“Setting the Record Straight re Lindell’s $5 Million Challenge | Follow the Data with Dr Frank

“Setting the Record Straight re Lindell’s $5 Million Challenge”

No, Zeidman did not debunk Lindell’s cyber data. He was only given a tiny sample slice of it, and he was unable to decrypt what he was given, calling it “jibberish.”

I was a judge in the contest, and I testified and was present for the entire arbitration. The judges had nearly zero understanding of cyber data, and Zeidman had a team of high-powered, expensive lawyers.

I had the impression that the claim was intended to harass Mr. Lindell and to gain access to additional information during discovery, because the challenge set an extremely high bar in order to win the prize. The entrant had to prove that the data Mike provided was “unequivocally not related to the 2020 General election.”

How can someone prove that data are unequivocally not related when they weren’t even able to read it?

During the arbitration we decrypted the data slice we’d provided using the resources we’d also provided. Then, the judges themselves noted that the decrypted files had many references to the 2020 General Election.

Hypothetically, even if the data slice provided was fake, it was still *related* to the 2020 election, listing dates, IP addresses, and election tallies directly affiliated with it.

Mike has stated publicly that he intends to challenge the results of the arbitration. Challenging a “binding arbitration” requires a very high bar for evidence. It will not be an easy battle, even though the facts are on his side.

I think the facts speak for themselves, and am flabbergasted that the arbitration panel has ruled in this way. The only plausible explanation I have come up with is that the arbitration panel themselves did not understand the data, and so did not understand themselves how the data were relevant to the election.

But the judges were not the contestants in the challenge, Zeidman was. It was not their job to decide the veracity of the data (unqualified as they are), but to decide whether Zeidman had unequivocally proven that the data were NOT related, which they obviously were, although Zeidman had never even had the opportunity to read it, so of course he did not.

The whole thing smells like a setup.