Brain Storming

[C James]

Hi Benji,

 

Chapter 87 was very good, EXCEPT, it was the, “Nasty Goat,” showing his malicious side.

 

Go back and read this entire conversation between Trev and Ned in Chapter 79, starting with the following quote:

 

 

 

 

Do you recall the speculation raised by this portion of Chapter 79, immediately after it’s publication? Chapter 79 is a very good example of CHJ and his insidious CLIFFHANGERS. He created this one in, “79,” then left us hanging for eight chapters. I, for sure, was waiting for Trev to arrive at the boatyard, and a justification for the weird, un-natural communication on Wednesday, November 29th.

 

The Goat strikes again.

 

Marty

 

Cliffhangers? This latest chapter was entirely tension-free, let alone cliffhangers! There's nothing to worry about: Basingstoke hasn't even been mentioned in a few chapters, so he's no worry.

 

And... if your theory that Shane wrote the story is correct, then it's "Shane strikes again!" right?

[MartyS]

Cliffhangers? This latest chapter was entirely tension-free, let alone cliffhangers! There's nothing to worry about: Basingstoke hasn't even been mentioned in a few chapters, so he's no worry.

 

And... if your theory that Shane wrote the story is correct, then it's "Shane strikes again!" right?

 

 

I said it before and I'll say it again. It is my opinion, "The Goat," inserted all these dastardly, "Cliffhangers," after he absconded with Shane's original opus, "Trevor's Tribulations."

 

Does anyone think Shane is the sort of person who would insert cliffhangers in a great manuscript?

Edited August 19, 2011 by MartyS

[Zombie]

I said it before and I'll say it again. It is my opinion, "The Goat," inserted all these dastardly, "Cliffhangers," after he absconded with Shane's original opus, "Trevor's Tribulations."

 

Does anyone think Shane is the sort of person who would insert cliffhangers in a great manuscript?

Enough of this nonsense. CJ attempts to wriggle out of his responsibility for the countless and monstrous atrocities that occur in his stories, such as cliffhangers and torture, by latching onto this clever conceit that the characters write their own story lines, therefore it's "not my fault" when bad things happen to his characters.

 

Some examples of his pitiful excuses:

 

Ah, but "Night of the Mob" was Shane's doing, not mine! It was written in his style (the grammatical constructs are stylistically different) and he even used the Aussie spellings. He also, I cannot help but note, put his name in a larger font than the title. So, therefor, this can't be said to be my doing. I am innocent...

Zombie! I didn't do that, that was Dimitri

Now, this may be an ingenious avoidance tactic on the part of CJ but it deflects none of the blame for these atrocities from where it clearly lies - at the cloven feet of The Goat as he happily taps his evil and cruel ideas into his keyboard (presumably specially adapted).

 

Furthermore, ingenuity is no defence for criminal wrongdoing - as previously stated (and which was not denied by The Goat) there is no court that would not convict The Goat of his serial wrongdoings on this website. He may deny, prevaricate and bleat his innocence but forum readers know better - we see his guilt for what it is: devious, calculated and without remorse

[MartyS]

Enough of this nonsense. CJ attempts to wriggle out of his responsibility for the countless and monstrous atrocities that occur in his stories, such as cliffhangers and torture, by latching onto this clever conceit that the characters write their own story lines, therefore it's "not my fault" when bad things happen to his characters.

 

Some examples of his pitiful excuses:

 

 

 

 

 

Now, this may be an ingenious avoidance tactic on the part of CJ but it deflects none of the blame for these atrocities from where it clearly lies - at the cloven feet of The Goat as he happily taps his evil and cruel ideas into his keyboard (presumably specially adapted).

 

Furthermore, ingenuity is no defence for criminal wrongdoing - as previously stated (and which was not denied by The Goat) there is no court that would not convict The Goat of his serial wrongdoings on this website. He may deny, prevaricate and bleat his innocence but forum readers know better - we see his guilt for what it is: devious, calculated and without remorse

 

 

 

"Well said!," Sir. Thats calling "The Goat," a sneaky goat. It is a right and proper thing to do.

[C James]

I said it before and I'll say it again. It is my opinion, "The Goat," inserted all these dastardly, "Cliffhangers," after he absconded with Shane's original opus, "Trevor's Tribulations."

 

Does anyone think Shane is the sort of person who would insert cliffhangers in a great manuscript?

