Why Hunter's Immunity Deal is Invalid

WASHINGTON - Sept. 14, 2023 - PRLog -- The indictment of Hunter Biden by Special Counsel David Weiss for three felony counts related to his purchase and possession of a firearm raise several legal questions, one of which is whether the Diversion Agreement, which was signed by both parties, protects the President's son, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Banzhaf helped kill Hunter's earlier "sweetheart" deal with his own filing before U.S. Judge Maryellen Noreika opposing it, and by pressuring the Heritage Foundation and Congressman Jason Smith, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, to file even more persuasive oppositions.
Hunter Plea Deal Scuttled – Law Prof Played Major Role; First Suggested Legal Challenges to Deal, Then Orchestrated Filings (https://www.valuewalk.com/hunter-plea-deal-scuttled-law-prof-played-major-role/)

As Abbe Lowell, Hunter's attorney, has already telegraphed, he plans to argue that the diversion agreement which purportedly immunizes Hunter from firearm (and perhaps also other) charges is still valid; that Hunter is being improperly singled out for various political reasons; that Weiss's appointment as special counsel is illegal and therefore he cannot bring these charges; and that the very statutes Hunter is being charged with are unconstitutional and therefore cannot provide a basis of a trial, much less a conviction.

Hunter's attorneys had previously written to the judge that, because the diversion agreement was signed by both parties, "The parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement." They added that their client "intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement."

But it seems clear that, for at least a half dozen reasons, the so-called deal was never finalized, and therefore is not valid or binding, argues Banzhaf.
jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf