Hunter Biden won $1.7 million in punitive damages from Patrick Byrne on Friday after a US district judge in California entered default against the former Overstock.com chief in a defamation case. The ruling also added $1 in nominal damages and about $35,000 in sanctions, turning the lawsuit into a money judgment Byrne now owes.
Stephen Wilson of California
Stephen Wilson of California said Byrne had not provided documentary evidence that could allow a reasonable person to believe the story was true. In his Friday order, Wilson wrote there was “ample evidence” that Byrne “knew the story to be false, and much of the narrative describing the covert meeting with an Iranian government official was fabricated.”
The judge also found “the evidence is clear and convincing that defendant has engaged in intentional misrepresentation with conscious disregard towards plaintiff’s rights.” That finding followed Byrne’s failure to appear for the scheduled October jury trial, which Wilson treated as a sanction after repeated, intentional disobedience of court orders and efforts to delay the case.
Hunter Biden in 2023
Hunter Biden filed the defamation suit in 2023 over an interview in which Byrne said Biden sought an $800 million bribe from Iran’s government in the fall of 2021. The complaint said Byrne “made, published, and repeated false and defamatory statements knowing full well that the statements are false, for the purpose of subjecting plaintiff to harassment, intimidation, and harm.”
The claimed scheme said Hunter Biden offered to go to Joe Biden, have him unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and ensure that the United States would go easy on Iran during nuclear talks in exchange for the payment. In the court record, Wilson described Byrne’s dispute with Biden as one involving “actual malice.”
Bryan Sullivan on Byrne
Bryan Sullivan said Byrne had effectively accused his client of treason and said the claims were fabricated. He also said, “The judgment is $1.7m in punitive damages, and it is the floor, not the ceiling, of what Mr Byrne owes for his conduct.”
Sullivan added, “If Mr Byrne chooses to repeat any of it, we will be back in court.” That leaves Byrne facing the existing judgment, the sanctions, and the risk of another court fight if he repeats the same claims.
