Hunter Biden Faces Possible Court Order To Disclose His Finances In Paternity Action

We recently discussed how Hunter Biden was proven to be the father of child that he longed denied and has never supported. Now Lunden Roberts has been forced to seek a court order to force Biden to reveal his finances, a basic requirement in the establishment of child support. The motion submitted to the court reveals that Biden has yet to supply any support for his child and has refused information on his wealth.

The filing states that Biden “has provided no support for this child for over a year. The Court should not let the defendant continue to avoid his natural and legal duty to support his child by failing to provide basic information about his income, finances, and lifestyle.”

Biden is now expecting his fifth child with his new wife but he has resisted disclosures in the case involving his fourth child. He appears concerned that the information could be used in the media against him and his father over his windfall payments from a corrupt Ukrainian company. He has refused to supply information including demands to “list all banks or other financial institutions” in the past five years and “list all sources of income.” His opposition seems only designed to delay since such information is routinely supplied in such cases over disputed case of child support.

The day of financial reckoning may however soon be upon him. He is scheduled for a hearing on Jan. 7, 2020.

47 thoughts on “Hunter Biden Faces Possible Court Order To Disclose His Finances In Paternity Action”

  1. This is important for a second reason. That portion which it appears may have been obtained in a not quite legal manner cannot be used in the child support as it has to be returned to the victim. Such as the value of he free airplane rides he owes to the US Taxpayers.

  2. What a deadbeat to not provide for his blood.

    I can understand requiring a paternity test, if there was any doubt. That could be done upon birth. There was no excuse to drag this out, or not provide. it doesn’t matter how he feels about the mother, or fatherhood in general. He put a human being on this Earth and he owes that child his protection and support.

    1. We’d be better off as a society of creatures like Lunden and Hunter would keep their pants zipped, leaving both copulation and child-bearing subsidiary to domestic life.

      There’s a great deal of insufferable babble about ‘choice’ in this world, and the greasy Hunter was attempting to exercise his choices, not realizing that women have options and men have obligations. The most agreeable solution would be that the child is conveyed to responsible adults, and Hunter and Lunden stripped of any authority over said child.

      1. It’s very sad for the child.

        And what you said is true. Women can choose whether they want to be a mother or not, but the father has no say in the matter. Even if the mother wants a late term abortion, which is giving birth, but pausing the process to kill the baby in utero, the father has no say. He might desperately want to save his child. Be financially prepared to support him. Want sole custody. If the mother wants that child dead, she can kill him, even after viability where states allow it. In a late term abortion, she still gives birth. It doesn’t prevent her from going through childbirth; the procedure requires it. It must be a very helpless feeling.

        There are also lawsuits over “snow children.” Sometimes a couple freezes embryos, and then splits up. If the mother doesn’t want them to be born, she can fight the father over the embryos. They are considered property, not humans, and fought over as property rights. Personally, I think if one parent does not want the embryos, they should not have the right to deny the other parent their children. Really sad cases are when the embryos were created before one parent lost fertility, such as from cancer treatment. To deny that person their embryos is not ethical.

        1. @Karen- it’s just a short leap to say that she had a moral duty to abort the child.

          Somebody recently pointed out Jonathan Gruber’s charming paper on the “marginal child.”

          If this says in the news, the MSM will be making that case.

          1. For those with an interest, what follows is Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, expounding on whether an unborn child is better or worse off with increased abortion access. Like it’s a question.

            To Gruber, apparently, the obvious flies over his head.

            “is the marginal child who is not born when abortion access increases more or less disadvantaged than the average child?..We find that cohorts born after abortion was legalized experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. Our estimates imply that the marginal child who was not born due to legalization would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent family, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 50% more likely to receive welfare, and 35% more likely to die as an infant. These selection effects imply that the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare expenditures through 1994.”

            https://repository.wellesley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=economicsfaculty

            Gruber’s paper remarks on the abortion of “lower quality children”, which he defines as unhealthy fetuses and children who would live in “worse circumstances.” This is straight out of eugenics…which so horrified the world when practiced by the Nazis. It is still employed today, although the name has been sanitized from eugenics to choice.

            Margaret Sanger’s original stated purpose was to reduce the procreation of those she deemed “unfit”, namely poor non whites, the uneducated, and the promiscuous. You can get free condoms in all 50 states, and yet black communities disproportionately use abortion services more than any other. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born alive. Why is this? Is it targeted advertising? A carryover of eugenics marketing efforts? Why are more black people having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, and then aborting the babies than other groups? And yet there are still extremely high rates of single motherhood. Why is unsafe sex practices more common in the black community? Not wearing a condom led to other statistical differences other than pregnancy. The CDC reports that black males have a rate of gonorrhea 8.3 times higher than that of white males. Other groups are catching up, however, with the proliferation of hookup culture. STDs continue to rise in the United States, as predicted.

