Lawyer for Epstein "victim" threatens to sue me!
“If you publish her name, I’m going to sue you.” This was the threat directed at me by lawyer Perry C. Wander on December 2, 2025.
Lawyers for the self-declared “Epstein Survivors” are in a bit of a panic right now, overcome with non-specific “fears” — which they attribute to their allegedly fearful clients — that excessive transparency and disclosure could soon be forthcoming in relation to the so-called “Epstein Files.” I addressed these purported fears in a letter last week to Judge Richard M. Berman, to whom the lawyers have directed many of their overwrought complaints. (Somewhat surprisingly, Judge Berman emailed me back almost immediately after the letter was sent on Friday evening, saying he would “perhaps” include my letter in the official court docket. Whether he will ultimately include the letter is unknown, but he at least appeared to read it, and gave it enough consideration to write back that he will “perhaps” add it to the docket, after talking it over with colleagues and/or staff.)
The principal issue at present is the 30-day statutory deadline for the release of the “Epstein Files,” which is fast approaching on December 19, 2025. You’d think this would be a joyous occasion for the lawyers and their clients, seeing as they’ve been so loudly clamoring for the urgent release of any and all “Epstein Files.” Finally, you’d think, these righteous lawyers would have achieved their long-sought legislative solution. But you’d be wrong.
Instead, just before Thanksgiving, the newlywed legal juggernaut of Bradley Edwards and Brittany Henderson sent an exasperated letter to Judge Berman, fulminating that it was absolutely unacceptable (bolded and underlined for maximum indignation) that certain records were already being released by the House Oversight Committee, which in their judgment provided utterly intolerable levels of information to the public. (Weirdly, Substack does not allow you to easily underline text in its word processing system, so you’ll just have to use your imagination as to how they formatted their letter, unless you want to click through and read it directly.) Edwards and Henderson further demanded that Judge Berman order the Department of Justice to “consult” with them personally, so that they’d have what would amount to de facto veto power over the release of forthcoming records pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Nowhere was it mentioned that Edwards, Henderson, et al. have an enormous conflict of interest, which is that the dissemination of public records outside their control could very conceivably jeopardize litigation they have recently brought against major financial institutions — namely Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon, the targets of their brand new October 15, 2025 class-action lawsuit, which relies principally on the claims of a Jane Doe client who purports to have been harmed by these banks, insofar as they allegedly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s operation of a “sex-themed cult designed to ensnare vulnerable young women and indoctrinate them into Epstein’s carefully constructed world in which Epstein was their messiah.”
Edwards Henderson, in conjunction with the usual suspects Boies Schiller Flexner, acknowledge that the “injuries” purportedly suffered by “Plaintiff Jane Doe and the Class Members” occurred “while they were adults” in the Southern District of New York.
Among the newly-christened “survivors” who have much to fear, apparently, from a thoroughgoing production of records is Audrey Raimbault, also known as Audrey Semeraro. She is represented by a different lawyer this time, who has only recently gotten in on the action: Perry C. Wander of Beverly Hills, CA. Raimbault, a French national who resides in the United Kingdom, made her public debut as a newly-declared anonymous victim in the Daily Mail on November 29, 2025.
The author of the article, Mark Hookham, posited that she “cannot be named for legal reasons.” Hookham has not replied to my email inquiry requesting that he expound on these “legal reasons” for the secrecy. However, it is helpfully disclosed that Raimbault received a settlement from the Epstein Estate in June 2025, making her one of the most recent known recipients of the still-flowing largesse. (She would’ve had to obtain this payout from an individualized settlement, as the holistic Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program closed in 2021.)
