyn, where the trial is set to unfold, jurors could be swayed by cultural biases. The prosecution’s strategy hinges on presenting OM as inherently coercive, despite the absence of actual forced labor charges. This conflation risks eroding the distinction between consent and coercion, turning subjective moral judgment into a legal weapon.

Prosecutorial Overreach or Pre-Crime Policing?

The timing of the indictment is equally troubling. The government claims the alleged conspiracy ended in May 2018—five years before the April 2023 indictment. This delay raises significant questions. If the defendants conspired for 12 years without succeeding, how imminent or credible was the alleged threat?

Prosecuting individuals for a crime that never occurred risks turning conspiracy law into a tool for preemptive punishment. In this case, the government appears to be punishing Daedone and Cherwitz for their thoughts, plans, and associations rather than any tangible harm caused. Such a shift echoes Orwellian concepts of “thought crime,” where intent alone becomes the basis for conviction.

  • The government’s reliance on conspiracy law in this case could pave the way for future abuses. Without requiring proof of a substantive crime, conspiracy charges become a malleable tool for targeting individuals or groups based on their beliefs, practices, or associations. This erosion of the traditional nexus between intent (mens rea) and action (actus reus) threatens to upend the foundations of American criminal law.

    Prosecutors have already signaled their intent to blur these lines further. By referring to “intended victims” as “victims” during the trial, the government risks prejudicing jurors, effectively punishing Daedone and Cherwitz for a crime that was never committed.

  • If successful, the prosecution of Daedone and Cherwitz could have chilling consequences. It would embolden federal prosecutors to pursue conspiracy-only cases, punishing individuals for unexecuted plans or ideas deemed dangerous by the state. Such a precedent would undermine the principles of fairness and due process, opening the door to a future where intent alone becomes criminal.

    This case is more than a legal battle—it is a referendum on the balance between liberty and control. As the trial date approaches, the nation will watch closely to see whether the justice system protects the rights of the accused or succumbs to the allure of pre-crime prosecution. If convicted, Daedone and Cherwitz’s fate could signal a dangerous new chapter in American jurisprudence—one where the government polices not just actions but thoughts.

    Memes, Mens Rea, and the Mackey Case: A Dangerous Precedent for Conspiracy Prosecutions and Free Speech

    The conviction of Douglass Mackey, known online as “Ricky Vaughn,” for posting deceptive memes during the 2016 presidential election has sparked significant debate about the limits of free speech, satire, and the expanding use of conspiracy law. By charging Mackey under 18 U.S.C. § 241—a statute historically used to combat civil rights violations—the government has set a concerning precedent for prosecuting speech as a criminal conspiracy. Examining the Mackey case alongside the OneTaste prosecution reveals shared themes of overreach, blurred legal standards, and the risk of chilling protected expression.

Memes, Mens Rea, and the Mackey Case:
A Dangerous Precedent for Conspiracy Prosecutions and Free Speech

The conviction of Douglass Mackey, known online as “Ricky Vaughn,” for posting deceptive memes during the 2016 presidential election has sparked significant debate about the limits of free speech, satire, and the expanding use of conspiracy law. By charging Mackey under 18 U.S.C. § 241—a statute historically used to combat civil rights violations—the government has set a concerning precedent for prosecuting speech as a criminal conspiracy. Examining the Mackey case alongside the OneTaste prosecution reveals shared themes of overreach, blurred legal standards, and the risk of chilling

  • At the heart of the Mackey case is the government’s reliance on § 241, which criminalizes conspiracies to injure or oppress constitutional rights, including voting rights. Historically, this statute has been used in cases where actual harm or significant intent to harm was evident. Mackey’s prosecution, however, marks a shift: the government argued that his memes, which falsely suggested Clinton supporters could vote by text, constituted a conspiracy to deprive individuals of their right to vote—even though no evidence was presented that voters were definitively disenfranchised.

    Similarly, in the OneTaste case, Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz were charged with conspiracy to commit forced labor under 18 U.S.C. § 1594 without being charged with the substantive crime of forced labor. This standalone conspiracy charge, like Mackey’s, does not require proof of actual harm or even an attempt to commit the underlying offense. Instead, it hinges on the alleged intent of the defendants, creating a prosecutorial tool that shifts the focus from actions to thoughts and associations.

  • Mackey’s memes were undeniably provocative and likely offensive to many. But whether they were intentionally designed to deceive voters or were simply satirical commentary on political polarization remains an open question. Judge Garaufis, in denying Mackey’s motion to dismiss, acknowledged that satire is protected by the First Amendment but deferred the question of whether the memes were satirical to the jury. Problematically, this question was not explicitly included in the jury instructions, leaving jurors to evaluate Mackey’s intent without a clear framework for considering the role of satire.

    The OneTaste case similarly involves the potential misuse of speech and association as evidence of criminal conspiracy. The prosecution’s reliance on salacious media narratives about Orgasmic Meditation—a consensual and legal practice—risks conflating unconventional ideas with criminal intent. This parallels the government’s approach in Mackey, where edgy and inflammatory memes were presented as evidence of a deliberate effort to harm voters’ rights. In both cases, the line between protected expression and criminal conduct has been dangerously blurred.

  • A critical issue in both Mackey and OneTaste is the insufficient consideration of mens rea—the defendants’ state of mind. In Mackey’s case, the government argued that his memes were designed to deceive voters, but the inherently satirical and exaggerated nature of memes was not adequately addressed. Memes often exist in a space of hyperbole and absurdity, making it difficult to ascertain intent without a rigorous examination of context.

