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
May 9
- Anti-SLAPP Rulings Revealed and Why Marilyn Manson Has a Strong Case for an Appeal
Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamed plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In California, the reason strict anti-SLAPP laws exist is because they have so many cases to go through, and it helps to alleviate the pressure of the courts by making cases less time consuming by eliminating certain aspects of a claim before they go to discovery. The major drawback of this is that a plaintiff must enter the case with all their evidence in hand when it comes to defamation claims even before discovery can be conducted. Thus, it makes it almost impossible for a defamation claim to pass into the discovery portion of the case unless the unquestionable evidence already clearly exists. In some cases, like Manson's, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can also be part of the anti-SLAPP.
- Anti-SLAPP Rulings Revealed and Why Marilyn Manson Has a Strong Case for an Appeal
Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamed plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In California, the reason strict anti-SLAPP laws exist is because they have so many cases to go through, and it helps to alleviate the pressure of the courts by making cases less time consuming by eliminating certain aspects of a claim before they go to discovery. The major drawback of this is that a plaintiff must enter the case with all their evidence in hand when it comes to defamation claims even before discovery can be conducted. Thus, it makes it almost impossible for a defamation claim to pass into the discovery portion of the case unless the unquestionable evidence already clearly exists. In some cases, like Manson's, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can also be part of the anti-SLAPP.
Summary of the Rulings Against Manson
1. In Marilyn Manson's original claim against Evan Rachel Wood, he said that he suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress by Evan Rachel Wood in part because she impersonated an FBI agent by forging a letter from the FBI to show how the FBI was conducting an investigation into Marilyn Manson and that he posed a threat to her and her son. This FBI letter, according to Manson, was not only used in her custody case against Jaime Bell, but also to persuade other women to come out against Manson. However, according to the anti-SLAPP ruling, the Judge decided that there was not enough evidence provided so far by Manson to show the forged FBI letter was used outside of the custody hearings. For this reason, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet decided to strike the FBI letter from the case as far as it being something that brought Manson intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the likelihood of him prevailing on this claim is low.
2. Manson also claimed that he suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress by Evan Rachel Wood in part because of her “recruiting, coordinating, and pressuring multiple women to make false accusations against [Plaintiff] and to be part of their [documentary] film project.” To present the probability of this claim for it to move forward, Manson issued the declarations of Emese Balog and Katheryn McGaffigan, as well as the computer evidence from the broken iPad of Illma Gore gifted to her sister Bryton Gore. However, with these also, the court did not find this evidence to be “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community,” which is the grounds upon which it would need to establish the probability of prevailing in court. For this reason, the Judge decided to strike the claim that Evan recruited, coordinated, and pressured multiple women to make false accusations against Manson and take part in her documentary from the case as far as it being something that brought Manson intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the likelihood of him prevailing on this claim is low.
3. As far as Manson's claims of defamation, in his lawsuit it states that Illma Gore knowingly made "false and defamatory statements against Warner, including that the actress in the ‘Groupie’ video was a minor, and that Warner was manufacturing child pornography....” In support of this, Manson alleged that “Gore stated to persons other than [Plaintiff] that during the filming of ‘Groupie,’ the actress in the video was a minor, and that the actress was ‘dead.’" Evan asserted that Gore’s statements about “Groupie” concern a matter of public interest and are protected activity. The court agreed with Evan, and it further agreed that Manson does not have a probability of prevailing on his claims based on alleged defamation against Wood. The court also agreed that Manson could not establish that Illma did not believe her claims about "Groupie", which is why it found the likelihood of him prevailing on this claim is low for Illma as well.
The Judge also set a date for the trial on May 1, 2024. However, with an appeal, which is likely, the trial may not be until 2025.
So much for the important rulings of the anti-SLAPP.
2. Manson also claimed that he suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress by Evan Rachel Wood in part because of her “recruiting, coordinating, and pressuring multiple women to make false accusations against [Plaintiff] and to be part of their [documentary] film project.” To present the probability of this claim for it to move forward, Manson issued the declarations of Emese Balog and Katheryn McGaffigan, as well as the computer evidence from the broken iPad of Illma Gore gifted to her sister Bryton Gore. However, with these also, the court did not find this evidence to be “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community,” which is the grounds upon which it would need to establish the probability of prevailing in court. For this reason, the Judge decided to strike the claim that Evan recruited, coordinated, and pressured multiple women to make false accusations against Manson and take part in her documentary from the case as far as it being something that brought Manson intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the likelihood of him prevailing on this claim is low.
