Attorney's Affidavit in Response to § 2255 Motion — United States v. Daniel Joseph Tisone

Full text

Case 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM       Document 124      Filed 01/22/25     Page 1 of 3 PageID 1105




                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              FORT MYERS DIVISION

     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                   CASE NO.: 2:22-CR-39-SPC-NPM

     vs.

     DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE
                                        /

                         AFFIDAVIT OF MARK EIGLARSH

     My name is Mark Eiglarsh and I was Daniel Joseph Tisone’s attorney in case
     number 22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM. I have thoroughly reviewed Mr. Tisone's
     Motion to Set Aside His Sentence. Given the numerous inaccuracies it
     contains, I feel compelled to respond and set the record straight.

     GROUND ONE

     Mr. Tisone's claims that I failed to review discovery with him is categorically
     false. Throughout my 32 years of practice, it has been my unwavering standard
     to either provide clients with discovery or thoroughly review it with them. This
     was done in Mr. Tisone’s case.

     His assertion that I "failed to discuss the concept of intended loss, the potential
     loss amount attributed to him at sentencing, or the resulting Sentencing
     Guidelines range he would face" is equally untrue. As I do in all my federal
     cases, I reviewed these areas in detail with him. Mr. Tisone fully understood
     the issues surrounding his sentencing and expressed no further questions.

     Before Mr. Tisone entered his guilty plea, I ensured he thoroughly understood
     all the legal aspects of his case, including the potential consequences of his
     decision. He knowingly, freely, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to
     trial and entered a guilty plea. I provided him with highly effective assistance
     of counsel.

     GROUND TWO

     The allegations in Ground Two are similarly riddled with falsehoods. Mr.
     Tisone once again falsely claims that he was not provided discovery or advised
     on the Sentencing Guidelines, both of which are patently untrue.
Case 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM      Document 124      Filed 01/22/25    Page 2 of 3 PageID 1106




     I also wish to address a specific incident during my representation. At one
     point, our professional relationship was briefly challenged when I learned that
     Mr. Tisone had purchased a website—www.markeiglarshreviews.com. When I
     confronted him about it, he admitted that his intention was to harm my
     professional reputation online if he did not achieve the sentencing outcome he
     desired. Additionally, he posted a scathing, one-star review about me under a
     fictitious name, which was clearly written by him.

     Upon addressing these actions with Mr. Tisone, he agreed to remove both the
     false review and the website. He also offered a sincere and passionate apology.
     In return, I chose to continue representing him with the same passion and
     dedication as before. Any temporary conflict was fully resolved well in
     advance of his change of plea and sentencing, and we maintained a strong
     attorney-client relationship at that time.

     It appears Mr. Tisone is now attempting to distort the facts due to
     dissatisfaction with the outcome of his case, despite my zealous advocacy on
     his behalf.

     GROUND THREE

     The claims in Ground Three are similarly inaccurate. Mr. Tisone’s assertion
     that submitting the sentencing memorandum earlier would have resulted in a
     different sentence is baseless. The sentencing judge explicitly stated that the
     memorandum was read and considered before rendering a decision.

     Additionally, Mr. Tisone’s allegations regarding the timing of the sentencing
     memorandum omit key facts. At his insistence, I requested a rough draft
     memorandum from him to ensure that all the points he deemed important were
     addressed. This was particularly necessary given his previous threats to harm
     my professional reputation, as I sought to prevent any false claims that I had
     omitted specific arguments.

     The final sentencing memorandum was filed close to the deadline because Mr.
     Tisone delayed providing the additional information he insisted be included.
     Despite my repeated and urgent requests for this information, his delay
     necessitated a last-minute filing. However, I am confident that the timing of the
     filing did not adversely affect his case in any way.

     In summary, Mr. Tisone’s motion misrepresents the facts and unfairly casts
     doubt on the effective counsel I provided throughout his case. His
     dissatisfaction with the outcome does not change the reality that I acted with
     professionalism, diligence, and unwavering dedication at every stage of my
     representation.
Case 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM   Document 124     Filed 01/22/25   Page 3 of 3 PageID 1107




     FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT


     ________________________________
     MARK EIGLARSH


            SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, by means of ☐ physical
     presence or ☐ online notarization, this 21st day of January, 2025, by Mark
     Eiglarsh, personally known to me ____, or provided DL#
     as identification.

     {Notary Seal}




                                       Signature of Notary Public


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.401005.124.0.pdf

Size

91,540 bytes

SHA-256

cc51b5654220375a04803f09b9840992565decddab5a2a29d9c8824bf4f399d8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.401005.124.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)