In the past, I have written about OneTaste – a San Francisco company founded by Nicole Daedone in 2004 and sold to new owners in 2017 – in less than flattering terms. I called it “the fingering cult” because it places a heavy emphasis on Orgasmic Meditation, a timed 15 minute practice performed by a “stroker,” usually a male, stimulating the clitoris of a “strokee,” a female, with a finger inside a rubber glove. The practice is legal, provided it is done by consenting adults. No one has alleged anyone connected to OneTaste was underage or failed to consent to the practice.
The media narrative about OneTaste that broke in June, 2018 — riding the coattails of NXIVM’s Keith Raniere’s arrest — painted the company as a NXIVM-like predatory cult masquerading as a sexual and spiritual wellness company, with Daedone as its cult leader-guru. The 2023 federal indictment of Daedone and her sales manager, Rachel Cherwitz, uses a theory of forced labor similar to the 2018 indictment and conviction of Raniere, and others of NXIVM’s leadership. The same office brought both indictments: the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
It should be another slam dunk conviction. But there are some important differences. Because I wrote about the group in the past, and while I am not a fan of the practice I examined the indictment and found it woefully lacking in due process that, to use a term often found in legal papers, “it shocks the conscience.”
OneTaste’s founder, Nicole Daedone
A Case of Conjecture
The indictment of Daedone and Cherwitz alleges a single count of forced labor. But the prosecution fails to allege what the defendants allegedly forced anyone to do. The indictment does not name a single victim, not even a “John or Jane Doe” followed by a number to protect the anonymity of accusers and suggest a list of rising numbered Does waiting in the wings.
Of the company and its controversial practice, the prosecutors write:
“OneTaste promoted itself as a sexuality-focused wellness education company, which offered hands-on classes on ‘orgasmic meditation’ (‘OM’), a partnered practice typically involving the methodical stroking of a woman’s genitals for a period of fifteen minutes.”
As I said above, the prosecutors do not allege the stroking practice is illegal, or that anyone was forced to do it, or that anyone under the age of consent ever practiced it. In fact, the company, group, or cult, whatever you care to call it, was scrupulous to keep all who might be under the age of consent out of the classes, including requiring identification of anyone they did not know who they had the slightest doubt about.
This is not a sex crime case. It is a case of forced labor.
Forced Labor or Forced Fiction?
The federal prosecutors allege that forced labor occurred at least once during a 12-year period, when Nicole and Rachel forced a person or persons unknown to perform labor unknown. That’s right, the public, and based on filings made by the defense, the defendants, Daedone and Cherwitz, do not know what labor they forced anyone to do or even when it happened – other than on some day or days, or all days, “In or about and between 2006 and May 2018.”
That’s 12 years to choose from, but not one date is listed in the indictment of when any alleged forced labor occurred.
Even more striking is that what the unknown “victims” were forced to do is entirely absent from the indictment. Did the unnamed and unknown victims work in a sweat shop, or slave in cotton fields? Did they wash Nicole’s car or run an errand for coffee, scared of the consequences if they put in too much cream? We have no way of knowing.
Mystery Accusers: The Anonymous Allegations Against OneTaste
Historically, American prosecutors tell defendants who their victims are. This indictment is a year old, and the defendants still do not know.
In this bizarre and, I believe, unprecedented indictment, the prosecutors do not tell them who. They do not tell them how many. They only narrow down from the universe of potential victims, from the 8 billion people of Earth, to “a group of OneTaste members.” But what are members? How many are there? Are every one of the 35,000 people who took a class considered a member? The indictment does not say.
The indictment reads that Rachel Cherwtiz and Nicole Daedone subjected one or more members “to economic, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse; surveillance; indoctrination; and intimidation.” But, throughout the indictment, these conclusory allegations exist without an iota of specificity.
OneTaste Attendees Above Average
This Orwellian kind of allegations prompted me to investigate. Why would the prosecution be so vague about specifics if they had a real case? The NXIVM indictment was anything but vague. Raniere knew from the day of the indictment the names of every victim and what he had allegedly done.
So I investigated.