3. As far as Manson's claims of defamation, in his lawsuit it states that Illma Gore knowingly made "false and defamatory statements against Warner, including that the actress in the ‘Groupie’ video was a minor, and that Warner was manufacturing child pornography....” In support of this, Manson alleged that “Gore stated to persons other than [Plaintiff] that during the filming of ‘Groupie,’ the actress in the video was a minor, and that the actress was ‘dead.’" Evan asserted that Gore’s statements about “Groupie” concern a matter of public interest and are protected activity. The court agreed with Evan, and it further agreed that Manson does not have a probability of prevailing on his claims based on alleged defamation against Wood. The court also agreed that Manson could not establish that Illma did not believe her claims about "Groupie", which is why it found the likelihood of him prevailing on this claim is low for Illma as well.
The Judge also set a date for the trial on May 1, 2024. However, with an appeal, which is likely, the trial may not be until 2025.
So much for the important rulings of the anti-SLAPP.
Attorney Statements to the Media
Evan’s lead attorney Michael Kump stated:
“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling, which affirms and protects Evan’s exercise of her fundamental First Amendment rights. As the Court correctly found, Plaintiff failed to show that his claims against her have even minimal merit.”
Manson's attorney, Howard King, responded:
“The ruling is disappointing but not unexpected. The Court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline, which detailed how women were systematically pressured by Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore to make false claims about Brian Warner. The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the Court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal.”
Manson's attorney, Howard King, responded:
“The ruling is disappointing but not unexpected. The Court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline, which detailed how women were systematically pressured by Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore to make false claims about Brian Warner. The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the Court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal.”
My Evaluation
As Howard King notes, because there was a time limit for the evidence to be submitted before the Judge was to evaluate the anti-SLAPP, and Ashley Morgan Smithline's declaration was submitted late (not the fault of Manson's lawyers), the Judge did not consider it in her evaluation of the case. This will be a huge matter of contention for the appeal, especially in regards to the recruitment and pressuring aspect of Evan.
Also, surprisingly, the Judge seems to not have considered the fact that the evidence of the forgery of the FBI letter in the broken iPad of Illma Gore was alongside the evidence of recruitment. Instead, the Judge merely looked at it as a document that only existed in Evan's custody case. The Judge seems to have agreed with Evan that because it was part of the custody case, it should not be taken into consideration for this case. But the fake FBI letter is seen to have developed in the broken iPad, and the testimony of Bryton Gore shows that before it was part of the custody case the letter was known, and it would have been known even without the transcripts of the custody case. In fact, we would know it in the context of the content that was used for recruitment, according to Manson's lawyers.
As regards to "Groupie", the Judge seems to have made a judgment on the validity of evidence, which is not supposed to be done in an anti-SLAPP, since evidence through discovery has not been submitted. The anti-SLAPP statute requires a court to make a determination on the merits of the plaintiff‟s claims, not the validity.
For these reasons, I believe Manson has a strong case for a successful appeal, if justice is allowed to prevail. The Judge has been reported by a few sources, including Tomas Mier of Rolling Stone, as being impatient with the whole process, and even complained about how long she had to work on it to get it straight. In reality, the Judge did not do as good of a job as she should have, and failed to really consider the entirety of the matter, using the stringent California anti-SLAPP laws as a crutch to not evaluate the matter properly and in its entirety.
We should also remember that even if the FBI letter is stricken upon appeal, that Illma Gore did not ask for her participation in the forgery of the FBI letter to be stricken, so it can still come up as part of the Impersonation and Fraud claim. The recruitment and pressuring aspect of the claim can also be under the claim of Impersonation and Fraud. As for the "Groupie" claims, we should not forget that the lawsuit of Jane Doe, a.k.a. Chloe Black, is still an active lawsuit and she makes many of the claims about "Groupie" that Illma makes, so those can be clarified there if that case goes to trial. Also, it may be that Illma Gore can be subpoenaed in that Jane Doe case, if needed.
It should also be clarified that the conspiracy aspect of Manson's case is not dead, as some have claimed. The lawsuit still has enough to establish the fact that a conspiracy took place through the Impersonation and Fraud claims. The contents of the broken iPad have not been disputed by Illma Gore.
I also believe that the Swatting aspect of the case, where Illma Gore reported to the FBI that she was "friends" with Marilyn Manson and was concerned for him, can resurrect the claims of the "Groupie" film, where Illma claims she truly believed Manson was a pedophile and child pornographer based on what he said in interviews about the film. It shows she has no credibility in her claims about Manson, and the Judge should have considered that Manson indeed does have a probability of proving that Illma is disingenuous in her claims about "Groupie". If Illma is a concerned friend of Manson, why is she trying to prove he is a rapist and a pedophile?
For these reasons, I believe Manson has a strong case for a successful appeal, if justice is allowed to prevail. The Judge has been reported by a few sources, including Tomas Mier of Rolling Stone, as being impatient with the whole process, and even complained about how long she had to work on it to get it straight. In reality, the Judge did not do as good of a job as she should have, and failed to really consider the entirety of the matter, using the stringent California anti-SLAPP laws as a crutch to not evaluate the matter properly and in its entirety.
We should also remember that even if the FBI letter is stricken upon appeal, that Illma Gore did not ask for her participation in the forgery of the FBI letter to be stricken, so it can still come up as part of the Impersonation and Fraud claim. The recruitment and pressuring aspect of the claim can also be under the claim of Impersonation and Fraud. As for the "Groupie" claims, we should not forget that the lawsuit of Jane Doe, a.k.a. Chloe Black, is still an active lawsuit and she makes many of the claims about "Groupie" that Illma makes, so those can be clarified there if that case goes to trial. Also, it may be that Illma Gore can be subpoenaed in that Jane Doe case, if needed.
It should also be clarified that the conspiracy aspect of Manson's case is not dead, as some have claimed. The lawsuit still has enough to establish the fact that a conspiracy took place through the Impersonation and Fraud claims. The contents of the broken iPad have not been disputed by Illma Gore.
I also believe that the Swatting aspect of the case, where Illma Gore reported to the FBI that she was "friends" with Marilyn Manson and was concerned for him, can resurrect the claims of the "Groupie" film, where Illma claims she truly believed Manson was a pedophile and child pornographer based on what he said in interviews about the film. It shows she has no credibility in her claims about Manson, and the Judge should have considered that Manson indeed does have a probability of proving that Illma is disingenuous in her claims about "Groupie". If Illma is a concerned friend of Manson, why is she trying to prove he is a rapist and a pedophile?
We should also consider the fact that the findings of the LASD have not been decided upon by the LADA, which by the time of the appeal should be made public. These findings, I believe, should give some added leverage and weight to Manson's claims upon appeal.
Interestingly, Evan has not issued a counter-claim against Manson at this point. Typically this is the time to do it. Evan has made it clear that she made her documentary about Manson and she named him as her rapist and abuser in order to prompt law enforcement to arrest him and have him jailed, to protect herself, her son, and everyone else in any contact with him. If Evan does not counter Manson's lawsuit against her with her own lawsuit, then that is a big red flag against Evan's claims and will show she is not really serious about locking Manson away. If Evan does issue a counter-claim, then all of Manson's evidence, including the FBI letter, is back in play for his defense.
In conclusion, this is only a temporary victory for Evan and Illma, and in my opinion it is a lackluster victory, because the Judge did not take into account all the evidence before her, I believe. On the other hand, I believe that Manson's team has a strong case for an appeal in all the matters they lost if they show how the Judge did not properly evaluate the case holistically by taking everything into consideration. Her rulings were based on a limited consideration of what has been presented. Maybe such an appeal will not be looked upon by the California Courts favorably, it is true, but if everything will be considered and not rushed, and if justice will be served, then Manson should have a good chance.
- May 15
Manson Again Hints at New Music Coming Soon on his Wedding Anniversary
On May 15th, which is the three year wedding anniversary of Manson and Lindsay, Lindsay posted on her Instagram page nine new photos of her photography, among which was one photo of her and Manson holding lit candles surrounded by darkness with the caption: "There is light in the darkness." There is also a round photography book in one photo by Visionaire World which I found interesting. On May 11, 2020, the Instagram page of Visionaire World shared on its account photos of Lindsay Usich being in quarantine together with her then partner Marilyn Manson for forty days. In the post, they also said that she and Manson were to soon marry and included then the hashtag #quarantinewedding. As we know, a few days later she and Manson were indeed married. It appears that some of the photos Lindsay has been posting on Instagram the past few years come from her forty days in quarantine, which were previously deleted.
