Leaders of ‘orgasmic meditation' company OneTaste convicted in forced labor trial
The leaders of a US sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted 'orgasmic meditation' have been convicted of federal forced labor charges.
A Brooklyn jury on Monday found Nicole Daedone, founder of OneTaste Inc., and Rachel Cherwitz, the California-based company's former sales director, guilty after deliberating for less than two days following a five-week trial. The two each face up to 20 years in prison, with sentencing due later.
Prosecutors argued the two women ran a years-long scheme that groomed adherents –many of them victims of sexual trauma – to do their bidding.
They said Daedone, 57, and Cherwitz, 44, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients.
The two told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles.
Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses.
Assistant US Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants 'built a business on the backs' of victims who 'gave everything' to them, including 'their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity.'
'The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit,' said Joseph Nocella, US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Daedone's defense team cast her as a 'ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur' who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment.
Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left.
'No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about,' she said in her closing statement last week. 'The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime.'
Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal.
'We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict,' the lawyers said in a statement Monday. 'This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit.'
Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection.
A centerpiece was 'orgasmic meditation,' or 'OM,' which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting.
The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual services for a fee.
Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million – a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny.
The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified.
They maintain sexual consent has always been a cornerstone of the organization. The company didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Wall Street Journal
41 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Global Markets Mostly Higher; U.S. Futures Down Ahead of Inflation Data
Global markets were mostly higher and U.S. stock futures were lower after U.S and China officials hit the reset button following two days of trade talks, and ahead of the U.S. CPI inflation report due later Wednesday. Little detail from the talks was released, but representatives from the countries said the framework agreed would essentially restore a pact they agreed to in Switzerland last month, a deal that saw both sides lower tariffs.
