Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion To Dismiss, Opening Brief
Motion To Dismiss, Opening Brief
Transaction ID 70815698
Case No. S22C-10-012 RHR
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PAGE
I. Parties ………………………………………………………...…...… 5
Argument ………………………………………………………………….…..… 13
A. Intrusion ………………………………………………….…...… 18
A. Disclosure ……………………………………...…………....….. 22
1
Page
A. Conspiracy ……………………………………….……………... 26
Conclusion ………………………………………………………….…………… 28
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
Spence v. Cherian, 135 A.3d 1282, 1288 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ……….……..… 22
3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Biden (“Biden”) seeks to impose liability on John Paul Mac Isaac (“Mac Isaac”) (1)
for performing services that Biden hired him to do (which required accessing the
data); (2) for turning the information over to law enforcement after concerns of
seeing illegal activity; and (3) for turning the information over to the attorney for the
President of the United States after determining that the information on the laptop
may be needed as part of his impeachment defense. Biden’s allegations are nothing
more than political talking points under the guise of legal arguments.
Mac Isaac did not seek this limelight. Mac Isaac himself was not particularly
political prior to the defamation committed by the Biden political machine. In fact,
at the time of all relevant events, Mac Isaac was a registered Democrat. Regardless,
Defendant Biden chastises him as a “right-wing nut job” instead of the concerned
4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. PARTIES
Mac Isaac is a private citizen who resides in Wilmington, Delaware, and was
Biden, who currently resides in California, is the son of the President of the
United States, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and was a customer of The Mac Shop who sought
Mac Isaac’s assistance with retrieving data from a Mac computer after damaging the
For the purpose of this motion, Plaintiff must accept Defendant’s well-pleaded
specific dates. Biden claims that Mac Isaac accessed Biden’s data as early as April
13, 2019. (¶ 9 of Biden’s Counterclaims). Mac Isaac allegedly made a “clone” of the
data that he then loaded onto a MacBook of his own in July 2019. (¶ 22 of Biden’s
drive containing the data from Wilmington, Delaware to his father, Richard “Steve”
same month, Mac Isaac allegedly composed a letter to send to President Trump’s
Isaac allegedly printed out materials from the data he maintained to assist then-
5
President Trump in defending against the impeachment proceedings in the U.S.
Mac Isaac also allegedly gave a copy of the data in his possession to his friend,
Counterclaims). No date is cited in this claim, but it likely occurred around the same
Mac Isaac also allegedly gave a copy of the data in his possession (either electronic
or printed) to his uncle, Ronald J. Scott, Jr., who in May 2020 was allegedly sending
at least summaries of the data he received from his nephew to journalists and
On August 27, 2020, Mac Isaac allegedly made contact with Rudy Giuliani’s
Counterclaims). On August 28, 2020, Mac Isaac allegedly sent another copy of the
data in his possession to the home of Mr. Costello in New York. (¶ 31 of Biden’s
Counterclaims).
On September 24, 2020, Mac Isaac allegedly informed Senator Ron Johnson’s
staff that he had possession of data that he claimed came from a laptop left at his
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published an article allegedly about
the data Mac Isaac had accessed and copied that he claimed belonged to Mr. Biden.
6
(¶ 39 of Biden’s Counterclaims). There are also many other allegations about people
who allegedly received the data from the hard drive from Giuliani, not Mac Isaac.
Hunter’s Laptop
At issue is the fact that, on April 12, 2019, Biden dropped off his Mac Book
(“laptop”) at Mac Isaac’s Mac 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 he confirmed
were his, and, after Mac Isaac explained the data recovery process, signed the work
authorization. When Mac Isaac called Biden more than once and left him voicemails
to come to pick up his laptop, if Biden didn’t remember doing so, this would have
been a pretty clear reminder. Further, when Mac Isaac sent Biden an email with the
invoice, again, that would have been a pretty clear reminder that he dropped off his
laptop with Mac Isaac. It is simply not logical for a political operative (or Russian
operative) to pretend to be Biden then drop off the laptop and then provide Mac Isaac
Not only did Biden not pay for the services but he left the laptop with Mac
Isaac, triggering its contractual provisions deeming it Mac Isaac’s property after 90
days. The contract also held Mac Isaac harmless from any damage incurred by Biden
as a result.
