We have been discussing the scorched earth campaign by Hunter Biden’s new legal team as well as a type of legion of Doom of Democratic activists. That included seeking criminal investigations of critics while threatening a wide array of journalists and potential witnesses with civil lawsuits. Today, Biden moved against John Paul Mac Isaac, the repairman who revealed the laptop and its contents. The lawsuit, in my view, has serious flaws, but reflects the new “dark Biden” stage of this saga. The effort to go on offense against key figures and witnesses could well backfire for the Hunter Biden team and his family.
In the 42-page filing below in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware includes six privacy-related counts.
Previously, the new Biden team stumbled out of the gate by seemingly (and belatedly) admitted that the laptop is authentic and then backtracking. In an earlier column on the letters sent by Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, I discussed his calling for criminal investigations, the removal of tax exempt status, and other measures targeting critics and media. It also appeared to confirm that the laptop is indeed Hunter’s. However, the next day, Lowell told NBC “These letters do not confirm Mac Isaac’s or others’ versions of a so-called laptop.” It is a curious position when asking for criminal investigations like asking police to look for people who may or may not have stolen a car that may or may not be yours.
In the new filing, the team continues to equivocate on ownership and even refuses to admit that Hunter Biden left the computer at the shop. Ironically, Hunter Biden hits Issac for conflicting accounts on how the computer came into his possession. In a filing alleging the loss of privacy and ownership of these files, the Hunter Biden legal team still plays coy on the computer’s authenticity. At the top of the countersuit they state:
“In or before April 2019, Counterclaim Defendant Mac Isaac, by whatever means, came into possession of certain electronically stored data, at least some of which belonged to Counterclaim Plaintiff Biden.”
That line is then followed by this footnote:
1 This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden. Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.
It is still not clear what Biden is trying to suggest. Putting aside someone representing themselves as Hunter Biden, the other possibility is that someone stole the laptop of the son of the Vice President and then took the risk of bringing it into a shop for repair (while using the victim’s name).
The biggest problem facing Biden is that he abandoned the laptop, unless he continues to maintain the possible evil twin or deranged thief theories. The filing, however, offers a new claim to get over this hurdle.
The standard agreement of the shop states “[e]quipment left with the Mac Shop after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned and you agree to hold the Mac Shop harmless for any damage or loss of property.”
Notably, Biden does not deny that he signed that agreement, but he refuses to say that he did. Instead, he claims that the provision is void under a Delaware law setting a period of a year to obtain lawful ownership over abandoned property. 25 Del. C. § 4001. However, the provision states that a person loses ownership claims if he “failed to otherwise assert or declare the ownership rights to the tangible personal property for a period of 1 year.”
The filing focuses on Issac disclosing the contents before the year period but ignores that Biden has not claimed ownership for multiple years. However, the counterclaim maintains that Issac did not even wait the 90 days to access and share some of the material.
It is a curious line of argument for a court, which is faced with an individual who continues to question his ownership of the computer while asserting ownership rights. He also questions whether Issac was premature to claim the property when he still equivocates over whether this is his property over two years after the disclosures.
If Hunter Biden abandoned this property, it is hard to see how he maintains privacy interests in files that he never sought to protect and still does not fully admit are his.
For example, he raised the common tort of intrusion in his private affairs, but he may have effectively released that information into the public domain through his abandonment.
He also raises the common law torts of disclosure of embarrassing private facts. However, that tort has an exception for newsworthiness:
§ 652D Publicity Given to Private Life
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
In the end, Biden could be seeking greater discovery on the involvement of political figures like Rudy Giuliani. However, discovery also presents a risk for Hunter Biden, who has yet to be fully examined under oath over his own actions and contacts in the matter. The refusal to admit ownership (or prior conduct) may be due to Hunter Biden remaining under criminal investigation in Delaware on matters potentially related to files found on the laptop. The Justice Department seized the laptop over a year ago.
Biden is asking a court to carry considerable water to allow him to advance such arguments while continuing to question the ownership of the computer or whether he signed the underlying agreement. Indeed, it is curious (if he did not sign the agreement) that there has not been an allegation of fraud or forgery raised by the team. Instead, the legal team attacks the agreement as possibly taking advantage of Hunter Biden, who is an attorney, by noting “the boilerplate terms of the Repair Authorization form used by Mac Isaac were contained in small-print font at the bottom of the page, well below the signature line.”
