UPDATE: OneTaste scores victory in midst of Biden-era prosecution...

UPDATE at end of article.

OneTaste was a Silicon Valley wellness group that exploded in popularity during the height of the #MeToo hysteria. They taught a practice called “Orgasmic Meditation.” It wasn’t for everyone, but these were consenting adults choosing a unique kind of wellness. That should’ve been the end of it. But thanks to the insane “Believe All Women” crusade, politicians and the media started cracking down on anything even remotely edgy. OneTaste became an easy target. What followed wasn’t a fair investigation. It was a full-blown government takedown.

The FBI, the DOJ, and an activist judge launched a case with no violence, no threats, and no actual victims. And when they couldn’t find a crime, they reached for a kooky, fringe legal theory and charged Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz with “conspiracy to commit forced labor.”

The original star witness in the case, Ayries Blanck, was caught red-handed forging journals, deleting evidence, and lying under oath. She was working with a Netflix producer and being coached by a sketchy FBI agent named Elliot McGinnis. The government admitted her journals weren’t authentic and dropped her as a witness. But now, in a move that defies all logic, prosecutors are dragging her story back into court anyway. Different witness, same documentary script.

The Star Witness Lied—and the Government Knew It

Ayries Blanck was once the centerpiece of the government’s case against OneTaste. She was the emotional hook in the Netflix documentary Orgasm Inc., telling a story about being pressured into sex acts and manipulated by the company.

Turns out Blanck (and her sister) forged handwritten journals that were supposed to be key evidence. She deleted messages and created fake content with the help of a Netflix producer. And she did all of this while working closely with FBI Agent Elliot McGinnis, who, by all accounts, was fully aware of what she was doing.

In March 2025, the DOJ admitted in a letter to the court that the journals weren’t authentic.

Their exact words:

“The government no longer maintains that the disputed portions of Blanck’s handwritten journals are authentic… This letter therefore affirmatively corrects any statements to the contrary previously made to the Court and defense.”

They also made a promise:

“The government does not intend to call Blanck as a witness at the forthcoming trial. Nor does the government intend to call any witness at trial who the government believes would provide false testimony.”

They went even further:

That should’ve ended this farce. But it didn’t. Instead, prosecutors found a new witness to tell Blanck’s same debunked fairytale, word for word. They claim they’re not entering her statements “for their truth,” which is a little legal technicality that lets them slide hearsay into trial. In plain terms, they’re saying the story is being shared only to provide context or show someone’s mindset, not to prove the story actually happened.

But once the jury hears it, the damage is done.

Prosecutors Are Protecting Netflix, Not the Truth

On Friday, prosecutor Kaitlin Farrell told the court they were planning to have a witness testify about what Rachel Cherwitz supposedly said to Ayries Blanck. She talks about some alleged incident where Cherwitz told Blanck to sleep with 30 men in 30 days and said Blanck was “shunned” and “berated” in front of staff.

Here’s what Farrell told the court:

“There’s going to be lots of testimony about what Ms. Cherwitz said to Ayries, including, like, berating her, shunning her, calling her out in front of the other staff members in the house. That’s going to be, like, a pretty substantial portion of the end of her testimony.”

Farrell was forced to acknowledge the elephant in the room:

“I am being very careful about not eliciting Ms. Blanck’s statements for their truth or at all… But it is coming up, and I know that this is something that the defense cares about, so I just want to flag it.”

Ahh yes, that pesky thing called “truth.”

This is how lawfare works. They know the original source lied. They admitted it in writing. But because the Netflix narrative is so important to the story they want to tell, they’re just finding a new mouth to repeat it and hiding behind legal jargon to get it in front of the jury.

Meanwhile, Netflix has a lawyer sitting in court every day. Mind you, this is the same Netflix team that creatively edited Nicole Daedone’s words to make it sound like she was encouraging rape. That exact edited clip is now being shown in federal court as if it’s real. At this point, it’s safe to say that the government didn’t just borrow Netflix’s playbook. They’re running the same plays, word for word.

Same Edited Clip, Same Scripted Outrage

When the trial opened, prosecutors led with a heavily edited clip from Netflix’s Orgasm Inc., showing Nicole Daedone saying:

“If you want to know the real way to deflect rape, it’s to turn on 100%. Because then there’s nothing to rape.”

