Image 01 Image 03

Man Who Repaired Hunter Biden’s Laptop Sues Twitter for Defamation

Man Who Repaired Hunter Biden’s Laptop Sues Twitter for Defamation

“To imply that I’m a hacker or that information is hacked has an an irreversible impact on my business and my character.”

Computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac provided the explosive information in The New York Post‘s expose on Hunter Biden after he gave Hunter’s hard drive to Rudy Giuliani.

Twitter stopped users from sharing the Post’s articles because it came from hacked material.

Now Mac Isaac has sued Twitter for defamation and wants $500 million in damages along with a public retraction.

In the lawsuit, Mac Isaac noted he talked to the FBI and Mr. Robert Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, between July 2019 and October 2020.

The Post received the hard drive from Hunter’s computer from Giuliani, not Mac Isaac.

Therefore, Mac Isaac did not know the Post had the hard drive. He did not want the Post to print his name or give anyone permission to report his name.

But the Post named Mac Isaac in its stories about Hunter along with a photo of his store The Mac Shop.

The story caught fire on social media, mainly because of the “hacked materials” explanation from Twitter. The platform locked the Post’s Twitter account.

Twitter defines “hack” as “an intrusion or access of a computer, network, or electronic device that was unauthorized or exceeded authorized access.” The platform also says it would label anything as “hacked materials” to any “information obtained through a hack.”

The lawsuit alleges that the “Defendant’s actions and statements had the specific intent to communicate to the world that Plaintiff is a hacker.”

Mac Isaac insists he “is not a hacker” and that he legally obtained the information from Hunter’s computer when he dropped it off and then when he “failed to retrieve the hard drive despite Plaintiff’s requests, in accordance with the Mac Shop’s abandoned property policy.”

The computer repairman also states that Twitter’s actions directly caused him to be “considered a hacker and, on the same day Defendant categorized the Plaintiff as a hacker, Plaintiff began to receive negative reviews of his business as well as threats to his person and property.”

Mac Isaac had to close his shop.

The information on Hunter’s hard drive is part of an FBI money laundering investigation launched in 2019.

The lawsuit comes only two weeks after Mac Isaac defended himself in a YouTube video. His lawsuit basically reiterates his claim in the video:

“For two generations, the Mac Isaac family has fought for the entirety of the Cold War against communism in the ’70s,” Mac Isaac says in a 3-minute YouTube video titled “The truth” and posted Dec. 5.

“That’s why it’s completely absurd that why anyone would ever consider me to be a Russian agent or influenced by Russians. I am proud of my family, I’m proud of my country. I am proud to be an American.”

The owner of the now-shuttered Mac Shop in Wilmington also dispelled rumors that he’s a hacker, calling the term a “death sentence in my industry.”

“For the record, I am not nor have I ever been a hacker. Those guys make so much more money than I do. I was hired — never paid — to perform a data transfer from a Macbook Pro to an external hard drive,” he says, showing the invoice with Hunter Biden’s signature at the bottom of the document.

“The signed paperwork clearly states the process and sets the expectations. There’s no magic or Hollywood. The process is no different than dragging or dropping from a USB drive. The only difference is I had to perform some surgery on the Mac to get it to boot.”

He adds, “To imply that I’m a hacker or that information is hacked has an an irreversible impact on my business and my character.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Good…higher and harder….

theduchessofkitty | December 28, 2020 at 8:13 pm

Wanna bet Twitter uses the 1st Amendment in its defense against Mac Isaac?

Hope he wins. Unfortunately, though, Twitter has lots more money for lawyers – and settlements – than he can reasonably expect to fight.

The Friendly Grizzly | December 28, 2020 at 9:08 pm

He will meet with a tragic accident, or get stuck with the tip of an umbrella. And soon.

It would seem that all or liberal neighbors are capable of is destruction. Tear someone else down to make yourself look better. Never advanced from the third grade bully mentality.

Can I be on the jury? I think he’s asking too little.

Who will he sue next? There’s a long list. Facebook, CNN, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NY Times, LA Times, Democrat Party…

The man will be a billionaire.

When you are done with Twitter, go after all of the other lame-stream, enemies of the people, who repeated Twitter’s claim….