7
Biden refuses to admit that he visited The Mac Shop (twice), despite Mac
Isaac presenting evidence that he dropped off his Mac computer “Mac” at Mac
Isaac’s store. Biden also interprets passages from Mac Isaac’s book in ways that
obfuscate the true meaning of the passages (discussed herein) with the hope that this
Honorable Court will not read Mac Isaac’s book and glean the true meaning of the
passages.
Contrary to Biden’s counterclaim, Mac Isaac never claimed he was never able
to identify who brought the laptop into his shop. He has consistently said that he was
not sure who came into his shop that night. Despite Biden’s insistence that he is
recognizable by everyone (he may be now), Mac Isaac did not know what he looked
like and, therefore, did now know who he was when he walked into the shop.
When Biden told Mac Isaac his name, that identification coupled with the
Beau Biden Foundation sticker on the laptop seemed to confirm who was in the shop.
Further, Mac Isaac looked up Biden to see what he looked like and confirmed that
the person who dropped off the laptop was, in fact, Biden.
The twisting of Mac Isaac’s words in a way that suits Biden does not change
the facts.
8
Data Recovery of Laptop
Mac Isaac suspected the laptop had a short in the keyboard or trackpad. He
then explained to Biden the process of recovering the data, which included accessing
the data. He also explained the store policies and the price of the recovery. After
this explanation, Biden signed the work order authorizing Mac Isaac to access the
The process was slow since the laptop would need to be charged but would
not remain charged for long. While it was charged, Mac Isaac would recover as
much data as he could until the laptop shut down. Then Mac Isaac would have to
charge the laptop again, find where he had left off (by reviewing the files), and begin
of data occurred. The best files to use in this verification are video files. Mac Isaac
opened some of the larger video files to confirm that they were not corrupted.
featuring Biden. Although disgusting, the video files were not corrupted so, in the
end, Mac Isaac determined that his recovery was successful and called Biden and
left a voicemail telling him to purchase an external hard drive onto which he could
9
Biden did as he was told and returned to the shop with the external hard drive.
Mac Isaac then completed the recovery and contacted Biden to tell him to pick up
his laptop and the hard drive. He never returned and the rest is history.
FBI
After obtaining the rights to the laptop pursuant to the contract signed by
Biden, Mac Isaac grew uneasy with the seemingly illegal activities cataloged in the
laptop. As he was taught to do at the Apple Store and in accordance with his own
convictions, he made contact with the FBI. Soon thereafter, on December 9, 2019,
Mac Isaac gave the laptop, the original hard drive, and the original work order to the
FBI.
Rudy Giuliani
After making a determination that the authorities had not disclosed the
existence of the laptop to the President of the United States for use during his
impeachment trial, Mac Isaac felt compelled to do so himself. By the time he made
this decision, the laptop had been in the possession of the FBI for a few months.
Mac Isaac first approached members of Congress about the laptop but, when he
failed to receive responses, he took it upon himself to contact the attorney for the
1
Mac Isaac never actually spoke with or met Mr. Giuliani. All of his interactions were with Mr.
Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello.
10
It was not until 2023 that Mac Isaac met Giuliani in person. As noted by Biden
in his counterclaim, Mac Isaac was invited to attend an event by the Metropolitan
Republican Club on April 17, 2023. He was one of the honorees at the event along
with Giuliani. During that event, he briefly met Giuliani. Unlike the political slant
Biden alluded to in the counterclaim, Mac Isaac did not assist with planning the
information had been provided by someone else and caught Mac Isaac off guard
when he found out about it. His only role in the article was in confirming who he
was and what happened. He did not confirm any of the information presented in the
“Interviews”
show that Mac Isaac relished in the spotlight. In fact, reporters from the Daily Beast,
CNN, and CBS (and possibly others) did not politely request an interview with Mac
Isaac. They forced their way into his shop when Mac Isaac unlocked the door to let
a customer out. They barraged him with questions and threatened not to leave until
he answered their questions. The reporters not only twisted his words but also put
words in his mouth (i.e., reference to Seth Rich). The entire interview can be heard
11
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 had never been involved in any situation like this and was
uncomfortable and scared that such a powerful family would seek retribution. His
answers were nervous responses to questions and the things he anticipated would be
Mac Isaac’s sole source of income was torn from him as a result of the Biden
Presidential campaign-led backlash to the October 14, 2020, NY Post article. Out of
concerns for his own safety, Mac Isaac had to shutter his business.
