Two lawyers are urging an appeals court to take an unusual step by compelling a federal judge in California to let them represent Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock, in an upcoming trial involving Hunter Biden’s defamation case. These lawyers argue that they possess unparalleled knowledge of the defendant’s case.

Stefanie Lambert, who is currently facing charges for allegedly attempting to interfere with voting machines used during the 2020 election, along with being previously barred from representing Byrne in a lawsuit concerning Dominion Voting Systems due to persistent misconduct, and Peter Ticktin, who faced penalties in a failed RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton led by Donald Trump, have petitioned the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They seek a writ of mandamus that would instruct U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson to approve their special admission applications, enabling them to join the case despite not being licensed in the state, as long as they are in “good standing.”

While judges often approve these requests, they do have the option to deny them. Judge Wilson, appointed under Ronald Reagan, used his discretion in July, citing the situation as a “three-ring circus.”

During that month, the defamation trial was about to commence when Byrne unexpectedly dismissed his legal team, leading Lambert and Ticktin to attempt joining the case. The judge denied Lambert’s request, referencing her previous involvement in the Dominion lawsuit.

“Ms. Lambert’s actions in the Dominion matter raise significant concerns,” Judge Wilson noted. “A trial’s effective management hinges on trust in the attorneys to follow orders and be truthful. Ms. Lambert failed on both fronts in the Dominion case.”

Rather than handing Biden a win by default in a lawsuit claiming that Byrne defamed former President Joe Biden’s son when he falsely accused him of committing “despicable and treasonous crimes” involving bribery and Iran, Wilson rescheduled trial for Oct. 14.

In August, following Biden’s application for reconsideration regarding Ticktin, Wilson then withdrew his “grant of Mr. Ticktin’s pro hac vice status” and stated Ticktin could not represent Byrne at trial, noting that the attorney is “currently in good standing” but faced two suspensions of his license in 2009 and 2010 and was sanctioned in Trump v. Clinton for “bringing ‘frivolous’ claims that ‘lacked a reasonable factual basis[.]'”

Byrne, as Lambert and Ticktin point out, remains unrepresented by counsel. The situation has become more precarious because Biden’s lawyer Dick Harpootlian, the former South Carolina state senator who represented convicted double-murderer Alex Murdaugh, has asked the judge to issue a bench warrant against Byrne — who has been living in Dubai after claiming his life was in danger due to a Venezuelan “bounty” — to force him back to the United States and secure his appearance in court so the defamation case can be decided on the merits.

For Lambert and Ticktin, Wilson’s refusal to allow Byrne’s “counsel of choice” on the case amounts to “a severe violation of his constitutional rights” and should be reversed through emergency mandamus relief.

Calling Biden’s resistance to their presence on the case “a textbook example of abuse of process,” Lambert and Ticktin suggested they had special knowledge.

“[T]he error in question was a ruling which disallowed two highly qualified trial attorneys, knowledgeable in subject matter which is unknown by most attorneys, who are in good standing within their own jurisdictions to appear and practice before the District Court at the request of Defendant,” the filing said.

Styling themselves as “experts on the rarely known or understood subject matter,” the petitioners suggested an untenable situation is afoot, whereby Byrne can’t be represented by attorneys of his choice alongside local counsel and, at the same time, is under threat by the plaintiff of facing a bench warrant.

“Here, the Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the appearance of two attorneys who have extraordinary skill, as well as intricate knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the Plaintiff’s defamation claims and their client’s defense,” the filing said. “More importantly, Plaintiff’s strategy and the motives behind this baseless disqualification effort, is to keep the truth from being told. Of course, the truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case.”

“No other lawyers in the world know more about the facts, and the truth, underlying the Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Byrne than the two attorneys that have been wrongfully disqualified and who are now unable to represent their client, Dr. Byrne, whose constitutional rights have been violated by the District Court’s unjust ruling,” the petition continued.