Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Epstein Survivors Withdraw Wexner Lawsuit Without Prejudice (9/4/26)

Transcript

Epstein Survivors Withdraw Wexner Lawsuit Without Prejudice (9/4/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. A couple of weeks ago, we were talking
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: about a lawsuit that was filed by Epstein survivors against
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Les Wexner. Well, that lawsuit has been withdrawn, not because
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: there's no merit, but because there was a battle over jurisdiction,
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: meaning which venue the lawsuit should be filed within. So
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit has been withdrawn without prejudice. And of course,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: that's significant because it means it can be refiled. And
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: that's exactly what these survivors are going to do. And
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: how many times have I told you, people like Les Wexner,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the only thing they can rely on are loopholes and technicalities.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Because when it comes to the evidence, when it comes
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: to actually, you know, proving one way or the other
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: what you're saying, we haven't seen much of that from Mr.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Wexner or anybody in Epstein's orbit, if I'm being honest.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: So today we have an article from the International Business
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Times and the headline, Epstein Abuse Claimants Withdraw Wexner Foundation
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Suit Without Prejudice After Federal Venue Fight. This article was
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: authored by Rohit David. Eleven Jeffrey Epstein survivors have withdrawn
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: their lawsuit against Leslie Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and Nine
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: East 71st Street Corporation without prejudice after a dispute over
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: federal jurisdiction. And that's a relatively common fight to have.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: If you're going to bring a lawsuit, it has to
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: be brought in the right jurisdiction. And according to the court,
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: that wasn't the case here. According to the latest court filing,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice on September
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: 1st in the Southern District of New York. The step
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: leaves the claims unadjudicated and does not, on its face,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: borrow later fresh action. No, of course not. anytime you
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: have a complaint dismissed without prejudice, you can refile that complaint.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Whether that's in a new jurisdiction or with the same jurisdiction,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: following whatever rules or guidelines the court gave you, you
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: can refile. And I wholly expect these women to refile
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit. The complaint was filed in New York Supreme
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Court on March 6th, under the city's gender-motivated Violence Protection Act,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: naming Wexner the foundation and the company that once held
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: the title to East 71st Street townhouses later linked to Epstein.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: And I think that lawsuits against Wexner should be even
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: more prevalent. The problem is he was never investigated, right?
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: So if they never investigated him, there's no file on him.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: And that makes it a lot harder to prove what
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: these women are saying. But anybody who's followed along knows
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: just how connected Wexner and Epstein were. We're not talking about,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: you know, kind of friends, maybe friends. We're talking about deep,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: deep ties. Wexner and the foundation removed the case to
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: federal court on March 30th, citing diversity jurisdiction. Judge John G.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Cottle took the matter. A separate action involving two additional
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs was later consolidated with the case, bringing the combined
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: total to 13. Counsel for Nine East told the court
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: in April that the company had been dissolved for more
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: than a decade and fully wound down. So anything to
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: avoid having to pay out some money. And Wexner, if anybody,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: should be paying out some money. Without Wexner, there is
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: no Epstein. This was a man that was integral to
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: the rise of the monster. Now with that said, we
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: can't put all the blame on Wexner, right? Just another
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: rich scumbag. that happened to be along for the ride.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: But when we're talking about Wexner, we have to remember
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: that according to Virginia, according to Maria, this son of
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: a bitch was involved in the abuse. So we're not
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: talking about just somebody who enabled Jeffrey Epstein. We're not
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: talking about somebody that was just around, somebody that came
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: over for a spritzer. We're talking about somebody that was
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: right in the middle of all of it. And without
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: this dude, the doors that opened would have remained shut.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Wexner's lawyers questioned personal jurisdiction over their Ohio-based client. Kodal
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: declined to hear a dismissal motion until he ruled on remand.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: And I think that's the right way to go, right,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: from the judge? If it's not the right jurisdiction, it's
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: not the right jurisdiction. So what you do is you
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: dismiss the case without prejudice and give them a crack
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: at it again. And I would be shocked if we
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: didn't see them take another crack. Because there's plenty of
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: evidence here. And I think the evidence, when it comes
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: to Les Wexner and his relationship with Epstein at the
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: very least financially, I don't think there's any dispute. The
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: venue fight turned on whether complete diversity existed. Plaintiffs pressed
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: to send the case back to state court. The dispute
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: sharpened around plaintiff Andrea Sterling, who claimed residence in Tulum,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Mexico from August 2025, a change in domicile that could