This might be viable, but Twitter has a strong argument in its defense. At no point did it ever say that the plantiff was a “hacker”, or even that the materials were “hacked”. All it said was that it was not allowing the materials to be posted because they violated its “hacked materials” policy. Twitter could claim that saying this doesn’t constitute a definite determination that the materials were in fact “hacked”, but merely a concern that they might be.

Just as if they took something down for violating their “child pr0n policy”, it wouldn’t mean they were definitively saying that it was child pr0n, but merely that they were concerned it might be. So the poster wouldn’t be able to sue them for calling him a child pr0nographer.

Still, that’s more of a foot in the door than most such plaintiffs get, so I wish him well and hope he gets some kind of compensation for the hell he’s been through. Even just a public apology would go some of the way to repairing the damage.

    sequester in reply to Milhouse. | December 29, 2020 at 6:01 am

    Defamation by Implication is a cause of action in many States.

    This type of defamation is when a true statement is made with malicious context that creates a false impression. As a result of this, someone’s character or business can be negatively affected.

    To use your child pornography example, in such States one could plead that taking material down for violating the child pornography terms of use is defamation by implication. The implication pellucid to a reasonable mind is that the item suppressed was child pornography.

      Milhouse in reply to sequester. | December 29, 2020 at 11:19 am

      No, it is not. Their defense would be that there was no such implication, and it would be a strong defense. Not a slam-dunk one, but strong.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | December 29, 2020 at 8:33 am

    The public figure issue may be one of Twitters defenses.
    Compare and contrast
    a) Mann v National review/cei/styern
    B) Sandman v

    Mann was a public figure well before Styern et al pointed out his fraud
    Sandman became a public figure as a result of the false claims against him
    In this case, the computer repair man became a public figure when he exposed the laptop contents, Twitter, and the rest of msm then claimed the contents were hacked. granted he was a public figure for probably less than 24 hours, but he did become a quasi public figure prior to the defamation.

      Milhouse in reply to Joe-dallas. | December 29, 2020 at 11:21 am

      No, that won’t work. Mac Isaac was never a public figure. He did not put his name out there, in fact he asked for it to be kept out. It was the press who figured out who he was. That makes him a private figure, which makes things easier for him.

      I hope he wins, but it won’t be easy. Being a public figure would make it pretty much impossible, so I’m happy that he isn’t one.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | December 29, 2020 at 12:11 pm

        “He did not put his name out there, in fact he asked for it to be kept out. It was the press who figured out who he was. ”

        If those facts are correct, then I concur that he is not a public figure.

        just an issue I thought worthy of addressing. Likewise, I hope he wins.

    That argument might work if they had retracted immediately when challenged but they defended their position for a couple of days before partially backing down.

      Milhouse in reply to Neo. | December 29, 2020 at 11:23 am

      Nope. The defense remains the same — the material violated their policy. That doesn’t mean it was definitely “hacked”, and therefore it doesn’t imply that the person who supplied it was a “hacker”.

His frivolous lawsuit will be tossed and he’ll be ordered to pay Twitter’s legal fees, which will hopefully bankrupt this ridiculous looking crackpot.

    Oversoul Of Dusk in reply to cgray451. | December 29, 2020 at 7:38 am

    For the record, when you wrote “ridiculous looking” and “crackpot”, were you stating facts or opinions?

    I’m expressing my opinion of your post with the cute little down-thumb.

    Milhouse in reply to cgray451. | December 29, 2020 at 11:28 am

    The suit is not frivolous. It’s difficult, and I think its chance of success is less than 50%, but it’s real.

    “Ridiculous looking” is in the eye of the beholder. It’s also a gratuitous insult, and making it reduces your credibility to almost nothing.

    But I’m really interested in knowing why you think he’s a “crackpot”. Is it just because he thinks a difficult defamation suit is worth filing?! Even if you were right that the suit was frivolous, which you’re not, is filing it enough to make someone a crackpot?! Do you deny that he’s unjustly suffered terrible damage, and deserves compensation from somebody? If you think he’s anything but what he is presenting himself as, please explain. With pictures if possible, and in small words. Because it seems to me that any possible theory that makes this guy a villain will inevitably sound like crackpottery of the highest water.

