Latest news with #JenniferBonjean
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
A First Amendment Right To Preach Orgasm?
Yes, some people feared leaving OneTaste, defense lawyer Jennifer Bonjean admitted on Monday. "There was fear of being kicked out of the group chat." Bonjean's client, Nicole Daedone, is co-founder of the sexual and spiritual wellness company OneTaste. Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, OneTaste's former head of sales, are on trial for an alleged conspiracy to commit forced labor. On Monday, the prosecution rested its very underwhelming case—a case that has invoked witchcraft, bad brain science, and a disturbing infantilization of women. Typically, a forced labor case involves someone employing violence, threats of violence, or other means of "serious harm" in order to compel someone to work for them. But again and again, government witnesses—former OneTaste volunteers, employees, and community members—testified that they were entirely free to quit their positions, move out of OneTaste communes, or otherwise cease formal associations with the group without threat of physical harm or some sort of serious retaliation. They just didn't want to go because they feared being excommunicated from the OneTaste community, which they had become dependent on for their social, sexual, and spiritual identities. The idea that this constitutes a "serious harm" that can sustain a forced labor charge "gets us into some very worrisome First Amendment issues, because the First Amendment protects people's right to assemble as they see fit," Bonjean told U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati on Monday. "Scientologists are permitted to fraternize with Scientologists. Churches are permitted to socialize with people that share their beliefs. They are permitted under the First Amendment to say, you don't share our beliefs, therefore you may not be part of our community," Bonjean said. "And OneTaste also—not just as a business but as a community—was permitted to say, 'we share these beliefs, we live by them ourselves, if you don't want to live by them, then you will have to leave.' Or 'you may be a customer, you can attend classes, you can be on the outer circles, but you…may not be in the inner circle, because…we don't want people who don't believe in these principles.'" Those principles are much of what the government has been putting on trial. The prosecution's theory of the case is that OneTaste's teachings about things like sexual openness, openness to new experiences, personal responsibility, and the value of orgasmic meditation (O.M.)—a 15-minute, partnered clitoral stroking practice—left people powerless to reject living, working, or sexual situations they did not want. Yet with government witness after government witness, the defense has produced evidence suggesting that discomfort or displeasure came only with hindsight. In the moment, these witnesses were effusive—on social media, in emails to OneTaste higher-ups, and so on—about the benefits of O.M. and OneTaste teachings more generally. "What the government has alleged [and] the evidence has demonstrated is that there were people who participated in OneTaste and then later determined that they were psychologically harmed," Bonjean suggested to Gujarati on Monday. "Not that in the moment psychological harm was the reason they stayed." Government witnesses testified about fears of losing "social status" and that there was "a high school clique situation gone bad and you could lose being closer to the cool kids," Celia Cohen, a lawyer for Cherwitz, told Judge Gujurati on Monday. "And people did testify that that was what was important. And if they didn't do this, they would lose that kind of status. But again, that is not serious harm." Reading the transcripts from this trial, which started on May 5, it's clear many of the government's witnesses are now uncomfortable with choices they made while affiliated with OneTaste—things like deciding to go into debt or solicit money from a man to pay for courses; engaging in a lot of promiscuous sexual activity; or staying in a professional or volunteer role or a housing situation that eventually soured. And, whether intentionally or not, they seem to be looking for someone other than themselves to blame for these choices, even if they were mentally capable 20- and 30-something-year-old adults at the time. One government witness, Michal Neria, talked about marrying Misha, a man who had been paying for her to take OneTaste courses and proposed to her at a OneTaste event. Cherwitz allegedly suggested to Neria "that I could ask him to pay and that it's completely his decision whether to say yes or no," Neria testified on May 22. "Rachel and the other higher-ups put that idea in my head. I would have never come up with it by myself." "So, you take no responsibility for asking Misha to pay for your courses?" Bonjean asked. "I take no responsibility," Neria said. Bonjean