The lawyers were already billing years before federal agents arrested anyone.
By the time Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz entered a Brooklyn courtroom in May 2025, they were supported by separate criminal-defense teams, OneTaste’s corporate lawyers, privilege specialists, investigators, document-review vendors, publicists and media advisers. Outside the courthouse, OneTaste was financing a campaign to challenge the prosecution through sympathetic articles, television appearances, online videos and political advocacy.
The jury convicted both women after a five-week trial.
The spending continued.
Daedone and Cherwitz challenged their detention through the Second Circuit. They returned to the appeals court after sentencing. OneTaste pursued its own appeal over allegedly privileged documents. The defendants submitted pardon applications and sought support from Alan Dershowitz, Matt Gaetz, Roger Stone and others connected to President Donald Trump’s political world.
The company continued litigating against Netflix, the BBC and former employee Ayries Blanck. It also faced federal civil claims brought by former OneTaste participants.
The combined operation has probably cost $21 million to $41 million through July 31, 2026, based on court records, disclosed fee awards, the lawyers and firms involved, the volume of litigation, prevailing legal rates and reported public-relations arrangements.
The best central estimate is about $29 million.
The expected future cost is another $12 million to $35 million, assuming the criminal convictions are upheld and the civil cases end without multiple trials.
That produces a likely lifetime legal and influence bill of approximately:
The high-cost outcome is far greater.
A second criminal trial, full civil discovery, adverse fee awards, further Supreme Court proceedings and a pardon campaign continuing through the end of Trump’s term could push the combined cost toward:
Those figures exclude Daedone’s $12 million forfeiture judgment, almost $888,000 in restitution, possible civil settlements, damages awards and interest.
No public filing discloses the actual bills. OneTaste, Daedone and Cherwitz haven’t provided a full accounting of who paid their lawyers, publicists or political advisers. The estimates presented here use public docket activity, known fee awards, team size, litigation duration and current market rates.
The result is less a criminal-defense budget than the financial architecture of a private justice system, one available only to defendants with access to substantial money, a functioning organization and people who know how to move a case from the courtroom into politics.
The estimated $29 million central figure can be divided into four broad areas:
Area and Estimated spending through July 2026:
Federal investigation, trial and sentencing $15m to $27m
Civil and media litigation $3m to $8m
Crisis public relations and sponsored media $2m to $6m
Pardon lawyers, advisers and political outreach $500k to $2m
Adjusted combined range after overlap $21m to $41m
The ranges overlap because lawyers may bill consultants through their firms, public-relations retainers may include content production, and pardon work can also support the criminal appeal.
The central estimate of $29 million adjusts for that duplication.
The FBI investigation began around 2018, according to defense filings. Daedone and Cherwitz were indicted in 2023 on a single count of conspiring to obtain forced labor. The government accused them of using psychological, sexual, financial and emotional coercion to obtain unpaid labor and sexual services from OneTaste members.
The defense argued that OneTaste participants joined voluntarily, could leave and made their own decisions as adults. The defendants portrayed the case as a dangerous attempt to criminalize unconventional sexual and spiritual practices.
The jury rejected that argument.
Daedone and Cherwitz were convicted in June 2025 after a five-week trial. In March 2026, Judge Diane Gujarati sentenced Daedone to nine years in prison and Cherwitz to 78 months. The court imposed a $12 million forfeiture judgment against Daedone and ordered $887,877.64 in restitution to seven victims.
The government said Daedone and Cherwitz encouraged members to incur debt, subjected them to surveillance, deprived them of sleep and pressured them into sexual activity with investors, clients and employees. Prosecutors said members worked long hours for little or no pay and were threatened with ostracism, financial ruin or spiritual failure.
The defense operation required separate representation for Daedone, Cherwitz and OneTaste.
Each team had its own client, privilege obligations and strategic risks. Shared interests reduced some duplication. They didn’t eliminate it.
Before the indictment, lawyers would have had to respond to subpoenas, preserve company records, prepare witnesses, deal with FBI interviews and communicate with federal prosecutors.
They also had to determine whether OneTaste, Daedone and Cherwitz could safely share information or needed fully separate legal strategies.
The document volume was immense.
The defense told the Supreme Court that prosecutors made 29 discovery productions containing more than 2.6 terabytes and 710,700 files, including thousands of videos and audio recordings and more than 171,000 images. Those numbers came from the defense, though the cost of processing material on that scale is easy to understand.
Electronic discovery vendors charge for hosting, processing, searching and exporting data. Lawyers then review documents, tag evidence, build timelines and prepare witness files. Investigators follow leads and locate former employees.
Estimated cost before the indictment:
$2 million to $4 million
Daedone also changed legal teams after the case was underway. She began the federal prosecution represented by Reid Weingarten and Julia Gatto of Steptoe & Johnson, who handled substantial pretrial work from the indictment in 2023 through May 2024. Their work included discovery disputes, conflict issues and the early effort to dismiss the case.
