ANALYSIS OF A FRAUD: FACT AND FICTION CONCERNING THE
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT BROCK AND SEXUAL ABUSE
As there have been recent repetitions of allegations that suggest that Brock Pierce was involved in sexual abuse, we have put together an analysis of the court records and other documents that will give a more complete understanding of the situation. All of these type of statements about Brock stem from a single lawsuit filed in 2000, and the allegations in that lawsuit have been repeated numerous times in posts and articles. However, subsequent events have demonstrated that the allegations in that 2000 lawsuit are not true and have been debunked. That these disproven allegations continue to be repeated and republished is a demonstration of how untrue claims can have a life of their own, and be repeated even though there is overwhelming subsequent evidence that undermines them. Recent articles that have looked at all the facts surrounding the initial allegations have concluded that the allegations have not been corroborated and should be rejected. See, e.g., “Brock Pierce: From Hollywood child star to bitcoin billionaire,” The London Times (February 10, 2019); “Brock Pierce: The Hippy King of Cryptocurrency,” Rolling Stone (July 26, 2018).
FICTION: The claim made in a 2000 lawsuit that Brock sexually abused young men in 1999 and is a pedophile.
FACT: This claim was made only in one lawsuit: a lawsuit filed in 2000, Alexander Burton, Mark Ryan and Michael Egan v. Marc Collins-Rector, Chad Shackley, Brock Mr. Pierce and Digital Entertainment Network, Case No. LC053103 (L.A. Super. Ct. July 20, 2000) (the “Egan Complaint”). No other such claims have ever been made. The Egan Complaint contained false allegations that Brock engaged in improper sexual activity with a minor (Egan), and coerced other individuals (Burton and Ryan) into sexual activity.
Subsequent evidence has demonstrated that these allegations were part of a scheme to extort money, and that there is no truth to these allegations:
- All three plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Brock, without receiving any personal compensation from Brock. See Exhibit A (Burton Notice of Dismissal), B (Ryan Settlement Agreement), and C (Declaration of Gary Trimarche with Egan letter to lawyer requesting filing of dismissal).
- At the time the Egan Complaint was filed, FBI and Los Angeles law enforcement officers investigated the allegations in this lawsuit, interviewing the plaintiffs and multiple witnesses, and no criminal charges were ever filed against Mr. Brock obviously demonstrating that the police agencies found no evidence that Brock had engaged in any sexual abuse.
- Witnesses have confirmed that Egan fabricated all the claims in the Egan Complaint:
a. Jonathan Yantis was at a dinner in 2004 with Egan and Mr. Pierce, and they discussed the allegations made in the Egan Complaint, and Egan stated “I made it all up.” See Exhibit E (email from Jonathan Yantis).
b. Christopher Turcotte, a friend of Egan’s, states that Egan regularly expressed that he wanted to become rich by working for Digital Entertainment Network (“D.E.N.”) as an actor in its internet videos, but in 1999 told Turcotte he realized D.E.N. would not be financially successful, and that he had come up with a scheme. He said he had manipulated Collins-Rector sexually, and now was going to sue him for sexual misconduct. He told Turcotte to sue Collins-Rector also and say he had been molested. Turcotte said this wasn’t possible because Collins-Rector hadn’t molested him. Egan then told Turcotte it didn’t matter that it wasn’t true, since it would be more believable if both Turcotte and Egan claimed Collins-Rector had molested them. Turcotte refused to participate in this scheme. See Exhibit F (Turcotte Declaration, ¶¶ 2-8, 13, 15). Turcotte also stated that Egan was untruthful, and that “literally everything that comes out of Egan’s mouth is a lie” and that “everything that has to do with Egan is a scam, and everything [Egan] said about any alleged molestation at the [Collins-Rector] House is a lie.” Turcotte Declaration ¶¶ 13-14.
c. Mel Berman, a private chef employed by Collins-Rector, states that Egan approached him and stated that the plaintiffs in the Egan Complaint would pay him 50% of any amounts recovered in the lawsuit, if Berman would help them with the lawsuit, by providing testimony supporting the allegations that the three plaintiffs were molested and raped by the defendants. Berman, however, did not believe that this molestation occurred. See Exhibit G (Notice of Lodging of Deposition Transcript of Melvin Berman, Berman Transcript at 74-75). Berman testified that he believed Egan and Burton had made up the story contained in the Egan Complaint in order to get money from Collins-Rector, and provided details of how they concocted their allegations. See Exhibit G at 78-79.
d. Robert Bassiri, who also was employed by Collins-Rector as a chef, confirms that there was zero tolerance for alcohol for minors and drugs at the [Collins-Rector] residence at any time, and does not believe the allegations in the Egan Complaint that Mr. Pierce accomplished sexual assault through the use of any drugs or alcohol. See Exhibit H (Bassiri Declaration, ¶ 10). He claims that statements made by Egan were untrue and obviously concocted. Bassiri Declaration ¶ 12. He also refutes allegations in the Egan Complaint that Brock physically abused or coerced any plaintiff. Bassiri Declaration ¶ 9.
