Los Angeles brand Enfants Riches Déprimés is currently showcasing their Spring 2024 collection at Maxfield LA, and the event was attended by Marilyn Manson and his wife Lindsay on April 17th. On March 16th, Manson posted photos on his social media wearing the Enfants Riches Déprimés brand, which is French for "Depressed Rich Kids". Enfants Riches Déprimés is a Los Angeles and Paris based luxury fashion brand founded in 2012 by the conceptual artist Henri Alexander Levy, who has created a French punk streetwear line based on the movements of the late 1970s and Japanese Avant-garde movements of the 1980s. One of the core precepts of the brand is high price points, with T-shirts ranging on average from $500 to $1,000, and haute couture jackets priced as high as $95,000. ERD consistently utilizes the business model of artificial scarcity. In this regard, all styles are sold on an extremely exclusive basis, and thus in relatively small quantities. In a 2016 interview with Complex
- Marilyn Manson in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial
For the past six weeks the name Marilyn Manson has been used by Amber Heard's team on an almost daily basis to associate Johnny Depp with a figure who is not only controversial and despised by many in conventional society, but to show that Johnny is guilty by association and had a partner in crime, being influenced and encouraged in his alleged violence and drug use by Manson. However, on May 20th Marilyn Manson was brought up in a positive way, in regards to the evidence he provided that counters the claims of Amber Heard regarding the abuse she allegedly suffered on Thanksgiving in 2015. Marilyn Manson and his assistant Paula Baby (see her account in video below) attended Thanksgiving Dinner with Johnny and Amber in 2015, and he submitted as evidence videos and photos to Johnny's team which contradicts Amber's account.
Testimony from attorney Adam Waldman, who has worked on and off on Depp’s legal team since October 2016, was played in court on Thursday, May 19th through video testimony from back in February after being subpoenaed by Amber’s legal team. He said that he had “seen things that show [Ms Heard’s] statements to be false”. Mr. Waldman testified that he believed that pictures and videos that Manson sent to him help to disprove Amber’s accusations about that one alleged violent incident that took place on Thanksgiving 2015. “As to that incident – Thanksgiving, perhaps 2013 – I think those videos and photographs demolished her claim,” he testified.
In the video footage we see Manson, Amber’s father David and Johnny’s son Jack joking around at the gathering in Los Angeles. Manson joked that Amber’s father was “a monster” before David began chasing Jack. It was described by Johnny's team as "a happy family event", as opposed to Amber who claimed there was tension and she was beaten afterwards.
- Christian Bale’s Villain in New Thor Film Compared to Marilyn Manson
Marvel fans took to social media upon the May 23rd release of the new trailer for Thor: Love and Thunder expressing how Christian Bale’s villainous Gorr the God Butcher looks a lot like Marilyn Manson. I don't know if Manson is the direct inspiration behind the look of the Marvel villain, but it is interesting to see how the collective mind of people today, even young people on social media, associate a dark villainous character with a certain look and voice with the dark persona as well as look and voice of Marilyn Manson.
Of course, Manson has always associated himself with the villainous characters he saw portrayed in his youth and they all became inspirations for his persona, but even since the 90's he has been an inspiration behind the portrayal of various film, television and animation villains, especially the obvious villains like Dracula and vampires, but even the not so obvious ones like the nun-looking Valak from The Conjuring 2. He was also the inspiration behind lesser known characters like Goth Riddler in the Batman series, Gordon Agrippa from the anime series Black Clover, and Damien Baylock in the Bride of Chucky.
For the past six weeks the name Marilyn Manson has been used by Amber Heard's team on an almost daily basis to associate Johnny Depp with a figure who is not only controversial and despised by many in conventional society, but to show that Johnny is guilty by association and had a partner in crime, being influenced and encouraged in his alleged violence and drug use by Manson. However, on May 20th Marilyn Manson was brought up in a positive way, in regards to the evidence he provided that counters the claims of Amber Heard regarding the abuse she allegedly suffered on Thanksgiving in 2015. Marilyn Manson and his assistant Paula Baby (see her account in video below) attended Thanksgiving Dinner with Johnny and Amber in 2015, and he submitted as evidence videos and photos to Johnny's team which contradicts Amber's account.
Testimony from attorney Adam Waldman, who has worked on and off on Depp’s legal team since October 2016, was played in court on Thursday, May 19th through video testimony from back in February after being subpoenaed by Amber’s legal team. He said that he had “seen things that show [Ms Heard’s] statements to be false”. Mr. Waldman testified that he believed that pictures and videos that Manson sent to him help to disprove Amber’s accusations about that one alleged violent incident that took place on Thanksgiving 2015. “As to that incident – Thanksgiving, perhaps 2013 – I think those videos and photographs demolished her claim,” he testified.