Jennifer Bonjean’s firm then took over. The change meant another team had to absorb years of investigative material, existing motions, witness histories and defense strategy before preparing for trial. That duplicated review probably added $750,000 to $1.5 million to Daedone’s bill.
Bonjean’s team then handled witness preparation, evidence disputes, jury selection, five weeks of trial, post-verdict detention litigation, forfeiture arguments and sentencing. Trial lawyers charge for far more than time spent in court. They prepare cross-examinations, review transcripts, examine exhibits, meet witnesses and plan the next day’s arguments. Associates, paralegals and litigation-support staff work alongside them.
A trial team billing at a blended collected rate of $700 to $1,200 an hour can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars a month during preparation. The heaviest trial months can cost considerably more.
Estimated cost of Daedone’s criminal defense through sentencing:
$4.5 million to $8 million
Cherwitz’s defense was even more expensive because she changed lawyers repeatedly before trial.
She began the federal case represented by Jenny Kramer and Rachel Finkel of Alston & Bird, a major international firm. They handled the case from 2023 through May 2024, including discovery, Brady issues and potential conflicts. Duncan Levin then represented Cherwitz during part of 2024, including proceedings challenging aspects of the FBI investigation.
By September 2024, Cherwitz had changed teams again, retaining Arthur Aidala, Imran Ansari and Michael Jaccarino of Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins. That team spent months preparing for trial. Conflict issues then forced another change in January 2025, shortly before trial, and Cherwitz retained Ballard Spahr lawyers Celia Cohen and Michael Robotti.
The timing made the final switch particularly costly. Ballard told the judge that it had just inherited an enormous record accumulated during years of investigation and asked for more time to prepare. By trial, Cherwitz’s courtroom team included five Ballard lawyers and a paralegal.
Every transition required another group of highly paid lawyers to absorb discovery, witness material, earlier motions and defense strategy. The turnover probably added $1 million to $2 million in duplicated review and preparation.
Estimated cost of Cherwitz’s criminal defense through sentencing:
$5.5 million to $10 million
A federal prosecution of this size can require private investigators, electronic-discovery systems, trial-presentation technology, transcripts, jury consultants and expert witnesses.
Investigators may interview former OneTaste members and examine inconsistencies in witness accounts. Technology consultants prepare video clips, audio files, charts and exhibits for court.
Estimated cost:
$1 million to $2.5 million
OneTaste pursued a separate campaign over corporate documents it said were protected by attorney-client privilege.
The company argued that a former information-technology contractor obtained internal material without authorization and that federal investigators later received or used privileged documents. OneTaste sought the return or destruction of the material and pursued separate district-court and appellate proceedings.
Privilege disputes create a particular form of legal expense. Lawyers must examine documents individually, identify senders and recipients, determine whether legal advice was involved and assess whether confidentiality was preserved or waived.
The company’s litigation produced motions, declarations, sealed records, hearings and appeals.
Estimated OneTaste corporate and privilege spending through July 2026:
$1.3 million to $3 million
In April 2025, shortly before the criminal trial, Daedone and Cherwitz asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to stay the trial while the Supreme Court considered their challenge to the Second Circuit’s handling of the privilege issue. Sotomayor denied a related request to exceed the Court’s word limit and denied the stay on April 29, six days before trial began.
The filing was an emergency application rather than a full Supreme Court appeal decided on the merits. It still required rapid research, drafting, record preparation and coordination between two defense teams.
Estimated cost of the Supreme Court effort:
$125,000 to $350,000
That amount sits inside the broader criminal and privilege estimates. It doesn’t materially drive the $29 million central figure.
The convictions didn’t end the immediate appellate work.
After the jury returned its verdict, Judge Gujarati remanded Daedone and Cherwitz into custody. Their lawyers asked the Second Circuit to release them while they awaited sentencing and appeal.
The resulting proceedings included bail motions, replies, sealed filings, supplemental submissions and large appendices. The Second Circuit denied the bail motions on July 9, 2025.
Estimated cost of the two bail proceedings:
$250,000 to $600,000
That spending occurred before the current direct appeals began.
Daedone and Cherwitz filed direct criminal appeals in April 2026.
The Second Circuit ordered the defendants’ appeals to be heard alongside OneTaste’s separate privilege appeal. The docket showed the opening briefs and joint appendix scheduled for August 26, 2026.
The appellate lawyers must review the entire trial record, select arguments, analyze jury instructions, challenge evidence rulings and decide how to present the privilege dispute.
They also have to manage a strategic problem.
An appellate court rarely reverses a criminal conviction because a defendant presents a long list of grievances. Strong appeals usually focus on a small number of errors that affected the outcome. Cutting arguments requires as much work as finding them.