 

Well, if the manuscript is Shane's, it has to be him adding any perceived cliffhangers, because we all know that I'd never ever have anything to do with a cliffhanger.

 

And remember, you yourself have scolded the nefarious Benji for implying that I use cliffhangers... just see the last line of my sig for the quote.

 

Enough of this nonsense. CJ attempts to wriggle out of his responsibility for the countless and monstrous atrocities that occur in his stories, such as cliffhangers and torture, by latching onto this clever conceit that the characters write their own story lines, therefore it's "not my fault" when bad things happen to his characters.

 

Some examples of his pitiful excuses:

Ah, but "Night of the Mob" was Shane's doing, not mine! It was written in his style (the grammatical constructs are stylistically different) and he even used the Aussie spellings. He also, I cannot help but note, put his name in a larger font than the title. So, therefor, this can't be said to be my doing. I am innocent...

Zombie! I didn't do that, that was Dimitri

Now, this may be an ingenious avoidance tactic on the part of CJ but it deflects none of the blame for these atrocities from where it clearly lies - at the cloven feet of The Goat as he happily taps his evil and cruel ideas into his keyboard (presumably specially adapted).

 

Furthermore, ingenuity is no defence for criminal wrongdoing - as previously stated (and which was not denied by The Goat) there is no court that would not convict The Goat of his serial wrongdoings on this website. He may deny, prevaricate and bleat his innocence but forum readers know better - we see his guilt for what it is: devious, calculated and without remorse

 

But Zombie!!! "Night of The Mob" was just a joke, played by Shane on Trevor, nothing bad happened! And how could I write in Australian... most here will readily accuse me of having trouble enough with American English, the only language that I speak...

 

And isn;t it fair to blame those that do the crimes (Bridget, Sanchez, etc) for their misdeeds? I see no reasonable way that it could be my fault!

 

And I do indeed deny that anyone would convict me of such a trumped-up charge! I'm absolutely innocent!!

[MartyS]

And remember, you yourself have scolded the nefarious Benji for implying that I use cliffhangers... just see the last line of my sig for the quote.

 

 

This is TOTALLY out of context. I posted that comment as a sarcastic comment on the, "Goats,' consistent claims of never using Cliffhangers.

Edited August 22, 2011 by MartyS

[Zombie]

And I do indeed deny that anyone would convict me of such a trumped-up charge! I'm absolutely innocent!!

Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!

 

Quote:

 

"I'm absolutely innocent" - The Goat, 22 August 2011

 

"I'm absolutely innocent" - Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron Chief, to the Federal Court in Houston 10 April 2006 (http://www.corp-ethi...nron-chief.html)

 

Edited August 22, 2011 by Zombie

[Benji]

This is TOTALLY out of context. I posted that comment as a sarcastic comment on the, "Goats,' consistent claims of never using Cliffhangers.

 

............ BTW, Marty I never did thank you for that Now I'm on his damn sig.

[MartyS]

............ BTW, Marty I never did thank you for that Now I'm on his damn sig.

 

Hi Benji,

 

You are welcome, errr, I think. Looks like we are both sitting on, "The Goats," Bullseye Target. No problem, I think we have him on the run. When he has to stoop so low, as he did to get this kind of proof, HA!

 

Marty

[TalonRider]

We all know he likes to miss, or not completely, quote us.

[MartyS]

Hi Benji,

 

I’m wondering, Benji. I have re-read several times, the portion of Chapter 88, which covers the conversation between Greg Fowler and his missus, Shelley.

 

Realistically CHJ has a multitude of problems. He is attempting to keep the truth hidden as long as he can. His goal is to delay, to the best of his ability, for as long as possible, the truth about what actually occurred in May 1997. Because of this, I am naturally suspicious of every bit of information that shows up. We both know he will do his best to leave false trails, to lead us astray.

 

When, first I read Chapter 88, it was just a fast read. I wanted an overview of how far the plot had advanced. This is my usual method. Then I do a slower read thru. This is not an analytical reading. It is mostly to be sure, I understand what was covered, Then I do another reading, slowly examining every portion closely. After this final reading, I leave the published chapter and mull over what I have learned.

 

There are times I have to go back to check something appearing in the current chapter against previous information.

 

The conversation between Greg and Shelley grabbed my attention during the initial fast read. Then the subsequent readings confirmed my preliminary observations. Especially, the last couple of statements between the two of them. The impression I was left with is: There have been extensive discussions, regarding Trevor since he arrived on November 19th.

 

Think back to my postings in the Forum Thread, “Brain Storming,” after Chapter 86 was published. I posted a strong statement that Officer Fowler knew Trevor’s Family Name was Smith. If you examine my postings, I was very clear that I had no solid explanation as to how he learned it. Shortly after this appeared, CHJ responded with:

 

As for the Smith issue.. All I can say is its not an error.

 

There was no question in my mind that CHJ had made an error. There was also no doubt in my mind that, Greg Fowler knew the Family Name of Smith.

 

Benji, after extensive discussions between us, I came agree with you that Rachel had arrived in Australia, subsequent to her disappearance in the Bahamas. Our combined deduction is she took on the persona of Sarah Blake after her arrival.

 

However, we need to consider what, “The Goat,” might be doing with the story line. If we are correct, he is aware of our published opinion. I would not put it past him to try to get us to modify our deductions.

 

IMHO, I think we should stick to our posted deductions. At this time, there is no solid reason to change them. There s no doubt in my mind you were correct in placing Rachel in Australia. If she is living with Greg Fowler, instead of with Martin Blake, so what.

 

Looking forward to your comments

 

Marty

 

PS: I did some checking on line. Here is a scan, from Google Maps. It shows the two locations Basingstoke is using to refuel. Next stop appears to be Carnarvon. Disregard the route marked on the map. The Hitman is traveling just like a crow flies.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2011 by MartyS

[Benji]

Hi Benji,

 

I’m wondering, Benji. I have re-read several times, the portion of Chapter 88, which covers the conversation between Greg Fowler and his missus, Shelley.

 

That was interesting, Shelley seems very worried, I'm wondering who else knows about Rachel?

 

Realistically CHJ has a multitude of problems. He is attempting to keep the truth hidden as long as he can. His goal is to delay, to the best of his ability, for as long as possible, the truth about what actually occurred in May 1997. Because of this, I am naturally suspicious of every bit of information that shows up. We both know he will do his best to leave false trails, to lead us astray.

 

Yep, he is doing a slow torture on his readers But, I figure in the next chapter, Trevor and Shane will have moved ahead three days arriving in Kalbarri. With the hit-man arriving in Carnarvon in the next chapter, I wonder how he will pose himself? Naturally he will go to the Marina will he meet Kline and strike up a conversation? Perhaps Kline will want to go sight seeing with him from up in the air looking for the Kookaburra? And I think the hit-man can be more persuasive in getting Kline to talk then the police did. They don't call it sharks bay for nothing!!

 

When, first I read Chapter 88, it was just a fast read. I wanted an overview of how far the plot had advanced. This is my usual method. Then I do a slower read thru. This is not an analytical reading. It is mostly to be sure, I understand what was covered, Then I do another reading, slowly examining every portion closely. After this final reading, I leave the published chapter and mull over what I have learned.

 

I find myself doing the same thing, fast read, slower read and then going back over points I find interesting.

 

There are times I have to go back to check something appearing in the current chapter against previous information.

 

I thought Joel and Lisa's concern over Shane might be a problem if mentioned in the guesthouse, as Bridget will let Sanchez know that there are now 2 together in Australia. Still waiting on Gonzales' grilling of Joel, and Henry's dialogue with them.

 

The conversation between Greg and Shelley grabbed my attention during the initial fast read. Then the subsequent readings confirmed my preliminary observations. Especially, the last couple of statements between the two of them. The impression I was left with is: There have been extensive discussions, regarding Trevor since he arrived on November 19th.

 

Yep, Greg has told his wife Shelley everything about Trevor's problems. It also seems Martin was told ahead of time of Trevor's panic attacks and subsequent doctors visit. As Martin quickly dismissed Trevor's fears of being taken off the boat. So I imagine a lot of phone calls are being made between those two households. Now we know Mrs. Blake exists, because Shane has met them both, funny how she doesn't bother to check out the 'new' person that will using leasing their catamaran. Since Martin wanted nothing to do with Shane in the beginning, but the wife convinced him otherwise. It also seems odd that Martin is the only one that answers the phone all the time, unless it is a personal cell phone (I can't remember which, but what if he (Shane) needed either one of them to call on?

 

Think back to my postings in the Forum Thread, “Brain Storming,” after Chapter 86 was published. I posted a strong statement that Officer Fowler knew Trevor’s Family Name was Smith.

 

All conjecture at this point, but I agree Fowler knew the family mane, and it was Martin that gave it to him....and the only way Martin knew that was??

 

 

Benji, after extensive discussions between us, I came agree with you that Rachel had arrived in Australia, subsequent to her disappearance in the Bahamas. Our combined deduction is she took on the persona of Sarah Blake after her arrival.

 

That is my take on it also, Heck maybe Martin is gay, not married at all and Mrs. Blake is just a cover! I had proposed earlier that she was staying with a relative, perhaps Martin is her cousin or brother!

 

However, we need to consider what, “The Goat,” might be doing with the story line. If we are correct, he is aware of our published opinion. I would not put it past him to try to get us to modify our deductions.

 

I know him, he would not alter the story at all because of our musings, he may correct mistakes from what we uncover, but would not modify the story to throw us. Actually, he gets a kick that we uncover clues in the chapters.

 

IMHO, I think we should stick to our posted deductions. At this time, there is no solid reason to change them. There s no doubt in my mind you were correct in placing Rachel in Australia. If she is living with Greg Fowler, instead of with Martin Blake, so what.

 

Agreed!

 

Looking forward to your comments

 

Marty

 

PS: I did some checking on line. Here is a scan, from Google Maps. It shows the two locations Basingstoke is using to refuel. Next stop appears to be Carnarvon. Disregard the route marked on the map. The Hitman is traveling just like a crow flies.

 

Thanks for the map, which reminds me, the goat needs to update his map too!!

 

 

 

[MartyS]

Hi Benji,

 

Here are my thoughts on your responses. I removed any which I had no further comments on.

 

 

I’m wondering, Benji. I have re-read several times, the portion of Chapter 88, which covers the conversation between Greg Fowler and his missus, Shelley.

 

That was interesting, Shelley seems very worried, I'm wondering who else knows

about Rachel?

 

My gut reaction to that conversation is, “The Goat,” is trying very subtlety to bring Mrs. Fowler into the main story line. Up to now, she has been in the background baking Key Lime Pies. My impression is CHJ is attempting to infer Shelley is Rachel. However, he stops just short of a commitment.

 

 

Realistically CHJ has a multitude of problems. He is attempting to keep the truth hidden as long as he can. His goal is to delay, to the best of his ability, for as long as possible, the truth about what actually occurred in May 1997. Because of this, I am naturally suspicious of every bit of information that shows up. We both know he will do his best to leave false trails, to lead us astray.

 

Yep, he is doing a slow torture on his readers But, I figure in the next chapter, Trevor and Shane will have moved ahead three days arriving in Kalbarri. With the hit-man arriving in Carnarvon in the next chapter, I wonder how he will pose himself? Naturally he will go to the Marina will he meet Kline and strike up a conversation? Perhaps Kline will want to go sight seeing with him from up in the air looking for the Kookaburra? And I think the hit-man can be more persuasive in getting Kline to talk then the police did. They don't call it sharks bay for nothing!!

 

 

I would love to see Basingstoke teach Kline how to skydive without a parachute. I am not worried about what happens to the reporter. I am concerned about Ned. He is the vulnerable person in the new cover-up. He knows the false names. Shane was not to swift in his choice of AIS identification.

 

 

There are times I have to go back to check something appearing in the current chapter against previous information.

 

I thought Joel and Lisa's concern over Shane might be a problem if mentioned in the guesthouse, as Bridget will let Sanchez know that there are now 2 together in Australia. Still waiting on Gonzales' grilling of Joel, and Henry's dialogue with them.

 

 

I was worried they would be in the Love Nest when Trevor telephoned.

 

 

The conversation between Greg and Shelley grabbed my attention during the initial fast read. Then the subsequent readings confirmed my preliminary observations. Especially, the last couple of statements between the two of them. The impression I was left with is: There have been extensive discussions, regarding Trevor since he arrived on November 19th.

