The OneTaste Case That Should Never Have Been Brought
On Monday, opening statements began in United States v. Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, a federal criminal trial that prosecutors claim centers on coercion, exploitation, and spiritual abuse. But a closer look at how this case was built reveals a troubling pattern of government overreach, FBI misconduct, and reliance on discredited witnesses. This is not justice—it is theater.
A Case Built on a Lie
Much of the government’s theory was originally anchored in the writings and recollections of a woman named Ayries Blanck—the so-called “patient zero” of the OneTaste prosecution. Her journals and interviews were cited extensively in the government’s early filings and used to help build the narrative that OneTaste was a coercive cult exploiting women under the guise of empowerment.
But those journals weren’t just misleading—they were fraudulent.
Blanck lied about her experience and fabricated claims within her own writings. Eventually, even the prosecution deemed her not credible and discarded her as a witness. The journals that once underpinned the case were formally discredited. Yet by that time, the damage was done. Investigators, prosecutors, and media collaborators had already spun those falsehoods into a theory of criminal conspiracy.
The FBI’s Role: Misconduct and Manipulation
Enter FBI Special Agent Elliot McGinnis, the lead investigator whose actions now cast a long shadow over this prosecution. McGinnis is the agent who told Alisha Price—another former participant—that she was a victim, even when she said she wasn’t. The government then attempted to use Price’s story as further support for their case, framing her experience through a lens she explicitly rejected.
This tactic—redefining consent after the fact—is central to the prosecution’s approach.
McGinnis’s methods have drawn intense scrutiny. A 36-page complaint filed with the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General outlines troubling conduct by the agent, including witness coercion, evidence manipulation, and improper collaboration with documentary filmmakers long before charges were brought. These filmmakers worked closely with the government to “shape” the case—possibly blurring ethical lines between journalism, advocacy, and prosecution.
This is not law enforcement. This is narrative manufacturing.
Redefining Regret as Crime
At the heart of the case are women who once embraced the teachings and lifestyle of OneTaste—some enthusiastically, some experimentally—and later came to regret those choices. The government argues that these women were victims of manipulation so subtle, so psychological, that their labor and sexual activity became criminal acts.
But that is not what the law requires. To prove forced labor, the government must show actual coercion—serious harm or threats of harm. Instead, prosecutors have resorted to importing the language of trauma therapy into the courtroom and recasting adult decisions as criminal victimization. And all this under the watch of Judge Diane Gujarati, who has so far allowed these arguments to proceed despite clear evidence that the foundational witness and materials were fraudulent.
It’s hard not to ask: if the government’s star witness lied, her journals were fabricated, and the FBI manipulated testimony, why is this case even in court?
Because once the smoke clears, the facts remain: The DOJ relied on false journals. The FBI misled witnesses. And prosecutors are still trying to convict two women over a business that taught adults how to meditate—sexually, yes—but consensually.