- May 15
Manson Again Hints at New Music Coming Soon on his Wedding Anniversary
On May 15th, which is the three year wedding anniversary of Manson and Lindsay, Lindsay posted on her Instagram page nine new photos of her photography, among which was one photo of her and Manson holding lit candles surrounded by darkness with the caption: "There is light in the darkness." There is also a round photography book in one photo by Visionaire World which I found interesting. On May 11, 2020, the Instagram page of Visionaire World shared on its account photos of Lindsay Usich being in quarantine together with her then partner Marilyn Manson for forty days. In the post, they also said that she and Manson were to soon marry and included then the hashtag #quarantinewedding. As we know, a few days later she and Manson were indeed married. It appears that some of the photos Lindsay has been posting on Instagram the past few years come from her forty days in quarantine, which were previously deleted.
Manson also posted for the first time on his social media since his lawsuit came out on March 2, 2022, this time hinting at new music coming, with certain details that conjure once again the post-Columbine era of Holy Wood. As we reported on May 1st, Manson confirmed he is working on new music. On May 15, 2023, he posted two photos with the caption: "I’ve got something for you to hear. 📷 by my wife @lindsayusichofficial." In both black and white photos, which were taken by Lindsay, Manson is wearing his wedding ring. The photo itself, of Manson singing into a microphone while seated, recalls a similar photo of Manson emerging after Columbine in 2000 where he is seen recording Holy Wood after being isolated in his home due to the threats of the time. The isolated and detached head in the background is a replica of the bald head with closed eyes we see in the "Disposable Teens" video, where we see Manson as Adam being ritually offered and devoured by monkeys. There is also a sculpture of a she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, a tale that resembles the story of Cain and Abel, which Manson cited as the origins of human violence. The Roman festival of Lupercalia in honor of Lupa, the wolf who was said to have suckled Romulus and Remus, took place on February 14-15th, which some have associated with the modern Valentine's Day. Lupercalia took place in February, named after the purification ritual Februa held on February 15, which indicates purification or cleansing, since it was a time for purification in ancient Rome, when offerings were made to the gods. Also, behind Manson, a candelabra with no light and ten branches is cast as a shadow on the wall.
Whatever the symbolism might mean, right now Manson is clearly saying that he is stepping out of the darkness and ready to move forward in his career.
Whatever the symbolism might mean, right now Manson is clearly saying that he is stepping out of the darkness and ready to move forward in his career.
%20Holy%20Wood%20Demos.png)
- May 16
Podcast Explores the Repressed Memories Allegations of Manson's Accusers
JD Sword, a member of the Church of Satan and writer with Skeptical Inquirer, came out with an episode (27) on his podcast asking the question "Did Actors Repress Memories of Abuse by Marilyn Manson?" In March he wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer asking the same question. Like myself, JD Sword views repressed memories as a pseudo-science, but he doesn't explore whether the allegations against Manson are true or not, he merely explores the possibility of the claim of repressed memories being valid. You can read his article here and listen to the podcast here.
- May 22
Evan Rachel Wood Posts About Parental Alienation
In mid-May the United Nations called on nation states to ban parental alienation from being used in the family courts. You can read about it here.
On May 22, Evan Rachel Wood posted about parental alienation in three Instagram stories:
Why would Evan Rachel Wood care about this issue? It's not the first time she has posted about it, but it deals with a mother losing custody of her children if she is caught alienating them from the father who she accuses of abuse. Some people read into this and think Evan may be accusing Jaime Bell of abuse. That's possible. The custody case in California is sealed, so we don't know exactly what is going on. However, for months Evan has hinted that she has lost custody of her son, and she sees it as an injustice for trying to protect him. Could the one she is trying to protect him from be in fact Marilyn Manson? Or could it be both Manson and Bell? This is just a theory based on what Evan is posting about, and for Evan she usually only cares about issues that somehow affect her, and this is a custody issue where she believes a mother unjustly loses, and the United Nations seems to agree with her. But is this issue really what is going on with Evan? Likely not in its exact form, but no doubt this is her way to cast herself as a victim, a virtuous heroine who continues to be abused by the system.
