9th Circuit Dismisses Hunter Biden Tax Evasion Court Proceedings Halt Appeal

Hunter Biden’s Problems ‘Are Entirely of His Own Making’ ~David Weiss, Special Counsel

By Caden Pearsen | The Epoch Times

Hunter Biden lost his bid to halt his tax evasion district court proceedings in California on Wednesday after the Ninth Circuit declined to hear his appeal.

District Judge Mark Scarsi denied Mr. Biden’s motion for a stay of proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pending the outcome of his appeal. The stay had been requested on May 10 after Mr. Biden filed his interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled in favor of the special counsel and dismissed Mr. Biden’s appeal.

This rendered moot a motion filed by Mr. Biden’s lawyers on Tuesday asking the judge for an expedited hearing on his motion to halt proceedings or, alternatively, for the judge to consider his written motion without hearing oral arguments.

“Because the panel’s order moots Mr. Biden’s motion, the Court grants the application to rule on shortened time and denies the motion,” Judge Scarsi wrote in his order on Wednesday.

Judge Scarsi’s order stated that his prior orders and the trial schedule would remain in place, and that the court would hear any further requests to modify the pre-trial schedule at a conference on May 29.

Mr. Biden, who had argued that the district court’s jurisdiction had been divested once he filed his interlocutory appeal, filed his motion for a stay after the judge wrote in a May 9 order that failing to do so would be “at his own peril.”

Hunter Biden’s Problems ‘Are Entirely of His Own Making’

Special Counsel David Weiss, who is prosecuting the case on behalf of the government, opposed Mr. Biden’s bid to halt proceedings while waiting to hear the outcome from the Ninth Circuit. He argued that any “problems” with scheduling conflicts in both Mr. Biden’s California tax evasion case and his Delaware gun charges case “are entirely of his own making.”

In his brief asking for an expedited hearing filed on Tuesday, Mr. Biden’s lawyers told Judge Scarsi that he wasn’t aware that failing to file a motion to stay pending appeal would be “at his own peril,” and that he promptly filed his motion to stay the next day after the judge’s order came down.

In requesting an expedited hearing, Angela Machala and Abbe Lowell, the lawyers representing Mr. Biden, had sought to address scheduling conflicts in pretrial proceedings that threatened to emerge due to potential appeals court proceedings and an upcoming trial on June 3 in his Delaware case.

The lawyers argued that Mr. Biden was not to blame for the overlap in the separate court proceedings.

Specifically, Mr. Biden’s lawyers asked that a hearing on his motion to stay take place before a pretrial conference scheduled for May 29 to comply with court rules on when hearings can be set.

This potential conflict was rendered moot by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Wednesday. Similarly, the Third Circuit, where Mr. Biden had taken his Delaware appeal, also dismissed his motions.

Mr. Biden had previously argued that the district court had been divested of its jurisdiction when he filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. This claim was disputed by the special counsel.

On May 9, Judge Mark Scarsi stated that the court “has not vacated the pretrial schedule, and absent a request for [a stay], Mr. Biden ignores the Court’s orders at his own peril.”

In response, Mr. Biden filed his motion for stay pending appeal the next day. In that filing, he maintained his position that the court had been divested of jurisdiction by the act of filing his interlocutory appeal.

Mr. Biden’s lawyers argued that he was not at fault for “creating the crisis” that led to their requesting the stay, nor did the scheduling conflict come about “as a result of excusable neglect.”

In contrast, the special counsel sought to counter these arguments on Tuesday, arguing that “the defendant’s ‘hardship’ is one he has created for himself.”

The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Biden’s attorneys for comment.

**********

(TLB) published this article by Caden Pearsen as posted at The Epoch Times

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Hunter Biden/org. ET post

Emphais added by (TLB)

••••

••••

Stay tuned tuned…

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.