New GOP Congressman's entire resume is faked

[The Dog 43816]

 

[Mdhorn 5911]

Let's see how the Christians feel about openly lying to the electorate? But what about that Ten Commandments thingy?   They're good with it as long as they pick up a seat?  Well then, congrats on your new position representing Christians in the Republican Party--the party of faith and values.  

Edited January 11, 2023 by Mdhorn

[Sawbonz 27443]

On 1/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, Covri said:

White supremacist when they see the gay Jewish Brazilian representative from New York doing their sign.

 

 

I think it’s time to realize that it’s not about race anymore except to a shrinking minority it’s “christian”nationalism

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Sawbonz
“Christian”

[TexArcher 37531]

17 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Let's see how the Christians feel about openly lying to the electorate? But what about that Ten Commandments thingy?   They're good with it as long as they pick up a seat?  Well then, congrats on your new position representing Christians in the Republican Party--the party of faith and values.  

I'm fairly sure most Christians don't even know that he lied about everything.

Has this even been discussed on Fox News?

He's probably the gay, Latino conservative victim of a liberal smear campaign, right?

[TexasHooch 5117]

19 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Let's see how the Christians feel about openly lying to the electorate? But what about that Ten Commandments thingy?   They're good with it as long as they pick up a seat?  Well then, congrats on your new position representing Christians in the Republican Party--the party of faith and values.  

Unfortunately, this is too easily reconciled via whataboutism  ("All Politicians lie", "What about Pocahontas Warren?", "Biden has been lying for decades." etc.)  They don't even make it to that moral dilemma/ contradiction you state.

This level of lying (fraud) is obviously different.  Way different. But until there's an indictment, the elected GOP in government will continue to ignore it, and their constituents will continue to shrug it off and deflect.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13416]

Given that McCarthy won the Speaker role with one vote, or one present vote, Santos ain't going.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33844]

at least they're putting pressure on him instead of ignoring it, like EVERYTHING they do. I bet he resigns. That seat is too valuable to belong to someone no one will work with and will not get a single committee assignment. no idea what his future is, but it's not in politics anymore.

[SydneyCarton 47896]

28 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

at least they're putting pressure on him instead of ignoring it, like EVERYTHING they do. I bet he resigns. That seat is too valuable to belong to someone no one will work with and will not get a single committee assignment. no idea what his future is, but it's not in politics anymore.

Disagree with this entirely. What I think you fail to understand is, this guy has zero incentive to resign. None. Current Republicans in the house have zero incentive to force him to resign, whether they give him committee seats or not. They have zero incentive to send this back to a special election in a Biden district. Furthermore, there are plenty of recent modern examples of folks weathering various storms and surviving. But the second that guy resigns, he is a pariah in every aspect of life and society. His prospects are done. But there's a chance he can hold on here and eek out an existence, and remain in  Congress. 

If you're George Santos, a now documented pathological liar, a criminal, and a running joke, what is your incentive to resigning from office? His fucking moral code? His conscience? His concern over his constituency? Seriously, walk us down that path. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[Mdhorn 5911]

16 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

at least they're putting pressure on him instead of ignoring it, like EVERYTHING they do. I bet he resigns. That seat is too valuable to belong to someone no one will work with and will not get a single committee assignment. no idea what his future is, but it's not in politics anymore.

He won't resign, or stop putting out white power signals.  I agree with the sentiment but will file it under wishful thinking.  Unfortunately, White Power is politics and has been for awhile--only now, they're openly spewing about it.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 5911]

1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

Unfortunately, this is too easily reconciled via whataboutism  ("All Politicians lie", "What about Pocahontas Warren?", "Biden has been lying for decades." etc.)  They don't even make it to that moral dilemma/ contradiction you state.

This level of lying (fraud) is obviously different.  Way different. But until there's an indictment, the elected GOP in government will continue to ignore it, and their constituents will continue to shrug it off and deflect.

Warren didn't lie--she really believed she had native american blood.  My ancestry dna says I'm 10% Bantu, but I can't check boxes as African American, especially when I'm Conan O'Brian pasty white. She's fighting for their rights and liberties and they don't care, which is a special kind of stupid. 

