Jennifer Bonjean, defense lawyer for Nicole Daedone in US versus Cherwitz and Daedone, began her cross-examination of the government’s first witness today. She focused on one of the witness’s main complaints, which was that co-defendant Cherwitz had pressured her into purchasing an expensive course that she could not afford.
Bonjean walked the witness through the choice she had made. She asked if she wanted to take the course, to which the witness said she very much did. She asked if she believed in the practice and if she wanted to teach other people how to OM. The witness was affirmative.
“But the simple math said that you couldn’t afford it?” Bonjean asked. The witness agreed.
Bonjean: “Did you testify that Rachel told you, ‘there’s always a way to make it happen?’” The witness responded affirmatively.
Bonjean then went on to explore other things that people may not always be able to afford that they want. For example, people may want to buy cars that they can’t afford. They may want to go on vacations that they can’t afford. And they make it happen. They use a credit card, they borrow money, they use a layaway plan, or they save in advance. So OneTaste wasn’t the only place you could make it work to buy something you couldn’t afford at the moment. The witness agreed.
Bonjean then proceeded to take the witness through some of the emails she had exchanged with the CFO and defentant Cherwitz at the time about her payments. In the emails, she indicated that it was too much money and that it was an aggressive financial plan. She wrote that even though she very much wanted to take the course, she would not take a loan and she would not borrow money from her family. She was clear on her boundaries. Bonjean pointed out that she never violated those boundaries. The witness was also clear on the sales pitch, anticipating what the sales team would say to try to convince her to sign up for the course.
Bonjean: “You knew the game.”
Witness: “Right.”
Bonjean: “You’re pretty good at asserting yourself, right?”
Witness: “Yeah.”
Bonjean pointed out that the witness ultimately negotiated a deep discount, about $5,000 off a $12,000 course, getting it for nearly half price. She also reminded the witness that she wasn’t even sure she had paid it all off by the time she left OneTaste.
Finally, Bonjean brought up that during the third immersive weekend of the course, the witness had gotten up on stage and told the story of signing up for the program. Bonjean showed the witness a three minute video where she speaks on stage about her experience. Watching the video, the witness started crying.
Bonjean asked to enter the video into evidence for the juxtaposition on the witness’s direct statement on how she was pushed into the course. The government objected to the exhibit and the judge sustained their objection. Since she could not bring it into evidence, Bonjean walked through the video with the witness.
In the video, the witness told the audience a story about how she signed up for the coaching program. She admitted that because she wanted it so much, Cherwitz didn’t even have to sell her very hard. She was so excited. Then she freaked out, closed her bank account so that her deposit check would bounce, and then later went back and put another deposit. In the video, Cherwitz joked, “You closed the sale on yourself.” The witness answered, “yes.”
So all the talk of being forced to buy the course, of pushing her boundaries, of sales pressure, of not being able to afford an expensive course and being preyed upon? Well, contemporaneously she admitted she sold the course to herself. We’ll leave it to the jury to decide if they want to criminalize regret.
