Skip to comments.Bryan Singerís Accuser Names Three More Alleged Sex Abusers
Posted on 04/21/2014 8:46:40 PM PDT by Mariner
Hollywood executives Garth Ancier, David Neuman and Gary Goddard have been accused of sexually abusing teenage boys in lawsuits filed Monday in Hawaii federal court.
I would not wish on my worst enemies what I went through, declared plaintiff Michael Egan at a Monday news conference at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills.
Ancier is the former president of BBC Worldwide America and also served as head of programming for Fox, NBC and the WB. Hes also the head of year-old Quad Media Partners, formed to launch four fully curated linear TV networks, each built around a modern decade in broadcast and cable network television.
Neuman, the former president of Disney TV, previously worked for Digital Entertainment Network, which was headed by Marc Collins-Rector, who was cited as being involved in the sexual activity at the heart of Egans original lawsuit against director Bryan Singer.
(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...
This may be the biggest scandal since we discovered they were all commies.
Now America will know they're all homosexual, pedophile commies.
At least that's my wife's theory.
This won’t cause a chip in their armor. Most star struck idiots will say “Oh, that’s just a couple of freaks. IF it’s even true.”
The chickens are coming home to roost, finally.
If God doesn’t destroy Hollywood, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
Though I think Hal Roach took care of his Rascals just fine.
Alcoholism, homicide, all kinds of adultery came later. Once they’d had a chance to mature.
I will ask the same question I'd asked a couple of days ago on this case. What is the standard of proof required to make such an accusation? Now, I do not know this Bryan Singer, I am not defending him, and I am not saying there are no cases of abuse in tinseltown. All I am asking is what is the standard of proof required? Certain accusations carry a lot of weight, and the proof requisite should also be similarly significant.
Or can one simply come and say 'so and so' molested me, do a writeup of how that abuse occured, and file a suit asking for monetary damages?
My question is - before these accusations are made public, is their a standard of proof that is required that goes beyond simply writing a statement on what was done?
(Again: Just to re-emphasize, I am not defending this chap, and do not know him. I am asking what I believe is a logical question, and not just for this case. Does the legal system have filters in place to ensure an accusation is based on fact before they make something headline news? On the other thread some days back a FReeper gave an example he knew of where some average Joe got railroaded with a similar accusation, which turned out false. Unfortunately, even false accusations can break up families and such).
is their = is there
ever notice that over the decades, you could count on one hand the number of Hollywood executives charged with any type of sexual abuse?
and they even have something called the casting couch. but never is heard a discouraging word.
There are a lot of people ‘sleeping with the fishes’ who tried to bring it to light.
At least that's my wife's theory”
That's because she's right. Look at the anorexic models who walk the fashion runway then look at the clothing designers such as Versace before he was killed by Andrew Cunanan the gay call boy who went on a killing spree.
Uh, it ISN'T heterosexual men running those industries.
I can't speak for all heterosexual men, but emaciated women are NOT appealing.
Brave, brave man. Thank you. This has been true for decades. Hollywood jerks have adored their underaged girls and boys, using them, drugging them, and throwing them away. LETS MAKE IT STOP.
You wife is exactly right.
Here’s what I’m asking Why are you asking? What do your doubts spring from? Do you have some knowledge of the situation? Were you falsely accused at one time?
So can homo pedophiles.
Totally agree. Rapists, pedos, all sorts of riffraff can breakup families. However, my question was whether real evidence is required before an accusation takes root.
I have seen too many accusations in the media - some examples include Tawana Brawley, the Duke university Lacross team accusation and the Susan Smith kid murder case. I never accept anything at face value without proof, and that is why I was asking if any evidence is required before someone goes and states person XYZ did ABC to them. Especially when $300,000 is being asked for, and the event happened 15 years ago. My question was simple - is their any evidence required before accusing someone?
As for whether I know the person (or even, and I found this weird, I have been 'accused'). I thought the disclaimer would be sufficient, but let me shed some more light on that. I do not know the man (and I doubt I have been within 3,000 miles of the chap), I have no knowledge of the situation, and - this is a new one - I have never been accused, falsely or not, at any time.