Most people are hoping this guy wins every penny!
I’m guessing it’s not yer first rodeo, so here’s a song just for you:

Well here comes cgray
With his pecker in his hand
He’s a one-ball man
And he’s off to the rodeo
It’s an allamande left
And allamande right
C’mon you fuckin’ dummy
Get your right step right
Get off the stage you goddamn goof
Y’know you piss me off
You fucking jerk
Ya get on my nerves!

The Friendly Grizzly | December 29, 2020 at 7:53 am

Hmm. This comment thread devolved to Disqus-level quickly.

I’m still trying to figure out what relevance the guy’s headwear preference–“stupid hat”–
and physical appearance–“even stupider looking face”–have as to the merits or lack-thereof of his case against Twitter.

If you ask me, I’ve never seen a stupider looking face than the one Jack Dorsey wore the entire time he was awkwardly dodging questions during his “testimony” about Twitter’s “alleged” shameless collusion with FaceBook et al. to censor any and all pro-Trump and anti-Biden information in the run up to the election.

Why stop at Twitter, Mark Zuckerigger has more money and The Facebook followed Twitter with this nonsense.

Brave Sir Robbin | December 29, 2020 at 11:20 am

That’s a defense and one they will likely use, but not necessarily a winner for Twitter. But, I have no confidence in any court ruling in any logical way. At this stage, that’s a plus for Plaintiff, however.

This will roll around until at least summary judgement action by the court. And yes, Plaintiff is, or should be, hoping for settlement. Everyday standing in front of a judge or jury is a day standing in front of a roulette table, and you have to throw in a lot of chips just for the privilege of getting a spin of the wheel. The minimum bet is not inconsequential. In this case, Twitter is the house, however, both because the rules properly demand much from Plaintiff, and, less properly, because the avenue for justice through our courts is paved for the enjoyment of the rich and well connected. The common man cannot pay the toll.

Good luck with the case. I find it interesting particularly because when a social media entity takes action against you, they are, in some cases, saying something about you. I have thought this was actionable if they are wrong, cause damage, and act maliciously or with negligence.

    Ah, but the social media entity didn’t take action against him. He was just collateral damage, and quite indirect. The bomb didn’t even land on him, he just got dinged by the flying debris. If they’d actually taken action against him he’d have a stronger case.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | December 29, 2020 at 2:41 pm

      Agreed to a great extent. The actual action by Twitter was against the NY Post, not Plaintiff. Twitter will likely claim Plaintiff is moving against the wrong party, and Plaintiff cannot show any damage occurred due to Twitter’s action against the NY Post and not, rather, from the Post failing to keep Plaintiff’s name confidential, as, apparently, requested by Plaintiff. Still, this action by Twitter against the NY Post did rather strongly insinuate Plaintiff, who was the source of the information, hacked the information from Corrupt Joe Biden’s son’s computer, and that Plaintiff did not lawfully derive the information. I think the hardest part of this case is proving Twitter caused damage to Plaintiff. For example, Twitter can ponder what would have happened to Plaintiff’s business if they had not acted at all. Perhaps the publicity from the NY Post article alone was the sole cause of any damage to Plaintiff. There must be a direct correlation. Twitter did “X”, and that action hurt me. Showing damage by a specific party is a necessary requirement for success. This could spin in any direction, but the odds are against Plaintiff. One to watch. It may not survive summary judgement, but it is not frivolous by any means.

      I am inclined to hope for the development of a successful legal strategy to push back upon what I see as abusive behavior from these giant social media monopolies. This case pushes in the right direction, but I am not at all sure it is all there, and likely fails. However, if it survives summary judgement and proceeds, Plaintiff could get some sort of settlement. Simple survival as a Plaintiff’s motion is actually a victory that places Twitter on notice to take more care.

Another potential defense Twitter might try:

“We never said anything about Mac Isaac. We never even heard of him. We just said the material appeared to be ‘hacked’. He’s the one who is putting himself forward as the potential ‘hacker’.

“If we were to say a car offered for sale was stolen, could someone come forward and say ‘Well, I’m the one who sold it to the offeror, so you must be calling me a thief’?! No, he couldn’t, and this is the same. He put the hat on himself.”

This might work as a defense. Then again it might not. I think Twitter has a better than 50% chance of prevailing, but if I were their lawyer I’d advise them to settle and not take the chance.

BTW, the suit got thrown out of court today, because it was filed in Florida instead of Delaware. So he has to refile it in Delaware.