then asked Neria if she could agree that she did not have to ask Misha to pay for her courses. "Then I wouldn't have been able to take those courses," Neria replied. So, Neria did something that benefited her at the time ("I really wanted to take that course," she told the court) or made her feel more socially accepted ("I saw other people who have gotten married and…I wanted us to be like them"). But after it didn't work out—the marriage to Misha quickly ended in divorce and Neria stopped associating with OneTaste—she seems to have totally absolved herself of any agency in her actions. Neria even brought up witchcraft, telling the court that "pretty much all of the staff, all of the female staff" were considered witches. Another government witness, Dana Gill, took a less mystical and more pseudo-scientific approach to explaining her time at OneTaste: "My brain wasn't fully developed." Gill was 25 years old and a college graduate when she started to associate with OneTaste. "I was so young, you know," she told the court on May 14. "My prefrontal cortex wasn't done developing." The suggestion here is that a 25-year-old woman is too young to legally make decisions for herself—an implication that could have serious consequences far beyond this prosecution. But believing that 25-year-olds aren't culpable for their actions isn't Gill's only unusual idea; she also seems to think that it's coercive to talk about or do things in front of her. While at OneTaste, Gill entered into a sham marriage with someone who needed a green card, getting paid $10,000 for it. She told the court that she only did this because a few other people she knew in OneTaste (neither of the defendants) had green card marriages and this "normalized" the idea for her. Likewise, Gill—who is now a Methodist pastor—became a sugar baby and then started doing sex work because her friend in OneTaste, Aubrey, was doing it, Gill testified. "Aubrey talking about her own experience normalized prostitution for you?" Bonjean asked Gill. "Yeah, it became normalized for me," Gill replied. She went on to suggest that hearing Aubrey—a friend who is not either of the defendants, mind you, or even in OneTaste leadership—describing her own positive experiences with sex work amounted to "coercion over a period of time." Back in 2011, she told podcaster Mai Vu that she had to keep her sex work "hush hush" around people at OneTaste. She also said then that sex work "was one of my favorite jobs ever. Like, I love having sex and I got paid to have sex with…random men." And that was "really thrilling." Asked in court to explain the discrepancy in how she talks about sex work now and how she talked about it back then, Gill blamed OneTaste for having "celebrated and embraced" her sexual side and given her "all of this positive reinforcement around having sex and being a sexual person." At the time, "I was like, oh, yeah, I'm going to keep leaning into that," she told the court. But "it was not freeing, in fact, in hindsight." As the prosecution rested its case, I couldn't help but think: That's it? I knew going in that this case was weak, but the court proceedings have really driven home just how weak. Basically, it's been a parade of adults—men and women, but mostly women—infantilizing themselves while granting almost superhuman power to Daedone and Cherwitz. Again and again, government witnesses testified about freely choosing to work for OneTaste, to live in OneTaste housing, and to sign up for OneTaste classes and programs. The consequences they experienced, or feared, from going against bosses or rejecting community practices are the kinds of things you might expect in any job or communal living situation: disapproval, disappointment, diminished opportunities. The reasons they gave for staying even when they were unhappy also fall more within "yes, that's life," than a criminal scope. One witness testified that she couldn't leave right away because she didn't have a lot of money saved or another job lined up. Many witnesses seemed willing, intentionally or not, to rewrite history. For instance, government witness Anthia Gillick said she felt like she wasn't able to take vacations; the defense provided evidence, which she did not dispute, that she traveled to the Hamptons, San Francisco, Bali, and Antarctica while involved with OneTaste. Gillick also claimed she didn't seek medical attention after suffering an aerial silk injury (unrelated to OneTaste) because Cherwitz allegedly discouraged it. On cross, she admitted that she had actually seen a doctor, an acupuncturist, and a masseuse. Gill told the court about allegedly being directed by Cherwitz to engage in sexual activity with Antonios Hadjigeorgalis, a student in a OneTaste coaching program in 2010. Hadjigeorgalis "was getting ready to withdraw from the coaching program, and I was told to go make sure that he stayed in the coaching program," she said in her May 13 testimony. While no one explicitly told