But Santos should be held accountable, along with the GOP religiosity.  Both should be contested publicly constantly--so that the public understands where religion stands and their hypocrisy.  That's not a way to grow your flock, and the young see it for what it is. And the GOP should have to defend their position, which is, when we need a seat, religion can get fucked.    

[The Dog 43816]

 

[Bullneck 18997]

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33844]

who's buying me a steak dinner when that motherfucker resigns?

[TexasHooch 5117]

18 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Warren didn't lie--she really believed she had native american blood.  My ancestry dna says I'm 10% Bantu, but I can't check boxes as African American, especially when I'm Conan O'Brian pasty white. She's fighting for their rights and liberties and they don't care, which is a special kind of stupid. 

But Santos should be held accountable, along with the GOP religiosity.  Both should be contested publicly constantly--so that the public understands where religion stands and their hypocrisy.  That's not a way to grow your flock, and the young see it for what it is. And the GOP should have to defend their position, which is, when we need a seat, religion can get fucked.    

I didn't state that Warren lied as my opinion or as fact.  I was only suggesting that it is the narrative from the GQP.  Here's the result of a 10 second (as long as I could stomach) scan on the FOX News comment section that I just now did:

 

Trust me, there are no shortage of similar comments.  Doesn't make them true, but it doesn't matter.  Whataboutism is a powerful force to the woefully stupid.

 

As for the idea that Christian voters should hold him accountable due to the incompatibility of lying and the teaching of the bible, you're right- they should. I'm sure they'll get around to it as soon as they're done punishing GOP politicians' views on capital punishment, adultery, and caring for the poor.

['stache 21777]

32 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Warren didn't lie--she really believed she had native american blood.  My ancestry dna says I'm 10% Bantu, but I can't check boxes as African American, especially when I'm Conan O'Brian pasty white. She's fighting for their rights and liberties and they don't care, which is a special kind of stupid. 

But Santos should be held accountable, along with the GOP religiosity.  Both should be contested publicly constantly--so that the public understands where religion stands and their hypocrisy.  That's not a way to grow your flock, and the young see it for what it is. And the GOP should have to defend their position, which is, when we need a seat, religion can get fucked.    

Warren was born in Oklahoma, every white person from here is told that they have a native ancestor somewhere along the line, and in many cases its true. The joke around here is "Was your Grandmother really a Cherokee Princess?" There is a complete misunderstanding out there of the difference between having a native ancestor and being a member of an Indian tribe. Both are relevant, but are two different things. It's fine for people who have some native ancestors to be proud of it and to even report it on self-identity forms. It's only fraud if you claim tribal citizenship when you haven't been acknowledged or placed on the rolls of a tribal government. Not to mention that the federal government really fucked around with the Natives such that there are people who are very clearly native, even full blooded, raised culturally, speak the language, but are not tribal citizens because their ancestors either refused to be placed on the Dawes Rolls or otherwise missed the opportunity. Meanwhile, pasty white Governor Kevin Stitt, who has waged full-on war with the tribes, and Markwayne Mullin, who referred to the Trail of Tears as a "voluntary relocation," are card carrying Cherokee citizens because they had a documented ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. Not that any of it matters to the gqp cultists.  

Edited January 11, 2023 by 'stache

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

Al Franken was forced to resign for posing for a stupid photo years ago.  Matt Gaetz is allowed to continue to stay around and fuck things up even while he's under investigation for sex trafficking.  Santos lied about every single fucking thing on his resume, took money from foreigners etc...   and will get to hang around.

 

[SydneyCarton 47896]

14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who's buying me a steak dinner when that motherfucker resigns?

I hope you're right. But what I want is for you to walk me down your rationale for WHY you think he would resign, or why you think it's in his best interest to resign. 

[Satchel 6908]

10 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Al Franken was forced to resign for posing for a stupid photo years ago.  Matt Gaetz is allowed to continue to stay around and fuck things up even while he's under investigation for sex trafficking.  Santos lied about every single fucking thing on his resume, took money from foreigners etc...   and will get to hang around.

 

Yeah, well, stop weaponizing the government against the good congressmen.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

3 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

Lol.  Why should they field someone credible?  The democrats gave this one away.  Zero oppo research?  And let’s not act like the Democrats lack for resources in NY.  Embarrassing 

[elfenix 34182]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Zero oppo research?

i posted a fairly large dossier of oppo research somewhere upthread.  democrats are just incompetent at using it, apparently. 

