Bryan Singer Accuser Dropped By His Lawyer After Refusing Cash Settlement

michael-egan-600Remember when everyone was freaking out about Bryan Singer, and more specifically Hollywood’s turn-a-blind-eye attitude towards predatory teenage sex?

Yeah, we barely can either.

But new information suggests that we won’t be hearing much about it in the near future either.

According to documents obtained by Buzzfeed, Michael Egan, the man accusing Singer of sexual abuse circa 1999, turned down a $100,000 settlement offer from camp Singer.

He told Buzzfeed:

“This exact kind of take-it-and-shut-up deal is why I decided to stand up in the first place. Being silenced goes completely against what I believe in and offers no protection for other vulnerable children.”

Egan’s lawyer Jeff Herman, however, isn’t going to stick around for the fight.

He’s in the process of filing papers to drop Egan as a client.

What is left unanswered is why Singer was amenable to a settlement — his lawyer claims it’s a “business decision” to offset the millions it will cost to try the case in court, but who can really say?

One thing is clear, though. At the end of the day it will be Egan who winds up in a legal stew. You can bet Singer isn’t skimping on the legal bills, and now Egan is left to fend for himself.

Singer’s lawyer has already filed motions to dismiss the charges, and if successful, plans to go on the offensive agains Egan immediately thereafter and sue for malicious prosecution.

We don’t want to play jury here, but it does certainly seem like Egan’s chances have been squashed.

A second document shows evidence that the other accuser Herman was representing in similar charges agains Singer, a young British actor referred to as “John Doe 117,” was offered the same deal and accepted. That case has been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff.

Full story and referenced documents at Buzzfeed

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #bryansinger #michaelegan stories and more


  • Billy Budd

    I told you guys over an over: Singer is a victim. The Egan guy is a retired and bitter call boy who is after vengeance and/or money. The moment he chose for the lawsuit was opportunistic, his evidence is weak. He doesn’t have a case and Singer will emerge victorious in the end.

  • skylerbound

    I don’t know about Singer being the victim, he really did put himself in this position with those notorious parties. I did think the other case(the one that settled out) was the case to actually look at as it appeared that Egan’s lawyer was fishing for others to jump on this lawsuit as he didn’t have ANYTHING on Singer from Egan’s case.

    With that case gone and no one else stepping forward(Like the Elmo case where 3 others came forward with similar stories or that pastor in Atlanta), I think it may be over(minus the counter suit against Egan)

  • james_in_cambridge

    Singer is a victim my ass! Everyone knows he likes ’em real young…the only question is if he goes below 16 yrs. of age (I tend to think he does.) You’d have to be willfully blind not to see all the photos and videos of a grown man like him always hanging out and feeling on real young guys; what, you think he likes playing hopscotch with ’em? And the fact that this Egan guy wouldn’t settle for quick cash actually makes me think he really does feel victimized (or at least used) and the fact Singer is settling all over the place really makes me think “guilty as charged!” If I had the money to defend myself the way Singer does and I was charged with something this awful, I’d fight until my last friggin’ breath to clear my damn name!

    Egan’s scumbag lawyer, of course, was all about getting quick cash from Singer and when he realized he’d have to do some work, he drops his client. No surprise here…just another case of a sleazy, lazy ambulance chaser.

  • Milk

    @james_in_cambridge: It’s not that cut and dry in the Hollywood culture. He could be presents in a lot of parties that involve underager boys and girls. It could merely be guilty by association. However, I’m not naive to think that he is 100% innocent either. Be that as it may, many celebrities and high profile individuals tend to settle the lawsuit outside of the court for a coupe of reason. As the article said it’s often way cheaper in terms of the actual cost of going through trials not to mention the negative image attached to the lawsuits that could damage the defendant career even if he’s found innocent. That’s why you get to read all these lawsuits against high profile individuals. Certainly to redeem his image It’s Singer interest to go on the offensive to make Egan look as bad as possible, in hoping that at least repair some o f the damaged being done through this whole accusation.

  • MarionPaige

    the bottom line is that the only remedy available in civil court is money. Maybe the guy wants more money than offered but, ultimately, all the court can award him is cash. Also, this whole fiasco is the case for paying rent boys (of legal age). Had cash changed hands, any lawsuit would have been thrown out. Ultimately the best defense to being sued is paying for it.

  • Tackle

    Singer is not a victim. And where there is smoke, there is fire. And there has been a whole lot of smoke up Singer’s ass through the yrs with these allegations and payouts. $100,000 here, another $100,000 there, and so forth. If someone is such a victim, and so damned innocient,then why not use all that money to fight your case? And that’s right, when money is chaged hands and accepted, the lawsuit’s would be thrown out. A case being thrown out or dropped, is no sign of someones innocence…

  • Cam

    Actually those of you defending Singer please answer the following.

    Singer’s lawyer said OVER AND OVER that they had indisputable proof that Singer was not in the country and could not have done this.

    If they HAD that then the judge would just toss the case out and completely exonerate Singer. Why then offer a large settlement if you had evidence that would get the case tossed?

    If you were a liar and just in it for the money, then why turn DOWN such a settlement offer?

  • Marc

    @Cam: Yes. Thank you!

  • Marc

    I meant True!

  • Dxley

    Obviously a sleazy, social climbing, ambitious dick.

  • Merv

    I can’t say whether Singer is innocent of all accusations, but he’s clearly innocent of Egan’s accusations. Egan’s own sworn testimony from the previous case proved that. His lawyer bailing on him is just added confirmation.

    @Cam: You’re grasping at straws here. If you can’t recognize and acknowledge crash and burn when you see it, then we can’t help you.

  • Tackle

    @Dxley: I thought you liked dicks?

  • Stache99

    @Merv: “he’s clearly innocent of Egan’s accusations. ”

    Do you know something we don’t? I’d say that getting a hush money offer and refusing it is anything but “crash and burn”. He just wanted Singer to pay for what he did.

    Unfortunately, Singer slithered out of it with the help of his high priced lawyers. It was back scene deals and a smoke and mirrors PR smear campaign against Egan.

  • Stache99

    @MarionPaige: They took a page out of Michael Jackson’s playbook. Pay everyone off and do a Martin Bashir show and look completely ridiculous pleading your innocence.

  • Nowuvedoneit

    Maybe Mr.Singer was right in trying to settle since in the court of public opinion he was guilty. Forget jury of your peers.

  • Merv

    @Stache99: It was discussed here before. Egan gave previous sworn testimony that said he had never been to Hawaii, which is where the incidents supposedly took place. It doesn’t get much more cut and dried than this. That’s why it’s crash and burn.

    As to why a (small) settlement was offered: To minimize legal costs? Singer’s insurance company might have insisted! To prevent embarrassing publicity (not necessarily of illegal activity)?

    Asked during the deposition whether he had taken any trips outside the continental United States, Egan replied, “Never had any trips outside the continental U.S., no.” Egan then responds to a question specifically clarifying that he had never traveled to Hawaii.

    • Stache99

      @Merv: @Merv: All I know is that Singer liked hanging hanging out with convicted Pedophiles. Those were people he surrounded himself with and considered friends.

      Singer gets accused of molesting boys and I just roll my eyes. Yeah, and water is wet. Everyone and their mother knows that he likes em real young.

  • bbg372

    @Cam: An innocent party may choose to settle a civil lawsuit out of court while admitting no wrongdoing, even if he has exculpatory evidence, because the costs associated with a trial would exceed the cost of a settlement.

    Conversely, since one can be sued both criminally and civilly for the same crime, it could be asked that if a claimant is truly a victim of a crime, why he is only pursuing monetary damages and not jail time for the perpetrator.

    Egan specifically is seeking upwards of $10,000,000 in damages and may not be willing to settle for a mere $100,000. Especially since he was awarded $9,000,000 in damages from his previous sexual abuse lawsuit, which he was never able to collect because the defendants fled the country.

    • Stache99

      @Merv: Alexander Burton who played Pyro in the first X-Men film was also one of the accusers along with Egan on the lawsuit against Singers pal marc rector collins.

      It’s just funny how all this smoke is going on around Singer and yet you want us to believe that he’s completely clean.

  • Merv

    @Stache99: Even so, it’s entirely possible Singer never crossed over the line to illegality. All we can do is look at each accusation individually. This particular one has zero credibility.

  • Pistolo

    All these people who are claiming to know sooooo much about Bryan Singer’s reputation sure didn’t pick up on anything in the last 5 years. He admitted to being “quite bisexual”, having had two longterm relationships with women in the past 5 years. He says he ultimately considers himself gay though, being more attracted to men. Frankly, I think it’s a little weird to identify as gay and know you’re more drawn to men and still date women. So he might be douchey and not so thoughtful of the people he messes around with but a pedophile? I don’t think so.

  • Cam

    @Merv: said…

    “@Cam: You’re grasping at straws here. If you can’t recognize and acknowledge crash and burn when you see it, then we can’t help you.

    Could the little interns from Singer’s agency stop coming in here. You keep saying things like “Obviously, Singer is innocent” and yet not giving any concrete facts for why you think this.

    My earlier statements still stand.

    1. Singer’s lawyer said OVER AND OVER that they had indisputable proof that Singer was not in the country and could not have done this.
    If they HAD that then the judge would just toss the case out and completely exonerate Singer. Why then offer a large settlement if you REALLY had evidence that would get the case tossed?

    2. If you were a liar and just in it for the money, then why turn DOWN such a settlement offer?

  • Dxley

    Why settle for $100,000 when you can take this further, getting more exposure and pity from the public?

  • Sansacro

    @Cam: Guilty or not, $100,000 ain’t much after lawyer and other fees extracted.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Why don’t you stop being a dick and actually know the facts before spouting off. His lawyers filed the motion to dismiss, it just hasn’t been ruled on yet.
    And this is not a large settlement, it’s a drop in the bucket, what they call a nuisance payment. It’s the equilivant of you or I being sued and the accuser says give me $100 and I’ll go away when the alternative is to pay thousands of dollars to defend yourself even when you know youll be found innocent. It’s cheaper and easier to just say fine, take the money and go away.
    And you turn down the offer if you think you can get more money.
    If the accuser had such a strong case do you really think his lawyer would drop him instead of going after a multi million dollar judgement? Sounds like they know the case will be dismissed and were happy to get anything out of it, now that their client has backed out of the deal they’re cutting their losses knowing theres no case and no payday coming.

  • alterego1980

    @Dxley: It’s a big risk (turning down the $$) considering he probably won’t get any farther. Even if his old lawyer is an ambulance chaser, being dropped doesn’t help Egan. He would need to be picked up by a new lawyer who would want to step into this shit storm he didn’t create. And he would need to be more savvy than Singer’s high paid attorney’s. Extremely unlikely. My guess is Egan is A) sure he was abused/wronged and after all this time is choosing the moral road, or B) he had millions in mind when thinking about a settlement and is filled with greed. In both cases, he gets nothing.

  • Merv

    @Cam: “You keep saying things like “Obviously, Singer is innocent” and yet not giving any concrete facts for why you think this.”

    Did you miss the part where Egan’s previous sworn testimony directly contradicts his current accusation? It doesn’t get much more incontrovertible than this. It’s beginning to sound like you would only be satisfied with a dramatic Perry Mason style courtroom confession from Egan. The way things have gone so far, that’s not outside the realm of possibility. Seldom in history has a baseless shakedown lawsuit failed more spectacularly than this one.

  • Cam

    Anybody notice the brand new screenames that keep on coming in here and hysterically defending Singer? I would like to be the first to welcome the unpaid interns from Singer’s company. Welcome to Queerty.

    As for comments such as calling me a dick and saying I didn’t know the facts, well you pointed out that they filed the motion to dismiss……and YET, have STILL offered the guy $100,000 to drop the case.

    Please remember AGAIN, Singer’s lawyers said they had indisputable prrof that Singer was out of the country and could NOT have been anywhere near this guy when these incidents supposedly happened.

    AGAIN, if there was indisputable proof, then the LAST thing lawyers want to do is settle. You want to get the case thrown out so you can publicly proclaim that the case was bogus and use the dismissal as proof.

    What you DON’T do when you have indisputable proof that your client didn’t do it is offer $100,000 for them to drop the case.

    AND, if you are a lying money grubber who KNOWS your case is B.S. and will get tossed because the other side has proof, you take the money. Singer is trying to pay to get this case dropped, and the other guy isn’t accepting money.

    All you Singer defenders in here can scream and yell and make vague unsupported statements, but the fact is, you don’t pay somebody off if you have indisputable proof.

    So nice try unpaid interns…you certainly are worth what they are paying you.

  • Dxley

    “Anybody notice the brand new screenames that keep on coming in here and hysterically defending Singer? I would like to be the first to welcome the unpaid interns from Singer’s company. Welcome to Queerty.”.


    Cam is seriously starting to bore us. Give it a rest, dude! You’re getting more and more pathetic as each day goes by. I’m sure new people sign up on Queerty every single day, so what’s the fuss?

  • Cam


    And Dxley, as per usual, you can make not factual statements to back up your opinion, so you think have to simply lash out and attack people you dissagree with.

    I stated directly my reasons that I feel Singer’s team’s actions in this legal proceeding do not mesh with what they are claiming.

    You on the other hand just make vague statements and then attack somebody who disagrees with you… you always do.

    I do think it is interesting that the screenames who are usually the ones defending anti-gay bigots now are jumping on the bandwagon to support Singer.

    That is VERY interesting.

    • Stache99

      @Dxley: “Cam is seriously starting to bore us. Give it a rest, dude! You’re getting more and more pathetic as each day goes by. ”

      Pot meet your kettle..LMAO.

  • Stache99

    @Cam: Give Dxley girl a break. She’s used to just commenting on how cute Tom Daley is in the bubble gum posts ie she’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  • socaldesign

    To pursue the Hawaii dismissal Singer’s attorney are probably charging way in excess of $100K. (I guarantee his legal team isn’t flying coach back and forth from LA to Honolulu). Many people, especially in the public eye, settle nuisance claims all the time. It’s usually cheaper and faster. Some others should have settled – look what happened to Paula Dean.
    Singer’s legal team is still pursuing dismissal. They have to wait on the judge to rule. A good legal team looks at all options and continues to pursue every avenue.

  • Dxley

    @Stache99: I thought I’d told you to leave me alone. Aren’t they all bubblegum posts? I’ve never seen anything serious on Queerty. The inability of these reporters to remain unbiased and actually give the news to their readers without any added emotion. How can you justify that Travolta post that virtually bullied him into coming out of the closet? I don’t see the use of being a “[sharp] tool” when there’s nothing serious that’s ever reported on. “Where ignorance is bliss, it’s folly to be wise”.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Gee Cam, I’m sorry youre so insecure you assume anyone having a different opinion than yours must be a paid intern, how sad for you. Sorry I don’t comment on every stupid story on here like you, but I have commented before regardless.
    Let me point out to you AGAIN, that regardless of what you may like to think, people settle ALL the time. Like i said, it’s called a nuisance payment. You’re clueless if you think lawyers don’t settle, even when they the evidence, when it’s in the best interest of the client. As a lawyer, what you do DO is tell your client that he’ll win the case but it could take a few more months at a personal cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars or he can pay $100,000 to end it all immediately. Your ignorance of the law or the actions of lawyers doesn’t mean there’s anything unusual at all here.
    Also, if the accusers case is SO strong and he has SO much proof why did he initially accept the settlement? Seems to me if you KNOW the accused is guilty and you KNOW you can prove it you wouldn’t even think about accepting the settlement would you? Singers legal teams actions mesh perfectly with their claims, the accuser not so much.
    And lastly, why pray tell do YOU think the accusers lawyer is dumping him as a client if his claims are so strong and Singer is clearly guilty?

  • Merv

    @Cam: Why do you refuse to acknowledge Egan’s previous sworn testimony saying he had never been to Hawaii?

  • bbg372

    @Stache99: If I was awarded a $9,000,000 judgment and the defendant fled the country to avoid paying me, I may be frustrated enough to consider alternative ways to collect the money too.

    Such as identifying every person with deep pockets the defendant and I know in common and accusing them of abusing me as well, despite my previous sworn testimony that no one besides the defendant abused me, and hoping something sticks.

    It is interesting that he is seeking roughly the same amount in damages as he was awarded but did not receive from his previous lawsuit.

    It is also interesting that he has dropped lawsuits against three of the four men he accused of abusing him.

    If I was abused by four men, I would want all four of them punished.

    Which raises the question of why he is seeking money and not jail time for his alleged abusers, when he can legally have both.

  • jar

    @mikeg: $100,000 is not a nuisance settlement. A nuisance settlement is a nominal amount that will make the case go away (typically between $10,000 – $30,000). Unfortunately, most lawyers who work on a contingency basis (as I assume this defense lawyer does) are disincentivized to bring a case to trial. It’s an ethical problem with contingency fee arrangements. The lawyer’s interests oftentimes contravene the client’s interests, as the lawyer’s return diminishes with each hour he works on the matter. Any lawyer would tell you that this type of case is difficult to prove- events are remote in time and place; very little evidence beyond testimonial, esp. cross-examination; limitations of the rules of evidence; etc.

    Furthermore, your claim that Singer is just trying to put this behind himself is belied by the statement that he intends to pursue action against his accuser. That is the antithesis of your assertion.

    You still do not address Cam’s major claim- that if Singer were so incontrovertibly innocent, why would he agree to this settlement? He has already paid for a motion to dismiss. Why not wait until it is ruled upon? Why wouldn’t Singer be more interested in a full exoneration of the claims through dismissal, which could rehabilitate his reputation? How about addressing Cam’s point?

  • jar

    @socaldesign: I got a chuckle out of your comment (not rudely). Lawyers would not travel to HI to file a motion to dismiss. First of all, Singer’s CA lawyers cannot appear in HI court. They would have hired a local attorney to file the pleadings. Secondly, most motions to dismiss are argued on the pleadings (ie, no oral argument). Only for trial would the HI counsel move to have the CA lawyers admitted pro hac vice to be able to argue in court.

  • jar

    @mikeg: No good lawyer would ever tell his/her client they will win at trial. (If you hire a lawyer who tells you this, immediately seek new counsel. S/he is too careless to offer good representation.) Lawyers will handicap the odds (our chances are extremely good), but never offer any assurances.

    True, there is always a cost-benefit analysis in determining whether to settle, but there is also strategy that comes into play at each stage of the litigation. If Singer were so certain that the claims could not be proven, he likely would not engage in settlement negotiations while the motion to dismiss is pending.

    As for the settlement, it appears the lawyers reached agreement before the offer was presented to the plaintiff. There is no evidence in the record that plaintiff first agreed and then changed his mind. Do you have information we do not on this point? And again, $100,000 is not a nuisance settlement.

  • mikeg

    @jar: It absolutely is a nuisance settlement. $100,000 is a nominal amount when compared to what it would probably cost Singer for the case to go to trial. I doubt there’s an actual threshold that says because you offered $100,000 it suddenly can’t be considered a nuisance settlement. The other articles I read quote all the legal experts referring to it is a nuisance settlement, so yeah, it’s a nuisance settlement.
    Furthermore, your claim that I made those claims is quite erroneous. Where did I claim Singer is trying to put it behind him? No where.
    What assertions have I made?
    And I quite clearly addressed Cams claims, you either didn’t read my post or you didnt comprehend what I was saying. It’s simply a case of time and money. The hearing is over a month away, it could easily get postponed again. The longer it goes on the more it costs Singer and the longer it stays in the news. Maybe he just decided its easier and cheaper to pay $100,000 and end it than pay 10 times that even for a not guilty verdict when clearly, based on comments on this board and others, people will claim he’s still guilty and just paid someone off. Maybe there’s pressure from Fox to settle so he can concentrate on the next X-Men movie. There’s plenty of reasons to settle.
    Maybe next time you can actually try reading what’s written before you start making baseless claims.

  • mikeg

    @jar: No, you’re right, I’m basing that on an article that said Egan backed out at the eleventh hour and refused to sign the settlement.
    Are you a lawyer or do you just play one on TV? Why wouldn’t they engage in any talks before anything is settled. I would think they would keep all options open.

  • bobbyjoe

    @jar But, conversely, if Singer were guilty, why would he still be moving forward with plans to sue for malicious prosecution? You hit a really interesting point when you say to @mikeg that Singer does not seem to be trying to put this behind him. If Singer were in any way potentially, demonstrably guilty, pursuing a malicious prosecution lawsuit would be an incredibly stupid and dangerous move. It would keep the issue open in the longer term while still allowing evidence against Singer (as a defense against the lawsuit) to keep getting raised in court and in the public eye. If Singer’s people truly move forward with the malicious prosecution case, they’ve got to be pretty majorly convinced there’s nothing here. Because, as you point out, if they don’t want all this to just go away, it’s hard to simultaneously say they were trying to pay out to just hush everything up. If it plays out that they do move forward with their own lawsuit, the $100,000 much more likely truly was a nuisance settlement ($10,000 to $30,000 may be more “typical,” but this is hardly a typical case), to assure the charges are dismissed and the malicious prosecution case can move forward.

  • buffnightwing

    How about a thoughtful dialogue on the topic and not attacking each other. This thread is like 2 or 3 guys hating on each other. Try reading a nytimes comment section and see how it’s done.

  • Cam

    @mikeg: said…

    “@Cam: Gee Cam, I’m sorry youre so insecure you assume anyone having a different opinion than yours must be a paid intern, how sad for you. Sorry I don’t comment on every stupid story on here like you, but I have commented before regardless.”

