Brain Storming

[MartyS]

One thing here I can weigh in on that might help; the confiscation of the gun and one aspect of the cash.

 

First, the cash. Fowler needed to know roughly how much, but that's all, because Trevor would be allowed $10,000 without even declaring it. Once declared, there's no problem at all with Trevor keeping it. Now, Fowler did overstep himself in one issue with the cash; he forced Trevor to put it in a bank. He had no legal authority to do so.

 

Greg Fowler stayed within Aussie law on finding the gun, too. Yes, Trevor should have declared it, but also, for a normal arrival, Fowler would have asked and Trevor would have filled in several customs forms. Had Trevor denied it at that point, he'd have been seriously breaking the law. Technically, he'd broken it anyway, but the manner of Atlantis's arrival cut him some slack in several ways; he'd just been through a horrendous ordeal and a long battle to survive, plus there's the issue of people trying to kill him twice. Also, Trevor didn't fill in a customs declaration at all (except later, for the money). I think it would have been awfully hard to convict Trevor, given that he wasn't asked about the gun, and the circumstances of his arrival. And, under the circumstances, Fowler would have been heartless to toss Trevor in jail. Maybe Fowler was inclined to cut him a little slack, much the way a police officer responding to a home invasion call from a terrified homeowner might very well turn a blind eye to a little pot plant growing near the back window, and refrain from arresting the victim.

 

Fowler's method of dealing with the gun (shipping it to Trevor's point of departure from Australia and letting him have it back there) is exactly how they handle the issue of firearms on visiting yachts in Australia.

 

No falsification of records would be needed. They could just report it found when they found it.I'm not saying that they did, just that they could have.

 

BTW, as an aside, the Port Aurthur massacre Zombie mentioned occurred in Port Author, Tasmania. That's where Carnarvon Bay, Tasmania, is.

 

CJ

 

Seeing as neither of us are in a position to speak with any knowledge of the Australian Border Protection Service, Rules and Procedures regarding the seizure and reporting of undeclared firearms, I will not address that issue.

 

However, regarding Trevor's failure to declare the presence of a firearm on his vessel, I present the following copied directly from Chapter 66.

 

Trevor took a deep breath. “I’m sorry about that. I have to hide it when I’m in port. If I declared it, a lot of places wouldn’t give it back because I’m a minor.”

Now, I am not an attorney. However, my interpretation of Trevor's statement is, " He readily admitted to deliberately concealing a firearm to avoid law-full confiscation of said firearm."

[C James]

Seeing as neither of us are in a position to speak with any knowledge of the Australian Border Protection Service, Rules and Procedures regarding the seizure and reporting of undeclared firearms, I will not address that issue.

 

However, regarding Trevor's failure to declare the presence of a firearm on his vessel, I present the following copied directly from Chapter 66.

 

 

 

Now, I am not an attorney. However, my interpretation of Trevor's statement is, " He readily admitted to deliberately concealing a firearm to avoid law-full confiscation of said firearm."

 

Here's what the Australian Border Protection Service says themselves. there's a section on firearms near the bottom, right above currency. Actually, I'll just quote both.

 

Firearms and other weapons

 

All firearms/weapons on your craft must be reported to Customs.

 

Certain firearms/weapons may be detained in safe storage for transhipment to your intended port of departure (at Customs expense).

 

In cases where a firearm/weapon has been detained the Master will be required to contact Customs at least one week prior to departure so that the weapon can be returned.

 

Currency

 

There is no limit on the amount of Australian or foreign cash that may be brought into or taken out of Australia, but travellers carrying $A10,000 or more, or the equivalent in foreign currency, must declare this on arrival and departure.

 

Currency includes notes and coins but does not include traveller's cheques. Reporting is required by law and failure to do so is an offense.

 

They say that failure to report excess currency is an offense. They don't say that about firearms, though they do say you must report them.

 

Good point on Trevor's admission. Fowler could have arrested him, but could he have gotten a conviction? I wouldn't have liked to try to get that past a jury.

[MartyS]

Hi CJ,

 

First I would like you to note there are only two letters in my salutation. This response is intended to be actual and factual. It is not being addressed to, “The Goat,” or to, “CHJ.”

 

That being said let me continue. The laws governing the possession and use of firearms in Australia, could not exist unless, the majority of the voters permitted them to do so. I have no knowledge or remote understanding of how laws are enacted in that country. Nor do I care. I have no right to address how that county governs it’s residents. It is not for me to speak for or against its laws. I do not intend to move to Australia. Hell, I do not expect to visit there.

