The Epstein Rewind: Les Wexner Was Always Jeffrey Epstein's Biggest Fan

John Mark Dougan has claimed for years now that he has tapes of Epstein's disgusting friends engaging in disgusting acts. However, besides making the claim time and time again, no videos have ever been produced by Mr. Dougan, who fled to Russia before he could be arrested. Dougan is an ex police officer who says that he was targeted after becoming a whistleblower and that his home was raided in 2016 due to the content on his hard drive. The only problem with Mr. Dougans story is: There is no proof. In this episode we once again take a look at the claims made by Mr. Dougan and see if there is any validity to the claims being made.(commercial at 9:33)to contact me:[email protected] claims he has sex tape of Prince Andrew filmed by Epstein stashed away - and FBI knows about it | The Sun

According to Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn who are the executors for Epstein's estate, the allegations against him are thin and should be tossed from court.The Estate argues that the suit is unconstitutional and that the whole CVA law passed in New York is in itself unconstitutional.Meanwhile Indyke and Kahn are still under the microscope in the Virgin Islands as Denise George decides what she is going to do.Join me as I break it all down.(Commercial at 9:51)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/executors-of-jeffrey-epsteins-estate-say-victims-lawsuit-is-time-barred/

In this look back episode...Les Wexner has yet to really explain his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and he probably thought he never would have to. Unfortunately for him, that is not what happened. In this episode we take a look at how the unsealed deposition came back to haunt Les Wexner.(Commercial at 17:41)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.businessinsider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-deposition-hints-at-jeffrey-epstein-les-wexner-link-2020-10

After much speculation, it has come out that the picture that would be rather embarrassing for Prince Andrew does exist and according to sources, it captures him laughing hysterically during what should have been a serious time of reflection and empathy.(commercial at 7:26)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-andrew-laughed-head-off-27621082

Prince Andrew seems to be concerned with one thing and one thing only: Himself. Even though it should be his mothers time to bask in the shine of her long 70 year reign, Andrew can't find the decency to stop being a problem. In fact, one royal author is calling him a saboteur.(commercial at 7:27)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1615208/queen-news-prince-andrew-duke-of-york-royal-duties-royal-family-update

In today's episode, we fire up the time machine and head back to 2011 where Prince Andrew was reportedly panicking about his relationship with Epstein and what it might mean for him and his position as Trade envoy. According to Ashkenazi at the time, Andrew was scared that he would love his gig. We also see how quick David Cameron and the English government was to jump to Prince Andrew's defense when the rumors began to swirl showing you just how far the enabling and protection for Prince Andrew went up the ladder. (commercial at 11:35)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364248/Prince-Andrew-worried-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-abuse-case-lose-envoy-role.html

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdf

​In the case against Bryan Kohberger, charged with the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, the prosecution has filed a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of the 911 call made on the morning of the incident. The state argues that the recording and transcript of this call are crucial for establishing the timeline of events and providing insight into the immediate reactions and emotional states of the witnesses. They contend that this evidence is not hearsay, as it falls under exceptions to hearsay rules, and is essential for the jury's understanding of why law enforcement was dispatched to the residence on November 13, 2022.The 911 call was placed after one of the victims, Xana Kernodle, was found unresponsive. The prosecution maintains that presenting this call in court will help construct an accurate timeline of the events following the discovery of the victims and shed light on the immediate actions taken by the surviving roommates and other witnesses. They assert that the call's content is relevant and admissible, as it provides context to the initial law enforcement response and the unfolding of the investigation.to contact me:[email protected]:022425-REDACTED-Motion-inLimine-RE-911-Call.pdf