« [Pictures_Of_You_#_1] | Main | [Sith_Teeth] »



Dear Trent,

I hope you had a good birthday, even if you did have to be in court staring at that betraying, back-stabbing bastard, John Malm. I can't even express in words of the English language how much I would be happy to kick that guy right in the nuts for what he did to you. I would wear steel-toed boots, and I'd throw in a couple of sharp jabs to the shins and then stomp on his toes, too, just for good measure. Having said that, dear Trent, even if you didn't have any money, you'd still be the only man for me. I would love you if you lived in a boxcar and your US tour was of trainyards, playing air-guitar for hobos on an old broom. If that was the case, then I would put on my hobo costume and follow, and we could make crazy, monkey love on a pile of straw to the rocking and rolling of the endless railway.

Still, I hope you clean the floor with that dickhead.

I saw pictures of you coming out of the courthouse in Manhattan, and even though Gabriel says you look like his dad -- which, seriously, is just RUDE -- I thought you looked real handsome in your suit. If I had been in New York, I would have brought you a birthday present, and I know that when I was giving it to you, you would have looked into my eyes and seen your destiny.


Posted by Gabriel in dear_trent | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference [Dear_Trent_#_6]:


I'm getting the hugest kick out of the discussion about the trial over on ets. Trent on SVU... two of my favorite things at once.

And the pictures! There's something sweetly geeky about him in those pics. I *heart* geeks. I am one.

Posted by: emerald527 | May 20, 2005 8:01:14 AM

I agree. Those pictures had some real charm. He does look sweet. I just hope that this time, MAYBE JUST ONCE, he gets what's coming to him, and while we're at it, I hope John Malm does, too.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 20, 2005 9:25:52 AM

I guess your joking? If so, ha ha.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2005 3:12:54 PM

Justice will be served to Mr. Malm in due time...bastard. Trent looked confident, and suit or no suit, he's the man.

Posted by: Tormented_Soul_3 | May 20, 2005 3:31:07 PM

John Malm should suffer on earth before he is consigned to eternal damnation. I hope he gets what's coming to him sooner than later. Fucker.

At the risk of insufficiently loving the darkness, I must say that it's nice to see Trent smile through adversity.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 20, 2005 5:48:48 PM

I have posted some of
my photos here

Posted by: chaudes | May 20, 2005 6:09:21 PM

Your link doesn't work, Chaudes, FYI.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 20, 2005 6:17:38 PM

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Posted by: chaudes | May 20, 2005 6:19:31 PM

Reposting the same link isn't much of a reply, Chaudes. I'm beginning to think you are a robot spammer who needs to be deleted from our precious temple of Trez.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 20, 2005 6:34:43 PM

Trent will not win in court because he has no real claim. He became a drunken drug-addict and made stupid decisions. What he's really saying is that he fucked up and he wants a "do-over." Life doesn't have do-overs. If you decide to act like an idiot you deserve what ever you get. Anyone who signs a document without reading it or without consulting a lawyer deserves to have their money lost. Malm didn't steal any money from Trent. Malm was Trent's manager. A bad manager? Perhaps. But he didn't break the law. Trent was incompetant by his own volition and he paid the price.

Don't let your love of his music blind you to the facts.

Posted by: Sebastian Tramani | May 22, 2005 1:14:52 PM

I think one could argue that as a manager, if you aggressively pursue your client to sign new legal documentation while not disclosing all the information it contains whilst also being aware that the client is out of it due to a drug habit could be considered signing under duress, and thereby not enforceable.

Either way, I think there are most likely many more elements to the case than what we are being made privy to. Regardless, the lesson learned is Don't Let Anyway Get Their Hands Up In Your Business.

I'd rather die than give you control, just like TR says, you know?

Posted by: Gabriel | May 22, 2005 1:42:30 PM

All disclosure of information is in the document itself. Like I said before, Trent should have either read it or had a lawer to handle things like this. Friendship is friendship and business is business. Trent decided not to think and turn off his brain because Malm was his friend - but on matters of business one must always seperate personal life from money. Trent got a raw deal, but it was 100% his fault. Part of being in the business world *is* being aggressive - and part of being a good manager is as well. Malm didn't force Trent to do anything - Trent simply didn't think about what he was doing.

I will, however, concede that there are probably more elements to the case than the pubic is privy to - because if all we know is all there is, I doubt a court would ever hear his case.

On another note, I never understood the type of ridiculous, childish obsession that would lead one to condemn a man to an eternity of suffering and damnation because of a dispute over money.

Posted by: Sebastian Tramani | May 22, 2005 4:44:53 PM

Sebastian: You're right that friendship is friendship and business is business, but what I can't understand is why it's so much easier to excuse a lying turncoat bastard who fucked his friend in the ass than it is to excuse someone who made the mistake of trusting his friend too much. The drugs question is beside the point. Trent Reznor worked hard for his money, and John Malm won't need my ill wishes to enjoy the tortures of the damned that he so richly deserves.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 22, 2005 8:26:39 PM

Indeed, Sebastian, Malm had every right to go ahead and be as smarmy/aggressive/ethically-questionable as he intended. And Reznor has every right to try to sue Malm for damages that he may/may not achieve.