The defendants have changed counsel again for the appeal. Daedone and Cherwitz now share a specialist appellate team led by Alexandra Shapiro, with Christopher Johnson and William Taylor. That requires another team to learn the trial record, though using the same appellate lawyers for both defendants should reduce some duplication.
Projected cost of the current criminal and privilege appeals:
$1.8 million to $4 million
Petitions for panel rehearing, rehearing by the full Second Circuit and Supreme Court review could add:
$500,000 to $1.5 million
Post-conviction petitions could add another:
$800,000 to $2 million
OneTaste sued Netflix in California over the documentary Orgasm Inc.
The company argued that the film falsely linked OneTaste to sexual assault and abuse involving former employee Ayries Blanck. Netflix responded under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which allows defendants to seek early dismissal of lawsuits arising from protected speech.
The trial court struck OneTaste’s complaint. The California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, concluding that OneTaste failed to show a probability of proving actual malice. The court found that the evidence OneTaste offered did not establish that Netflix knew the disputed allegations were probably false or seriously doubted their truth.
OneTaste also tried to rely on material obtained through its separate litigation against Blanck. The appellate court refused to expand the record with evidence that had not properly been before the trial court.
Netflix then sought its legal fees.
The trial court awarded Netflix $251,870.70 in attorney fees and $3,780.51 in costs. OneTaste appealed that award and lost again in January 2026.
OneTaste also asked the California Supreme Court to review the underlying dismissal. The court denied the petition on February 11, 2026, leaving the Court of Appeal decision in place.
Netflix later requested about $545,000 in additional appellate fees and costs. The request shouldn’t be treated as a final award unless the court grants it.
OneTaste also had to pay its own lawyers to draft the complaint, oppose Netflix’s anti-SLAPP motion, pursue the appeals and seek California Supreme Court review.
Estimated combined Netflix cost and exposure:
$1.1 million to $2.4 million
The financial structure is especially unfavorable to OneTaste. It paid its own lawyers to launch the case, lost the underlying claim and became liable for at least part of Netflix’s legal bill.
Netflix turned an offensive lawsuit into a seven-figure liability.
OneTaste sued former employee Ayries Blanck, now known as Ares Milligan, in Los Angeles in October 2022.
The company alleges breach of contract and fraudulent inducement connected to a 2015 settlement. Blanck had received $325,000 to settle claims involving alleged harassment, wage violations and sexual abuse. The agreement included confidentiality and non-disparagement terms, according to later court records.
OneTaste argues that Blanck never intended to comply and later shared allegations and settlement information with journalists.
The case is closely connected to the Netflix litigation. OneTaste obtained material through the Blanck case and later tried to use some of it to revive its claims against Netflix. The California Court of Appeal declined to consider evidence that hadn’t properly been presented to the trial court in the Netflix proceeding.
Blanck is now seeking dismissal of all or part of the case. Her lawyers argue that California’s three-year fraud statute of limitations expired by June 2021, more than a year before OneTaste filed its lawsuit.
They contend that OneTaste knew, suspected or should have suspected by 2018 that Blanck was communicating with the press. They also argue that OneTaste had a duty to investigate and could have filed an earlier case using unidentified defendants. A hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2026.
The judge hasn’t ruled.
The financial consequences of dismissal
OneTaste has probably spent:
$700,000 to $1.7 million
on the Blanck litigation so far.
A full dismissal with prejudice would turn most of that money into a sunk cost. OneTaste would receive no damages, no settlement recovery and no trial judgment against Blanck.
The dismissal could also save the company:
$1 million to $3 million
in future discovery, deposition, summary-judgment and trial costs.
That saving comes with possible new liabilities.
Under California law, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered generally qualifies as a prevailing party entitled to recover ordinary litigation costs.
Blanck may also be able to seek attorney fees if the 2015 agreement contains a qualifying fee provision. California Civil Code Section 1717 allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable fees in a contract action when the contract provides for them. The full settlement agreement isn’t public, so the existence and scope of any fee provision can’t be confirmed.
Possible fee exposure:
$300,000 to $900,000
That figure could be higher if the case has involved extensive discovery or unusually high billing rates.
OneTaste could appeal a dismissal, adding another:
$300,000 to $800,000
A dismissal would also end OneTaste’s ability to use the case as an active tool for obtaining documents and testimony from Blanck and other witnesses.
A partial dismissal would provide less relief. The fraud claim could disappear while the contract claim continued, leaving OneTaste to keep paying lawyers without access to all the remedies it originally sought.
If Blanck wins outright, OneTaste could be left with more than $1 million already spent, a possible adverse fee claim and no recovery.
Daedone, Cherwitz, OneTaste and two related entities sued the BBC in England over its podcast The Orgasm Cult. The claims involve defamation, misuse of private information and data protection. The claimants retained Mishcon de Reya and specialist media barristers, including Sara Mansoori KC and Zoe McCallum.