            This is a complete reversal. Blacks used to be generally conservative, attended church at a high rate, had a lower rate of single motherhood than whites, and statistically opposed abortion. After being denied to have stable families of their own, I don’t think you could pry a black father away from his wife and children with a crowbar for a hundred years. It’s been reversed, until today more black babies are killed in the womb than born, and a majority of mothers are single, with all the subsequent risk factors for poverty. There are too many families without a father present.

            When the black community lost its conservative identity, and the nuclear family, its culture fell apart. There are rich and middle class black families who do not make these choices. It’s the poor segment where these statistics have ravaged. The culture is eroding in other groups, as well, with similar results.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697

            Gruber misses the point about why children would be born into poverty, namely, the high rate of single motherhood and the loss of conservative culture. The statistically most likely way for a woman to leave poverty for the middle class is to complete high school, and wait to have children until she is married. Just those 2 simple choices make her likely to improve her socioeconomic status in short order. The reverse is also true. One of the most statistically significant choices she could make that would doom her to poverty is to become a single mother with an absentee father.

            Gruber skips all this, and proclaims that a child would be better off dead than poor. “Not born” means aborted by his mother. Children are considered “advantaged” if they are born after abortion access because the ones who survive to birth were considered statistically less likely to be born poor. This does not address in any way unsafe sex practices, absentee fathers, the reduction of marriage before procreation, and other self destructive choices going on across our society.

        2. “Women can choose whether they want to be a mother or not, but the father has no say in the matter.”
          ********************
          Hardly a shock to either party pre-coitus!

    2. @Karen- he denied that he had sex with her. A flat out lie. Much different – and more shocking – than questioning paternity. Following the Clinton example and hoping for the best, apparently. So much for #believewomen.

      But you hit a home run – he put a human on this earth and owes that child his protection and support.

      All of these issues are central to Grandpa Joe’s campaign. One would think he’d have something to say about it.

      1. ah, cut Slick Willy some slack. She just gave him a BJ. Doesn’t count as sex in the high school lexicon, why should it have counted for him? LOL

        1. @ Mr. Kurtz- CNN is reporting that Grandpa Joe is over at the Senate passing out cigars left over from the Clinton White House. 🙂

  3. Someone should ask Grandpa Joe how he feels about this. Mr. Biden, how does Hunter’s denial that he even had sex with the woman square with your campaign’s commitment to #believewomen? You have long advocated for parental responsibility, how to you respond to those who say that fathers should support their children without forcing the mother to obtain a court order? How do you feel about those in the media that smeared the mother of your grandchild as being a stripper? Shouldn’t you be denouncing them? And now that you know for sure that it is your grandchild, do you and Hunter intend to welcome him/her into your family?

    These questions are all central to policy issues that are at the heart of his campaign. Sheesh.

  4. https://www.scribd.com/document/431035747/Rosemont-Seneca-Bohai-Bank-Records-Listing

    Look at page 21. Burima makes 2 deposits of $83,333.33 and Archer withdraws $99.000 and $200,000.
    look at page 29 Robert Biden withdraws $15,000, $10,000 and $25,000.
    So it goes through the 260 pages. Burisma deposits and they withdraw.
    Probable no connection. I’m just reading something into it.
    Oh wait a minute They is that press release where Burisma announced the new board member.

    Another interesting article here: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/631717.html

    “In addition, Martynenko, Pereloma, Zhurylo, Sorokin and Bohdanets are charged with having appropriated funds of VostGOK in the amount of $17.28 million through the unlawful conclusion and fulfillment of a contract to sell uranium concentrate of VostGOK via Austria’s intermediary Steuermann Investitions- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH, which is under control of the members of the criminal group.”

    USA, Switzerland ,Austria…..

  5. How are hunter Biden’s problems and allegedly bad behavior have any thing to do with Trump …oh yea. He has to turn over his financials but our sainted president still refuses to do so. Got it!

      1. FFS – According to Stormy, The Donald was not wearing a condom with her. That is probably the bravest thing he has ever done. 😉

        1. If her allegation about not wearing protection was true, then that was an even more terrible thing to do to Melania than the act itself.

    1. LOL! Yeah, that’s a winning strategy. I’m not sure, but I don’t believe Hunter will be able to appeal this family court decision to SCOTUS.

    2. 45 years ago as part of my schooling before being issued a badge, 38 S&W, and being put on patrol I was taught the requirement of probable cause. In an investigation that produces probably case the investigator pursues the evidence pertaining to the case. The evidence indicate several billion dollars have been stolen and Biden was on the board of the key player. The PG issued subpoena for all board members. He chose to be on the board and the company is under investigation period. Nothing personal. Nothing political.

