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.
First there was the political denial show followed by the media malpractice show and now the newest legal strategy attack mode now being used to push the indictments past the coveted “statue of limitations” goal line… This seems to be the best way to describe Hunter’s strategy.
SActually all of this is to avoid Joe having to take the political poison pill and pardon Hunter.
Turley’s argument that the counterclaim is flawed is also flawed. The counterclaim states that the laptop was abandoned, but that does not mean that the contents inside could be published to the public. Law enforcement often requires a warrant to seize a phone, laptop, desktop, or server. But to get to the contents within then requires a separate warrant.
The policy of the shop owner is for the equipment. Not the content within the hard drive UNLESS it’s specifically stated in his policy that the hard drive contents also become his property. Most shops would just reformat the hard drive and prepare it for resale.
Keep in mind that the shop policy was for the “equipment” it did not mention data or any intangible personal files or intellectual property.
Both the Mac Shop contract and the Delaware Code do not resolve the question as to what exactly Biden might have abandoned in his failure to pick up his laptop and hard drive. The physical devices are one thing, but what about the underlying data? The Mac Shop’s contract is limited to “equipment” and does not extend to intangible or intellectual property. With respect to any data on which Biden has a copyright claim, for example, it does not seem reasonable that Biden granted anything more than a limited use license to access data for the purpose of recovering it.
Turley portrays Hunter Biden as “dark Hunter”. Which is silly since all he is doing is what Trump would do. We’ve seen plenty of examples of “dark Trump” engaging in forceful counter suits and claims. Turley is critical of Hunter Biden’s approach that mirror Trump.
Copyright claim? For his emails?
Yeah, it’s entirely a legal claim that can be made against the shop owner. The agreement only mentions “equipment”. Not the contents of the hard drive.
If the work order was for repairs specifically to recover data it was authorized only to recover data not publish it. That poses a problem for the shop owner.
Svelaz: Excellent analysis!
Sounds like Karl Marx is praising Trotsky!
Based on the failed postings of Dennis one expects Dennis to applaud error.
“Turley’s argument that the counterclaim is flawed is also flawed. The counterclaim states that the laptop was abandoned, but that does not mean that the contents inside could be published to the public.”
That is exactly what it means.
“Law enforcement often requires a warrant to seize a phone, laptop, desktop, or server.”
Nothing was seized. Hunter Biden provided this to Mac, and then abandoned it.
“But to get to the contents within then requires a separate warrant.”
Nope.
“The policy of the shop owner is for the equipment.”
Nope,
“Not the content within the hard drive UNLESS it’s specifically stated in his policy that the hard drive contents also become his property.”
Nope. That is not how the law works anywhere – it would also be stupid.
If Mac now owns the hard drive – but not the contents, he can not dispose of the HD, or sell it, or erase it or destroy it – because the contents – in your warped view are still Hunters.
When you abandon your car – you abandon its contents,
When you abandon your apartment – you abandon its contents.
Regardless YOUR argument has a completely different Flaw – Which Turley points out – Even Del Law – which will be superceded by the Contract, Specifies that you must claim your property in a year.
Hunter has STILL not claimed it.
Your beating a dead horse.
Your argument had zero chance – 91 days after the laptop was left with Mac, It is asking for Sanctions now.
Frankly the Judge should dismiss because Hunter has failed to make a claim. You can not recover what you are unwilling to admit that you own.
“Most shops would just reformat the hard drive and prepare it for resale.”
False and irrelevant. A significant portion of child porn cases come from Laptops taken for repairs.
“Keep in mind that the shop policy was for the “equipment” it did not mention data or any intangible personal files or intellectual property.”
Please read the WHOLE clause.
“Both the Mac Shop contract and the Delaware Code do not resolve the question as to what exactly Biden might have abandoned in his failure to pick up his laptop and hard drive.”
Of course they do. He abandoned everything he did not come to claim in 90 days – contract, and one year DE law.
“The physical devices are one thing, but what about the underlying data? ”
They are contained on the physical device.
If you abandon a car you abandon its contents.
If you abandon an apartment, you abandon its contents.
“The Mac Shop’s contract is limited to “equipment” and does not extend to intangible or intellectual property.”
Read the whole clause.
I would note – it is 5 years since Biden left the Laptop. This is a dead fish.
“With respect to any data on which Biden has a copyright claim, for example, it does not seem reasonable that Biden granted anything more than a limited use license to access data for the purpose of recovering it.”
Nope, there is a very small possibility that Hunter Retains the rights to profit from “copyrighted” material.
This is a stupid argument – do you think that Mac would be barred from providing the police with Child porn because it might be copyrighted ?
