Last we heard of the custody arrangement between Evan Rachel Wood and Jaime Bell was in May 2023. Then it was reported that according to court documents, Evan Rachel Wood lost primary custody of her son Jack to her ex-husband Jaime Bell, who wanted "the Court to know that Evan's recent behavior with Jack is truly alarming." Among the "truly alarming" things cited by Jaime was that she was "feeding" their son false information about Marilyn Manson, which caused him to have crippling anxiety and fear. Evan, who lived in Tennessee at the time and still does, had been allegedly keeping the boy away from Los Angeles, where Jaime lived, because, she claimed (based on a forged FBI letter written by Evan and Illma Gore), she was a key witness in an investigation into abuse by Manson, who she believed was a threat to her and her son. She had also claimed that in 2014 Manson threatened her that he would "fuck" her infant son. Manson has denied all the...
As reported on August 12th 2024, Senator Susan Rubio along with other women, including Esme Bianco, held a press conference to try to get the Phoenix Act 2.0 (SB-690) passed in California. One news report from KTLA 5, which was shared by Rubio, Bianco and Evan Rachel Wood (upon her return to Instagram), interviewed both Rubio and Bianco on what they shared in their press conference.
Interestingly, the news report in all fairness also talked about how there is active opposition to having the Phoenix Act 2.0 passed by the Califonia Public Defenders Association, the largest organization of criminal defense attorneys in the State of California. They argue that the statute of limitations is in place because it gives both the accuser and the accused the best possible chances for both sides to present their evidence and for justice to be served, while extending the statute of limitations limits the opportunity for both sides to present their evidence since so much time has passed from the incident, and especially undermines any chances for the accused to defend themselves, thus giving greater chances for potentially innocent people to be falsely prosecuted.
In her response to this opposition, Senator Rubio stated:
"Let's believe victims. They don't want you to debate it, they want you to listen, and my goal now is to fight for victims out there that need me to fight for them, and I will not give up until this law is passed."
Interestingly, the news report in all fairness also talked about how there is active opposition to having the Phoenix Act 2.0 passed by the Califonia Public Defenders Association, the largest organization of criminal defense attorneys in the State of California. They argue that the statute of limitations is in place because it gives both the accuser and the accused the best possible chances for both sides to present their evidence and for justice to be served, while extending the statute of limitations limits the opportunity for both sides to present their evidence since so much time has passed from the incident, and especially undermines any chances for the accused to defend themselves, thus giving greater chances for potentially innocent people to be falsely prosecuted.
In her response to this opposition, Senator Rubio stated:
"Let's believe victims. They don't want you to debate it, they want you to listen, and my goal now is to fight for victims out there that need me to fight for them, and I will not give up until this law is passed."
Essentially what Senator Rubio is saying here is what we knew all along. The Phoenix Act is not about justice for both sides. Instead, The Phoenix Act is about removing justice from the accused, to not give them an opportunity to defend themselves, and to give the accusers free reign to bring down whoever they choose to accuse, whether rightly or wrongly. Senator Rubio considers this the only right form of justice, because she believes that any woman who accuses a man would never lie about it, or do so out of a certain delusion or misunderstanding, but that a woman will always be right 100% of the time. They fight for The Phoenix Act under the pretense that a woman needs years of healing before she can come forward publicly, which is an absurd pretense and an obvious excuse to cover over the real reason for The Phoenix Act.
%20%E2%80%A2%20Instagram%20photos%20and%20videos.png) |
| The two videos with the highest views in Senator Rubio's reels were from the press conference. |
Of course, we would not have The Phoenix Act without Evan Rachel Wood, Illma Gore and Esme Bianco, and we know why they wanted to extend the statute of limitations, which they initially argued based on the absurd claim that all of Marilyn Manson's accusers suffered from severe PTSD and repressed memories because of his abuse to report on the matter sooner. They moved forward with changing the law after it was suggested to them by Attorney Gloria Allred. Senator Susan Rubio jumped on board because she accused her ex-husband of abuse and related to their cause, though it should be mentioned that Rubio's ex-husband has tried to fight these claims as being false allegations. The Phoenix Act furthermore is a favorite topic of Senator Rubio as well because it gives her the most media coverage and on Instagram it receives far greater numbers for her reels than any other issue she tackles.
%20%E2%80%A2%20Instagram%20photos%20and%20videos.png)
%20%E2%80%A2%20Instagram%20photos%20and%20videos.png)
%20%E2%80%A2%20Instagram%20photos%20and%20videos.png)
In the comment section for the news report on Senator Rubio's Instagram page, Evan made a rare appearance and replied to questions about The Phoenix Act 2.0 (3 days ago and today), where she stated: "The statute of limitations limits hard evidence from even being seen. That's the issue." This is false and in fact the exact opposite is true. Of course, something may surface that is hard evidence on behalf of the accuser or the accused either 5, 10, 15 or 50 years after the event, but you don't change a law based on the hopes that something may emerge. If something does emerge later that is hard evidence, then there is usually an opportunity for the case to be reheard if it has been already heard. For there to be true justice for both sides, you have to go with the evidence you have as close to the incident as possible. It would be ideal if all women who made allegations were telling the truth, but we know this is not the case, and even if they believe their allegations to be true, sometimes it can be shown they we were not when the accused presents evidence to the contrary. Extending the statute of limitations only in favor of the accuser indeed opens up a greater possibility for the innocent to not be able to present a defense. This may not be ideal for real survivors of abuse, but it is better to not have an ideal situation if it means it can prevent innocent people from suffering under a false assumption. For justice to be served, a law cannot favor one side over the other. The accused has the presumption of innocence, and they must be allowed to defend themselves if they claim to be falsely accused.
I would also like to point out that recently I mentioned how Evan seems to have given up on The Phoenix Act, leaving the work behind for Esme Bianco to take over. It is interesting that Evan is now trying to get back to promoting The Phoenix Act 2.0 after this press event by answering questions in the comment section to a news clip.