On the stand wrapping up on Monday, May 12 was Chris Hubbard—former OneTaste staffer, community member, and now, government witness number two. His testimony, like the government’s case, raised more questions than it answered.
Hubbard, who joined the organization nearly two decades ago, was billed by prosecutors as a key insider. But what the jury got was a meandering, ambiguous performance from a man who seemed unsure of what he believed or why he was testifying at all. His responses frustrated everyone: prosecution, defense, and spectators alike.
Still, in the fog of his hesitant testimony, a few things emerged crystal clear.
1. Scenes Were Consensual. With Adults.
The government rolled out the term “scenes” like a grenade, hoping to detonate moral panic in the jury box. The implication was obvious: dark, exploitative rituals put on by the defendants. Defense attorneys tried to block the whole concept from entering the trial, as it was completely outside the scope of any forced labor, and were between consenting adults. The witness affirmed their point.
ROBOTTI: All those scenes were consensual; is that right?
HUBBARD: It’s my understanding, yes, they were.
ROBOTTI: And they were all with adults, correct?
HUBBARD: Absolutely.
2. You Don’t Like It? You Leave.
One of the government’s main narrative threads is that OneTaste functioned as a coercive cult. But when defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean asked about a woman who didn’t like OM, the answer made it clear that wasn’t the case.
BONJEAN: This woman that you were referencing that didn’t find OM empowering, she could leave, right?
HUBBARD: Yeah. In fact, she did.
BONJEAN: She did leave, right?
HUBBARD: Uh-huh.
BONJEAN: That’s how the world works. You don’t like it, you leave, right?
HUBBARD: When you can, yes.
BONJEAN: And she could, correct?
HUBBARD: She did.
So much for the narrative of entrapment. This woman wasn’t held hostage. She left.
3. He Came to Empower Women—By OMing with Them
And here it is: the prosecution’s big moment. Perhaps they thought Hubbard would testify to coercion, exploitation, control. Instead, we got a new kind of empowerment theory.
BONJEAN: What did you do to empower women?
HUBBARD: When women asked me to do something for them, like OM with them, then I would say yes.
BONJEAN: So you empowered women by OMing?
HUBBARD: That would be an example.
BONJEAN: Okay. No further questions.
So the government’s second witness told the jury that his idea of women’s empowerment was following OneTaste’s protocol for Orgasmic Meditation. The same practice that is under attack in this trial. Leaving everyone in the courtroom wondering, if this is witness number two, what is this trial even about?
