Bryan Singer | Garth Ancier | News

TV Exec Garth Ancier Denies Sex Abuse Allegations; Bryan Singer Has '100 Witnesses' Ready


Two new developments in the explosive Hollywood 'sex ring' lawsuits.

AncierFirst, TV executive Garth Ancier, who was named in plaintiff Michael Egan's sex abuse case earlier this month, is speaking out for the first time against what he calls "vile, unwarranted" allegations.

Wrote Ancier in a string of tweets:

"Thanks and gratitude to my friends, family and colleagues for your support this week. I wanted you all to hear from me personally and know that I intend to fight with every resource available this vile, unwarranted assault on my reputation. The intimidation tactics used in this transparent get-rich-quick scheme employ as their weapons of choice press conferences in tandem with frivolous lawsuits which shamelessly exploit homophobic fears and stereotypes. The mere fact that I have never so much as set foot on the estate in Hawaii where the plaintiff and his attorney claim numerous incidents took place and that Hawaiian law provided a convenient legal loophole for the plaintiff speaks volumes about the credibility of their  allegations, not a single one of which is true.  While I recognize we sadly live in a time where one is only innocent until allegations go viral on the Internet I remain confident that all of these allegations made against me will be exposed for the lies that they are and that the truth about my character will prevail."

SingerDirector Bryan Singer, who was also named in the lawsuit, has been steadfast in denying any wrongdoing, claiming he has the evidence to back up his innocence.

Buzzfeed reports:

The suit, filed last week in a federal court in Hawaii, was “reckless and irresponsible” Singer’s attorney said, and at least 100 witnesses could testify Singer was on set and not in Hawaii during the times he is accused of sexual abuse.

“Anyone who claims to be a witness to Bryan being in Hawaii with Egan is a bold [sic] faced liar,” he said. “There are very significant consequences when people lie under oath. If these alleged witnesses ever come forward and are willing to testify under oath, we will prove them to be liars.”

Singer’s attorney accused Egan’s attorney, Jeff Herman, of not contacting him before the lawsuits were filed.

“Had he reached out to us first, we would have been able to provide him with the exculpatory evidence we have proving that Bryan wasn’t even there,” he said. “Responsible lawyers typically send demand letters before filing lawsuits.”

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Sadly, it's all true. Nice try, though.

    Posted by: Russ | Apr 27, 2014 5:07:44 PM

  2. had Egan's attorney sent any documents before hand and given Singer's lawyers time to respond, they would simply have altered their accusations to fit a timeline where they COULD accuse Singer without problem.

    "Oh, Singer wasn't in Hawaii at that time... well, the events happened at a different time then!"

    And people on the internet will simply believe whatever scandal they want, regardless of evidence that clearly disproves the allegations. One need only look at the way idiots continue to believe that Woody Allen is a paedophile.

    Posted by: Mikey | Apr 27, 2014 5:14:03 PM

  3. Singer is clearly guilty. otherwise why would thus guy still be going after him all these years later. It doesn't make sense. Just glad we live in an age where the law doesn't always get in the way of the truth.

    Posted by: Tristram | Apr 27, 2014 5:58:25 PM

  4. ancier and singer learned nothing from paula deen's deposition and testimony. true or false, it's better to make it go away before all your dirty laundry, related or not, gets aired in public, and your brand is ruined.

    it would have been much less expensive to settle, and they are rich enough to have been told as much - they will regret this the further it goes.

    Posted by: northalabama | Apr 27, 2014 6:01:32 PM

  5. A nasty plot by right-winger anti-gay activists

    Posted by: litper | Apr 27, 2014 6:14:11 PM

  6. Settle?

    Their livelihoods ARE their brand - they HAVE to fight it, even if is true.

    Ancient I believe. Singer I don't.

    Posted by: Leo | Apr 27, 2014 6:20:23 PM

  7. *Ancier

    Posted by: Leo | Apr 27, 2014 6:20:58 PM

  8. Translation of this lawsuit: Michael Egan, the 'victim', never made it in Hollywood as an actor, therefore he is going to get his 15 minutes of fame and a pile of money with this lawsuit. He's a parasite on a money grab. Sad.

    Posted by: David From Canada | Apr 27, 2014 6:26:53 PM

  9. Is do Garth Ancier and not complain. Unless he . was really creepy or bad in bed or something . But then I wouldn't say anything, just not go on a second date.

    Posted by: steve talbert | Apr 27, 2014 6:50:43 PM

  10. I'm not sure how prove something like this. It seems too come down to witnesses who most likely are associates, friends, or possibly even rent-a-witness, and he said/she said, unless they have hard, solid evidence the accused were at the locales when the alleged events occurred.

    On a side note, obviously these wealthy men have teams of private investigators hard at work trying to dig up dirt on the accuser, or even fabricate dirt. They can well afford it.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 27, 2014 7:25:08 PM

  11. I don't believe the allegations in this lawsuit.

    However, anyone who would host those kinds of "parties" that he's admitted to having is not someone who's movies I'd be much interested in watching.

    Call me a prude, but that's just how I feel. It's not so much that he was targeting barely legal men, but hundreds and hundreds of them, with no doubt all the drugs and booze at those parties which could not have been legal for all the under 21s that were no doubt here... Nope.

    X-Men needs to be handed off to another person pronto, because I love the franchise, but I won't see it anymore so long as it's associated with him.

    Posted by: Ryan | Apr 27, 2014 7:28:23 PM

  12. don't believe the allegations either.

    But this is Towleroad comments everyone is guilty -n after having been proven innocent.

