The odds are in favor of Hunter Biden in imminent lawsuit against computer repairman

It proves theft. So the evidence is stolen. That puts a taint on it's credibility.

It is not theft if the files were part of the legal takeover of ownership of the laptop.
Doesn't matter if the ownership of the files was transferred or not, because the police to not need to own the files in order to use them as evidence.
 
First the owner can't identify who "signed" the agreement.
Second, the owner failed to notify Hunter Biden as required under Maryland abandoned property law, which requires the shop to send written notification (not email) to the owner, three times within 90 days.
Why do you think Maryland law apples to a shop located in Delaware, Simp? :cuckoo:
 
Which is the very antithesis of the Hillary email argument.

As you said, she could delete 30,000 emails from her laptop, but there would be copies on other computers and servers.

So why the bitching about deleting only one of several copies?

The problem with Hillary is that she deleted ALL the copies, from the servers, backup tapes, her laptops, etc.
Which is so difficult, that it was proof of intentionally violating FOIA.
That is why Weiner's laptop became such as issue, since it had copies of Hillary's emails that had not been deleted.
But it turned out to be just a very small number on that laptop.
 
Essentially the courts actually are the only representatives of law.
Police actually have no legal authority at all.
You have it all wrong. Police are law enforcement, The DA are the criminal prosecutors, and the courts are the judges of the cases brought by the DA.

The only crimes that courts can prosecute are civil contempt of court.
 
There are many.
But one example is that Hunter is arranging meetings with those paying him, to talk directly with Joe Biden.
That is a clear case of selling influence, and illegal.
Do you have proof that Hunter, and not somebody with access to his laptop, wrote those emails?

As a crackhead, Hunter didn't always remember or care where or with whom he left his laptop.
 
Do you have proof that Hunter, and not somebody with access to his laptop, wrote those emails?

As a crackhead, Hunter didn't always remember or care where or with whom he left his laptop.
Crackhead says they belong to him, Simp.
 
It does have to be a work of art in order to be protected under copyright law.
A journalist writing a dry and factual article, is still a work of art, because the journalist is still deciding how to phrase it.
And how does that differ from an email?

It doesn't.
 
First the owner can't identify who "signed" the agreement.
Second, the owner failed to notify Hunter Biden as required under Maryland abandoned property law, which requires the shop to send written notification (not email) to the owner, three times within 90 days.

Wrong.
The Maryland abandoned property law does not apply when you take something in for work and agree to the shop civil contract terms of service.
It would be like trying to apply generic law to the Twitter terms of service agreement.
When you knowingly enter into specific terms of service agreement willingly, then that applies, regardless of what generic laws would have otherwise applied.
 
I don’t think he can read the law.

I had no idea about that though.

I know exactly what copyright law means, and it does not at all protect privacy, copies being read, used as evidence, or even republished.
And copyright law means is you have to attribute the original creator.
 
It is not theft if the files were part of the legal takeover of ownership of the laptop.
Doesn't matter if the ownership of the files was transferred or not, because the police to not need to own the files in order to use them as evidence.
The police can't seize evidence from someone (4th amendment) via a third parties unauthorized disclosure of them.
They can still use the evidence, but it's treated as tainted by the jury.
 
Wrong.
The Maryland abandoned property law does not apply when you take something in for work and agree to the shop civil contract terms of service.
It would be like trying to apply generic law to the Twitter terms of service agreement.
When you knowingly enter into specific terms of service agreement willingly, then that applies, regardless of what generic laws would have otherwise applied.
First it was my mistake, it was Delaware abandoned property law.

And a person by civil contract, can't sign away rights granted by law.

All the contract did by defining property not picked up as "abandoned" is allow them to treat it as "abandoned" under Delaware law. Which carries several specific legal requirements.
 
The only evidence of a crime involving Hunter's business, would not be known, unless it is investigated by law enforcement..... And proven to have been illegal, under the law.

The campaign lawyer of a political opponent is not law enforcement, nor are journalists Rigby.

Read up on the law.
The police do not actually have any legal authority to even exist.
They are not mentioned in any federal or state constitution, because they are a recent invention, around 1900.
Historically the precedent is lawyers were the original officers of the court when police did not exist.
Unlike police, journalists are mentioned in federal and state constitutions, and do have exceptional powers, by being representatives of the people.
 
How would Crackhead copyright emails you claim someone else put in his laptop, Simp? :cuckoo: :laughing0301: :itsok:
The copyright belongs to the author. No matter who wrote them or where they wrote them.

So you're still not showing the store owner had any right to them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top