- May 24
Kat Von D Back in L.A. and Hangs Out With Manson and Lindsay
Kat Von D, who recently moved out of Los Angeles for a better life in Indiana with her family, returned for business matters and hung out with Manson and Lindsay on May 23rd, which she posted the next day. Among the festivities were a flamenco palmas by Kat's good friend Charo, and a show at the Hollywood Palladium to see the Sisters of Mercy, with Mr. Chino accompanying them. It appears also that Ashley Walters, Torii Lynn, Brittany Bao and other friends were also in attendance, but separated by the fact that they were below in General Admission, while Manson had the perk of a private area on the balcony.
- May 24
Kat Von D Back in L.A. and Hangs Out With Manson and Lindsay
Kat Von D, who recently moved out of Los Angeles for a better life in Indiana with her family, returned for business matters and hung out with Manson and Lindsay on May 23rd, which she posted the next day. Among the festivities were a flamenco palmas by Kat's good friend Charo, and a show at the Hollywood Palladium to see the Sisters of Mercy, with Mr. Chino accompanying them. It appears also that Ashley Walters, Torii Lynn, Brittany Bao and other friends were also in attendance, but separated by the fact that they were below in General Admission, while Manson had the perk of a private area on the balcony.
%20on%20Instagram.png)
Marilyn Manson, Lindsay, Kat Von D and Mr. Chino attended the Sisters of Mercy concert at the Hollywood Palladium on May 23, 2023. pic.twitter.com/Ch5c3fOgXN
— Marilyn Manson Uncanceled (@MarilynMansonU1) May 24, 2023
%20Marilyn%20Manson%20Uncanceled%20(@MarilynMansonU1)%20_%20Twitter.png)
- May 25
Evan Rachel Wood Has Lost Custody of Her Son and Paints Herself the Victim/Heroine
The Blast, which apparently is a media organization that is an offshoot of TMZ, obtained recent court documents from the custody case of Evan Rachel Wood and Jaime Bell. Now be very careful how you read this article, because at times they cite the recent legal documents and at other times they cite court documents from 2021, and then they cite a source for Evan Rachel Wood, which makes it confusing. Read it here.
The only thing the recent legal documents they have in their possession say is the decision of the court in regard to the custody, which basically is summed up as Jaime Bell gets full custody of their son and Evan Rachel Wood can have custody one weekend a month and on holidays. That is all the documents say, according to this article. Whenever the court documents say anything else, like quoting Evan or Jaime, they are court documents from 2021 and not from the new filing.
However, Evan's source, probably her PR firm, is spinning this news by saying that Evan sacrificially handed over her son to his father in order to protect him from Marilyn Manson, who allegedly threatened her and her son and is afraid for her life and the life of her son. Evan is trying to make people believe that Manson is such a monster and so liable to get triggered by this court case, that he may hunt them down and murder them; if not Manson himself, he will get one of his rabid fans to do his bidding. This part is the interpretation and spin of Evan's PR firm, but it is not why the court made the decision that they did.
When the article says: "The actress claims she was told directly by investigators that her family’s safety WAS at risk," this is a reference to the forged FBI letter - nothing else. In reality, the FBI never told Evan her life was at risk, it is a complete fabrication by Evan to add dramatics to her documentary. Most of this article, in other words, is outdated news that has nothing to do with the ruling of the court recently. As for the judgment of the court, right now we do not have those documents, and apparently neither does The Blast. Those court documents are sealed. These court documents are also sealed, but they were leaked to The Blast apparently by Evan's PR team, and The Blast was perhaps mislead into thinking out of context quotes from old court documents had something to do with the ruling. No, rather the article is fashioned as propaganda on behalf of Evan Rachel Wood to make her look like the victim, the penultimate virtuous and heroic heroine.
