A federal judge handed Hunter Biden a decisive legal defeat on Monday.
Earlier this year, Hunter’s lawyers filed eight motions to dismiss criminal tax charges against him. Among other reasons, they argued that the nine indictments should be quashed because:
- Hunter has immunity stemming from a pretrial diversion agreement that was part of a controversial plea deal that ultimately fell through last summer.
- Special Counsel David Weiss was illegally appointed and his appointment constituted a violation. appropriations clause;
- Hunter is the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution.
- Mr. Hunter is facing a due process violation due to “outrageous government conduct.”
But U.S. District Judge Mark Scalsi bought it. none Hunter’s claim.
in Extensive 82-page judgment In the ruling, which came weeks before Hunter’s self-imposed deadline of April 17, Judge Scalsi struck down arguments made by Hunter’s attorneys in their motion to dismiss.
1. Immunity
Relying on standard rules of contract construction, Mr. Scalsi determined that Mr. Biden’s pretrial diversion agreement was not valid and therefore Mr. Hunter lacked immunity.
“While a diversion agreement is a contract that binds the parties, in finding that the parties made a probation officer’s signature a condition precedent to its performance, the court concluded that the defendant’s immunity theory, meaning that the “We have turned to the argument that there is a duty to refrain from … currently in force, which is not the case,” Scalsi ruled.
2. Weiss’ appointment
Scalci said Weiss’s appointment, particularly Hunter’s discussion of his appointment, special advisor — “Form obviously takes precedence over substance.”
Hunter’s lawyers have repeatedly acknowledged in their filings that Attorney General Merrick Garland has the statutory authority to “appoint prosecutors.”
“Following the defendant’s logic, the Attorney General could appoint Mr. Weiss as a “designated prosecutor,” pursuant to the Attorney General’s statutory authority, and that would eliminate the defendant’s issues. “The use of the term ‘special prosecutor’ instead of other terms,” Scalci explained, “is similarly an indication of independent counsel, a distinction without a difference.”
Mr. Scalsi further determined that “Weiss is lawfully receiving funding through unlimited expenditures and does not violate the expenditure clause.”
3. Selective and retaliatory prosecution
Not only did Mr. Scalci rule against Hunter, but the judge rebuked Hunter’s claims and evidence, or lack thereof.
“As the court stated at the hearing, the defendant made the allegations without any evidence,” Scalci wrote.
“This motion is notable in that it does not include a single declaration, statement, or request for judicial notice. Instead, defendants cite portions of various internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. However, these citations are not evidence,” he continued. “As such, the court may dismiss the motion without further argument.”
Still, Scalci disputed Hunter’s claims.
Mr Scalsi said the evidence presented by Mr Hunter’s lawyers to support their case was “pure speculation”. And yet the judge found these circumstantial claims to be “flimsy” at best.
4. Violation of Due Process
Mr. Hunter’s lawyers argued that Mr. Hunter’s due process rights were violated by the actions of two IRS whistleblowers who allegedly leaked confidential information about Mr. Hunter’s taxes.
Mr. Scalsi not only disagreed, but also explained that it was inappropriate for the court to exercise “supervisory authority” over the motion.
“The defendant has not been able to substantiate his claim that his attorney influenced the prosecution’s decision, which is nothing more than speculation,” the defendant said, citing conduct that influenced the basic decisions of the prosecution. “There is no instance in which a court has exercised its supervisory power to dismiss an indictment,” Scalci wrote.
“Defendants have not provided any facts to suggest that the information publicly shared by Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler prejudicially influenced the grand jury’s decision to return the indictment,” he explained. “The mere fact that Shapley and Ziegler’s public statements brought notoriety to defendant’s case is not sufficient to show prejudice.”
What’s next?
Hunter’s lead attorney, Abby Rowell, indicated in a statement Monday that Hunter may appeal the Scalci ruling.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision and will continue to vigorously pursue Mr. Biden’s challenge to the special counsel’s unusual approach to this investigation and prosecution,” Lowell said.
Unless Scalci’s ruling is overturned, Monday’s ruling means the eldest son will face a trial scheduled to begin on June 20.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Mariellen Noreika has not yet ruled on Hunter’s motion to dismiss the federal gun charges. Many of his claims in that lawsuit mirror those rejected by Scalsi.
If Mr. Noreika takes the same view as Mr. Scalci, Mr. Hunter will begin trial in the case on June 3.
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Register here!