Mac Isaac wrote his book for a few reasons: (1) to provide an accurate account
of what happened from the time Biden dropped off his laptop at Mac Isaac’s shop to
the immediate aftermath of the October 14, 2020, NY Post article; (2) to have
Mac Isaac’s book merely tells the story of what happened. The only
information from the laptop included in the book was information that had already
been publicly released by others. No new information from the data on the laptop
12
Biden’s Book
Throughout the counterclaim, Biden hems and haws about how embarrassing
the content of the laptop was while, at the same time, failing to identify what content
and if it was even his content. At the same time, Biden wrote and released a book
describing his very personal and embarrassing struggle with drug abuse.
Anyone who “wins” the struggle against drug abuse should be applauded.
However, this abuse should not be an excuse to destroy the life of someone else.
Biden had a very clear picture of his comings and goings in his book yet failed to
remember details like bringing Mac Isaac his laptop and returning another time with
ARGUMENT
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
For the purpose of judging a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded allegations in the
967 (1978); Nix v. 396 A.2d 967 (1978); Nix v. Sawyer, Del.Super., 466 A.2d
407 (1983) Heller v. 466 A.2d 407 (1983) Heller v. Dover Warehouse Market, Inc.,
515 A.2d 178, 179-80 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986). A motion to dismiss is the proper
vehicle for a statute of limitations defense where the pleading itself demonstrates
that the claim was brought after the statutory period has run. Counterclaims are
13
affirmative actions and, consequently, are subject to the applicable statute of
limitations. Adames v. Adames, C.A. No. N19C-06-189 JRJ (Del. Super. Ct. June 5,
2020) citing Am. Home Products Corp. v. Norden Laboratories, Inc., 1992 WL
2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 362, at *11 (Super. Ct. July 25, 2017). Further, Delaware
follows the “time of discovery” rule which starts the clock for the statute of
limitations. See White v. Riego, No. 04C-10-015 PLA, 2005 Del. Super. LEXIS 67,
Here, Biden originally filed his Answer with Counterclaims in Federal Court
against Mac Isaac on March 17, 2023. Any actions by Mac Isaac concerning Biden
In Count One of his counterclaims, Biden claims that Mac Isaac intruded upon
Biden’s seclusion by accessing the data on Biden’s Mac. Here, according to the
counterclaim, Mac Isaac first accessed the information on Biden’s Mac computer on
or around April 13, 2019. Biden also alleges that Mac Isaac created a “clone” of the
data in July 2019. Biden states in September 2019, Mac Isaac sent a hard drive
14
containing the data to his father, Steve Mac Isaac. The latest date alleged in Biden’s
claim that Mac Isaac arguably accessed Biden’s data was when Mac Isaac sent a
copy of the data to Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello on August 28, 2020.
Therefore, the statute of limitations period for these acts expired at the earliest on
April 12, 2021 (when he first accessed the data) and at the latest August 28, 2020,
when the data was sent to Costello. Either way, any plausible claim expired on
In Count Two of his counterclaim, Biden claims that Mac Isaac intruded on
Biden’s privacy by publishing private matters/facts. Although Mac Isaac had no part
in the publication of the data on the laptop, any potential liability concerning the
publication of private matters took place at the latest on October 14, 2020, in the
New York Post article. Biden also discusses YouTube videos published in
December 2020 which would also fall outside of the statute of limitations. Biden’s
conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims would also be time-barred as they are
Further, the two-year statute of limitations for these claims began from the
“date upon which it is claimed that such alleged injuries were sustained.” See Del.
