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
Brief Thoughts on the Joint Statement of Marilyn Manson, Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore Submitted on January 19th 2023
On January 19th 2023, a Joint Statement of Marilyn Manson, Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore was submitted with 18 Objections to be ruled upon by the court in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motions. It states:
"Pursuant to the Court’s December 1, 2022 Order, Plaintiff Brian Warner p/k/a Marilyn Manson, Defendant Evan Rachel Wood, and Defendant Ashley Gore a/k/a Illma Gore hereby submit this Joint Statement Regarding Objections to Evidence Submitted in Connection with Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motions. All three parties’ objections have been consolidated in this Joint Statement, and the objections have been consecutively numbered (Objection Nos. 1-18) for ease of review and discussion."
I won't explain what each objection means or go into any details about them. Below are just my views and highlights that I offer as something to consider as you read through them from the source you get your court documents. They should not be seen as a replacement to the document itself, which is 55-pages, but if you choose not to read the document, you still may get something out of it (though the whole document is an interesting read, it is long and a lot of going back and forth). I tried to find the strengths in the Defendants objections and replies, but found very little based on my knowledge of the case. I also tried to find some weaknesses in the Plaintiff's objections and replies, but likewise found very little based on my knowledge of the case.
Objection #1:
What I find most interesting within this objection is that the Plaintiff points out that "Ms. Wood could have obtained declarations from them [other "victims" of Brian Warner/Marilyn Manson] but she did not."
Evan Rachel Wood has submitted her documentary Phoenix Rising and copies of media articles as well as copies of social media statements as evidence thus far, but has not submitted any declarations from these other "survivors" of Marilyn Manson. Why? Evan doesn't even name them. It's as if she has no communication with them. We know that Evan and Illma Gore had a falling out with their breakup. We also know that Evan and Esme Bianco despise each other, to the point where Evan removed any mention of Esme from her documentary in regards to her instrumental help in getting the Phoenix Act passed. The two cases of the Ashleys have been dismissed, and there is no evidence of communication between them and Evan or Illma, though we know that Smithline despises Evan and Esme and Ashley Walters. By now, Evan should have had dozens of declarations from the supposed dozens of victims of Marilyn Manson, but she has produced none. That's not to say she won't in the future, but the fact that she has failed to produce any at this point when Manson has produced some strong ones says a lot to the fact that the alleged victims are reluctant to be held up to the scrutiny of the courts and prefer the court of social media to make their statements which is under their control. It also may show that they don't care to really help Evan and Illma in ways that really matter.
Objection #2:
What the Defendant Evan Rachel Wood fails to provide is evidence that the criminal investigation of the LASD and the FBI was ever about her. Manson doesn't deny the investigation as far as Esme Bianco is concerned, he denies that Evan submitted evidence that she also is part of it. We do know that Esme Bianco was involved, but she has nothing to do with this case. We have yet to see any evidence that Evan was part of this criminal investigation, except a fake FBI letter. There may be some evidence she was talked about in this investigation, but to what degree did she submit evidence and meet with anyone? The Defendant's argument in this objection is surprisingly weak and desperate.
Objection #3:
Once again, Defendant Evan Rachel Wood is trying to find a way around from getting actual declarations of people by instead submitting a heavily biased and edited documentary she made. She doesn't even provide in her evidence the full episode of Dinner for Five so the court can see it all in context in regards to what was discussed about Groupie, but relies on the edited snippet in her documentary. It's astonishing that her lawyers would defend a documentary as being sufficient evidence to the point where declarations are not needed.
Objection #4:
I think the documentary would be a relevant piece of evidence if it was a supplement to declarations from the "cast" of the film (who are called "cast" on IMDB), but it does not come with any declarations, and there is clearly a lot of acting in the film so as to make it irrelevant as a piece of evidence. Behind the scenes coverage would be a lot more interesting and relevant, which does not show any editing involved.
Objection #5:
The Rolling Stone "investigation" was also a very biased investigation, and to submit it as evidence in court is laughable, especially without any declarations from the people interviewed or conducting the interviews. They claim to have interviewed 55 people, yet Evan can't get one declaration from any of them. Without any declarations, such journalistic "evidence" from a problematic publication is not evidence at all in a court of law, and thereby irrelevant.
Objection #6:
The Defendants are trying to strike out damning first-hand testimony in regards to the falsification of the FBI letter, as stated by Attorney Blair Berk, which also lays the foundation for the declaration provided by Agent Langer. The objection has already been overruled, but the Defense are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #7:
This objection by the Defendants is a bit over the top. It has been established this evidence came from an authenticated computer of Illma Gore that came into the possession of Bryton Gore, and is authentic in itself. If Illma Gore has an objection to their interpretation, she can do this within the setting of the court, instead she is trying to have the evidence thrown out altogether because it somehow requires her interpretation. In fact, during her deposition, Illma Gore was counseled to not even offer her clarifications or interpretations. This is just an altogether absurd objection.