 

Yep, Greg has told his wife Shelley everything about Trevor's problems. It also seems Martin was told ahead of time of Trevor's panic attacks and subsequent doctors visit. As Martin quickly dismissed Trevor's fears of being taken off the boat. So I imagine a lot of phone calls are being made between those two households. Now we know Mrs. Blake exists, because Shane has met them both, funny how she doesn't bother to check out the 'new' person that will using leasing their catamaran. Since Martin wanted nothing to do with Shane in the beginning, but the wife convinced him otherwise. It also seems odd that Martin is the only one that answers the phone all the time, unless it is a personal cell phone (I can't remember which, but what if he (Shane) needed either one of them to call on?

 

 

Some of this I agree with, but not all. We know Shane has met Mrs. Blake. We know he met Ned’s wife. He might have met Mrs. Fowler, but nothing I recall gives me that impression.

 

 

 

Think back to my postings in the Forum Thread, “Brain Storming,” after Chapter 86 was published. I posted a strong statement that Officer Fowler knew Trevor’s Family Name was Smith.

 

 

All conjecture at this point, but I agree Fowler knew the family mane, and it was Martin that gave it to him....and the only way Martin knew that was??

 

 

Sorry Benji, I said it before and I will say it again. It is confusing.

 

Benji, after extensive discussions between us, I came agree with you that Rachel had arrived in Australia, subsequent to her disappearance in the Bahamas. Our combined deduction is she took on the persona of Sarah Blake after her arrival.

 

That is my take on it also, Heck maybe Martin is gay, not married at all and Mrs. Blake is just a cover! I had proposed earlier that she was staying with a relative, perhaps Martin is her cousin or brother!

 

 

Anything is possible.

 

 

However, we need to consider what, “The Goat,” might be doing with the story line. If we are correct, he is aware of our published opinion. I would not put it past him to try to get us to modify our deductions.

 

I know him, he would not alter the story at all because of our musings, he may correct mistakes from what we uncover, but would not modify the story to throw us. Actually, he gets a kick that we uncover clues in the chapters.

 

Benji, I am sorry if I gave you the impression, I thought the Goat would alter the story. What I do believe he would do is put out false leads to get us to change our predictions.[/size]

 

Marty

[C James]

As tempting as it might be to read the threads and then put out false leads, I don't.

 

I do, however, sometimes make changes to the amount and strength of clues based on the threads; if, say, a huge, huge clue goes totally unnoticed, I then make related coming clues a bit stronger.

 

Also, these threads let me know how things are coming across, which helps, too.

 

I do also use the forum threads to clarify or correct some views, such as when something is misperceived as a cliffhanger, but nobody listens to me...

 

CJ

[MartyS]

The following is, IMHO, a listing of some of the current existing Cliffhangers as of the publication of Chapter 88:

 

Will Dirk and Jim be successful in remaining concealed until the expiration of the Statute of Limitations?

 

Will Joel and Lisa make the trip to Australia without being arrested for the possession of illegal drugs?

 

Will the Hitman find Trevor?

 

Where is Rachel?

 

Where is the Ares?

 

What actually occurred during the month of May 1997?

 

Will Officer Gonzalez and Henry get the necessary information to arrest Bridget and George?

 

Anyone who wishes, may list additional ongoing Cliffhangers, if they feel I have failed to list them all.

Edited August 25, 2011 by MartyS

[Zombie]

... and will the garlic crusher be reunited with Trevor?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Zombie

[C James]

The following is, IMHO, a listing of some of the current existing Cliffhangers as of the publication of Chapter 88:

 

Will Dirk and Jim be successful in remaining concealed until the expiration of the Statute of Limitations?

 

Will Joel and Lisa make the trip to Australia without being arrested for the possession of illegal drugs?

 

Will the Hitman find Trevor?

 

Where is Rachel?

 

Where is the Ares?

 

What actually occurred during the month of May 1997?

 

Will Officer Gonzalez and Henry get the necessary information to arrest Bridget and George?

 

Anyone who wishes, may list additional ongoing Cliffhangers, if they feel I have failed to list them all.

 

Those aren't cliffhangers! Those are merely as-yet unsolved mysteries, though... every single one of them gets solved rather soon.

 

... and will the garlic crusher be reunited with Trevor?

 

I'm sure Trevor would welcome seeing his garlic crusher again.

 

BTW, Benji, great point on the maps!!!

 

I'll update them in coming chapters, once Shark Bay is no longer a factor. Your mention of this reminded me that I have some graphics to make. Thanks!

[MartyS]

Hi Benji,

 

Starting tomorrow morning, Monday, I will be away from the Forum for several days. I will let you know when I return. Don't let, "The Goat, dump on us during my absence.

 

Marty

[storymonger]

Definitely seems like food is the key to unlocking Rachel's current identity.

Edited August 29, 2011 by storymonger

[Zombie]

Once the statue of limitations runs out, Rachel and Dirk can't be charged with anything for fraud/conspiracy. Thus, I don't think anyone could legally overturn the Death in Absentia ruling that nullified their marriage. As long as Rachel didn't remarry until after that ruling, Australia has no basis to recognize her US marriage.

 

We're also assuming she has legally remarried in Australia, which may not be true

There's been much forum activity about the statute of limitation (and possible crimes Dirk and / or Rachel may have committed and / or conspired to commit, including possibly faking Rachel's death) and the belief Dirk / Rachel will be "free" after 16 Dec because any legal action will then be time-barred.

 

I've not paid close attention to the forum postings on this aspect but if the excited chatterings around such a plot development are correct then maybe some of the following will be relevant:

 

CRS Report for Congress - Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview - April 9, 2007(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf)

 

 

"Prosecution for most ... federal crimes must begin within five years of the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the otherwise applicable period of limitation ...

... certain crimes against financial institutions and various immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five year standard ...

Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been completed. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme. Other so-called continuing offenses include various possession crimes and some that impose continuing obligations to register or report." (Summary page)

 

"Statutes of limitation “normally begin to run when the crime is complete” ... The rule for conspiracy is a bit different. The general conspiracy statute consists of two elements: (1) an agreement to commit a federal crime or to defraud the United States and (2) an overt act committed in furtherance of the agreement. Conspirators left unimpaired will frequently continue on through several overt acts to the ultimate commission of the underlying substantive offenses which are the objectives of their plots. Thus, the statute of limitations for such conspiracies runs not from the first overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy but from the last. The statute of limitations under conspiracy statutes which have no overt act requirement runs from the accomplishment of the objectives of the conspiracy or from its abandonment. Concealment of the criminal plot after its completion is considered a natural component of all conspiracies. Consequently, overt acts of concealment after the objectives of the conspiracy have been accomplished may not be used to delay the running of the statute of limitations." (p11-12)

 

"State Felony Statutes of Limitation - Florida (felonies generally) 3 years" (table p25)

 

Also some other interweb stuff:

 

"A faked death, or pseudocide, occurs when an individual leaves evidence to suggest that he or she is dead in order to mislead others. This may be done for a variety of reasons, such as to fraudulently collect insurance money or avoid capture by law enforcement for some other crime." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faked_death)

 

"... if you are defrauded, where the wrongdoer conceals information from you to prevent you from discovering his misdeed, the statute of limitations will not begin to run on the claim until such time as you have had a reasonable opportunity to discover the facts giving rise to your claim..." (http://www.buteralaw.com/newsletters.asp?c=5&id=115)

 

"... people who are presumed dead sometimes turn up alive ... There has been one recent memorable case where this has occurred, such as in the case of John Burney who disappeared after financial problems and reappeared years after, December 1982, to Arkansas. His company and wife had already received the death benefits; so, upon returning, the life insurance company filed a suit against him, his wife, and his company. In the end, Burney’s actions were ruled fraudulent in court, leading to a $470,000 judgement" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_absentia)"

 

"... if you get a case where the statute of limitations has seemingly passed, make sure that your case does not fall within one of the four exceptions that most jurisdictions have in some form or other, which can extend the statute of limitations.

 

The first, and the most litigated, is the discovery rule. Under the discovery rule, an action begins to accrue when the injury victim knew or reasonably should have known of the negligence and the harm that ensued ...

 

The third exception is when the culpable party fraudulently conceals knowledge of a cause of action. In this case, in many jurisdictions, the cause of action does not begin to accrue until the reasonable discovery of the fraud ..." (http://www.tlrcblog.com/2007/12/articles/case-work-up/end-runs-around-the-statute-of-limitations/)

[MartyS]

Hi Zombie,

 

You certainly did extensive research. Unfortunately, you have a problem. The accepted,(By Me,) legal authority, Frank Tittle, appears briefly in this story. When he discussed the legal responsibilities in Chapter 54 he only addressed the charges, which could be filed against Dirk. There was some discussion regarding Jim and Trevor, but Dirk was the primary focus. There may have been some discussion regarding possible charges against Rachel. However, these never appeared in the storyline because Rachel was legally declared deceased in Nov/Dec 1999. Any mention of possible charges against Rachel would have acted as a spoiler.

 

We only have hints and vague references as to exactly what criminal acts were committed by Rachel. We do know she was being investigated by some unidentified law enforcement agency.

 

We do know Statute of Limitations for one conspiracy charge against Dirk will expire on December 16, 2006. We also know the only other Statute of Limitations for another Conspiracy charge will expire prior to that date.

 

Basically a conspiracy requires two or more persons acting together to break the law. Nothing has appeared in the story so far to indicate another person, other than Rachel, could have entered into a conspiracy with Dirk.

 

On December 15th, 1996 was the last time Dirk took any action in the Conspiracy charge who’s Ten Year Statute of Limitations expires on December 16th, 2006.

 

Whatever criminal activity Rachel was involved in to cause an investigation, I do not believe involved Dirk.

 

My primary purpose in getting involved in this discussion was and is simple. Based on everything appearing so far, the Statute of Limitations, which expires on December 16th, will leave Dirk clear of any successful prosecution. Nothing we know can be used to consider any or what charges could be filed against Rachel.

 

After all is said and done, today (Storytime) is December 6th. A Court of Competent Jurisdiction has previously declared Rachel dead. We do not know what Dirk will reveal when Sergeant Gonzalez interviews him. We do know that if Rachel did not die as part of the disappearance, the Declaration of Death issued by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, was obtained through fraud. It is my belief the ruling could be overturned.

 

Bottom line. Dirk maintained his residence. Rachel, if she is still alive, did not.

 

 

BTW The date on that CRS report is in 2007, many years after the timeline this story is set in.

[Zombie]

Hi Marty

 

You certainly did extensive research.

Not really. I was intrigued by such detailed and ongoing analysis so I just Googled some key words like "limitation" and "criminal" and looked at what came up.

 

Unfortunately, you have a problem.

Nope, I don't have a problem because I don't have a view - whereas you've examined with an electron microscope the complex web of nefariousness woven by The Goat into his devious plot (and not counting The Goat's personal and brazen wrongdoings for which he has been rightly exposed in this forum ) I've simply been devouring a great story and enjoying the ride, with a few well-aimed snipes along the way when The Goat stumbles into the cross-hairs

 

BTW The date on that CRS report is in 2007, many years after the timeline this story is set in.

The CRS Report summarised the law as it had developed at that point. I'm no jurist but I would expect that the bulk of the law in the story timeline and as at today was well established (many of the sources referred to in the footnotes are quite old e.g. Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed. 1990, case law precedents etc). Law in this area (fraud, conspiracy and limitation) is not subject to frequent and radical change - developments in recent years will generally be to address specific problem areas such as anti-terrorism and child sex-abuse.

 

To recap, all I said was "if the excited chatterings around such a plot development are correct then maybe some of the (links) will be relevant"

Edited September 5, 2011 by Zombie

[C James]

Some great stuff here!!!!

 

I can't say much, except to mention that part of the cites refer to civil statutes of limitations, which can be different in some regards to criminal ones. (though it's possible that both civil and criminal statues might be relevant).

 

For fraud, you can escape criminal charges via the statute of limitations, but not civil in many cases; the damaged party can still sue you for recovery plus damages (interest, legal fees, etc) in civil court if the purpose was fraud.

 

CJ :-)

[Benji]

Some great stuff here!!!!

 

I can't say much, except to mention that part of the cites refer to civil statutes of limitations, which can be different in some regards to criminal ones. (though it's possible that both civil and criminal statues might be relevant).

 

For fraud, you can escape criminal charges via the statute of limitations, but not civil in many cases; the damaged party can still sue you for recovery plus damages (interest, legal fees, etc) in civil court if the purpose was fraud.

 

CJ :-)

 

.................... Hence my idea that Dirk took the insurance money and placed it into an account to pay back when the stats ran out!

[Zombie]

For fraud, you can escape criminal charges via the statute of limitations

But "The rule for conspiracy is a bit different" (see above), so if Dirk and Rachel jointly plotted their criminal enterprise then I hope they like prison food Edited September 6, 2011 by Zombie