That line, which was totally stripped of all context, sounded outrageous. Which was the point. The government showed the clip to a witness, actress Rebecca Halpern, who became emotional on the stand.

Farrell asked her:

“Why does seeing this make you so upset?”

Halpern responded:

“It’s just… it is intense to go back in time and see that… I find it really upsetting, this idea of, like, a perpetrator of rape.”

But there was a big problem.

Halpern had never watched Nicole Daedone’s full lecture. She had only seen the edited clip that prosecutors gave her.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean exposed the manipulation. She played the longer portion of the video and asked Halpern if she had ever seen the full version. Halpern admitted she hadn’t.

After watching the full context, Halpern completely shifted her tone.

She called the ideas “beautiful.”

She acknowledged Nicole was sharing her own story, not telling others how to respond to trauma.

She agreed she interpreted the message how she wanted to interpret it.

Here’s What That Netflix Clip Really Did

We already told you how the prosecution opened their case using the same edited Netflix clip that totally misrepresented Nicole’s words. But what happened next deserves a closer look, because it shows just how far the government was willing to go to manipulate the jury.

It wasn’t until defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean stepped up that the jury finally got to see the full picture. After Bonjean got Halpern to admit she never watched the full lecture—only Netflix’s edited clip—she showed her more of the actual talk. Not the Netflix version. Not the courtroom cut. Just the real talk, in full context. And that’s when Halpern’s entire tone changed.

She told the jury:

“I took the meaning that she was using that story of something that she had personally gone through as something to illustrate to others what is possible… that we could attempt to kind of gain that same power in an unsafe situation.”

Bonjean pressed:

“You testified that her words caused you harm, right?”

Halpern:

“That’s my belief.”

“She forced you by ideas? Is that your testimony?”

Halpern:

“That’s how brainwashing works, to me.”

Then Bonjean dropped the reality check:

“You went to a course that you signed up for, right?”

Halpern:

“Freely. Yes.”

Bonjean:

“A course you desperately wanted to participate in, right?”

Halpern:

“Absolutely.”

Bonjean:

“You sat there and listened to someone tell you about the way she processes her own, quote-unquote, trauma, right?”

Halpern:

“Which are beautiful ideas.”

Bonjean:

“Right. They are beautiful ideas. And you decided to interpret it the way you wanted to, correct?”

Halpern:

“Correct.”

Witness Coaching or Script Rehearsal?

But this isn’t just about one witness. What’s happening in this courtroom looks more like a rehearsal for a scripted show trial than a search for the actual truth.

Multiple government witnesses have admitted, under oath, that they were coached, prepped, and walked through their testimony by FBI agents, “cult experts,” and prosecutors more than ten times. Some met with the government for years before taking the stand.

And these weren’t quick interviews. These were long, repeated meetings that sometimes would stretch over months or even years of careful shaping, reshaping, and message management. And what were they using to guide these sessions, you might ask?

Well, the Netflix documentary, of course.

The FBI and DOJ used an edited, manipulative, factually debunked documentary as their training material for witnesses in a federal trial. A film they know contains fake journals, selectively edited clips, and defamatory quotes that the government itself said were false. And now they’re using it to train people to testify.

This is not just dishonest. It’s downright dangerous. This is the government laundering propaganda through Hollywood and then feeding it right back into court by the forkful.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

So far, at least seven out of nine government witnesses have admitted to meeting with the FBI and prosecutors more than ten times. Some of these meetings started back in 2018 and kept going right up to the trial.

Here’s what some of them said on the stand:

Halpern (5/8/2025):

“I met with them several times… more than ten sounds about right.”

Halpern (5/9/2025):

“I’ve met with the government consistently from 2018 to now.”

Berkley (5/12/2025):

“Almost a dozen times… some of those interviews lasted hours.”

Gill (5/13/2025):

“Maybe ten, twelve.”

Kosley (5/19/2025):

“Meetings from October 2022 to April 2025. Maybe ten to twelve.”

Lifson (5/19/2025):

“Ten times.”

Wright (5/21/2025):

“Since 2022… over ten times.”

Lyndsi (5/23/2025):

“Probably between five and ten times… yes, they went over my testimony.”