    Actually I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I was saying they were interns working for Singer because it excused the idiocy of their postings. Ranting postings attacking others, making vague unsupported statements. If they aren’t interns, then they are just stupid.

    Again, facts are facts, if you KNOW that you have indisputable evidence that will get this case publicly dismissed in court, you do NOT settle it because Singer’s public personae needs the public clearance that that would provide.

    If you are a money grubbing whore who knows that your base is B.S. and could not survive a dismissal you do not refuse a settlement offer of $100,000.

    Get as hysterical and crazy as you want, but the behavior from each side would seem to indicate that there is something here.

  • Merv

    @Cam: Egan is not wealthy, so his lawyers are undoubtedly working on contingency. Egan would have seen little if any of that $100k after the lawyers. He had nothing to lose by rejecting such a small settlement.

    As for the settlement offer, bear in mind that Singer, like most wealthy people, probably has an umbrella liability policy. The insurance company has an interest and say in the disposition of the suit.

    Are you ever going to address Egan’s previous sworn testimony? Your evasion is becoming comical.

    • Stache99

      @Merv: I think the answer to that is simple. As an example. I settled a lawsuit a few years ago. I was offered a cash settlement but there were strings. I had to say something that wasn’t true that would benefit the other party so they could stay out of legal hot water. I literally made a deal with the devil. I can never again talk about that without violating the lawsuit even though they did something completely illegal.

      Now Egan probably did the same thing not thinking in advance that it would come back and bite him on the ass many years later.

  • Cam


    Actually the insurance company cannot force a settlement acceptance. Additionally, they have stated they have indisputable proof, if the insurance company had seen that proof and agreed with them they would NEVER make a settlement offer.

    So nice try. As for former testimony, that would seem to be irrelevant because that is NOT the indisputable proof they mentioned, and if there was no case because of that Singer’s attorney’s wouldn’t be trying to buy the guy off.

    • Stache99

      I have to say my biggest sorrow is thinking of myself back then at those now infamous Hollywood parties. I was a kid myself. I was in my mid twenties. Of coarse to people like collins and singer even that was too long in the tooth. Lol

  • Stache99

    So basically someone offers me 9 million. You ever been to Hawaii. Oh hell know. Never even heard of it. I think that’s somewhere in the Pacific right? Lol

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Why do you keep speaking in absolutes about something you seem to have no clue about. Yes, even with indisputable proof the lawyers and insurance companies WOULD settle, to them a $100,000 settlement is probably viewed as a victory. Just because you don’t understand or accept that doesn’t make it any less true.

    • Stache99

      I’ve been around these guys. I used to go to house parties at Marc Rector Collins. It was a land of Peter Pan where you had these rich Hollywood men (all the men on Egens lawsuit) surrounded by a harem of young men to teenagers. I saw some of them driving Mercedes and Ferrari’s which was unreal at the time. He sure had allot of carrots for the kiddies.

      I have to say that I feel bad for Egen. He’s not going to get a dime from Collins and that previous testimony will cost him this one. I have no doubt that something tawdry happened starting when he was merely 15 years old.

  • Merv

    @Cam: An insurance company can force a settlement by refusing to cover costs unless a settlement is offered.

  • Cam


    And here are the trolls trying to come up with any phony excuse.

    Sorry, but since this is a personal lawsuit against Singer, this would not be the case.

    But nice try.

  • dazzer

    @Stache99: @Cam:
    Thank you both for making the argument I would have made. You’re both more eloquent and genteel than I would have been in your circumstances. Thank you again.

  • Merv

    @Cam: I’m not sure I follow. People get personal umbrella policies. I have one myself. If I get sued and they are on the hook, you can bet the insurance company is going to be involved and telling me whether to settle and for how much. That’s what insurance companies do. Especially if there is no admission of guilt, which is typical for settlements like these, I would have no room to complain.

  • Cam


    1. You don’t know if that is the fact, you have realized that my comment about him trying to offer a settlement in spite of the claims of his publicity team that they have “Indisputable Proof” that would exonerate Singer nailed it, so you are trying to make up any phony excuse to explain that behavior.

    2. If by some odd fact, what you are saying is true, if the attorney had this “Indisputable Proof” the insurance company would not force them to offer a settlement, they would merely wait for the inevitable dismissal.

    3. The settlement did not come from an insurance company, it came from the Singer legal team.

    4. This guy that you all claim is some money grubber with no proof turned down an offer of $100,000.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: LOL Cam, I thought you were being serious, I didn’t know you were being intentionally ignorant. Well done. Pure gold!!!

  • seaguy

    I knew this would be the outcome when these lawsuits were first announced. The men who filed them are nothing but con artists hoping to get a settlement out of Singer and apparently this guy could have if not for his greed. A settlement is not an admission of guilt in cases like this it is often the accused who has the money way of limiting further damage to their reputation, and the invasion of privacy that a court case can become when your forced to turn over records and other materials as part of the discovery process, so rather than go through that which can drag on for years before a judgement is reached they choose to settle. This is known by the alleged victims and is often part of their scam.

  • seaguy

    @james_in_cambridge: Would you say that if it was a cougar and a younger man? It’s not like Singer is some old daddy in his 60’s going after teen boys. There are lots of gay men who have boyfriends, partners, or lovers younger than themselves but that does not make them predators or criminals.

  • seaguy

    @Cam: And your the know it all troll it seems.

  • Merv

    @Cam: You’re the one hung up on “indisputable proof.” I don’t assume guilt in the first place. I wait for the accuser to provide convincing evidence. In this case, the accuser has proven nothing except that he is an extraordinarily incompetent liar. As for Singer’s team claiming indisputable proof of his innocence, I thought that was foolish. You should never take on the burden of proving yourself innocent.

  • Cam


    No, actually what I’m doing is that the lawyers are the ones who made that statement and now they are not acting as somebody who has that proof. Therefore it was most likely B.S.

    If they really had the type of proof they said they had, they could have moved for an emergency hearing siting the damage to Singer’s business and reputation and gotten the case tossed, they didn’t do that, AND they made a large first settlement offer. (If something is a nuisance case you don’t offer $100,000 in the first round, you offer a lower amount and wait for them to come back with a counter)

    They started high on the offer, and rather than counter, the plaintiff turned it down.

    My statement is simple, Singer’s team is not acting like a team that has proof their guy didn’t do it, and the plaintiff isn’t acting like a guy who is working a bullshit case.

    I am merely looking at what is being stated, you are the one that obviously has an agenda in this whole thing. You would be far more convincing if you actually sounded like you bothered to think before making a decision instead of just coming in here freaking out and screaming to defend Singer. That just makes you sound like another little intern coming in here to defend bossman.

  • Merv

    @Cam: How much was the lawsuit seeking? Something like $10 million? The settlement offer of $100k would be 1% of what was being sought. That’s pretty small. It’s small enough that the plaintiff would see little or nothing after lawyers fees. That’s small. Even so, the plaintiff’s lawyer thought he should accept it, and felt so strongly that he’s now in the process of quitting. The lawyer obviously didn’t think they were in the process of negotiation. He realized that this 1% offer was the last and best offer, and he didn’t want to waste any more time on a suit with so little chance of success. There is no way any judge or jury is going to find for the plaintiff after being presented with Egan’s previous contradictory testimony. Singer’s team already moved for dismissal based on this testimony. As far as I know, we’re still waiting for the court’s response. Courts are notoriously slow. They aren’t going to drop everything else they are doing just because Singer says “emergency.”