In the video footage we see Manson, Amber’s father David and Johnny’s son Jack joking around at the gathering in Los Angeles. Manson joked that Amber’s father was “a monster” before David began chasing Jack. It was described by Johnny's team as "a happy family event", as opposed to Amber who claimed there was tension and she was beaten afterwards.
- Christian Bale’s Villain in New Thor Film Compared to Marilyn Manson
Marvel fans took to social media upon the May 23rd release of the new trailer for Thor: Love and Thunder expressing how Christian Bale’s villainous Gorr the God Butcher looks a lot like Marilyn Manson. I don't know if Manson is the direct inspiration behind the look of the Marvel villain, but it is interesting to see how the collective mind of people today, even young people on social media, associate a dark villainous character with a certain look and voice with the dark persona as well as look and voice of Marilyn Manson.
Of course, Manson has always associated himself with the villainous characters he saw portrayed in his youth and they all became inspirations for his persona, but even since the 90's he has been an inspiration behind the portrayal of various film, television and animation villains, especially the obvious villains like Dracula and vampires, but even the not so obvious ones like the nun-looking Valak from The Conjuring 2. He was also the inspiration behind lesser known characters like Goth Riddler in the Batman series, Gordon Agrippa from the anime series Black Clover, and Damien Baylock in the Bride of Chucky.
- The Lawsuit of Ashley Walters Has Been Dismissed
On May 25th, one year after Ashley Walters filed a lawsuit against Marilyn Manson, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern ruled that the lawsuit against Manson by his former assistant contained “too few facts to keep this case in court” and was brought forward too late to meet the statute of limitations rules. Stern sided with Manson’s attorneys ruling that Walters’ allegations were “not applicable to the delayed discovery rule” noting that she had failed to provide “sufficient facts” to support the use of the amendment. He dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning Manson can’t be sued again over the same allegations.
Ashley claimed repressed memories delayed her filing the lawsuit. Her attorney, Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, said that her client “couldn’t exercise her claims because she was unaware they occurred until the memories came back.” She claims her memories of abuse came back to her in October of 2020 during a support group of alleged survivor's of Marilyn Manson's abuse. As I have shown elsewhere, we know that Ashley was openly talking about the abuse she allegedly suffered at least since March of 2019, when she posted about it on social media on the same day that other accusers did as well.
“There’s a host of unconscionable conduct that deterred her from filing suit, not just threats but also violence and intimidation and other coercive acts,” Walters’ lawyer Tanya Sukhija-Cohen told Judge Michael J. Stern. By adding these other reasons, it comes off as a contradiction to her original claim of repressed memories.
Manson’s lawyer, Gene Williams, pushed back at the hearing, urging Judge Stern to reject the lawsuit as too old.
“The bottom line is the statute of limitations on these claims ran out two to three years after her employment ended. There were no threats that prevented her from coming forward, nor any allegations of threats in the complaint between the time period when her employment ended and when she finally came forward. The idea that they can now take threats — or allegations of threats — from 2019 and 2021, years after the statutory period ended, and claim that those threats now explain why she didn’t bring her suit eight years earlier than those threats, is insufficient,” Williams argued.
In a media statement, Walters said she was disappointed by the judge’s ruling:
"Nobody gets to choose exactly how they process abuse or threats. I am disheartened in the court’s decision today not just for my case, but for the message it sends to other survivors out there trying to balance how they process abuse with arbitrary court deadlines. We will not let this hurdle stop us from shining a light on what happened to me and others.”
Her attorneys with Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP and Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP said in a statement that they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling and plan on filing an appeal.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would drastically limit the ability of victims of abuse to obtain justice through the legal system,” they wrote. “We clearly pleaded the facts of this case in the complaint detailing the trauma and abuse Ashley endured, which prevented her from coming forward sooner. While the court based its decision on the timeliness of Ashley’s claims and not the merits, we disagree with the court’s interpretation of the law as it applies to equitable estoppel and the delayed filing of abuse claims.”
- Illma Gore Challenges Manson's Defamation Claims
On May 25th it was reported that Illma Gore is challenging Manson's lawsuit against her through her lawyers, noting in court papers that his suit was brought just two weeks before Evan Rachel Wood’s Phoenix Rising documentary aired.