A January 2023 High Court ruling narrowed the case without ending it. The court refused to allow Daedone and OneTaste to pursue libel claims because they had waited too long to bring them. Cherwitz’s libel claim survived. The Institute of OM and OM IP retained corporate libel claims, while Daedone and Cherwitz continued with privacy and data-protection claims.
No later public judgment, settlement announcement, discontinuance notice or final costs order has been located as of August 2026. The BBC continues to make most of the podcast available with a notice that it remains subject to a legal complaint. Episode 9 is still unavailable for legal reasons, and parts of Episodes 8 and 10 remain edited.
The case appears to have slowed substantially after the 2023 ruling. The most likely explanation is the overlap with the American criminal prosecution. The BBC dispute concerns many of the same people, events and allegations examined by federal investigators and the Brooklyn jury. Moving into disclosure could have required Daedone and Cherwitz to produce documents and sworn evidence while the criminal case was pending.
The claimants themselves raised that concern during the limitation proceedings. Daedone said the FBI investigation affected her decision not to sue earlier. Cherwitz said she followed advice from her American criminal lawyer not to engage with the allegations. No public order has been found formally staying the BBC case, so the precise procedural status remains unclear.
A related case brought by a man identified publicly only as “FLA” may also have complicated the proceedings. He claimed listeners could identify him despite the BBC using a pseudonym. The High Court granted anonymity protections, and Episode 9 was later removed. No public final outcome has been located in that case either.
Estimated spending by the OneTaste side so far is:
$400,000 to $1.5 million
The lower end assumes the case largely paused after the 2023 preliminary rulings. The upper end allows for continued solicitor work, confidential case management, settlement discussions and coordination with the related FLA case.
If the surviving claims proceed to full trial, the cost could rise sharply. The claimants may need extensive disclosure, expert evidence, witness testimony and senior barristers to address reputational harm, privacy, data issues and possible truth and public-interest defenses.
Preparing and trying the case could push OneTaste-side legal spending to:
$2 million to $5 million
English cost rules create another risk. A losing party may be ordered to pay a substantial portion of the winner’s reasonable legal costs. An adverse result could add $1 million to $3 million in BBC cost exposure, potentially pushing the claimants’ combined financial burden to:
$3 million to $8 million
A Court of Appeal proceeding could add another $400,000 to $1 million, before any additional BBC costs.
The BBC case has been relatively quiet. If it resumes and reaches trial, it could still become a $3 million to $8 million exposure.
OneTaste, Daedone and Cherwitz face two separate federal civil trafficking cases in New York. Both remain at an early stage, largely because the criminal prosecution and appeals have delayed discovery.
The Southern District case was filed in Manhattan in November 2023 by a Jane Doe against Daedone, Cherwitz, OneTaste and OneTaste NYC. The court first paused the case while the criminal prosecution was pending, then extended the stay after sentencing. It is now frozen through the Second Circuit appeal, with the parties required to report by June 2027 or shortly after the appellate decision. There has been no discovery, ruling on the complaint or trial schedule.
The Eastern District case is much broader. It was filed in Brooklyn in June 2024 by three pseudonymous women and former OneTaste executive Mark Gottlieb against Daedone, Cherwitz, Rachael Hemsi, OneTaste and its current owners, Anjuli Ayer, Austin Ayer and Amanda Dunham.
The complaint alleges forced labor, trafficking and sex trafficking and seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. The current owners face personal claims concerning what they knew, whether they participated in the alleged venture and whether they benefited financially from it.
The Brooklyn court allowed the three women to proceed anonymously and said it would consider a stay after the defendants were served. No publicly available ruling has been found dismissing the case, formally staying it or setting a trial schedule. Gottlieb’s death in June 2025 may also require his estate or representative to be substituted if his claims continue.
The Eastern District case could become particularly expensive because it involves four plaintiffs, seven defendants and several generations of OneTaste leadership. Discovery could reach more than a decade of emails, financial records, training materials, sexual and labor practices, the 2017 sale of the company and communications between the former leaders and current owners.
The two cases have probably cost $650,000 to $2.2 million so far, with a central estimate of about $1.3 million. Most of the largest expenses have been delayed.
If both cases survive dismissal motions and proceed through document discovery, depositions, experts and summary judgment, defense costs could add $5 million to $12 million.
Taking both cases through jury trials and appeals could add $12 million to $25 million.
That would put the possible lifetime defense bill for the civil trafficking cases alone at roughly:
$13 million to $27 million
Those figures exclude settlements, damages and interest. Federal trafficking law also allows successful plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorney fees, leaving the defendants exposed to their own legal bills, the plaintiffs’ bills and any damages awarded.
A presidential pardon would not end either case or protect the current owners. Once the criminal appeals are resolved, these lawsuits could become the most expensive remaining threat to OneTaste and the people financing its defense.
