There is a notable filing this week in Los Angeles where Hunter Biden is seeking to dismiss one of his many lawsuits against individuals associated with disclosing or discussing the contents of his infamous laptop. While Hunter spent years suggesting that the laptop images and emails might be Russian disinformation (with the help of obliging mainstream media), the contents were found to be authentic by courts and agencies. In seeking to drop his lawsuit against an ex-White House aide, Garrett Ziegler, Biden claims to be, again, in financial ruin.
What is notable is not just the underlying claims of economic distress but who filed them. The attorney, Bryan M. Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, previously threatened me and others with lawsuits for writing on the scandal in relation to support that Hunter received from lawyer Kevin Morris (who appeared to be both his financial backer and his lawyer).
Years ago, I wrote about how the Biden team had decided to use a scorched earth strategy to target critics. Various people, including myself, were threatened with lawsuits—actions that could drain the targets of hundreds of thousands of dollars and tie them up in court for years.
In my case, I received a letter from Sullivan that I could face a defamation action if I do not retract (or if I repeat) my criticism of Morris’s representational relationship with Hunter.
I responded by immediately revealing the contents of his letter and repeating those allegations. Sullivan and Morris never sued.
Now, however, Sullivan is filing as counsel for Hunter and claiming that he is the victim of circumstances and that it would be unfair to continue litigation that he started in targeting one of his critics.
The filing cites the loss of the home in the recent fires. He does not own the home.
“Moreover, this lack of resources has been exacerbated after the fires in the Pacific Palisades in early January upended Plaintiff’s life by rendering his rental house unlivable for an extended period of time and, like many others in that situation, Plaintiff has had difficulty in finding a new permanent place to live as well as finding it difficult to earn a living… So, Plaintiff must focus his time and resources dealing with his relocation, the damage he has incurred due to the fires, and paying for his family’s living expenses as opposed to this litigation.”
Hunter notes that the home is now “unlivable” and that he and his family are struggling to find permanent housing. He adds that he has “suffered a significant downturn in his income and has significant debt in the millions of dollars range.”
Hunter has reportedly received millions not just from alleged influence peddling over the years, but from friends in the forms of loans and support. Throughout those years, he has continued to live a relatively extravagant lifestyle.
One line of income was created through his art sales. However, there were reports of a collapse in the value of Hunter’s art with the departure of his father from office. With the loss in the value of his influence, there was a telling drop in the demand for his art.
However, there are now indications that even the prior demand was inflated by media reports.
Georges Bergès, Hunter Biden’s art gallerist, contradicted the White House’s claims about the handling of the art. Hunter reportedly did know who purchased roughly 70% of the value of his art, including Democratic donors Morris and Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali.
Biden’s allies in the media hyped the sales to show that Hunter was a legitimate artist. However, Bergès admitted that Morris actually purchased much of the art. Morris has reportedly given Hunter millions to cover unpaid taxes and expenses. Hunter only sold paintings to ten people for $1.5 million, according to congressional testimony from 2024. Morris bought 11 works for $875,000 in total.
The fires added an interesting wrinkle to the art controversy. As I explored in a prior column, the question was whether reports of some of the art being lost in the fire could result in the purchasers filing for insurance at inflated rates. There was even the possibility of Hunter filing for lost art.
Yet his lawyers are now claiming that he is in dire financial shape and cannot support the continuation of the lawsuit that he brought against Ziegler. What they seem most concerned about is that Ziegler will now seek fees and costs from Hunter. (Previously, Hunter was able to secure such costs from Ziegler for a filing that the court found meritless.)
The motion (below) provides new insights into how Hunter’s financial situation has declined due to his father and his family’s political influence.
The filing includes representations that:
“In the 2 to 3 years prior to December 2023, I sold 27 pieces of art at an average price of $54,481.48, but since then I have only sold 1 piece of art for $36,000. Similarly, for my book sales, in the six month period before the statements (April 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023), based on the September 30, 2023 statement, 3,161 copies of my book were sold, but in the six months after the statements, only approximately 1,100 books were sold.”
Notably, Hunter also says he cannot tap others for financial support. If true, that itself would be an alarming change for the scion of the Biden family. Hunter has long been the Blanche DuBois of presidential children and “always depended on the kindness of strangers.” Now, he is claiming that “in that Plaintiff has suffered significant financial setbacks in the past year and cannot borrow any more money.”
The filing also acknowledged that he has brought lawsuits against other targets that may now have to be reexamined:
“Plaintiff acknowledges that he has other civil actions pending and is assessing each one on a case-by-case basis to allocate his limited resources. (Biden Decl., at ¶ 7). Plaintiff cannot describe the details of those analyses as it involves attorney-client communications and the attorney work doctrine.”
Yet, these litigants were also forced to spend money after being targeted by the Biden team. Now that Hunter has secured a pardon from his father and is ready to move on, he suggests that these other litigants see their cases dropped. They are also likely to balk at the suggestion that they should not go quietly into that night (without recouping some of their fees and costs).
While Hunter insists that he “does not have the resources to continue to litigate this matter,” Ziegler and other litigants are likely to point to the aggressive pattern of lawsuits as evidence of an effort to drain critics, including the role of Sullivan himself.
It is not clear if Ziegler and others are going to note the aggressive litigation strategy of Hunter and his lawyers in seeking fees or costs. Years ago, the Washington Post details how Morris called for a “more aggressive” response to those seeking to investigate the alleged influence peddling, including hitting critics, such as Fox News, with possible defamation lawsuits.
For those critics, the message (which was notably fed to the Post) was clear: criticize the Bidens and face financial or personal ruin. Now, the team may find that their targets may not want to simply dismiss the case and walk away. It is the litigation version of the old Chinese proverb that the problem with riding a tiger is always the dismount. The problem with hitting critics with aggressive lawsuits is always the dismissal.
Here is the filing: Hunter Biden Motion
Loading…
