Derek Hines’ Disappearing [Three Colors of] Ink

In his bid to prevent Abbe Lowell from telling jurors about how the gun shop at which Hunter Biden bought a gun doctored the form on which he is accused of lying, Derek Hines told Judge Maryellen Noreika that Lowell had “inaccurately” claimed there were three or four differences between the original purchase record emailed to ATF and one altered three years later.

[A]t the hearing on May 14, 2024, the defendant inaccurately stated, “There are three or four changes on that form.” Hrg. Trans. at 39:13. That claim is incorrect. As described above, there were only two additions to the Certified Form 4473 after it was filled out on October 12, 2018. [my emphasis]

Hines restated Lowell’s description — “changes” — to address “additions,” and then accused Lowell of inaccuracy.

But he’s covering up that on top of two additions — one an attempt to make it look like the shop had not unlawfully sold Hunter Biden a gun using only his passport as ID — the purported physical copy was instead some kind of scan that hid the fact that the guy who sold Hunter the gun used three different colored inks: Black when he (or someone else) sold Hunter Biden a gun without viewing ID with his address on it.

 

 

Red when he recorded the NCIS background check.

 

 

And blue when he signed it, possibly without a date.

 

 

As Lowell noted in his response revealing the multiple colors, at the status hearing where he first raised this, Hines told Judge Noreika that the doctored form — the one he wants to exclude — had more evidentiary value than the original one, because it reflected Hunter showing a second form of ID.

MR. LOWELL: In terms of form, on Friday, the Government explained to us something that we asked them about that was in their discovery, but I did not understand the ramifications until Friday.

The 4473 form that is the subject of one of the counts, the Government produced two versions of that to us. One, they indicated a week or so ago that they are going to seek into evidence for it being the contemporaneous filing of the form in October of 2018.

On Friday, they informed us that the second form that was in discovery came to them in 2021, I believe. And we didn’t know that. And it’s a different form. I mean, it’s the same form. It has different material on it. And when that was put on and who put it on, we asked them on Friday, and they said they do not know.

So, consequently, that becomes a subject of importance to us as to how the actual form that will be the one that they’re not putting into evidence — by that, I mean the physical form that they obtained from the gun shop in 2021 is the form.

What they are seeking to put into evidence is a faxed or PDF’ed copy of that from October. The actual form has new handwriting on it, which is why we’re looking into that issue as well. And I didn’t know that until Friday.

So there are some things that I am asking that I have the ability to present in the way of experts, and we’re doing the best we can on that.

[snip]

MR. HINES: With respect to the Form 4473 and the two versions, there are two forms 4473 produced in discovery. This isn’t a nefarious issue.

In October of 2018, the store owner of Starquest e-mailed the form that Hunter Biden had signed, prepared, and was dated on that date, to an ATF agent. That form has been produced in discovery. All of the boxes on that form, with the exception of one box, matched a form that was later turned into the ATF approximately two years later, in, I believe, 2021; although, we’ve given the exact date to defense counsel. And the only difference is in that intervening period, someone had written Delaware Vehicle Registration on one of the lines, as an additional ID that Mr. Biden had presented.

So, frankly, that latter form is, from an evidentiary perspective, more valuable to the Government because it’s one more indicia of identity that Mr. Hunter Biden had given to the Starquest owners and salespersons when he bought that gun. [my emphasis]

Hines went on to explain to Judge Noreika that he thought it was a nonissue that the gun shop was doctoring forms years after the fact, which is a pretty weird claim from prosecutors insisting that Hunter Biden face consequences for allegedly lying on that same form five years ago.

Nonetheless, out of fairness, we have agreed that we should be using the form as it existed in October of 2018 that’s attached to an e-mail and has been authenticated by Starquest so that there’s no ambiguity or uncertainty regarding when the Delaware vehicle registration was written on there because that could have been done years later in advance of turning it into the ATF. We don’t know exactly when or who did that, but we think that this is really a nonissue, nonevent.

THE COURT: In advance of turning it in to the ATF, but the e-mail was turning it in to the ATF already?

