Thank you for your input, Dama Miestra.  While we disagree about the appropriate way to go about this, the Cort has agreed with what you have been arguing, and so you seem to have the right of it.

There have only been a few criminal prosecutions in our history.  Of those, I'm only aware of one where there was any investigative work that was done.  Years later, the manner in which that happened was used as partial justification to overturn the criminal conviction.  We're not going to make that same mistake in this investigation, and instead everything will be done above-board.  We want to do this right.

We know that this is a new way to approach things. This Government rejects cronyism and backroom dealing -- we are a nation of laws, not of politicians -- and this is part of that commitment.  We've asked a magistrate to supervise the gathering of evidence and affidavits under oath, since that's the legal way to do it and since it will help protect the rights of all involved.

I remember the occasion of which you're speaking, and that is sometimes what happens when you belong to a party. The party votes on an agreement, and we ask everyone to abide by that agreement. Otherwise, we can't make agreements at all - we wouldn't be able to hold up our end.

If you're not comfortable with that idea, then this has probably been the right move for you to make. Party politics doesn't seem to be your thing.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Yesterday at 06:36:19 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 17, 2026, 09:04:05 AMThank you for being transparent concerning your findings. I confess to being confused as to where the current track is headed. I can't tell whether this was AI bot interference, human error, or a combination of both.

In these 5 instances, I am 100% convinced it's AI bot interference; in your instance, 99%. Either way, I have done all I can to rectify both issues and provide the Government with all data I hold on the matter; I'm happy to report that 4 of 6 affected voters have recast their ballots, with a fifth having already reached out to me saying they would also re-vote soon.

You seem a lot more certain that this is the same error today, which is good!

Actually, it looks like no redactions are necessary.  I don't think any of the included information would imperil further investigation.

---

IN THE GENERAL CORT OF THE KINGDOM OF TALOSSA

THE CROWN

v.

PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN

CHARGING INSTRUMENT

The Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Crown, hereby submits this charging instrument to the Clerk of the Corts pursuant to El Lexhatx G.6.1, and sets forth the following charges and factual allegations.

I. THE CHARGES

The accused is charged with the following offenses arising from the unauthorized casting of a ballot assigned to a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa during the August 2026 General Election:

Count One -- Sedition (Lexh.A.7.2.3). A felony. The accused used fraud to attempt to influence an election conducted under the Organic Law of Talossa, by assuming the identity of another citizen and casting a ballot in that citizen's name without authorization.

Count Two -- Use of Another Person's Identity (Lexh.A.15.2). A crime subject to punishment by banishment, revocation of citizenship, any combination of civil disabilities, and any other authorized punishments. The accused used another person's identity to convey a message -- namely, a ballot submission -- via a public forum or platform of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Count Three -- Improper Access to a Kingdom Information System (Lexh.A.7.2.6.3). A serious misdemeanour. The accused improperly accessed a computer or information system belonging to the Kingdom of Talossa -- namely, the electronic ballot and Personal Security Code system administered by the Chancery -- with the intention of committing the crimes charged in Counts One and Two.

Count Four -- Fraud Against a Citizen (Lexh.A.7.3.2). A serious misdemeanour. The accused committed fraud against a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa by assuming that citizen's identity for the purpose of casting a ballot the citizen did not authorize, thereby depriving the citizen of the free exercise of his right to vote.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On or about 15 August 2026, the Chancery issued personal ballot links and Personal Security Codes to eligible voters for the August 2026 General Election, in accordance with Lexh.B.6.
The citizen assigned Voter ID 2747 ("the victim") inadvertently included his personal ballot link in a mass communication sent to multiple recipients.
Server access logs maintained by the Chancery show that on 15 August 2026 at 22:37 UTC, Voter 2747's ballot was accessed and submitted.
The victim did not authorize anyone to cast a ballot on his behalf and did not cast the ballot himself.
Subsequent to the ballot's submission, the ballot link was accessed by multiple additional IP addresses, indicating that the link was widely circulated.
The ballot was cast using the victim's Personal Security Code, which was embedded in or accessible through the ballot link the victim shared. The person who cast the ballot thereby assumed the victim's identity for the purpose of participating in a Kingdom election.
The identity of the person or persons who cast the fraudulent ballot is presently unknown to the Crown. The Crown brings these charges for the purpose of conducting a full investigation under the authority of the Cort, including the examination of witnesses under oath, so that the person or persons responsible may be identified and held accountable.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

The Crown requests that the Cort accept this charging instrument, empanel a tribunal of the Crown pursuant to Lexh.G.10.5, and authorize the examination of witnesses under oath, including but not limited to the victim, the administrator of the Kingdom's internet infrastructure and forum, and any person whose IP address or online activity is relevant to identifying the person or persons who cast the fraudulent ballot.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexandreu Davinescu
Avocat-Xheneral of the Kingdom of Talossa

I'm not aware of any secret prosecutions in our history. I am quite sure such a thing would be illegal! We are discussing this on an announcement thread, where I gave very prompt notice about the filing of charges with the Clerk.

