I used the AI program Night Cafe to render artwork to capture the sublime concepts of this unique, ill-advised and perfervid case.
Investigation Launched into Prosecution
The San Francisco-based OneTaste Inc. had retained me to investigate the federal prosecution of its co-founder, Nicole Daedone, and former executive Rachel Cherwitz in Brooklyn.
OneTaste is an adults-only educational company that teaches personal responsibility in decision-making – even involving matters of sex – even for women. Naturally, out of some 16,000 students, a company that teaches such concepts will attract some madcaps.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY had filed an indictment against the two women in 2023 and apparently plans to base their case on the narratives of less than a dozen former students and employees. The government has not disclosed its witnesses. I doubt they even know who they plan to call.
Thanks to a recent filing, I can deduce who some potential witnesses might be.
Some have been clinically diagnosed with longstanding mental illness. Others suffer from drug or alcohol addiction that predated coming to OneTaste. Some are sex workers before and after their contact with OneTaste, where sex work was forbidden.
At least five are suing OneTaste for money.
Prosecutors Allege a 12-Year Attempt Without Actual Forced Labor
My view of the government’s case.
US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati has scheduled the trial in the Brooklyn federal courthouse starting on January 15, which is 95 days away.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY charged Daedone and Cherwitz with a single count of conspiracy to commit forced labor. It is the only case ever prosecuted on conspiracy to commit forced labor alone with no other charges. The EDNY did not indict the women for the actual crime of forced labor, but a conspiracy to force labor.
My view of the strength of the prosecutors’ case.
The feds allege that the women conspired over 12 years to force “members” of OneTaste to labor. Evidently, they failed because of the absence of the charge of forced labor.
Pick a card that best exemplifies the decision to indict this case
Questionable Witnesses Mix With Junk Science
If the prosecutors call her, Michal Neria may testify that OneTaste coercively controlled her into marrying Mike Safyan. While evidence may show that no one would marry Safyan without being coerced, other evidence shows Michal coercively controlled Safyan into buying her a costly wedding ring. Then coerced him into admitting he lusted in his heart for other women.
Mark Gottlieb is suing OneTaste in civil court. He claims two beautiful young ladies coercively controlled him into receiving oral sex.
Ayries Blanck left OneTaste in 2015 after committing acts of violence against her wealthy ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend. She now claims she was coercively controlled.
Prosecutors Need to Limit Cross Examination
It is an axiom of the law that cross-examination is, in John Henry Wigmore’s words, the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
The prosecutors, however, filed a motion in limine “regarding certain government witnesses,” asking the judge to “preclude and limit cross-examination of these witnesses regarding certain of the information below.”
The “certain information below” is redacted from public view. The names of the “certain government witnesses,” are also redacted.
We only know that the redaction of names and materials is 70 lines long.
It may get longer, for the prosecutors add, “The government is still in the process of identifying its witnesses and identifying material.”
The government in the process of identifying material for its case.
That’s neat. Still figuring out who their witnesses might be? And what documents they need to exclude? Considering they started the investigation six years ago, and they indicted the defendants more than a year and a half ago, it gives me a hint at how their case will flush out.
My best view of their case – but they can’t get a handle on it.
The prosecutors wrote:
“The Court should limit cross-examination of these victims and other witnesses to avoid, ‘among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.’ Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679.”
In other words, cross-examination is harassment, prejudice, confusion, and unsafe.
They might consider throwing in the towel in their case.
Prosecution Seeks to Spare Accusers While Erasing Burden of Proof
Prosecutors want to adopt the model used in fascist college tribunals and mainstream media which assumes accusers (referred to as victims) always tell the truth.
In this victim-centric model, it is presumed the defendant is guilty. Limiting or precluding cross-examination is justified.
This model is also conveniently helpful to prosecutors. It cuts out the presumption of innocence and helps reduce the high burden of proof to below a reasonable doubt.
I Can See Them Now
Mark Gottlieb on the stand talking about how OneTaste coercively controlled all the young female students of OneTaste not to find him attractive.
Kara Cooper testifying about how she oozed ahead of other women on a waiting list for a room in a desirable San Francisco community house: How did she do it? She bedded three prospective male roommates, one after the other, like a choo-choo train. After the last man exited the caboose, they voted her in with enthusiasm.
“Three cheers for Kara Cooper,” they said, “and bottoms up!”
Now ten years later, she’s a victim? Yes, it was coercive control; she is suing OneTaste for money and by gad, next time she plans to take a plane.
Prosecutors In Need
Without access to the redacted section of the US Attorney’s motion, it is hard to know how far the prosecution wants to limit cross-examination. My guess is that they want the judge to prevent the defense from using the accusers‘ prior inconsistent statements against them.
I imagine the prosecutors want the judge to prevent the defense from reading from documents, texts, emails, or statements the witnesses made in the past, if those statements contradict the witness’s newly fashioned testimony at trial.
This would stop the defense from challenging witnesses about FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis’ summary of their interviews, where they might have said something different than what the prosecutors had them say at trial. Special Agent McGinnis was wise enough to know never to record any interviews.
Special Agent McGinnis stands by his case.
The prosecution wants to limit the defense from showing the jury that a witness lied, even if they did lie.
The only exception I expect the prosecution will agree to is that if the witness voluntarily admits she lied, then she can be questioned about how she lied.
In other words, the prosecution wants to eliminate basic, NON-hearsay impeachment permitted in cross examination under the Federal Rules of Evidence and allowed in every court in the USA.
The prosecutors are appealing to the court to prevent the defense from flushing out the full truth, sending the case they worked so long down the drain and into the sewers where it belongs.
