My Husband Says I Died Three Years Ago
A TaleDale Story · Story concept by Nora Ashwick
Lena had never purchased a share.
My former self transferred the block to Elena Vale after learning the survivor called Lena was my sister. I believed returning property could compensate for decades without her name.
"You gave me a criminal network instead of an apology," Lena said.
The shares carried voting power, dividends, and liability. Had buyers seized the company, prosecutors might have treated her as an owner who benefited from trafficking.
Financial records showed dividends assigned to Lena were diverted into a clinic account she never accessed. I had called that protective custody of funds. The company called it payment to Elena.
Lena requested the money be frozen, not donated in her name. If it came from buyer fees, victims could claim it. If it came from lawful services, the receiver could decide ownership after audit. She refused to turn contaminated money into a public gesture.
My supposed gift had been another identity and liability assigned entirely without her knowledge or consent.
Thomas said he told me the transfer required Lena's approval. I used Elena's dormant trust signature to complete it anyway, arguing she could refuse later.
"Refusal after ownership is not consent," the council attorney said.
Lena petitioned immediately to void the transfer. The court froze her shares and protected her from control while reviewing fraud.
Without her block, the remaining 117 protected shareholders lacked enough votes to delete the backup. They had accepted small shares as insurance that no single buyer could control the company. Many did not know the shares made them legal owners.
Several had signed during emergency relocations, when refusing paperwork could delay medication or travel. Others knowingly accepted shares because they feared Vale would sell the company. The council reviewed consent individually rather than invalidating every vote as a group.
Shareholders who wanted no role could disclaim ownership without losing services. Their blocks moved into a neutral court pool, not to Thomas or me.
The council contacted them with plain explanations and independent legal advice. It did not reveal identities to one another. Each person could vote to delete, transfer, or preserve the archive.
Translation and disability access took another week. Thomas had conducted prior votes only in English and through digital portals, excluding shareholders who could not safely connect. The council extended the deadline rather than treating silence as approval.
Thomas favored preservation under court control. He argued the history proved crimes, parentage, and property claims.
Lena favored separating evidence from active identity functions. "Keep what courts need. Destroy passwords, biometrics, and instructions that let anyone become someone else."
The distinction shaped the ballot.
I was excluded from campaigning because my manuscript and prior ownership created conflicts. Still, several shareholders asked to hear why I built the backup.
With council approval, I recorded one factual statement. I said the archive was meant to survive raids and protect continuity, but it also enabled control and exposure. I disclosed the hidden Elena transfer and recommended no outcome.
Adrian asked whether neutrality was honest when I clearly wanted deletion.
"No," I said. "So I added that I personally support Lena's proposal. I just don't get to call it the only safe choice."
The first votes arrived. Some survivors wanted every record erased. Others feared losing proof of stolen children. Several trusted Thomas because he maintained documents during the flood. Others considered his secret inspections another violation.
The council hosted three closed forums with transcripts controlled by participants. Technical experts explained which data could be separated. Lawyers described lawsuits that might require original records. Survivors described what it meant to know strangers could reopen their childhood scans.
No speaker had to reveal a current name. Questions remained open for a week before any final ballot.
The deadline was not imposed by a bomb or automatic clock. A court set thirty days for review before creditors could seek control of the company.
For once, people had time.
Then one shareholder account cast forty votes at once using delegated proxies. The votes favored transferring the backup to Thomas without restrictions.
Thomas denied soliciting them.
The proxies were legally signed but dated before most shareholders knew the backup existed. My former self had collected them during routine identity renewals.
I had prepared Thomas to inherit the archive if I disappeared.
He offered to reject the proxies. The company's counsel disputed whether his refusal would cancel votes already recorded. To keep them out of the tally, the council sought revocations from the shareholders themselves.
The council began private outreach.
One proxy holder was Rose. Another was Maya. A third was Celeste under the Cross identity. Each revoked after receiving advice.
The fourth belonged to Lucy, signed on her behalf when she was an infant.
Her proxy alone controlled twelve decisive votes.
The signature assigning it belonged to Anna.
Both women called Anna remembered signing it.