e. In 2014, when Egan realized he was about to be indicted for financial fraud, he told one of the individuals he defrauded that, to obtain money to pay him back, “if all else failed he could go after ‘Gay Hollywood’ and claim he was abused and they would have to settle because they cannot stand the publicity,” and when asked if he had in fact ever been abused, Egan responded, “God, no.” See Exhibit I (Plaintiff Garth Ancier’s Final Pretrial Statement, Case 1:14-cv-00294-JMS-RLP) at 3-4.
f. Prior to the filing of the Egan Complaint, Egan and Burton asked Brock (then 19 years old) to be a plaintiff and to make a claim that Collins-Rector molested him, explaining that they could make money quickly. Brock refused to participate in this scheme; and then Egan named Brock as a defendant to prevent him from being able to disclose their approach to him. See Exhibit T at p. 6 (“Old Lawsuit Calls Bryan Singer Accuser’s Credibility Into Question,” BuzzFeed (May 22, 2014)); Exhibit U (“Brock Pierce: The Hippie King of Cryptocurrency,” Rolling Stone (July 26, 2018)).
- It has been extensively confirmed that Egan fabricates claims that he was sexually abused, and therefore his claims against Brock cannot be given any credibility:
a. In 2014, Egan filed lawsuits in which he accused several Hollywood professionals of drugging and sexually molesting him, during the exact same time frame as in the Egan Complaint (the “2014 Lawsuits”). See Exhibit J (copy of one of the 2014 Lawsuits). The descriptions of the alleged sexual abuse in the 2014 Lawsuits are virtually identical to the allegations in the Egan Complaint: that there were parties at the Collins-Rector residence in which teenage boys were provided illegal drugs and alcohol, that he and other teens were forced to consume alcoholic beverages and drugs, and were surreptitiously administered drugs, and that Egan was physically restrained and threatened and coerced into sex. The defendants in the 2014 Lawsuits fought back and demonstrated that Egan had lied in his allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct, causing Egan’s 2014 Lawsuits to be dismissed. Two of the accused individuals, Garth Ancier and David Neuman, sued Egan and his attorneys for malicious prosecution. As a result, Egan’s two attorneys conceded that the allegations in the 2014 lawsuit were “untrue and proveably false,” and they paid a seven-figure settlement to the wronged defendants. See Exhibit K (apology letters from attorney Jeff Herman to Garth Ancier and David Neuman).
b. This fact by itself — that Egan has been demonstrably proven to be a liar as to claims of identical sexual abuse – fully demonstrates that the allegations in the Egan Complaint about Brock are also false. If Egan admittedly filed false almost-identical claims of sexual abuse against other people, how can his claims in 2000 against Brock be accepted as true or accurate?
- Egan has been convicted of fraud, and shown to be a consummate liar and conman.
a. In 2014, he was indicted for securities and wire fraud (see Exhibit M (Bill of Indictment, filed December 16, 2014), and he pled guilty, admitting that he “executed a scheme to defraud victims through the use of investment and business contracts” and then “stole a majority of the investment money to fund his lifestyle”; that he executed this scheme by “induc[ing] victims to loan investment money by making false and fraudulent misrepresentations, omitting material facts and telling deceptive half-truths about his background”; and that he provided “fraudulent and forged brokerage account statement[s].” See Exhibit N (Bill of Information, filed April 16, 2015). He was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment, a two-year supervised release term, and restitution of approximately $305,000. See Exhibit O (Docket for plea bargain).
b. At the sentencing hearing in the federal criminal case against Egan, the government described Egan as a “master conman,” a “schemer,” and a “planner” with the ability to “just look people in the eye, the ones he loves, and lie to them, just boldface terrible, incredible lies.” See Exhibit P (Transcript of sentencing hearing, December 8, 2015) at 54-55. Egan’s father-in-law testified that Egan repeatedly stole money from him, by using credit cards without authorization, and then stealing money from bank accounts. Egan set up a shadow accounts using his father-in-law’s social security number, so that whenever his father-in-law opened any new account, Egan managed to loot it. Exhibit P at 28-31, 35-36. Other individuals who were defrauded by Egan called him a “master conman.” Exhibit P at 52. The federal judge overseeing the case described Egan as capable of “numerous acts of deception and fraud.” Exhibit P at 58-59.
c. Egan, at his deposition in the 2014 Lawsuits, refused to answer questions on more than 400 occasions, pleading the Fifth Amendment. See Exhibit Q (“Hollywood Sex Abuse Accuser Invokes Fifth Amendment 400 Times in Deposition,” Hollywood Reporter, Sept. 2, 2015).
- The two plaintiffs in the Egan Complaint other than Egan – Mark Ryan and Alex Burton – both have admitted that the allegations concerning Mr. Pierce were untrue:
a. Burton stated that Brock was the biggest victim of the 2000 Egan Complaint, and that Brock had never done the things to Burton that he had alleged in the Egan Complaint. See Exhibit S (Declaration of Stephen Morris).
b. In 2004, Ryan told Brock that Ryan’s lawyer manipulated him into stating things that never happened: “[he] pushed me on a lot of shit that I didn’t want — that I knew never happened.”