The hook of the article is that decades ago, Raimbault allegedly confided to Prince Andrew, with whom she had a social and/or dating relationship, that Epstein had once behaved “inappropriately towards her” — though the nature of this allegedly “inappropriate behavior” is not specified in the statement provided by the lawyer, Perry C. Wander. Described by the Daily Mail as a “glamorous actress,” a distant LinkedIn profile for Raimbault indeed says that she once attended NYU Film School in the 1990s — though few professional acting credits are apparent. A May 4, 2000 article in the Guardian lists Audrey Raimbault as one of Andrew’s “reported romances,” albeit she is characterized as a “French golfer” rather than an actress. Similarly, a May 3, 2001 article in the Daily Mail lists Audrey Raimbault as “linked with” Andrew, noting that she “was said to have made several trips to London to see him.”
Raimbault’s main credit at present appears to be her self-description as a “visionary entrepreneur who has made significant strides in the wellness, events, and design industries.” Notably, she boasts of having secured “sponsorship for prestigious events” such as the Royal Windsor Cup, a polo tournament which she makes sure to note has been attended by “luminaries such as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.” She now hails herself as the founder of a highly innovative “Neuroscience” fragrance — whatever that means exactly — called EDENISTE, for which she was purportedly named a 2025 winner in “innovation,” under her name Audrey Semeraro, by something called The Fragrance Foundation.
Under her original name, Raimbault appears on at least four “flight logs” related to Epstein’s private air travel, having reportedly flown from Teterboro, NJ to Bedford, MA, and then onto West Palm Beach, FL, on October 14, 1999. For those keeping track, she would have been 22 years old at the time.
Central to the news hook is that Raimbault allegedly told Prince Andrew about Epstein’s bad behavior, which the Daily Mail characterizes as “sexual assault.” However, the Daily Mail notes:
The MoS understands that it is claimed the woman did not explicitly tell the then prince she had been sexually assaulted. Indeed, Mr Wander said ‘she struggled for decades to understand and accept what had happened to her’. He claims, however, that his client did inform Andrew that Epstein had not acted correctly with her.
One curious wrinkle is that the woman is reported to have sent a “supportive message” to Epstein shortly after his arrest in July 2019.
The message is indeed “supportive,” to say the least. In a July 10, 2019 email, Audrey Raimbault exudes to Epstein that he is “the only man on the planet who would never be bad with any women as you love them too much.” She denounces the accusations other women were making against him as “untrue,” and declares: “You would have never done anything wrong to me.” You can read the entire “supportive” email here, courtesy of the House Oversight Committee:
Strangely, lawyer Perry C. Wander asked me to provide him with a copy of the above email, even though he had already made a statement to the Daily Mail wherein he attributed the 2019 email’s ostentatious flattery to a “trauma bond” with Epstein that his client had apparently retained until at least age 42. Wander then piled on the jargon, claiming Epstein “used emotional manipulation, psychological pressure, sexual violence and coercive control to gaslight her into offering support after his arrest, even though this did not accurately reflect how she felt in 2019 when she emailed him.”
“It was hard to accept that she had been victimised,” Wander continued. One can only Wonder if Wander perhaps accelerated this “acceptance” with enticing visions of a generous settlement payout.
Wander has previously sued Russell Simmons and the production company of Cher for various accusations of sexual impropriety. Wander’s lawsuit against Simmons was subsequently dropped.
In his confused correspondence with me, Perry C. Wander expressed a belief that a particular law in the United Kingdom — which prohibits publishing the names of individuals who have been alleged to have had sexual offenses committed against them — is applicable to the United States. “Please govern yourself accordingly,” he warned me. To which I replied with a citation of the First Amendment, which may not exist in the United Kingdom, but thankfully still does exist in the United States. And certainly would not allow for the importation of random speech-stifling laws from abroad. Wander even tried to claim that the state of New Jersey, which he correctly ascertained as my state of residence, had enacted laws modeled on the United Kingdom law, thereby barring me from publishing his client’s name. A curious legal argument, to say the least.