There is a lot at stake for some very fine, and bright young prosecutors. These are the kind of prosecutors you would take home to mother. Good-looking, bright, eager, likeable.
They are top left-r Sean Fern and Gillian Kassner
Bottom l-r, Kayla Bensing and Devon Lash.
They all come from fine families, and they would never think of acting crazy like their kooky collection of witnesses.
The prosecutors can try to sanitize the witnesses, but they would never expect them to withstand true cross examination. That’s why they need to preclude and limit.
More AI Renderings
Prosecutor with “certain documents” he doesn’t want the defense to question his witnesses about.
Prosecutors are looking for more documents, they might need to stop the defense from cross-examining their witnesses.
Judge Knows What’s Up
Judge Diane Gujarati
The judge, a former prosecutor herself, who got the political support of friends in high places to get the nod to become a presidential-nominated and US Senate -confirmed, lifetime-appointed US Circuit Court judge, should sympathize with the prosecutors.
What white-shoe law firm will hire them if they lose this high profile case in a manner calculated to embarrass everyone?
The path to become judges one day might be barricaded to these otherwise charming young prosecutors, who also have important friends and loving families that care about their future, just like Judge Gujarati did when she moved out of the US Attorney’s Office and into her own courtroom.
If the judge allows a robust cross-examination of “victims,” and she should since the defendants alone face years in prison, and it comes out in cross-examination that the accusers are madcaps, liars, kooks and creepy opportunists, and the prosecutors lose the case, that’s a pretty raw deal for people she sees all the time in her courtroom and in the hallways and chambers.
But can she block all the evidence of this horribly flawed case with its fruitcake witnesses and its even fruitier legal theories – even on appeal?
On the other hand, if this dream team of young prosecutors wins a conviction when so many in the legal community know this case should have been flushed long ago, they could become the new dark angels.
Prosecutor posing in front of his case.
If they win, they win admiration in quarters where winning is everything. As their adage goes, “any prosecutor can convict a guilty defendant, but it takes skill to convict the innocent.”
More to Come
Nicole Daedone, the defendant
As we wait for more developments, file it under B for bizarre or bullshit, for that is the case, or bluffing, for that is what the prosecution is doing. The case isn’t getting better; it’s getting worse by the minute.
The prosecutors are good people, no doubt, who inherited this case from some who thought it was more than it was. Time proved otherwise. In the interest of justice, the parties should agree, perhaps with somber realization, that mistakes happen and dismiss the case.
Even if the judge grants this motion to curtail some cross-examination, what’s to stop the defense from calling some as hostile witnesses? Even if that is far-fetched, so is this case with its cast of zanies discussing bizarre and kink, with half the nation finding it repugnant, and the other half finding it repugnant that kink in San Francisco is prosecuted in Brooklyn.
The media will come in numbers to this clown circus show, with people like Ayries Blanck getting caught perjuring herself over her phony journal (she will get caught) and forced to have sex with men who will testify she chased and seduced them.
Or old man Gottlieb breaking down like Captain Queeg, talking about girls who ran away from him and love letters he sent, and how when one agreed, he loved it and now he says she forced him to accept blow jobs. The jury will watch and if they don’t laugh they might feel pity for a lonely old fool being used (maybe coercively), not by Daedone, but by the prosecution.
The jury or maybe one of two, may get angry at the prosecution for bringing this filth pile of nonsensical morality policing before them. The prosecution should not be too confident they can dirty up the defendants, and not themselves.
Bringing in witnesses to testify about some guy in California with a BDSM fetish or addiction who might have invested some money and some woman or women walking him on a leash. This is a federal prosecution?
The jury may not have the moral indignation, not buy into the tears of unsympathetic people who grow less so as their lies are exposed.
On a one-count indictment, it’s all or nothing at all. The jury might vote their conscience. All the admonitions in the world might not control. They can refuse to convict, refuse to imprison two women because kooks went amok. If there was a hung jury, would the prosecutors have the heart to try it again?
Now this is one case where not only the defendants have something to lose. The prosecutors and the judge risk something, too – the chance of looking ridiculous, for that is what the case is and will be remembered as.
Call our Next Witness
I spent too much money at classes. All my life, I earned good money and used my head to spend it as I wished, but OneTaste got a hold of my little head and hypnotized it. Maybe they put Viagra in my cream of wheat, but boy was I a stud and I got a girlfriend but she left. What reason could there be other than coercive control? Nothing else explains it. Otherwise, I would have to admit I was a fool and not a stud at all. Sue those bastards. Put them in prison. Can you find me a girlfriend?
OneTaste made me think I was thinking for myself but that was their coercive control, making me think I think for myself. We only thought we were making our own decisions. I was only 40 years old.
I felt coerced to have sex with ugly men but the good looking men felt coerced to have sex with me. Now I realize I coerced the ugly men because I was uglier than them. OneTaste forced me to think this way.
My girlfriend left me not because I am a fool but because OneTaste coerced her. Then they coerced me to cry. Boo hoo.
Let’s cut right to the chase here. Blame it on Daedone and let me get as much money as I can. I was coerced, can you tell?
My boyfriend made me come back from England to San Francisco because he was going to pay my rent and then we broke up and I had to work. It is all OneTaste’s fault. They forced me to surrender my brain and promised I would grow but my natural selfishness and greed did not go away. Now I am more porcine than ever both inside and out. How much can I collect for my testimony, Ms. Prosecutor?
I have to stay anonymous. This way I am free to tell the true story plus add anything you prosecutors want. Just tell me how to say it. Coercive control I get it. No one will know my name, right? I mean that really liberates the tongue. Anything at all, just ask me or tell me what to say.
