The federal judge who rejected Hunter Biden’s eight motions to dismiss his tax evasion charges highlighted deficiencies in a subsequent request to submit more material to bolster his arguments.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi of Los Angeles found that not only did the president’s son submit the filing late, after the judge had ruled, rendering the motion moot, but the supplemental materials would have been rejected regardless.
He outlined the reasons why.
On April 1, Judge Scarsi rejected Mr. Biden’s eight motions to dismiss the case. That same day, the president’s son filed a motion asking for leave to submit additional materials to support his motions to dismiss.
However, the judge wrote in his April 8 order that the issuance of his prior order “apparently moots the instant motion.”
Furthermore, the judge wrote that Mr. Biden’s motions to dismiss “must be denied for several independent reasons,” delivering a decisive blow to Mr. Biden’s legal maneuvers.
Judge Scarsi’s order highlighted procedural lapses in Mr. Biden’s approach. Notably, failing to schedule a hearing for the motion, which deprived prosecutors of an opportunity to respond.
“Without a hearing date, the Government is left with no opportunity to respond to Defendant’s motion absent a separate order of the Court setting a briefing deadline,” the judge wrote.
Additionally, Mr. Biden’s motion didn’t outline the essential legal standard and lacked adequate justification for the need to back up his arguments with supplemental material.
Furthermore, the judge noted that the arguments Mr. Biden wished to air could have been done so during the three-hour hearing but were not.
“There is no good cause for a supplemental memorandum, as Defendant provided [a] full written briefing on his motions and enjoyed an opportunity to present additional arguments at a three-hour hearing on his motions,” the judge wrote.
“Defendant’s memorandum advances arguments he could have but did not present in response to the Court’s questions at the hearing,” he continued. “He fails to explain why he should be allowed an opportunity to present even more argument on these well-ventilated issues.”
Judge Scarsi also smacked down the need for a supplemental declaration by one of Mr. Biden’s lawyers, Abbe Lowell, “which is designed to verify documents and media” that were already cited in their motion briefs “that were unsupported by evidence in the record.”
“Defendant did not offer these resources in a form appropriate for consideration on a motion to dismiss within the briefing deadlines set by the Court,” the judge wrote. “He presents no good cause or excusable neglect to justify relief from his procedural errors.”
Ultimately, the judge noted in his order that the motion asking to file further materials to back up Mr. Biden’s argument “would not change the Court’s decision to deny the motions.”
This recent legal setback follows Judge Scarsi’s rejection of Mr. Biden’s attempt to dismiss federal tax charges on April 1.
Mr. Biden’s legal team had submitted eight motions contending that political pressure and immunity from a previous plea deal justified dismissing tax evasion charges totaling over $1.4 million.
During the years in question, Hunter Biden reported making about $7 million from work for Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian firm, and other companies, including the Chinese firm CEFC China Energy.
He allegedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on “various women,” another $190,000 on adult entertainment, and about $400,000 on clothes, according to financial information by Mr. Weiss’s team. In total, he spent nearly $5 million while failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes, according to the indictment.
In January, Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to charges related to tax evasion, stemming from alleged lavish spending habits exceeding his reported income.
Court documents revealed substantial expenditures on drugs, escorts, luxury vehicles, and other extravagances, despite the alleged failure to pay federal taxes.
Mr. Lowell has vehemently defended his client, arguing that the prosecution is politically motivated and unfairly targets him due to his family ties. He has also said that the president’s son ultimately paid the taxes.
The case will go to trial in June as President Joe Biden squares off with former President Donald Trump for a rematch.
The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Biden’s attorneys for comment.
From The Epoch Times