 

can't wait for when the lump runs for senate and we all know she's a lying attention whore and none of us uses it. 

[Js1 85127]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i posted a fairly large dossier of oppo research somewhere upthread.  democrats are just incompetent at using it, apparently. 

 

can't wait for when the lump runs for senate and we all know she's a lying attention whore and none of us uses it. 

DCCC did the research and distributed it.  The Dem candidate fucked up.

[TexasHooch 5117]

Santos has been evicted from New York City apartments on 3 separate occasions. Anyone who thinks that he's not going to squat in a washington congressional office until forcibly removed is just flat wrong, I'm afraid.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13416]

I'm unsure I really believe the local parties or Santos' fellow NY Republicans who are asking him to resign. They get credit for saying it, but it could also be that they're just sick of being asked the question about Santos.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

DCCC did the research and distributed it.  The Dem candidate fucked up.

Sorry but you take that straight to the press.  You don’t give it to the candidate and hope for the best.  Especially after you see none of it has come out.  The press would absolutely have eaten this shit up.  

[TexasHooch 5117]

10 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Sorry but you take that straight to the press.  You don’t give it to the candidate and hope for the best.  Especially after you see none of it has come out.  The press would absolutely have eaten this shit up.  

The local newspaper North Shore Leader discovered it and reported on it months ago.  It was ignored.

Here's a short (5 minutes) interview with the publisher.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/01/05/north-shore-leader-george-santos

Edited January 11, 2023 by TexasHooch

[Biff Tannen 45500]

44 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who's buying me a steak dinner when that motherfucker resigns?

 

13 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Santos has been evicted from New York City apartments on 3 separate occasions. Anyone who thinks that he's not going to squat in a washington congressional office until forcibly removed is just flat wrong, I'm afraid.

well that doesn't seem like he's heading in the right direction

[TexasHooch 5117]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

well that doesn't seem like he's heading in the right direction

Oh he's very much going in the opposite direction.

 

[Js1 85127]

1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

The local newspaper North Shore Leader discovered it and reported on it months ago.  It was ignored.

 

The DCCC was also coordinating and supporting 400+ campaigns.  At some point, the actual candidate running has to use what the DCCC staff found for them. It's even worse if the local media found it, reported on it and the national media ignored it.

And like it would be a surprise someone like the NYT would ignore it because it would conflict with the INFLATION AND CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!111 headlines 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33844]

31 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I hope you're right. But what I want is for you to walk me down your rationale for WHY you think he would resign, or why you think it's in his best interest to resign. 

nothing, other than for me personally 2023 is the year I manifest positivity. so old LF68 is gonna be a sunshine pumping motherfucker this year. buckle up!

[TexasHooch 5117]

HaHaHaHa

[SydneyCarton 47896]

11 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Oh he's very much going in the opposite direction.

 

THat's how he'll win over the republican base. 

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

nothing, other than for me personally 2023 is the year I manifest positivity. so old LF68 is gonna be a sunshine pumping motherfucker this year. buckle up!

Good luck on your journey, sir. 

[elfenix 34182]

I think it’s time to realize that it’s not about race anymore except to a shrinking minority it’s “christian”nationalism
 

The history of white supremacy thru this country's history has been to expand the boundary of white from wasp to include Southern Europeans, Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc. This process is done to ensure that the white supremacy voting bloc outweighs the black voting bloc. So it's not at all surprising that it continues to expand. And let's not forget that Latin America has this same process and proclivities, with people of high amounts of European ancestry on top of the pile.

[Francisco 2.0 32346]

 

And for you fine folk that don't want to click on a Twitter link:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[The Dog 43816]

 

[Sawbonz 27443]

18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I think it’s time to realize that it’s not about race anymore except to a shrinking minority it’s “christian”nationalism
 

The history of white supremacy thru this country's history has been to expand the boundary of white from wasp to include Southern Europeans, Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc. This process is done to ensure that the white supremacy voting bloc outweighs the black voting bloc. So it's not at all surprising that it continues to expand. And let's not forget that Latin America has this same process and proclivities, with people of high amounts of European ancestry on top of the pile.

