EFiled: Dec 18 2023 03:59PM EST

Transaction ID 71647586
CaseOF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE No. S22C-10-012 RHR
DELAWARE

JOHN PAUL MAC ISAAC, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. S22C-10-012 RHR
)
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., )
et.al., )
)
Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT JOHN PAUL MAC ISAAC’S

ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

/s/ Brian R. Della Rocca /s/ Ronald G. Poliquin

Brian R. Della Rocca, Esquire Ronald G. Poliquin, Esquire
Admitted Pro Hac Vice I.D. No. 4447
51 Monroe Street, Suite 408 1475 S. Governors Ave.
Rockville, Maryland 20850 Dover, DE 19904
Ph: (240) 560-3030 Ph: (302) 702-5501
bdellarocca@compass-law.com ron@poliquinfirm.com

/s/ Joseph D. Stanley

Joseph D. Stanley, Esquire
I.D. No. 6329
1140 South State Street
Dover, DE 19901
(302)678-8700
joe.stanley@schwartzandschwartz.com
 Table of Contents

Page

Table of Authorities ………………………………………………….………………...… 4

Clarifying Preliminary Statement …………………………………………...………….... 6

Background ……………………………………………………………………………… 7

I. Mac Isaac’s Access of Biden’s Data ….…...…………..…………...……. 7

II. The New York Post Article and Mac Isaac’s

Subsequent Media Appearances ……………………………………….……... 8

A. “Communications” with NY Post …………….…………………….... 8

B. “Interviews” with Various Reporters from Media Outlets ………...… 8

C. Clarifying Statement …………………………………………………. 9

D. Lawsuit Against Twitter, Media Appearances, and Book .…………... 9

III. Intelligence Officers’ Public Statement ……………………..………….. 10

IV. Mr. Biden’s Appearance(s) on CBS …………………………………...... 11

V. Procedural History ………………………………………..…………….. 11

Argument ……………………………………………………………………………….. 12

VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW …………………………………………..… 12

VII. MAC ISAAC HAS ADEQUATELY PLEADED

MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE RELATED
TO HIS CLAIM OF DEFAMATION …………………………………... 12

A. DEFENDANT’S COMMUNICATIONS TO THE

PUBLIC REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF
CONSTITUTED INTENTIONAL OR WILLFUL
DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH ………………………………….. 14

B. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS ARE REASONABLY

UNDERSTOOD BY THIRD PARTIES TO BE
DEFAMATORY IN NATURE …………………………………….. 19

2
 VIII. PLAINTIFF WAS A PRIVATE FIGURE BUT FOR
DEFENDANT’S OWN CONDUCT AND COMMUNICATIONS.
DEFENDANT CANNOT IMMUNIZE HIMSELF FROM LIABILITY
BY NOW CLASSIFYING PLAINTIFF AS A LIMITED PURPOSE
PUBLIC FIGURE AFTER THE FACT …………………..………….… 20

A. PLAINTIFF’S PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS IS AN

ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT IN DISPUTE …………………... 20

B. DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT AND

COMMUNICATIONS CONSTITUTED ACTUAL
MALICE SUCH THAT LIABILITY REMAINS EVEN
UNDER THE LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE ………. 23

IX. PLAINTIFF HAS ADEQUATELY PLEADED MATERIAL

FACTS IN DISPUTE RELATED TO THE CLAIM
OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND AIDING AND ABETTING …………. 23

A. CONSPIRICY ………………………………..…………………….. 23

B. AIDING AND ABETTING ………………………………………… 25

Conclusion …………………………………………..………………….....……………. 26

3
 Table of Authorities

Page

Agspring Holdco, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. NGP X US Hldgs., Ltd. P'ship

No. 2019-0567-AGB, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 252, at *49 (Del. Ch. July 30, 2020) …………….. 25

Avins v. White, 3rd Cir.

627 F.2d 637, 647 (1980) ……………………………………………………………………….. 21

Burkhart v. Davies
602 A.2d 56, 58-59 (Del. 1991) …………………………………………………………………. 12

Doe v. Cahill
884 A.2d 451, 463 (Del. 2005) ………………………………………………………………….. 12

Fanelle v. Lojack Corp.

CIV.A. 994292,2000 WL1801270, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2000) ……………………………… 13

Gannett Co., Inc. v. Kanaga

750 A.2d 1174, 1184 (Del. 2000) ……………………………………………………………….. 13

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974) ............................................................................................................. 20

Kendall v. Daily News Publ'g Co.

716 F.3d 82 (3d Cir. 2013) ………………………………………………………………….. 13, 14

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254 (1964) ……………………………………………………………………………. 23

Ogus v. SportTechie, Inc.

No. 2018-0869-AGB, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 39, at *18 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2020) ……………… 25

Optical Air Data Sys., LLC v. L-3 Communs. Corp.

No.: N17C-05-619 EMD CCLD, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 44, at *22-23
(Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2019) ……………………………………………………………………….. 24

Page v. Oath Inc.

2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 127 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2021) ...................................................... 20

Re v. Gannett Co.
480 A.2d 662, 665-66 (Del. Super. Ct. 1984) …………………………………………………… 21

Schiavone Constr. Co. v. Time, Inc.