After he threatened to sue me, I placed phone calls and a text message to inquire what statute Perry C. Wander envisaged he would sue me for violating — but he has not responded since last week. Clearly, his aim was to intimidate, by flinging incoherent threats that are totally disconnected from any known legal reality. To the extent there are any prohibitions in the United States against publishing names or identifying information associated with alleged victims of sexual misconduct, none of those prohibitions would apply to my publishing the name Audrey Raimbault.
I did manage to find at least one US statute somewhat reminiscent of the United Kingdom law that is currently in place in the state of South Carolina — a jurisdiction that conveniently has no relevance to the present matter. Not to mention, the law seems facially unconstitutional and ripe for a challenge:
Think about this: South Carolina makes it unlawful to publish the name of a person against whom criminal sexual conduct has been “alleged to have been committed.” But anyone can allege anything! In fact, Nancy Mace, the current Congresswoman from South Carolina who is running for Governor, has made a series of wild allegations about the sexual victimization she claims to have suffered in 2023, as a sitting member of Congress in her 40s. Conceivably, it could be “unlawful” — under the technicalities of this absurd statute — for a “newspaper, magazine, or other publication” to publish the name of Nancy Mace in connection with these allegations, even though Nancy herself has made an elaborate show of publicizing the allegations. In fact, perhaps Nancy could herself be prosecuted for having “caused to be published” her own name.
The South Carolina law has an extreme surfeit of holes in it, and thus could be fairly easily challenged, if anyone had the resources or wherewithal to do so — which is unlikely. But either way, it’s an aberration in the United States.
Where prohibitions do exist in the United States, those laws generally apply to state agents, like officers of a court or law enforcement — not the media. Prohibitions generally cannot be enforced against the media, per the First Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent, including Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975). For that matter, prohibitions cannot generally apply to ordinary private citizens, who are certainly well within their First Amendment rights to speak, publish, or “cause to be published” the name of some individual who is “alleged” to have been the victim of sexual misconduct. After all, anyone can “allege” anything!
So why publish Audrey Raimbault’s name at all? It’s true that for the most part, American media adheres to a custom of not naming alleged victims of sexual misconduct. But this is a generally voluntary self-prohibition. And in this particular case, wholly untenable to maintain. Audrey Raimbault, aka Audrey Semeraro, has never been adjudicated a victim in any known adversarial process, other than through an apparent private settlement with a dead person’s estate, the terms of which are not publicly accessible. She did not conceive of herself as a “victim” circa July 2019, at age 42, and in fact was strikingly resolute in her affirmative defense of Epstein, to the point of proactively sending him an email in which she profusely describes her positive feelings toward him, and her rejection of accusations leveled by other women.
If, if the intervening six years, Audrey Raimbault has come to be included in the “over one thousand” victims who were allegedly “harmed” by Epstein, as asserted by the infamous July 6, 2025 memo of the Department of Justice and FBI, then that’s certainly something the public should be afforded with an opportunity to consider, given the enormous political and legal ramifications. And if her name is going to be redacted in any forthcoming release of “Epstein Files,” as was already partially done by the House Oversight Committee, the public should certainly be apprised of the strange and spurious grounds on which records are evidently being concealed, in contravention of the spirit of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Additionally, if those obtaining enrichment from an enterprise I’ve taken to calling Epstein Survivors, Inc. are going to use brazen tactics to stifle journalistic inquiry — by threatening to sue a journalist for publishing a name that is obtainable entirely by a search of public records — that’s something else that warrants wider public scrutiny. I was able to locate the name Audrey Raimbault through UK corporate filings, documents released by the US Congress, news articles, social media posts, and other readily public methods. (And even if I’d gotten the name through non-public methods, publishing the name would still be wholly protected under the US Constitution.)
Nonetheless, if Perry C. Wander feels he has grounds to sue me for publishing this information, he’s theoretically entitled to do so. The discovery process would certainly be interesting.
You can read my full exchange with Perry C. Wander below, including his bizarre legal analysis, which when questioned by me, escalated into a sequence of bizarre threats: