Judge Issues Order In Hunter Tax Case

0
874

Hello, readers! The unfolding legal drama surrounding Hunter Biden certainly has many of us intrigued. The latest development is a real eyebrow-raiser. We’re discussing the order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Scarsi this week.

It appears Hunter Biden’s legal representatives are under the spotlight for allegedly making false statements in a motion to dismiss. With Hunter possibly focused on his father’s presidential duties, his legal team is experiencing pressure from a federal judge.

Allow me to provide some insight into the situation. On July 15th, a Florida criminal case against former President Donald Trump was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon. This case concerned alleged improper handling of classified documents. The dismissal was on the grounds that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Three days later, on July 18th, Biden’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss a California tax case against him. They attempted to use Cannon’s ruling to their advantage, asserting that Special Counsel David Weiss was also improperly appointed and, therefore, lacked authority to press charges against Biden.

Here’s where it becomes complex: Biden’s legal team suggested that if the same authority appointed the Special Counsel in Trump’s and Biden’s cases, both appointments should be invalid for the same reason. However, it’s important to note that David Weiss was already serving as a U.S. Attorney when appointed as Special Counsel, which changes the situation.

In another twist, Biden’s legal team stated in their motion that Weiss only began pressing charges against Biden after stepping into his Special Counsel role. Judge Scarsi disagreed with this, stating that Weiss had already initiated charges against Biden in his prior role as U.S. Attorney in Delaware.

Scarsi’s order indicates that Biden’s legal team needs to justify why they should not face sanctions for making these false statements. This is no trivial matter. The false claims sidestep the important variations between the two cases and misrepresent the procedural history.

The court has provided an opportunity for Biden’s legal representatives to withdraw or modify their plea. However, they will still need to clarify why they included the false statements initially.

What comes next? It’s plausible that Biden’s legal team will allege a miscommunication between the original legal team and the new one. It’s possible they might attribute the mix-up to Mark Geragos, who recently joined the team, as he was the one who submitted and filed the controversial motion.