    As to why Egan is continuing to pursue this? Maybe he’s convinced wrongly that he’s right (false memory). Maybe he doesn’t care if he’s right and has nothing to lose pursuing the case. Maybe he likes the attention. Who cares! The most important thing is the evidence, and the evidence from the plaintiff’s own previous testimony is that his current accusations couldn’t possibly have happened. This case doesn’t hinge on Singer proving he never left Toronto during a movie shoot 15 years ago. A claim only needs to be shown impossible once to be impossible. That they were shown impossible by the plaintiff himself will be extremely convincing in a court.

  • mikeg

    @Merv: Don’t waste your time Merv, @Cam seems to want to bait people with his ignorance. He clearly has no idea how things work in the real world and prefers his fantasy over reality.

  • Merv

    @mikeg: You’re probably right. At this point, he seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

  • mikeg

    @Merv: Yeah, not even doing a good job of it. He’s speaking in absolutes and clearly knows he’s talking out of his ass while probably thinking he’s clever. Not worth the effort.

  • Bauhaus

    @Cam is a voice of reason on this site, and his articulate mauling of the trolls is spot on.

  • Cam


    And again, the trolls are obvious in that they they insult or attack but never deal with the specifics.

    Again, Singer’s team said they have indisputable proof that would get this case tossed. And then, instead of waiting for the court to dismiss it, they turn around and make a first offer of $100,000 for a settlement.

    If a case is a nuisance and they just wanted to save the trouble, they would make an initial offer of ten or fifteen grand, you don’t BEGIN settlement negotiations with a $100,000 offer when ou also claim you have indisputable proof that your client couldn’t have done this and claim it will get the case dismissed.

    And the plaintiff, if he was a liar and had no proof, he wouldn’t turn away from a $100,000 offer.

    The trolls can call people names all they want, but the fact that they are getting so angry about this shows they seem to have a personal agenda. All the rest of us are doing is looking at the behavior of the people involved and making a judgement based upon that behavior.

    The only reason for the trolls to get so furious is because they feel an identification with Singer, or they are…once again, little interns working for his company he are earning their unpaid intern stripes by trolling the internet defending him.

    If Singer doesn’t want people to think he’s guilty, stop making Large initial offers, and stop having your legal team make statements that are obviously just for the media and not true.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Yes Cam, it’s quite obvious you are a troll. You’re the one not dealing with specifics. You keep repeating the same thing over and over, like it’s a mantra that you need to keep telling yourself to make it true. You keep talking in absolutes. But what you’re saying is wrong.
    You give yourself far to much credit, you don’t make anyone furious. You avoid, deflect and insult so i know youre not to be taken seriously. Annoyance yes, fury not even close.
    You accuse others of being trolls and interns when youre the one displaying that behavior. And yet you don’t address the points that others have made. All you can do, again, is keep repeating the same thing and insisting its true when it’s not. It’s ignorant. It’s fine that you don’t understand how things like this work in the real world, just stop speaking in absolutes and pretending you do, it’s tedious.
    Believe what you want, I really don’t care. But your points have been addressed, if you want to post them again as facts without proof feel free, if you have anything new to bring great.

  • Merv

    @Cam: Do you really think Egan’s lawyer would be quitting if they were just beginning settlement negotiations?

    How much of that $100k settlement do you think would go to Egan rather than his lawyers?

  • Cam




    And once again, notice how the trolls mostly won’t deal with the actual facts, just sit there and yammer on and on trying to attack people on the other side or distract from the actual posts?

    Mike, if you’re not a troll, try actually laying out not only your reasoning for thinking I’m wrong, but for explaining why you seem to be so irrationally furious at anybody who dares to have the opinion that there might be something here. If you aren’t a troll, that anger doesn’t make any sense.

    Merv – for a first offer $100,000 is high when most nuisance suits are settled for far less. An initial $100,000 offer means they are willing to start from there and go much higher, and why bother if they have “Indisputable Evidence” as Singer’s team said, that would get the case thrown out.

    As for the lawyer dropping out, sounded like the lawyer was hoping for a quick payout. The ONLY reason for a lawyer dropping out AFTER a settlement offer is made would be the client telling him they aren’t going to settle. A Client who won’t settle doesn’t sound like somebody ho doesn’t have a case.

    And a defendant who makes a first offer of $100,000 doesn’t sound like he has indisputable proof that he didn’t do it.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Oh Cam, you’re so bad at this it’s getting hilarious. Notice, how once again, you seem to be the one attacking people and distracting from the posts they’ve made. You seem to be the only one guilty of the behavior you’re accussing others of.
    I did lay out my reasoning Cam, a few times. Did you not read it? Did I say something you didn’t understand?
    Much like your opinions that you keep presenting as facts you seem to be determined to keep saying I’m “irrationally furious” hoping that if you say it enough it will make it true. Can you point to anything I’ve said to prove that I’m “irrationally furious”? Nope. I admitted to being annoyed by your repeated insistence of presenting your opinions as facts on legal issues you seem to not know much about.
    And can you point to anything I’ve said that defends Singer or says he’s innocent? Nope. Again, my posts dealt with your incorrect statements that you presented as facts.

    Now, as for the questions you posed to Merv I’d like to chime in.
    First, can you point to where it’s been reported that the $100,000 was the initial offer? Do we know that they didn’t make an offer of $10,000 and negotiate up to $100,000? Do we know they were willing to go MUCH higher as you claim? How do we know $100,000
    wasnt the maximum amount Singers team was willing to pay? Also, can you please point out where Singers lawyers call their evidence indisputable? I remember hearing them say they have evidence that proves he wasn’t in the state at the time the alleged assault took place but I don’t remember them ever saying the word indisputable. Did they say it or are you the one who keeps adding that word trying to change what they said for your own benefit?

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about the lawyer. That’s exactly what happened. The offer was made, the client didn’t accept it and the lawyer quit. But you don’t seem to be addressing why. Wanting a quick payday explains why he’d take the case to begin with but not why he’d quit if he thought they could win. If he thought they had a case they could win why wouldn’t he stay and go to trial? Does it really make more sense that he wanted a $100,000 settlement for 3 months work instead of a potential $10,000,000 or more judgement for a few months more work?
    All we know is Egan rejected the $100,000 offer that his lawyer accepted, as far as I know he hasn’t stated anywhere that he would refuse to settle for ANY amount.

    Do you have any opinions on these points or do you just want to deflect and call me a troll or intern again?

    Not at all furious MikeG

  • Cam


    Lets see, you still didn’t lay out your reasoning, just claimed that you did, and then tried to make up incorrect facts, for instance, asking about the $100,000 offer…where did I hear it…gee, right up in the article that you claimed to have read.

    Your comment is, you refuse to lay out your reasoning, you claim that maybe the amount is different although the article makes the statement clear, and then claim that Egan’s lawyer ACCEPTED an offer. He can’t accept it without his client’s ok. So basically once again, the guy you claim has no case turned down an offer.

    And once again, Singer’s lawyers have said over and over that they had indisputable proof that their client didn’t do it and yet respond by making settlement offers rather than letting this case get tossed.