So not white supremacy 

[atomheartbevo 89457]

7 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Waiiit. Do NY Republicans actually have ethics and morals?

Is this that hard GOP? All you've got to do is call a spade a spade... something that's seemingly been forgotten over the past six years.

6 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

I think that the Nassau GOP sees the writing on the wall and they want to preserve a chance in hell at electing a republican behind him.  They won't have that if they're seen as protecting him now.

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm unsure I really believe the local parties or Santos' fellow NY Republicans who are asking him to resign. They get credit for saying it, but it could also be that they're just sick of being asked the question about Santos.

Me thinks the NY Republicans finally got around to investigating his background and found it was actually worse than what's being reported, and they want him gone, even if it costs them a seat in the short term.

Otherwise, they'd remain silent and push out some bullshit about "the voters of NY03 can decide if they want to reelect him or not."

[atomheartbevo 89457]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Warren was born in Oklahoma, every white person from here is told that they have a native ancestor somewhere along the line, and in many cases its true. The joke around here is "Was your Grandmother really a Cherokee Princess?" There is a complete misunderstanding out there of the difference between having a native ancestor and being a member of an Indian tribe. Both are relevant, but are two different things. It's fine for people who have some native ancestors to be proud of it and to even report it on self-identity forms. It's only fraud if you claim tribal citizenship when you haven't been acknowledged or placed on the rolls of a tribal government. Not to mention that the federal government really fucked around with the Natives such that there are people who are very clearly native, even full blooded, raised culturally, speak the language, but are not tribal citizens because their ancestors either refused to be placed on the Dawes Rolls or otherwise missed the opportunity. Meanwhile, pasty white Governor Kevin Stitt, who has waged full-on war with the tribes, and Markwayne Mullin, who referred to the Trail of Tears as a "voluntary relocation," are card carrying Cherokee citizens because they had a documented ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. Not that any of it matters to the gqp cultists.  

1234, listen to this man.  I'm a card-carrying member of the Cherokee Nation, but quite a few of my ancestors who should have been on the Dawes Rolls weren't (including wanting to be considered white, but also bogus reasons when you read the rejection notices/letters), while a handful made it on who probably shouldn't have.

I do a lot of genealogy research on the side for people, and a lot of its focused on Oklahoma/Arkansas/NE Texas, and many of the Okies that tell me they had some kind of ancestry that should qualify them for some kind of tribal membership because of stories that were passed down, don't have the documented ancestry to match (and some are disappointed to learn that even if they were, they aren't getting any casino money outside of a few small grants for college/school).  

BUT, quite a few Okies I've worked with had ancestors who were on the Dawes Rolls and eligible for membership, and they didn't even know it, or had some DNA results show up that had Native American ancestry (DNA can't tell you a particular tribe for the most), again, probably because at some point a great-grandparent wanted to pass for white for one reason or another (there was some bloody factionalism going on).  A check of census and other records (occasional hospital records, mostly church and local records) will show them at some point for who they were, or who they were pretending to be.

And that's not even getting into the fact that one deliberate outcome of the land allotments was to break up political power among the various tribes/groups, by stringing their members out all over the place, rather than giving out land allotments in such a way as to to keep families and extended groups together (which would have impacted local politics). You can see it when you the local newspapers from the 1900s-1910s.

Edited January 12, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89457]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

The history of white supremacy thru this country's history has been to expand the boundary of white from wasp to include Southern Europeans, Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc. This process is done to ensure that the white supremacy voting bloc outweighs the black voting bloc. So it's not at all surprising that it continues to expand. And let's not forget that Latin America has this same process and proclivities, with people of high amounts of European ancestry on top of the pile.

[atomheartbevo 89457]

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

The history of white supremacy thru this country's history has been to expand the boundary of white from wasp to include Southern Europeans, Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc. This process is done to ensure that the white supremacy voting bloc outweighs the black voting bloc. So it's not at all surprising that it continues to expand. And let's not forget that Latin America has this same process and proclivities, with people of high amounts of European ancestry on top of the pile.

There is most definitely white supremacists in Brazil, but in general there fascists are more inclusive (lulz). And despite what folks think, most of the Germans and Italians that immigrated to Brazil did so before the Second World War.

[Beau Vine 54008]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

5 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I think it’s time to realize that it’s not about race anymore except to a shrinking minority it’s “christian”nationalism
 

The history of white supremacy thru this country's history has been to expand the boundary of white from wasp to include Southern Europeans, Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc.  

[pantone159 714]

43 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Me thinks the NY Republicans finally got around to investigating his background and found it was actually worse than what's being reported, and they want him gone, even if it costs them a seat in the short term.

The part of his background to figure out is who financed Santos. Both his campaign, and also how he improved his personal finances in the past couple of years, with no obvious job skills or initial connections to do that.

[SimonBolivar 10937]

3 minutes ago, pantone159 said:

The part of his background to figure out is who financed Santos. Both his campaign, and also how he improved his personal finances in the past couple of years, with no obvious job skills or initial connections to do that.

Apparently random Italian smugglers for some reason 

[Old Freak Nasty 818]

If I was being cynical, the thin majority affords Santos a lot more teflon than appears.  He could communicate to Kevin that he'll resign, thus handing over the seat to Democrats, if he doesn't get something in return.  Not sure what the ask can be but we already know McCarthy has no backbone.

[HamsterHookah 112]

4 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Al Franken was forced to resign for posing for a stupid photo years ago.  Matt Gaetz is allowed to continue to stay around and fuck things up even while he's under investigation for sex trafficking.  Santos lied about every single fucking thing on his resume, took money from foreigners etc...   and will get to hang around.

 

All he did was pose for a stupid photo, is where the revisionist history and whitewashing has found this, in 2023?

To the point, Santos is an idiot and should resign but he’s clearly shameless. He is a drop out who claimed he was top 1% of his class. That’s not even clever or smart dishonesty. It’s pathological.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

All he did was pose for a stupid photo, is where the revisionist history and whitewashing has found this, in 2023?
To the point, Santos is an idiot and should resign but he’s clearly shameless. He is a drop out who claimed he was top 1% of his class. That’s not even clever or smart dishonesty. It’s pathological.

So you think that Senhor Santos should resign congress because his peers want him to leave?

[Biff Tannen 45500]

Am I wrong in thinking this whole thing seems like kinda small potatoes in the scheme of things for Republicans in the year of 2023?  I mean, I'm kinda surprised this hasn't happened way earlier and multiple times.  Dotard's entire "resume" is basically a lie too and no one seems to care on that side of the aisle.

[atomheartbevo 89457]

1 hour ago, pantone159 said:

The part of his background to figure out is who financed Santos. Both his campaign, and also how he improved his personal finances in the past couple of years, with no obvious job skills or initial connections to do that.

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Apparently random Italian smugglers for some reason 

I'm thinking the random Italian criminal was just the tip, and I do think it's probably related to his finances.  Whether that's mafia or more Eastern European (who smuggle goods/money through Italy/Mediterranean , who knows, but the local and state GOP coming out like this is a sign that something caught their interest and worried them

47 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

If I was being cynical, the thin majority affords Santos a lot more teflon than appears.  He could communicate to Kevin that he'll resign, thus handing over the seat to Democrats, if he doesn't get something in return.  Not sure what the ask can be but we already know McCarthy has no backbone.

He's already being investigated by one or more D.A.s, and McCarthy can't protect him from that.

[Bullneck 18997]

5 hours ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

Quote

08-12-2013 - ROCCO OPPEDISANO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

For Petitioner: Jeffrey C. Hoffman, Esq. Susan C. Wolfe, Esq. Hoffman Pollok LLP For Respondent: Sean C. Flynn, Esq. United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York

Spoilered for longcat:

Spoiler

BACKGROUND

In 2008, Petitioner was investigated in connection with suspected insurance fraud involving a yacht. (Pet. at 14-15.) Consequently, Postal Inspector Carl Vaccariello signed a search warrant application for the search of several addresses,  including an apartment at 1 Bay Club Drive, Apartment 11F, Bayside, New York ("the Bay Club Apartment"). (Pet. at 14.) Although all of Petitioner's mail was sent to his parents' house at 7-32 Crescent Road, Whitestone, New York, which was also subject to the search warrant, "repeated surveillance . . . reveal[ed] that [Petitioner], in fact, reside[d] at [the Bay Club Apartment]." (4/6/09 Search Warrant, Ex. A of Docket Entry 7-1, at 12.) Further, Mr. Vaccariello stated that, according to his experience, individuals involved in financial and insurance fraud "frequently maintain [evidence] in their possession . . . for substantial periods of time." (4/6/09 Search Warrant at 13.) Thus, Magistrate Judge Michael L. Orenstein found that there was probable cause to search the listed addresses, including the Bay Club Apartment, and approved the application. (4/6/09 Search Warrant.)