Objection #8:
This is another laughable objection by the Defendants. Bryton quotes the exact wording of the submitted evidence in her declaration, but the Defendant is trying to not have this evidence submitted because it is not clear who took the photograph? Bryton in her declaration has already confirmed as authentic the evidence submitted. Again, sounds desperate.
Objection #9:
Same as #8.
Objection #10:
Same as #8.
Objection #11:
It seems like the Defendants want things struck that they don't want out there, but Plaintiff Marilyn Manson thinks is relevant as an introduction to the content provided as exhibits. Just nitpicking.
Objection #12:
The signature being talked about is not here being authenticated by Bryton Gore, she is merely saying what she saw and noticed the similarities. I don't see why this should be objected to.
Objection #13:
Similarly to #12, someone can give their opinion about a matter as testimony, so I don't see why this should be objected to.
Objection #14:
This makes no sense. The Defendants seem to be creating arguments out of thin air.
Objection #15:
This is similar to #6, in reference to Bryton's phone conversation with Evan. The objection by the Defendants have already been overruled, but now they are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #16:
This is probably the strongest objection submitted by the Defendants, which basically seeks to have Manson submit a copy of Groupie to be seen by the court. However, I still don't think they have a strong enough argument for this to be done. The Defendants need to submit declarations and evidence in support of their objections that Pola Weiss was not the actress or that she was underage or that there was underage sex being filmed. Without these declarations and evidence, the Defendants have no case. It seems like they want to shock the court by a horror movie with gruesome and disturbing content and imagery to win them over by that alone. Furthermore, Evan has seen Groupie, but offered no details about the subject matter she saw to supplement what Illma has said. Many people have seen Groupie that they can get declarations from to confirm their opinions, but none have been submitted. For example, actor Shia LaBeouf has seen it, and Evan acted in a film with him after he saw it, so why doesn't she try to get a declaration from him? It all boils down to the fact that watching the film will not bring clarification to the objections, so why show it at all?
Objection #17:
Similar to #6, in reference to Marilyn Manson's statements which provide background to the case he is making. The objection by the Defendants have already been overruled, but now they are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #18:
"Indeed, many of the objected-to fragments are phrases that modify or contextualize other part of the same sentence describing some action by Ms. Meyer—portions to which Defendants do not object." This argument by the Plaintiff should be strong enough to have the objection struck down.
"Pursuant to the Court’s December 1, 2022 Order, Plaintiff Brian Warner p/k/a Marilyn Manson, Defendant Evan Rachel Wood, and Defendant Ashley Gore a/k/a Illma Gore hereby submit this Joint Statement Regarding Objections to Evidence Submitted in Connection with Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motions. All three parties’ objections have been consolidated in this Joint Statement, and the objections have been consecutively numbered (Objection Nos. 1-18) for ease of review and discussion."
I won't explain what each objection means or go into any details about them. Below are just my views and highlights that I offer as something to consider as you read through them from the source you get your court documents. They should not be seen as a replacement to the document itself, which is 55-pages, but if you choose not to read the document, you still may get something out of it (though the whole document is an interesting read, it is long and a lot of going back and forth). I tried to find the strengths in the Defendants objections and replies, but found very little based on my knowledge of the case. I also tried to find some weaknesses in the Plaintiff's objections and replies, but likewise found very little based on my knowledge of the case.
Objection #1:
What I find most interesting within this objection is that the Plaintiff points out that "Ms. Wood could have obtained declarations from them [other "victims" of Brian Warner/Marilyn Manson] but she did not."
Evan Rachel Wood has submitted her documentary Phoenix Rising and copies of media articles as well as copies of social media statements as evidence thus far, but has not submitted any declarations from these other "survivors" of Marilyn Manson. Why? Evan doesn't even name them. It's as if she has no communication with them. We know that Evan and Illma Gore had a falling out with their breakup. We also know that Evan and Esme Bianco despise each other, to the point where Evan removed any mention of Esme from her documentary in regards to her instrumental help in getting the Phoenix Act passed. The two cases of the Ashleys have been dismissed, and there is no evidence of communication between them and Evan or Illma, though we know that Smithline despises Evan and Esme and Ashley Walters. By now, Evan should have had dozens of declarations from the supposed dozens of victims of Marilyn Manson, but she has produced none. That's not to say she won't in the future, but the fact that she has failed to produce any at this point when Manson has produced some strong ones says a lot to the fact that the alleged victims are reluctant to be held up to the scrutiny of the courts and prefer the court of social media to make their statements which is under their control. It also may show that they don't care to really help Evan and Illma in ways that really matter.
