Hunter Biden is potentially facing serious legal trouble in relation to his ongoing paternity suit involving a young girl he fathered out of wedlock several years ago during an affair with a woman from Arkansas.
The judge presiding over the case ordered during a hearing on Monday that Biden must appear in person for all future hearings for the remainder of the proceedings, the New York Post reported.
That order stemmed from the frustration expressed by the judge over the extended timeline of the litigation caused by repeated delays and an inability of Biden's attorney to answer seemingly basic questions about his client who was not in attendance for the hearing.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Monday that Independence County Circuit Judge Holly Meyer held a hearing via Zoom to address a motion filed days earlier by the attorneys representing Lunden Roberts, the mother of the 4-year-old girl linked to Hunter Biden by way of a DNA test in 2019.
The lawsuit, first filed by Roberts in 2018, was seemingly settled in March 2020 with an agreement that included monthly child support payments from Biden, but he petitioned to reopen that case last year to try and reduce those monthly payments, which predictably prompted motions from Roberts for discovery to reveal the full extent of Biden's financial situation.
A motion filed last week in the case by Roberts' attorneys announced that she had hired a man named Garrett Zeigler as an "expert witness" on Biden's abandoned laptop, which purportedly contains pertinent financial information, but during the Monday hearing, Biden's attorney Brent Langdon seemed to dispute that the laptop even belonged to his client at all in expressing opposition to the hiring of Zeigler.
"Well, let's clear that issue up right now. Is it your client's laptop or not?" Judge Meyer asked. Langdon replied, "Your honor, I'm not involved in all of that stuff. It's not my client's laptop as far as I know."
After issuing a reminder that clients would be held to what their attorneys say in court, Meyer tried again and asked, "Is it your client's position, you're representing to this court, that it is not his laptop?" However, Langdon said in response, "Your honor, I am not in a position to even begin to answer that question."
That dodge from Biden's attorney proved to be too much for the judge, as Meyer then addressed the attorneys for both parties and said, "From now on ... I want both of your clients at every hearing I conduct," and added, "I will no longer allow us to excuse clients ... because it is interfering with the progress of litigation, which is taking way too long to get over simple points."
The judge proceeded to deny Langdon's request for a restraining order against Zeigler and set a date of May 1 for the next hearing, at which both Biden and Roberts must now be present, ahead of a tentatively scheduled trial date of July 24-25.
Hunter Biden should perhaps consider himself lucky that he was only ordered by Judge Meyer to appear in person for all future hearings, as the attorneys for Roberts had actually asked the judge in last week's filed motion to hold Biden in contempt of court and temporarily incarcerate him for failing to provide any requested information as part of the court-ordered discovery process.
The motion noted that despite an order of protection issued by Meyer in February to keep Biden's financial information secret, "not so much as one single item or word" had been turned over since then by Biden's attorney.
Roberts' attorneys further asserted that there was "no valid excuse or justification" for that failure, that Biden was "playing games" with the court and deliberately engaging in "vexatious litigation practices" to delay the proceedings, and argued, "This court should incarcerate the defendant in the Cleburne County Detention Center until he complies with this court’s orders and answers discovery."
It will be interesting to see whether or not Biden does appear in person for the next hearing set for Monday, and if not, whether the judge will then grant more consideration to the requests that he be held in contempt and jailed or sanctioned for failing to fully comply with the court's orders.