The question is whether this conflicted set of claims is “well below”
the tolerance level of the federal court.
“THE TREASONOUS DEEP DEEP STATE SWAMP”
The Biden Crime Family was paid by China and has committed crimes and misdemeanors of high office, failure to register under FARA, criminal money laundering and constitutional treason for “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” and must be impeached and convicted “…for…Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Enemies, for the purposes of the Constitution, include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea et al.
Congressmen and Senators have committed treason as dereliction of duty to impeach and convict officers of the United States for crimes and misdemeanors of high office and treason.
Justices of the Supreme Court have committed treason as dereliction of duty to strike down all unconstitutional treasonous acts of the legislative and executive branches by Judicial Review .
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
Jonathan may not be familiar with how lawsuits are run, but at the pleading stage of course alternative pleading of inconsistent points are allowed and often introduced to allow a party to take more firm positions later when evidence is developed and to avoid telegraphing their position to the other side before they have to.
An example I first heard in law school was: “Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”
Alternative pleading is all that is happening here. I believe at the end of the day Hunter’s position will be of course this was my laptop, although some stuff may have been added to it when Rudy’s grubby little hands were on it.
Do you have evidence that anything was added?
Plush, I guess you missed the assessment by CBS News. You need to keep up. The CBS News investigators found that there was no evidence of tampering. I actually believe that you know the details of the CBS report buy you refuse to believe the evidence. Then again, maybe your just under informed by design. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/copy-of-hunter-biden-laptop-data-appears-genuine-independent-experts-find/
@Think it through…
Uhm, clearly you didn’t. 😛 (Sorry for the taunt, I kid, I kid. 🙂 )
Forget about the question of tampering.
You have an email.
While your email reader hides the metadata of the email… (the header), its still part of the email. There are several things which can be viewed in order to validate that the email is in fact real. (Just take the hash and compare it w the header.)
Add to this… the fact that the emails are between two or more parties. Contact one of the other parties to confirm. Hunter has been known to screw over partners so some are willing to testify that the email is legit.
The photos, videos… could they be deep fakes? Hmmm. Some of the tech is pretty good, but again… some of the metadata would be enough to verify.
Its less about the videos… more about the docs and emails that are corroborating evidence or base evidence that leads to search warrants and other evidence.
-G
@Plush
Its not a question of alternate pleading.
Turley points out the inconsistency… you can’t claim he violated DE law and took adverse possession of said property unless you admit that its your property.
BTW, your example is a defense not the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to make a claim. Don’t see how you can have alternative pleadings when establishing the claim of harm.
-G
What does the phrase “property of” mean. It means that you own something and you have control over it because you own it. It’s like bail. If you don’t show up for court your forfeit your bail deposit. The repair shop was given control of the laptop and it’s contents if it wasn’t picked up on time and the shop owner has the right to do with it as he pleases. Was it an affront on Hunters right to privacy when he made the contents available to the FBI? We know of course that nothing ever leaks from the FBI. It’s the same old story. Kill the messenger. It’s just more Mob action by Joe the Don. Dem mouthpieces better do der job.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
______________
The Thing Itself Speaks
The 5th Amendment right to private property is absolute, providing the sole qualification itself, that being “taking” property for public use, thereby, excluding any and all others.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend.”
– Karl Marx
The property according to the contract was for “equipment”. Not the data within the hard drive. It’s a legal distinction that applies. Law enforcement can get a warrant to seize a laptop, but it cannot look into the hard drive without another warrant for specific data within it.
REGARDING ABOVE: SEE ABOVE. ^
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.
“Whoever’s is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell.”
The phrase is credited to the glossator Accursius in the 13th Century.[3][4][5][6][7] It has been suggested that the principle was brought to England by Accursius’s son, Franciscus Accursius,[3][4] who came to England with Edward I on the latter’s return from the crusades. The principle was firmly established in common law by Edward Coke in Bury v. Pope (1587),[8][9] which gives the first statement in English law of the principle, writing (Liber 1, section 1, page 4, section “Terra” (earth)):[10]
And lastly, the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, and all other things even up to heaven, for cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, as it is holden.