With questions on potential accusations on my part out of the way, the reason I am asking is simple. I am interested in knowing if any real proof is required before someone makes an accusation. That's it.
I am not saying he did not molest the guy. In the same way when Crystal Magnum made her false accusations on the Lacross team I did not mean rape doesn't happen when I asked then what additional evidence was present. And no, it doesn't mean I was raped either (or a rapist) when I had questions - not doubts, questions - on that case either when it first came out.
If the guy is a rapist he needs to be hang by his nuts, then shot. Just thought I maybe need to say that again before someone asks if I am protecting homo pedos.
Sadly, I doubt if this will impact the box office on the new X-Men movie in the least. Even people who think there is some fire behind this smoke will go anyway—some of it to support “the embattled Singer.” Like the people who cheer with extra enthusiasm for the accused rapist football player.
With the understanding that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, it makes you wonder about the short, troubled life of Brad Renfro, star of Apt Pupil.
You can add River Phoenix to that list and possibly brother Joaquin Phoenix. And let’s not forget Macaulay Culkin, Heath Ledger, Keanu Reeves, and that couch-jumping Scientologist.
IIRC, I even posted that theory on FR some time ago, but I referenced models rather than actresses. A distinction without a difference.
It may, if the word gets around. They tampered with the phrase 'truth, justice, and the American way' in Singer's 'Superman Returns', and that p*ssed off a LOT of people. Of course, the fact that the movie sucked after the spectacular plane rescue didn't help, either.
In Singer's case, there's so much smoke in the form of photos, previous incidents, claims, years'-old comments to blogs, stories, years'-old jokes. etc., that it's almost impossible to see the fire.
I can provide unappetizing links if you desire.
This is the type of scandal that could have horrible consequences for the entertainment industry—especially when it reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals as pedophiles. Some very high profile gays in the entertainment industry such as TMZ founder Harvey Levin and actors Neal Patrick Harris and Kevin Spacey better be very careful, because even a hint of a closer association with the accused pedophiles in this story could end their careers in no time flat.
Thanks. I’ll take your word for it. If there is smoke then there is likely to be fire. Thanks also for understanding why I was asking.
For the record, $300,000 is nothing if this is true.
Nope, no standard of proof is required to file a civil suit such as this. Of course, if it's unfounded the plaintiff is subject to a hell of defamation claim. The plaintiff's lawyer also places himself/herself at risk by preparing and filing frivolous claims. Incidentally, the standard for winning a civil suit is preponderance of the evidence. Basically, if a judge or jury finds it's more likely than not that it happened the plaintiff prevails.
I would love to see their statements on the priests who were alleged sex abusers. I wonder if they bashed the Priests as most media did. I would love to find this out. The Directors who are allegedly found to have abused in the same way.
Sadly, I doubt if this will impact the box office on the new X-Men movie in the least.
Why should it? Totally different things. That is like saying that a Priest is accused of sexual abuse and you should not attend Mass again. I thought X-Men Movies were pretty good and see no reason not to see it. Yep I will continue going to Mass too.
Remember, the Left's main battlecry in attacks on its enemies is "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seiousness of the charge that matters".
Rush has been railing about this exact thing for years and years. "You need to make a hard, totally unfounded charge and that's reason enough to investigate."
Irresponsible public charges have been one of liberalism's guiding tenets for time immemorial.....and is also a core Alinsky tactic as outlined in his book, "Rules for Radicals".
I went to IMDB.com to see what Michael Egan was in. He was only in 3 things and very small roles. I wonder if he is depressed about the way his career turned out.
Corey Feldman and Tracy McCaulkin should come clean who raped them...Corey Heim committed suicide about getting raped as a kid!
Thank you. Hopefully you will not have someone ask you whether your questions are because you have been ‘accused’ of a similar thing as well. The case of Susan Smith killing her kids and saying some other person did it, the well known Tawana Brawley false-rape case, the more recent Duke university Lacross team accusation, have taught me to always question. Not necessarily to doubt, but at the very least to question. Thanks for your post.
my understanding from the news reports on this meltdown is that they are pictures from these “parties” (no women present)
There is no question what was happening there.