MR. HINES: The e-mail was to the ATF. So the AFT [sic] has this e-mail. That’s been produced in discovery. That e-mail attaches the form that existed without that one — it says — I think the line item is like 19, and it says “supplemental identification,” and they had written “Delaware vehicle registration” on the later — on the version that was turned into ATF. But in the e-mail, it’s the form that existed at that time, with that box left blank. So that’s the form we’re going to use for trial because that is exactly what he filled out at that time.

[snip]

MR. LOWELL: The 4473 form is much more complicated than Mr. Hines would indicate. There’s not just one change on that form. There are three or four changes on that form.

There’s a number on the top right for the person who sold the gun’s identification number. There’s another change on it. And the idea that after the fact somebody put car registration, that’s a significant event in terms of Your Honor and the jury’s consideration because the form that they say is the critical aspect of one of the counts in this case that includes the identification being a passport is not an acceptable form of identification. It doesn’t include the person’s address. It should never have been accepted as a piece of identification. And somebody figured that afterwards. And then tried to fix it. And that should be a subject of the value of that piece of evidence in front of this Court and a jury. Those are issues we’re pursuing. And I didn’t know about the last one’s significance of when that came about until Friday.

Of course, that was before the prosecution quickly reinterviewed the gun shop guys, only to discover that their immunized gun shop owner (who, Lowell explained in his response, “drew media attention in October 2020, during the election campaign, and conspired with others shortly before the 2020 election to publicize aspects of Biden’s gun purchase”) tried to make it look like they had complied with the law after the fact.

As Lowell notes, this significantly increases the import of the immunity prosecutors have granted Palimere.

Making changes as Palimere did and submitting those to law enforcement would subject the gun shop to fines, revocation of its license, and possibly criminal penalties for falsifying a federal form.

Palimere gets to stay in business, but Hunter Biden faces prison for owning a gun for 11 days over five years ago.

I had already been wondering whether the dodgy forms explained Lesly Wolf’s decision to resolve the gun charge with a diversion agreement. All the more so given this detail: When prosecutors provided this form in discovery last October, they provided a photocopy, hiding the different color inks.

When the doctored form was reproduced to Biden in discovery, it was a black-and-white photocopy with none of the colors from the original, obscuring who filled out portions of the doctored form.

First Derek Hines hid that from Hunter Biden, and then he tried to hide it from Judge Noreika.

And remarkably, when FBI Special Agent Erika Jensen reinterviewed Gordon Cleveland (by herself) on May 16, she didn’t ask him why he used three different colored inks to fill out one form, purportedly all while Hunter Biden waited.

Timeline

October 12, 2018: Gun purchase

October 23: Hallie throws gun away

October 24: Secret Service and Delaware cops start investigating; ATF Special Agent James Risch advises shop only to hand over copy (which would hide multiple colors)

October 26: Shop sends form to ATF, without serial number

September 23, 2021: Gun shop turns over doctored physical form to ATF

April 16, 2024: On call with Lowell, prosecutors tell him he can inspect physical items; date of 302 including details about form

April 23: Gun shop manager certifies black-scanned form as authentic

April 24: Letter from prosecutors reiterates offer to inspect physical items

May 3: Deadline prosecutors impose for challenges to authenticity

May 10: Lowell asks why there are two versions of the forms

May 14: Lowell describes changes to physical form at status conference

May 16: Erika Jensen reinterviews sales clerk Gordon Cleveland (alone) and shop owner Ronald Palimere (with Hines and pursuant to a proffer)

May 20: Hines moves to exclude the doctored form

May 23: Lowell response includes multi-colored form

image_print
51 replies
  1. Shadowalker says:

    For what was supposed to be an overwhelming case, the prosecution is putting a great deal of effort in limiting the evidence the jury will use in rendering their judgement.

    Weiss has another problem with the legal definition of an addict. Legally, an addict is defined as a habitual user of narcotic drugs so as to “endanger the public morals, health, safety” or who is so addicted to the “use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.” Which is probably why he wants to limit the defense from requiring Weiss prove drug use during the time period.

    • freebird says:

      The seminal question here among others is when a recovering drug user can no longer call himself a drug user. The form is not clear. If it is indefinite, everyone I know is a user.

      • Shadowalker says:

        The law doesn’t specify a time frame, which makes it a crime of the moment. Which is why Weiss couldn’t bring accompanying drug charges (no evidence) as would be normal in this case.