her to hook up with him sexually, that was "my interpretation of what was asked of me," she said. Hadjigeorgalis testified in court on Monday. He was in San Fransisco once during the coaching program, in November 2010, and said that during that visit Dana came to his room and they engaged in sexual activity. He had not, at this point, had any intention of dropping the program, he told the court, and dropping out was not something he brought up with OneTaste staff until January 2011. Sometimes, the government precluded the defense from having the opportunity to challenge negative statements. Such was the case when it came to Ayries Blanck, the government's star witness until she admitted that she was untruthful with prosecutors and had fabricated evidence. Prosecutors subsequently decided not to have Blanck testify. But, on Monday, they had an FBI agent and a prosecutor read text messages sent between two former OneTaste staff members, Joanna Van Vleck and Kenan Wang, about Blanck threatening the company with a lawsuit. The texts included some of Blanck's allegations, which meant the jury was exposed to these claims. The judge told the jury these texts were being read not for their truth but merely for context. And since Blanck herself wasn't testifying, the defense had no opportunity to question her directly or challenge her claims in front of the jury. The government contended in court on Monday that it doesn't matter if people weren't actually physically trapped at OneTaste. "I know there's been arguments that people were free to leave at any time. That's not an element of the [forced labor] statute," said U.S. Attorney Nina C. Gupta. "The fact that people were physically free to leave doesn't speak to the fact that they felt psychologically entrapped." Notice the word felt there. That's what this case comes down to: feelings. Not facts about anything the defendants did but the way witnesses—10, 15, 20 years later—now feel about their lives during this time. "Of course it matters [that they could] not only physically leave, but they could leave without any real repercussions," Bonjean replied in court. "Nobody has identified a single repercussion other than Nicole might be mad at me, I would be kicked out of the circle, or that I wouldn't be able to be a part of the community." "Really what they were afraid of most is conduct that is protected by the First Amendment," said Bonjean. "So that type of fear is not the type of fear that was contemplated by the lawmakers when they passed [forced labor] legislation." Physical violence and threats of it are "the type of coercion that the lawmakers had in mind, not some type of social coercion or fear that you're going to be kicked out of the group, and that is what we've heard of." On Tuesday, the defense rested its case, having called just one witness. "I want to make the record very clear. We have plenty of witnesses that we would have presented, but it's very clear that what we want to present, the Court has disagreed would be admissible," Bonjean told the judge. Neither Cherwitz nor Daedone elected to testify. Closing arguments in the case will begin today. Ohio targets drag performers. An Ohio bill would limit "adult cabaret performances," which it defines as performances "harmful to juveniles" that feature go-go dancers, strippers, or "entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performers' or entertainers' biological sex." Free speech for me, but not for thee. The Free Press' editors champion the ban on TikTok. Pas de porno pour toi. Pornhub is suspending service in France in light of a new law that requires adult websites to verify all visitor ages. Can an egg yolk be pornographic? On obscenity and over-easy eggs Library bill dead. An Alabama bill targeting libraries for obscenity prosecutions has failed. The post A First Amendment Right To Preach Orgasm? appeared first on
New York Times
29-05-2025
- General
- New York Times
Larry Hoover, Former Chicago Gang Leader, Wins Commutation From Trump
When an Illinois judge sentenced Larry Hoover to up to 200 years in prison for murder in the 1970s, it was the sort of punishment that seemed destined to end his career as a Chicago gang leader. But in the decades that followed, prosecutors said, Mr. Hoover's power only grew as he directed one of Chicago's most powerful gangs, the Gangster Disciples, from behind prison walls. Young members would pledge allegiance to Mr. Hoover, whom they called their 'king,' and those who broke Gangster Disciple rules, prosecutors said, would face bloody retribution 'up to and including murder.' His influence continued to grow into the 1990s, when he was convicted of more crimes in federal court and shipped off to a supermax prison with a life sentence. On Wednesday, after years of lobbying from Mr. Hoover's supporters, including celebrities, President Trump fully commuted the federal sentence of Mr. Hoover, according to a White House official familiar with the matter. The commutation was not likely to bring Mr. Hoover, who is now 74 and largely a memory in his hometown, back to Chicago's streets. His state prison sentence remains in effect, with a projected parole date of 2062, when Mr. Hoover would be 111. But the president's decision showed his willingness to extend leniency to some prisoners, despite his frequent rhetoric about the danger of violent criminal gangs. Jennifer Bonjean, a lawyer for Mr. Hoover, said that the process to commute Mr. Hoover's sentence had been years in the making. The entertainer Ye, who was formerly known as Kanye West, lobbied Mr. Trump during his first term in office, she said, and others have joined the effort since then. 