- No one else has accused Brock of pedophilia or sexual abuse of young men. This is strong evidence that undermines any such claims, as law enforcement has concluded that pedophiles will have multiple victims. Exhibit R at 17 (Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis, For Law Enforcement Officers Investigating Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in cooperation with FBI (1992).
- There is no basis whatsoever for any statement that Mr. Pierce engaged in pedophilia. Of the three plaintiffs, Egan was the only one that was a minor (both Burton and Ryan were over 18 years of age at the time, Brock was 17). Since Egan has been totally discredited, then there is no evidence whatsoever concerning Brock and pedophilia.
- SUMMARY: Each of the three plaintiffs have disavowed the allegations against Brock. The documentary evidence shows conclusive evidence that Egan is a conman and consummate liar, and one who is willing to make knowingly false statements about sexual abuse in civil complaints in attempts to extort settlements, and that Egan’s credibility is so low that no statements by Egan can be granted any weight of credibility whatsoever. Two individuals — Berman and Turcotte – have provided sworn testimony that the plaintiffs conspired to make these false allegations, after learning that Collins- Rector had settled a claim of sexual abuse by promptly making a substantial payment to his accuser, and that they tried to get both Berman and Turcotte to participate in making false accusations.
FICTION: Some posts and articles state that Brock “fled to Spain” in 2000 and was hiding in order to evade prosecution, and that Brock was extradited to the United States.
FACT: Brock moved to Spain in 1999, but the Egan Complaint was not filed until July 20, 2000, many months later. Brock therefore couldn’t have “fled” to Spain to avoid this lawsuit, as it wasn’t filed until many months after Brock left the United States. Further, there have never been any criminal charges concerning sexual misconduct filed against Brock, so he couldn’t have been attempting to evade prosecution since there was no threat or reality of him being prosecuted. Documentary evidence further demonstrates that the assertion that Brock fled to Spain is false – an email from Egan to Chad Shackley dated March 29, 2000 (four months before the Egan Complaint was filed) demonstrates that Egan knew of Brock’s whereabouts in Spain, as in the email Egan asks about the “plan with the house in Spain” and asks “Am I moving in?” See Exhibit V (March 29, 2000 email from Egan to Chad Schackley). This email also undermines Egan’s assertions in his 2000 complaint that he was threatened and forced by Collins-Rector and Brock into sexual conduct, since if that was in fact true why was Egan trying so hard to come over to Spain and stay with them?
CONCLUSION: As Burton himself stated, the biggest victim of the filing of the Egan Complaint is Brock. See Exhibit S. Brock has been repeatedly maligned in the press, when in fact the documentary evidence demonstrates that what occurred is that Egan conspired to make a false allegation against Brock, and this false allegation has managed to be repeatedly re-published, even though there is overwhelming documentary evidence that the claims in the Egan Complaint are fabricated as part of a scheme to extort money. We hope that your review of these materials will break the re-publication chain of these false allegations.
 Egan initially agreed to dismiss his claims against Brock with no payment or compensation; however, Egan later informed Brock that Egan’s lawyer, Daniel Cheren, was refusing to file the notice of dismissal because Cheren wanted his out of pocket costs reimbursed. See Exhibit D. Egan managed to dismiss his case against Brock only after he retained another lawyer. See Exhibit E (Settlement Agreement with Egan). As part of this settlement, Brock provided Egan’s lawyer with $21,600 to cover legal expenses, but no payment whatsoever was made to Egan. Exhibit T as p. 2 (“Old Lawsuit Calls Bryan Singer Accuser’s Credibility Into Question,” BuzzFeed (May 22, 2014)).
 Berman testified that in 1999, during a time period when D.E.N. had scheduled an IPO, a minor named Jacob Walker had filed a civil lawsuit accusing Collins-Rector of sexual abuse, and Egan and Burton overheard conversations with Collins-Rector and his attorney in which they learned that the Walker lawsuit was settled within weeks for a few million dollars. Berman testified that he believed Egan and Burton, after hearing about the settlement of the Walker lawsuit, conspired among themselves to file a lawsuit with similar but false allegations. See Exhibit G at 78-79.
 Collins-Rector, who had been president of D.E.N., in 1999 received a demand from attorneys representing a teenager, who asserted that he had been molested by Collins-Rector during the period 1993-1997 (this was before Brock was associated with D.E.N.). Collins-Rector made a settlement with this teenager in 1999. After Brock left Los Angeles and went to Europe in 1999, it wasn’t until almost a year later that a criminal complaint was filed against Collins-Rector for child molestation, in August 2000, but this molestation occurred starting in 1993, well before Brock was involved in D.E.N.; and it wasn’t until two years later that Collins-Rector was arrested for those charges. The evidence shows that Brock was not being investigated concerning that matter, and no criminal complaint was filed against Brock. It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter. “Brock Pierce: Hippie King of Cryptocurrency,” Rolling Stone (July 26, 2018), at p. 11.