Objection #2:
What the Defendant Evan Rachel Wood fails to provide is evidence that the criminal investigation of the LASD and the FBI was ever about her. Manson doesn't deny the investigation as far as Esme Bianco is concerned, he denies that Evan submitted evidence that she also is part of it. We do know that Esme Bianco was involved, but she has nothing to do with this case. We have yet to see any evidence that Evan was part of this criminal investigation, except a fake FBI letter. There may be some evidence she was talked about in this investigation, but to what degree did she submit evidence and meet with anyone? The Defendant's argument in this objection is surprisingly weak and desperate.
Objection #3:
Once again, Defendant Evan Rachel Wood is trying to find a way around from getting actual declarations of people by instead submitting a heavily biased and edited documentary she made. She doesn't even provide in her evidence the full episode of Dinner for Five so the court can see it all in context in regards to what was discussed about Groupie, but relies on the edited snippet in her documentary. It's astonishing that her lawyers would defend a documentary as being sufficient evidence to the point where declarations are not needed.
Objection #4:
I think the documentary would be a relevant piece of evidence if it was a supplement to declarations from the "cast" of the film (who are called "cast" on IMDB), but it does not come with any declarations, and there is clearly a lot of acting in the film so as to make it irrelevant as a piece of evidence. Behind the scenes coverage would be a lot more interesting and relevant, which does not show any editing involved.
Objection #5:
The Rolling Stone "investigation" was also a very biased investigation, and to submit it as evidence in court is laughable, especially without any declarations from the people interviewed or conducting the interviews. They claim to have interviewed 55 people, yet Evan can't get one declaration from any of them. Without any declarations, such journalistic "evidence" from a problematic publication is not evidence at all in a court of law, and thereby irrelevant.
Objection #6:
The Defendants are trying to strike out damning first-hand testimony in regards to the falsification of the FBI letter, as stated by Attorney Blair Berk, which also lays the foundation for the declaration provided by Agent Langer. The objection has already been overruled, but the Defense are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #7:
This objection by the Defendants is a bit over the top. It has been established this evidence came from an authenticated computer of Illma Gore that came into the possession of Bryton Gore, and is authentic in itself. If Illma Gore has an objection to their interpretation, she can do this within the setting of the court, instead she is trying to have the evidence thrown out altogether because it somehow requires her interpretation. In fact, during her deposition, Illma Gore was counseled to not even offer her clarifications or interpretations. This is just an altogether absurd objection.
Objection #8:
This is another laughable objection by the Defendants. Bryton quotes the exact wording of the submitted evidence in her declaration, but the Defendant is trying to not have this evidence submitted because it is not clear who took the photograph? Bryton in her declaration has already confirmed as authentic the evidence submitted. Again, sounds desperate.
Objection #9:
Same as #8.
Objection #10:
Same as #8.
Objection #11:
It seems like the Defendants want things struck that they don't want out there, but Plaintiff Marilyn Manson thinks is relevant as an introduction to the content provided as exhibits. Just nitpicking.
Objection #12:
The signature being talked about is not here being authenticated by Bryton Gore, she is merely saying what she saw and noticed the similarities. I don't see why this should be objected to.
Objection #13:
Similarly to #12, someone can give their opinion about a matter as testimony, so I don't see why this should be objected to.
Objection #14:
This makes no sense. The Defendants seem to be creating arguments out of thin air.
Objection #15:
This is similar to #6, in reference to Bryton's phone conversation with Evan. The objection by the Defendants have already been overruled, but now they are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #16:
This is probably the strongest objection submitted by the Defendants, which basically seeks to have Manson submit a copy of Groupie to be seen by the court. However, I still don't think they have a strong enough argument for this to be done. The Defendants need to submit declarations and evidence in support of their objections that Pola Weiss was not the actress or that she was underage or that there was underage sex being filmed. Without these declarations and evidence, the Defendants have no case. It seems like they want to shock the court by a horror movie with gruesome and disturbing content and imagery to win them over by that alone. Furthermore, Evan has seen Groupie, but offered no details about the subject matter she saw to supplement what Illma has said. Many people have seen Groupie that they can get declarations from to confirm their opinions, but none have been submitted. For example, actor Shia LaBeouf has seen it, and Evan acted in a film with him after he saw it, so why doesn't she try to get a declaration from him? It all boils down to the fact that watching the film will not bring clarification to the objections, so why show it at all?
Objection #17:
Similar to #6, in reference to Marilyn Manson's statements which provide background to the case he is making. The objection by the Defendants have already been overruled, but now they are trying to strike it down again.
Objection #18:
"Indeed, many of the objected-to fragments are phrases that modify or contextualize other part of the same sentence describing some action by Ms. Meyer—portions to which Defendants do not object." This argument by the Plaintiff should be strong enough to have the objection struck down.