court to find that a defendant does not meet his burden under Franks when the defendant offers only a patently false affidavit containing hearsay statements and a tape recording in support of his allegations of falsity. United States v. Parcel of Land and Residence Located Thereon at 5 Bell Rock Road, Freetown, Mass (7th Cir.1988) (stating that the defendant’s unverified assertions that an informant’s testimony was unreliable falls short of satisfying the defendant’s initial burden under Franks); United States v. Hornick, 815 F.2d 1156, 1158 (7th Cir.1987) (finding that the defendant’s offer of proof which consisted only of a friend’s affidavit and defense counsel’s “say-so” did not satisfy the initial burden under Franks); United States v. Radtke, 799 F.2d 298, 310 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McDonald, 723 F.2d 1288,
holding that the defendants offer of the affiants sworn testimony to establish falsity of the warrant affidavit did not amount to a substantial preliminary showing of falsity under franks holding that courts can inquire into the sincerity but not the truth or falsity of religious beliefs holding that the defendants allegations that the warrant affidavit contained falsified information did not satisfy franks even though the defendants offer of proof consisted of twentynine 29 affidavits holding that further inquiry into falsity of defendants prior testimony in a rape case is barred holding that because the information omitted from the affidavit was immaterial to the investigation there was no error in denying defendants motion for a franks hearing