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.