If anyone is aware of secret prosecutions at any point, they should let my office know immediately. Any secrecy of office or privacy will be respected for whistleblowers.

I have no further updates to give about the current status of the investigation at this time. I mean, it's been like a day. In the interests of decisive action, however, I think one thing I can do is say is that I will be filing again with the deputy Clerk, who we know is available, so that we can expedite a little bit.

I should probably also reassure everyone that no one is going to be prosecuted for some sort of innocent mistake, such as clicking on the ballot and seeing the receipt or something like that. We have absolutely no interest in going after innocent people who we're just trying to read their mail! The investigation is wholly and completely focused on the possibility of purposeful wrongdoing, not understandable mistakes. Numerous people have already contacted us, and we appreciate everyone's help.

This is a weird election so far. We've had to invalidate half a dozen ballots. Considering our whole system is based on trust more than you would think, and our numbers are small enough that even 10 ballots represents a tenth of the electorate, this whole thing is something that needs to be taken seriously.

I will be happy to release a redacted version of the charging instrument, absent only such details as necessary.

Trials might be sealed, but that's simply never happened yet.  I can very very easily imagine occasions when we might wish to do that.  Probably not in this case, though!

I think you misunderstood my point about collecting affidavits and sworn testimony -- I was making a separate point about something else we might want to change.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on August 17, 2026, 03:54:16 PMSo, wait. Am I to understand that the Ministry of Justice had a charging document all drawn up already against a Talossan citizen, and now that's not going ahead?

Or was the charging document a "John Doe" type of thing, name to be filled in later?

In any case, let this serve as notice that, to the next Cosa, I will present an amendment to El Lexhatx G.6.1, which will make it clear that when the Ministry of Justice lodges a charging document, it will be open to public view. If the Government have enough evidence to take someone to court, it only serves natural justice that they have the confidence to name a name, even if some of the evidence has to stay secret until trial.

There are certainly some changes that could be made to our system of law, but there's already a requirement that an accused individual be informed within seven days of a charging instrument being accepted.  I think it would be a bad idea to require public disclosure, since it's very possible some proceedings might be sealed for the sake of victims.  It would be wiser to put in a decision point in that regard, instead.  The person who really needs to know is the accused, and it's not otherwise always in the public interest to require publication of unproven charges and information about criminal activity.  Prompt the judge to decide, with a direction to default to public proceedings.

I'd suggest another concern is that it doesn't seem possible to collect affidavits or sworn testimony without first beginning cort proceedings, which is why charges were filed.

The evidence already gathered allowed us to immediately match up the pattern observed with the Tzaracomprada ballot with a developing glitch that the Chancery has identified.  Details such as the manner of submission, time taken, and other features make it hard to reach a conclusion.  All of those things add up to a sort of digital fingerprint, and we already had one print on file, so to speak, and they don't quite match.  The Chancery has advised not to reach a conclusion here.

We're puzzling through it, but hopefully these are all the same problem.

Respectfully, there is information that is not public.  I'm not going to argue the point right now, but I do think it's important to take things like this seriously and vigorously, no matter who is involved.  If it turns out to have been a mistake, that's the best version of events and what I hope to have happened.

I do not think that any of this casts a shadow on the Chancery, either way.  The Chancery has performed in an exemplary manner the whole way through.  It is not the job of the Secretary of State to check every link in every message sent by political parties.

Quote from: King Txec on August 16, 2026, 01:50:34 PMThe Clerk of Courts hasn't been in Witt in close to four months.

-Txec R

Yes.  If too much time passes, their job is automatically vacated and they will be replaced.

But also if they don't respond in a timely manner, their deputy can act in their stead (and they can also lose their post without the wait, if His Majesty believes they're not fulfilling their duties).  Maybe this will be the thing that draws them back to activity?

Have to follow the rules, ultimately!

After preliminary investigations, a charging instrument has been submitted to the Clerk of Corts.  We have worked with the Chancery to obtain a considerable amount of evidence, and we have further been contacted by people who wished to exclude themselves from the investigation.

It is not too late to come forward if you know something about this or if you want to acknowledge that you perhaps made a mistake.

The Office of the Seneschal and Avocat-Xheneral is aware that during the current General Election, a citizen's personal ballot link was inadvertently shared in a mass communication.  Evidence obtained from server access logs confirms that the ballot in question was accessed and submitted by a person other than the citizen to whom it was assigned.

This office is treating the matter seriously.  The unauthorized casting of another citizen's ballot potentially constitutes multiple offenses under El Lexhatx, including:

• Sedition (Lehx.A.7.2.3), the use of fraud to influence an election, a felony subject to penalties up to and including revocation of citizenship and banishment;
• Use of another person's identity on a Kingdom platform (Lexh.A.15.2), another felony subject to penalties up to and including revocation of citizenship and banishment;
• Improper access to a Kingdom information system with criminal intent (Lexh.A.7.2.6.3), a serious misdemeanour;
• Fraud against a citizen (Lexh.A.7.3.2), a serious misdemeanour.

The investigation is ongoing.

Anyone who received the communication containing the ballot link and has information relevant to this matter is asked to contact my office.  In particular, anyone who accessed the ballot link, even without submitting a vote, is encouraged to come forward so that they may be excluded from the investigation.

To the person who submitted this ballot: you know who you are.  The right thing to do is to come forward voluntarily.  Cooperation will be noted.  The alternative is that the investigation proceeds to its conclusion, and the penalties for these offenses are severe.

The law seems really clear.  You have to wait, and then appeal to the Cort.  They can set aside your vote, although I don't think you get to vote then?  I don't know, though, since this has never happened before.  If a vote wasn't counted or was cast by someone ineligible, the Electoral Commission could invalidate it.  But the law's only provision for someone asking for a redo is the Cort, I think.

You should retain a lawyer, I'd suggest.

I won't comment further on any criminal investigation at this time.

Whoa!  That's really unfortunate.  Breneir, you should not have sent out your personal link.  I don't even know what the law is about this, and if the Chancery can even undo this.  Let me look into it.

EDIT: "Lexh.B.4. All votes cast are be presumed to be valid. The validity of any vote may be challenged by any Talossan citizen after it is counted, by presenting the challenge as a case to the Uppermost Cort[120], with all available evidence. Should the Cort choose to hear the case, and subsequently find that a ballot has been cast or counted illegally, the final vote tally shall be adjusted to disregard the invalid vote. Special attention shall be paid to non-citizens who might attempt to forge ballots in order to interfere with or embarrass Talossa's democratic electoral process."

You can appeal to the Cort to have your vote disregarded.

The Government will also look into if a crime has been committed.

No, it's not the same. In order to accommodate one complaint, we adjusted the wording slightly in one respect. A member of the civil service complained that it implied that the Government had actually done the work of getting the merchandise store back open. This seemed a fair complaint, so we changed the wording to reflect the Government's managerial role. We might have been the impetus, but it wasn't fair to imply we were the ones who updated the site.

Beyond that, I'm pretty happy with it, and I think it's reflective of our pretty dramatic successes this term and the good things we want to accomplish. Though we've gotten so much interest about the embassies that I'm going to try to get that process going now... It doesn't seem like there's any partisan disagreement with the idea and everyone is on board, so why wait?

(There was a very interesting debate on Discord about the ways in which we could maybe have in-person voting at future embassies, actually!)

I appreciate the kind thought, though, and I wish you guys good luck in the election :⁠-⁠)

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 15, 2026, 12:02:55 PMI've been showing the mail-in ballot around my groups of friends and they've all loved it so far. Great work as always, Lüc!

It's really amazing!

I would like to vote for the Progressive Alliance.

My ranking for Maritiimi-Maxhestic's ballot is:
1. Alexandreu Davinescu
2. Marcel Tafial

I vote in favor of all referenda.

I would like to claim a seat in the Maritiimi-Maxhestic Assembly.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on August 14, 2026, 12:50:30 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 14, 2026, 10:47:55 AMIf you already know several languages, then a lot of the concepts that are introduced will be very easy for you... I bet you'll fly through the lessons!

I remember trying it for the first time back when it came out and I found it rather difficult, I went to L'Översteir, translated the verb and had genuinely no idea which translation was fitting for the context of the sentence.

If you tell me which sentence, maybe I can fine-tune it. I'm a teacher, but part and parcel with that is that every lesson needs adjustment as you get feedback from students.

I've gotten several people asking me when the next lessons will go up, and they're still in progress. When I feel moved to tackle them again, I will get back to work and make some more.