Are the Arizona Bar & Courts Corrupt?
Maricopa Superior Court declares war on candidates who question defective elections
Under A.R.S. § Title 16 (Election Law) there is no provision allowing the Court to assess sanctions and fees against a candidate who contests, that is questions defects in an election. As a Legislator with eight years of service to the People of Arizona, I know the reason there is no provision for sanctions, I was there when the laws were adopted. The reason the law is simple is that the intent was for a quick and inexpensive path for election challenges to be resolved. In the Maricopa County Superior Court case Finchem et al. v. Fontes et al. 23-246, the Judge, Melissa Julian did not follow A.R.S. Title § 16 “election law” but instead went on a field trip outside of the law. And now, after being called out for it has decided to sanction both me and my attorney for daring to question what is now known to all, but covered up by the actions of the judge herself. Yes the sanctions and fees are over $40,000, a move to silence al future challenges to corrupt elections.
But what there’s more. The Arizona a Bar will attempt to disbar my attorney for doing his job. Under their own code of ethics, how can they interfere with an existing contract for service where a good faith legal argument is made? This is the political weaponization of the “justice” system.
So let’s take a moment to examine just one component of the 2022 garbage dump and farce of the 2022 General Election in Maricopa County AZ. Claims by the MCBOS that their poor performance has been vindicated are nothing more than empty, self-serving, proclamations in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Compounding the farce is the doubling down of the Court, which refuses to examine the evidence, and preempts the presentation. Even material in the record doesn’t matter.
Case on point, Clay Parikh (this guy walks around with two brains), who has a Master of Science in Cyber Security, Computer Science from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Systems Major from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington; and is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certification and who has continually maintained good standing, and who holds the certifications including: Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) and Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) submitted a Second Suplimental Declaration to the Court in the Kari Lake case.
Clay notes that since December of 2003, he has continually worked in the areas of Information Assurance (IA), Information Security and Cyber Security; and has performed and led teams in Vulnerability Management, Security Test and Evaluation (ST&E) and system accreditation. He supported both civil and Department of Defense agencies within the U.S. government as well as international customers, such as NATO; and has served as the Information Security Manager for enterprise operations at Marshall Space Flight Center, where he ensured all NASA programs and projects aboard the center met NASA enterprise security standards. His credentials go on, but you get the point, this guy is an experts expert.
From 2008 to 2017, he worked through a professional staffing company for several testing laboratories that tested electronic voting machines. These laboratories included Wyle Laboratories, which was later acquired by National Technical Systems (NTS), and Pro V&V. His duties were to perform security tests on vendor voting systems for certification of those systems by either the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to Federal Voting System Standards (VSS) or Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), or to a specific state’s Secretary of State’s requirements.
Clay writes, “I have read several reports of analysis of log data from Maricopa County voting systems used in the 2022 General Election, received responsive to public records requests (“PRR”), and have personally reviewed the data used to create the reports. I make the following observations based on new information and provide the following to supplement the previous Declarations I have submitted for this case.”
Upon analysis and review of the 446 ImageCast Precinct-2 (vote center tabulator) system log files from the 2022 General Election, there are three critical program faults which have been identified and are common to all:
a. Election database version and election domain version conflict.
b. Wrong Machine Behavioral Setting (“MBS”) version warning.
c. Both the MBS version used and MBS version “expected” are of a different Dominion Democracy Suite platform than that which was certified by the SoS for use in Maricopa County.
“The database version and domain conflict is one in which the tabulator is programmed to recognize and has issued a system warning alerting officials that a conflict exists.
Version conflicts are an extremely serious matter which can affect whether the tabulator accurately reads or records a voter’s ballot because different database versions are not designed or tested to interface with one another. This is especially significant in this instance due to the complex relational database architecture of the voting system.
Candidates, contests, corresponding ballot bubbles, ballot styles, types and the relationship between those variables are only a fraction of the material adverse events that conflict gives rise to which could mean a ballot is not recorded correctly or the vote results are not accurately tabulated.
The voting equipment at issue in Maricopa is manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. (“Dominion”). Dominion’s product manual states that: “The Election Event
Designer client application can be regarded as the most imperative piece of your Election Management System (EMS), as it is solely responsible for designing your election during the pre-voting stage of your election event. The creation of your election event within Election Event Designer is referred to as an Election Project. It is through this Election Project that your election’s ballots and tabulators will be defined, styled, and deemed ready for election day.”1 The MBS file is critical to the election definition and the proper functioning of the tabulators. Tabulators require Machine Behavioral Settings. “These files define various aspects of their respective tabulators. Before you can define these configurations, you must import the master DCF, MBS, or both, into Election Event Designer.”1
The following screenshot is a true and accurate copy from one of the vote center tabulator system log files from the 2022 General Election showing the conflict:
“The MBS version programmed and used for the 2022 General Election (5.10.9.4) is not the version specifically prescribed and certified (5.5.1.4) for Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5B and certified for use in Arizona by the Secretary of State.”2
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.