The internet has been going crazy since actor Charlie Sheen confirmed that he is HIV positive. Now it seems that a video has surface of Charlie Sheen performing oral sex on a man and smoking crack cocaine. Check out the story below:
Via Radar Online
The Charlie Sheen HIV scandal is set to explode with the bombshell revelation that he has been caught on video performing oral sex — ON ANOTHER MAN!
RadarOnline.com has viewed a series of outlandish clips as part of our investigation into the controversy engulfing Sheen.
They show the drugged-up former “Two and a Half Men” star smoking a crack cocaine pipe and performing fellatio on a male lover.
In a bombshell world exclusive, Radar can reveal that at least three videos were recorded of the thrice married father-of-five. The clips last about 30 seconds and depict Sheen smiling on cameras as he brazenly indulges in the illegal drug.
Once high, the Tinseltown train-wreck seduces his male companion before pleasuring the individual with a hardcore sex act.
A source told Radar the videos were recorded in Nevada in 2011.
It’s a stunning development at the heart of a deepening scandal engulfing the Hollywood megastar who was once the highest paid actor on television.
The tape was at the center of an explosive “J. Roe v. John Doe” lawsuit that alleged an “A-List celebrity” spread herpes, Radar has learned.
For the first time, Radar can reveal kinky Sheen, 50, was the megastar identified only as someone of “substantial international fame” in explosive litigation that alleged he orchestrated a “nefarious plot” to lure a victim into sex despite having herpes.
According to a $20 million lawsuit, the plaintiff — who, like Sheen, was also not named — met the celebrity in Las Vegas on April 1, 2011.
The “sleaze suit” claimed Sheen “entered into a nefarious plot designed to lure Plaintiff into his luxurious hotel room to serve his prurient desires.”
Sensationally, it was alleged Sheen told the man he had “no venereal diseases.”
At that point, they watched porn and engaged in “mutual oral copulation, mutual self-gratification, rubbing and massaging each other, play-wrestling, licking and (unprotected) intercourse.”
Radar has learned Sheen later settled that case for millions of dollars, according to a source, after he learned he was caught on tape with the man!
As part of the hush money pay off, Sheen secured the original videos and is understood to have ordered them destroyed.
But a bootleg copy exists and was showed to a Radar editor late last week.
“Charlie had his team buy it off the market and settle the lawsuit because he and his camp believed it could destroy his life if it ever got out,” said a source.
“He must be quaking in his boots that it could see the light of day.”
As Radar previously reported, Sheen — who confirmed his HIV status to Matt Lauer last Tuesday — spent more than $1.6 million on sex workers in 2013 alone.
The sex-crazed actor claimed he was diagnosed with the deadly illness in 2011, but as Radar revealed, the dire news did not slow his horndog ways.
According to 2013 financial reports for his production company 9th Step — prepared nearly two years after he says he found out he was infected — he spent $1,629,507 on “friendly entertainment,” believed to be hookers, sex swap escorts and male gigolos.
“Charlie is secretly bisexual,” a source confided to Radar.
“He’s had sex partners of all kind. He’d regularly spent thousands of dollars to sleep with transsexual hookers who he would hire and have them service him at his Mulholland Estate mansion.”
What’s more, Radar has learned Sheen and ex-wife Brooke Mueller had multiple sex partners together in the short time that they were married.
“It’s more twisted than anyone knows or has suspected. It’s crazy.”
The attorney in the lawsuit, Keith Davidson, just contacted Radar and provided the following statement. “The alleged video that you purportedly reviewed has nothing to do with the above referenced lawsuit which was filed and subsequently dismissed more than five years ago,” he said, adding, “Though there was video evidence involved in the aforementioned case, that video evidence did not come close to portraying what you have described. Furthermore there was but one copy of that case related video evidence. That sole copy of the video evidence was irretrievably destroyed.”