free webpage hit counter

Hunter Biden in court today as judge considers sanctions for his lawyers’ alleged misconduct (video)

by Jessica

Strange Events Surrounding Hunter Biden’s Plea Bargain Hearing

Robert Hunter Biden’s upcoming plea bargain hearing in the U.S. District Court in Delaware has taken an unexpected turn, involving an unusual incident surrounding an amicus curiae brief.

Representative Jason Smith, Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, sought to file an amicus brief in support of one side in the case.

An amicus brief allows individuals or groups with relevant expertise to offer information and arguments to the court. Theodore A. Kittila of the law firm Halloran, Farkas, and Kittila LLP represented the amicus in this case.

Typically, amicus briefs are rare in criminal cases, especially when both parties have agreed to a plea deal. In this instance, the amicus brief may either be an act of vanity or a genuine effort to highlight concerns about Biden’s behavior and the plea deal’s fairness, as some believe Hunter Biden might receive special treatment due to his father’s status.

However, an unusual development occurred when the entire amicus brief was suddenly removed from the docket. PACER, the official federal court’s database, notifies involved parties via email about any changes to the docket, and the removal raised eyebrows.

Following the removal, Mr. Kittila wrote a letter to the court explaining that he had filed for leave to file an amicus brief, attaching the proposed brief, which is customary practice.

Curiously, the attached documents included Biden’s tax ID number, which is usually redacted to protect privacy. While Mr. Kittila argued that the information was already publicly available, Biden’s lawyers disagreed, insisting on redaction.

Allegedly, someone impersonating a member of Mr. Kittila’s firm called the clerk’s office and requested the document’s removal from the docket. The court subsequently ordered Hunter Biden’s lawyers to respond and explain their involvement in this matter.

In response, Matthew S. Salerno from Latham and Watkins, representing the alleged impersonator, ‘Jessica Bengels,’ denied the accusations.

She claimed there might have been a misunderstanding, saying that her phone number often appears as ‘Latham’ on caller ID.

She only inquired about the procedure to seal the document temporarily while they prepared a motion for permanent sealing if required. She firmly denied ever claiming to work with Mr. Kittila.

As of now, the facts are disputed, and it remains unclear who the judge spoke to among the clerks. The incident has raised questions, but it is uncertain how it will impact the plea bargain.

It’s worth noting that the judge, in this case, is a Trump appointee, which may alleviate concerns of pro-Biden bias.

However, it’s important to consider that judges cannot compel prosecutors to proceed with a case against their will. Nonetheless, this incident may delay the proceedings until the matter is resolved.

In conclusion, the strange events surrounding the amicus brief and its removal have added a layer of complexity to the already high-profile case.

The motivations and actions of ‘Jessica Bengels remain unclear, leaving many puzzled as to what she hoped to achieve if the allegations are true. Regardless, this development may have implications for the plea bargain’s outcome.

Related Posts