Calif.: Man pleads guilty to ‘doxing’ ICE lawyer 6%

By Addie Davis0%

6/7/2026, 3:08:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Quote-first Misdirection as the most egregious example at 38.8% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 214 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.4% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,039 of 21,174 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.60% of the article peer group.

A California man pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge for doxing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lawyer. 
According to a Friday press release from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Gregory Curcio, 68 years old, shared personal information about an ICE attorney on social media. 
The office defined doxing as “publishing private or identifying information about an individual on the internet with malicious intent.” 
“In February 2025, Curcio created a Facebook post in which he identified the victim  an ICE attorney  as an ICE agent, posted her home address, and directed others to ‘swat’ her at that address,” the release stated. 
“Curcio also posted the victim’s home address on another social media account with instructions to swat her,” it continued. 
It noted that “swatting” is a form of harassment that often includes a false emergency call being made that is meant to provoke a “significant” response from law enforcement. 
According to previously filed court documents, the victim said Curcio was a former resident at her mother’s apartment building in Santa Monica, California, per the release. 
“The victim said she never met Curcio, but that he had harassed and threatened her mother for years and engaged in a campaign to harass the victim and her family beginning from at least January, 2024,” the office stated. 
A sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 21st, and Curcio could face up to five years in federal prison. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 4.4%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.2%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 2.2%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 3.6%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 9.3%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 3.9%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.2%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Addie Davis: 8.4%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias15.6%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 5.3%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.4%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 4.0%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 3.0%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 3.1%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.3%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 5.6%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.8%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Addie Davis: 4.0%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.8%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.9%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 5.9%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.5%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 10.5%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 2.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 2.8%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.0%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.6%Addie Davis: 2.3%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote23.6%This article: 38.8%Addie Davis: 2.5%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection38.8%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 5.7%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 2.3%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 5.9%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Addie Davis: 1.8%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker71%attributed speech72writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 33 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 19 words • 0.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 39 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 19 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
178 attributed words100% of attributed speech36% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Quote-first Misdirection+54.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California: 54.5%54.5%Unattributed Quote-17.6 ptsWriter: 36.1%United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California: 18.5%18.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.