Posted on 03/03/2024 2:55:06 PM PST by packagingguy
Hunter Biden was paid $1 million by Chinese firm CEFC to act as attorney for their employee, Dr Patrick Ho, but now Ho is threatening to sue the first son within seven days unless he gets the money back — because he claims Hunter did no legal work for him.
Ho sent a legal letter to Hunter last week requesting that their attorney-client agreement be terminated immediately and threatening legal action unless he receives a detailed list of services provided by Hunter and reimbursement for the unused funds, as laid out in the 2017 contract.
Ho’s letter, sent by Hong Kong law firm Huen & Partners to Hunter’s attorney Abbe Lowell in Washington, DC, set a deadline of seven days for the repayment of any remaining funds.
“Patrick says he paid him, and that Hunter never did anything for him,” a friend of Ho’s told The Post, “and that according to the contract the money should be reimbursed.”
The $1 million legal retainer was wired from CEFC in China to CEFC’s Hong Kong HSBC account, and then, on November 2, 2017, to the American bank account of Hudson West III (HWIII) the firm Hunter co-owned with CEFC, and then to Hunter’s private firm, Owasco, according to his California tax indictment.
According to Ho, Hunter, 54, pocketed the $1 million but did no legal work for him, other than call another attorney, Edward Kim, and turn up half an hour late for a meeting with Ho and Kim at the Manhattan Correctional Center the morning after Ho’s arrest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Nominated for Post of the Year.
According to Ho, Hunter, 54, smoked $900,000 of the “legal fees” and gave his dad $100,000.
Hunter did no legal work for Ho, other than find him some Caucasian call girls.
At the time of this report, Ho has not yet committed suicide.
I love the Post as much as anyone, but they’re no different than the rest of the media in woefully insufficient coverage of legal issues. The issue that scream out but is completely ignored in this article is what is the relevant state of limitations? One can tell in what state the contract was entered into, but by way of illustration, the statute of limitations for breach of co tract in CA is four years, in DE it is three years. Laws vary from state to state but it looks like breach, the failure to provide any actual services, may have been as long as about 4.5 years ago and that’s a long time in civil law
The fact that the accusation may be beyond the limitations kind of makes my point. It’s ok if this case goes nowhere. It is an attempt to legitimize the payment that Hunter received.
Hunter obviously misunderstood Joe when told to go f*ck a Ho and bring me the dough. Hunter got the dough and turned it into blow now he’s f*cking old Joe with a poorly timed sh*t show.
It sure is a good thing Hunter had a FARA registration to work on his Chinese client’s behalf. Oh, wait.. You say he didn’t?
Hunter’s Ho Sues For Non-Payment!
Hunter has lots of Ho’s because of the Big Guy, and not because of Hunter.
Or a threat to expose more Hunter grifting. Perhaps his buddy the lawyer can “loan” him the money to pay this guy off
Angela Chao, just like Hunter Biden was also very involved with the CCP.
She is dead. Her brother-in-law Mitch McConnell resigned his position as senate minority leader shortly after Angela’s death.
Has the CCP activate their hit squads?
..and cousin to Westward and Ho, Ho.
Hunter’s legal expertise is limited to nonrefundable retainers.
What the...? Is he alleging doing something was required?
Dr Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist who spent years on Fox News. He also treated Hunter Biden.
Armed agents raided his office, took his patient records, his guns, as well as Hunter’s laptop, and never charged him with a crime.
What was this about? He talks about it for the first time w/ Tucker Carlson.
Video https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1765149038096359446
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.