The reporter’s note to this case[8] ascribes the maxim to the time of Edward I, which accords with the attribution to Accursius (father and son).[3] Two other cases around 1600 also use the principle, and a number of 19th century cases also apply it.[10]
The phrase appears in Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 2, Chapter 2, p. *18:
Land hath also, in its legal signification, an indefinite extent, upwards as well as downwards. Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum, is the maxim of the law, upwards; therefore no man may erect any building, or the like, to overhang another’s land: and, downwards, whatever is in a direct line between the surface of any land, and the center of the earth, belongs to the owner of the surface; as is every day’s experience in the mining countries. So that the word “land” includes not only the face of the earth, but every thing under it, or over it. And therefore if a man grants all his lands, he grants thereby all his mines of metal and other fossils, his woods, his waters, and his houses, as well as his fields and meadows.
– Wiki
Svelaz,
Are you seriously this dense?
You sign over the laptop, it includes the content. Everything.
Dear Prof Turley,
First, the FBI is investigating ™.
Secondly, according to over 50 top national security officials, including ‘the past five CIA directors’, the laptop is Russian disinformation .. . most likely planted on Hunter Biden’s laptop by master KGB spook Putin himself and dropped off by Rudy.
Lastly, this was all confirmed by Joe Biden in the final Biden v Trump presidential debates.
*the end.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/copy-of-hunter-biden-laptop-data-appears-genuine-independent-experts-find/
Then Hunter has no basis to sue,
and the lawsuit must be dismissed.
You do get you can not demand property you abandoned back without admitting that it is yours ?
There are those posting here who feel sorry for poor little hunter. You know, the guy who got millions from the Ukrainians and the Chinese. Lets all shed a tear for poor little Hunter.
I see where Politico commented and of course in this case are all for ferreting out the meanies that know what’s in the laptop. I’m surprised they didn’t claim it was in fact Trumps laptop.
The problem for Hunter in this intimidation lawsuit is that the laptop repair shop owner discovered evidence of crimes on Hunter’s laptop. This apparently prompted the repair guy to contact the FBI. I don’t think Hunter wants that evidence to become public as a result of this lawsuit. Also, if you don’t want a repair shop to take ownership of your property, then don’t leave the item there for months and months, and don’t sign the agreement that states that, if you do leave the item for a certain period of time, it becomes the property of the repair shop.
Bingo!
@Marc T,
What you write doesn’t make sense.
The repair shop contacted the FBI due to items found on the laptop.
Hunter can’t stop the FBI taking possession and potentially filing charges. Or using the evidence at trial.
Hunter’s actions are an attempt to discredit the laptop as well as bury the repair shop in an expensive protracted legal fight.
(Unless he get a go-fund-me page, or pro-bono representation…)
Like Turley, a lot of people are scratching their heads.
Maybe Hunter is back on crack?
-G
I believe that Hunter’s lawyers are using this maneuver to try to keep the laptop being presented as evidence in court. Nice try but it won’t fly.
Bizarre. Knowing that the ownership and contents of said laptop has been confirmed why would any attorney of sound mind advise Hunter and Biden fam to open themselves up to legally enforceable processes of call up of witnesses, discovery, interrogatories, and the real kicker open ended deposition on video where they can ask Hunter alot of questions in most cases he has to answer.
Does anyone remember when the Hunter Laptop was Russian disinformation. As a reminder here is what Hunter said then. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/hunter-biden-for-real-i-dont-know-if-laptop-at-center-of-controversy-is-authentic/. It seems that now Hunter is admitting that the laptop was his and his privacy has been harmed. The same lawyers who gave him his talking points then are giving him his talking points now. In the process he’s even willing to attack a disabled guy. It’s okay though, Papa Joe still loves the boy when he pays his bills.
This desperate move on the Biden’s part gives “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” an entirely new meaning.
Haha! Good one!
Anyone who thinks it is okay what happened to Hunter here, please send me the entire contents of your laptop and any emails and pictures on it and I will post it on the web and then we can let people go through it.
Or do you think your emails and pictures are private and belong to you?
