"It's the first time in the history of the United States that anybody's been charged just with forced labor conspiracy alone without actually committing the crime of forced labor … The U.S. attorney wrote, 'We do not have to have any victims for the crime of conspiracy to commit forced labor.' All they have to prove is that the two parties conspired." - Frank Parlato, FRANK REPORT
By Richard Luthmann
SEX.
The U.S. government’s prosecution of OneTaste has been tainted from the beginning.
SEX.
The charges brought against Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz are a glaring example of prosecutorial overreach and a media-driven attempt to try a case in the court of public opinion rather than the courtroom.
SEX.
The OneTaste prosecution was riddled with misconduct, from before the first press release, which dripped with innuendo and sensationalism, to the government's attempts to introduce stolen and manipulated evidence.
What’s most striking is that despite all the headlines, there is no actual SEX crime charged. The government has not accused anyone of trafficking, sexual assault, or coercion into SEX.
But the case is saturated with the insinuation of SEX, with the government’s strategy being clear: try a consensual sexual community in the media, knowing full well that doing so will tilt public opinion against the defendants.
This is a rerun of the Keith Raniere case, or at least the Brooklyn prosecutors want it to be. Except there is no SEX CULT, no non-consensual acts, and no charges of sexual misconduct. So why is SEX front and center?
Misconduct and Manipulation from the Start
The first clue to the government’s SEX strategy came in its June 2023 press release announcing the indictment.
"Daedone and Cherwitz Allegedly Obtained Labor of OneTaste Members by Coercing Them and Grooming Them to Engage In Sexual Acts..." the release read.
The government went on to paint a picture of an organization that "GROOMED" its members into performing sexual acts, but that’s not what’s in the indictment. The actual charges are forced labor conspiracy—nothing more.
Even in the indictment itself, the government doesn’t provide any evidence of non-consensual sexual activity. Instead, it leans on the idea that members were “coerced” into performing sexual acts as part of their supposed labor for OneTaste. Yet, if that were true, why not charge SEX trafficking or sexual coercion?
The answer is simple: they don’t have the evidence. But SEX sells in the media, and the government knows it.
This strategy mirrors what we saw in the prosecution of Keith Raniere, where the government used headlines about "SEX CULTS" to bolster its case. But OneTaste is not NXIVM, and the government’s attempts to force this case into the same mold are transparent.
FBI Misconduct: A Hypocritical Footnote
What makes the government’s conduct in the OneTaste case even more hypocritical is the FBI’s own documented problems with sexual misconduct.
Senator Chuck Grassley’s ongoing investigation into sexual harassment and misconduct within the FBI has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the bureau failing to hold its own accountable. High-level FBI officials have been allowed to resign or retire with their pensions intact rather than face consequences for their actions, according to Grassley’s October 2024 letter to Director Christopher Wray.
As Grassley pointed out, “Apparently, one of the reasons DOJ and its component agencies can’t straighten out their problems of workplace harassment is that the fox is guarding the hen house.”
The FBI, tasked with investigating alleged sexual improprieties in private organizations like OneTaste, can’t even police its own employees. Grassley’s report is a damning indictment of an agency that has lost its moral authority to prosecute cases like this.
Further, whistleblower disclosures have revealed that the FBI has moved agents away from child sex abuse cases to focus on political cases, like those related to January 6, while child exploitation investigations have been prioritized.
The FBI’s track record on handling actual sexual misconduct is abysmal, yet here they are, trying to prosecute a case that doesn’t even involve non-consensual sex.
The Use of Stolen and Manipulated Evidence
The government’s misconduct doesn’t end with its sensationalist press releases. It has also relied on stolen evidence to build its case. Some of the materials the government wants to introduce were reportedly stolen by former OneTaste employees, including Mitch Aidelbaum, after his employment with the company ended. These materials were likely tampered with, raising serious questions about their authenticity.
The defense has repeatedly raised concerns about the chain of custody and the provenance of the evidence the government is using. If the government wants to introduce videos or documents, it must prove that these materials were not edited, altered, or manipulated.
In a world where AI-generated deep fakes are a reality, the government must be held to a higher standard. And yet, they push forward, hoping to introduce questionable evidence without the proper forensic scrutiny.
The defense has asked for a bill of particulars and evidentiary hearings to address these concerns, but the government has shown little interest in transparency. Instead, prosecutors attempt to sidestep the issue, arguing for the blanket admissibility of evidence, regardless of how it was obtained.
Coaxing Witnesses and Manipulating the Narrative
Another troubling aspect of this case is the government’s apparent coaxing of witnesses. The defense has raised serious concerns that witnesses were coached or manipulated by FBI agents who failed to record their interviews.
Instead, the FBI relied on 302 reports—summaries of interviews that agents prepare well after the fact. These reports are notorious for their inaccuracy and subjectivity, yet the government treats them as Gospel Truth.
The defense has argued that they should be allowed to use these 302 reports to cross-examine witnesses, especially when there are prior inconsistent statements. The government, however, seems intent on keeping these reports out of the trial.
If the FBI’s reports are unreliable, as the defense argues, then why is the government so eager to keep them under wraps? The answer is clear: they don’t want the jury to see how weak their case truly is.
What’s Really on Trial?
The OneTaste case isn’t really about forced labor. It’s about putting SEX ON TRIAL, in the hopes that the jury will be so scandalized by the idea of a community focused on “sexual wellness” that they will ignore the lack of actual evidence. The government wants to make this a morality play, but the law doesn’t work that way—or at least, it shouldn’t.
Ultimately, the OneTaste prosecution is a gross misuse of government power. It’s a trampling of consensual sexual practices - an attempt to try intimate and private relations in the courtroom, using stolen and manipulated evidence. At the same time, the FBI—a government agency with its own sexual misconduct scandals—stands as the moral arbiter. It’s a case built on innuendo, media manipulation, and prosecutorial overreach, and it’s time we called it what it is: A GRAND HYPOCRISY.
The government’s case is built on a foundation of sand, and no amount of salacious press releases or SEX CULT click-bait can change that.
This case would be thrown out in a just system before it ever reaches trial. But as we’ve seen time and time again, when the government decides to prosecute, fairness often takes a backseat to sensationalism.
This isn’t justice—it’s a sideshow. And it’s time for the curtain to come down.
FEDERAL SEX: THE GRAND HYPOCRISY