Connect with us

California

Whistleblower Seeks To Determine If Hunter Biden Paid California Taxes

Published

on

Whistleblower Seeks To Determine If Hunter Biden Paid California Taxes


Thanks to the presidential pardon from his father, Hunter Biden will no longer have to worry about the federal charges he was facing for failure to pay federal income tax on millions of dollars in earnings. President Joe Biden’s December 1 pardon does not, however, immunize his son from prosecution for failure to pay state income tax. Whether or not Hunter Biden fulfilled his state tax obligations to California is a question now being pursued by a public whistleblower.

Hunter Biden was a resident of California, home to the highest top marginal income tax rate in the country at 13.3%, during the years for which he has pled guilty to federal tax evasion. While media coverage has focused on unmet obligations to the IRS, the prospect of unpaid state tax liabilities is a topic that has never received much attention. In early December, James Lacy, president of the United States Justice Foundation, filed a public complaint (Case Number 12024-14638) with the California State Auditor calling for an investigation of the California Franchise Tax Board in order to determine whether Hunter Biden filed and paid state taxes for the years he has pled guilty to federal tax evasion.

Advertisement

Given the amount of income on which Hunter Biden failed to pay federal taxes, it’s a potentially large sum of money that he also might have neglected to pay to the government of California, a Democrat-run state where taxpayers are on the hook for an estimated trillion dollars-worth of unfunded public pension liabilities and where employers were recently hit with a payroll tax hike triggered by Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D-Calif.) decision to not repay unemployment insurance loans taken out from the federal government during the pandemic.

“Californians who file their tax returns and timely pay their taxes deserve to know whether or not Hunter Biden has received any special treatment from the Franchise Tax Board regarding his tax liability,” said Lacy. “I am hoping my Whistleblower Complaint will draw attention to this issue and bring some transparency to whether our state tax system has acted fairly.”

“If Hunter Biden failed to pay federal taxes, it’s reasonable to suspect he also failed to pay applicable state income taxes for those years,” says Ryan Ellis, an IRS-enrolled agent. Lacy also called on the Governor to act, saying “Newsom should also reveal to California taxpayers whether or not Hunter Biden was secretly ‘pardoned’ from state tax liability and enforcement as well.”

California Combines High Tax Rates With Muscular Collection

Aside from the nation’s highest state income tax rate, California has long been considered the most aggressive state in the nation when it comes to taxing foreign-sourced income. “Unfortunately for the President’s son, not only did he face the highest state income tax rate, he was also dealing with a state whose tax law has the longest and most aggressive arm,” Ellis said. “Comparatively speaking, California is the most litigious state I have seen in terms of chasing people down for money. Only New York rivals them.”

Advertisement

“It doesn’t matter if the income was coming from the former Mayor of Moscow, a Chinese private equity firm, or a Ukrainian gas company, California tax obligations are global and would’ve applied for the years in which Hunter Biden was a Golden State resident,” added Ellis, who runs his own tax preparation business and is president of the Center for a Free Economy.

The Department of Justice noted in a September 5 press release that “Hunter Biden engaged in a four-year scheme in which he chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019 and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns.” While Hunter Biden won’t face repercussions for skipping out on those federal tax obligations thanks to the pardon from his father, that doesn’t shield him from state level prosecution for failure to pay taxes to California.

Why would a person pay state taxes on income for which it’s known they did not pay federal taxes owed? That question and the desire to answer it is behind the complaint recently filed with the State Auditor. Fortunately for Hunter Biden, California tax authorities and the California press corps have thus far demonstrated little interest in answering that question.

Hunter Biden also doesn’t have to worry about the most recent state wealth tax proposal introduced Sacramento. That’s because Governor Newsom confirmed earlier this year that he opposes the latest wealth tax bill introduced by California legislators. That should be welcomed news for Hunter Biden, who purchased a $142,000 sports car with funds provided by a Kazakh businessman, and who received a 3.16 carat diamond from a Chinese businessman, both of which would be prime targets of the sort of wealth tax sought by some California lawmakers.

In his 2023 State of the Union Address, President Biden promoted his effort to make “the wealthiest and the biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share. That message was echoed throughout 2024 by Vice President Kamala Harris (D), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and other prominent Democrats. Any politician who wants to continue calling for stricter gun control and higher tax burdens on the rich, however, will have a hard time doing so in the future if they declined to comment when the President’s son was let off the hook for failing to pay taxes on millions in income and violating of gun laws.

Advertisement



Source link

California

How California Effectively Legalized an Open-Air Sex Market

Published

on

How California Effectively Legalized an Open-Air Sex Market

It’s midafternoon outside KIPP Academy of Opportunity, a charter school serving children in fifth through eighth grade on South Figueroa Street in residential Los Angeles. As children inside prepare for their futures, a young female struts by in high heels, wearing nothing but a bikini and a jacket. 

“We’ll see some police officers roll by and some young women out here just prostituting. They’re walking right by, and the police drive right by them,” the school’s gun-toting security guard said. “It’s normal.”

This is Figueroa Corridor, one of California’s most notorious sex markets. Here, prostitutes gather, night after night, selling sex acts that, according to one former cop, cost as little as $25. Last year, members and associates of a gang were indicted after allegedly trafficking adults and minors—including foster children—along the corridor and branding them with tattoos.

Advertisement

This was all the predictable result of public policy. In 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law decriminalizing loitering with intent to commit prostitution. When he signed the bill, Newsom suggested it would help would reduce the harassment of women.

We went to Figueroa to see the results for ourselves. As we walked the corridor, saw the sex market, and rode along with a former LAPD vice cop, one thing became clear: on Figueroa, human flesh is big business—something state leaders appear to have no desire to change.

The scene stretches across almost four miles of hot, dusty cement. Nearly nude women cluster at the start of side streets just off the main road. Lines of cars slowly cruise along, apparently hoping to buy. Pimps either oversee the prostitutes themselves, on a nearby phone, or through hired low-level watchers. Sirens blare constantly, but officers often just roll on by. When asked about activity on the corridor, one prostitute said, “money and p*ssy,” before twerking and walking away.

Stephany Powell, a former sergeant in an LAPD Vice unit and former executive director at Journey Out, a Los Angeles–based nonprofit serving human trafficking victims, rode with us along the corridor.

“Statistically, the average age of entry for human sex trafficking is between the ages of 12 and 14 years old,” she said. “We’d see 14-, 15-year-olds that were out on the prostitution tracks. We also would see 25-to-30-year-olds . . . some of them had been out on the streets on the prostitution tracks since age 13. And in those cases, nine times out of ten, they had a trafficker.”

Advertisement

Figueroa has been a sex-trafficking den for decades. But recent policy changes have made the corridor harder to police. In California, it had been a crime to loiter with the intent of committing prostitution since at least 1995. Patrol officers could use this law to curtail the street market—and stop, identify, and rescue trafficked minors.

That began to change in 2016. That year, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1322, prohibiting minors from being charged with solicitation of and loitering with intent to commit prostitution. The law was arguably well-intentioned, reflecting a belief that trafficked children shouldn’t be treated as criminals.

But that wasn’t enough for the state’s progressives. In 2021, State Senator Scott Wiener authored S.B. 357, a bill that would fully decriminalize loitering with intent to commit prostitution. A trio of the state’s most powerful progressive institutions—the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU’s California chapter, and Equality California—rallied behind the bill, which passed in 2022.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill in July of that year, suggesting that it would reduce the “harassment of women.” He also referenced “transgender adults,” seemingly endorsing LGBT activists’ view that the loitering statute had criminalized “walking while trans.”

“Black adults accounted for 56.1% of the loitering charges in Los Angeles between 2017-2019, despite making up less than 10% of the city’s population,” Newsom wrote. “To be clear, this bill does not legalize prostitution. It simply revokes provisions of the law that have led to disproportionate harassment of women and transgender adults.”

Advertisement

Since the law’s passage, however, Figueroa has more prostitutes than it did before. Before S.B. 357, Powell says she delivered around 30 makeup kits along the entire corridor each night that she engaged in outreach efforts. When we drove past a particularly active handful of blocks, Powell said that after “S.B. 357 passed, we counted about 60 girls just from this track [alone].”

More minors are apparently being trafficked, too. The Times reported that LAPD Sergeant Al Navarro’s officers, who work at the nearby 77th Street station, rescued 123 children in 2024—a nearly eightfold increase from 2022, the year before S.B. 357 took effect.

The law itself is driving these trends. Before S.B. 357, police officers could use a woman’s attire and behavior to determine that she was loitering to commit prostitution. Once that behavior was decriminalized, prostitutes began wearing hardly any clothes—and law enforcement found itself helpless to control the sex trade.

“A lot of the girls hardly have anything on, they’re practically naked. In many cases you can see right through whatever they’re wearing,” Powell said. “Before S.B. 357 . . . what would happen if we were working vice and we’d see somebody out there like that, we could arrest them for solicitation of prostitution. Now, in order for you to arrest them for solicitation of prostitution, there has to be an act involved.”

S.B. 357 has also enabled traffickers. In the past, a patrol officer could arrest a loitering prostitute to get her off the streets and encourage her to testify against a trafficker. Today, law enforcement has to use resource-strapped undercover units to target traffickers one-by-one.

Advertisement

“SB 357 removed a key enforcement tool that kept communities free from red light blight,” former Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva told us. “This ill-advised bill condemned the marginalized to be sex trafficked, and human trafficking has exploded.”

The situation is so dire that the federal government intervened. In August 2025, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli spearheaded the region’s first-ever RICO human trafficking case against the vicious Hoover Criminal Gang. Essayli’s office charged six members and associates of the Hoovers with various crimes, including sex trafficking of minors, money laundering, and sexual exploitation of a child.

The indictment spells out the depraved allegations. The Hoovers and their associates allegedly targeted adults and children as young as 14; branded their victims with tattoos; and, in some cases, required their victims to secure $1,000 per night. In one instance, a Hoover associate and two unindicted co-conspirators allegedly tried to kidnap prostitutes from San Bernardino, a plot that failed only when the two targets broke free and escaped.

On July 1, 2026, a federal follow-up operation took down another ten suspects, including the operator of a seedy motel, who was charged with “financially benefiting from the Hoover gang’s sex trafficking operation.”

City Journal’s four-day visit to the corridor took place just before the second operation against the Hoovers and revealed the challenges faced by the ongoing federal efforts. Figueroa still pulsed with activity, with the entire apparatus of apparent prostitutes, pimps, watchers, and Johns out in the open for all to see. Police drove on by. Women walk the corridor, risking disease, beatings, and death with each step.

Advertisement

When he signed S.B. 357, Gavin Newsom suggested that the new law would help reduce harassment against women. What it enabled instead is a wave of crime, suffering, and abuse.



Source link
Continue Reading

California

California still hasn’t released Newsom’s Baby2Baby diaper contract as lawmakers weigh longer public records delays

Published

on

California still hasn’t released Newsom’s Baby2Baby diaper contract as lawmakers weigh longer public records delays


California’s delayed release of its Baby2Baby contract is casting a shadow over the state’s new Golden State Diaper program.

Two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a controversial multimillion-dollar state diaper contract with Baby2Baby, a nonprofit with existing ties to the Newsom administration and the First Partner, Californians still have not been allowed to see the contract or competitive bid records behind the deal to manufacture and deliver millions of California co-branded free diapers to new parents.

The delay comes despite repeated requests by CBS California Investigates and despite California law requiring the state to release these records. 

ALSO READ: California’s “Diapergate”: Critics got free diaper math wrong, but state won’t release key Baby2Baby records

The Newsom administration waited 24 days to decide whether it would even allow the public to see the records, but continues to delay releasing the Baby2Baby contract and competitive bid records that the governor announced more than two months ago.   

Advertisement

At the same time, California lawmakers are advancing legislation that would give state agencies additional time to respond to California Public Records Act requests, further extending how long the public must wait for records like these.

Delayed accountability 

CBS California Investigates requested a copy of the Baby2Baby contract on May 12, four days after Governor Newsom announced the partnership during a high-profile press conference. 

Given the controversy and misinformation surrounding the announcement, we asked the Newsom administration to forgo the formal California Public Records Act (CPRA) process and provide an expedited copy of the contract and competitive bid records. 

Both are expressly identified as public records under California law, which also requires agencies to “promptly notify” requesters whether records are disclosable, allowing a maximum of ten days to let them know the estimated date that they will provide the records. 

Instead, the Newsom Administration spent 24 days determining whether or not it would even allow Californians to see these public records, then said it would take another 42 days (if the state meets its latest deadline) to provide a copy of the contract and competitive bid records that the governor publicly announced two months ago. 

Advertisement

What is AB 1821?

Even as public interest grows, California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would allow agencies to further delay responses to Public Records Act requests, extending the maximum initial 10-day determination window and 14-day extension window from calendar days to business days.

State law does not limit how long an agency can wait to actually provide the records after they provide that initial response.   

ALSO READ: California State Secrets: What public officials don’t want you to know

Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco introduced Assembly Bill 1821, which originally sought to overhaul the transparency law to allow agencies to sue if they deemed a request “malicious” and charge up to $66 an hour to provide public records.   

The proposal triggered fierce pushback from a broad coalition including the First Amendment Coalition, ACLU California Action, Common Cause California, the League of Women Voters, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Advertisement

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg, stripped the most controversial elements from the legislation before moving it forward.

“People shouldn’t have to tell us why they want that information. People shouldn’t have to pay to get information from public officials,” Umberg told CBS California. 

Still, the amended version lengthens the legal window for officials to respond to records requests. 

Pacheco maintained the necessity of the changes for burdened departments.

“Agencies across the state are experiencing a sharp increase in requests that are exceptionally broad,” she argued during testimony.

Advertisement

Ginny LaRoe of the First Amendment Coalition contends that essential documents, such as multimillion-dollar state contracts, should be accessible without any formal request at all.

“You should have that document in your hands. You should’ve had it in your hand the day they were talking about it,” LaRoe said.

Rather than forcing Californians to wait weeks for paper-pushing, LaRoe suggests the state should proactively upload finalized agreements online with minor necessary redactions for personal information, ensuring immediate transparency and easing the administrative burden.

Umberg signaled support for a shift toward automated disclosure.

“I think there’s a world where we make them do that,” he said. “It’s up to us to motivate them to do so.”

Advertisement

More than two months after Newsom’s big announcement, CBS California Investigates continues to wait for the state to release the Baby2Baby contract and the underlying bid documents.

After waiting 24 days to confirm the records were, in fact, disclosable, the state said it would need an additional 28 days to provide them. At 5:09 pm on the 28th day – Friday, July 3, a state holiday – CBS California received a presumably automated email informing us the state would need another two weeks to provide the contract the governor announced two months ago. 

Until these public records are actually public, questions will continue to mount about how this deal was reached and how competing proposals were scored.

Day 1 | May 12

CBS California Investigates requested a copy of the Baby2Baby contract four days after Governor Newsom announced the partnership during a high-profile Capitol press conference.

The Governor’s Office referred the request to the California Health and Human Services Agency. Because of the intense public interest following the announcement, CBS California Investigates asked Deputy Secretary of External Affairs Sami Gallegos and Assistant Secretary of External Affairs Rodger Butler to forgo the formal California Public Records Act (CPRA) process and simply provide an expedited copy of the highly publicized contract.

Advertisement

Instead, Butler directed us to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), the agency handling the procurement. HCAI acknowledged receipt of the request.

Day 7 | May 19

CBS California Investigates followed up with the HCAI, again requesting an expedited copy of the contract because we were on a deadline.

The agency responded that the request was being processed through the California Public Records Act, rather than providing the contract directly.

Day 14 | May 22

Exactly 10 calendar days after the request, the HCAI invoked the CPRA’s “unusual circumstances” provision, extending the deadline another 14 days to determine whether the requested records were disclosable.

The agency wrote that it needed additional time because “two or more components of the agency have substantial subject matter interest” in the request.

Advertisement

Day 28 | June 5

Fourteen days later, the HCAI agreed that the records are public.

The agency determined that the Baby2Baby contract, procurement packet, scope of work, bid scoring sheets and vendor award documents are disclosable public records.

However, instead of releasing them, the HCAI said it would need another three to four weeks to identify and produce the records.

AB 1821 | While we waited

While CBS California Investigates waited for the records, lawmakers advanced AB 1821, legislation that originally proposed sweeping changes to California’s Public Records Act.

After bipartisan criticism and opposition from transparency advocates, many of the bill’s most controversial provisions were removed. However, the amended bill still gives agencies additional time to respond to public records requests.

Advertisement

Day 52 | July 3

Instead of receiving the records, CBS California Investigates received another email at 5:09 p.m. on the final day of the promised three-to-four-week production window.

Rather than releasing the records, the state delayed production another two weeks, pushing the expected release well past the two-month mark.

Day 56 and counting

Fifty-six days after CBS California Investigates requested the Baby2Baby contract, and 60 days after Governor Newsom publicly announced the partnership, Californians still have not been allowed to review:

  • The executed contract
  • The procurement packet
  • The scope of work
  • The competitive bid scoring sheets
  • The vendor award documents

Translation: The Newsom administration spent 24 days determining whether records already identified as public under California law could be released. It then delayed producing those records for another six weeks. If the state meets its latest deadline, Californians will have waited 66 days from our request and 70 days from the governor’s announcement to see the contract.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California Film Tax Credits For ‘Shrek’, Disney & Ben Affleck Movies

Published

on

California Film Tax Credits For ‘Shrek’, Disney & Ben Affleck Movies


Gavin Newsom is taking a victory lap today on the first anniversary of California’s film and TV tax credits program being jacked up to $750 million, and the potential presidential contender has Disney, a Shrek prequel, and Ben Affleck along for the ride.

Along with an untitled Pixar project, the Argo Oscar winner’s upcoming Gingerbread Men, the Hailee Steinfeld and Rashida Jones-starring animated Hexed from the House of Mouse and DreamWorks’ Eddie Murphy-led Donkey were among 41 films that received $187 million in incentives today.

The Pixar flick was awarded the most in credits with $26.7 million in what has become a very helpful program for animation the past 365 days. Not that ‘toons don’t pay off. The four animated features are estimated to inject $711 million into the Golden State’s economy. That breaks down to about “$145 million in qualified wages, employing over 1,900 cast and crew members” for the home of Hollywood, according to the California Film Commission.

Ben Affleck Eddie Murphy, Hailee Steinfeld & Rashida Jones

Getty Images

“We received the approval letter informing us that Gingerbread Men was accepted into the California Film and Television Tax Credit Program,” Affleck said of the indie from his and pal Matt Damon‘s Artists Equity.“ Gingerbread Men got $7 million from the state.

“Under the program, we have been able to make the films Argo, Unstoppable, and Accountant 2,” Affleck added. “Our upcoming film, Gingerbread Men, will be filmed in Los Angeles, California – close to our company office and the best and most experienced cast and crew, vendors, and service providers. Let’s continue to keep the California film industry alive with the help of the California Film and Television Tax Credit Program!”

Advertisement

Take a look at the full list of conditionally approved awards here:

Overall, the bean counters in Sacramento anticipate the 41 projects will generate $1.1 billon “in direct production spending in California” and “$145 million in qualified wages, employing over 1,900 cast and crew.”

That figure factors nicely into some very big numbers that Governor Newsom heralded Tuesday.

Specifically, $6.6 billion has been created for the state’s economy over the past year out of 170 credited projects. While that sum sounds (and is) impressive, the figure that may get the town truly jazzed is the “nearly 35,000 cast and crew jobs across California” the Governor’s team says have come out of the last year since the program allotment leapt up.

To that, including the awarded big screeners revealed today, Gov. Newsom sure sounded like he was prepping a stump speech for the Heartland on the California miracle, so to speak.

“California has long set the standard for entertainment production, creating good-paying jobs and showcasing the creativity and innovation that define the Golden State,” the governor asserted. “The first year of the expanded tax credit program is already delivering results — generating billions in economic activity, creating opportunities for businesses and the workforce, and bringing more productions home to California.”

Advertisement

Maybe the biggest praise came from Burbank.

“Governor Newsom, and the legislative leaders who have worked to strengthen opportunities for production here as we continue to invest in California’s world-class creative workforce,” said Alan Bergman, Disney Entertainment Studios chairman Tuesday.

Reading the tea leaves-ish, does that mean we’ll see some Marvel movies coming over from the tax incentive rich UK soon?

Just askin’.



Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending