Marilyn Manson Alleges Bianca Kyne Ignored Court Order
A New York judge previously ordered Bianca Kyne to remove claims of alleged childhood abuse against Brian Warner, known as Marilyn Manson. Court documents allege she failed to comply with this order.
New court filings by Brian Warner, known as Marilyn Manson, allege Bianca Kyne failed to comply with a previous court order in her New York lawsuit against him.
Initially filing as Jane Doe, Kyne sued on January 30, 2023 alleging Warner sexually abused her in 1995 when she was 16 and continued in various states as an adult in 1999 at the age of 19. The suit also named Interscope and Nothing Records, along with 1-20 John Does, claiming they enabled Warner's alleged abusive and pedophilic behavior. Out of the five causes of action Kyne is pursuing, only two appear to target him. Warner has denied these allegations in statements made by his attorney.
At the center of this lawsuit is New York's Adult Survivors Act, a look-back law that temporarily eliminates the civil statute of limitations for survivors of sexual assault who were over 18 when the alleged incidents occurred. However, the allegations from when Kyne was under 18 don’t fall under this law’s provisions. As a result of a Motion To Dismiss filed by Warner’s attorneys last year, Kyne agreed to focus on her 1999 claims and to remove all of the childhood abuse claims prior to a recent court order.
Now, Warner's attorneys argue Kyne's newly filed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) still contains references to childhood abuse, contrary to the court's July 2, 2024 order.
Warner's lawyer, Howard King, alleges Kyne ignored this order, keeping "scandalous and irrelevant allegations" that should have been removed in the amended complaint.
According to the judge's recent court order, Kyne had previously agreed to remove specific paragraphs from her complaint, which is detailed in a previously submitted court document from May 2023, agreeing to limit the lawsuit to two incidents she alleges occurred in New York in 1999 when she was an adult. The judge noted that Warner challenged some causes of action not directly against him, such as allegations against record companies or John Does, but ruled that Warner could not contest these. Importantly, the judge pointed out that the record companies and John Does 1-20 have not appeared yet, and there's no electronic record of Kyne serving any of them.
Warner's legal team argues that the allegations were not removed and are highly inflammatory and unnecessary, given the court's previous order and Kyne's agreement to limit her claims. They contend that including these allegations violates CPLR 3024(b), which allows for the removal of scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading. In their filing, Warner's attorneys state:
"Plaintiff did not comply with the Order. Instead, through her counsel, she brazenly retained scandalous and irrelevant allegations that the Court ordered her to remove—including in the very first sentence of the SAC."
From Affirmation of Howard E. King In Support Of Defendant Brian Warner’s Motion To Strike
This statement from King suggests that Warner's legal team believes Kyne not removing certain allegations that were supposed to be removed was deliberate.
King's affirmation also includes two key exhibits: a July 15, 2024 news article from Kyne's counsel's website, and an annotated copy of the second amended complaint.
King alleges that statements made on the counsel's website, which is a press release stating it was drafted by Kyne’s counsel, states falsely that the lawsuit is about childhood abuse, despite Kyne's prior agreement to remove claims, and a court order to remove these allegations from the lawsuit. As a separate side note, while not mentioned, this press release, including Kyne's public statement, were subsequently publicized in Rolling Stone, the New York Post, and several other media outlets.
Exhibit 2 is an annotated copy of Kyne's Second Amended Complaint submitted after the court order. King has highlighted specific sections throughout the document that Warner's legal team believes should have been removed according to the previous court order. These highlighted portions appear to identify the allegations that Warner's team argues are in violation of the court's directive and Kyne's agreement to limit her claims to incidents that allegedly occurred when she was an adult.
If the judge grants this motion, the motion would require Kyne to file a Third Amended Complaint. A court date is set for September 8th at 9:30 AM EST.
As for a response from Kyne's attorneys, it seems likely we should see a reply before the court date, potentially explaining their position for going against a court order.
Examining the timing, legal documents, and subsequent press release raises questions about the presentation of information. Despite having agreed to remove allegations of childhood abuse from the New York lawsuit, and later, the judge made this part of a court order, Kyne's counsel issued a press release that appeared to characterize the lawsuit as still involving child abuse claims while this was no longer true. This included Kyne’s statement giving the appearance her name was new in this suit.
This press release also revealed a previously unknown separate lawsuit against Warner in Louisiana filed by Kyne. It is also noteworthy that while the press release seemed to present Kyne's identity as newly public information, her name has actually been in the public record of this New York lawsuit for nearly a year and a half. Many media outlets, however, seemed unaware of this which means they did not fact check this, possibly due to the lawsuit's initial filing and reporting as a Jane Doe lawsuit.
Among Warner's accusers who came forward in February 2021, Kyne claims in her lawsuit to have been a minor during her alleged relationship with Warner.
However, her initial public statements in the press do not match claims in her lawsuit.
In a February 2021 podcast episode, she suggested that a now-deceased friend was the minor Warner allegedly assaulted. Kyne’s two other interviews featured in The Sun claimed she was a 16-year-old minor, but that Warner only kissed her, before hooking up three years later—a time period where Warner was known to have been dating actress, Rose McGowan. This evolution in claims may also add context to a particular quote from Warner's lawyer, especially when viewed alongside his counter-allegations made in his lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood and her ex-girlfriend, Illma Gore:
Brian Warner does not know this individual and has no recollection of ever having met her 28 years ago, he certainly was never intimate with her.
She has been shopping her fabricated tale to tabloids and on podcasts for more than two years.
But even the most minimal amount of scrutiny reveals the obvious discrepancies in her ever-shifting stories as well as her extensive collusion with other false accusers.
Howard King, January 31, 2023, quoted in USA Today
Given the context of Warner's lawsuit against Wood and Gore, which is currently under appeal for last May's anti-SLAPP ruling, and includes allegations of recruiting individuals to make false allegations, and alleges Gore made defamatory claims of child abuse against Warner in a recorded conversation to at least one person, a question arises: Could Kyne be one of the individuals referred to in these allegations? There is currently no date set for trial in that lawsuit until the appeal concludes.
Warner, for his part, is not requesting a jury trial in Kyne’s lawsuit. According to earlier legal documents submitted in this lawsuit, his attorney states that they will likely eventually seek a summary judgment from the judge. This means that instead of proceeding with a jury trial, they intend to ask the judge to make a ruling based on the evidence Warner will be presenting. However, it's important to note that at this time, no such request has been made, and may not be requested until after a discovery period starts and concludes. But this statement suggests Warner will not settle.
Coming Up…
In the next update, it is likely we will have court filings by Kyne’s attorneys to see what they will be arguing to the judge. Once I have those documents, I will provide an update here and a full one on The Marilyn Manson Cases Podcast.
Accessing the legal filings
The website where I share the legal filings is still going through some changes with a relocation of legal folders/documents. Until then, you can click here to review the new legal filings.