In a pivotal moment on Day 9 of the OneTaste federal trial, defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean took aim at the government’s portrayal of coercion and psychological manipulation by leading witness Max Pixley through a tightly controlled and revealing cross-examination.
Bonjean, representing OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone, focused on what she called “evidence of agency, not abuse”—namely, Pixley’s own enthusiastic words about the organization, her decision-making around leaving, and her continued voluntary involvement even after formally resigning.
Central to Bonjean’s questioning was a November 4, 2013 resignation email from Pixley to the leadership team, in which Pixley wrote that she would be willing to stay on for two more weeks to ensure a smooth transition if “it seemed appropriate.” When Celia Cohen, another defense attorney, confronted Pixley with this language, Pixley initially stated she hadn’t given notice—before quickly conceding that she had, in fact, offered to stay on temporarily. Pixley explained, “It was not really common practice at OneTaste to give two weeks’ notice because they felt that if someone wanted to be out… if they energetically and spiritually didn’t want to be involved… there was no like keeping them around for two weeks.” Still, she acknowledged she had done so anyway, calling the resignation “an expression of gratitude” and stating she hoped to ensure a solid structure for whoever would take over.
That sentiment of care continued to shape Bonjean’s cross. The defense introduced Pixley’s public posts from 2013 in which she expressed deep appreciation for her community, describing herself as “surrounded by friends who are way seekers and world changers.” She admitted under oath that these statements were sincere at the time and that she had voluntarily participated in OneTaste’s practices, including Orgasmic Meditation (OM), daily communal living, and self-development routines.
Pixley also acknowledged that after her resignation, she remained involved with the OneTaste community. She stayed briefly at the Brooklyn OM house, volunteered for event operations, and maintained friendships with members of the group. “It was my whole community,” she told the court. “Everyone I knew, everyone that I was connected to… leaving was a big adjustment.” She added that she felt genuine love for many people she had met through OneTaste and that her involvement continued not out of pressure, but connection.
Bonjean’s strategy throughout the cross was to reframe OneTaste not as an environment of manipulation and trauma, but as a place of chosen personal growth that Pixley later reinterpreted. The testimony painted a more complex picture—one where Pixley, while now critical of the organization, had once expressed deep alignment with its values and practices.
As the trial continues, the defense appears poised to argue that government claims of coercion are not only overstated but constitutionally dangerous. Bonjean has repeatedly raised the issue of protected speech and belief being twisted into evidence of criminal conduct, telling the court that the Department of Justice is putting “ideas on trial.”
The jury, meanwhile, is left to parse evolving narratives—between what Pixley once wrote, what she now says, and what the law ultimately requires for a conviction.