    Similarly, in the OneTaste case, the prosecution alleges that Daedone and Cherwitz conspired to coerce labor over a 12-year period. However, the indictment lacks concrete evidence of coercion or harm, relying instead on broad claims about the defendants’ intent. This approach raises significant due process concerns, as it allows the government to bypass the need to prove actual harm or direct actions supporting the alleged conspiracy.

  • Both cases highlight the chilling effect that such prosecutions can have on speech and expression. In Mackey’s case, the decision to criminalize a meme as a conspiracy risks discouraging political satire, parody, and even legitimate political discourse on social media. The participatory and collaborative nature of meme culture—where ideas are rapidly shared and reinterpreted—could become a minefield for potential criminal liability, stifling creativity and debate.

    The OneTaste prosecution similarly raises concerns about the government’s encroachment into unconventional beliefs and practices. By framing legal activities like Orgasmic Meditation as evidence of a criminal conspiracy, the case risks punishing individuals for their associations and ideas rather than their actions. This could deter people from exploring or advocating for alternative lifestyles, undermining the diversity of thought and expression that the First Amendment seeks to protect.

  • The Mackey and OneTaste cases represent a troubling expansion of conspiracy law into areas where harm is speculative and intent is ambiguous. By prosecuting individuals for unexecuted plans or provocative speech, the government risks turning conspiracy law into a tool for preemptive punishment. This shift not only threatens fundamental principles of due process but also opens the door to targeting dissenting voices and unconventional ideas.

    In both cases, the lack of concrete harm and the reliance on subjective interpretations of intent underscore the dangers of prosecutorial overreach. Whether it’s a satirical meme or a controversial wellness practice, the government’s approach to conspiracy law must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it does not infringe on protected rights or set a precedent for punishing thoughts and ideas rather than actions.

Weaponizing Female Sexuality:

Historical Echoes

The parallels between the OneTaste investigation and the 15th-century witch hunts chronicled in Malleus Maleficarum are striking. In both cases, women were targeted not for tangible crimes but for embodying ideas and behaviors that challenged societal norms. Then, as now, female sexuality was framed as dangerous, corrupting, and in need of control.

In the 15th century, women accused of witchcraft were interrogated with obsessive attention to their sexual behaviors. Claims of demonic intercourse, sexual deviance, and unnatural power were central to the charges. Confessions were often extracted under torture, as women were forced to detail imaginary sexualized encounters with incubi and renunciations of faith.

Heinrich Kramer, the author of Malleus Maleficarum, was notorious for his fixation on the sexual aspects of his victims’ supposed crimes. Women were stripped, shaved, and physically restrained, with their silence or protestation twisted into proof of their guilt.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, and the sexualized violence of the witch trials reappears in a new form. Today, accusations of sexual coercion, manipulation, and impropriety are wielded against women like Daedone and Cherwitz, cloaked in the language of feminism and justice. Media outlets such as Bloomberg, the BBC, and Netflix framed OneTaste as a "cult," conflating its practices with exploitation and abuse.

Critically, this narrative is rooted in discomfort with female sexuality and autonomy. OneTaste’s core philosophy of "Orgasmic Meditation" challenged puritanical norms and encouraged women to claim ownership of their pleasure. For this transgression, its founders were labeled predators and manipulators, their organization cast as dangerous and immoral.

The use of feminist rhetoric to discredit Daedone and Cherwitz is as insidious as it is ironic. Like the witch trials, this investigation weaponizes societal fears about women’s sexual agency. Misogyny is repackaged as moral concern, and the state positions itself as the protector of vulnerable women. Yet the primary targets are women themselves—women who dared to challenge norms, lead a company, and promote ideas outside the mainstream.

Some feminist scholars, like Diane Purkiss, argue that framing historical witch trials purely as gendered violence oversimplifies their complexity. But even Purkiss acknowledges that the vast majority of victims of medieval witch persecutions were women and that misogyny—whether explicit or internalized—was a driving force. Similarly, today’s persecution of OneTaste cannot be disentangled from society’s deep-seated discomfort with women who reject traditional roles and embrace their sexuality.

The Real Danger:
Suppressing Women’s Autonomy

At its core, the OneTaste investigation reflects a broader societal struggle over female autonomy. From the witch trials to modern courtrooms, women who assert control over their sexuality are punished, while institutions wield their power to reinforce traditional hierarchies.

By cloaking misogyny in the language of justice, these campaigns do lasting harm—not only to their targets but to the broader fight for gender equality. In prosecuting Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, the government is not protecting victims—it is perpetuating a centuries-old tradition of punishing women for their independence, ambition, and sexuality.

The prosecution of OneTaste, Nicole Daedone, and Rachel Cherwitz is not just a flawed investigation—it is an alarming example of how modern institutions can wield the tools of rumor and hysteria to dismantle revolutionary ideas and suppress dissent. When the government collaborates with media companies to amplify false narratives, it abandons its duty to seek the truth and undermines the very principles of justice.

This case is not about protecting victims or upholding the law. It is about punishing individuals and ideas that challenge societal norms. Just as the witch trials sought to silence and subjugate women, the OneTaste investigation reveals how fear and prejudice continue to shape our legal system. The court must demand transparency, fairness, and accountability to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present.

The prosecution of OneTaste, Nicole Daedone, and Rachel Cherwitz is not just a flawed investigation—it is an alarming example of how modern institutions can wield the tools of rumor and hysteria to dismantle revolutionary ideas and suppress dissent. When the government collaborates with media companies to amplify false narratives, it abandons its duty to seek the truth and undermines the very principles of justice.

This case is not about protecting victims or upholding the law. It is about punishing individuals and ideas that challenge societal norms. Just as the witch trials sought to silence and subjugate women, the OneTaste investigation reveals how fear and prejudice continue to shape our legal system. The court must demand transparency, fairness, and accountability to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present.