Did The Courts Find Mike Lindell's PCAPS Were Real?

Court Overturns $5m Arbitration Judgement!

The following is a breakdown of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Mike Lindell’s “Prove Mike Wrong” contest.

To start, let me remind you of the timeline involved:

In 2021, Lindell offered $5 million to anyone who could prove the data he shared (alleging election interference) was not related to the 2020 U.S. election. Robert Zeidman submitted a report arguing the files were unrelated, but contest judges didn’t declare a winner. Zeidman then took the matter to binding arbitration. In April 2023, a three-arbitrator panel (one of whom was Lindell-appointed) ruled unanimously in Zeidman’s favor and awarded the $5 million.

Note: Robert Seidman wrote a report stating the files were unrelated and thus he sued, and the Arbitrators ruled in Zeidman’s favor.

BUT I HAVE ALWASY TAUGHT YOU WORDS MATTER!

This case is NO DIFFERENT! Let’s start with the Lower Court ruling: In February 2024, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim confirmed the arbitration award. He noted the contest rules were "poorly written," but reinforced that courts have limited power to overturn arbitration decisions.

ONE JUDGE allowed the ruling to stand and then July 23, 2025, the 8th Circuit, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the arbitration panel overstepped by effectively rewriting clear, unambiguous contract terms.

BUT THEN THIS COURT held: Regardless of fairness or logic, arbitrators cannot alter agreed contractual language. The ruling vacated the $5 million award and referred the case back to the District Court to formally void it.

THUS, is this a ruling the PCAPS are real? NO! Far from it!

Literally, the contest rules required that contestants show the data was "not related to" the election. However, the arbitration panel supposedly interpreted this requirement more loosely examining context or format rather than strict language. This led the appeal court to find they exceeded their authority thereby introducing new obligations on Lindell.

THE WHOLE POINT was the arbitrators felt the fellow had made his case, but it literally did not prove the data was NOT related to the election. The Arbitrators basically made up their own rules and THAT is what this case was about!

THIS CASE WAS NOT ABOUT THE PCAPS BEING VALID!

The actual ruling was only about the following:

• Lindell no longer has to pay the $5 million—for now.

• The core issue: the contest rules were clear and binding, and arbitrators cannot override or reframe them, even if they believe a different interpretation is fair.

• Next step: district court will formally vacate the award, but Zeidman may have options—like arguing the contract was unconscionable or unjust (though he dropped some arguments earlier).

Just As Mike Celebrated The Coomer Decision

Lindell’s team celebrated the decision, highlighting how rare it is for arbitration awards to be overturned. Yes, that is a win, but it’s not a win saying the PCAPS were valid. Just as the Coomer -vs-Lindell verdict (the facts below):

• Defamatory Statements Found: The jury identified two statements by Lindell and one via his platform FrankSpeech as defamatory

• Damages Awarded: Lindell and FrankSpeech were ordered to pay $2.3 million in damages to Coomer

• Lindell’s Defense: He claimed his remarks were political speech protected by the First Amendment, and emphasized that his company MyPillow was not liable

• Why Coomer Filed Suit: Coomer, Dominion’s former security and product strategy director, testified the defamation destroyed his career and personal life, even leading to death threats.

• Jury’s Finding: They agreed Lindell acted with reckless disregard for truth, sufficient under the legal standard for defamation involving a public figure

To me and most others the Coomer Trail was NOT A WIN for Lindell and wordsmithing has him saying it’s a win for My Pillow. All of us in election Integrity lost with that verdict!

On the opposite side Zeidman’s attorney, Brian Glasser, argued this appeal undercuts the unanimous decision of three arbitrators who "heard all the evidence, including one appointed by Mr. Lindell."

IN ACTUALITY:

Why the Contract Terms Mattered

The contest rules required that contestants show the data was "not related to" the election. This bar, hurdle or standard was not met.

The arbitration panel supposedly interpreted this requirement more loosely—examining context or format rather than strict language—leading the appeal court to find they exceeded their authority by introducing new obligations on Lindell.

This win was WORDING WIN ONLY not confirmation the PCAPS were actually real, authentic and showed the wrongdoing Mike claimed he had proof for in all 3,000 plus continues and across all 175,000 voting precincts.

THAT DATA NEVER EXISTED AS ADMITTED IN COURT!

This brings to me to my initial point on all the PCAPS mess?

If Mike Lidell testified in court, under oath, he NEVER had such proof of PCDAPS then what the hell was the Cyber Symposium all about? Oh, that’s right!

NOT PCAPS but Tina Peters and that LANDED HER IN PRISON!