However, I will say that it is my understanding from the documents/interviews I've read (LexisNexis, etc.), that Malm did more than just "be a good manager" and "not force Trent". He actively misrepresented what certain documents meant, and withheld information with regards to other documents. And I'm sorry, but when your manager is acting as your de facto legal counsel, such misrepresentation is grounds for legal action. I would not be suprised at all if some small amount of damages ended up being due Reznor, but I would be shocked if $30M came his way.

That said -- he looks awesome in his court suit!

Posted by: Gabriel | May 22, 2005 8:33:15 PM

Amen on the court suit. That is fucking adorable.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 22, 2005 8:35:03 PM

"Malm did more than just "be a good manager" and "not force Trent". He actively misrepresented what certain documents meant, and withheld information with regards to other documents. And I'm sorry, but when your manager is acting as your de facto legal counsel, such misrepresentation is grounds for legal action."
Bravo Gabriel. That's what I'm talking about. Malm, while legally may be in the right (although I happen to disagree as to the fault here), he is still wrong and is due to full persecution by law for his wrongful and misrepresented actions towards his client. F him.

Posted by: Tormented_Soul_3 | May 23, 2005 6:49:10 PM

Right on, tormented_soul_3. As Dante knew, those treacherous, evil men who betray their friends, family and benefactors and who offer fals counsel will be consigned to the 9th circle of hell for all eternity. Where they will suffer HORRIBLE TORTURE:

Lucifer has three faces from which he weeps tears mixed with bloody slaver, a mockery of the Trinity. The forward-facing face is red, mocking Primal Love with hatred; one is yellow, parodying Diving Omnipotence with impotence; and one is black, perverting Highest Wisdom with ignorance. Each of the faces has a mouth that is stuffed with one of the worst traitors of the world, those who are treacherous against their benefactors. The first is Judas Iscariot, who was a traitor to Christ for thirty pieces of silver. He endures the worst punishment by being chewed on by the red face and being clawed by his bat-like wings. The second is Marcus Brutus, traitor to Caesar. The black face is chewing him. The third sinner is Caius Cassius Longinus, who was another member of the conspiracy against Caesar.

Looks like Malm has some good times to look forward to. I daresay he may actually replace Judas in the red mouth of Satan that mocks love with hatred.

We can hope.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 23, 2005 7:17:11 PM

There is no such thing as defacto legal counsil. Only s/he who is a lawyer is obligated to act as a lawyer - regardless of the circumstances. Even I have studied law - but I'm a business owner, not a lawyer and as such, I have no ethical obligation to fulfill any such duty.

As far as the alleged misrepresentation: I highly doubt that TR has any actual evidence of such an act. For that to be a consideration as exculpatory evidence, Trent would need some sort of documented proof. I.E.: audio recordings of such an act.

And as much as I love Trent's music, I have no reason to trust his accusation anymore so than I have to trust Malm's denial - and neither do any of you.

If Malm did, in fact, maliciously misrepresent the contents of any contractual obligation, Trent *may* be entitled to some sort of restitution. But I must stress *may*. Being a liar and being a fraud are two completely different things. While both may be unethcial, only one is illegal.

And, I'll also stress what I said before: Trent signed documents without reading their contents or consulting an attourny. Anyone with half a brain knows *never* to do this. Trent was a drug addicted idiot and I say he got exactly what he deserved.

I highly doubt that any judge is going to side in his favour.


Posted by: Sebastian Tramani | May 23, 2005 11:20:09 PM

The fact that you think Trent "got what he deserved" by being betrayed by his friend while he was incapacitated by illness is a sad commentary. No one deserves to be totally fucked by someone they trust, I don't care how much of a "drug-addicted idiot" they are. However, Trent Reznor is not any kind of idiot, he was a sick man who, if he has no money left, doesn't own the copyright to his band name and logo, and has to pay 20% of his gross earnings in music forever to that fucker, has been totally taken advantage of.

John Malm had a job to do, for which he was paid: look after Trent Reznor's business interests. If he didn't do that properly, then Trent has grounds to call him onto the carpet. His drug addiction is immaterial.

I hope justice is served.

Posted by: Dierdre | May 24, 2005 6:36:59 AM

Blow it out your ass Sebastian. We all have done the whole, "I've dabbled in law studies, metaphysical insight, had my own business, traveled the world, and am God's fucking gift to you all trip". Get the fuck over it. Regardless of the legality being right or wrong here, we're talking about the people here, not your would-be-yuppie propaganda. Go put on a tie and join your brothers in the rat race.