        • bmaz says:

          There is however a general statute of limitations. At some point it is ridiculous, and as to Hunter we are well past that.

  2. Rugger_9 says:

    The key evidentiary items continue to have provenance problems between the laptop and the form, and what’s worse it appears from this narrative that the Special Counsel’s office here had been involved in the flimflam evolution. SC Weiss will ply ahead anyway because the MAGA ‘leadership’ demands a trial to sully the Biden name. Noreika and/or Scarsi might give them that opportunity because of their biases but I have a hard time believing a jury will ignore this.

    Too bad the courtier press doesn’t seem interested.

    • Harry Eagar says:

      The difficulty, as I see it as a retired newspaperman, is that all the dickishness requires either 1) some pretty detailed knowledge of judicial procedures; or 2) familiarity with a lot of unknown to fame people doing obscure things at different times.

      Now, forging a form, even I can understand that. And I could make even the most mulish reader understand, too.

      This looks like being the practical evidence that can be presented to the public without making too heavy a demand on their butterfly attention spans.

  3. originalK says:

    I think we have entered the realm of Greek tragedy – no longer prosecutorial dickishness, but hubris in its fullest meaning.

  4. Rayne says:

    In addition to the multiple colors of ink, there’s one more thing which sets off my hinky meter.

    Cleveland writes with a slight back slant. Whoever filled out the rest of the form doesn’t.

    Cleveland also prints in mixed case. Whoever filled out the rest of the form doesn’t.

    • c-i-v-i-l says:

      If you click to see the whole document, it shows that Jason Turner filled out part of the form.

    • klynn says:

      Might be worth looking at Jensen’s handwriting. I would want to see her slashed zero’s in particular. Turner does not write numbers like that when comparing numbers handwritten throughout the form.

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        You think Turner wrote his name in section 19g, but didn’t fill out the rest of section 19? The person who wrote the slashed zeroes wrote in both red and black ink, so the change in ink color in 19g versus the rest of section 19 doesn’t rule out Turner. Looks to me like Cleveland is the one who filled out the form on p. 8 of doc 177-2 in red, even though he’s not the person who wrote in red in section 19.

        • Rayne says:

          May I suggest you remain neutral regarding your assumption Cleveland filled out p. 8 of doc 177-2? The document needs further analysis by forensic experts. There’s something not right about that handwritten portion of p. 8.

          Because I was bothered by a shadow I can see underneath/around a portion of the handwritten name “Biden,” I cropped the portion of p.8/177-2 filled out in red ink, played with it using image viewer/editor software. Screening out the green channel of the image, it looks like the name “Biden” may have been erased once, and two different red pens were used to complete that form.

          I wonder what I might see if I do the same thing to pages 2-4 of document 177-2.

      • Rayne says:

        Yup. There are also too many inconsistencies between letters A, E, and R across this form in my opinion.

    • emptywheel says:

      Yes–the discussion at the status hearing came up in context of Lowell’s effort to find a handwriting analyst.

      • bmaz says:

        Heh, that should read a “handwriting analyst that will say what he wants”. They are out there, but a tad flaky.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          I would expect even a decent one will be able to determine if one person wrote these entries. If not, Lowell has an appeal point.

        • Dmbeaster says:

          Handwriting analysis is a sketchy business. All that they really do is apply better techniques of observation to something that lay people can also do if they used the same observation techniques. Maybe these techniques can be called “expertise,” but it’s pretty low level.

          It is not as sketchy as bite mark analysis, but it is in that neighborhood.

          An observational technique by these experts? Examine the documents upside down in order to emphasize form. Powerful stuff!

    • JVOJVOJVO says:

      Isn’t Lowell using a forensic expert for this? If not, why not?

      I’ve had occassion to use nationally-recognized Speckin Forensics (they are based here in Michigan) a few times. It’s incredible what other additional information can be likely be gleaned from the original – even after all this time. Not only would it confirm the varied hand writing, etc. They can date each ink to determine the when of each ink’s writing. They can also glean if other papers were written on a sheet above this document, etc. There should be no way that any version or copy of the document can be excluded – and if it is – it would be reversible error.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        This is especially true considering that Hines is referring to this document as a key piece of supporting evidence for the gun charge. Just like OJ’s gloves, the trail of custody was lost and it seems apparent (pending forensic analysis) that tampering occurred.