847 F.2d 1069, 1089 (3d Cir.1988) ……………………………………………………………... 14

4
Shadle v. Nexstar Broad. Grp., Inc.
3:13-CV-02169 (M.D. Pa. July 21, 2014) ……………………………………………………… 13

Shotspotter Inc. v. Vice Media, LLC

C. A. N21C-10-082 SKR (Del. Super. Ct. June 30, 2022) ……………………………………… 13

Skye Min. Inv’rs, LLC v. DXS Capital (U.S.) Ltd.

No. 2018-0059-JRS, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 72, at *25 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2020) ………………. 24

Spence v. Funk
396 A.2d 967, 969 (Del. 1978) ………………………………………………………………….. 12

St. Amant v. Thompson

390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968) ……………………………………… 14

Q-Tone Broad. Co. v. Musicradio of Maryland, Inc.

1994 Del. Super. LEXIS 453, 1994 WL 555391, at *4 (Del. Super.) …………………………... 12

Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc.

D.C. Cir., 201 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 627 F.2d 1287, 1296 (1980) ………………………………. 21

W.D.C. Hldgs., LLC v. IPI P'rs, LLC

No. 2020-1026-JTL, 2022 Del. Ch. LEXIS 145, at *25-26 (Del. Ch. June 22, 2022) …………. 24

Wooten v. Kiger
226 A.2d 238, 239 (Del. 1967) ……………………………………………………………….… 12

5
 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant John Paul Mac Isaac (“Mac Isaac”) hereby submits this

Opposition to Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Robert Hunter Biden’s Motion for Summary

Judgment. In support of this Opposition, Plaintiff states as follows:

CLARIFYING PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mac Isaac brought this claim against Robert Hunter Biden (“Biden”) and the other

Defendants after being vilified by the Defendants as a hacker, Russian agent, etc. for doing what

Biden hired him to do (recover his data) and then, after Biden’s failure to return to the store to pick

up his laptop, for taking the laptop to the FBI and, later, to the attorney for the President of the

United States. Biden attempts to put his “spin” on this case. While he has been successful in doing

so to the public, this Court should see through his obvious lies.

Mac Isaac’s defamation claim is not based on one statement. Paragraph 155 of the Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) provides a quote from an interview of Biden but also references a

CNN news piece where multiple interviews are discussed and shown. In both interviews, in

response to questions about the laptop left with the Delaware computer repair shop (Mac Isaac’s

shop), Biden denied remembering going to the repair shop and then clearly stated that the laptop

could have been “hacked,” or the laptop could have come from “Russian intelligence,” or could

have been “stolen.” These were all responses to very specific questions about the laptop that came

from the Delaware computer repair shop. Biden could have responded to those questions with a

simple, “I don’t know,” if that were actually the case but, instead, he proceeded to accuse Mac

Isaac as being involved in something nefarious. There is no question that Biden was referring to

Mac Isaac and the computer he left at Mac Isaac’s repair shop.

However, Biden has now tried to create confusion around which laptop is at issue. The

SAC clearly identifies to which laptop Mac Isaac is (and has been) referring – the one Biden left

at Mac Isaac’s shop on April 12, 2019. It was not until Biden’s friend, Kevin Morris, came up with

6
his “mind map” where he surmised that the laptop left at Mac Isaac’s shop was, in fact, a laptop

that Biden had left with his drug treatment doctor, Keith Ablow. Morris and the other Biden

supporters created this narrative as a way to distract and confuse the public into believing Biden,

nothing more.

The SAC clearly identifies the laptop to which Mac Isaac is referring. The interviews in

which Biden participated also clearly identify the laptop as the one left with Mac Isaac. These are

factual disputes not appropriate for the summary judgment phase.

Further, during Mac Isaac’s deposition, in response to a question from Biden’s attorney

about which laptop Biden was referring during the interviews, Mac Isaac said, “[t]o the best of my

knowledge, he was referring to the laptop that was getting a lot of attention at that moment.” See

Mac Isaac Dep. 448:22-449:1 (Exhibit A). The laptop getting a lot of attention at the moment was

the laptop from the Delaware computer repair shop.

BACKGROUND

I. Mac Isaac’s Access of Biden’s Data

On April 12, 2019, Biden dropped off his Mac Book (“laptop”) at Mac Isaac’s repair shop,

returned once a day or two later at Mac Isaac’s request, but never returned. When he dropped off

the laptop, Biden provided Mac Isaac with his phone number and email address, both of which

Biden confirmed were his during his deposition. See Biden Dep. 53:14-54:13 (Exhibit B). Mac

Isaac then explained to Biden that the process of recovering his data involved accessing the files

on the laptop. Biden expressed no objection to this process and signed the work authorization.

Mac Isaac explained to Biden that the process of recovering his data involved accessing

the files on the laptop. Biden expressed no objection to this process and signed the work

authorization. See Exhibit A of the SAC.

7
 Biden also interprets passages from Mac Isaac’s book in ways that obfuscate the true

meaning of the passages. These interpretations are a factual issue which are inappropriate to

determinate at the summary judgment stage with limited discovery.

Mac Isaac never claimed that he knew what the FBI was going to do with the laptop. Nor

did Mac Isaac ever claim that he knew what the attorney for the President of the United States was

going to do with the laptop. He was not a part of that discussion, nor could he have ever imagined

how it would turn out.