Page numbers are taken from the Electronic Case Filing system.

Upon execution of the search warrant at the Bay Club Apartment on April 7, 2009, officers discovered white powder and ammunition in a credenza. (Pet. at 16.) The initial search warrant related only to the insurance fraud investigation, however. Thus, the Government sought, and obtained, a second search warrant authorizing it to seize the ammunition and powder. (Pet. at 16.) While executing the second warrant on April 7, 2009, police seized eighty-three .22 caliber bullets  and a white powder that tested positive for cocaine. (Tr. at 255; Pet. at 16.)

Before trial, Petitioner's counsel moved to controvert the second warrant, but not the first. (Pet. at 16.) The Court then held a trial on one count of Felon-In-Possession (pertaining to the ammunition) and one count for Possession of Cocaine. (Pet. at 17.) As part of that case, counsel stipulated to the prior felony element of the felon-in-possession count. (12/6/10 Stipulation, Ex. C of Docket Entry 7-1.) Additionally, during his opening statement, counsel mentioned that Petitioner was the subject of an insurance fraud investigation, setting the stage for the defense that the Government, frustrated by a lengthy, and thus far unsuccessful investigation into Petitioner's suspected involvement in an insurance fraud scheme, intentionally placed the ammunition and cocaine in the Bay Club Apartment. (Pet. at 17-18.) Petitioner now argues that these actions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and infected his trial. (Pet. at 16-18.)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner maintains that his trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment, entitling him to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court will first discuss the applicable standard of review before addressing the merits of Petitioner's claims. 

I. Standard of Review

Section 2255 provides that "nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). "A defendant seeking a hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 'need establish only that he has a plausible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, not that he will necessarily succeed on the claim.'" Raysor v. United States, 647 F.3d 491, 494 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Puglisi v. United States, 586 F.3d 209, 213 (2d Cir. 2009)).

"The procedure for determining whether a hearing is necessary is in part analogous to . . . a summary judgment proceeding." Puglisi, 586 F.3d at 213. Further, "f material facts are in dispute, a hearing should usually be held, and relevant findings of facts made." Id. at 213. "Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact depends upon the sufficiency of th[e] factual allegations" in the Petition, and "[a]iry generalities, conclusory assertions and hearsay statements will not suffice because none of these would be admissible evidence at a hearing." United States v. Aiello, 814 F.2d 109, 113-14 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, "[t]he petitioner must set forth specific facts which he is in a position to establish by  competent evidence." LoCascio v. United States, 395 F.3d 51, 57 (2d Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

"It is within the district court's discretion to determine whether a hearing is warranted." Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, the Second Circuit has held that if the judge who presided over the underlying criminal proceeding also presides over the Section 2255 motion, which is the case here, "a full-blown evidentiary hearing may not be necessary." Raysor, 647 F.3d at 494. Although the Circuit generally "disapproves of summary dismissal of petitions where factual issues exist," if the paper record contains sufficient material to support the district court's denial of the petition, it may do so on the basis of written submissions alone. Pham, 317 F.3d at 184; see also Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2001).

II. Petitioner's Claims for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A. Legal Standard

To sustain a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel provided deficient performance and that (2) there was prejudice as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To establish deficient performance, Petitioner must overcome the "strong presumption  that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and show that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688-89. To show prejudice, Petitioner must demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694. Petitioner must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test to be entitled to relief. Further, the test "is rigorous, and the great majority of habeas petitions that allege constitutionally ineffective counsel founder on that standard." Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191, 199 (2d Cir. 2001).

The Court will not question "sound trial strategy." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S. Ct. 158, 100 L. Ed. 83 (1955)). Further, "[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential," and "[a] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time." Id. Otherwise, "[t]he availability of intrusive post-trial inquiry into attorney performance or of detailed guidelines for its evaluation would  encourage the proliferation of ineffectiveness challenges." Id. at 690.