 

However, Trevor set sail for Australia. Had he been successful in his attempt to reach, Reunion, that might change the situation. If he had arrived there it would probably change my opinion.

 

Before continuing I would like to discuss something. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights define certain constitutional rights affecting me. I am addressing my rights as provided by the Second Amendment. There have been, over the years, many court decisions defining how those rights are applied. I have NO, I repeat, NO, intention, to open in this Forum, a discussion regarding those rights, nor how they have been interpreted by those decisions. The state I reside in has established laws governing the possession and use of firearms. Other states in the Union have passed laws, which control the possession and use in that individual state. Should I decide to visit another state, I would be required to follow the laws of the state I was in, not the laws of my state.

 

There is no way I could define Trevor’s attitude and actions regarding his possession of a firearm as lawful. His uttered defense as to why he failed to inform Officer Fowler of the presence of his handgun may be factual. However, Trevor has consistently, throughout the story, concealed the presence of a firearm aboard his Atlantis. His excuse is he is worried about his status as a minor.

 

At the present time, due to Dirk’s current legal problems, I have serious questions, in my mind, about whether a handgun could be under Trevor’s control, in the State of Florida. Without getting involved in a lengthy discussion concerning the laws governing the presence of a handgun, aboard Trevor’s Atlantis, I believe the following. Trevor as a minor may not own a handgun. He may possess one with parental consent. A handgun may be present in a residence owned and occupied by Dirk. Trevor’s Atlantis would, IMHO, be classified as a habitation under Florida law. This is where it gets sticky. Trevor’s Atlantis is not owned by Dirk. I am sure Dirk could establish he obtained the firearm and placed it aboard. But, Dirk has no control at present.

 

Dirk certainly knows Trevor travels to other countries while on charters. He expects the weapon to be available for Trevor to use to protect himself. I believe the presence of Julie would cover any legal requirement regarding the presence of the revolver. I know for a fact, that if Trevor had taken his Atlantis into the waters controlled by the State of Texas, the following would be the law. Trevor would be a minor. However, seeing as he had passed his seventeenth birthday, he would be considered an adult by the Criminal Justice system. Atlantis would be considered a habitation. The handgun would be legally aboard, if Julie were there.

 

Throughout the book, Trevor’s excuse has been, he was concerned with loosing the revolver, because he is a minor. He has touched upon many countries during his circumnavigation. I do not know, nor do I intend to research the laws of those countries regarding the possession of a handgun.

 

Your response regarding Trevor using as a possible defense, his concern of it being confiscated has a problem. To start with, why did he have the handgun aboard in the first place? Should Trevor respond with he had it to protect himself, this I believe would be the next logical question. Where was that handgun when you say pirates boarded you?

 

Sorry CJ, Trevor knew he was unlawfully concealing that handgun throughout his trip. It is said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” He did not declare the firearms presence. The only reason it became an issue is, Officer Fowler, two days after Trevor’s arrival, found it, while conducting what I believe to be a lawful search. During that two days Trevor conducted business and made connections to the United States. For Officer Fowler to confiscate the weapon and guide the criminal justice system to decline to prosecute Trevor I have no problem with. This is not the case. The story establishes, Greg Fowler, at the time he confronted Trevor about finding the weapon, created a method for the revolver to be legally returned to Trevor, when he departed Australia. I would speculate, with some degree of certainty, the following would occur if Greg Fowler reported the actual facts. Fowler’s first report would cover the rescue of Trevor and all concerns regarding his safety Two days later, without any assistance from Trevor, Greg discovers the concealed firearm. In that report, Fowler would have to include Trevor’s admission as to why he failed to disclose the presence of the handgun. Then Officer Fowler creates the necessary paperwork to inventory, secure and return the pistol to Trevor, immediately prior to his departure from Australia. All these reports are then forwarded up the line to Greg’s superiors. I find it very difficult to believe, none of the reviewing officers would not object to Officer Fowler bending the rules. I can understand them not pushing to prosecute Trevor. The only way I can see for that gun to appear now, and then be returned to Trevor as outlined, is for Trevor to have voluntarily surrendered the handgun to Officer Fowler. But, that is not the case, is it? Like I pointed out in a previous post. Officer Greg Fowler has a serious problem. The only way, I can see him not getting a complaint for trying to return the revolver to Trevor, by bending the rules, is for him and his partner, Craig Grundig, to be very creative in writing their reports. That by the way, is a polite way of saying, they lie through their teeth.

 

That is how I see it.

 

PS If you are willing to admit, here and now, the prediction I made regarding how Officer Fowler was alerted to the probable existance of a concealed firearm aboard Trevor's Atlantis, I am willing to consider softening my hard line approach. Heh Heh.

