Hunter Biden, or more specifically his defense attorneys, are now scrambling to avoid sanctions after they were accused by a federal judge in California of knowingly and willfully misleading the court with false statements.

Biden's attorneys now insist that they "never tried to mislead" by falsely claiming that Special Counsel David Weiss never previously filed criminal charges against their client in his capacity as the U.S. attorney of Delaware, according to The Hill.

That inaccurate claim came as part of a motion to dismiss the indictment for tax law violations in California based on a misunderstanding of the specific elements of a Florida judge's dismissal of Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

Biden's attorneys lied to a federal judge

CNN reported last week that Hunter Biden's defense attorneys were rebuked and threatened with sanctions by federal District Judge Mark Scarsi over "false statements" that were included in a motion to dismiss the nine felony and misdemeanor tax crime charges that Special Counsel Weiss filed against Biden in California.

Biden's attorneys had seized upon the recent ruling from federal District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida to dismiss Special Counsel Smith's classified documents charges against former President Trump because Smith had not been properly appointed to the special counsel role -- primarily because he was named directly to that position by Attorney General Merrick Garland and was not first appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney.

In making that argument, Biden's attorneys falsely claimed at multiple points in the filing that Special Counsel Weiss, in his prior Senate-confirmed role as a U.S. attorney, had not filed "charges" against their client.

"This court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel"

Yet, as Judge Scarsi pointed out in his order for Biden's attorneys to explain why they shouldn't face sanctions, "These statements, however, are not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true," as Weiss did file two charges against Biden in Delaware as part of a plea deal that later crumbled under scrutiny by a federal judge in Delaware, per CNN.

"The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial," the judge warned, and according to the New York Post, further explained the "meaningful distinction" between the Trump and Biden cases, in that Smith, unlike Weiss, had not been previously confirmed by the Senate.

"But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings," Scarsi said. "This court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel."

Biden's attorneys insist they "never tried to mislead" the court

Hunter Biden's attorneys have now responded to Judge Scarsi's threat of sanctions for lying to the court with a nine-page filing in which they asserted, "Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word 'charges' to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all. Here, context matters."

"Defense counsel has never tried to mislead the Court about the fact that Mr. Weiss, as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, brought charges" previously as a U.S. attorney in prior plea agreement, they continued. "However, because an issue with the use of the word 'charges' in the Motion has now been raised
by the Court, the defense will amend its Motion to substitute the word 'indictments' in the place of 'charges' in the three sentences identified above."

"Nevertheless, there is no basis on which to sanction Mr. Biden’s counsel for the use of that one word, which was not misleading in the context in which the two prior Informations had been repeatedly addressed with the Court," Biden's attorneys added.

Biden's attorneys level accusations against the judge

Unfortunately for Biden's attorneys, any grace they may have received from the judge from their explanation of why they shouldn't be sanctioned for making false statements may have been nullified by spurious accusations of silencing their free speech and tainting the jury pool that they leveled against the same judge at the end of the filing.

"Moreover, the imposition of sanctions against a criminal defendant’s counsel this close to pre-trial and trial proceedings based on a single word would chill the vigorous defense of Mr. Biden and have the improper effect of dissuading defense counsel from raising appropriate issues," they wrote. "In addition, just the filing of the Court’s order to show cause accusing Mr. Biden’s counsel of making false statements to the tribunal has been widely publicized. That filing and an imposition of sanctions against Mr. Biden’s counsel on the basis of a properly-intentioned description of the proceedings
to date could easily taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Biden of a fair trial."