This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the scandals involving Joe Biden and his family, among many that remain under investigation or prosecution, is a series of counts pending against First Son Hunter Biden for his alleged failure to pay income taxes on millions of dollars in cash.

His lawyers submitted eight motions to U.S. District Court Judge Mark Scarsi to have them dismissed but failed to include one key component: Evidence.

It is a constitutional expert and famed law professor Jonathan Turley who commented online on the development.

He described Scarsi's decision as a "stinging rebuke" to Hunter Biden and his lawyers.

"Hunter Biden has been arguing that he is the victim of selective prosecution despite a documented history of receiving special treatment as the son of the president," he explained. "However, he has proven a key witness against himself in swatting down defenses raised by his counsel and publishing self-incriminating facts in his book."

He cited the history of the tax case, in which the Biden Department of Justice "not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter."

That fell apart when a judge questioned its leniency.

Turley explained the lack of additional charges against Hunter Biden is in stark contrast to another case now pending against Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

"Rather than the four original counts, Menendez now faces 18 counts with his wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez, and alleged co-conspirators Wael Hana and Fred Daibes" he explained. "What is most notable is not the proliferation of counts but the lack of comparative charges in the pending case against Hunter Biden. Some of us have long raised concerns over the striking similarity in the alleged conduct in both cases, but the absence of similar charges against the president’s son."

Scarsi's ruling said, "As the court stated at the hearing, the defendant filed his motion without any evidence. The motion is remarkable in that it fails to include a single declaration, exhibit, or request for judicial notice. Instead, the defendant cites portions of various Internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. These citations, however, are not evidence."

Hunter Biden's lawyers claimed the handling of the case was "abnormal."

"In truth, the 'abnormal' treatment of Hunter was giving him advance notice of attempts to interview him and to search for Biden's property. It was allowing the statute of limitations to run despite having an agreement on the table to keep potential felonies alive. It was trying to secure a plea agreement that even the prosecutor admitted in court was like nothing he had ever seen in his career," Turley noted.