Daedone hired crisis publicist Juda Engelmayer after OneTaste began receiving damaging coverage.
Engelmayer became a public spokesman for OneTaste and the defendants. He attended court, communicated with reporters and published articles criticizing the prosecution.
During the trial, Judge Gujarati raised concerns about public statements made on behalf of the defendants. Cherwitz’s lawyer identified Engelmayer in court as an authorized press representative, according to the bail-hearing transcript.
Engelmayer has described how his crisis-communications business works.
In a 2026 interview with The Times, he said clients generally pay between $10,000 and $30,000 a month. He also said he sometimes pays influencers between $5,000 and $100,000 for series of videos supporting a client’s position.
Using those publicly described rates, a multi-year OneTaste engagement could easily reach seven figures before advertising, travel, events or special productions.
Estimated crisis-PR spending since 2018:
$1.5 million to $4 million
That range assumes the account began at a lower level and intensified around the indictment, trial, sentencing and pardon campaign.
OneTaste’s publicity operation included openly sponsored coverage, paid professional advisers and a much larger network of writers, lawyers and advocacy groups whose work amplified many of the same arguments without any publicly established payment from OneTaste.
Revolver News disclosed that OneTaste was an advertiser and published extensive coverage portraying the prosecution as government lawfare. Other Revolver coverage stated that its trial project was brought to readers by OneTaste. The amount paid hasn’t been disclosed.
Frank Parlato’s relationship was more direct. In October 2024, Parlato disclosed that OneTaste had retained him to investigate the federal prosecution. Vanity Fair later reported that prosecutors said OneTaste paid him $20,000 a month, while Juda Engelmayer said the arrangement lasted a few months. Parlato said the retainer had ended by October 2024, though he continued publishing extensive OneTaste coverage afterward through Frank Report.
At $20,000 a month, even a three-to-six-month engagement would represent roughly $60,000 to $120,000. The actual amount hasn’t been disclosed.
Parlato’s publishing network also gave the campaign a route into publications that appeared several steps removed from OneTaste.
Tony Farina published at least seven articles about the case in the National Law Review between February 2025 and May 2026, repeatedly questioning the prosecution and later portraying the conviction as a threat to constitutional freedoms.
The National Law Review identifies Farina as “Journalist, ArtVoice” and links readers directly to ArtVoice. What that biography doesn’t explain is that ArtVoice is controlled by Frank Parlato. ArtVoice identifies Parlato as its editor in chief and has described him as its publisher and editor in chief. Parlato has also been publicly described as the owner of ArtVoice.
Farina’s connection to Parlato goes back years. He has written extensively for Parlato-controlled publications, including ArtVoice and the Niagara Falls Reporter, and has published articles praising Parlato’s investigative work and defending him during Parlato’s own federal prosecution.
That relationship became especially relevant in the OneTaste case because Parlato had himself been retained by OneTaste to investigate the prosecution. There is no public evidence that OneTaste paid Farina or the National Law Review. The issue is disclosure. A reader encountering Farina’s articles under the National Law Review banner would have seen him identified as an ArtVoice journalist, without being told that the publication he represented was run by a former paid OneTaste investigator who was simultaneously publishing an extensive campaign attacking the prosecution.
Farina’s work then traveled further. His September 2025 National Law Review article arguing that the conviction threatened religious freedom was cited directly in a formal submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council by the Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience, or CAP-LC. The submission adopted similar arguments, urged review of the convictions and went on to raise executive clemency for Daedone and Cherwitz.
There is no public evidence that OneTaste paid CAP-LC or commissioned the submission. CAP-LC is, however, part of an established international religious-freedom network that overlaps closely with CESNUR. CAP-LC identifies itself as a member of the European Federation for Freedom of Belief, or FOB. FOB president Alessandro Amicarelli has longstanding CESNUR ties, presenting papers at CESNUR conferences as far back as 2005 and 2006 and continuing in later years. CAP-LC and CESNUR have also jointly signed religious-freedom campaigns on other controversial groups, showing that the relationship predates OneTaste.
After CAP-LC submitted the OneTaste statement, Amicarelli promoted it through FOB’s own website, describing the convictions as a threat to freedom of belief. That gives the U.N. intervention a clearer institutional context. It did not emerge from an organization with no connection to the wider advocacy network. It came from a group already linked through FOB to people and organizations that have spent years working alongside CESNUR on religious-freedom campaigns.
The same network has since moved closer to OneTaste’s own legal circle. Massimo Introvigne, founder of the Center for Studies on New Religions, or CESNUR, published a series portraying the prosecution as a revival of discredited “brainwashing” theories. Twenty religious-freedom scholars, including Alan Dershowitz and sociologist Eileen Barker, were later reported to have signed a CESNUR-linked memorandum criticizing the convictions as a threat to religious liberty and democratic norms.
