X-Men Director's Sexual Abuse Charges Dropped For Now

X-Men Director's Sexual Abuse Charges Dropped For Now

X-Men director Bryan Singer's lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled in the future.

These days, Bryan Singer is best known for his work directing superhero movies, including this summer's X-Men: Days of Future Past. You may, however, also be familiar with the lawsuit accusing him of sexually assaulting a 17 year-old in 1999. Now Michael Egan III, the former child model who filed the suit, has dropped it on the basis on not being able to find a new lawyer to represent him.

Egan's original attorneys were removed from the case after their relationship deteriorated. According to an Aug. 19th court filing that was ordered unsealed, Egan accused his lawyers of withholding information from him. Egan is now receiving advice from Californian lawyer Vince Finaldi, although Finaldi is not representing him legally.

A federal judge has allowed the case to be dismissed without prejudice, which means it can still be refiled in the future if Egan chooses. Singer had reportedly sought for the case to be dismissed with prejudice, but the request was denied. "Any alleged damage to defendant's reputation may well be ameliorated by plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the action," said U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway.

Egan had previously accused Gary Goddard, David Neuman, and Garth Ancier of sexually assaulting him in the same year, but these lawsuits were also withdrawn.

"Although we would have liked the case dismissed on merits, the fact that now it's dropped ... is satisfactory," said Marty Singer, one of Bryan Singer's attorneys (no relation). "We're pleased that it's over."

Source: ABS News

Permalink

... So an allegation of sexual abuse from fifteen years ago is newsworthy because the director has done a fistful of movies aimed at comic book fans. And the title is even phrased to imply he could be guilty! It's not incorrect but did we need the "for now"? All it does is imply Bryan Singer IS guilty! And his accuser has apparently accused 3 other people all of whom the cases were dropped.

Good thing the 17 year old wasn't a game journalist or else this wouldn't even be worth reporting, right? Nah, you know what, that's just inflammatory...

CaptainMarvelous:
And the title is even phrased to imply he could be guilty! It's not incorrect but did we need the "for now"? All it does is imply Bryan Singer IS guilty!

No, it implies that the plaintiff, if he finds representation, could re-file the lawsuit. Which he can. If you read any more into it than what it's literally, and very accurately saying, then that may have a bit more to do with your own biases and predilections.

Vivi22:

CaptainMarvelous:
And the title is even phrased to imply he could be guilty! It's not incorrect but did we need the "for now"? All it does is imply Bryan Singer IS guilty!

No, it implies that the plaintiff, if he finds representation, could re-file the lawsuit. Which he can. If you read any more into it than what it's literally, and very accurately saying, then that may have a bit more to do with your own biases and predilections.

Incorrect. 'For now' means not a cessation but a suspension (which is technically correct since the case can be re-opened even if the proceedings have some to a close) but it's unnecessary as an addition unless it is likely we will see the case re-opened. Implying it will be re-opened implies there's a solid enough case to warrant it. Which implies guilt. Which is objectionable since (I'm not going to be insulting and insinuate you didn't read the article, but I'll repeat it anyway for clarity) it mentions that the plaintiff made three other claims in the same year which were all ruled out and lends credence to Singer's claims of innocence.

It's not a bias, it's rudimentary logic. And at the risk of being Drax-ed, I am pretty damn literal in my thinking. Not great at metaphors.

And the whole thing wouldn't be objectionable since, like it or not, Buzzfeed is pretty much how we do headlines now. Except for the incredibly caustic backdrop of recent discussions about the journalistic integrity of reporting on the private lives of people who have some presence in the public eye and strikes me as a touch hypocritical from an editorial standpoint (obviously, the circumstances are vastly different and I can see why this was reported, but it's still a little grating)

"Egan had previously accused Gary Goddard, David Neuman, and Garth Ancier of sexually assaulting him in the same year, but these lawsuits were also withdrawn."

So essentially there's very little chance of him successfully bringing legal action against anyone for sexual assault including Singer. No wonder his previous lawyer didn't want the case. Even if it is true (which I find doubtful in this case) I can't see a jury convicting anyone on the word of soneone with that track record.

Battenberg:
"Egan had previously accused Gary Goddard, David Neuman, and Garth Ancier of sexually assaulting him in the same year, but these lawsuits were also withdrawn."

So essentially there's very little chance of him successfully bringing legal action against anyone for sexual assault including Singer. No wonder his previous lawyer didn't want the case. Even if it is true (which I find doubtful in this case) I can't see a jury convicting anyone on the word of soneone with that track record.

I'm struggling to come to a scenario where these people all had cause to sexually assault this Egan person. It just seems like the unfortunate stereotype of revenSUE of America.

Abomination:

Battenberg:
"Egan had previously accused Gary Goddard, David Neuman, and Garth Ancier of sexually assaulting him in the same year, but these lawsuits were also withdrawn."

So essentially there's very little chance of him successfully bringing legal action against anyone for sexual assault including Singer. No wonder his previous lawyer didn't want the case. Even if it is true (which I find doubtful in this case) I can't see a jury convicting anyone on the word of soneone with that track record.

I'm struggling to come to a scenario where these people all had cause to sexually assault this Egan person. It just seems like the unfortunate stereotype of revenSUE of America.

That's pretty much why I find out doubtful he's telling the truth about Singer.

The thing is every previous case was withdrawn rather than going all the way to a verdict. Perhaps he had no choice but it sounds more like they were attempts to blackmail/ threaten these people into settling and paying him off to protect their reputation. Then when it turned out they weren't just going to give in hegave up and moved onto his next target. Or perhaps it's about the attention these cases are currently getting more than the money, who knows.

Just my two cents of course, I could be way off the mark and misjudging the whole situation horribly but either way he really hasn't done himself any favours with his past 'use' of the legal system.

This case will never amount to anything and even if Egan does refile it won't go anywhere. There's zero evidence to support any of these claims and Singer has also proven he wasn't even in the area or country when the supposed sexual assault took place. Not only that but Egan was apparently picked up by police back in the 90's for being sexually assaulted and Singer was not one of the people he named.

So here we are a decade and a half later, no evidence that supports these claims, plenty of evidence which proves these claims are false, and Egan doesn't have a leg to stand on. He tried to make a quick buck hoping Singer or Fox would pay him off to go away since they were heavily promoting Days of Future Past at the time but obviously that didn't happen.

Abomination:

Battenberg:
"Egan had previously accused Gary Goddard, David Neuman, and Garth Ancier of sexually assaulting him in the same year, but these lawsuits were also withdrawn."

So essentially there's very little chance of him successfully bringing legal action against anyone for sexual assault including Singer. No wonder his previous lawyer didn't want the case. Even if it is true (which I find doubtful in this case) I can't see a jury convicting anyone on the word of soneone with that track record.

I'm struggling to come to a scenario where these people all had cause to sexually assault this Egan person. It just seems like the unfortunate stereotype of revenSUE of America.

The scenario apparently revolved around classic Hollywood parties, hot tubs and underage teenage boys seeking fame and stardom. You know scenes such as those depicted in Boogie Nights? The plaintiff basically claimed he was brought to such parties and abused by Hollywood figures such as those named. There is some contemporaneous reporting that lends some credence to the overall story. But nothing that really offers proof of individuals involved in specific actions.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here