II. The New York Post Article and Mac Isaac’s Subsequent Media Appearances

“Communications” with NY Post

Contrary to the assertions by Biden, Mac Isaac was not “in communications” with the NY

Post prior to its publication of its article, “Smoking-gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden

Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad,” published on October 14, 2020 (“October 14th

Article”). As stated in his deposition, Gabrielle Fonrouge (“Fonrouge”) from the NY Post asked

Mac Isaac if Hunter Biden had been in his shop and Mac Isaac responded, “yes.” See Mac Isaac

Dep. 292:13-15 (Exhibit A). When pressed further, Mac Isaac confirmed he had not shared any

of the data from the laptop with Fonrouge, just that there was “sensational stuff that [he didn’t]

want to talk about” and that he was upset that she was there because he does not want his identity

known. See Mac Isaac Dep. 292:16-294:20 (Exhibit A). Mac Isaac asked Robert Costello why

Fonrouge had come to his shop and Costello said that it was just “part of the process” of a news

organization. See Id. That was the extent of Mac Isaac’s alleged “communications” with the NY

Post prior to the publication of its October 14th Article.

“Interviews” with Various Reporters from Media Outlets

As previously stated, many times, including in Mac Isaac’s deposition, the reporters from

CNN and the Daily Beast (and whoever else was present), “burst into [Mac Isaac’s] shop and

8
cornered [him] in the shop.” See Mac Isaac Dep. 74:24-75:8 (Exhibit A). He confirmed that he

spoke while “under duress,” afraid that his “disability would be used against” him. See Id.

Mac Isaac did not voluntarily sit for interviews with the media outlets. Instead, he was

intimidated into answering questions, being told that they would not leave him alone until he

answered their questions. The entire “interview” can be heard on the website of the Daily Beast

(https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-

bizarre-interview). Mac Isaac’s duress is obvious in the recording.

Clarifying Statement

As stated in the SAC, “[i]n an attempt to clarify the inaccuracies” published by the media

outlets involved in the alleged “interview” of Mac Isaac, Mac Isaac’s counsel approached various

media outlets with a statement to clarify the inaccuracies published by those media outlets. After

being turned down by two mainstream media outlets (Washington Post and Wall Street Journal),

Mac Isaac’s statement was finally published by a small news outlet called Just the News.1 This

attempt to defend himself against the vicious attacks Mac Isaac was receiving is not reflective of

a person seeking attention. Mac Isaac wanted to be left alone.

Lawsuit Against Twitter, Media Appearances, and Book

Biden asserts that Mac Isaac’s lawsuit against Twitter was to generate media attention.

Had Mac Isaac’s name not been released, he would be working in his Mac Shop today, completely

anonymous, as he desired. Instead, his name has been dragged through the mud, including by

Twitter, and he brought a suit against the business. Whether the lawsuit was a success or not is

irrelevant.

Mac Isaac was asked to do media appearances and turned down many of them. When he

realized that he was the only one who could (or would) tell the truth about his story, he started to

1
Neither Mac Isaac nor his counsel had as much access to the mainstream media as Biden enjoys.
9
agree to do the appearances. Since he had to close his shop due to the negative publicity (caused

by the defamatory statements by Biden and the other Defendants), he needed a way to provide for

himself. Writing a book was a way he could produce income since no one was willing to employ

him. Mac Isaac should not be penalized for doing what he needed to do to survive.

III. Intelligence Officers’ Public Statement

Biden stirred the flames of the media that “Russia could have been involved” in an attempt

to purposely infer that Mac Isaac was some type of Russia plan. Biden knew that statement was

false when he gave it during a major media interview. At the time that Biden made the statement,

he knew that he dropped off his computer to be repaired at Mac Isaac’s shop. Any statement to the

contrary is false. To add insult to injury, Biden purposedly asserted that Russia could be involved

knowing that to be false. At the very least, this is a factual dispute not appropriate for summary

judgment.

The false narrative (one that Biden knew was false) that Russia was behind the Mac Isacc

story, as reported in the interim joint staff report released by the U.S. House of Representatives’

Committee on the Judiciary, Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal

Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the public statement of the 51

former intelligence officials was orchestrated by former Joseph R. Biden, Jr. campaign advisor,

now Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.2 Other campaign officials, including Mr. Steve Ricchetti,

knew of the orchestration and even thanked former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Acting

Director Michael Morell for putting together the statement.

Considering the close familial relationship Biden claims to have with his father (the father-

son duo allegedly speak every day)3 it is unlikely that Biden did not know that the claims were

2
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-05-
10_the_hunter_biden_statement_how_senior_intelligence_community_officials_and_the_biden_campaign_worked_
to_mislead_american_voters-sm.pdf
3
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/us/hunter-biden-joe-biden-relationship.html
10
false. In fact, significant evidence exists proving the idea that Russia was involved in anything

regarding the election was a hoax started by the Democrats.4 Biden’s regurgitation of these

political talking points that have been disproven are nothing more than an attempt to spin the

narrative in his favor. They are false and Biden knew they were false when he said them.

IV. Mr. Biden’s Appearance(s) on CBS

As Mac Isaac has already corrected, Mr. Biden appears on CBS twice, not just once.