Code Ann. Tit. 10, § 8119. The alleged injuries were clearly sustained on October
14, 2020, when the NY Post article was published, at the latest. With that said, as
discussed herein, Mac Isaac was unaware that the NY Post article was going to be
15
published until just prior to its publication. Further, Mac Isaac did not take part in
any disclosure to the NY Post or to anyone else other than those specifically
Biden continues to refuse to admit that the laptop was his. It is noteworthy
that, in Biden’s answer to Mac Isaac’s Second Amended Complaint, many responses
were “Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations…”
about asking Mac Isaac for assistance in recovering his data. Answer ¶ 17. Yet, in
Paragraph 152, he flat-out denies leaving his laptop at Mac Isaac’s shop. Answer ¶
never picking up the laptop. Answer ¶ 22. However, in Paragraph 154 of the answer,
Biden’s answer goes even further to obfuscate the facts. In Paragraph 156 of
the answer, Biden claims that the allegation is unclear about “what ‘laptop’ is being
referred to.” Answer ¶ 156. The Second Amended Complaint makes it clear which
laptop is at the center of the controversy. This is just another game Biden began to
play in his depositions and continues in his answer to the Second Amended
Complaint.
16
Although Biden “is without knowledge” as to his whereabouts on April 12,
2019, Mac Isaac knows exactly where he was. Additionally, financial records show
frequent uses of Wells Fargo ATMs where significant withdrawals were made – all
within a few miles of Mac Isaac’s shop. Biden’s confused and dishonest responses
Paragraphs 35 and 157 of the Second Amended Complaint show that Biden’s
own attorney contacted Mac Isaac to ask about the Mac the day before the NY Post
story broke. Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35 & 157. However, in Biden’s answer,
while Biden admits that George Mesires was his attorney, Biden is “without
Biden’s response is to be believed, Mesires, his personal attorney at that time, was
As discussed above, Biden gave Mac Isaac his contact details when he visited
Mac Isaac’s shop on April 12, 2019. Biden confirmed that the contact information
was his. Mac Isaac used this information (both phone number and email address) to
contact Biden about his laptop. While Biden denies it, he received the information
from Mac Isaac because he followed Mac Isaac’s direction to purchase an external
hard drive. Assuming his denials are true, which they are not, Biden would have
received voicemail messages and emails from Mac Isaac about his computer. Would
this not have raised any alarms in his head if he had not dropped off the laptop
17
himself? For the reasons stated above and below, Biden’s counterclaims should be
To state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, Biden must show that Mac Isaac
person. Dayton v. Collison, No. N17C-08-100 CLS, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 310,
at *29 (Del. Super. Ct. June 22, 2020). The key element to this tort is that there must
be an act of intrusion. See Lee v. Picture People, Inc., 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 159,
*7-8 (Del. Super. Ct. March 19, 2012). “To intrude means to enter without
invitation.” Id.
A. Intrusion
While Biden claims he did not give consent to Mac Isaac to access the data
on his Mac, the evidence shows otherwise. The work order, shown as Exhibit A of
the Second Amended Complaint, contains not only Biden’s signature authorizing
the work done but also Biden’s contact information. Biden does not contend that he
did not sign the work order and he presents confusing responses to whether he even
dropped off the laptop with Mac Isaac. He either doesn’t recall or denies it
altogether. However, we do know that there is a work order with Biden’s signature
18
“operative” would sneak into Mac Isaac’s shop with a laptop containing Biden’s
information and provide Mac Isaac with Biden’s correct information. If the purpose
was to hurt President Biden’s candidacy (which had not even been announced on
April 12, 2019), it seems odd that Biden’s contact information would have been
used.
