free webpage hit counter

BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Claim ‘There Was No Misrepresentation’ to the Court, Blame Clerk for Miscommunication

by Jessica
78 views
Hunter Biden

Attorneys representing Hunter Biden in his criminal tax case, scheduled for a hearing in the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, on Wednesday, have responded to a judge’s order to explain why sanctions should not be considered due to alleged misrepresentations to the Court.

The order was issued after a staff member at the law firm Latham & Watkins reportedly called the clerk’s office, claiming to represent House Ways and Means Chairman Rep.

Jason Smith. Rep. Smith had filed an amicus brief requesting the Court to reject Hunter’s “sweetheart plea deal” and sought the removal of 448 pages of IRS whistleblowers’ Congressional testimony related to the case.

In a letter addressed to Judge Maryellen Noreika, Hunter’s attorney, Matthew Salerno, stated that the incident was a “miscommunication” rather than a “misrepresentation.”

The filing included an affidavit from the staff member, Jessica Bengels, along with a screenshot of her call records with the Delaware court on Tuesday.

According to Bengels, she clarified that she had not worked on the Hunter Biden case and had been asked to call the clerk’s office seeking guidance on how to restrict confidential e-filed material from public view.

She was informed that a motion to seal would need to be filed. Bengals also inquired if there was any policy for restricting personal information from the docket temporarily while the parties filed a formal sealing application.

During the call, the clerk asked Bengels for the case number, which she provided, and then asked about the law firm she worked for, to which she stated Latham & Watkins and mentioned attorney Matt Salerno.

Bengals also informed the clerk that she did not have the specific docket numbers containing the confidential information but could call back with the details.

When asked if the relevant docket items were filed by Kittila’s firm (representing House Ways and Means), Bengels believed it to be the case.

Later, another court employee called Bengels to inform her that the materials had been removed from the docket for being non-compliant with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1.

However, Bengels clarified that during that conversation, she did not mention the law firm she was associated with.

The Bengals missed two calls from the court just before 2 PM Eastern and tried to return the call around 4:40 PM Eastern.

Related Posts