Mr Biden possibly subject to Russian blackmail

Post Reply New Topic

There's an interesting law in the US that would be of interest to the Biden family.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.

I imagine if you are President Joe Biden and this repairman tried to stitch up your son by accessing his private data and passing it to third parties who are your enemies you would (I certainly would) obtain a lawyer to put this person out of business. I read a tweet from a data privacy lawyer saying Sell your customer's data: a sure way to lose your business. He (Paul-Isaac) violated the first rule of computer techs: protect the privacy of your clients.
While I'm not suggesting this is the reason for his business closing, Paul-Isaac's closure of his repair shop on Nov 2020 seemed to coincide with Biden's victory speech in Nov 2020. Interesting timing.

This just sounds too hokey. I think it's a rather sloppy fraud perpetrated by a MAGA.

Unless you feel the FBI is politicised and are there to do the bidding of the President rather than act impartially, the existence of the law is irrelevent.



Before being able to claim "hacking", you have to identify the legal owner, which at that time was the store...

Being "abandoned", the ownership had reverted to the store (as per contract), which can then authorise whoever they want to access the contents - If he accessed any online storage (cloud backup, email (other than stored locally on device), then it may have applied, but there is no evidence of this occurring (and, given the FBI had the laptop for many months prior to this, they could easily check to see if this occurred).



Interestingly, the FBI had subpoenaed the laptop in 2019, with the information only being supplied to others many months later following apparent inaction by the FBI - Had he intended to "sell" the data (which there is no evidence of this occurring), why hold back so long, if he expected the FBI to lay charges, and so the evidence would have become public via any potential trial? Similarly, how can you "stitch up" someone when the FBI already has all the evidence themselves?


It was also not long after the news of the laptop broke, and his store was identified (and he reportedly started receiving death threats)... Your point?

The problem with these claims is you need to get past the fact that the store was the owner of the device (and so had the rights to access the contents) - ownership of the device (if abandoned) also transfers the legal rights to the contents of the device, so to claim any untoward actions on behalf of the store (or owner), you first need to prove he wasn't the legal owner of the device.

Well, it was a "rather sloppy fraud" which showed incredible foresight:
* Laptop was left at store almost 2 weeks before Mr Biden announced his candidacy.
* FBI took possesion of the laptop 12 months prior to the election
* Information was provided to 3rd parties around mid 2020 and wasn't released publicly until October, following verification (in as much as was possible).

It's nice to see you recognising that "MAGA"s have the ability to plan so far ahead for a contingency which may not occur - It makes me wonder what other plans they had in place regarding other candidates\potential candidates...

The subpoena was tax evasion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55254182

It's not the FBI that Isaac-Paul might be in trouble with, it's Guliaini
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... s-1079781/

Back in 2020 Giuliani was openly looking for dirt on Joe Biden. Paul-Isaac's decision to break into Hunter's laptop, take private data and sell it to Giuliaini (in my view) is a breach of The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA).

His flimsy small print at the bottom of that paper you uploaded doesn't make that a legally binding contract when it comes to data privacy. If Paul-Isaac was able to obtain bank transactions, bank account numbers and passwords that information is not part of the hardware, I posit his obtaining this data and then passing it to a third party (Giuliani) specifcally breaches Act I refer to.

It's literally no different to a hacker finding your personal detail and selling them (even if they don't use the data themselves). The hacker goes to jail.

You are still making some very wild (and serious) accusations here.
I feel like I've done this before...
The laptop was taken to the store in April 2019.
The person who left it there signed a contract stating that if not collected 90 days after work completed, it would be classed as "abandoned".
Laptop (sometime in 2019) reverted to "abandoned", and become property of store owner.
Owner notified FBI of laptop contents in 2019.
Owner took a backup of laptop
FBI Subpoenaed laptop in December 2019.
Sometime in mid 2020, a copy of data from laptop owned by store was passed to a lawyer who forwarded it to Mr Giuliani
Laptop contents commence being reported on in October 2020

So, given the laptop (and data on it) were the property of the store owner (through abandonment by previous owner), please explain exactly what was "hacked"...The data on the laptop was the property of the store, so the store could access it\copy it\transfer it as they wished:

From Supreme court of Ohio ruling (link in previous post in thread), but is the same view shared by SCOTUS.

I'm also curious why you assert he "sold" the data, implying criminality, when all reports are that it was handed over with no expectation of remuneration...On what facts is this accusation based upon?

