On Tuesday May 13, day seven of the federal show trial U.S. v. Cherwitz and Daedone, the prosecution wheeled out another former OneTaste member to accuse the defendants of manipulation and abuse. But this time, the government’s witness brought more than just her grievances—she brought her own criminal record.
Dana Gill, Prosecution Witness #4, took the stand with the familiar lines. She praised OneTaste, spoke about how the practice and people helped her, how she felt accepted in a way she never had before, and then spoke about how being part of OneTaste had her “deviate from her values” – without clarifying which values those were.
On the stand, Gill admitted—under oath—to committing multiple federal felonies. This was not some iffy ambiguous crime, but clear-cut immigration fraud. For $10,000.
It wasn’t a misunderstanding. It wasn’t a youthful mistake. It was a paid job to marry a stranger—so he could get a green card.
Defense attorney Mike Robotti questioned her further:
Q Now, ma’am, you’ve lied to the United States Government before?
A I have.
Q You entered into a sham marriage; is that correct?
A I married an undocumented citizen—or an immigrant for his green card.
This wasn’t a man she knew or someone she loved. Gill admitted she barely know the man—he was the boyfriend of a co-worker at a café she worked at. Her motive was simple: she needed money to pay off debt. Robotti did remind her that other people paid off debt without illegal acts, to which Gill conceded.
Q So this was a choice you made to pay off your debt by committing a crime, right?
A Yes.
Q And you take personal responsibility for that, right?
A Yeah.
Q And it wasn’t just showing up to the interview, right? This was a whole elaborate scheme, correct?
A Uh-huh.
Robotti pressed harder. Gill admitted to creating a social media trail—posting staged photos with the man, playing the doting step-aunt with his niece, fabricating stories of their relationship, and lying to U.S. immigration officials.
Q And you know it’s a crime to lie to government officials, correct?
A I do.
Q And just like you know it’s a crime to lie under oath today, correct?
A Correct.
So here we are. A woman who orchestrated an elaborate federal crime, cashed in $10,000, and lied to the U.S. government repeatedly… is now on the witness stand, swearing she’s telling the truth this time.
Is this credible? Is this who the DOJ is hanging its case on?
And here’s the other question no one in the courtroom can ignore: if Dana Gill was willing to commit federal crimes in 2012 for a $10,000 payoff, what would she do for the compensation she might receive in 2025?
That’s not hypothetical.
The defense has already raised red flags over witness payments made by the New York State Office of Victim Services—see ECF 285. That’s taxpayer money, routed through a state victim fund, possibly used to financially motivate witnesses in a federal criminal case.
Gill isn’t the first witness in this case with a credibility problem. The prosecution’s original star witness, Ayries Blanck, had to be dropped after revelations she fabricated evidence and lied under oath.
So now we have another witness with a history of federal crimes, financial motivation, and regret for something she loved at the time she did it.
The show trial continues and the jury is left to decide—high school drama or full blown fraud?