The Petition asserts three claims for ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) trial counsel's failure to move to suppress or controvert the first search warrant; (2) trial counsel's failure to sever or bifurcate the trial; and (3) trial counsel's injection of prejudicial matters. (Pet. at 14, 16-17.) The Court will address each claim separately. Further, while Petitioner must prove both objective unreasonableness and prejudice, "there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one." Calderon v. Perez, No. 10-CV-2562, 2011 WL 293709, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original), adopted by 2011 WL 1405029 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011).

B. Controverting the Warrant

Petitioner argues that counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to controvert the first search warrant, which, he claims, clearly lacked probable cause. (Pet. at 15-16.) The Court disagrees.

In the context of ineffective assistance of counsel claims for failure to controvert a warrant or suppress evidence, "Strickland requires that a [petitioner] show that: (1) a  competent attorney would have made the motion; (2) the suppression motion would have been successful; and (3) the outcome of the proceeding would have been different absent the excludable evidence." Watson v. Crowley, No. 07-CV-1111, 2011 WL 4639814, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), adopted by 2011 WL 4639812 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2011). The Second Circuit affords great deference to counsel in these analyses, as the Circuit is "reluctant to require defense counsel routinely to file boilerplate motions merely to vindicate their professional competence without regard for the grounds supporting such motions." United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 1987). Thus, "t is sufficient that counsel exercised professional discretion in deciding whether there [were] sufficient grounds to file a motion." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Additionally, with respect to the prejudice prong of Strickland, the Court uses a "totality-of-the-circumstances analysis." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). Thus,

 

[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]" that probable cause existed.

Id. at 238-239 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 2549, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980)); accord Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 156 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court, therefore, "must accord considerable deference to the probable cause determination of the issuing magistrate," and "a showing of probable cause cannot be negated simply by demonstrating that an inference of innocence might also have been drawn from the facts alleged." Walczyk, 496 F.3d at 157. Further, "in close cases . . . doubts should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant." United States v. Defreitas, 701 F. Supp. 2d 297, 302 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 

Here, counsel for Petitioner moved to controvert the second warrant, which allowed for the ammunition and cocaine's seizure. Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective because he moved to controvert the second warrant rather than the first, which allowed the ammunition to be discovered. (Pet. at 16.)  Further, counsel failed to move to suppress the evidence of the seized cocaine. (Pet. at 16).

However, counsel not only "vigorously contested" the second warrant, but made several other applications, such as to dismiss the indictment, a request for additional discovery, and a motion for a bill of particulars. United States v. Snype, No. 07-CV-9490, 2009 WL 2611930, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2009) (holding that counsel was not objectively unreasonable because he "vigorously contested" a search). While this may not meet Petitioner's standards as a "Monday morning quarterback[]," United States v. McGriff, 678 F. Supp. 1010, 1014 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), it is clear that counsel "exercised professional discretion in deciding whether there [were] sufficient grounds to file [that] motion." DiTommaso, 817 F.2d at 215 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); contra Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1986) (holding that counsel's assistance was ineffective because his failures, such as failing to file a suppression motion in time, were "not due to strategic considerations, but because . . . he was unaware of the search" and "unapprised" of certain aspects of the case).

Furthermore, the weakness of such an argument, and the existence of probable cause, highlights the reasonableness of counsel's strategic decision not to raise it. The Government  sought evidence related to the purchase, storage, and insurance of the yacht. (4/6/09 Search Warrant at 2-4.) The warrant specifically listed four locations to be searched for that evidence, including the Bay Club Apartment. (4/6/09 Search Warrant at 2.) After significant surveillance confirming Petitioner's occupancy over the course of approximately three months, the Government identified the apartment as Petitioner's primary residence, and thus included it in the search warrant application. (4/6/09 Search Warrant at 12-13; Pet. at 15.) Magistrate Judge Orenstein appropriately relied upon the affidavit, in which a seasoned investigator, Postal Inspector Carl Vaccariello, affirmed that based on his experience, documentary evidence relating to insurance fraud is "frequently maintain[ed] in [individuals'] possession . . . for substantial periods of time." (4/6/09 Search Warrant at 13.)