Oh, and please provide references which can be confirmed, which support your accusations directed at the store, store owner, or any other person you are accusing of a crime... It is a serious accusation you are levelling at people by making it, so I would hope you had some evidence (or legal opinions) which support this accusation - It's also worth noting that none of the people (including store owner) have been charged for anything related to this laptop, in over 10 months (20 if you count from when the FBI took possesion of the physical device). Without supporting evidence, we are again headed towards what is potentially libel against multiple people in this thread...

I realise you need to believe that "evil MAGA"S stole the data (after all, you do take every opportuinty you can to attack them, and those on the "right"), but I have yet to see you provide anything to counter what was stated in the Ohio case linked earlier, stating that no-one has an expectation of privacy in relation to abandoned property - So unless you can find some law stating otherwise, claims of "hacking" or the like have no potential factual basis...

Or, let's make this VERY simple for you:
Explain on what (legal) basis you believe the store owner is not the owner of the laptop...
If you cannot, explain on what (legal) basis he is not the owner of the data...
If you cannot, explain on what (legal) basis the owner of the data is not permitted to access it, copy it, give it to others, etc.
(Please provide a link to whatever you basis your answers on to determine their legitimacy).

I'm happy to revise my opinions on this, but require (A LOT) more than your unsubstatiated (and seemingly factually deficient) claims ...

It's a known fact that Biden was the one Democrat Trump feared. This very well could have been a preemptive strike to keep Biden from running.

Search and seizure has its own set of rules and legal precedents that cannot be easily applied to a civil matter. Always be aware of the factors that distinguish a case from yours.

Your case might protect the FBI's right to use the information given to it, but would not provide precedence for supplying data to Guiliani or to the public.

I do feel I should re-dive into the privacy laws eventually, you've raised enough doubt for me to worry about my own understanding and use, but I don't have the time to keep going tit for tat over something I researched in detail two years ago and moved on from. When I go back in these doubt situations, I rarely find out that what I've held onto is wrong; I am quite good at legal research. But for now, I have paid work to do. The areas of the law I need to dive into today are for my paid work, not this.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 19 Aug 2021, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How convenient for the false flag operation to box Hunter in, unable to effectively deny.

I always circle back to the smell test. While the right likes painting Hunter as a drug addled buffoon, the reality is that his academic and employment records make it quite clear that he is a highly intelligent man. And highly intelligent men:
1. Don't put potentially incriminating statements in writing, ever.
2. Don't forget to secure and back up their data.
3. Don't forget to pick up property from repair. If they cared enough about the property to take the time to take it to repair, they care enough to pick it up.
They might do one, no one is perfect, but not a perfect storm of all 3.

Biden was NOT president at the time the laptop was turned over. The FBI was under the leadership of a highly partisan Trump ally. If there had been any "there", there, I have zero doubt the FBI would have pursued it and then President Trump would have been made aware. There are no effective arguments to suggest otherwise. None.

It is considered well known fact here in the US that the only potential candidate Trump feared was Biden. The whole issue with the Ukraine call - also well before Biden's candidacy was announced - was born from Trump's hopes of derailing Biden's candidacy. Trump spent much of his presidency laying the groundwork to (a) keep anyone strong from challenging him and (b) make sure the results of the election would be placed in doubt if he lost. Trump is a master swamp salesman. There are many reasons I considered him unqualified for the job, but I am well aware of where his indisputable talent ties, and what his true goals as president were.

Much of your argument hinges on that piece of paper you have been parading around this site which has been suspected of being a fake. Much of the claims made by Paul-Isaac align with what you claimed earlier but what is lacking is hard evidence for his reasons. even if its a real contract I doubt Hunter Biden would have bothered reading the small print. He also seems rather unconcerned over not getting it back which is odd why there is so much hysteria by Trump supporters over the contents.

Paul-Isaac has a number of high profile clients in the area so he was considered trustworthy, his decision to share the private contents of the son of a possible future POTUS seems rather risky and requires some further journalistic investigation as to what he was up to and why since Biden's election victory he is in hiding (I don't buy the death threats story as the sole reason)

You seem acutely defensive about me referring to Paul-Isaac as a hacker and have thrown words like libel at me as if they carry any weight.

Yet strangely the social media platform Twitter blocked the sharing of information from Hunter Biden's laptop on the basis that the material was hacked. Interestingly Paul-Isaac came out of hiding in Dec 2020 to launch a $500 m libel lawsuit against Twitter for referring to him as a hacker.
https://deadline.com/2020/12/twitter-hu ... 234662278/

Fast forward to Aug 2021 and nothing has come from Paul-Isaac's legal bid (it will probably end up being thrown out). Interestingly Sean Hannity from Fox news has been trying to obtain the contents but has been blocked by his own lawyers.

Another interesting thing despite Paul-Isaac's objection to being referred to as a hacker is that the FBI referred to the investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop in Dec 2020 as a "hack and leak" operation. This would also suggest the FBI are referring to Paul-Isaac as a hacker.

Probably because he and Rudy wanted to get it out there right before the election.




Oh nice, this thread has that other bit of info that I had been looking for:

"I downloaded the dailymail images and cross checked the WD passport serial number against their warranty information.

The invoice for the repair predates the warranty start date for the passport drive, which means it was faked.

* Date of invoice: April 12, 2019
* Warrant expiration: April 22, 2022
* Warranty period: 3 years from registration
* Start date of WD warranty: April 22, 2019

This means that the warranty started after it went into the shop. Double checking with WD, the warranty start date is based upon the PURCHASE DATE and not the registration date."


Some other stuff. I briefly hinted at it earlier, but the lack of metadata is a dead giveaway:
"The email is a PDF and the gmail icon was clearly edited into the pdf. It has a gray box around it, and it's a different resolution than the rest of the document. Also, it's a PDF which is a stupid format to release this email. Emails have meta data that can prove they are real. When Hillary's emails were released by Wikileaks, no one questioned their veracity because Wikileaks released all the metadata for the emails. We knew they were real. The New York Post has not released the metadata for these emails because they used a PDF, so we can't prove if they are real. The New York Post is a major tabloid. They know how fact check a basic email, so they're doing this on purpose."

If you do come across something, I'd certainly be interested...I've been loking for anything (cases\laws) indicating the data is distinct from an abandoned device (most cases are connected to either 4th ammendment, or the phyiscal contents of an abandoned object).

I've looked into abandoned computers, and found a couple of stores online (different states) which only allow 30 days for collection:
https://fergusoncomputers.com/rates/ - 30 days, specifies will re-sell or dispose of items.
https://www.computerdoc4u.com/about-us - 30 days
https://logicops.com/docs/LogicOps_computer_service_waiver.pdf - 90 days
None of them mention removal of data from abandoned items - with one, as noted, merely stating they will re-sell or dispose of it - They are from different sates, though, as well.

Even the "self storage" laws for Delaware (which I thought may have provisions for data on electronic devices that would be similar\connected to that for other abandoned items), merely states:

Which suggests that any data on devices left at self storage would be free of privacy limitations on the data contained on them, or at the very least that there are no laws regarding privacy of data on electronic devices which differs from privacy related to any physcal item (documents, etc.).

If you can find anything different, I'm happy to have a look (It's been quite interesting delving into this area - I'm learning all sorts of new information)

Edit: I forgot to note that one of the major "pawn-broker"\secondhand dealers in Australia sell computers which sometimes contain the data of previous owners: I've seen several devices in their stores (and even purchased a couple in the past as they were better than my PC, and cheaper than upgrading parts\buying new system) which still had the previous user's files intact... Different country, different laws, I know.

Last edited by Brictoria on 20 Aug 2021, 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

I hadn't seen the hard-drive serial number - do you have a link for the thread this information came from?

I'm curious if the hard drive serial discussed is the internal one from the mac laptop, or an external one which the store transferred the data onto - As noted in the quote for repairs, it was only laptops - no external drives mentioned, so if it is an external drive, this may simply be what a copy of the recovered data was placed on.

The thread is here, but I don't think you'll find much: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... pair_shop/

I had seen it posted elsewhere by someone else, with a photo of the hard drive in question, but I've no idea where that is now.


It's external, it's a WD. The articles mention that there is a laptop and an external hard drive (and two other laptops?), but it never specifies which hard drive was copied and given to Rudy, or if the external drive IS the copy, or what. There just isn't enough information.

Like, how is a guy who is too blind to see his customers able to run and operate a Mac repair shop anyway?

Last edited by SabbraCadabra on 20 Aug 2021, 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.