Portions of both interviews are present in the link provided in Paragraph 155 of the SAC. During

both interviews, in response to a question about whether the laptop from the Delaware repair shop

was his, stated that he did not know and that, not only could it be, but it could be that it was stolen

from him, it was hacked, or it “could be that it was Russian intelligence.” In the interview with

Tracy Smith cited by Biden in his Motion for Summary Judgment, Biden doubles down on the

statement that the laptop could have been stolen by repeating, “[i]t could be that it was stolen from

me, the laptop.” See Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 8.

If Biden is trying to argue that Mac Isaac’s laptop was actually the one from Dr. Keith

Ablow, then why would he say it was stolen? He knows that he left that laptop at Dr. Ablow’s

office and that it, therefore, was not stolen. This is further proof that Biden was referring to Mac

Isaac’s laptop, the laptop from the Delaware computer repair shop. The statement was not “general

conjecture,” as purported by Biden…it was a purposeful lie.

V. Procedural History

Mac Isaac filed this Complaint against Biden on October 17, 2022, and then subsequent

Amended Complaint on August 2, 2023. Defendant Biden filed an Answer to Mac Isaac’s

Complaint along with Counterclaims against Mac Isaac on August 8, 2023. The parties engaged

4
https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/27/the-russia-hoax-orbiting-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-so-much-bigger-than-
blinken/
11
in limited discovery including the deposition of Mac Isaac and Biden, interrogatories and

production of documents. This is Mac Isaac’s Answering Brief in Opposition of Biden’s Motion

for Summary Judgment. Mac Isaac previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Bident’s counterclaims.

ARGUMENT

VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party establishes that there are

no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and judgment may be granted as a matter of law. See

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). All facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.

See Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 58-59 (Del. 1991). Summary judgment may not be granted

if the record indicates that a material fact is in dispute. Only when the facts permit a reasonable

person to draw only one inference, the question becomes one for decision as a matter of law. See

Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238, 239 (Del. 1967).

VII. MAC ISAAC HAS ADEQUATELY PLEADED MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPTE

RELATED TO HIS CLAIM OF DEFAMATION

A communication is considered defamatory “if it tends to so harm the reputation of another

as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or

dealing with him.” Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 969 (Del. 1978) (quoting Restatement (Second)

of Torts § 559 (Am. Law Inst. 1977)). The defamatory statement must affect the plaintiff's

reputation in the entire community—causing it to be “grievously fractured.” Q-Tone Broad. Co.

v. Musicradio of Maryland, Inc., 1994 Del. Super. LEXIS 453, 1994 WL 555391, at *4 (Del.

Super.).

In order to succeed on a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant

made a defamatory statement; (2) concerning the plaintiff; (3) the statement was published; and

(4) a third party would understand the character of the communication as defamatory.” Doe v.

Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 463 (Del. 2005).

12
 Further, statements which ‘malign one in a trade, business or profession’ are a ‘category

of defamation, commonly called slander per se, which [is] actionable without proof of special

damages.’ Preston Hollow, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2992, 2020 WL 7365808, at *12 (Super. Ct.

Dec. 15, 2020). “There is a presumption of damages with respect to statements that ‘malign one in

a trade, business or profession.’” Gannett Co., Inc. v. Kanaga, 750 A.2d 1174, 1184 (Del. 2000).

Defamation-by-implication may occur if “the defendant juxtaposes [a] series of fact[s] so

as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or [otherwise] creates a

defamatory implication . . . he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication, unless it

qualifies as an opinion, even though particular facts are correct.” Shadle v. Nexstar Broad. Grp.,

Inc., 3:13-CV-02169 (M.D. Pa. July 21, 2014) citing Fanelle v. Lojack Corp., CIV.A.

994292,2000 WL1801270, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2000) (summary judgment, hereinafter “Fanelle

II”) (quoting Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 116 (5th ed., Supp. 1988)) (alteration in Fanelle II).

In defamation-by-implication cases, the alleged defamatory statement has two possible

meanings, one that is defamatory and one that is not. See 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander § 158

(explaining that “‘[d]efamation by implication’ occurs when a defendant juxtaposes a series of

facts to imply a defamatory connection between them”). Shotspotter Inc. v. Vice Media, LLC, C.

A. N21C-10-082 SKR (Del. Super. Ct. June 30, 2022) citing Kendall v. Daily News Publ'g Co.,

716 F.3d 82 (3d Cir. 2013).

Defamation-by-implication cases differ from ordinary defamation cases in which the

alleged defamatory statement has only a defamatory meaning. See 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and

Slander § 118 (collecting manners in which a statement can be defamatory); see also Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 559 (explaining that “[a] communication is defamatory if it tends to so harm

the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third

persons from associating or dealing with him”) (1977). In ordinary defamation cases, the actual

13
malice standard is relatively clear and undisputed by the parties. “The Supreme Court has defined

actual malice as knowledge that a statement was false or [made with] reckless disregard of whether

it was false or not.” Schiavone Constr. Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069, 1089 (3d Cir.1988)

(quoting Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 280, 84 S.Ct. 710) (quotation marks omitted). Recklessness is

shown by demonstrating that “the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the

statement or that the defendant had a subjective awareness of probable falsity.” Id. (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). “[This] standard is a subjective one, based on the

defendant's actual state of mind....” Id. (citing St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct.

1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)).