CESNUR’s October 2026 international conference is now scheduled to include an entire plenary session titled “The OneTaste Case: The Return of ‘Brainwashing’ in American Courts of Law?” The program lists Introvigne and other academics alongside attorney John Lauro, who has said he represents Daedone post-trial, and Kevin Williams, identified in court filings as OneTaste’s general counsel. That places members of OneTaste’s legal circle inside the same institutional network that helped amplify the CAP-LC U.N. submission.
No public evidence has been found that OneTaste paid CAP-LC, FOB, CESNUR, Introvigne, Amicarelli or the other scholars. Dershowitz is different because his earlier paid OneTaste legal relationship is independently established. The significance is the overlap: an argument that moved through Parlato’s network and the National Law Review was adopted in a U.N. filing by CAP-LC, promoted by FOB, and reinforced by a CESNUR network that is now publicly hosting OneTaste lawyers in a dedicated conference session.
None of that proves coordination or hidden payment. It does show that the supposedly independent layers of validation are connected to one another more closely than a casual reader would realize.
OneTaste also employed another lawyer whose advocacy crossed directly into the media. James R. Lawrence III produced a May 2025 memorandum identifying himself as Counsel for OneTaste, Inc. and warning that the prosecution threatened religious freedom. Days later, he published an article in The American Conservative making much the same argument and explicitly referred to OneTaste as “my client.” He published another article after the convictions arguing that the case threatened the First Amendment.
Lawrence’s fee hasn’t been disclosed. His work belongs in the legal-advisory budget rather than being treated as independent favorable press.
Other favorable coverage requires a different description.
Reason senior editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote repeatedly about the prosecution and in March 2026 moderated an event at the OneTaste Center advertised to be featuring Topeka Sam and an AI version of the imprisoned Daedone. The event was hosted by Eros Platform by OneTaste. No public evidence shows that Brown was paid by OneTaste for her journalism or for appearing at the event.
Independent legal reporter Meghann Cuniff also published several detailed articles before trial questioning aspects of the government’s case. Her publication is supported by subscribers and reader contributions, and no evidence has been found that OneTaste financed her reporting.
Those distinctions matter. OneTaste demonstrably paid some participants in the information campaign. Others were not paid but may have been influenced directly or indirectly by the campaign.
Financially, that makes the campaign unusually efficient. Money spent on lawyers, investigators, publicists, sponsored media, reports and events can produce arguments that are then repeated by journalists, scholars and advocacy groups at little or no additional cost to OneTaste.
The result is a public footprint much larger than the media bill that can be directly traced to the company.
Estimated spending on sponsored media, retained investigators, legal-message development, video production, social promotion, events and campaign content remains:
$500,000 to $1.7 million
That estimate excludes independent journalism and third-party advocacy for which no OneTaste payment has been established.
After sentencing, OneTaste sought presidential pardons for Daedone and Cherwitz.
CBS News reported that the company submitted formal applications to the Justice Department and approached lawyers, political operatives and media figures connected to Trump’s circle.
The campaign reached beyond the conventional pardon process.
OneTaste sought support from Dershowitz, Gaetz, Stone, Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer. The company had also worked with attorney Adam Katz, who has experience in Trump-era pardon cases. Katz told CBS that he contacted the Justice Department before the convictions to seek review of the prosecution.
Dershowitz has played the most visible role.
He told CBS that OneTaste paid him to advise on its legal appeal. He said he later continued helping without charge because he believed in the case. CBS described him as helping to quarterback the pardon effort.
OneTaste representatives also developed relationships with groups connected to the clemency process.
CBS reported that OneTaste Chief Executive Officer Anjuli Ayer and former employee Marcus Ratnathicam attended meetings at the federal pardon office with Cynthia Hughes of Patriot Freedom Project. Hughes had attended multiple meetings with pardon officials and had experience advocating for clemency applicants.
OneTaste said it didn’t pay Hughes or donate to her organization. Mike Howell of the Oversight Project also said that neither OneTaste nor Ratnathicam donated to his organization.
The wider paid professional network includes:
Engelmayer and Herald PR
Dershowitz for his initial legal work
Frank Parlato for investigative work commissioned by OneTaste
James R. Lawrence III as counsel for OneTaste
The defendants’ appellate lawyers
OneTaste’s corporate and privilege lawyers
Revolver through advertising or sponsorship
Other professional engagements are likely, though their terms haven’t been disclosed:
Pardon-application counsel
Adam Katz or other clemency advisers
Political outreach consultants
Writers and researchers
Video and digital-production teams
Media-monitoring services
The public record doesn’t establish that Gaetz, Stone, Bannon, Loomer, Hughes, Howell or every supportive writer received OneTaste money.
Estimated pardon-lawyer, adviser and outreach spending through July 2026:
$500,000 to $2 million
That range is plausible in the current pardon market.
CBS reported in June 2026 that a Trump-linked lobbying firm received $500,000 from a law firm for immigration and pardon-related discussions involving a separate client. That payment doesn’t establish OneTaste’s costs, though it provides a public example of the fees being charged for access and advocacy around clemency.
The legal defense and the public-relations strategy now function as a single operation.
The lawyers develop arguments about privilege, statutory overreach, consent, religious freedom and government misconduct.
Publicists repackage those claims into articles, videos, interviews and talking points.
Political allies repeat them through television, podcasts and advocacy organizations.
The resulting coverage can then be shown to pardon officials and White House intermediaries as evidence that the case has attracted broad concern.
The campaign has repeatedly presented the prosecution as a threat to:
Voluntary communities
Sexual freedom
Women’s autonomy
Religious practice
First Amendment rights
Alternative spiritual groups
Anyone accused through psychological coercion theories
The argument changes with the audience.
For libertarian readers, the case becomes government intrusion into private adult conduct.
For religious conservatives, it becomes a precedent that could threaten churches and spiritual communities relying on volunteer labor.
For Trump supporters, it becomes another example of Justice Department weaponization.
For feminist audiences, Daedone and Cherwitz become women punished for challenging conventional ideas about sexuality.
That flexibility gives the campaign reach. It also allows a conviction based on specific testimony about labor and sexual coercion to be reframed as a symbolic national dispute.
One example shows how a favorable allegation can outlive the lawsuit behind it. Former OneTaste employee Alisha Price sued the lawyers she had hired after receiving an FBI subpoena, accusing them of trying to steer her toward portraying herself as a victim in a civil case against OneTaste. Her allegations became useful material for OneTaste supporters arguing that investigators and plaintiffs’ lawyers were manufacturing victims.
In December 2025, a federal judge dismissed Price’s entire lawsuit with prejudice. The court called her central malpractice claim “palpably lacking in merit” and found that the lawyers had accomplished what she retained them to do: protecting her from having to respond to the subpoena. Price’s allegations nevertheless continued circulating in OneTaste-friendly media after the dismissal.
There is no public evidence that OneTaste financed Price’s lawsuit, so it is not included in the legal-cost estimates here. Its significance is different: it shows how a claim can continue serving the publicity campaign after the court case supporting it has failed.
A pardon campaign requires continued visibility.
The applicants must respond to new court decisions, keep allies engaged and be ready when White House interest develops.
Projected future spending could include:
$500,000 to $1.5 million a year for crisis communications
$250,000 to $750,000 a year for legal and clemency advice
Paid articles and video production
Influencer fees
Washington travel
Advocacy reports
Events and political introductions
Rapid media campaigns following appellate rulings
Projected future pardon and PR cost:
$2 million to $7 million
The lower end assumes Trump acts relatively soon or the campaign relies heavily on unpaid support.
The upper end assumes the effort continues through January 2029 with repeated media pushes, additional reports and no early pardon.
A presidential pardon could remove or reduce federal criminal consequences, depending on its wording.
It could end imprisonment. It could reduce the need for continuing criminal litigation. It might address unpaid federal fines or forfeiture obligations in some circumstances.
It wouldn’t repay legal bills already incurred.
It also wouldn’t automatically:
Dismiss the civil trafficking cases
Reverse the Netflix fee award
End the Blanck litigation
Resolve the BBC claims
Reimburse OneTaste for its lawyers
Recover money already distributed to victims
Erase private contractual obligations
The economic return from a pardon is therefore concentrated on liberty and future criminal exposure.
The operation has already consumed much of the money regardless of whether Trump grants clemency.
The most likely future path assumes the Second Circuit decides the appeals, the defendants pursue some additional review and the civil cases eventually enter discovery or settlement talks.
Future expense and Projected range :
Criminal and privilege appeals $1.8m to $4m
Rehearing and Supreme Court proceedings $500k to $1.5m
Post-conviction litigation $800k to $2m
Civil trafficking cases $5m to $12m
Netflix, BBC and Blanck litigation $1.5m to $8m
Pardon and PR campaign $2m to $7m
Projected future total $12m to $35m
The central future estimate is:
About $23 million
Added to the estimated $29 million already incurred, the likely lifetime cost becomes:
About $52 million
The reasonable base-case range is:
$33 million to $76 million
The upper estimate requires a more expensive sequence.
The Second Circuit could reverse the convictions and order a new trial.
That result would count as a legal victory. It would also restart the most expensive part of the case.
The defense teams would have to review years of new records, prepare old and new witnesses, study the appellate ruling and reconstruct the trial strategy.
Estimated second-trial cost:
Retrial expense and Projected range:
Daedone’s defense $3m to $7m
Cherwitz’s defense $3m to $7m
OneTaste, experts and trial support $2m to $3m
Added public relations $1m to $3m
Additional retrial cost $9m to $20m
A retrial combined with full civil trials, further appeals and an extended pardon campaign could take the lifetime legal and influence cost to:
$70 million to $105 million
Add the $12 million forfeiture judgment and nearly $888,000 in restitution, and the wider financial burden could approach or exceed:
That calculation still excludes civil settlements or damages.
The exact payer remains undisclosed. The public record points first to OneTaste’s current owners, Anjuli Ayer, Austin Ayer and Amanda Dunham. The company reportedly operates at a loss and survives through their financial support. They have the clearest reason to fund its corporate lawsuits, privilege appeals, public-relations campaign and pardon strategy. They also may be advancing some of Daedone’s and Cherwitz’s personal defense costs, though no public document confirms that.
The owners appear to have access to a wider pool of private wealth. Ramani Ayer, the former Hartford chairman and father of Anjuli and Austin, is publicly identified as a major donor to the Institute of OM Foundation, which says it has committed more than $2 million to OM research. His family foundation has also donated to Unconditional Freedom. There is no proof that he paid legal bills, but he is a documented financier of the network, not merely a wealthy relative.
Other committed insiders have supplied substantial money or assets.
Kate Wiggs, daughter of Polly Pocket inventor Chris Wiggs, gave $280,000 to Unconditional Freedom and was described as a core team member.
Joanna Van Vleck’s Feminine Rising Foundation gave the same nonprofit $190,000.
Marcus Ratnathicam pledged property reportedly worth about $2 million to secure Daedone’s bond and has helped manage nonprofit finances and pardon outreach.
Ippolita Rostagno, mother of longtime OneTaste executive and current creative director Maya Gilbert, has an even more direct financial history with the company. At the criminal trial, prosecutors presented evidence that OneTaste borrowed money from Rostagno in 2013 to pay off earlier financier Reese Jones and later described her as an investor and part-owner of OneTaste. Rostagno founded the luxury jewelry house IPPOLITA, reacquired majority control of it in 2018 and sold a majority stake to MadaLuxe Group in December 2025 for an undisclosed price. No evidence shows that she is funding the current defense, but unlike most wealthy supporters, she has previously supplied capital directly to OneTaste.
These payments and guarantees were not identified as legal funding. They show that OneTaste’s leadership has access to supporters capable of providing six-figure cash infusions and valuable collateral.
Daedone probably financed part of the early defense from the $12 million she received when she sold OneTaste in 2017. Her ability to continue doing so has been weakened by the $12 million forfeiture judgment, restitution and reported asset restrictions. Her mother, her mother’s partner and unnamed friends have provided personal and bond support, though they are unlikely to explain the largest bills.
The connected nonprofits do not appear wealthy enough to finance a defense costing tens of millions. Their greater value may lie in absorbing program expenses, employing shared personnel, hosting events and sustaining the charitable and spiritual image used in the public campaign.
Rachel Cherwitz remains the largest unanswered question. Her defense passed through several expensive teams, including Alston & Bird, Duncan Levin, Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins and finally Ballard Spahr before trial. No public record identifies who paid those bills. OneTaste, the owners, family money, private loans, insurance, deferred fees or an undisclosed defense fund could all be involved.
The most likely funding structure is a mixture of OneTaste corporate money, capital from the three owners, Ayer family resources, Daedone’s earlier wealth, and support from wealthy insiders including Wiggs, Van Vleck and Ratnathicam. The network is visible. The invoices remain private.
When the indictment was filed, few could have foreseen how expensive the campaign would become. The funders now face a more pressing question: how long can they keep absorbing legal, publicity and pardon costs that may continue for years, and what happens if the money runs out?
The OneTaste campaign has turned every setback into another billable stage.
A failed Supreme Court application led into trial. The convictions produced bail appeals, direct appeals and pardon petitions. The Netflix defeat produced fee litigation. The civil cases now wait in the background, carrying the risk of years of discovery and trial.
Money has kept every route open. Daedone and Cherwitz cycled through separate criminal-defense teams and now share a new specialist appellate team. OneTaste has financed litigation in New York, California and London, while publicists, sponsored media and political advisers have worked to reshape the case outside court.
Few defendants could sustain that effort.
The estimated cost is now:
About $29 million spent or incurred through July 2026
About $23 million in likely future legal and influence costs
About $52 million under the central lifetime estimate
Up to $105 million with a retrial and extensive civil litigation
Another $12.9 million in forfeiture and restitution
The spending has bought skilled lawyers, repeated appeals, media attention and access to people around the pardon process. The convictions still stand. Daedone and Cherwitz remain in prison. The civil claims remain unresolved.
The OneTaste case now tests more than the endurance of its legal arguments. It tests the endurance of the people paying for them.
The meter is still running…..
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.