Unlike NXIVM, OneTaste has not been shy about openly discussing its practices, or for that matter its company. OneTaste have repeatedly said its records show that OneTaste participants generally had more education and a higher income than the national average. Almost 40 percent had graduated with a bachelor’s degree from college – compared to the national average of 26 percent. More than 25 percent had post graduate degrees, compared to the national average of 16 percent.
This was an educated group of more women than men. According to public disclosures, company records show that of those who took the advanced and more expensive coaching classes, 837 were women, and 721 were men. Some 98 percent of the women who attended the advanced classes paid for their own courses and had incomes above the national average. How did Daedone and Cherwitz economically abuse the members of this educated, generally successful group? The prosecution does not say.
No Sex Crimes
As for sexual abuse, there are no allegations of rape, sexual assault, groping, or sexual harassment, which is not bad considering 16,000 people paid for classes that taught the genital stroking practice called “Orgasmic Meditation.”
Practice of Orgasmic Meditation may not appeal to the average American, but thousands of adult women and men, often romantic partners, paid for classes and did the practice.
Not only does the federal indictment not allege sex crimes, but there appears to be no single state criminal sexual complaint during the 18 years of OneTaste’s existence by or against any employee, student or member, including Daedone and Cherwitz. Compare this in scale to the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, or the average workplace of American businesses.
The Absurd Accusations
The indictment accuses the defendants of surveillance of members. But how? Was there a hidden camera? A private detective? Did they rummage through garbage? The prosecutors do not say.
The prosecutors allege Daedone and Cherwitz “intentionally recruited individuals who had suffered prior trauma to participate in OneTaste.” But they offer no statistics. How many people who took classes suffered prior trauma? Is it more than the national average? If it is not, then where is the proof that they recruited such individuals? How could they have known?
The indictment seems to try to explain. It reads, the defendants “advertised that OneTaste’s courses and teachings could heal past sexual trauma and dysfunction.”
The prosecution however cites no examples of such marketing. But advertising is public. It is in print, broadcast, online. , I searched the company’s advertising and found no instance where OneTaste advertised it “could heal past sexual trauma and dysfunction.”
If it ever did, it was a rarity, and not OneTaste’s common method of attracting students.
OneTaste Case Based on Media Reports
As I continued to read the indictment, I realized it was based largely on conclusory allegations made by a small group of detractors who have appeared in the media. The prosecution built its case based on media reports, it seems. Though the prosecution does not name any victims, they seem to be relying on six or seven individuals who have appeared in the media to complain about their experience with OneTaste:
Michal Neria
Chris Kosley
Ken Blackman
Ruwan Meepagala
Hamza Tayeb
Audrey Wright
Ayries Blanck
With that in mind, I was able to tentatively identify an accuser.
Debt, Drama, and a Detractor: The Story of One Accuser
The indictment reads that Daedone and Cherwitz “induced the OneTaste members, including OneTaste employees, to incur debt, and at times facilitated the OneTaste members in opening lines of credit, to finance expensive OneTaste courses that the defendants knew the OneTaste members could not afford.”
That’s one hell of a mouthful of conclusory allegations, all packed in a lunchbox with a baloney sandwich. It should be easy to prove. But prosecutors again offer not a single statistic. They do not allege OneTaste worked with a banking affiliate, like car dealers, to pressure people into buying courses on the spot.
How many of the 16,000 people who paid for a course borrowed to pay for it? The preliminary course costs less than $200, so I would say almost none.
Flier for an Orgasmic Meditation event intro event
However, company records show that about 1600 people took the more expensive ten-month coaching course, costing more than $7,000. Ninety eight percent of the attendees paid for their courses themselves. Since these attendees were above average in income and education, and One Taste offered no financing plan, it is unclear how that model would get people to borrow over their heads.
It is of course possible that some people borrowed money to pay for a course, but the company would not necessarily know if they did not arrange financing.
It seems this entire allegation is based on one individual: Ayries Blanck, who claimed to the media that Cherwitz may have encouraged her to explore financing for a course she wanted to take.
Ayries Blanck had a violent temper
Blanck’s problem with One Taste seems to have started not from her borrowing a few thousand dollars, but rather from her wealthy boyfriend. He also took OneTaste classes, met another woman at OneTaste, and chose to leave Blanck.