The standard for malice is heightened in a defamation by implication claim. The Third

Circuit has held that while ordinary defamation cases require knowledge of falsity, “showing

known falsity alone is inadequate to establish an intent” in defamation by implication cases. The

Court held that plaintiffs must “show something that establishes defendants’ intent to communicate

the defamatory meaning.” Alternatively, reckless disregard for the defamatory meaning of a

statement can satisfy the standard. Kendall v. Daily News Pub. Co., 716 F.3d 82, 90 (3d Cir. 2013).

a. DEFENDANT’S COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE

PLAINTIFF CONSTITUTED INTENTIONAL OR WILLFUL DISREGARD
FOR THE TRUTH

Biden’s statements about the “laptop left at the Delaware computer repair shop”

communicated to the world that Mac Isaac was involved in the theft or hacking of his laptop,

and/or that Mac Isaac was part of a Russian intelligence operation. The interviewers were very

specific about the laptop to which they were referring and Biden responded directly to the question

that (1) he allegedly couldn’t remember if the laptop was his and (2) that it could have been stolen

from him, (3) that the data could have been hacked, or (4) that the laptop could have been part of

a Russian intelligence operation. Biden’s statements are clearly defamatory, clearly refer to the

14
laptop that came from Mac Isaac’s shop, and clearly implicate Mac Isaac as being part of that

criminality.

Being that discovery is not complete, Mac Isaac will show that, not only did Biden know

that it was his laptop, but that he purposely went with the narrative that, due to his drug addiction,

he could not remember going to Mac Isaac’s shop. This was purposeful, nothing in Biden’s Motion

for Summary Judgment proves otherwise, and Mac Isaac will show the purposeful deceit by Biden

at trial.

Biden’s statement is not a statement of opinion or conjecture. When Biden stated that the

laptop “certainly” could be his or that it could have been stolen, hacked, or part of a Russian

intelligence operation, he was not engaging in conjecture or formulating an opinion. He was lying

because he knew that the laptop was his. Deceit is not protected speech in a defamation action – it

shows actual malice by Biden.

Mac Isaac’s case does not hinge on whether Biden expressed a “general conjecture” about

whether the laptop was his. The laptop is Hunter’s and was left by Hunter at Mac Isaac’s shop.

The SAC presents ample evidence of those facts. SAC ¶¶ 16-21. Through discovery, Mac Isaac

will show that Biden has known that it was he who left his laptop with Mac Isaac and created or,

at least, went along with a false narrative that he did not remember leaving the laptop at Mac

Isaac’s shop. Further, it has been shown that the Biden for President Campaign Committee

(BFPCC, Inc.), also a Defendant in this matter, assisted Biden in the creation of a response to

questions about the laptop. See Footnote 4.

Biden again attempts to twist Mac Isaac’s words during his deposition. Mac Isaac did not

agree with any of the facts underlying Biden’s statements. In Mac Isaac’s deposition, Biden’s

counsel asked Mac Isaac about a mock trial in which he participated on Fox Nation. During that

mock trial, Mac Isaac was asked by a pretend attorney representing Biden if he knew if Biden’s

15
laptop had been hacked before Biden dropped it off at Mac Isaac’s shop. See Mac Isaac Dep.

440:21-443:21 (Exhibit A). The exchange was about whether Mac Isaac thought that it was

possible that Biden’s laptop could have been hacked prior to March 17, 2019, which was the last

date the laptop appeared to have been accessed prior to being brought to Mac Isaac’s shop. Mac

Isaac responded that the laptop “could very easily” have been hacked at any point prior to March

17, 2019. See Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 4. The difference between Mac

Isaac’s use of the word “could” and Biden’s is that Mac Isaac was actually engaging in conjecture.

Biden, on the other hand, was engaging in deceit.

Further, this focus on whether the laptop “could” have been hacked prior to the laptop

landing in Mac Isaac’s shop is a red herring because no one asked Biden if he thought his laptop

had been hacked prior to being dropped off at Mac Isaac’s shop. The allusion was that the

information Mac Isaac provided to the FBI and to Mr. Rudy Giuliani had been hacked by Mac

Isaac and that Biden had never dropped off a laptop at Mac Isaac’s shop. The real issue is that

Biden knows the laptop was real, that he had dropped it off at Mac Isaac’s shop, and that Biden is

leading the world to believe that he does not even think it is his laptop and that Mac Isaac is part

of a criminal scheme.

In Mac Isaac’s deposition, in response to the question “[h]ow have you been harmed by his

statement versus all the other statements that have been made about you?” Mac Isaac responded,

“[b]ecause he’s the one person that can admit that it was real, it was his, and apologize.” Mac Isaac

Dep. 444:15-21 (Exhibit A).

Further, one should not evaluate Biden’s statements in a vacuum. In evaluating the claim,

one must look at the full interviews and the questions to which Biden is responding to get the full

context, as the audience did. Biden did not have to refer to Mac Isaac specifically in the interviews.

The interviewers did that for Biden and Biden responded with his defamatory comments.

16
 Biden attempts to use Mac Isaac’s words against him in his Motion for Summary Judgment

alleging that Mac Isaac:

• “Conced[ed] that [Biden’s] statement neither references nor alludes to [Mac

Isaac].” In reality, Biden’s counsel asked Mac Isaac if Biden mentioned Mac

Isaac’s name, talked about a repair person, mentioned Wilmington, Delaware, or

the Mac Shop, all of which Mac Isaac responded truthfully that Biden had not.

However, as discussed throughout this opposition, Biden responded to a very

specific question about THE laptop from the Delaware computer repair shop.

Biden did not have to actually reference Mac Isaac; the implication was there from

the question he was asking. See Mac Isaac Dep. 444:22-445:17 (Exhibit A).

• “[A]dmitt[ed] that he does not even know to whom, if anyone, [Biden’s] statement

[regarding to what Biden was referring when he said the laptop could have been

stolen].” Mac Isaac did not know to what Biden was referring when he responded,

“I do not,” to Biden’s counsel’s question. This question was not a “who” question,

it was a “what” question and Mac Isaac did not know because the laptop had not

been stolen. See Mac Isaac Dep. 480:24-481:6 (Exhibit A).

• “Acknowledg[ed] that [Biden] had numerous laptops, any one of which could have

been the basis of [Biden’s] statement,” and “acknowledge[ed] that [Biden’s]

statement could have been referring to any one of four different laptops.” After

peppering Mac Isaac with a number of questions, one of which included a

confirmation by Biden’s counsel that the laptop left a Dr. Ablow’s office is “a

different laptop than the one that came into [Mac Isaac’s] shop that [Mac Isaac]

claim[s] was brought there on April. By definition, it had to be.” Then, after

17
admitting that the laptop attributed to Dr. Ablow was definitely different than the

one Mac Isaac had in his shop, Biden’s counsel asked:

Q. What happened to [Ablow’s] laptop?

A. The last I saw it was in CBS. They had a picture of it.

Q. So do you know whether it could have been stolen?

A. I don’t know.

Q. So when Mr. Hunter Biden was saying, “My laptop could

have been stolen,” what laptop do you understand he was referring
to, since we’ve now identified four laptops? Which one was he
referring to?

A. I don’t know.

Q. But you claim he was referring to the one that you claim
means he was making a statement about you.

A. Well, to my knowledge, he was in possession of the two that

I gave him back. And, then, the third one, the FBI - - or the FBI had
the other two.

Q. The FBI had which other two?

A. The other two laptops. The Ablow - - Keith Ablow’s laptop.

Q. you just said that the FBI had Dr. Ablow’s. You didn’t say
that before. When did the FBI get Dr. Ablow’s laptop?

A. I don’t know. I think they took it in 2019 sometime.

Q. Okay. So, again, let me just put this question to rest.

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Hunter Biden says that “My laptop could have been stolen.”
And you put it in your complaint.

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Your complaint is based on the notion that when he was

saying that he was referring to the laptop you claim he left in April
of 2019. Correct?

A. Correct.

18
 Q. You know that there were two others that day. You said that.

A. Correct.

Q. And you know there’s another laptop that had something to

do with Dr. Ablow. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And sitting here today, you don’t know which laptop he was
referring to, do you?

A. To the best of my knowledge, he was referring to the laptop

that was getting a lot of attention at that moment.

Mac Isaac Dep. 446:19-449:1 (Exhibit A).

Mac Isaac stuck to his guns and held his own. Whether Mac Isaac could have known, for

a fact, which laptop Biden was talking about is irrelevant because Biden clearly responded to the

question about the laptop from the Delaware repair shop – the Mac Shop.

Mac Isaac’s claims against Biden are based on more than a reasonable inference. Biden

responded to a question about a specific laptop (the one from Mac Isaac’s shop) and stated that it

could have been stolen, hacked, and/or part of a Russian operation. He then doubled down on the

idea that Mac Isaac’s laptop had been stolen from him. In reality, as is shown in the signed repair

authorization (SAC Exhibit A), Biden dropped off the laptop asking Mac Isaac to recover his data.

b. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS ARE REASONABLY UNDERSTOOD BY

THIRD PARTIES TO BE DEFAMATORY IN NATURE

As already mentioned, ad nauseum, there is no way a reasonable person watching the

interviews could believe Biden was talking about anyone other than Mac Isaac, the Delaware

computer repair shop owner who had Biden’s laptop. The interviewers reference the “Delaware

laptop” and the “Delaware computer repair shop” numerous times throughout the interviews. To

the specific questions about the laptop from the Delaware computer repair shop, Biden responded

with his statements about how it could have been stolen, hacked, or involved in a Russian

19
operation. It is clear what Biden is saying and anyone listening to the interview knew what Biden

was saying.

VIII. PLAINTIFF WAS A PRIVATE FIGURE BUT FOR DEFENDANT’S OWN

CONDUCT AND COMMUNICATIONS. DEFENDANT CANNOT IMMUNIZE
HIMSELF FROM LIABILITY BY NOW CLASSIFYING PLAINTIFF AS A
LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE AFTER THE FACT.

The mere fact that the public knows about Mac Isaac because of media frenzy that was

outside of his control, does not catapult his status to that of a limited purpose public figure. People

knew who Mac Isaac was because his identity was exposed. He did not voluntarily sit for

interviews on October 14, 2020, and only did so thereafter in an attempt to defend himself – which

was hard to come by since most media outlets refused to speak with him.

a. PLAINTIFF’S PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS IS AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL

FACT IN DISPUTE.

