To paraphrase Hamlet, there is “something rotten” in the state of Delaware. Filings in the Delaware Supreme Court this week were made public in the litigation involving Mac Isaac, the owner of the computer repair shop where Hunter Biden abandoned his now infamous laptop. Miranda Devine at the New York Post has a detailed story on the new evidence. It appears that Hunter Biden is terribly embarrassed by a laptop that may not be his and pictures that may not show him. I previously wrote how his countersuit against Isaac would go forward on this bizarre basis in claiming privacy harm. Well, Hunter’s performance has proven positively Shakespearean as he tries to maintain these conflicted legal and factual claims.
Isaac is seeking to dismiss the countersuit and his motion reveals the convoluted and conflicted effort of Hunter to maintain his position in court. Hunter continues to refuse to even confirm that he visited the shop twice and signed the standard form that waived any rights to the computer if it were not collected within the stated period. These refusals continued despite the fact that the Isaac team forced the disclosure of “frequent uses of Wells Fargo ATMs within a few miles of Mac Isaac’s shop.”
For most people, these arguments seem . . . well crazy. An FBI computer expert reportedly assessed the laptop and found that it “was not manipulated in any way.” The authenticity of the information was further confirmed “by matching the device number against Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud ID.” Emails and messages have been confirmed by third parties who were the recipients.
Yet, as Polonius said in Hamlet, “though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.”
The Biden team wants, in my opinion, to grind Isaac and delay the litigation as much as possible. It is using the Delaware courts to exact that sweet revenge against a now defunct computer shop owner. Moreover, the absurd court arguments are largely being ignored by the media while an acknowledgment would force major media to fully cover the story.
So, Hunter simply continued to disclaim knowledge of voicemail messages and emails from Isaac about an external hard drive, paying his repair bill and picking up the computer. However, he is crystal clear that he did not give consent to Isaac about gaining access to the laptop that may not be his.
This is why Shakespeare wrote: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.” Hunter has to challenge the terms of an agreement that he refuses to admit that he signed.
Instead, he criticized the “boilerplate terms of the Repair Authorization” on the work order as being “well below the signature line” and referred to the Repair Authorization as a “typical small-print adhesion clause for which there was no proper notice or opportunity to bargain or negotiate.”
Biden is equally clear that he is terribly “embarrassed” by publication of private material that would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” in exposing pictures and communications that may not be him or his.
That view was slammed by the Isaac team that noted that it seemed off that Hunter was deeply offended by the disclosure of pictures that were “voluntarily shared by [Hunter] Biden with others through the website, ‘Pornhub’ … the use of the ‘reasonable person’ standard should clearly not apply to Biden … It seems what would embarrass a reasonable person does not embarrass Biden.”
What is most striking is how this story continues to be effectively buried by the media. It is not hard to imagine the coverage if one of the Trump kids tried to maintain this combined claim of ignorance and outrage in a court — or tried to continue to question the authenticity of files established by the FBI and other witnesses.
Devine and her colleagues at the New York Post (as well as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal) have pursued this story since the beginning when it was suppressed by social media companies before the election. They have pursued the story for years as the media went through a series of false denials and narratives. Instead, the media endlessly pursued every allegation in the now-infamous Steele dossier and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Yet, in pursuing a true story with sweeping implications of corruption and deceit, the New York Post remains the media’s persona non grata. It embarrassed not only the establishment but other media. That is not how you get a Pulitzer. Indeed, as I discussed in an earlier column, the denial of true stories can be “the stuff that Pulitzer Prizes are made of.”
Instead, Hunter will continue his performance of Hamlet on the Delaware in continuing to question reality. It is the ultimate “to be or not to be” pitch when everyone knows exactly what the true question is. . . and it is not the authenticity of this laptop.
At some point, the Delaware court will have to recognize that, for a man who is not sure if anything on the laptop is authentic, Hunter Biden “doth protest too much, methinks.”
What recourse do citizens have when the process becomes the punishment, as has become the issue for Mr Isaac and so many other up against the long arm and deep pockets of government?
This case demonstrates complete silliness on the part of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts that the object in question does not and never did belong to him, yet he is suing to prevent the proper owner (by voluntary forfeiture) for disseminating the contents in a manner that causes them to be reported to the public based upon the concept that they might be embarrassing to the person included in the pictures. Among other points.
It used to be rational to ask, “What was he thinking?” when presented with this type of evidence. But maybe the new question should be, “What was he thinking with?”
As Mr. Webb might say; “Just the facts Mam. A few = For most people, these arguments seem . . . well crazy. An FBI computer expert reportedly assessed the laptop and found that it “was not manipulated in any way.” The authenticity of the information was further confirmed “by matching the device number against Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud ID.” Emails and messages have been confirmed by third parties who were the recipients.
Here’s a little flash from the past. CBS investigated the authenticity of the laptop. When you meet one of your leftist friends who says the laptop has been altered you should refer them to this report by a MSM news outlet. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/copy-of-hunter-biden-laptop-data-appears-genuine-independent-experts-find/. First Hunter said that the laptop could or could not be his and now he wants to claim that the info on a laptop that he said could or could not be his was improperly obtained. He knew that the laptop was his all along so he used the weasel words to try to cover his rear end. Maybe he would have done better by keeping his rear end covered. It seems that he has a problem in covering various types of tracks both those produced by his business dealings and his bodily emissions. Don’t forget he’s just a troubled lad who lost his way.
OT: The 5th Circuit issued a well-argued opinion in Missouri v Biden, largely upholding the decision of the District Court.
Of particular interest was its effort to clarify the law on state action in the context of 1st Amendment claims.
The Court held that state action required a “close nexus” between the state and the actions of the private actor such that the actions of the private actor should be viewed as the responsibility of the state. A “close nexus” could arise either from “encouragement” or “coercion.” The court also noted that “joint activity” could give rise to state action, but that required an institutional intermingling of the state with the private actor in toto, and not merely with regard to some activities only, so that did not apply here.
The Court held that “encouragement” means either (1) entanglement with the private actor’s decisions in a way that involved a degree of control or (2) participation in implementing those decisions. In this context, influence over moderation policies or algorithms was a type of entanglement, as was influence regarding individual communications.
The Court held that “coercion” could be distinguished from “persuasion” through a 4-part test used by the 2nd and 9th Circuits. This included (1) the words and tone used, as well as the tenor of the relationship, (2) the perception of the private actor, (3) the existence of authority over the private actor and (4) explicit or implicit threats of adverse consequences.
In applying these standards the Court found likely encouragement and coercion by the White House, Surgeon General, CDC and FBI. It did not find likely coercion, at this stage, by the State Department, NIAID or CISA. Accordingly, it upheld a modified version of the injunction against the former and denied it against the latter.
The Court stayed its order for 10 days to allow the Government to appeal to the Supreme Court.
‘Moreover, the absurd court arguments are largely being ignored by the media while an acknowledgment would force major media to fully cover the story.’
Not bloody likely, they would still gaslight and deflect. I sense a modicum of remaining faith in the media in this piece. Even a tiny sliver of good faith is a bad investment at this point, we no longer have a media, just 21st century Pravda.
I have always been registered independent (except for certain primaries) because I can’t accept political ritual as a Eucharist (which I have no use for either. I am also secular, different from atheist, though I certainly respect and defend the beliefs of others) therefore it is difficult for me to understand those that cling so tightly to any notion other than political parties and their levers are made up of individual human beings, not inherently this or that, with all that implies. The media is not to be relied on ever again as it is currently constituted, and to hold out hope is spitting in one hand. Their current configuration is why our Constitution was written in the first place (’emergency orders’, dismissals – these are royal decrees. We don’t have dukes, duchesses, earls in America – we have senators, governors, mayors, and tech industrialists etc. and all of their progeny).
The dems are an anti-Constitutionalist regime, and our MSM is a part of that regime happy to tell you your eyes are lying, every time. The regime hasn’t uttered *single* complete truth since at least 2015. It’s that simple, and at this point the transformation is complete, particularly with the young (can’t tell you how shocking it can still be to see a nine year-old very obliviously talking like Patty Hearst or a Marxist Black Panther with all the conviction in the world, as my wife and I often do, it is just as tough to counter or reverse as any other form of brainwashing, honestly don’t know what we do). Something rotten, indeed, and Hunter is but a trifle in the vastness of the muck.
The dems are an anti-Constitutionalist regime,
More like anti-impediment. To them, the constitution is simply one means of many to an end. If it’s not working for them, then they’ll try something else.
@OLLY
Agreed, but at this point everything they want to do is unconstitutional, so by extension. . . .
I also agree Jamie.
Cant Hunters Lawyers be prosecuted for pushing legal theories they know to be false? The lawyer’s are attempting to obstruct justice…that’s a felony.
Sounds like a conspiracy to commit a felony as well. The attorneys should be prosecuted under RICO laws.
Yes, you forfeit ownership, regardless of your fame.
As to the medical question. That is obvious lawyer boilerplate. A hurdle to clear. Depends on knowledge of the maker. It is impossible to predict the unknown unknows. But despite not knowing, the user is forewarned. “Enter at Your Own Risk”.
Unknown risks is a fact of our workaday lives.
In a Woody Allen movie, two women at vacationing at a Catskills resort. The order a meal in the restaurant there and one of them remarks that the food is terrible. And the other woman adds ‘yes, and the portions are so small.’
It would appear that the smartest Man Joe Biden knows may not actually be so smart as he is accused of being by a doting Father.
Certainly, Shakespeare was well ahead of his time when he penned thus…..
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Your fate awaits you. Accept it in body and spirit. To get used to the life you’ll most likely be leading soon, get rid of your low-class trappings.”
Excess baggage as any Airline Traveler knows…..comes at a cost…..and is impossible to simply discard at a mere whim.
Today’s article by the Professor was a joy to read and urged me to browse through some books I have on the forgotten shelf.
In the end I fell to the American Shakespeare…..Twain.
He also was ahead of his time and knew of folks like Hunter Biden when he said……”“A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.” .
― Mark Twain
How can a court bother itself with claims regarding a laptop when the ‘injured’ party claims a ‘laptop that may not be his and pictures that may not show him’ is the centerpiece? Is there no consideration of standing?
The Courts in Delaware, like the entire Delaware government, are in Biden’s pocket, just like the National media.
J T, nice use of the The Bard’s words to show the absurdity of Hunter’s claims.
This legal strategy will succeed in Delaware for two reasons: 1. Hunter is a Biden and 2. The mainstream media is wildly partisan and absolutely committed to saving the Bidens at all cost. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
I’ve looked for a legal-funding site for Mr. Isaac so that I might share some small portion of his burden, but I have not found a link. If anybody knows of such a site, please, post it here as a public service. Thank you.
P.S. Be careful. The trolls might direct you to online scams. Some trolls are really evil.
That money you offer would be well-spent. It would behoove the owner to see if a frivolous law-suit can be raised against the attorney for damages and then try and see where the money stream funding the lawyer came from. I would consider doing that for other suits as well. It puts pressure on the lawyers and those paying the bills.
https://www.givesendgo.com/G2ZG7
Thanks!
Double, double, toil and trouble; fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Mark Milley was involved in capturing Noriega. He should use his experience to capture Putin.
Once again, in addition to the evidence and facts, this case shows how much the courts, journalists, and major news outlets are complete failures while being dishonest themselves in this process.
Only a Biden in Delaware would have the nerve to make such absurd combination of arguments.
No one gives up the contents of their laptop by taking it in for repair. Imagine if John Grisham had his latest novel and brought it in for repair, and if he did not promptly pick it up someone else would own his work. Or imagine if Jason Alden’s wrote a song on his laptop and took it I. For repair. Or imagine if Eric Trump had naked pictures of his wife and took it in for repair, do those naked pictures now belong to the shop owner?
No, at most the shop owner can claim the hardware scrubbed of content.
Bubba
So if you rent a storage locker and fail to pay, the owner is entitled to toss your goods (but not sell them) and get an empty locker back?
Time for you to go back to remedial law school.
But we appreciate your deep legal analysis of the case.
“No one gives up the contents of their laptop by taking it in for repair….”
You, sir, have a bright future in political spin. Characterizing this as “taking it in for repair” is misinformation. It’s not the reason he lost control of his information. And by the way, it’s a good thing it’s not his information that he lost.
Is it political spin to say Hunter took this in for repair? this was a computer repair shop, wasn’t it? I mean, isn’t that the repair shop owner’s story, that Hunter took this in for repair?
Have not followed the twist and turns of this
Hunter took the laptop in for repair. He signed the disclaimer, never picked up the computer, never responded to correspondence and left it for a long time.
That ends the repair shop’s responsibility. The computer does not have to be stored by the owner. It and the contents are now under the control of the owner.
You feel differently. Tell us what responsibility the owner of the repair shop has and why. If you can’t do that you are full of your usual BS.
“Imagine if John Grisham had his latest novel and brought it in for repair, and if he did not promptly pick it up someone else would own his work. […]” Well that’s just silly. John Grisham’s copy right would precede and supersede the laptop forfeiture due to his own negligence. Due to his negligence someone else now owns the laptop but he retains the copyright to the novel. The new laptop owner can read the novel and even share parts (or all) of the novel with others but they don’t own any more “rights” to the novel than that. They can’t copy it and the sell the copies. And as far as I can tell Mac the repair guy has made no claims beyond that.
BTW: I’m not convinced this laptop provides evidence Hunter has committed any real crime beyond the victimless “crimes” of drug use, prostitution and maybe tax evasion — even the gun charge is victimless (and dubious renegade the 2nd A) assuming the laptop has bearing on it. It may well provide evidence his Father committed crimes. Remember so-called influence peddling by Hunter is not a crime. If that is what he did and the source of the influence was his Father, then it is his Father who is liable. And on that the issues come perilously close to treason.
Hunter’s tactic is akin to, “I didn’t shoot the guy. Besides, it was in self defense.”
Hey, I have actually used this defense in the alternative, successfully, repeatedly, in my legal career. “Our drug did not cause your [medical condition at issue]. And if it did, we warned you that it would in the Package Insert.”
As I’ve posted in the past, the earliest version of this defense that I’m aware of is from the 1933 movie Tillie and Gus, when WC Fields testifies on the witness stand in his own defense regarding unloading his 6-shooter into the victim (cut to shot of the victim sitting in the courtroom covered head to toe in bandages), and sums up his defense by saying, “”I’m a broad-minded man, gents. I don’t object to nine aces in one deck. But when a man lays down five aces in one hand… (adding under his breath) … and besides, I know what I dealt him.”