In an ongoing federal trial in Brooklyn, prosecutors allege a conspiracy at the company known as OneTaste.
This series tells that story.
Two women started a company. The feds touched the indictment button. Now they’re in federal court facing 20 years.
The OneTaste trial is an artifact of the scorched-earth tactics of a government drunk on power, of how language is twisted, memory rewritten, and freedom rebranded as coercion.
It isn’t about crime. It’s about confusion, where consensual touch becomes a federal offense.
Judge Sustains All Government Objections
Brooklyn, N.Y. —
The fix was in. Anyone watching could see it.
It was the fifth day of the trial of Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone.
Presiding Judge Diane Gujarati issued a series of evidentiary rulings favoring the prosecution.
The lawyers spoke. The judge responded, not to their arguments, but to some hidden directive no one else could see.
Each time the defense offered an objection or introduced evidence, Judge Gujarati sided with the government, as though deviation from the prescribed outcome was somehow a crime.
Defense counsel Celia Cohen and Jennifer Bonjean objected to excluding defense exhibits and the judge’s consistent sustaining of government objections.
What was said exactly may not matter. What mattered was the rhythm of disapproval, the repeated “sustained” from a judge whose tone implied finality.
But when Bonjean requested the videos, the mask of impartiality slipped. It was as if Bonjean dropped a bomb: “I want the tapes preserved.” Her request was reasonable. Therefore, it was denied.
Not only denied. The judge lost her cool. The shouting started.
Bonjean had requested that videos excluded from the jury be preserved for the record. No juror heard it. Only the walls, the record, and the slow scratch of ink that would one day spell out the word “appeal.”
Judge Gujarati abruptly ended oral arguments without further discussion.
Double Standard Judiciary
So it’s more games:
Judge Gujarati has not yet ruled on Rule 412 motions concerning the admissibility of sexual history to impeach government witnesses.
It’s a fun game to watch the government try to convict someone for consensual sex while refusing to let the defense ask about consensual sex.
In USA v. Cherwitz and Daedone, federal prosecutors have built a case around consensual sexual activity between adults. Yet, Judge Diane Gujarati won’t even rule whether they’re allowed to ask about sex.
Judge, if you’re scared of the facts, maybe you shouldn’t be presiding over a case about them.
So here are a few: The issue is consent. They were all adults. Grown men and women. Some of them searching. Some of them sure. No one locked the doors. They didn’t drug anybody.
Nobody was locked in a room. No one was trafficked across state lines in the back of a van. No one was forced to join. No one was forced to stay. They left when they wanted.
The government says, “They didn’t know what they wanted.”
But what if they did? What if they chose to be there? Then they left.
Coercion is Brainwashing
The feds are frothing at the mouth because someone dared to sell self-improvement with a side of orgasm.
You don’t like it? Don’t join. It’s not a cult. It’s California.
I will tell you what the case is: The years pass. The same participants, now older, now disconnected, are told they were victims.
Their memories are edited. Their motives revised. They had sex. So what. They liked it. Now they’re crying in court and calling it trauma?
No one dragged them. No one beat them. They just didn’t want to feel stupid for loving something the world didn’t understand.
And, yes, the old “you were brainwashed because you liked it too much.”
They were adults. They chose to be there. They liked it. Then they left.
Now, someone says it was abuse.
That’s not how freedom works.