Biden fails to adequately argue that Mac Isaac is a limited purpose public figure under Gertz.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

“Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public

figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of
truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most
part those who attain this status have assumed roles of special
prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such
persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for
all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have
thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in
order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event,
they invite attention and comment.”

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).

Biden uses Page v. Oath Inc., 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 127 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2021)

in support of its argument that Mac Isaac is a limited purpose public figure. However, Carter Page

and Mac Isaac are not similar in any way. In fact, prior to the incident in the Page case, Carter

Page was an advisor to President Trump’s campaign and voluntarily sat for a two-hour interview

with a news outlet. Therefore, Page had already voluntarily injected himself into the public
20
controversy. Mac Isaac never did until he had lost everything and needed to try to recover his

reputation.

To have acquired the status of a public figure, a person “must have been not only been the

subject of publicity but he must have voluntarily involved himself in a public controversy.” Re v.

Gannett Co., 480 A.2d 662, 665-66 (Del. Super. Ct. 1984) (internal citations omitted). According

to the Court in Re, “the ‘public controversy’ test is well described in the following language

from Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., D.C. Cir., 201 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 627 F.2d 1287,

1296 (1980) and quoted with approval in Avins v. White, 3rd Cir., 627 F.2d 637, 647 (1980):

‘A public controversy is not simply a matter of interest to the public; it must be a real dispute, the

outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way.’” Id. at

665-66. Further, the Court in Re outlined the general proposition that a public figure had “regular

and continuing access to the press” and/or had an “influential role in ordering society.” Id. at 666.

Prior to being accosted by reporters on October 14, 2020, as a result of the NY Post article,

Mac Isaac did not voluntarily offer his opinions publicly about any controversial issue. In fact, he

tried to remain anonymous with regard to issues that arose out of the contents of the laptop’s hard

drive. He did not attempt to thrust himself into the “vortex” of a matter of legitimate public interest.

Biden alleges that Mac Isaac is the “definition of someone who ‘voluntarily injected himself’ into

public controversy.”

In reality, Mac Isaac was thrust into the vortex of the laptop scandal without his consent.

He did not seek out media attention, it found him. Simply listening to the recording of the alleged

“interview” Mac Isaac gave “immediately after his actions came to light,” helps one understand

that Mac Isaac did not voluntarily sit for those interviews.5 Instead, the journalists pushed their

5
The interview is available to listen to at https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-
laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview
21
way into Mac Isaac’s shop and told him they were not going to leave him alone until he answered

their questions. Mac Isaac was scared and unsure about how to answer the questions in a way to

protect himself and his family. He did the best he could so he could get the journalists out of his

shop. He did not seek the interview, nor did he want it.

Mac Isaac also did not provide the information to the FBI or to Giuliani because of the

presidential campaign. He has always said and continues to say that he did so because he thought

there may be criminality on the laptop and the FBI should look at it. As far as giving a copy of

the laptop to Giuliani, Mac Isaac only did so after it did not seem President Trump knew about the

laptop in the FBI’s possession during his impeachment hearings. Mac Isaac thought it should be

used as part of his defense so contacted Giuliani, Trump’s attorney. At no point did Mac Isaac

even consider the laptop would be used as part of the Trump campaign. Mac Isaac may be naïve

in so thinking but those are the facts.

As already mentioned, suing Twitter was not a grab for attention. Mac Isaac was hurt by

Twitter and was seeking remuneration for his losses. Unfortunately, the lawsuit was unsuccessful.

Mac Isaac made appearances to defend himself, not to promote any information on the laptop.

Finally, Mac Isaac had to write a book about his experience because it was the only resource he

had remaining to earn a living.

Biden claims that, “[w]ithout Mac Isaac’s own actions, the October 14, 2020 New York Post

story, which launched Mac Isaac into the public sphere, would not exist.” However, in reality, if

Biden had just owned up to the whole affair, Mac Isaac would still be quietly working at The Mac

Shop in Trolley Square. Or, perhaps, if Biden had simply paid Mac Isaac for his work and retrieved

his laptop from Mac Isaac’s shop, none of this would have happened. Instead, Biden is attempting

to shift blame to others – the true sign of an unrepentant addict.

22
 b. DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT AND COMMUNICATIONS CONSTITUTED
ACTUAL MALICE SUCH THAT LIABILITY REMAINS EVEN UNDER
THE LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE

Even if, arguendo, this Court determines that Mac Isaac is indeed a limited purpose public

figure, the fact that Biden knowingly lied during his interviews shows the actual malice needed to

win a defamation case. The U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254

(1964) defined “actual malice” as a statement that is made “with knowledge that it was false or

with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Id. at 280.

As argued herein, Biden’s statements were not statements of opinion or conjecture. They

were manufactured lies because he knew that the laptop was his. Biden provided Mac Isaac with

his name and contact information and then signed the repair authorization. Biden claims to not

remember going to Mac Isaac’s shop. Yet Biden went to Mac Isaac’s shop twice. Additionally,

Mac Isaac communicated with Biden using his telephone number (which Biden confirmed was

his) and his email address (which Biden also confirmed was his). Biden may have been in the

throes of addiction but nothing stopped him from checking his emails for Mac Isaac’s message.

Also, it is difficult to believe that anyone, even a spoiled, rich kid like Biden, would not remember

if they even had a laptop and whether the content on it was his.