These were full-blown performance sessions. Government agents holding witnesses’s hands and walking them through narratives, perceptions, and—in some cases—leaving out the fact that core pieces of the “Netflix narrative” had already been totally discredited.

Netflix Has a Lawyer Sitting in the Courtroom Every Day

As we mentioned earlier, sources on the ground say Netflix has a lawyer attending the OneTaste trial every day.

Why would a streaming platform need representation at a federal trial unless their involvement goes deeper than just a documentary? The government is reinforcing Netflix’s version of events so aggressively, it’s starting to look like they’re protecting the company’s narrative. Are they possibly laying groundwork for Netflix’s defense in the upcoming civil case?

It’s not just that the government is using Netflix’s clips. It’s that the government appears to be actively helping Netflix keep their version of the story alive, even after it’s been proven false.

This Should Be Criminal

A discredited documentary. A fraudulent witness. Forged journals. Edited clips. FBI agents coaching witnesses with Hollywood scripts. And now a federal prosecution that is playing “dress up” in a courtroom Netflix production, line for line.

This isn’t a case about forced labor. It’s not about harm. It’s not even about justice.

This is lawfare.

It’s the Biden regime holdovers targeting a group for progressive #MeToo points, destroying lives and reputations, and rewriting reality in a US court of law. And the really scary part is they don’t need evidence and facts to win. They just need a headline, a soundbite, and a jury confused enough to nod along.

And worst of all, this trial never should’ve happened in the first place. Once the DOJ admitted their star witness lied and created fake evidence, the case should’ve been tossed out like yesterday’s garbage.

Instead, they changed the face of the messenger but kept the same rotten, fake script. And they’re using your tax dollars to do it.

The Real Danger Isn’t OneTaste; It’s What This Trial Proves

If they can do this to Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, they can do it to anyone. If they can admit fake evidence, admit a witness lied, and use a doctored Netflix documentary to set the tone at trial, then truth is no longer the standard. Narrative is.

And when narrative becomes more powerful than truth, justice dies.

UPDATE:

Not long after this piece went live, the BBC caved, scrubbing Episode 9 of its podcast from their website. The episode, built on lies and doctored evidence from former OneTaste member Ayries Blanck, is now gone. It’s a clear and resounding victory for OneTaste, who are on trial by the Biden-era lawfare holdovers in New York City.

Frank Report:

In the middle of the trial of the USA v Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, the BBC made an editorial decision to “suspend access” to Episode 9 of its podcast Orgasm Inc. – a 10-episode series deeply slanted against the defendants.

The two women are on trial on a single count of forced labor conspiracy.

The BBC podcast had a golden goose, and her name was Ayries Blanck. Episode 9 was her story.

[…]

The journal was once the cornerstone of a prosecution. Blanck at first claimed she wrote it in 2015. Then—something strange. The pages quote books from the future. She quoted a 2019 book in a journal she claimed to write in 2015.

As a result, prosecutors informed the court that Blanck would not be called as a witness in the trial of Daedone and Cherwitz, citing her lack of credibility.

But for more than a years it sat there like a holy book—fingers trembling, voices rising, prosecutors pointing. But it wasn’t real.

A friend now takes the stand, hoping memory can stand in for truth. In the courtroom, they call it “state of mind.” Outside, they call it a lie.

Ayries made up a journal and they ran with it. Now she’s radioactive, so they trot out her friend.

“Tell the jury what Ayries told you!” Yeah, hearsay. But it’s ok—because they’re the government.

And the BBC? They’re wiping egg off their face—slowly.

The prosecution? Truth is not the goal. Conviction is.

Anyway—BBC took their story down.

And as for the government, reports indicate, the prosecutors are failing at proving brainwashing is a tangible crime.

UPDATE: OneTaste scores victory in midst of Biden-era prosecution... - Revolver News

News

UPDATE: OneTaste scores victory in midst of Biden-era prosecution…

Join the Discussion

Recent Exclusives

Exclusive: Meet the TDS Cult ‘Expert’ Behind the FBI’s Lawfare Machine

The Swamp’s Got Its Knives Out for Trump’s Peace Pick—Time to Rally Around Steve Witkoff

Netflix, the FBI, and a Federal Frame Job That Took Down a Wellness Company…