“Turley portrays Hunter Biden as “dark Hunter”. ”
He is suing a disabled man who went bankrupt over harrassment resulting from Hunter.
“Which is silly since all he is doing is what Trump would do.”
Maybe, maybe not. If so Trump would lose.
I would note that Trump sued to get his property back in less than 90 days from the time the FBI seized it.
“We’ve seen plenty of examples of “dark Trump” engaging in forceful counter suits and claims.”
Trump has done pretty well in those suits.
When did Trump sue a disabled person over something this stupid ?
And What has Trump got to do with this ?
“Turley is critical of Hunter Biden’s approach that mirror Trump”
I guess all your mirrors are from the circus ?
“If Mac now owns the hard drive – but not the contents, he can not dispose of the HD, or sell it, or erase it or destroy it – because the contents – in your warped view are still Hunters.”
He can reformat the drive to resell, BUT. He cannot use the data if he keeps it because he never had authority to use it even if it was abandoned. That’s how it works and that’s why he has a legitimate claim in court.
“He can reformat the drive to resell, BUT. He cannot use the data if he keeps it because he never had authority to use it even if it was abandoned. That’s how it works and that’s why he has a legitimate claim in court”
Because you say so ? You try to make missing details in the contract critical – Except to when it is YOUR arguments.
If as you claim Hunter owns the contents – Mac can not erase, copy, reformat, sell or anything else.
Which is of course false which is why your argument is garbage.
If Mac Can reformat and sell.
He can just sell.
Or give away.
He had no duty to Hunter after 90 days.
It is now 4 years later. Hunter has Still not asked for possession.
it is way too late.
“Turley’s argument that the counterclaim is flawed is also flawed. The counterclaim states that the laptop was abandoned, but that does not mean that the contents inside could be published to the public. “
When you through your file cabinet in the garbage, it is considered junk and no longer owned by anyone. That permits anyone to sift through the garbage and keep the file cabinet for his own use. Those things in the cabinet are garbage as well.
The computer became garbage after a certain length of time. That means the computer and everything inside is garbage as well and treated as such.
The contract ends after the laptop is abandoned just like your lease with your landlord. Anything you leave can be disposed of at will.
Copyright claims cannot be violated if something was copied, but that doesn’t mean the information cannot be read. There is a process for copywriting which involves an insignia.
Svelaz, before posting you should do your homework. You never do it and that is why you are almost always wrong.
Anonymous, LOL!!
If you throw out a file cabinet in the garbage you knowing there’s files in it is not the same as abandoning it and not thinking about the contents. It’s not known whether Hunter Biden deliberately chose not to re-claim the laptop.
“Copyright claims cannot be violated if something was copied, but that doesn’t mean the information cannot be read. There is a process for copywriting which involves an insignia.”
Wow, you’re that stupid? Copyright claims mean you CANNOT copy something without express permission. Copyright does not mean you can’t read the information. It means you CANNOT copy it for any reason.
Copyright material does not always require an…insignia.
Obviously you didn’t do your homework before posting.
Copying phrases from another and using them as your own would be fine if only you had the intelligence to make the context match. That takes too much brain power that you don’t have.
Garbage is garbage no matter one’s intent. Stop reading the tea leaves. We don’t have to know Hunter’s intent. We only have to know if it is legal garbage like the stuff you spew in your posts. Once something is garbage, whether a file case and the papers within or a computer with its data, ownership of both disappears unless something else is involved. If you wish to prove something else is involved do so. Your stupidity of grasping for straws that do not meet the criteria won’t help.
Copyright material can be read but it cannot be used for commercial purposes. There is an insignia that can be used to protect commercial use. Learn to read.
You battle with everyone because you don’t understand what you read. If you see anything that might help your argument you think it can be used, but once again context thwarts your attempts, and you sound like the fool you are.
You won’t ever interpret things correctly. You lack the brain power and that is why no one should explain things to you rather they should ask you questions instead. You cannot answer questions because that involves more than superficial understanding of the subject matter.
You should be ignored, but it is hard to ignore a fool ranting in an almost non-stop manner. I guess you serve a purpose for the blog. Useless filler.
Ah yes…… the details regarding one small laptop are simply impossible for little Hunter to remember. Everyone knows that it is automatic grounds for the U.S. Attorney to decline prosecution under the Hillary Clinton special “little fine print at the bottom of the page” DOJ policy. Blame the Repair Guy !!! It’s a brilliant legal strategy that their friend Merrick Garland will assist with if needed. They will make sure that little Hunter never testifies under oath so there are none of those pesky little 18 USC 1001 issues to clean up. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
“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
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!
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?
The Biden Crime Family is a term of endearment.
Discovery could indeed become uncomfortable for the plaintiff. Fingers crossed
“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.