Defendant’s 2255 claimed that defense counsel was ineffective for not making a Franks challenge. Defendant’s offer of proof is rejected as just without any credibility at all in light of the record previously made. United States v. Petruk, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36443 (D. Minn. Feb. 26, 2021)*:
Petruk also claims that two of the five CIs who were mentioned in the search warrant affidavits have since provided statements claiming that they never provided police with information about Petruk. Mot. at 22, 57, 66, 69 (Claims 11, 33, 40, 43). In support of this argument, Petruk has submitted statements purportedly signed by Robert Lund (CI #3) and Steve Ostman (CI #5) stating they have not spoken to law enforcement about Petruk. See Pro Se Exs. [Docket No. 201-2] at 7-8. These statements lack validity because they are not notarized or dated. Their authenticity is further called into doubt by Petruk’s history of attempting to use false evidence to exonerate himself in this case and in his 2013 federal case. The unnotarized, undated statements are also contradicted by the law officers’ sworn statements in the search warrant affidavits, and by the testimony of Duluth Police Investigator Scott Williams (“Investigator Williams”). Investigator Williams testified under oath at the suppression motion hearing that the CIs referenced in the search warrant affidavits had provided information about Petruk. Mot. Hr’g Tr. [Docket No. 78] at 27. Moreover, even if Petruk could show that the statements he has produced are true and authentic, the search warrants would still be valid because if the references to CI #3 and CI #5 were removed from the search warrant affidavits, the remaining information would be sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrants.