On Monday, U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi rejected all eight of Hunter Biden’s legal attempts to have his tax case thrown out. Judge Mark, a federal district judge in California’s Central district, decided against the younger Biden, clearing the way for President Biden’s son to face court proceedings. The 82-page ruling handed down by Judge Mark confirms that Hunter Biden now faces three felony charges and six misdemeanor charges in connection to tax evasion.
Hunter Biden was indicted on nine offenses in December, including charges that he failed to pay taxes on time on his more than $ 7 million income between 2016 and 2019 and furthermore, he filed false returns. Prosecutors also allege that President Biden’s son misclassified several personal spending as business expenditures, according to the indictment.
Apart from the nine tax-related offenses, Hunter Biden also faces three gun charges. President Biden’s son eight separate motions to dismiss the tax-related charges against him. Hunter cited different legal rationale for each offense including immunity claimed from the previous plea deal. Hunter Biden further claimed that the charges against him were politically motivated and the Department of Justice selectively targeted him.
In Monday’s ruling, Federal Judge Mark C. Scarsi wrote:
“The motion is remarkable in that it fails to include a single declaration, exhibit, or request for judicial notice. Instead, Defendant cites portions of various Internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. These citations, however, are not evidence.”
”Defendant fails to present a reasonable inference, let alone clear evidence, of discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, the selective prosecution claim fails.”
Abbe Lowell, Hunter’s attorney, tried to convince Judge Mark that the allegations against Hunter Biden were politically motivated and tainted by two IRS agents – Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. In this regard, the Federal Judge Mark wrote in his ruling:
“Defendant does not accuse Shapley and Ziegler of misconduct in the process of building the case against him or any active collaboration between them and the prosecution; instead, he posits that their public disclosures of information about the investigation might have impacted the Special Counsel’s decision to pursue the tax charges. Defendant offers no facts to suggest that the information Shapley and Ziegler shared publicly had any prejudicial effect on the grand jury’s decision to return an indictment.”
In a statement after the rulings, Abbe Lowell said, “We strongly disagree with the Court’s decision and will continue to vigorously pursue Mr. Biden’s challenges to the abnormal way the Special Counsel handled this investigation and charged this case.”
As we know, Hunter Biden has also filed motions for enforcing the plea deal. But Judge Mark ruled that the plea deal could not be enforced, writing:
“Having found that the Diversion Agreement is a contract that binds the parties but that the parties made the Probation Officer’s signature a condition precedent to its performance, the Court turns to Defendant’s theory of immunity: that the United States’ obligation to refrain from prosecuting Defendant under section II(15) of the Diversion Agreement is currently in force. It is not. The immunity provision is not one exempted from the term of the contract under the survival clause.”
If convicted, Hunter Biden can face 17 years in prison. And if we include all the nine tax and three gun charges, the prison time can become 42 years for Hunter Biden.