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: affect whether the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. Loopholes, technicalities.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: Eventually they're going to figure out what the jurisdiction is,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: where to file it, and that's what they're going to do.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: But this is all part of the dance, right? All
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: part of the routine. Defense lawyers disputed Sterling's claims Tulum
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: residents pointing to social media and professional profiles that they
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: said continued to list Miami as her residence. Plaintiff's counsel
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: asked on August 19th for concrete evidence challenging the Tulum claim.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: They filed the second remand motion two days after receiving
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: a link to the interview. So what they're going to
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: do whenever somebody files suit, they're going to try and
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: pick apart everything about that person's life. And if there's
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: any kind of inroad, they're going to take it. And
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: I don't blame them for that. When you're in a
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: legal dispute, that's what you do. And it usually comes
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: down to who has more money, right? Who can hire
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the better private investigator? Who has the better lawyer? Who
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: can just bleed money and not give a fuck about it? Well,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: certainly not these women. But Les Wexner? Huh, he has
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: plenty of money, don't he? On August 31st, Nine East
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: opposed remand and sought limited discovery into Sterling's domicile. Hours later,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs lodged a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41A-1A-I.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: A corrected version followed on the 1st of September. According
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: to the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Wexner enabled Epstein's
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: abuse through financial support, control over finances, and access to
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the Manhattan mansion, and a lot more. Let's be real.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: If it wasn't for Les Wexner opening that door, Epstein
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: would have never had that veneer of credibility, and the
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: people that got close to him, I doubt they would have.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: It all hinged on Wexner, and they knew that Wexner
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: was very powerful, very rich, and they figured that Wexner...
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: would be somebody that would vet the people around him.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: And boy, were they in for a shock. The House
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Oversight Committee has estimated Epstein obtained about $ 200 million from
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: Wexler's finances over more than 15 years that they worked together.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: And I've always said that he didn't steal this money.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: I thought that this was the baked-in plan. If you
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: ever get caught, we'll say that you stole from me.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: That way we have some distance. And I still believe
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: that to this day. Can I prove it? No. But
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: that's my opinion. A 2020 Foundation review said it found
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: no evidence he used that role to commit assaults. A
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: Wexner spokesperson said the complaint, however, fails to state any
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: factual basis for asserting a claim against Mr. Wexner. Oh yeah,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: there's no factual claims against Wexner. Are these people for real?
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: The problem is, there's never been a real investigation. That's
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: the problem. And the reason why is so that people
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: like Wexner later on down the road... could say, look,
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: I've never even been investigated. What are you talking about?
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: And that works with a lot of people who don't
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: know what's going on. They say to themselves, look, this
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: guy was never even investigated. How could this be as
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: widespread as people make it out to be? And look,
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: that's legitimate if you don't know what you're talking about.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: If you never dove deep into the case, I get it.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: But if you start diving deep, well, things start to change,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: don't they? The same statement said he paid Epstein for
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: wealth management services, sold the house years before the alleged abuse,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: and had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing. Wexner has not
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: been charged, hasn't even been investigated. An amendment to New
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: York City's law has created a filing window that, according
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: to the article's legal sources, runs through July 2027. Because
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: the dismissal was without prejudice... The plaintiffs may be able
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: to pursue the claims again, subject to applicable jurisdictional venue
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: and limitation requirements. Well, that's for sure. And they're going
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: to pursue it. I have no doubt about that. The
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: question is, what jurisdiction are they going to try in?
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Down in Florida? Maybe, I don't know, Virgin Islands? Who
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: the fuck knows? So we'll have to follow along and
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: see what ends up happening. But I have a hard
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: time believing that they're just going to shrug their shoulders
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: and move on. especially considering that there's a lot of
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: evidence that certainly points to Les Wexner as somebody who really,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: really enabled Jeffrey Epstein. And that's what they're alleging. They're
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: not alleging that Wexner abused them. They're not alleging that
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Wexner was in the room. What they're saying is that
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: without Wexner and his financial support of Epstein, then none
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: of this could have occurred. And from where I'm sitting,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: here in the peanut gallery, I most certainly agree. So
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: we'll see what happens, and we'll see when they refile it,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: if they refile it, and when and if that happens.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: We'll get that added to the catalog as well. All
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: in the description box.