    Why? Because we hate being gay so much.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 27, 2014 10:06:48 PM

  13. 100 witnesses. From that swimming pool, I assume.

    Posted by: Dale | Apr 27, 2014 10:07:12 PM

  14. Yeah, the 100 witnesses in the swimming pooling caught the same strain of gonorrhea.

    Posted by: mitch reid | Apr 27, 2014 10:22:14 PM


    Why? Because we hate being gay so much.

    Are you suggesting that the kind of behavior that this guy exhibits (chasing barely legal bois) is generally representative of the gay community as a whole?

    Posted by: anon | Apr 27, 2014 10:42:43 PM

  16. David E.
    you forgot to add that they also hate Singer because he is a Jew.

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Apr 27, 2014 10:45:58 PM

  17. David,

    things are really that bad in Canada, eh?

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Apr 27, 2014 10:48:46 PM

  18. 100 witnesses from set of X-men perhaps.

    Posted by: Matziabb | Apr 27, 2014 10:59:48 PM

  19. It's an interesting case. The lawyers are right. The majority of lawyers when filing sex abuse lawsuits don't have press conferences to announce it. Egan's lawyer was trying to have the upper hand because they're going after very powerful Hollywood men. So they went for the blindside method with the maximum amount of publicity.

    Did you not notice the press conference was in the Beverly Hills Hotel? That's an expensive in your face right there.

    I doubt Egan's lawyer actually have that much evidence. it's been 15 years since the incident so any witness is less than reliable. There's no DNA evidence and if he had anything strong he would have filed a criminal or civil suit years ago. Instead this lawyer is either hoping his press conferences brings out other accusers or that the 4 accusers pay up to end the bad publicity.

    What makes this seem like a money grab is the fact that the lawyer is suing each separately--increasing the odds one of them will settle.

    Also in the original lawsuit that Egan filed in 2000, there was no mention of Singer and the other guys. He also never mentioned an incident in Hawaii and you think he would have.

    Instead TMZ has his affidavit from a Michael E. filed in 2000 where he says he was flown to Las Vegas and raped by a guy named Shackley. If 15 years ago he remembered being raped in Las Vegas, then there's no excuse for not remembering Hawaii.

    Posted by: m.r. | Apr 27, 2014 11:36:51 PM

  20. "I was flown to Hawaii and raped by this man. Then he flew me out to Hawaii again and he raped me again. Then a few weeks later he invited me out to a big party in Hawaii and paid for my airfare, then he raped me again."

    The whole flying back and forth thing is what gets to me. If this Egan guy was "raped" then why the fu** did he keep going BACK to the same parties with the same people?

    Posted by: Mikey | Apr 28, 2014 12:58:08 AM

  21. @Tristram: you think Singer is guilty because this guy is going after him years afterwards and you don't see why the alleged victim would do that. In fact, its the lawyer who is going after Singer, and the usual reason is called a contingency fee. Going after people sequentially, with a lot of publicity, is a useful tactic if you are hoping to encourage others to settle immediately and quietly for a large amount of money because the cost of the negative publicity might be higher than the cost of an ample settlement. Whether the alleged victim's lawyer is using such tactics is anyone's guess at this point, but it is something that could be done.

    The whole claim just doesn't make sense - if Singer just wanted to get off with some hot young guy, there are certainly plenty of those available in Hawaii, so why go to the expense of flying this alleged victim out there? If that did happen, the obvious thing to do is to look at airline records and see who paid for the airfare assuming a ticket was even purchased. If they can't produce a paper trail leading to Singer, the case is going to fall apart even without all the witnesses Singer claims to have.

    Given that, I'm going to be pretty skeptical until all the facts are in, and I think all the pre-trial publicity is unseemly.

    Posted by: Bill | Apr 28, 2014 1:51:41 AM

  22. @ Bill: That Singer may have paid for the airfare doesn't confirm that he did anything illegal. This kid probably wanted something from Singer. Maybe it was an audition, a part in a movie, or simply to be around a powerful Hollywood player. Whatever it was, he went back willingly to Hawaii. That he went back a couple of times argues against his claims that he was violated against his will.

    Posted by: gr8guya | Apr 28, 2014 2:49:37 AM

  23. Whatever the truth is, clearly the c-nt is a sad excuse for a human being and now the world will always know it too.

    Posted by: Tristram | Apr 28, 2014 4:55:01 AM

  24. Boy, there are some remarks here. An accusation is not evidence. In addition, the logic that it must be true, because why is this guy going after Singer, "after all these years" shows someone doesn't even know the facts. In the 2000 suit Egan never mentioned Singer once. In fact, all the new accusations he filed are not mentioned there, none of the new accused were mentioned and there was not a word about him being taken to Hawaii.

    Attorney Herman is attempting trial by smear, where he goes public with lurid claims without any evidence hoping someone will pay up in order to shut him up. That there are envy-ridden gay men, spiteful at anyone who is successful, cheering him on is just disgraceful.

    So far Herman has not shown one single piece of evidence. Worse yet, the new accusations by Egan don't jive which his previous accusations in 2000. They are entirely inconsistent. Read both cases filed and you will see how the previous law suit undermines the current one. This is a shakedown.

    Posted by: James Peron | Apr 28, 2014 7:04:35 AM

  25. 100 witnesses? Is that like One Million Moms?

    Posted by: Jack M | Apr 28, 2014 7:42:20 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Group Protests Brunei’s 'Death By Stoning' Law Outside Beverly Hills Hotel« «