The FBI-Media Collusion
The Government’s Pre-Indictment Collaboration with Bloomberg and Netflix Violated the First Amendment, Due Process, and Equal Protection
Defendants’ motion will also address the collaboration between the FBI, Netflix and Bloomberg preceding the indictment. Based on a sworn affidavit of the film’s director, the FBI participated in the creation of a Netflix film called “The Story of OneTaste” during the government’s active investigation of OneTaste. It’s also undisputed that Bloomberg participated in the making of the same film. The Bloomberg reporter who authored an article about OneTaste in June 2018, Ellen Huet, is interviewed throughout the film. Netflix released the film in November 2022, five months before the indictment was filed in April 2023, and seven months before the indictment was unsealed in June 2023. The 2023 indictment, like the 2022 Netflix film, copies allegations directly from the 2018 Bloomberg article.
After publishing the 2018 Bloomberg article, the author, Ellen Huet, personally retracted the article in February 2021. Ms. Huet directed emails to Nicole Daedone and OneTaste in which Ms. Huet stated that she believed OneTaste “suffered from being deeply misunderstood by the public because it took such a radical approach to sex, spirituality and wellness.” More than 21 months before the Netflix film’s release, Ms. Huet wrote to Ms. Daedone: “Your message, and the practice of OM, elevated women and their power in a way that I believe threatened the status quo and shook people. It also filled a void that many people had been seeking to fill that hadn’t been touched in a long time. Many people weren’t ready to see it for that, but instead reacted with fear. … I’m deeply moved by your vision and dream of changing and healing the world for the better through this company and this movement.” Ms. Huet stated that she believed a “reductive” and “sensationalized story” of OneTaste had been told and she believed a story “much richer and truer than something one-sided” could be told.
Ellen Huet & Bloomberg
Dr. Leonard’s summary statements:
“We have this alleged journal from the Netflix movie that is said to have been written by someone. Then we have all the original writings of who it was said to be written by. The patterns absolutely don’t match.
Dr. Leonard’s summary statements:
“In other cases I have worked on that have been successful, there were far fewer differences in writing features. The differences in features here are simply overwhelming.”
Dr. Leonard’s summary statements:
“If Netflix had come to me and said these writings are purported to have been written by Ayries and asked me what does the evidence suggest, I would have told them to be very careful.”
“The journals were written by a very skilled writer.”
“A writing “feature” is a scientific term used by forensic linguistics to represent a particular style of language use. Any particular individual’s style of writing can be categorized by the collection of “features” used by that author. The science of forensic linguist analysis involves identifying repeated “features” of one writing sample, and comparing the features in another writing sample, as a method for evaluating consistent authorship. Strong similarities in writing “features” between two writing samples indicate the same author, while strong differences or a high number of differences in “features” between two writing samples indicates different authors.”
— Dr. Robert A Leonard
Example feature differences between Ayries' authentic writing and the "journals":
One linguistic feature that stands out as clearly differentiating the Q Journal from K Ayries (her authenticated writings) is the idiosyncratic contraction “I’de”.
K Ayries (original writings) uses “I’de” or “ide” for the contracted form of “I would”.
The Q Journal only has the standard contracted form “I’d” – never that particular variation of “Ide”/”i’de”.
Some examples are:
“I’de take a good hard look at what you are supporting in this world”
“I’de be seen as a compassionate loving person because I meditate”
“and ide say society at large.”
“This is something that any lay person can see as idiosyncratic, and regular. So, why doesn’t the Q have it? Maybe because it was written by someone else, or, perhaps edited/rewritten by someone else.”
The Motion
Read the most recent court filing. Click here.