But contradictions and inconsistencies betray Evan's view of the matter. For example, in the beginning of the article it says that "Wood resides in Nashville, Tennessee, and has been battling to keep her son out of L.A." Later in the article we read: "Ultimately, Wood agreed to allow her son to live in L.A. — but with his father. The deal was signed and filed with the Los Angeles County Courts and will continue this way unless circumstances change." If she sacrificially gave her son to his father, it looks like she in reality sacrificed her son to possibly being harmed by Manson, as she alleges, by confining him to L.A., while she flees to Nashville to get away from Manson. This makes no sense. Even Effie, Armie Hammer's problematic accuser and fierce Manson critic, agrees that this makes no sense, to the ire of Evans supporters:
Evan Rachel Wood Has Lost Custody of Her Son and Paints Herself the Victim/Heroine
The Blast, which apparently is a media organization that is an offshoot of TMZ, obtained recent court documents from the custody case of Evan Rachel Wood and Jaime Bell. Now be very careful how you read this article, because at times they cite the recent legal documents and at other times they cite court documents from 2021, and then they cite a source for Evan Rachel Wood, which makes it confusing. Read it here.
The only thing the recent legal documents they have in their possession say is the decision of the court in regard to the custody, which basically is summed up as Jaime Bell gets full custody of their son and Evan Rachel Wood can have custody one weekend a month and on holidays. That is all the documents say, according to this article. Whenever the court documents say anything else, like quoting Evan or Jaime, they are court documents from 2021 and not from the new filing.
However, Evan's source, probably her PR firm, is spinning this news by saying that Evan sacrificially handed over her son to his father in order to protect him from Marilyn Manson, who allegedly threatened her and her son and is afraid for her life and the life of her son. Evan is trying to make people believe that Manson is such a monster and so liable to get triggered by this court case, that he may hunt them down and murder them; if not Manson himself, he will get one of his rabid fans to do his bidding. This part is the interpretation and spin of Evan's PR firm, but it is not why the court made the decision that they did.
When the article says: "The actress claims she was told directly by investigators that her family’s safety WAS at risk," this is a reference to the forged FBI letter - nothing else. In reality, the FBI never told Evan her life was at risk, it is a complete fabrication by Evan to add dramatics to her documentary. Most of this article, in other words, is outdated news that has nothing to do with the ruling of the court recently. As for the judgment of the court, right now we do not have those documents, and apparently neither does The Blast. Those court documents are sealed. These court documents are also sealed, but they were leaked to The Blast apparently by Evan's PR team, and The Blast was perhaps mislead into thinking out of context quotes from old court documents had something to do with the ruling. No, rather the article is fashioned as propaganda on behalf of Evan Rachel Wood to make her look like the victim, the penultimate virtuous and heroic heroine.
But contradictions and inconsistencies betray Evan's view of the matter. For example, in the beginning of the article it says that "Wood resides in Nashville, Tennessee, and has been battling to keep her son out of L.A." Later in the article we read: "Ultimately, Wood agreed to allow her son to live in L.A. — but with his father. The deal was signed and filed with the Los Angeles County Courts and will continue this way unless circumstances change." If she sacrificially gave her son to his father, it looks like she in reality sacrificed her son to possibly being harmed by Manson, as she alleges, by confining him to L.A., while she flees to Nashville to get away from Manson. This makes no sense. Even Effie, Armie Hammer's problematic accuser and fierce Manson critic, agrees that this makes no sense, to the ire of Evans supporters:
Also, if Evan really handed Jack over to his father in Los Angeles, to keep him away from her just in case Manson and his "rabid cult" comes to harm her, why did she accept custody once a month and holidays? Doesn't this put him at equal risk during that time, if there were any risk at all? Of course it would, and the court is not irrational enough to allow such a danger for a child if they believed the danger existed ... nor would Evan, which proves she is either lying or is in complete delusion by trying to justify her actions and continue to elevate her own sainthood among her devotees.
Essentially what we have here is utter deception and lies. The reality is that Evan lost custody of her son because she is an unfit mother, she absconded and kidnapped her son without her father's permission, she impersonated an FBI agent to make Manson look like a threat to her and her son, and she psychologically abused her son causing him untold nightmares and fears, as was detailed by Jaime Bell in the 2021 custody legal documents, as well as documented in Phoenix Rising. I'm not exactly sure what the judgment of the court was about, but it appears Evan was in danger of losing all rights to see her son, or maybe faced worse personal legal issues, and she decided to settle with Jaime Bell before things got worse for her.