Further, after fully informing Biden of the procedures for the recovery, he
signed the work order. One cannot recover data without first accessing the data. As
discussed above, only portions of the data could be transferred at one time requiring
Mac Isaac to confirm where he left off by viewing the files. Finally, in order to
confirm the data was not corrupted, Mac Isaac viewed random files (typically large
video files) to check for data corruption. By accessing the files, Mac Isaac was able
to confirm the data was not corrupt. This was all explained to Biden prior to when
he signed the work authorization. The work authorization was all the invitation Mac
Biden’s claims that the “boilerplate terms of the Repair Authorization” were
“well below the signature line” does not impact the fact that Biden, a trained
attorney, signed the document. See Counterclaim ¶ 6. Further, Biden refers to the
Repair Authorization as a “typical small-print adhesion clause for which there was
the text is not abnormally small. In fact, the text seems to be the same size as the
19
description of the work to be performed. Next, Mac Isaac had the authority to
modify the contract if he was asked by Biden to do so. Biden did not ask for any
revisions to the contract. Finally, Biden was also free to seek assistance from another
repair shop. The fact that Biden, an attorney, did not ask for any modification of the
contract and transacted business with Mac Isaac weighs heavily against Biden’s
Biden knowingly gave Mac Isaac permission to access his data. Biden
breached the agreement by failing to pay Mac Isaac for his services and failing to
return to the shop to pick up his data. Now, Biden has failed to allege the essential
element of intrusion upon seclusion – that Mac Isaac accessed Biden’s data without
invitation. Even if this claim were not barred by the statute of limitations, it should
fail because of the clear evidence that Biden invited Mac Isaac to access his data.
While many of the files on Biden’s Mac seem to be of the kind that “would
information with others. Much of the material that a reasonable person would find
most offensive (sexually explicit photos) was voluntarily shared by Biden with
2
See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hunter-biden-uploaded-videos-of-himself-having-sex-
p3vjkwm0k.
20
on the laptop Biden’s lack of concern about using his father’s political ties to close
deals with foreign countries, some of whom are considered adversaries with the
United States (i.e., People’s Republic of China).3 The use of the “reasonable person”
Since Biden invited Mac Isaac to access the files, he cannot now claim that
Mac Isaac intruded upon his privacy and that the intrusion was highly offensive to
him. The invitation to access the files itself negates the claim of intrusion. Further,
the fact that Biden may have suffered some embarrassment because of his actions
does not give him a cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion. See Beckett
v. Trice, 1994 Del. Super. LEXIS 599 (Del Super. Ct. November 4, 1994). He invited
Mac Isaac in with full knowledge of what data that Mac Isaac would see. As far as
outlining his debauchery. It seems what would embarrass a reasonable person does
Biden has failed to properly allege key elements of the tort of invasion of
privacy by intrusion and Mac Isaac respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
3
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-reveals-biden-family-members-receiving-payments-
from-chinese-energy-company%EF%BF%BC/
21
V. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY PUBLICATION OF
PRIVATE FACTS/MATTERS.
Biden must show that the facts/matter “publicized is of a kind that (a) would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the
public.” Spence v. Cherian, 135 A.3d 1282, 1288 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) (citing
it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as
concerning one’s private life to just one person, or even to a small group.” Spence at
1288.
A. Disclosure
Originally, Mac Isaac disclosed some of the information to his father and
uncle in hopes of getting their input as to what he should do. It was determined that
Mac Isaac should disclose the information to the FBI, which he did. He also gave a
copy to his friend, Kristin, but did not provide her with a bootable copy, only with
the instructions that, if something were to happen to him, she get the drive to
Giuliani. Kristin could not have accessed the drive because she did not possess the
22
knowledge of how to access it. Plus, she is a loyal friend to Mac Isaac, so she just
After recognizing that President Trump did not seem to have the information
from the laptop available for his defense, despite being in the possession of the FBI
since December 2019, Mac Isaac then disclosed the information to Mr. Costello with
the expressed intent that the information be disclosed solely to Mr. Giuliani, the
President’s attorney.4
Prior to the publication of the NY Post article, Mac Isaac only disclosed the
information to his father, uncle, the FBI, and Mr. Costello.5 That disclosure, to a
small group for specific purposes, investigation by the FBI into potential criminal
activity and for use by Giuliani in his defense of President Trump in the
impeachment, does not rise to the level required by the tort of intrusion by
publication.
As Biden has failed to adequately allege that Mac Isaac “published” the
information on the laptop to a large enough group of people to trigger this tort, one
must not even delve into the discussion of whether the information published (by
4
Isaac discussed the information on the Mac with his father and his uncle in order to seek advice
and assistance from them. The Biden family is very powerful, and Isaac is a private citizen so he
became concerned about what the Biden’s would/could do to him and sought advice from his
family.
5
As mentioned, he did not share what was on the drive with Kristin.
