Epstein Secrets

withheld by former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik. According to the article, these documents

d be denied since it is 'untimely, unfounded, legally unsupported, and contrary to the evidence adduced at trial'. The article mentioned that it is Raniere's third attempt to get a new trial since he was sentenced to 120 years in prison after he was convicted in 2019 of all charges of sex trafficking, f

was planted by the FBI as he hopes to get a new trial for the sex trafficking crimes he is currently serving 120 years for. The article stated that Raniere said he could prove that the evidence against him was planted, but prosecutors shut down his latest attempt to get a new trial, saying it was 'entir

investigator" Bo Dietl, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik, "white EFTA00137000 shoe attorney" Bobb

to, a former NXIVM spokesman." Parlato asked, "Do you intend to make a statement at your sentencing that you are innocent?" As part of his response, Raniere said, "Yes, I am innocent." He also said during the interview, "There is a horrible injustice here and whether you think I'm the devil or not, the j

investigator" Bo Dietl, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik, "white shoe attorney" Bobby Costello, and

to, a former NXIVM spokesman." Parlato asked, "Do you intend to make a statement at your sentencing that you are innocent?" As part of his response, Raniere said, "Yes, I am innocent." He also said during the interview, "There is a horrible injustice here and whether you think I'm the devil or not, the

1984) 17 United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972) 15 United States v. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1973) 7 United States v. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) 29 United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d

to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt. 622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States v. Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MG

1984) 17 United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972) 15 United States v. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1973) 7 United States v. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) 29 United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d

to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt. 622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States v. Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MG