OneTaste pardon – A sex-wellness company convicted of forced labor is using a more informal clemency playbook—seeking allies in Trump’s orbit for pardons for its leaders.
A San Francisco-based “orgasmic meditation” company convicted in a forced-labor case is now running a targeted pardon push aimed at allies of President Trump, according to records and interviews involving people familiar with its outreach.
The company. OneTaste. is seeking clemency for former CEO and founder Nicole Daedone and former head of sales Rachel Cherwitz. both of whom were sentenced last March after prosecutors described their operation as an abusive scheme that coerced employees into humiliating and traumatic sexual acts for little or no pay.
OneTaste has already submitted pardon applications through the Department of Justice, as is standard.. But its strategy. as described by legal and political observers familiar with the clemency landscape. also reflects a more informal. relationship-driven approach that has become increasingly visible during Trump’s second term—when some petitioners appear to build momentum through attorneys. political operatives. media figures. and others close to the president.
A clemency effort built on access
Legal experts say the underlying pattern matters: when formal processes don’t feel equally reachable, people with connections seek alternative routes.
Rachel Barkow. a law professor and clemency expert. said the scale and outreach of OneTaste’s effort stood out for how aggressively it appears to navigate personal and informal channels.. Her critique goes to the heart of a long-running debate over executive clemency—whether it operates like a consistent. rules-based remedy or more like a political reward system.
According to people with knowledge of the effort, OneTaste’s campaign includes outreach to prominent figures associated with the MAGA movement, as well as attorneys known for their role in clemency work.
Alan Dershowitz. a well-known defense attorney. is described as helping quarterback OneTaste’s legal appeal and advising on the argument that the case threatens broader constitutional and religious-freedom interests.. Dershowitz previously cultivated relationships with Trump during his first term that produced clemency outcomes in other high-profile matters. and he has since aligned himself with OneTaste’s cause.
Separately, the company’s efforts have also reached into the circle of political personalities who publicly discuss criminal cases and constitutional concerns—whether through podcasts, media segments, or advocacy.
The political playbook behind pardons
Several elements of OneTaste’s pardon effort illustrate how clemency battles now resemble political campaigns.
OneTaste, by its own account and that of allied advocates, frames the case as an issue of “justice” and consent—arguing that participants joined voluntarily and could have left. Prosecutors, however, described a coercive operation, and the court imposed lengthy prison sentences on the two leaders.
This tension—between consent narratives and coercion findings—is not just legal; it’s rhetorical.. The pardon push is effectively a battle over which story will resonate more with decision-makers: one centered on harm and forced labor. or one centered on constitutional risk and claimed voluntary participation.
The outreach described in records also suggests OneTaste is trying to capitalize on existing infrastructure around clemency review—nonprofits, advocates, and intermediaries who attempt to translate a legal fight into a political cause.
Among those connected to clemency advocacy is Ed Martin. described as a key figure connected to the pardon process through a role as a U.S.. pardon attorney.. OneTaste’s allies have reportedly pursued meetings with officials in that orbit, including sessions attended by OneTaste representatives and advocates.
In the background, the effort also touches a broader phenomenon: clemency advocates now frequently build ecosystems that blend legal arguments, media messaging, and political networking—turning what used to be an obscure, behind-the-scenes process into something closer to a public-facing campaign.
Why observers say it exposes a broken system
For many families affected by the criminal justice system, the clemency question is personal—whether the punishment will ever be revisited, especially when appeals take years.
The most striking point raised by observers of executive clemency is not that people seek influence; it’s that the influence may not be evenly distributed.
If one pathway to clemency depends on access to powerful intermediaries, then the process can feel less like a remedy and more like a competition of connections. That’s the concern at the center of Barkow’s remarks about a lack of a clemency process “for everyone else” without those ties.
In practical terms, it means the outcome of a pardon request could hinge less on legal reasoning alone and more on how well a petitioner navigates politics, messaging, and the president’s attention.
That dynamic can also shape what attorneys and advocates choose to do: rather than focusing solely on the merits of the conviction, they may invest heavily in relationship-building and strategic visibility.
Church of consent vs. record of coercion
The OneTaste case is particularly combustible because it involves intimate conduct—an area where consent arguments and coercion claims can become not only legal disputes but cultural flashpoints.
In court, prosecutors alleged coercion and exploitation inside a “sexual wellness” operation. Defense arguments, according to the record, insisted that participants could have left and that the business was empowerment-oriented.
In clemency terms, that means the pardon fight is partly about whether the sentencing court’s findings should be treated as final or treated as a cautionary precedent that should be corrected.
Dershowitz and other allies have argued the case could endanger religious practice and religious freedom. Critics, however, view that framing as an attempt to recast harmful conduct as protected expression.
In other words: even if a pardon is granted or denied, the broader impact may be on what kinds of cases future defendants and victims believe will be treated as “consent disputes” versus “coercion cases.”
The next question: will outreach change outcomes?
For OneTaste’s supporters, the push is about rectifying what they call an injustice. For opponents, it’s a test of whether political alignment will override the judiciary’s conclusions.
Even if the president is the ultimate decider on pardons, observers say the process often depends on intermediaries who prepare the president’s attention—summarizing cases, framing arguments, and cultivating allies inside the clemency ecosystem.
OneTaste’s attorneys and advocates have signaled they believe the outreach is working—especially through relationships with people positioned near the formal review structure.
But the White House has already signaled skepticism toward lobbying for clemency, arguing that the administration has a review process involving counsel and the Justice Department before the president makes a final decision.
Whether OneTaste’s effort ultimately changes the outcome may turn on how decision-makers weigh the competing narratives—especially in a political environment where clemency has become increasingly entangled with public messaging.
For now, the case remains a window into how executive clemency functions in the modern era: not only as a legal mechanism, but as a high-stakes intersection of law, politics, and influence.