Hunter signed a legally enforceable agreement with the shop owner allowing all of this of his own free will. Although, he maybe able, bc of his marathon drug and viagra fueled sex benders, to make a case he was not of sound mind when he signed said agreement. The real kicker here is hunter has opened himself up to the legal process and enforceable of discovery, interrogatories, and deposition and same for those around him + a countersuit.
Having signed consent for the laptop to repaired and having not come back to pick it up after 90 days (Delaware law), it is consider abandoned by H Biden and forfeit to the repair business owner.
The business owner, having seen and suspected of illegal activity, tried to do the right thing and turn it over to the FBI. They ignored it.
If it were me (doubtful as I know how to back up and reimage a box), I would of picked up the laptop when notified it was fixed.
H Biden’s actions/inaction got him where he is now.
That makes your argument absurd.
I do not leave my laptop at computer repair shops with incriminating evidence on it.
Hunters stupidity and signing away his own rights is his problem.
He could have come back, paid for the repairs and retrieved the laptop.
He did not.
He lost his rights.
“Or do you think your emails and pictures are private and belong to you?”
Not after I abandon them with someone else.
Sounds to me like Hunter is just trying to get this in front of a judge who may be in his (or his dad’s) debt. Otherwise he’s taking a big risk. Smells fishy. I’m suing the guy for taking something that isn’t mine. Good luck.
“The question is whether this conflicted set of claims is “well below” the tolerance level of the federal court.”
IMO the question is how brave & honest will the federal judges be?
Would you ever go to a laptop repair shop that will sell or give away your emails and personal pictures if you do not pick up the laptop on time?
If you abandon computer hardware – sure, maybe that would go to the laptop repairman to cover his repair costs. But emails and photos are personal and he has no right to give the emails and photos which are not his to Rudy Guiliani. Rudy is not law enforcement. You have no right to go digging through someone’e laptop contents just to repair it.
Jonathon is missing the forest for the trees here. Hunter is correct and as a private citizen needs to fight for the rights of all of us to our computer privacy.
Haha! He gave it to the fbi first and when they did nothing, he then gave the info to Guiliani + Hunter signed a legal document agreeing to this type of action being taken if he did not pay for and retrieve his computer in timeframe stated.
Smart people know, you clean out all personal data to an external storage device, BEFORE, you ever take a computer to a repair store! SMDH Giving a stranger access to ALL your data is just asking for trouble. Because, the technician needs you to give up your unlock code or disable it, in order to work on the machine.
General Chang (BTW, great handle and avatar),
Smart people would know to do that.
I seem to recall someone saying something to the effect of Hunter Biden being the smartest person in the room, or something like that.
Yet, does not appear to be so.
I mean, if you had questionable emails, photos on a laptop, would you not 1) move them to a external HD? 2) not leave the dang thing past the 90 days, abandon property (Delaware law) 3) not give the FBI a reason to finally take ownership of the laptop?
The upside to all of Hunter’s bad decisions is we have transparency into the links between influence peddling that has lead to the subpoenas of banking transactions from the CCP companies to the Biden family. We now have real hard evidence of corruption.
Will the DOJ press forward with a real investigation? Likely not.
But the rest of America will see and know the corruption is real.
“Would you ever go to a laptop repair shop that will sell or give away your emails and personal pictures if you do not pick up the laptop on time?”
I have not EVER provided my laptop or computer to ANYONE with things on it I do not wish to be made public.
If you take your laptop to a computer store to be repaired – you should EXPECT that they will be rumaging through it.
Even if the owner does not – do you think the 16yr old in the back actually doing the work is not scanning your hard drive ?
“If you abandon computer hardware – sure, maybe that would go to the laptop repairman to cover his repair costs.”
It is not about “covering costs”
I rent apartements. Tenants leave all kinds of things.
If they leave it – its mine.
Never is it worthwhile.
Regardless, they leave letters, personal items, often embarrassing things.
Its still mine.
Usually that is a Big problem for me.
I have to get rid of it.
“But emails and photos are personal and he has no right to give the emails and photos which are not his to Rudy Guiliani.”
There is no “personal” exception to abandoned propertty.
If you leave your dildo behind when you move out of an appartment – Oh, Well.
If you leave behind all the evidence about a string of bank roibberies you committed – I am taking them to the police.
BTW Mac gave them to the FBI First. They STILL have not done anything.
I would further note that Hunter has essentially addmitted there is a 3rd laptop he lost – and he thinks the Russian actually have that one.
“Rudy is not law enforcement.”
Nope, So !
“You have no right to go digging through someone’e laptop contents just to repair it.”
Correct – though that happens all the time.
But you do have the right once the property is abandoned.
“Jonathon is missing the forest for the trees here.”
Nope. It is called “the law” and this is a legal blog.
“Hunter is correct and as a private citizen needs to fight for the rights of all of us to our computer privacy.”
Computer privacy would be wonderful – I do not want the NSA spying on me.
But this is not about that.
There is no rights at all to property you have abandoned.
The name fits the position. Fortunately, one cannot always believe Politico. It is some of their positions I am dissing, not yours. The laptop was left too long, and, as property, the information extracted is no longer protected. It is more like the personal papers you throw in the garbage pail. Anyone can read it.
Politico should be printed on a barf bag for convenience. I stopped reading Politico because they squelched the laptop story when it first came out. At least The Hill reported it (but at the bottom of the page), so I continue to read The Hill.
You have no rights to property or data you abandon. All the rest is BS.
The Biden Crime Family is a term of endearment.
Discovery could indeed become uncomfortable for the plaintiff. Fingers crossed
I dunno, the entirety of the laptop contents – dic pics and all – has been displayed on right wing media for a couple of years. What do you think discovery is going to tell us about Hunter here?
There is apparently alot of content that has not been shown due to the sick nature of it and discovery can extend beyond the contents of the laptop and laptop. + discovery will be of items Hunter has produced = can’t say its Russian disinformation, in response to discovery*
* In this case, as in any case, hunter’s attorney can provide a legal reason why he will not provide a response to a discovery / interrogatory but defendant’s attorney can challenge this in court for judge to rule on. And then there is the deposition scenario.
I was for the lap top before I was against the laptop.
Everything on that laptop is subject to examination in a deposition. Hunter has denied it his and has claimed it is his. His lawyer has made inconsistent allegations in the complaint regarding ownership, possession, and content.
At a deposition the shop owners attorney may go into each item on the laptop and ask Hunter whether the item is his or not, and in the process have each item attached as an exhibit, including each and every photo, email, text message and any other another documents in an effort to ascertain which are Hunters and which are not.
Since Hunter denies the signature in the contract, the shop owners attorney may request an exemplar of Hunters signature giving in the presence of the shop owners handwriting expert.
Hunter’s attorney, by filing a civil lawsuit, opens up a can of pretrial discovery worms that the shop owner’s attorney can use, as note above re a deposition is but one. For civil attorneys pretrial discovery is their bread and butter.
Personally, I think this is an effort to intimidate the shop owner, which might work if he didn’t have an attorney. But, he does, and no attorney is going to be intimidated, particularly by this terribly drafted complaint.
Attorneys file inconsistent causes of action all the time because a set of facts may support more than one cause of action, e.g. negligence, fraud, breach of contract, etc., but what attorneys do not want to have in their complaint are inconsistent alleged facts.
What it appears to me, a lowly lawyer with almost 45 years experience, is Hunter’s attorney is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Never a good look for a lawyer.
“Personally, I think this is an effort to intimidate the shop owner, which might work if he didn’t have an attorney.”
No doubt about it.
“The question is whether this conflicted set of claims is “well below”
the tolerance level of the federal court.”
I find it’s well above the BS meter top level. In other words, the needle is pegged!
Shameless grifters.
Only lefties are stupid enough to accept these arguments.
I had a guy in bar convinced that all the Southern Generals in the Civil War fled to “South” America ’cause it was hot like Georgia. So, yeah drunks can be Democrats, too.
But some of those stupid lefties are on the bench…
So was the guy I was convincing!
A bad attempt at lawfare and destined for a plea of approbate/reprobate and then a hearing on sanctions.
The Biden equivalent of that ages old Clinton gem “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
Might or might not be his?
What a tool.