        As I noted above, I’d be surprised a jury will buy Hines’ explanation. That of course depends upon where the jury is drawn. Where in CA would the district have courthouses? If this is the Inland Empire or Orange County, Lowell has his work cut out for him.

        • Matt___B says:

          There’s a federal courthouse in downtown L.A., that’s where Scarsi works, so the jury pool will not be drawn from OC or IE.

          Which, as you are warning about, could’ve been a problem. I have a friend who is a professor at UC Riverside (that’s IE), and he says the dudes with pickups sporting Trump flags and Appeal to Heaven pine tree flags are much in evidence there, 50 miles east of downtown L.A.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s beginning to look like there might be reasonable doubt as to the credibility of this form, if submitted as evidence. But, yes, I should think HB’s team would need forensic experts to opine about the things to which it objects.

  5. Fraud Guy says:

    Seems to be a pattern of Republican DOJ officials to have documents altered to improve their cases and to be caught out on it by the proprietor here (Sussman, Flynn, Strzok cases, IIRC).

  6. The Old Redneck says:

    To sum up, we have a gun shop owner with a right wing agenda. His shop doctored Hunter’s form, filling in blanks at (likely) three different times. The owner was given immunity to keep him from taking the Fifth. And if the timeline in Hunter’s memoir about drug addiction is unclear, then the gun shop guys will have to be the ones to testify that (1) they asked Hunter whether he was a drug addict, and (2) Hunter answered no.

    BTW, all this is against the backdrop of the government providing a photocopy to prevent Lowell from finding out the form had three different inks!

    I may not be seeing the whole picture; others are following this more closely. But if this is how it unfolds, the prosecution is in deep shit already. Maybe they can establish Hunter’s drug addiction at the time of purchase through his ex-girlfriend or others. Nonetheless, we can already conclude that this is far from a slam dunk.

    We’re finding out why the feds were willing to do a diversion agreement. It wasn’t a sweetheart deal; the truth is they didn’t have the leverage to push for something tougher.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      And the table saw. And the timelines. And all the other WTF moments Marcy has provided us with. Makes me wonder whether Leslie Wolf got taken off the team for ‘being negative?’

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        For being too tied to the law and having good prosecutorial judgment.

        There will be no Lesley Wolfs in a second Trump DoJ. Someone like Kash Patel would run it; his staff would all be wannabe Bill Barrs, Durhams, Weisses, and Jeff Clarks.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          “For being too tied to the law and having good prosecutorial judgment.”

          Like I said, too negative.

  7. Yankee in TX says:

    Lowell should request a forensic study of the different inks used on the from. I once received a very hinky handwritten IOU from a contractor claiming that he owed his family members an antecedent debt. We suspected that it was a recent fabrication. I had an expert test the ink from the IOU. He concluded that the ink was from a very recent batch of ink for Cross pens. I had once remarked that the contractor and I used matching Cross pens. The case settled within days after we gave them the expert’s report on the ink.

  8. Clare Kelly says:

    First, thank you again for your tenacity, diligence, and wry wit.

    Secondly, FF’sS.

    If this weren’t reality and *my tax dollars!* weren’t paying for it, it would be a box office hit.

    I’ve checked Apple Podcasts twice this morning for the Friday’s/w drop that I usually relish on Saturday or Sunday…while waiting for the SCOTUS drop.

    Yes. I have an unusual amount of free time today, :-D, but more importantly I’ve come to rely upon your analysis and delivery as the weeks get more ‘hoo boy’.

    Thanks again.

  9. flounder says:

    It amazes me that the USA is spending millions, flying in like 30 witnesses for a trial about signing an ATF form while high, yet the business owner who defrauded the US on the same form by not requiring a second ID with address gets off Scott-free. We could easily get double our money by prosecuting the gun store owner too. The Special Prosecutor already tore up one noon prosection agreement, he can do it to the other one too.

    • HikaakiH says:

      Marcy’s post about the large SC case involving 30 witnesses flown in from around the country was about the ‘straightforward’ tax case in California rather than the gun case in Delaware.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Oblique

    Hines can reek of doublespeak,
    Twist it up, hide-and-seek,
    Exercise some sham technique,
    Or pretend it’s tongue-in-cheek.

    Who harkens back to a losing streak,
    Off the rails, numbers bleak?
    Who let loose some MAGA shriek
    to cover up each Smirnov leak?

    There isn’t any real mystique,
    Just here & there tweak after tweak,
    as bumptious Trump, control freak,
    imperils those who he deems meek.

    He stokes what fear he can pique,
    Thus Weiss’ (et al.) ever creeping sneak
    to enjoy advantage his team can eke
    from rule of law, or a judge who’s weak.

    Fascist Don believes he’s unique,
    Though it’s probably not his physique,
    But does Hines ignore who’s up-a-creek
    from this practice of the oblique?

  11. NYsportsfanSufferer says:

    So we have a doctored federal form, a laptop that is manipulated with no chain of custody and witness testimony from three exes.

    There is not a prosecutor with integrity in the free world that would bring a case with even one of these kinds of issues. The sad part is they might actually get away with it.

    • bmaz says:

      I believe you have a decent bead on the evidentiary issues. I have no idea how it will go for Hunter, but am pretty sure this bunk would not fly in any court I appear in.

      • NYsportsfanSufferer says:

        I’m not sure how it goes legally, but once the media does start covering this closer and starts seeing what Weiss is doing people are going to start asking questions. In the court of public opinion, people are going to start asking why a tampered with federal form was charged.

        If Hunter does beat the gun case because of shaky evidence, what will that do to the tax case? Weiss would lose a considerable amount of credibility.

      • Dmbeaster says:

        How the hell do they get in lap top data without first proving authenticity, and how are they going to do that? I would fight its admissibility, and watch the shit show in trying to prove that.

        I do not practice criminal law, but this is just basic evidence law.

        • Shadowalker says:

          It’s a two step process. According to the rules (set by Congress) digital files that have self authentication can be considered real and not a forgery. That’s the easy part. Each item found on the device must also be able to satisfy “Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay” as well as proof the defendant placed/created the evidence on the device.

  12. Tech Support says:

    So wait… they gave the gun shop owner immunity? I don’t suppose that “compelled to testify” thing applies to the defense as well?

  13. KittyRehn says:

    Reply to Rayne, May 24, 2024 at 2:16 pm
    “It looks like the name “Biden” may have been erased once, and two different red pens were used to complete that form.”
    I hope I’m not beating a dead horse here, but this stood out to me too. Not only is the ink on pg.8 a lighter shade of red, the line weight is also thinner. The writing on pg. 3 and pg. 4 looks like what’d come out of your standard cheap bic ballpoint, but the writing on pg. 8 struck me as significantly more crisp. The hobby artist in me wonders if we’re looking at the difference between a cheap .7mm ballpoint and like a slightly nicer .5mm ballpoint. The differences between the 8s on pg. 8 & section 37 pg. 4, and the X on the bottom of pg. 8 compared to those on pg. 2 also stood out to me. Perhaps whoever filled out pg. 8 is left handed?

    • Rayne says:

      Reply to KittyRehn
      May 25, 2024 at 5:09 pm

      I didn’t even look at pen width, just noticed the pixels haloing Biden’s name. Could this be an artifact from a carbonized form which was discarded and replaced? It looks as if Biden’s name was written more than once, whatever the case, and not exactly the same comparing the shadow version and the red ink version.

      see image at: https://media.mstdn.social/media_attachments/files/112/503/903/184/282/748/original/4bf8e757cd178a2c.png

      Whatever the red ink used for his name, it doesn’t show up the same as the other fields below when different channels are switched on and off.

      see thread at https://mstdn.social/@raynetoday/112503896584050279 containing same cropped image with different channels on/off.

      I’ll also point out that whoever wrote “one” with a Greek “E” epsilon was probably not the same person who filled out the description of the weapon using a block print “E.”

      • EuroTark says:

        My take: The shadowing is an artifact of the image being stored as a JPEG as some point.

        While the shadowing around Biden’s name is pretty clear, there is similoar shadowing around all other red inks, inkluding the lines through the “Stock #” and “Importer” fields, which are likely not doctored in any way.

        I do agree that several fields don’t line up; The “R” in Revolver and Robert does not look like the Serial # R.

Comments are closed.