Epstein Survivors Withdraw Wexner Lawsuit Without Prejudice (9/4/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. A couple of weeks ago we were talking about a lawsuit that was filed by Epstein survivors against Les Wexner. Well, that lawsuit has been withdrawn, not because there's no merit, but because there was a battle over jurisdiction, meaning which venue the lawsuit should be filed within. So this lawsuit has been withdrawn without prejudice. And of course, that's significant because it means it can be refiled. And that's exactly what these survivors are going to do. And how many times have I told you people like Les Wexner, the only thing they can rely on are loopholes and technicalities. Because when it comes to the evidence, when it comes to actually, you know, proving one way or the other, what you're saying, we haven't seen much of that from Mr. Wexner or anybody in Epstein's orbit, if I'm being honest. So today we have an article

1:02from the International Business Times and the headline Epstein abused claimants with draw Wexner Foundation suit without prejudice after a federal venue fight. This article was authored by Rohit David. Eleven Jeffrey Epstein survivors have withdrawn their lawsuit against Les Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and 90's 71st Street Corporation without prejudice after a dispute over federal jurisdiction. And that's a relatively common fight to have. If you're going to bring a lawsuit, it has to be brought in the right jurisdiction. And according to the court, that wasn't the case here. According to the latest court filing, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice on September 1st in the Southern District of New York. The step leaves the claims unadjudicated and does not on its face, bar a later, fresh action. No, of course not. Anytime you have a complaint dismissed without prejudice, you can refile that complaint. Whether that's in a new jurisdiction or with the same jurisdiction, following whatever

2:08rules or guidelines the court gave you, you can refile. And I wholly expect these women to refile this lawsuit. The complaint was filed to New York Supreme Court on March 6th under the city's gender-motivated Violence Protection Act, naming Wexner the Foundation and the company that once held the title to E 71st Street Town Houses later linked to Epstein. And I think that lawsuits against Wexner should be even more prevalent. The problem is he was never investigated, right? So if they never investigated him, there's no file on him. And that makes it a lot harder to prove what these women are saying. But anybody who's followed along knows just how connected Wexner and Epstein were. We're not talking about, you know, kind of friends, maybe friends. We're talking about deep, deep ties. Wexner and the Foundation remove the case to federal court on March 30th, citing diversity jurisdiction. Judge John G. Codal took the matter. A separate action involving

3:13two additional plaintiffs was later consolidated with the case, bringing the combined total to 13. Counsel for Nine East told the court in April that the company had been dissolved for more than a decade and fully wound down. So anything to avoid having to pay out some money. And Wexner, if anybody should be paying out some money. Without Wexner, there's no Epstein. This was a man that was integral to the rise of the monster. Now with that said, we can't put all the blame on Wexner, right? Just another rich scumbag that happened to be along for the ride. But when we're talking about Wexner, we have to remember that according to Virginia, according to Maria, this son of a bitch was involved in the abuse. So we're not talking about just somebody who enabled Jeffrey Epstein. We're not talking about somebody that was just around somebody that came over for a spritzer. We're talking about somebody that was right in the middle of all of it. And without this, dude, the door is that opened.

4:18Would have remained shut. Wexner's lawyers question personal jurisdiction over their Ohio based client, co-rolled the client to hear a dismissal motion until he ruled on remand. And I think that's the right way to go, right from the judge. If it's not the right jurisdiction, it's not the right jurisdiction. So what you do is you dismiss the case without prejudice and give them a crack at it again. And I would be shocked if we didn't see them take another crack. Because there's plenty of evidence here. And I think the evidence when it comes to Les Wexner, and his relationship with Epstein at the very least financially, I don't think there's any dispute. The venue fight turned on whether complete diversity existed. Plaintiffs pressed to send the case back to state court. The dispute sharpened around plaintiff Andrea Sterling, who claimed residents in Tulum, Mexico from August 2025, a change in domicile that could affect

5:18whether the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. Loopholes, technicalities. Eventually, they're going to figure out what the jurisdiction is, where to file it, and that's what they're going to do. But this is all part of the dance, right? All part of the routine. Defense lawyers disputed Sterling's claims to Lume residents, pointing to social media, and professional profiles, that they said continued to list Miami as her residents. Plaintiffs counsel asked on August 19 for concrete evidence challenging the Tulum claim. They filed a second-reman motion two days after receiving a link to the interview. So what they're going to do, whenever somebody files suit, they're going to try and pick apart everything about their person's life. And if there's any kind of in-road, they're going to take it. And I don't blame them for that. When you're in a legal dispute, that's what you do. And it usually comes down to who has more money, right? Who can hire the better private investigator?

6:18Who has the better lawyer? Who can just bleed money and not give a fuck about it? Well, certainly not these women, but less waxner? Huh, he has plenty of money, don't he? On August 31st, 9 East opposed remand and sought limited discovery in Sterling's domicile. Hours later, the plaintiffs lodged a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41A1AI, a corrected version followed on the 1st of September. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that a waxner, enabled Epstein's abuse through financial support, control over finances, and access to the Manhattan mansion. And a lot more, let's be real. If it wasn't for less waxner opening that door, Epstein would have never had that veneer of credibility, and the people that got close to him, I doubt they would have. It all hinged on Wexner, and they knew that Wexner was very powerful, very rich, and they figured that a Wexner would be somebody that would vet the people around them.

7:24And boy, were they in for a shock. The House Oversight Committee is estimated Epstein obtained about 200 million from Wexner's finances over more than 15 years that they worked together. And I've always said that he didn't steal this money. I thought that this was debaked in plan. If you ever get caught, we'll say that you stole from me. That way we have some distance. And I still believe that to this day. Can I prove it? No, but that's my opinion. A 2020 Foundation review said it found no evidence he used that role to commit assaults. A Wexner spokesperson said the complaint, however, fails to state any factual basis for asserting a claim against Mr. Wexner. Oh yeah, there's no factual claims against Wexner. Are these people for real? The problem is there's never been a real investigation. That's the problem. And the reason why is so that people like Wexner later on down the road could say, look, I've never even been investigated. What are you talking about?

8:25And that works with a lot of people who don't know what's going on. They say to themselves, look, this guy was never even investigated. How could this be as wide spread as people make it out to be? And look, that's legitimate. If you don't know what you're talking about, if you never dove deep into the case, I get it. But if you start diving deep, while things start to change, don't they? The same statement said he paid Epstein for wealth management services, sold the house years before the alleged abuse, and had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing. Wexner has not been charged, hasn't even been investigated. An amendment to New York City's law has created a filing window that according to the article's legal sources runs through July 2027, because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs may be able to pursue the claims again, subject to applicable jurisdictional venue and limitation requirements. Well, that's for sure, and they're going to pursue it. I have no doubt about that. The question is, what jurisdiction are they going to try in?

9:31Down in Florida? Maybe, I don't know, Virgin Islands, who the fuck knows? So we'll have to follow along and see what ends up happening. But I have a hard time believing that they're just going to shut their shoulders and move on. Especially considering that there's a lot of evidence that certainly points to Les Wexner as somebody who really, really enabled Jeffrey Epstein. And that's what they're alleging. They're not alleging that Wexner abused them. They're not alleging that Wexner was in the room. What they're saying is that without Wexner and his financial support of Epstein, then none of this could have occurred. And from where I'm sitting here in the peanut gallery, I most certainly agree. So we'll see what happens and we'll see when they refile it if they refile it. And when and if that happens, we'll get that added to the catalog as well. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.