    Your agenda is clear, you can claim anything you want, but at least have the good grace to admit that you are only doing this because you have some personal stake in the game. Nobody gets as pissy as you over something non-related to their own lives like this without having an agenda for it.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Oh Cam Cam Cam. You seem to take such pride and enjoyment out of being a troll, why are you not even trying anymore? It’s just sad.

    Again, I quite clearly stated my reasons in my previous posts. Do you not know how to scroll up the page? Do you have a problem reading and comprehending? Do you not understand something I said? But to recap for you, I refuted all the opinions you stated as facts and pointed out you don’t seem to know much on the subject you’re speaking about.

    Could you list these so-called made up incorrect facts?

    Ok, question answered, you clearly DO have a problem wit reading and comprehension. My question was to YOUR claim that the $100,000 was the INITIAL offer. YOU are the one who used the word initial, it doesn’t say that in this article that you claim to have read. Maybe it was the first offer, I don’t know. But surely, as YOU keep insisting on saying it was the first or initial offer it should be easy enough for you to show where you got it from and where it was reported. Or are you lying and adding that in yourself to try and strengthen your argument?

    Yes, I did say accepted. Here’s a quote from Variety about Egans lawyer
    ” He withdrew from the case shortly after a report that he and Singer’s lawyer, Martin Singer, had agreed to settle the lawsuit for $100,000 but Egan refused.”
    So regardless of the word I used it doesn’t change my questions. Do you want to address them or continue to deflect?

    There you go again, more proof of your troubles with reading and comprehension. Can you show, anywhere, that his lawyers called their evidence INDISPUTABLE? Anywhere at all? Again, it should be easy for you to show a source, as YOU keep insisting they called it indisputable. Or are you lying again and changing what was said to suit your own narrative?

    What agenda? I have no agenda. I mean, if you consider pointing out ignorance and lies as an agenda, then ok.
    Personal stake? Nope sorry, don’t have a personal stake either. Again, unless you mean I have a personal stake in pointing out ignorance and lies, then sure, I have a personal stake in that.

    Gosh Cam, am I being pissy? I don’t think so. Please tell me how exactly I’m being pissy? Is it being pissy just because I’m doing a better job than you articulating my points and pointing out your incorrect statements and lies? That’s kind of a juvenile attitude don’t you think?

    I mean gee, I think it would seem to an impartial third party reading this thread that YOU seem to be the one with an agenda and who’s acting pissy. You’re the one talking in absolutes, calling people trolls and not addressing any of the points and questions directed to you.

    So, if you want to actually answer any of my points from my last 2 posts that would be great. If you just want to repeat your mantra and accuse me of being a troll, intern or having a personal agenda, well that obviously wouldn’t surprise me either.

  • Cam

    @mikeg: said…

    @Cam: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    Oh Cam Cam Cam. You seem to take such pride and enjoyment out of being a troll, why are you not even trying anymore? It’s just sad.
    Again, I quite clearly stated my reasons in my previous posts. Do you not know how to scroll up the page?”

    So once again, you won’t say what it was. Seems very difficult. As for attacking me for being a “Troll”, well if that is your angle, fine, but of course there are hundreds of previous posts on Queerty that would say that isn’t true. You on the other hand, are not only a new screename, but you seem to get irrationally angry and tied to this story.

    I have news for you, none of us who don’t have a personal stake in this issue give enough of a shit to care that much. It is only people like you that seem to go into foaming at the mouth hysteria over it.

    Again, your agenda is obvious, and if you don’t like people making judgements based upon the behavior of Singer and his legal team, then maybe during today’s morning meeting where you all talk about what postings you’re going to leave on the internet you can ask him about that. “Snicker”.

    There, now you can leave another posts randomly babbling and refusing to post anything logical. Oh, and be sure to call me a troll again, because you know….that definitly takes the place of having any backing to your comments. ;)

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Cam I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading and comprehension. It’s ok to ask someone to read it explain it you. Obviously I keep calling you a troll because you keep refusing to actually address anything that’s being posted and answer why you keep lying. Clearly your attempts to deflect seem designed to frustrate and get an emotional reaction. I’m sorry you’re not good enough at it to achieve that result.

    I have news for you. Clearly you’re the one with a personal stake in all this and have an agenda. You clearly give enough of a shit and care that much that you get hysterical and foaming at the mouth mad enough to keep lying and respond with hysterical attacks when called on it.

    Again, your agenda is clear, you don’t care about the facts. You’ll just tell lies to make everything fit your narrative. No one, including myself cares what judgements you care to make, just make them based on the facts presented and not the lies you’re making up.

    When you’re having someone read and explain this to you also ask them to define babbling and logical to you as you’re using those words wrong. Those are the words that describe your posts, not mine.

    Presumably, if you reply it will be to make unfounded accusations against me instead of answering why you’re lying or to argue any of the other points I’ve made. I’ll wait until then to call you a troll.
    Or you could actually answer and show the backing to your comments.

  • Cam


    And once again, you in no way outlined your position and why everybody else’s opinion is false.

    And once again, you simply attack somebody who is relying on the public statements from the groups to form an opinion.

    And then you seem to want to try to play the victim because your agenda isn’t being bought into.

    Again, your personalization of this, makes your agenda obvious.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Cam, once again, I HAVE explained my position. It’s not my problem you’re to lazy or stupid to go see what I said. And I never said everyone’s else’s opinion is false. I have quite correctly pointed out that YOU posted your opinions as facts and lied about what was said. Why do you keep avoiding that point?

    I wish you would rely on what was said to form an opinion. That what informed intelligent people should do. But you keep changing what was said to fit your own narrative.

    As usual Cam, what you accuse me of is only true for yourself. You clearly act like you’ve been victimized because I’ve had the nerve to point out where you’re wrong and lying. I’m sorry that makes you feel persecuted.

    And once again, you’re the one who stooped to lying to try and make a point. Why would anyone do that if they didn’t have a personal stake in this or an agenda?

    Feel free to try and point to any examples that you think can prove your unfounded nonsensical accusations against me. Everything I’ve said in regards to what you’re saying though is clearly verifiable by looking at your posts.

  • Cam


    And once again, you keep claiming that you have explained your opinion, and yet you seem completely unable to mention which post you did it in or even to do the simple thing and cut and paste it.

    And then just spend the rest of the time foaming at the mouth and attacking.

    You obviously have a personal stake in this. Singer’s attorneys said they had indisputable proof that Singer wasn’t there, couldn’t have done it, etc… and then turned right around and offered $100,000 as an initial offer to settle without even waiting to see if the court would toss the case, WHICH if there really was indisputable proof it would. They sure aren’t acting like they have that proof.

    And again, the accuser, if he knew his case was B.S. would have taken the money, he didn’t, NOBODY on this case is behaving as if it didn’t happen.

    And here you are getting furious about it. It sounds either like you identify with Singer’s behavior, or work for him because other than that there is no excuse for you to get so infuriated that somebody doesn’t agree with you.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Couldnt find anyone to read and explain it to you huh Cam. That’s a shame. If you could have they would have explained the following to you. I havent expressed any opinion on Singers guilt or innocence in this case. What I have done is used the information that has been reported, and only the information that has been provided, to point out that you keep changing that information to fit your narrative. In short Cam, I keep pointing out where you’re lying. You seem incapable of addressing that fact though.

