By Richard Luthmann
In a recent interview on “The Unknown Podcast,” investigative reporter Frank Parlato broke down what he believes is a media-driven, baseless prosecution targeting OneTaste, a San Francisco-based wellness company. Hosted by Michael Volpe and co-hosted by Richard Luthmann, the discussion highlighted Parlato’s concerns about the federal charges filed against OneTaste executives, primarily shaped by a Bloomberg Businessweek article written by reporter Ellen Huet.
Parlato, known for his reporting on NXIVM, drew comparisons between OneTaste and other so-called "cult" groups but made it clear he believes the allegations against OneTaste are deeply flawed. He discussed how the company’s founder and an executive are facing a single conspiracy charge related to forced labor, not the actual crime itself.
“It’s the first time in U.S. history anyone’s been charged just with forced labor conspiracy without committing the crime,” Parlato said.
Federal Charges with No Substantive Crime
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York charged OneTaste’s founder and a top executive with a forced labor conspiracy. However, as Parlato explained, there’s no indication that the alleged labor ever occurred.
“All they have to allege is that they conspired,” Parlato said. “There’s no requirement to prove an actual act, and they don’t even have to name a victim.”
When co-host Michael Volpe asked how someone could be charged with a conspiracy to commit a crime without committing the crime, Parlato called the case "groundbreaking" but deeply concerning.
"This is a brand new charge. No one has ever been charged like this before,” Parlato explained.
Luthmann, a former attorney familiar with conspiracy cases, added, “To prove conspiracy, you only need to show a criminal agreement and an overt act. You don’t need to prove actual harm or that anyone was forced into labor.”
Volpe quickly pointed out, “But if there’s no victim, how can you prove they conspired to do anything?”
Parlato responded, “That’s what’s so problematic here. We’re breaking new legal ground in the worst possible way.”
Media's Role in Shaping the Case
The conversation then turned to the role of Ellen Huet, the Bloomberg journalist whose article helped shape public perception of OneTaste. Parlato called Huet’s work biased and unprofessional.
“She claimed she interviewed 16 sources, but only three were named, and the rest were anonymous,” Parlato said.
He further claimed that Huet had a personal connection to one of her key sources, a former OneTaste member, which she failed to disclose to her editors.
“She lived in the same community in San Francisco as one of the disgruntled former members she used as a source,” Parlato said. “This wasn’t journalism; this was a hit job.”
Parlato noted that Huet’s article deliberately left out voices of people who had positive experiences with OneTaste. “She later admitted in a letter that she ignored those who had good things to say because her editors wanted a negative story.”
Volpe underscored the potential conflict of interest, noting that Huet received a book deal based on the article. “So she’s blaming her editors for making her write a slanted story, but then she gets a book deal out of it,” he remarked.
Prosecutors Driven by Media Hype
Parlato suggested that the federal prosecution may have been driven more by media hype than actual evidence.
“When you get a case like this, prosecutors want to make a name for themselves,” Parlato said.
He argued that once a high-profile case like this gains media attention, prosecutors become reluctant to drop the charges, even when the evidence is weak.
“They have to either bluff the defense into a plea deal or go to trial and risk losing.”
Volpe pointed out the human cost of such prosecutions.
“The company’s been destroyed. These people’s lives are in shambles, and they haven’t even been convicted of anything yet.”
Parallels to Other High-Profile Cases
Parlato drew parallels between the OneTaste case and other high-profile prosecutions where he believes justice was miscarried. He referenced the case of Chuck Panici, a powerful politician in Cook County, Illinois, who was convicted on the testimony of three individuals who received reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation.
Volpe echoed Parlato’s concerns, citing his own experience with high-profile cases.
“Prosecutors are willing to cut deals with anyone to get a conviction in these cases. They don’t care if the evidence is flimsy because all that matters is the high-profile conviction.”
No Evidence of Dangerousness
The podcast hosts also questioned whether OneTaste, often described as a cult, posed any real danger. When Volpe asked if Parlato considered OneTaste a cult, Parlato responded, “Cult is a wide term. I wouldn’t say they’re dangerous or coercive.”
He contrasted OneTaste with NXIVM, the group he famously investigated.
“NXIVM was sinister. OneTaste? These are well-intentioned people.”
The Future of the Case
As the interview wound down, Luthmann raised another question: why is this case being prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York when OneTaste is based in San Francisco? Parlato didn’t have a clear answer but speculated that it might have been easier for prosecutors to bring the case in New York, where the media frenzy was strongest.
“The fact that they’re being prosecuted in Brooklyn, far from where the company is based, adds to the suspicion that this case is about making headlines more than seeking justice,” Parlato said.
As the conversation shifted toward other cases Parlato is investigating, including the Jerry Sandusky case, the episode of "The Unknown Podcast" made one thing clear: Frank Parlato believes that both the media and prosecutors have conspired to build a case against OneTaste where none exists. Whether or not the courts will agree remains to be seen.
Share this post