23
others, not Mac Isaac) would be considered “highly offensive to a reasonable
person.” If this Court must analyze this element of the tort, as discussed above, such
Even if Biden properly alleged the other elements of the tort of invasion of
privacy by publication, which he has not, the information that was published by
information discovered on the laptop seems to clearly show Biden’s use of his
father’s political power to close deals with foreign countries with whom the U.S.
shares an adversarial relationship. The fact that Biden was involved in these deals
public concern.
“legitimate public concern,” that analysis does not matter in the case of Mac Isaac
since Mac Isaac, himself, did not disclose the information to the “public at large.”
He solely shared the information with a small group of individuals, those with the
information that should have been available to the U.S. President during his
impeachment trial. Mac Isaac had no control over what those individuals chose to
do with it thereafter.
24
D. True Statements of Fact
but they must also represent true statements of fact.” Atamian v. Gorkin, 1999 Del.
Super. LEXIS 666, *9 (Del. Super. Ct. August 13, 1999). Is Biden claiming the
information disclosed by others (again, not by Mac Isaac) is true? He only tacitly
does Biden identify any specific information publicly disclosed (by others – not by
Mac Isaac), that was true. With this glaring omission coupled with the facts that Mac
Isaac did not disclose the information to the public, there was no “embarrassing”
information published that Biden did not already publish himself and that the
information disclosed by others was clearly of legitimate public concern, Biden has
Biden’s remaining claims of conspiracy (Counts Three and Four) and aiding
and abetting (Counts Five and Six) fail along with his claims of invasion of privacy
25
by intrusion and invasion of privacy by publication of private facts/matters. Neither
conspiracy claims nor aiding and abetting claims are independent causes of action.
There must be some underlying tortious conduct. See Cousins v. Goodier, 2021 WL
3355471, at *7 (Del. Super. Ct. July 30, 2021). For these claims to survive a motion
to dismiss, Biden must have stated valid claims for invasion of privacy by intrusion
done. As the alleged counts in the counterclaim are not actionable as invasions of
privacy, they are not actionable as “conspiracy, or aiding and abetting.” Id. With that
said and in recognition that a tort could have conceivably been committed by
someone else, although no other party is included in this counterclaim, for the
additional reasons set forth below, Biden’s counts for conspiracy and aiding and
abetting fail.
A. Conspiracy
entities either for an unlawful purpose or for the accomplishment of a lawful purpose
HdR, 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 393, at *10 (Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2004).
26
One cannot be part of a conspiracy without the specific intent to cooperate
with the other conspirators. See Triplex Communications v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716,
720, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 765 (Tex.) 1995). While the agreement need not be
conspiracy.’” Anderson at *19 (citing In re Methyl Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig.,
that support a claim that Mac Isaac’s intent was to get the information on the hard
drive released to the public. Mac Isaac has been very clear and has never deviated
about why he contacted the FBI and Mr. Costello, which has been expressed
In Delaware, liability for aiding and abetting requires proof of three elements:
(1) underlying tortious conduct, (2) knowledge, and (3) substantial assistance or
encouragement. See Anderson v. Airco, Inc., No. 02C-12-091 HdR, 2004 Del. Super.
LEXIS 393, at *22 (Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2004). Biden has not properly alleged that
Biden has not alleged that Mac Isaac had knowledge of any tortious conduct
that would arise from his actions. While Delaware recognizes that a negligent act
27
can create liability for aiding and abetting tortious conduct, the aider and abettor
allegations masquerading as facts and fail to present any facts that Mac Isaac knew
that he would be aiding a tort. Perhaps in Biden’s overly politicized world, it would
make sense. To a common citizen, however, he was just trying to get the information
to the authorities and had no idea it would be used as part of a political attack.
Mac Isaac never expressed any type of loyalty to President Donald Trump,
nor did he express any dislike for President Joseph Biden, despite what Biden
attempts to say in his counterclaim. Mac Isaac respects the office of the President
and would have done the same thing if Donald Trump, Jr. had dropped off a laptop
Biden in his defense. Biden’s counterclaim assumes that everyone thinks like he
does and, in doing so, Biden fails to properly allege any cause of action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, John Paul Mac Isaac respectfully requests that the
Court dismiss the counterclaims against John Paul Mac Isaac with prejudice.
28
Respectfully submitted,
29