Statement on Investigation into Fraudulent Ballot

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Iac Marscheir]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect either that the offender will, in fact, know who they are, or that they will even see these posts.

[King Txec]

The Clerk of Courts hasn't been in Witt in close to four months.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The 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!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

As a member of the Talossan Bar, I would like to register a formal protest at the Seneschál's aggressive announcements on this matter.  By far the most likely explanation here is that a citizen who was completely clueless about how the Database works clicked in good faith a link which was supposed to allow them to vote without reading it. Angry growls of you know who you are are likely to discourage cooperation with this investigation.

Everyone knows that I'm not particularly well inclined to the political leader involved, but I had no idea what the PSC at the end of the link entailed. Neither - and this is crucial - did the Secretary of State, who republished the "BREN" mailer on Wittenberg verbatim. And the SoS has just pointed out that there is no longer anything on the ballot which would have indicated it belonged to anyone else. The apparent presumption of the Government that a felony has been convicted will therefore have the effect of casting a shadow on the Chancery itself.

The Kingdom has @Munditenens Tresplet to thank for noticing what happened and telling me.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

As a member of the Talossan Bar, I would like to register a formal protest at the Seneschál's aggressive announcements on this matter.  By far the most likely explanation here is that a citizen who was completely clueless about how the Database works clicked in good faith a link which was supposed to allow them to vote without reading it. Angry growls of you know who you are are likely to discourage cooperation with this investigation.

Everyone knows that I'm not particularly well inclined to the political leader involved, but I had no idea what the PSC at the end of the link entailed. Neither - and this is crucial - did the Secretary of State, who republished the "BREN" mailer on Wittenberg verbatim. And the SoS has just pointed out that there is no longer anything on the ballot which would have indicated it belonged to anyone else. The apparent presumption of the Government that a felony has been convicted will therefore have the effect of casting a shadow on the Chancery itself.

The Kingdom has @Munditenens Tresplet to thank for noticing what happened and telling me.

I second this statement.

You can't just jump to conclusions and assume that the person is a criminal. How do you want to prove that there was malicious intent? How do you even want to get proof of that? This behaviour is eerily similar to that of the Law and Justice party in Poland.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Iac Marscheir]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone here is petty enough to maliciously submit a vote on someone else's behalf. The only person I wouldn't put it past is Breneir, and he's the "victim".

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

So, 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

So, 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.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent trials all public on Witt? What difference would making indictments public make then? If a case does end up being sealed, just seal the indictment with it.

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.

For one, all charges start off as unproven before they come before a judge, right? Isn't that how trials work? For two, regardless of one's stance on making indictments public in general, since we are talking about potential election interference, I'd say it is absolutely in the public interest in this case.

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.

How would public indictments stop one from collecting affidavits and sworn testimony?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The very important point of public policy here is that the Government should not issue charging documents unless they really do have the evidence they think they need to convict. Making charging documents public (by default, let's say) is a good way to disincentivize hasty prosecutions.

I note that the A-Xh has not actually answered my question as to whether the charging document was made out to a particular citizen or whether it was a "John Doe"* with the name to be filled in later. Nor has it been made plain whether the criminal prosecution in this case is still being pursued,

Therefore, please take this following as a formal request for information held by the Ministry of Justice to be made public, under El Lexhatx D.7.: please issue the charging document in this case.

Also: please publish any other charging documents which "the most transparent government in Talossan history" has made against Talossan citizens and kept secret. I assume there are none, but good to get it on the record that this is the first secret prosecution that has been attempted.

* The Ladintsch Naziunal suggests Ian/Ivană Inschinescu as the equivalent in the national language.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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