'There has been a lot of support from advocates who have been preaching 'Free Larry Hoover' for a long time,' Ms. Bonjean said. The process of lobbying Mr. Trump intensified this year, after Alice Johnson, who was sentenced to life in prison in a drug conspiracy case and whose sentence was later commuted by Mr. Trump, was appointed a 'pardon czar' in the White House to advise the president on clemency, said Justin Moore, a lawyer for Mr. Hoover. The phone conversations between Mr. Moore and Ms. Johnson became more frequent in the last four to five weeks, Mr. Moore said, adding that Ms. Johnson had relayed that the president was 'very keen on releasing Larry.' White House officials declined to comment on the record. Mr. Hoover's legal team received word on Monday that the commutation was going to happen. 'This is an older gentleman who has a lot of health concerns and who has aged out of criminality,' Mr. Moore said. The specifics of what would happen to Mr. Hoover were unclear on Wednesday evening. Mr. Hoover remained in the federal Bureau of Prisons online directory, and two representatives for the Illinois Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to questions about the case. Mr. Moore said he was hopeful that Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, a Democrat who is a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, would decide to commute Mr. Hoover's state sentence. Mr. Pritzker declined through a spokesman to comment. In Chicago, Mr. Hoover built a highly regimented gang that prosecutors said sold drugs, laundered money and ruled over large geographic territories where nonmembers would have to pay a 'street tax' in order to sell drugs, according to a 1995 indictment of Mr. Hoover and other gang members. 'This is in a very real sense an outlaw form of government,' Ronald Safer, the lead prosecutor, told jurors during Mr. Hoover's federal trial in 1997. The gang also expanded beyond the drug trade, starting businesses, leading voter registration drives and holding political rallies calling for education reform. 'They registered voters, which is a wonderful thing,' Mr. Safer said during Mr. Hoover's federal trial. 'The problem is, it was funded by drug money and supported by gang muscle.' In recent years, as Mr. Hoover has sought release from his federal sentence at the restrictive supermax prison in Colorado, his supporters have argued that he has been rehabilitated in prison, that he no longer wishes to lead the Gangster Disciples and that he still faces a long prison term in Illinois. 'He spends 23 hours a day in a concrete cell no larger than a parking space,' his lawyers wrote in a court filing in 2022. 'For over two decades, he has had virtually no contact with the outside world. He is, quite literally, buried alive.' As recently as last fall, prosecutors had taken a dim view of Mr. Hoover's pleas. They claimed in September that Mr. Hoover 'remains the heralded leader of the GDs, despite the intensive monitoring to which he is subject,' and that he was 'one of the most notorious criminals in Illinois history.' And though Mr. Hoover's state prison sentence in Illinois remains in effect, federal prosecutors said, he could be paroled by a state board in the coming years. Mr. Safer, who prosecuted Mr. Hoover in federal court and is now in private practice, said in an interview on Wednesday that he had not foreseen that the sentence would be commuted and was struggling to understand the thinking behind it. Mr. Hoover, he said, 'was the undisputed leader of perhaps the largest monolithic criminal organization that this country has ever known,' which had more than 30,000 members in 28 states and was responsible for the sale of over $100 million worth of drugs a year in Illinois alone. Mr. Safer said that he was hopeful that it would be arranged for Mr. Hoover to serve the rest of his state sentence in federal custody. 'I believe in mercy, I believe in redemption, and I believe in rehabilitation,' Mr. Safer said. 'But there are some crimes that are so heinous, so reprehensible, that they are not deserving of mercy.'
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Weinstein accuser Miriam Haley storms out of courtroom in tears: ‘Don't tell me I wasn't raped by that f–king a–hole!'
Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes trial went off the rails Friday as one of his accusers stormed out of the courtroom in tears after snapping 'Don't tell me I wasn't raped by that f–king a–hole!' during brutal questioning by his lawyer. The Manhattan courtroom, filled with roughly 40 people, sat in stunned silence as former TV production assistant Miriam 'Mimi' Haley got off the witness stand and briskly walked out, wiping tears from her eyes and so flustered that she almost ran into the defense table where Weinstein was sitting. The dramatic moment unfolded roughly 30 minutes into Haley's second day of grilling by Weinstein defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean, who was probing her about her claims that the then-powerful Hollywood producer sexually assaulted her at his SoHo loft two decades ago. Asked whether she'd undressed herself, Haley snapped, 'I didn't take my clothes off.' 'He was the one who raped me, not the other way around,' she said, prompting Bonjean to fire back, 'That's for the jury to decide.' 'No, it's not for the jury to decide when it's my experience and he did that to me,' Haley said during the escalating exchange. 'Don't tell me I wasn't raped by that f–king a–hole!' she said, breaking into tears as the shocked audience in the courtroom gallery looked on and Haley rushed out to the hallway. The 78-year-old Weinstein, seated in a wheelchair next to his lawyers, didn't turn around or visibly react during the tense moment. He had watched Haley, 48, intently when she testified earlier this week about the moment she realized she was being 'raped' by Weinstein at his apartment on July 10, 2006. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Farber called a short break so that Haley could compose herself after the outburst Friday. Bonjean then continued pelting the former 'Project Runway' staffer with rapid-fire and intrusive questions, in an attempt to poke holes in her testimony. The exchanges between the two got so tense at moments that they raised their voices at each other — and the judge was forced to bang on his desk several times as he repeated that the women 'refrain from the commentary.' Bonjean seemed fixated on how the clothes came off of Haley's lower body — since an admission she undressed herself would support the main defense argument that Weinstein's sexual encounters with his accusers were all consensual. But Haley didn't back down, insisting: 'I did not remove my clothes.' Harvey Weinstein's lawyer asks sex assault accuser 'who is Paul McCartney?' while needling her over A-list connections Ex-'Project Runway' staffer testifies that Harvey Weinstein raped her in violent 2006 assault Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted 16-year-old — then bragged about boosting careers of A-list stars, court hears Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial begins in NY with a fresh witness Weinstein accuser Miriam Haley storms out of courtroom in tears: 'Don't tell me I wasn't raped by that f–king a–hole!' 'Please, I did not remove my clothes. 100% not,' she said. Bonjean insinuated that Haley was being an uncooperative witness, complaining to the judge that they 'would be here all day.' At one point, she snapped at Haley: 'I ask the questions, you answer them.' Haley also sniped that Bonjean was 'trying to be cute' during another tense moment. Farber again tried to rein in the women trading barbs, saying: 'Why is it you can't refrain from commentating?' Haley also cried on Wednesday during testimony when she first described to the jury both times she claims Weinstein sexually assaulted her. In the first alleged attack at his apartment, Haley testified that she told Weinstein no and even disclosed she was on her period. She claimed he 'yanked' her tampon out before 'forcefully' performing oral sex on her. Haley described feeling 'mortified' and 'in disbelief' about the alleged attack. Less than a month later, on July 26, she claimed Weinstein convinced her to meet him again at the TriBeCa Grand Hotel where he immediately forced her onto the bed and raped her. 'Oh no, oh no — not again' she recalled thinking at the time. The ex-Miramax studio boss' attorney on Friday, asked Haley why she agreed to meet Weinstein again after the first alleged assault. 'He was very persistent and manipulative, in my opinion. He asked me to come and meet him — just to talk or whatever,' Haley testified. When she realized she wasn't meeting Weinstein in a public area of the hotel, but rather inside a room, 'I could have and should have walked out,' she said. Bonjean first began questioning Haley on cross-examination on Thursday, needling her about her A-list connections and appearing to try to paint her as a money-hungry social climber. Haley answered questions about meeting a slew of celebrities during her time working with British film and theater producer Michael White, confirming she'd encountered rockers Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney, actor Jack Nicholson and 'Saturday Night Live' creator Lorne Michaels. 'Who is Paul McCartney?' Bonjean asked after questioning Haley about if she met the Beatle through White, in an apparent attempt to be snide. 'Yes,' Haley replied. 'He was in The Beatles. He's a musician.' Haley also testified against Weinstein, in 2020 painting a very similar picture to what she has described so far during her second stint on the stand. Weinstein was convicted in that case, and was sentenced to 23 years behind bars. But that conviction was overturned last year. He has maintained his innocence and faces up to 25 years if convicted on the top count at his retrial. The proceedings will resume Tuesday with prosecutors' next witness.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
R. Kelly Denied Appeal of Federal Racketeering and Sex Trafficking Conviction and 30-Year Prison Sentence
R. Kelly, June 2019 () In 2023, R. Kelly formally appealed his conviction on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges. On Wednesday (February 12), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction and its corresponding 30-year prison sentence. In a statement to The Associated Press, R. Kelly's attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, called the ruling 'unprecedented' and said that she believes the Supreme Court of the United States will agree to hear a further appeal. This week's decision has to do with Kelly's New York federal case, but the disgraced R&B singer was also convicted, in a Chicago federal court, of producing child pornography and enticing girls for sex. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of his 20-year sentence in that case. Originally Appeared on Pitchfork