      President Trump as Chief Executor would be remiss in his duties to not pursue the case.

      Congress may have written a new law but as I was taught we investigate crimes not people.
      Produce evidence of a crime being committed and then pursue the criminal.

    3. In a divorce or child support case, the party has to provide financial information.

      Trump likely had to provide financial statements in his divorces.

      Tax returns are not a requirement to run for President, or Congress, or the governorship.

      Career politicians with eyes on the Oval Office craft their tax return plan years in advance. Trump is a businessman. Therefore, he would have every write-off his team of tax accountants and lawyer could provide. Otherwise, they would not be doing their fiduciary duty.

      Then Democrats will attack each legal deduction as unfair, and their faithful followers will take up the hue and cry. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi won’t be questioned on her vineyard agricultural deductions, because she has not provided her tax returns.

      So, here is what Democrats are doing. Tax returns are not required by the Constitution to run for office or serve as President. Financial disclosures are required, and were given.

      Democrats are trying to make (another) nonexistent crime, penalizing someone when there is no rule or law for it.

      They are the legislature. If they want tax returns to be required, then pass a law requiring it. But if they do, they need to include themselves, as well. If you are going to require more than a statement of finances and financial ties, then require it for everyone in all three branches – Supreme Court Judges, Congress, and the President. That would be fair.

      1. Trump has probably signed numerous entity returns as a fiduciary in addition to his own.

        For an operation with massive revenues, the numerosity of transactions comprising both the revenues and also the deductions, could be counted in the millions, tens of millions, who knows. Good luck parsing all that.

        let’s take a las vegas casino for example. A study showed that the average daily take for the 23 diff LV casinos was $630,000 per day. Now most of those chip purchases, are done in cash. How do you audit them? You can’t basically. the tax authority is relying on the business systems to ensure that the revenues are reported accurately.

        And, at least since Tony Spilotro and the Outfit were purged, and public corporations took over, the take probably has been reported accurately. But just imagine trying to prove otherwise!

        So the pretense of digging up dirt on Trump via tax returns, is mostly a fog of expectations with no real guarantee of result.

        So far the best the NYT could muster is an incompetent analysis of his dad’s estate tax returns. I debunked that a few times and won’t rehash it, except to say, any lawyer or CPA who has actually been paid to prepare such returns and plan such things, understands that the NYT article’s take on it was bogus fake news.

        Our tax reporting system is voluntary, but complex. It has a lot of things programmed into it to create transparency for tax examiners, but not the general public. Indeed financial privacy laws over the decades have strengthened the expectation of privacy of financial information in the general public. I have seen over decades how judges have responded to this by quashing discovery demands for tax information that in previous generations would have been forced to deliver.

        Democrats are rowing upstream from reality and public expectations on this.

  6. He appears concerned that the information could be used in the media against him and his father over his windfall payments from a corrupt Ukrainian company.

    And just like that, Hunter Biden discovered pro choice is not a valid argument regarding child support.

    1. Pat C – Hunter is going to be living at Mom’s with all his money going to child support. His current wife is preggers again.

  7. Interesting.

    Professor, can you update us on how Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr are doing on their compulsory classes on how NOT to rip off charities?

    1. Your handlers at Correct-the-Record need to instruct you on how to be less transparent. You’re really clumsy at this.

      1. Your IT tech needs to update your software, or maybe turn you off and on. You’re stuck on the same auto-response.

    2. As usual Anon doesn’t know the facts. What he wishes others to believe is wrong and intentionally false.

      This was an agreement. The government despite all the taxpayers money spent, all the lawyers and all the time could not win the case. Trump had to pay his own legal costs while facing a government that could continue the case indefinitely.

      There were no winners or losers.

      Trump agreed to comply with the law which he claims he did. He also agreed to train his employees in the basics of the law so that they would understand the law and carry it out. This is standard practice. They also agreed on the parameters for income and social requirements which is what successful entrepreneurs generally have in writing for their managers.

      In essence a long agreement is stating that Trump will follow the law and his managers will be informed of the law and the agreement. It also specifically recognizes in the documen that Trump has been following the law.

      Final decision: The government did NOT prevail.

      1. This was kind of the program at the SPLC overhaul after they fired Morris Dees and Heidi Beirich and Dees’ other quislings.

        Dees had been fleecing the organization for decades. Of course the organization had been fleecing the donors so it was a proper form of “justice raining down” like dollars on a pole dancer

        I’d love to see an audit of their Form 990, it would be fantastic fun to pull back that curtain especially the time period say 1990-2000. Probably those books have been burned by now.

  8. On the contrary side, what’s a good stripper make these days. Stormy, are you out there? Or is Lunden the basketball player? I’m having trouble keeping up with the Biden pop(up) tarts!

Leave a Reply