    I asked if you could actually point out these examples of me “foaming at the mouth and attacking” but clearly you can’t. Again, I’m sorry that if by pointing out the fact that you’re a liar you for some reason feel attacked. I can’t help that, a good first step might be for you to stop lying. But again, you clearly are the one with a personal stake in this otherwise you wouldn’t lie and change easily verifiable public statements to fit with your story. That’s just sad. And pretty pitiful.

    Excellent. Thank you for quite clearly and concisely writing down your lies again so I don’t have to. You’re lying, words matter Cam, and you know that was never said, you twisted it to try and fit your version of how things happen. Why do you get so furious that you have to lie instead of just arguing the facts as they’ve been reported?

    I know facts don’t matter to you Cam. But does it make any difference to you at all that Egan is now dropping his case? You do know that Egan has filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Singer right? So of the 4 people he accused he’s now dropped the charges against all of them. Why exactly would he do that if his case wasn’t B.S.? Gee, maybe he should have taken the $100,000 huh.

    I’m sorry it infuriates you that I didn’t take your lies as the facts they were presented as.
    Once again I’ll waste my breath and ask you to address why you feel the need to talk in absolutes about something you don’t know about and why you feel you needed to lie to try and prove your point. Or if you have anything to say about how things stand now.
    I think we both know that won’t happen but I hold out hope.
    I expect you’ll get all furious as usual and attempt to deflect by accussing me of the things that you’re guilty of but lets see.

  • Cam

    @mikeg: said…..”@Cam: Couldnt find anyone to read and explain it to you huh Cam. That’s a shame. If you could have they would have explained the following to you.”

    And once again, words words words words, all with the express intention that you are completely unable to articulate any defense of your opinion. I have pointed out multiple times that you have never stated it, that if you had you could simply list which post it was, or cut and paste it, and all you have done is desperately ramble on and on and on to do anything you can to deflect from this fact.

    So once again, you can’t articulate your opinion, and you attack anybody who disagrees with you. I would think that Singer could hire an intern who wouldn’t be so ham handed at trying to write out fake posts in support of him.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: You dont even read what’s being written anymore do ya Cam? So on the one hand you claim I have to articulate a defense of my opinion then on the other hand claim I haven’t stated it. Which is it Cam? How can you be familiar with cutting and pasting but not know how to scroll up a page and read what’s written? Is it possible you’re just being dishonest again?

    What part about YOU’RE A LIAR are you having trouble grasping? I’m not even sure why you’re referring to it as an opinion. I’ve repeatedly asked you to explain why you’re lying and if you have any defense for it. The fact that you keep ignoring and refuse to address the points I’ve made just shows that you know you’re lying as well. So let’s just call that a fact from now on.

    The only one trying to deflect here is you, and you’re doing an incredibly bad job of it. I’ve articulated, quite clearly and concisely, where you’ve lied. You haven’t articulated anything.

    Again, I’ve asked for you to point out examples of these attacks with anyone who disagreed with me, and you haven’t. Because you can’t. Because calling you on your lies and pointing out you’re to cowardly to even try and explain yourself is not an attack.

    And lastly, you want to point out some examples of the posts where I supported Singer? Because you can’t. Because it didn’t happen. It’s another one of your lies.

    As I’ve stated, I don’t care what your opinion is. I care that you keep LYING and stating your opinions as FACTS. Do you care to address that?

  • Cam


    1. Look how infuriated you are getting about this topic, when this shouldn’t matter that much to ANYBODY who doesn’t have a personal stake in it. You obviously have an agenda.

    2. Singer’s lawyers claimed they have indisputable proof that would get this case tossed, and yet turned around and made a large initial settlement offer.

    3. The plaintiff, who you claim has nothing, refused the offer, even though if this was a B.S. attempt to make money and he had no case, he would have taken it.

    4. You have done nothing but attack anybody who pointed this out and desperately tried to deflect from these facts.

    Nobody who does not have a personal agenda, and a stake in this issue would behave the way you have.

    Oh, and you STILL have never stated the reasons for your opinion. It is apparently so obviously posted, and yet you seem unable to write it again or to cut and paste it.

    That is of course the most obvious.

    So once again, how about instead of freaking out, rambling out insults blah blah blah, you simply state your reasons for believing Singer’s team, rather than wasting our time with another gigantic post doing it’s best to deflect from the fact that a team claiming to have “Indisputable Proof” is making large settlement offers to the plantiff.

    If you cannot do that, stop wasting everybody’s time and go collect your free lunch voucher from Singer’s team for being an internet Troll for them.

  • mikeg


    1. Ask someone to defines infuriated for you Cam, you clearly don’t know what it means. But keep repeating your mantra like Stuart Smiley and eventually you may believe it.

    2. Lie and lie. I’ve already pointed out multiple times why.

    3. Um yeah, he’s dropping the case but make sure you dont address that.

    4. Ask the nice person from #1 to also define deflect, facts and attack for you because you don’t know what those mean either.

    Nobody who does not have a personal agenda, and a stake in this issue would behave the way you have.

    As I’ve clearly stated time and again I keep coming back because you’re lying and know it and won’t admit it.

    So once again, how about instead of freaking out, rambling out nonsense, you simply state why you feel it necessary to lie instead of relying on what was really said.

    If you cannot do that, stop wasting everybody’s time.

  • CWfan

    For the benefit of doubt,
    1) can you provide some evidence (links to articles, etc.) for your statement “It absolutely is a nuisance settlement. $100,000 is a nominal amount when compared to what it would probably cost Singer for the case to go to trial. I doubt there’s an actual threshold that says because you offered $100,000 it suddenly can’t be considered a nuisance settlement. The other articles I read quote all the legal experts referring to it is a nuisance settlement, so yeah, it’s a nuisance settlement.”?
    2) can you provide evidence to back up your statement “And you turn down the offer if you think you can get more money.”?
    3) can you provide evidence for your statement “Yes, even with indisputable proof the lawyers and insurance companies WOULD settle, to them a $100,000 settlement is probably viewed as a victory.”?
    4) can you provide some links to sites/articles mentioning that Egan is dropping the case against Singer? [as Queerty doesn’t seem to have reported it yet]
    And, Cam:
    1) can you provide evidence to back up your statement “If a case is a nuisance and they just wanted to save the trouble, they would make an initial offer of ten or fifteen grand, you don’t BEGIN settlement negotiations with a $100,000 offer when ou also claim you have indisputable proof that your client couldn’t have done this and claim it will get the case dismissed.”?
    This is in terms of the following:
    a) that the case is not a nuisance case
    b) that an initial lower offer was not made
    c) that settlement negotiations began at $100,000
    d) that they were willing to offer more for a settlement
    e) that the proof was “indisputable”
    2) can you provide evidence to back up your claim that “if there was indisputable proof, then the LAST thing lawyers want to do is settle”
    i.e. that there are no circumstances where lawyers want to settle, even with (indisputable) proof of innocence?
    3) can you provide evidence to show that a “lying money grubber who knows your case is B.S” would not reject a $100,000 settlement under any circumstances?
    4) can you provide evidence for your statement that “As for the lawyer dropping out, sounded like the lawyer was hoping for a quick payout. The ONLY reason for a lawyer dropping out AFTER a settlement offer is made would be the client telling him they aren’t going to settle. A Client who won’t settle doesn’t sound like somebody ho doesn’t have a case.”?
    Can you explain why it would appear that the lawyer has less faith in winning the case than his client, given the fact that you state that the client has a case? Or, are you saying that the lawyer (someone who purports to be a a champion of victims of sexual abuse) wasn’t interested in going to court to fully expose what Singer did to his client, and win a big payout for him?
    5) as mikeg stated above, it would appear that Michael Egan is dropping the case against Singer. Indeed, he had already dropped the cases against the 3 other people he had accused of raping him. Can you explain why Michael Egan would do this?
    If there are any other questions that I have missed above, perhaps both mikeg and Cam could, in addition, please reiterate what questions they want answered by the other (in a list, like above), and then be so kind as to address the other’s questions directly.
    If you cannot provide evidence to back up what you have previously written, could you please state whether, for each of the points raised above, they are your opinions/beliefs or fact, since the argument between you two seems to centre around whether what is stated (and how it is being stated) is opinion/belief or fact.
    In my opinion, Bryan Singer offering a $100,000 settlement does not necessarily mean he is guilty of raping Michael Egan. It could equally mean that there are things that he does not want brought up in Court, including other (potentially criminal) activity (against Egan, and others). Or, there could be other, financial, reasons. Of course, it could also mean he raped Michael Egan, but not necessarily in Hawaii.
    Likewise, in my opinion, the rejection of the settlement by Michael Egan does not mean that he is telling the truth about being raped by Singer. It could mean he was willing to take a risk in order to push for more, and it seems to have back-fired. As above, it is also possible that he was raped by Bryan Singer, but not in Hawaii (if his previous testimony about not having been to Hawaii is the truth), meaning that Egan would not (legally) have a case, since he could only bring the case based on the premise that he was raped in (amongst other places) Hawaii. It could also mean that Bryan Singer took advantage of him (statutory rape, if underage) and he wants revenge, so embellished his claims somewhat.
    Can anyone present arguments to show that any of the scenarios I have presented above are not possible?
    For the record, I abhor any form of sexual abuse, sexual predation, paedophilia, etc. From what I have read about Bryan Singer, I think he is a slimeball who may or may not be guilty of one or more of these things. Indeed, if he is, then he should be thrown in jail. If Michael Egan’s claims that he was forcibly raped by Singer, etc., are true, then I believe there should be a criminal investigation to address these allegations, and Singer (and the others) should be tried in a criminal court. Is there a reason why a criminal complaint has not been made? Indeed, if there was any other criminal activity that is still prosecutable, then it should be investigated (for example, even if there was consensual sex, if it was with a minor, then isn’t that still statutory rape?).
    Unfortunately, I feel that Michael Egan’s behaviour in this matter has been questionable, meaning that whatever wrongs Bryan Singer may be guilty of, justice will sadly not prevail. If he had any sort of case against Singer, but has lied about certain things (leading to him having no choice but to drop the case), then this is regrettable if there is some truth to his claims. In situations like this, am I being naive in thinking that it is best to be truthful at all times in order to put yourself beyond reproach?

  • Cam



    1. Here is an all law article showing that insurance companies will make nuisance offers lower than $1,000.00 $100,000.00 is considerably higher than what they deem a nuisance amount.

    2. Singer’s ability to do business in Hollywood is based upon reputation. Reputation for making money, for making good films etc… Mel Gibson had that reputation, and then he didn’t. What has happened to Mel Gibson with just the loss of his reputation? What happened to Michael Jackson after he settled that child molestation case? He was never found guilty, but his ability to earn disappeared and he died in debt.

    3. This is a ridiculous question. If the person knows that they have no evidence backing their case, they know they can’t go to trial with it, firstly they will lose, and secondly, if their case is complete B.S. they leave themselves open for a counter suit of malicious prosecution, fraud etc…

    4. You asked “Can you explain why it would appear that the lawyer has less faith in winning the case than his client, given the fact that you state that the client has a case?”

    My answer is that there are many lawyers who want the settlement but do not want to spend 5 years in court litigating a case. i.e. you have a medical malpractice case, and the injured party, if they go to trial could possibly win %400,000. However, the case will take 3 years, and the lawyer would have to come up with $100,000 to pay for expert witnesses and staff time and still risk a possible loss. OR, the offer of a $75,000 settlement is made. The lawyer is guaranteed a piece of that, no risk of loss, no large expenditure, and it is immediate money rather than a wait for years for the possibility of more.

    5. Egan has apparently requested that the case be dropped WITHOUT prejudice. This allows the case to be refiled and is often done when a new lawyer is taking over. It allows time for the lawyer to come up to speed, and for any new information to be incorporated. If Egan had no intention of refiling the request would be made that the case be dropped WITH prejudice.

  • Cam


    You claim to have stated over and over again, that you keep coming back because I am lying.

    How nice for you to now claim something different that allows you to once again refuse to cut and paste the opinion backing your claims that you seem to be unable to do.

    Additionally, was it a lie that Singer’s lawyers said that they had indisputable proof? Was it a lie that AFTER the made this claim they still offered a large settlement offer to the plaintiff? Was it a lie that the plaintiff refused that offer?

    None of those are lies, you obviously have an agenda, and I keep coming back because obvious and boring tactics like yours are fun to point out.

  • mikeg


    Hey @CWfan

    Sure, heres links

    for 1 & 3

    for 2
    Nope, no evidence. But why turn down the offer unless he wanted or thought ye could get more money? isnt that just common sense?

    for 4 heres a link

  • mikeg

    1. Curious how you didn’t actually link to anything Cam. But here’s a legal definition of nuisance settlement
    Legal Definition – A settlement in which the defendant pays the plaintiff purely for economic reasons, as opposed to any notion of responsibility. Without the settlement the defendant would spend more money in legal fees and expanses by protracted litigation than in paying the settlement. The money paid in such settlements is often termed nuisance money. Black’s Law Dictionary® Eighth Edition © 2004 Dictionary® Eighth Edition © 2004

    2. And? You didnt explain how a settlement would be damaging to Singers reputation at all.

    3. Not a ridiculous question at all. And that’s what’s happening. He’s already been sued by one of the people he accused for malicious prosecution and Singers lawyer has stated his intention to do the same when their case is dismissed.

    4. So you’re just claiming that Egans lawyer was lazy? Isn’t everything you stated in your scenario standard operating procedure for a lawyer?

    5. Of course he filed it Without prejudice. And if a new lawyer is getting up to speed wouldn’t they have filed the motion instead of Egan? And no, even if he didn’t intend to refine he would not have filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. So that’s just wrong.

  • mikeg

    @Cam: Show where I claimed anything different Cam. Can you?

    Additionally, was it a lie that Singer’s lawyers said that they had indisputable proof?

    Yes. Until you can show where they said INDISPUTABLE proof then yes it’s a lie. If you can show where they said it then do it and shut me up.

    Was it a lie that AFTER the made this claim they still offered a large settlement offer to the plaintiff?

    Well, Singers lawyer has stated that it was Egans team that came to them and made the settlement offer for that amount and Egans team never disputed that. So yeah, it’s a lie that they OFFERED a settlement to the plaintiff as it looks like the plaintiff offered it to them.

    Was it a lie that the plaintiff refused that offer?

    Nope. And I don’t believe I ever said it was.

    You mean my obvious tactics of pointing out the same things to you over and over that you don’t address? Keep trying to convince yourself how clever you’re being Cam. Maybe one day you’ll believe it.

Comments are closed.