To be honest, I never believed the laptop was real. The story about it is so fucking bonkers it beggars belief. Epstein’s assassination is more plausible than “I had it through the most unlikely of circumstances, honest. But then I lost it. But just believe me, it had really incriminating stuff on it! Even before I tampered with it!”

I feel like there is still something significantly missing from the story. Although, Giuliani does continue to surprise me with stupidity and incompetence. Maybe it really is just that simple.

Legally the laptop would belong to John Paul Mac Isaac per Delaware’s Abandoned Personal Property laws (25 Del. C. § 4001). He would have a right to ownership of the laptop. That said, the data contents of the laptop should have been wiped (that’s customary, not a legal requirement) before the transferring of ownership.

All of that said, 18 USC § 1030 covers the data that is hidden behind a Windows login. Yes you can boot up a system with an unencrypted drive and read the contents of it, but that’s circumventing. Now where this and everything else differs, is that in a lot of prior cases a warrant was obtained to gain discovery of the information. In this case, Giuliani just circumvented the login, and post facto indicated evidentiary data.

It’s a good question to bring before the courts. Can someone circumvent a protection, find incriminating data, and then after the fact present it to law enforcement? Because we don’t have a lot that goes down this road of questioning. Kind of the reason law enforcement needs to be the one that bypasses those kinds of protections legally is because, your average person, can do things that “tamper” with evidence. And with digital data, can do so without knowing they have done so, like last access timestamps and what not.

and if so, how is that not illegal access to someone else’s data

I mean that’s the central question of the suit. Which you can find as case 2:23-cv-8032 in the Central District of California. And I can’t off the cuff think of a good prior that answers this. And there’s parallels that can be drawn for both ways this can go. You cannot just randomly break into a house, discover illegal shit going on, and then report that (I mean you can, but you’ve also violated the law with your B&E) But if you reasonably suspect something is going on (like you heard a scream from the house), you can break into a house, discover illegal shit going on, and then report that (that is you haven’t violated the law with your B&E in some situations).

Basically the case doesn’t negate the laptop as evidence in some other case, it just implicates Giuliani into what amounts to digital breaking and entry. Which given the case, even if Giuliani was found guilty the sentence is usually a fine for first offense when the information obtained is not property of the US Government proper. So even if the courts do find Giuliani should have contacted the FBI before actually attempting to get the data, the most he would be face (if they really wanted to throw the book at him) is one year in prison AND a fine.

It is an interesting case though, we don’t have laptops screaming for help to justify breaking legally protected locks on data. So, it an interesting case to see what the courts lay down as lines for “reasonable belief that an illegal activity is happening” if Giuliani decides to go down that road. But I don’t hold much hope for that, they’ll likely argue that the data on the laptop is theirs to begin with, which no court is going to accept that. But we’ll just have to see.

If you can determine who property belongs to, it is not abandoned until the owner manifests a clear intent not to retrieve it. That’s the law of personal property.

Also at play here is the law of bailments. One who charges a fee to hold the property of another had created a contact for bailment. If the owner doesn’t retrieve it after a fixed term, an involuntary bailment is created, and the bailor must safeguard and hold the property for a reasonable time, after which it may be considered abandoned (if the owner manifests an intent not to retrieve it).

I have not read the complaint but I will be on the lookout.

And here’s it is. I will parse it as time permits.

https://www.scribd.com/document/673740262/Hunter-Biden-Complaint-Against-Giuliani

The thing that is so weird to me about this whole thing is that they haven’t produced the laptop and Hunter’s team haven’t asked them to produce the laptop. Why?

I read somewhere saying some of the contents on the laptop disk were older than the hardware itself. There can be lot’s of reasons for this, but don’t be surprised if Hunter’s legal team has undeniable proof the contents were hacked and stolen from Hunter and loaded on this repair shop owned laptop in an attempt to make a story national news would cover.

Rudy has admitted to copying the contents of the laptop to his own hard drive. That’s a crime. At most, if you get possession of someone’s abandoned laptop, you can wipe the drive and use the factory reset laptop as your own. You don’t get to copy the data and use it as you see fit, though.

deleted by creator

I’m guessing this did little to nothing to his business. You’re vastly overestimating the amount of people who are familiar with this story, the fraction of those people aware of this person, and the fraction of those people who would also be customers of this store.

Worked, briefly, in my youth for a shitty repair shop.

The owner would personally “help” any passable looking lady just to copy the drive and look for nudes. Or he was very gleeful to find video.

This is the same guy who “offices” out if a strip club.

I was too young and dumb to do anything but quit, and that was due to him not paying me more than any moral outrage. Can’t eat moral outrage, however justified.

Maybe they want to force them to admit that the laptop was a hoax.

Each side presents allegations and defenses publicly after due notice, as adversaries, before a neutral tribunal, and if the facts are genuinely in dispute after reasonable discovery, you put the evidence before a jury of our peers.

The truth is likely that the laptop wasn’t real, but some of the data was. It’s easy to grab some personal data from someone (say, via their actual computer after it’s been hacked) and then load it onto another laptop. Then you claim that this laptop was the actual source of the data and that it being abandoned gave you the right to look through it. (It doesn’t.)

The must insidious part of this is that you could mix fake data alongside the real data. Got Hunter Biden nudes from your hacking? Toss them in an “email” that he was sending and then write up another email which “proves” that Joe Biden sold his position for personal profit. The nudes email can seem legit enough that it raises the believability of your “smoking gun” email.