Biden knowingly lied about knowing if the laptop at the center of this controversy was his.

IX. PLAINTIFF HAS ADEQUATELY PLEADED MATERIAL FACTS IN

DISPUTE RELATED TO THE CLAIM OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND
AIDING AND ABETTING

a. CONSPIRACY

To plead a claim of civil conspiracy, Mac Isaac must show: “(1) two or more persons; (2)

an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds between or among such persons relating

to the object or a course of action; (4) one or more unlawful acts; and (5) damages as a proximate

result thereof.” Optical Air Data Sys., LLC v. L-3 Communs. Corp., No.: N17C-05-619 EMD

23
CCLD, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 44, at *22-23 (Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2019). The existence of a

conspiracy is usually an “issue of fact as well as a question of law.” Id. at *23.

“The reasonable conceivability standard asks whether there is a possibility of recovery.

The Delaware Supreme Court has compared Delaware's ‘conceivability’ standard to the federal

‘plausibility’ standard and explained that conceivability is ‘more akin to 'possibility,' while the

federal ‘plausibility’ standard falls somewhere beyond mere possibility but short of

probability. The ‘plausibility’ pleading standard is higher than [Delaware's] governing

'conceivability' standard.’ The federal ‘plausibility’ standard also ‘invites judges to determine

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief and draw on judicial experience and common

sense.’ Until the Delaware Supreme Court ‘decides otherwise or a change is duly affected through

the Civil Rules process, the governing pleading standard in Delaware to survive a motion to

dismiss is reasonable 'conceivability.’” W.D.C. Hldgs., LLC v. IPI P'rs, LLC, No. 2020-1026-JTL,

2022 Del. Ch. LEXIS 145, at *25-26 (Del. Ch. June 22, 2022) (internal citations omitted).

Therefore, this Court must determine whether there is a possibility that Mac Isaac will win his

conspiracy claim.

In the Second Amended Complaint, Mac Isaac has shown the possibility that (1) all

Defendants; (2) worked together to kill the laptop story; (3) agreed to the course of action of

knowingly presenting false information to the public to make the public believe the laptop story is

Russian disinformation; (4) by defaming Mac Isaac and others; and (5) resulting in significant

damages to Mac Isaac including the forced closure of his business. Mac Isaac need not prove the

existence of an explicit agreement. A conspiracy can be inferred from the pled behavior of the

alleged conspirators. Skye Min. Inv’rs, LLC v. DXS Capital (U.S.) Ltd., No. 2018-0059-JRS, 2020

Del. Ch. LEXIS 72, at *25 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2020). The allegations that Biden supported his

father’s Presidential campaign and that he went along with the narrative regarding the Russian

24
involvement with the laptop, a claim that was started from within the Biden Presidential campaign,

all while knowing that the laptop was his supports Mac Isaac’s conspiracy claim.

Further, even if, arguendo, this Court dismisses the defamation claim against Biden, that

does not automatically discharge Biden from potential liability under the conspiracy count. Biden

could still be liable for conspiracy to commit defamation even if Biden was not the one who

actually defamed Mac Isaac.

b. AIDING AND ABETTING

The elements of a claim for aiding and abetting are: “(i) underlying tortious conduct, (ii)

knowledge, and (iii) substantial assistance.” See Agspring Holdco, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. NGP X US

Hldgs., Ltd. P'ship, No. 2019-0567-AGB, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 252, at *49 (Del. Ch. July 30,

2020).

First element can be satisfied sufficiently when Mac Isaac has pled sufficient allegations

of the tortious conduct by any of the wrongdoers. See Ogus v. SportTechie, Inc., No. 2018-0869-

AGB, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 39, at *18 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2020)

The knowledge element of an aiding and abetting claim under Delaware law can be averred

generally, and “all that is required to show that a defendant knew something are sufficient well-

pleaded facts from which it can reasonably be inferred that this something was knowable, and that

the defendant was in a position to know it.” Agspring at *49. Again, Biden supported his father’s

Presidential campaign and that he went along with the narrative regarding the Russian involvement

with the laptop all while knowing that the laptop was his.

As to the third element, this court recently explained in an analogous context that

“substantial assistance” means that “the secondary actor must have provided ‘assistance . . . or

participation’ in aid of the primary actor’s allegedly unlawful acts.” Id at *50.

25
 Mac Isaac has pled sufficient facts that a reasonable inference can be drawn that the

Defendants aided and abetted one another to defame Mac Isaac (and others).

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant, Politico’s,

Motion to Dismiss.

Dated: December 18, 2023

/s/ Ronald G. Poliquin /s/ Brian R. Della Rocca

Ronald G. Poliquin, Esquire Brian R. Della Rocca
I.D. No. 4447 Pro Hac Vice
1475 S. Governors Ave. 51 Monroe Street, Suite 408
Dover, DE 19904 Rockville, Maryland 20850
Ph: (302) 702-5501 Telephone No.: (240) 560-3030
ron@poliquinfirm.com Email: bdellarocca@compass-law.com

/s/ Joseph D. Stanley

Joseph D. Stanley, Esquire
I.D. No. 6329
1140 South State Street
Dover, DE 19901
(302)678-8700
joe.stanley@schwartzandschwartz.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 18, 2023, I presented the foregoing document to the
Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Ronald Poliquin

Ronald Poliquin

26