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

By Addie Davis0%

6/7/2026, 8:08:46 AM

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% (20,714 of 21,887 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. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
15.6%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
7.6%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
23.6%
Quote-first Misdirection
38.8%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

250 words analyzed.

Analysis

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