Posted by: Tormented_Soul_3 | May 24, 2005 6:09:20 PM

A myriad of personal attacks only goes to show that you have no rational arguement against me - beyond that said, I won't even respond to your ad hominum.

As far as the other stuff:
Drug addiction is not an illness. Decades of science tell human kind that when you do cocaine, abuse alcohol, etc, you're going to fuck your life up. No one forced Trent to take drugs or drink - he made that decision and unless he's been living in a jungle for the past 40 years, he knew that it would be a downward spiral. When one sacrifices his mind and capacity to think, one sacrifices his abillity to interact rationally with the world. And when one makes stupid decisions, one will suffer the consequences. Trent's decisions from the get-go were stupid, and these are his consequences - I have no compassion for an idiot that had the world at his fingertips and threw it all away. Ultimately we are all responsible for our own actions and being a rockstar doesn't give you a free ticket to do what ever you want.

Trent acted like an idiot - Trent paid the price. Case closed.

Posted by: Sebastian Tramani | May 24, 2005 9:13:41 PM

Actually, decades of science tell us that the potential for illnesses like dpression and addiction are genetically inherited traits, and that addiction is most definitely a disease. Your argument is about the same as saying that a woman in a short skirt is asking for rape, or that a child who's naive enough to get into a car with a stranger deserves to be molested. It's bullshit.

There's a lot more to this lawsuit than you know, Mr. Tramani. Suffice it to say that case is far from closed.

Posted by: CLeviS | May 24, 2005 11:02:33 PM

Thanks Clevis, for your sensible reactions. Of course from the rest of Mr. Tramani's blog you can tell that he's a hypocritical, mildly misogynistic individual.

And yes, Sebastian, I know I just linked to your blog from WTC (HAHA, joke's on me) but this isn't a personal attack; just my take on contextualizing your opinions, and rather insulting/demeaning/condescending attacks. I would also venture that you know little about what constitutes someone acting as somebody else's "representative".

Posted by: Gabriel | May 24, 2005 11:08:47 PM

Actually, my argument is more like saying that a woman who wears a short skirt and no panties with her pussy hanging out while drunk at a known child molester/rapist/pope's apartment who then also signs a *consent* form giving 20% of her sexual time to the rapist and also surrendering the rights of her name deserves to get raped. However, like Trent, she consented.

And as far as addiction being an illness: bullshit. You can't become addicted to heroin if you never shoot heroin - you can't become addicted to crack if you never smoke it (granted, except in certain circumstances such as babies who were exposed to drugs while the mother was pregnant).

And there is no consensus among the scientific community that drug addiction is an illness uncontrollable. And even alcoholism doesn’t cause one to drink, it only makes one more susceptible to being dependant and even still does not exclude you from dealing with the consequences of your actions.

The flu is an illness – AIDS – cancer – SARS. Not drug addiction. Not something that you can control. Addiction is a consequence of *choosing* to do drugs. And although one doesn’t directly choose to be an addict, one necessarily indirectly chooses it for the aforementioned reason.

Trent *chose* to do drugs. He *chose* to surrender his capacity to think. When he lost control it was his own fault for getting himself in that situation to begin with. He acted irresponsibly by his own volition.

Calling it an illness is just a ridiculous attempt to deny responsibility for ones choices.

Just like when I get shitfaced and do stupid shit - do I earn a free pass because I choose to get drunk? Fuck no. I may not know what I'm doing, but I certainly don't try to escape the consequences the next day. And nor can Trent escape the consequences of his stupidity.

Luckily, the law does not protect drug users from doing stupid shit and it certainly doesn't reward them when they fuck up.

Now, as far as what has been said about me: although it's *completely* irrelevant to this discussion, I will comment since it was said in a factual way, as opposed to blind name calling.

Misogynistic? I judge everyone by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin nor the sexual organs they possess. And thus, there are some women that I hate passionately, and there are some men that I hate just the same. I have nothing against anyone until I've had a chance to judge each individual for what they are worth.

Hypocritical? I'm not exactly sure to what you're referring. If you're saying that I'm a hypocrite because I get drunk all the time and I'm attacking Trent, you're missing the point. I'm not attacking Trent for doing drugs; I'm attacking him for doing drugs and trying to evade the consequences. I have nothing against drinking and doing drugs as long as you retain your sense of reality and don't try and escape your own idiocy.

If you're referring to something else, I'm not sure what.

And as far as my blog goes, please keep in mind that most of it is highly exaggerated for the sake of story telling.

As far as your venture, I’ll go as far as you say you are completely wrong. I’m about 20 creds away from a JD (which I’ll never get, because I have no desire to work in law) and I own a bar. I know much about both ends of representation.

None the less, me, my life, my choices, etc, are not relveant here. We're talking about TR and Malm. And even if I were a racist, misogonist who strangled little babies for fun - it wouldn't change any of the facts about this case.


Posted by: Sebastian Tramani | May 25, 2005 11:42:11 AM

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Posted by: Gabriel | May 25, 2005 12:13:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.