Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now… Donate…
Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge…
When a federal prosecution relies on a narrative this shaky, it only takes one honest voice to shatter the illusion. That voice belongs to Madelyn Carl, an alleged victim of OneTaste who never claimed to be a victim at all. In fact, she came to court in support of the defense. And what she saw there wasn’t justice; it was narrative control.
The government’s lead prosecutors, AUSA Nina Gupta and AUSA Bensing, paraded Madelyn’s name and face in front of the jury, referencing her a combined 31 times during closing arguments. They plastered her image on a “victim board” and tried to sell the idea that she, like the others, was manipulated, abused, and stripped of autonomy.
There’s just one problem: Madelyn says none of that is true.
Here are her words:
“I do not see myself as a victim of OneTaste, or Nicole Daedone, or Rachel Cherwitz… No one forced me to do anything there. I chose to do what I did.”
That quote alone should have stopped the prosecution cold. But it didn’t. Because this case was never about facts, it was about crafting a story for the media, the Netflix crowd, and a political agenda. Madelyn was never called to testify. Why? Because her story didn’t fit. She joined OneTaste by choice. She left by choice. And she gained more from it than she ever lost. That doesn’t sell the forced labor narrative, so the DOJ simply pretended she didn’t exist until they needed her face for emotional leverage.
The feds didn’t just distort Madelyn’s story; they tried to buy it. She, and many others, were offered free therapy through an FBI “victim specialist” who has Stage 5 Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We covered that shocking story recently.
In the middle of a quietly unfolding federal trial against former executives of a Silicon Valley wellness company called OneTaste, something truly extraordinary happened. Through the grind and determination of civil litigation, subpoena battles, and courtroom discovery, OneTaste stumbled onto a trail of evidence that doesn’t just raise questions about their own prosecution; it raises red flags about the very foundations of how federal agencies have been operating since the start of the lawfare era.
At the center of this discovery is a man named Steven Hassan, a self-described “cult expert” who authored a book titled “The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control.”
This is the man whose work is now featured on the FBI official website. And the man whose “BITE Model,” a subjective framework built on emotional, behavioral, and thought control, is being used to train FBI agents on how to identify “cult victims.”
This questionable training has been directly linked to criminal cases involving spiritual communities like OneTaste, where former members were encouraged to reinterpret their past experiences as “trauma” with the help of taxpayer-funded “victim services” and workshops hosted by Mr. Hassan.
Read the entire article here:
Exclusive: Meet the TDS Cult ‘Expert’ Behind the FBI’s Lawfare Machine
The therapy implications seemed clear: play along, get rewarded. Say you’re a victim, and the government will take care of you.
But Madelyn refused. She didn’t want to process her life through the lens of victimhood, because she wasn’t one.
And she wasn’t alone. Many women have come forward describing how FBI agents pushed them to accept “victim assistance” they never asked for and didn’t believe they needed.
According to transcripts, the FBI interviewed government witnesses in the OneTaste case an average of 10 times each:
Rebecca Halpern: “11 or 12 times”
Christina Berkley: “almost a dozen”
Dana Gill: “I don’t know, ten, twelve?”
Chris Kosley: “Maybe ten to twelve”
Lianna LIfson: “ten times”
Michelle Wright: “over ten times”
Lyndsi Kyves: “five to ten times”
Agent McGinnis, the same agent tied to multiple witness interactions, allegedly misrepresented interviews, reframed statements, and kept pushing even when women very clearly said, “I’m not a victim.”
So, the larger point now becomes: are grown women adults or not?
READ MORE: Netflix, the FBI, and a Federal Frame Job That Took Down a Wellness Company…
Because we can’t ignore what this case really says about how the government views women. We’re not talking about minors. We’re talking about well-educated, adult women in their 20s and 30s, many of whom were Ivy League grads, business professionals, and perfectly capable of saying yes or no in real time.
But according to the prosecution, those “yeses” don’t count. Their choices don’t matter. And if they later regret the experience, even years later, the state gets to retroactively redefine it as “forced labor.”
That logic is terrifying. If a 25-year-old woman’s consent can be revoked by a prosecutor ten years after the fact, what can’t be undone? Her job? Her marriage? Her vote?
If regret becomes the new legal standard, what’s next? Do we start recounting elections because someone felt manipulated? Where does this end?
The prosecution’s star witness never testified because she didn’t support the case. She actively rejected it. And in doing so, she exposed a dangerous truth: this was never about protecting women. It was about using them.
The DOJ hijacked Madelyn’s story, plastered her face in front of a jury, and used her as a prop in a case she fundamentally disagreed with. That’s not justice. That’s theater.
And it’s time the curtain came down.
Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…
Check out the new merch! — Donate…
Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge…
NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — BLUESKY
Join the Discussion