“The timing was no accident,” attorneys for Ashley Illma Gore state in court papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court asking for dismissal of portions of the case. “The complaint is a classic example of an anti-SLAPP suit, seeking to punish defendants Evan Rachel Wood and Ashley Gore for their petitioning activity, free speech in connection with a matter of public interest through the documentary and their communications with Manson’s other accusers, and work with law enforcement in the ongoing investigation into (Manson).”
The state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
According to Gore’s attorneys’ court papers, Phoenix Rising documents Gore’s efforts to “amass evidence for an ongoing criminal investigation of Warner, and provided such evidence to law enforcement, including compiling and organizing information from allegations, including those made publicly, by Warner’s victims.”
A documentary film on a matter of public interest such as abuse and domestic violence “is protected activity for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute,” Gore’s lawyers argue in their court papers.
A hearing on Evan’ motion is scheduled for December 13th before Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, while Gore’s motion will be heard by the same judge on January 31st.
On May 25th, one year after Ashley Walters filed a lawsuit against Marilyn Manson, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern ruled that the lawsuit against Manson by his former assistant contained “too few facts to keep this case in court” and was brought forward too late to meet the statute of limitations rules. Stern sided with Manson’s attorneys ruling that Walters’ allegations were “not applicable to the delayed discovery rule” noting that she had failed to provide “sufficient facts” to support the use of the amendment. He dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning Manson can’t be sued again over the same allegations.
Ashley claimed repressed memories delayed her filing the lawsuit. Her attorney, Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, said that her client “couldn’t exercise her claims because she was unaware they occurred until the memories came back.” She claims her memories of abuse came back to her in October of 2020 during a support group of alleged survivor's of Marilyn Manson's abuse. As I have shown elsewhere, we know that Ashley was openly talking about the abuse she allegedly suffered at least since March of 2019, when she posted about it on social media on the same day that other accusers did as well.
“There’s a host of unconscionable conduct that deterred her from filing suit, not just threats but also violence and intimidation and other coercive acts,” Walters’ lawyer Tanya Sukhija-Cohen told Judge Michael J. Stern. By adding these other reasons, it comes off as a contradiction to her original claim of repressed memories.
Manson’s lawyer, Gene Williams, pushed back at the hearing, urging Judge Stern to reject the lawsuit as too old.
“The bottom line is the statute of limitations on these claims ran out two to three years after her employment ended. There were no threats that prevented her from coming forward, nor any allegations of threats in the complaint between the time period when her employment ended and when she finally came forward. The idea that they can now take threats — or allegations of threats — from 2019 and 2021, years after the statutory period ended, and claim that those threats now explain why she didn’t bring her suit eight years earlier than those threats, is insufficient,” Williams argued.
In a media statement, Walters said she was disappointed by the judge’s ruling:
"Nobody gets to choose exactly how they process abuse or threats. I am disheartened in the court’s decision today not just for my case, but for the message it sends to other survivors out there trying to balance how they process abuse with arbitrary court deadlines. We will not let this hurdle stop us from shining a light on what happened to me and others.”
Her attorneys with Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP and Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP said in a statement that they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling and plan on filing an appeal.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would drastically limit the ability of victims of abuse to obtain justice through the legal system,” they wrote. “We clearly pleaded the facts of this case in the complaint detailing the trauma and abuse Ashley endured, which prevented her from coming forward sooner. While the court based its decision on the timeliness of Ashley’s claims and not the merits, we disagree with the court’s interpretation of the law as it applies to equitable estoppel and the delayed filing of abuse claims.”
- Illma Gore Challenges Manson's Defamation Claims
On May 25th it was reported that Illma Gore is challenging Manson's lawsuit against her through her lawyers, noting in court papers that his suit was brought just two weeks before Evan Rachel Wood’s Phoenix Rising documentary aired.
“The timing was no accident,” attorneys for Ashley Illma Gore state in court papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court asking for dismissal of portions of the case. “The complaint is a classic example of an anti-SLAPP suit, seeking to punish defendants Evan Rachel Wood and Ashley Gore for their petitioning activity, free speech in connection with a matter of public interest through the documentary and their communications with Manson’s other accusers, and work with law enforcement in the ongoing investigation into (Manson).”
The state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
According to Gore’s attorneys’ court papers, Phoenix Rising documents Gore’s efforts to “amass evidence for an ongoing criminal investigation of Warner, and provided such evidence to law enforcement, including compiling and organizing information from allegations, including those made publicly, by Warner’s victims.”
A documentary film on a matter of public interest such as abuse and domestic violence “is protected activity for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute,” Gore’s lawyers argue in their court papers.
A hearing on Evan’ motion is scheduled for December 13th before Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, while Gore’s motion will be heard by the same judge on January 31st.