Blanck went ballistic when she learned and tried to imprison her boyfriend by locking him in a room. But kidnapping will only take you so far, and murders are hard to clean up, besides he had not yet made the will over in her favor. Consequently, the boyfriend made a blessed escape. Embarrassed, he did not press charges.
Blanck was depressed. She just lost her ticket to a life of luxury and ease, because her boyfriend met another woman at OneTaste.
She saw one way out. If she could intimidate the new girlfriend into leaving her rich boyfriend, he might return. She stalked his new girlfriend, and when intimidation did not work, Blanck punched her out.
I rather suspect Blanck, who is the face of OneTaste detractors, may be the prosecution’s star witness, and possibly its only witness.
If so, I would like to give the prosecutors a word of advice. Perhaps they will think to offer her money contingent on a conviction in restitution. My word of advice is this: if you don’t give her what she thinks she should have, be careful. To pin the case on her might be a mistake.
Unforced Error
But the prosecutors may have no choice. Who else do they have? In a future post, I will go over the veracity of some of the other star OneTaste accusers the media trotted out, and from whom the prosecution seems to have got its initiative, like Audrey Wright, the thief and notorious drunk behind the wheels, whether a bike or automobile. She’s drunk, she’s savage, and she’s dangerous. Like Blanck, she is willing to say almost anything, even if her words are slurred or she falls down drunk on the witness stand to get a payday. I bring this up because I am concerned the prosecution is betting on some pretty sketchy characters who the media has paraded as victims.
A Sour Taste of Justice
Although I have been critical of OneTaste in the past, I am uncomfortable with the indictment. If we cannot distinguish between illegal and distasteful, we end up with a flimsy indictment like this.
There is no report of sexual complaints. There never was an allegation that a student or employee was under 18. There are no reports of any filings of labor violations with any Dept. of Labor, state or federal.
OneTaste employees and any conceivable “member” who might have done some work for the company were not third world immigrants or non-English speaking people. They were legally working Americans, the vast majority white and middle class or upper middle class. There is no allegation that a single person was paid off the books.
Sure, I understand. Blanck blames Daedone for the loss of her sugar daddy, and Cherwitz for suggesting banks do make loans, but is that enough to make a federal case of forced labor?
I may not be a fan of OneTaste, but I am no fan of prosecutors humiliating themselves. As much as one may disagree with the practice, it is not illegal for consenting adults, even women, to allow their genitals to be stroked, even if it drives Ayries Blanck ballistic because she did not get the rich strokes she wanted.
Prosecutors stepped into this one, and probably the only way out is a dismissal.
In an upcoming story, I will examine the astonishingly conclusory claims in the indictment, and why it cannot pass for due process. I also explain why, if the prosecutors’ plea bargain bluff does not work, they are better off dismissing the indictment, rather than ending up embarrassed at a trial resulting in either a directed verdict of acquittal or a jury acquittal, followed by guffaws bellowing from the general direction of the media in the very definite direction of certain prosecutors made ridiculous.
Victimless Prosecution
Misplaced faith that the public will be outraged and a jury will convict on utter legal nonsense, just because some well-educated guys stroke some equally well-educated women’s genitals for 15 minutes and call it meditation, may lead to catastrophic career dead ends for a couple of otherwise nice prosecutors with otherwise nice career paths ahead.
Of course, I suspect there is a reason why the prosecutors do not name a single victim in their indictment. There are no victims. They may have bet on Ayries Blanck and her motley retinue. But even good natured prosecutors being taken in by deceptive accusers and bolstered by their prudish positions cannot afford to look ridiculous. The sad thing is that as this case unravels, they will look ridiculous. It is no doubt the reason the defendants have gone to court to find out the names of alleged victims and what they are alleged to have done.
This is something so simple, such a fundamental part of due process, and frankly, I do not think there is another indictment like it, where no one – not even the defendants – know what they are alleged to have done and to whom.
If they have to guess by what appears in the media, it would seem that the presence of the prosecution in this case is simply superfluous.