Thankfully this time Marilyn Manson hit back strong and responded to Evan's absurd propaganda, first through a source close to him to the Daily Mail and then again to Fox News, both bigger publications that The Blast. In the Daily Mail we have the following response from a source close to Manson:
"Brian Warner has not had any contact nor communications of any kind with Evan Rachel Wood in nearly a decade. At no time has Brian Warner ever threatened Ms. Wood or her family. Wood has not provided a shred of evidence of Warner making any threats against her or her family. Wood continues to make unproven claims publicly and to the court based on a fraudulent FBI letter that was created and written by her and her accomplice, Illma Gore, during their coordinated attack on Warner. In his own declaration to the court in his custody battle, Mr. Bell has said that Evan’s story 'defies credibility.' The only people whose safety has been threatened are Warner and his wife [Lindsay Usich], who were swatted at their home based on a duplicitous phone call made to the FBI by Illma Gore, who claimed to be a friend of the couple."
The source told Fox News the following:
"Evan is blaming Manson to cover up the fact that she’s an unfit mother. She didn’t give up custody. She lost it and, it has nothing to do with Manson. Brian Warner has not had any contact nor communications of any kind with Evan Rachel Wood in nearly a decade. At no time has Brian Warner ever threatened Ms. Wood or her family. Wood has not provided a shred of evidence of Warner making any threats against her or her family."
May 26
- Susan Rubio Announces the Amended Phoenix Act of 2023 Will Likely Extend the Statute of Limitations in California to 15 Years
Senator Susan Rubio has been working to extend the statute of limitations for domestic violence through The Phoenix Act of 2023 (Senate Bill 690) to 15 years, and on May 26th it passed unanimously in the Senate and is now heading to the Assembly. The Senator thanked among others both Evan Rachel Wood and Esme Bianco who helped initiate the bill. Both Evan and Esme took to Instagram to highlight their continued support for this.
According to Attorney Andrea Burkhart, "This bill (SB 690) would extend the criminal statute of limitations for DV assaults. Under the ex post facto clause of the constitution, it can only be applied to crimes committed after the date it becomes effective." Though this is true of this bill as it was for the previous version of The Phoenix Act, accusers of Manson still used loopholes to manipulate these decisions to sue him. However, for the foreseeable future, this does not seem like a threat for Manson and seems to only apply to criminal cases.
I personally am strongly against any extension of the statute of limitations and am strongly in favor in educating women to get help as soon as possible after an incident, as well as for the government agencies to build up programs to ensure real victims and survivors get the help they need as quick as possible. The Phoenix Act is built on the principal that a woman needs time to process what happened to her before coming forward, even if it takes many years, but this only opens the door for false memories to creep in and evidence in their favor to disappear. It assumes that women should be believed no matter what, and the accused should be assumed guilty because a woman has gone through this process of understanding the extent to which abuse took place, despite the evidence validating or invalidating her account.
- Susan Rubio Announces the Amended Phoenix Act of 2023 Will Likely Extend the Statute of Limitations in California to 15 Years
Senator Susan Rubio has been working to extend the statute of limitations for domestic violence through The Phoenix Act of 2023 (Senate Bill 690) to 15 years, and on May 26th it passed unanimously in the Senate and is now heading to the Assembly. The Senator thanked among others both Evan Rachel Wood and Esme Bianco who helped initiate the bill. Both Evan and Esme took to Instagram to highlight their continued support for this.
According to Attorney Andrea Burkhart, "This bill (SB 690) would extend the criminal statute of limitations for DV assaults. Under the ex post facto clause of the constitution, it can only be applied to crimes committed after the date it becomes effective." Though this is true of this bill as it was for the previous version of The Phoenix Act, accusers of Manson still used loopholes to manipulate these decisions to sue him. However, for the foreseeable future, this does not seem like a threat for Manson and seems to only apply to criminal cases.
I personally am strongly against any extension of the statute of limitations and am strongly in favor in educating women to get help as soon as possible after an incident, as well as for the government agencies to build up programs to ensure real victims and survivors get the help they need as quick as possible. The Phoenix Act is built on the principal that a woman needs time to process what happened to her before coming forward, even if it takes many years, but this only opens the door for false memories to creep in and evidence in their favor to disappear. It assumes that women should be believed no matter what, and the accused should be assumed guilty because a woman has gone through this process of understanding the extent to which abuse took place, despite the evidence validating or invalidating her account.