Thus, it is "common-sense" for the Court to conclude that "there [was] a fair probability" that an individual would keep documents in the apartment he or she has resided in for the past several months. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; accord United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (stating that a probable cause determination requires a common sense approach). Therefore, even if counsel had moved to controvert the warrant, there was significant probable cause and it does not seem that counsel would have been successful. Accordingly,  there was no prejudice and Petitioner's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to controvert the first warrant is DENIED.

C. Severance or Bifurcation

Petitioner's second ground for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is that counsel failed to move for bifurcation to sever the two counts of the superseding indictment charging him with being a felon-in-possession of ammunition and possession of cocaine, and that counsel prejudicially erred in stipulating to Petitioner's status as a prior felon. (Pet. at 17.) Again, the Court disagrees.

Decisions to stipulate or to move for severance or bifurcation are, like other strategic decisions, given great deference. See DiTommaso, 817 F.2d at 215 ("Counsel rationally could have determined that his client's best interests would be served by emphasizing the contrast between the quantum of evidence presented . . . and that which directly reflected against [petitioner] himself."); see also Camacho v. United States, No. 98-CV-7057, 1999 WL 600523, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 1999) (holding that petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to seek a severance because the prior felony conviction was introduced through stipulation).

Here, counsel made the strategic decision to stipulate to a prior felony, thus allowing the jury to learn of only one  felony in an almost clinical manner rather than receiving potential evidence of Petitioner's additional prior felonies. Thus, there was nothing prejudicial or deficient in counsel's performance in this regard. See Camacho, 1999 WL 600523, at *6 ("A jury's knowledge of a prior felony conviction is not unduly prejudicial where the prior conviction is introduced by stipulation."); accord Collier v. United States, 92 F. Supp. 2d 99, 105 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) ("A prior conviction is not prejudicial where the prior conviction is an element of the crime or otherwise independently admissible.").

In addition, counsel's choice not to sever was also a strategic decision that was not prejudicial. The cocaine and ammunition were found in the same location at the same time, likely making a motion for severance futile. (Tr. at 262.) Moreover, the jury acquitted Petitioner of the cocaine possession charge, showing that counsel's strategy may have paid off. See Verduzco v. Uribe, No. 09-CV-5894, 2013 WL 530593, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2013) ("Petitioner's theory about the inflammatory effect of this evidence is weakened by the fact that the jury did not convict him of possession for sale, but of the lesser offense of simple possession.").

Accordingly, Petitioner's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to move for severance or bifurcation is DENIED. 

D. Injecting Prejudicial Matters

Finally, Petitioner's third ground is that counsel's opening statement discussing that Petitioner had been under investigation for insurance fraud, prejudiced the jury. (Pet. at 17.) The Court disagrees.

"t [is] a reasonable trial strategy" to "open[] the door" to issues which need to come out at trial in order to be "forthright" with the jury. Bierenbaum v. Graham, 607 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that counsel's assistance was not ineffective when he conceded the date that a victim died because it was consistent with his legal theory and was an attempt to be forthright with the jury). Conversely, if the decision to open a door "reflect no tactical considerations," it is objectively unreasonable. Lindstadt, 239 F.2d at 203.

Here, counsel used "tactical considerations" by admitting that Petitioner was under investigation for insurance fraud. The cocaine and ammunition were found by police inside Petitioner's apartment. (Pet. at 16.) Thus, counsel conceded that Petitioner was being investigated for insurance fraud to provide a context for why the police were in Petitioner's apartment, to be upfront with the jury, and to develop his defense that the Government intentionally planted evidence. See Bierenbaum, 607 F.3d at 52. Thus, because counsel's decision was not objectively unreasonable, Petitioner's claim for  ineffective assistance of counsel based on ground three, injecting prejudicial matters, is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Because there can be no debate among reasonable jurists that Petitioner was entitled to habeas relief, the Court does not issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Middleton v. Att'ys Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.

SO ORDERED.

_____________

Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: August 12 , 2013

Central Islip, New York

 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

And for you fine folk that don't want to click on a Twitter link:

 

 

 

 

If this is what he actually sent out, he has a bit of an issue using parenthetical notation. 
see 1) third bullet under Goldman Sachs section

and 2) bachelors notation of suny

theres also a couple of bullets that are two independent ideas with not punctuation separating them, but a capitalized word to differentiate them under the metglobal section.