In July 2022, The Gateway Pundit reported on a complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in Arizona by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem. The complaint was a “civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines in the State of Arizona in the upcoming 2022 Midterm Election.”
The claim insisted that the machines need to be banned from public use unless the vendors are willing to make their system open to the public.
The complaint relied upon, among other things, expert testimony by a man who spent almost a decade testing voting equipment for a EAC accredited testing lab Pro V&V and former testing company Wyle Labs. The former was the subject of much scrutiny after the 2020 election when it was discovered that the EAC had only documented their accreditations up until February 2017.
The federal case, Lake v. Hobbs, is currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, last week, another case under the same name, Lake v Hobbs, was tried in the Maricopa County Superior Court. This case dealt with the fall out of choosing to dismiss rather than hear the original Lake v. Hobbs filed in the U.S. District Court.
During the two days long trial, we heard expert testimony from the same former systems tester and certified ethical hacker, Clay Parikh, that was originally offered in the federal complaint.
Judge Peter Thompson ruled against Kari Lake in this case, claiming she did not meet the incredible burden of proof that was set by him. Lake’s team of lawyers had a very limited window of discovery and an even smaller window to argue their case. They were tasked with the burden of proving “clear and convincing misconduct” as well as “clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was intended to affect the results of the 2022 election.”
Yesterday, Badlands Media and The Gateway Pundit’s Brian Lupo (CannCon) was given the opportunity to sit down with Clay Parikh and discuss his testimony and involvement in this case. It is incredible to hear the amount of evidence that was not permitted in the trial, as the judge limited the plaintiff’s attorneys to arguing just 2 of the 10 charged accounts.