Why was a 15 year old there.
This just ruins the x-men movies. (then again ii and iii were pretty bad on their own)
It also explains the “two kings(princes?)” tv series on Disney.
Additionally, while my trade is PE, there is enough legal mumbojumbo incorporated in it when it comes to legal terms for me to realize the potential of dangling a number that is high for the accuser but low for the accused. For instance, in PE one can fire the Manager 'for cause' (they made a material breach) or 'without cause' (you don't like the Manager, returns, management, etc and there is a mechanism to divorce the Manager from the Fund). Now, doing it with cause is difficult as the standard of proof is high, and you could even potentially spend a lot of time in court proving cause, but without cause is the simpler (and more used) option.
Now, what does all that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Well, imagine I go accuse some big-shot, claiming he/she/it did some unnameable stuff to me a decade and a half ago. I then ask for US$300,000. Would it be better for the person to settle out of court, and pay me some commensurate amount, or to risk going to court and - guilty or not - having all sorts of nasties laid out in public? It is the same reason even large corporations settle out of court, even when it comes to cases they may easily win, rather than trying to trade blows publicly, and potentially attract other people/entities/attention to the fray.
Now, there is a FReeper who said that the Singer chap has had a number of other accusations, and that he is not a nice chap. Thus, he may be (and is most probably) guilty of what he is being accused of, and as I stated earlier I have no dog in the fight. If he's going around messing up little boys he needs to be thrown in a dark hole. No question about that.
The only reason I posted initially was to ask what the standard of proof is for someone to make a claim against someone else.
the lawyer involved is not a lightweight. His practice is directed at these types of suits.
While it is innocent until proven guilty. (low standard in the civil arena). Between the deviant orgy pictures, and multiple confirmations of the type of parties happening at the time, it is little wonder the studio has made him disappear.
It is really simple, homosexuals go back to being box office toxins.
stereotype or continuously demonstrated fact? seems to prove the fact.
No. Unless you name is Michael Jackson.
“Or can one simply come and say ‘so and so’ molested me, do a writeup of how that abuse occured, and file a suit asking for monetary damages?”
Yes, you can file a lawsuit for just about anything. You may not win, and the judge might throw it out before you see a courtroom, but as long as you fill out the paperwork correctly and pay any necessary fees, you can file it.
“My question is - before these accusations are made public, is their a standard of proof that is required that goes beyond simply writing a statement on what was done?”
No, unless there is some kind of gag order by the court, the standard 1st Amendment freedoms apply. You can go accuse anybody of anything publicly, but if you do it maliciously, you open yourself up to be sued by them.
That remedy doesn’t help much for celebrities, because they are held to a different standard in a libel or defamation suit. They are expected to endure a certain amount of negative speech about them simply because they are a public figure. So, for example, I can say “Obama is a two bit street hustling conman”, and have little fear that he would be able to win a libel suit against me for that. If I said it about my neighbor, he could probably get a payday.
Also, celebrities generally have plenty of money, while those accusing them may not, so suing false accusers for libel, even if they win, is more of a symbolic victory.
“It is really simple, homosexuals go back to being box office toxins.”
I’d hope so, but I doubt it. As long as a fruit loop can make a studio a few hundred million every couple years, they are going to move mountains to protect that asset.
Back in the day, the studios would go to great lengths to help their homo actors keep their skeletons in the closet. They were pimping out young starlets like Natalie Wood as beards for queers all over town to avoid the public figuring it out, rather than just dumping them and losing potential future earnings.
it does kill the shelf life of a product.
new star trek is just not credible.
original trek is so so because of mr. fond of boy scouts in the wrong way.
either way the wallet stays closed.
the fact there are putures and multiple stories of defacto orgies (without women present) speaks volumes.
Sure, for you, but obviously not for enough consumers for it to make any difference to the studios.
Yes, but the question I was responding to was not specifically about this case, just about public accusations in general.