Edited September 12, 2011 by MartyS

[C James]

Hi CJ,

 

First I would like you to note there are only two letters in my salutation. This response is intended to be actual and factual. It is not being addressed to, “The Goat,” or to, “CHJ.”

 

That being said let me continue. The laws governing the possession and use of firearms in Australia, could not exist unless, the majority of the voters permitted them to do so. I have no knowledge or remote understanding of how laws are enacted in that country. Nor do I care. I have no right to address how that county governs it’s residents. It is not for me to speak for or against its laws. I do not intend to move to Australia. Hell, I do not expect to visit there.

 

However, Trevor set sail for Australia. Had he been successful in his attempt to reach, Reunion, that might change the situation. If he had arrived there it would probably change my opinion.

 

Before continuing I would like to discuss something. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights define certain constitutional rights affecting me. I am addressing my rights as provided by the Second Amendment. There have been, over the years, many court decisions defining how those rights are applied. I have NO, I repeat, NO, intention, to open in this Forum, a discussion regarding those rights, nor how they have been interpreted by those decisions. The state I reside in has established laws governing the possession and use of firearms. Other states in the Union have passed laws, which control the possession and use in that individual state. Should I decide to visit another state, I would be required to follow the laws of the state I was in, not the laws of my state.

 

Yep, true. There are many interstate compacts that affect this, so it's super complicated. For example, I have a concealed carry permit in Arizona, which I keep current though it's no longer needed here (it used to be that in Arizona, you could carry a firearm openly, but to carry concealed, you needed a permit. Not so anymore; now you can do either without a permit). I keep my permit valid because many states have a reciprocal agreement, and recognize each other's permits. It's a headache at times, seeing what the laws are in each and every state. One issue; registration: some states require that only the registered owner posses them.

 

There is no way I could define Trevor’s attitude and actions regarding his possession of a firearm as lawful. His uttered defense as to why he failed to inform Officer Fowler of the presence of his handgun may be factual. However, Trevor has consistently, throughout the story, concealed the presence of a firearm aboard his Atlantis. His excuse is he is worried about his status as a minor.

 

He's correct in that regard; they wouldn't have given it back to a minor had he declared it in many locations. Particularly Europe.

 

At the present time, due to Dirk’s current legal problems, I have serious questions, in my mind, about whether a handgun could be under Trevor’s control, in the State of Florida. Without getting involved in a lengthy discussion concerning the laws governing the presence of a handgun, aboard Trevor’s Atlantis, I believe the following. Trevor as a minor may not own a handgun. He may possess one with parental consent. A handgun may be present in a residence owned and occupied by Dirk. Trevor’s Atlantis would, IMHO, be classified as a habitation under Florida law. This is where it gets sticky. Trevor’s Atlantis is not owned by Dirk. I am sure Dirk could establish he obtained the firearm and placed it aboard. But, Dirk has no control at present.

Under Florida law, only a parent can give a minor a gun. Further, and even more complicating, a minor may only posses a loaded weapon when using it for legal purposes. Self-defense of self and home is a legal use. A gun would be personal property, and there's nothing in Florida law that I can find to say a minor can't own one, if it's given to him by a parent. Trevor shouldn't have any troubles after Dec 17th though; in most regards, the emancipation makes him an adult.

 

However, the law in every state and especially in foreign countries varies. It also changes. That's why many yachtsmen have hiding places for guns; there's often just too much hassle to comply with the law. In the case of the Bahamas (the only place we know for sure that Dirk knows Trevor went with a gun aboard, prior to his circumnavigation attempt) guns can be kept aboard yachts, just not taken ashore. This was legal with an adult aboard: Julie. With just Trevor? Most likely not. Could that concern be part of why Dirk reacted so badly to Trevor going alone to Bahamian waters to search for Ares?

 

 

Throughout the book, Trevor’s excuse has been, he was concerned with loosing the revolver, because he is a minor. He has touched upon many countries during his circumnavigation. I do not know, nor do I intend to research the laws of those countries regarding the possession of a handgun.

 

It would be a nightmare to do so. Not just for research, but in reality; Trevor would have to do it, and finding the info is hard, and in many cases it's not specific as to minors, and it might not be current or accurate. If I was in his situation, I'd hide the gun too.

 

Your response regarding Trevor using as a possible defense, his concern of it being confiscated has a problem. To start with, why did he have the handgun aboard in the first place? Should Trevor respond with he had it to protect himself, this I believe would be the next logical question. Where was that handgun when you say pirates boarded you?

 

Why wouldn't he have a gun aboard, to transit Somalia? I'd sure want one (though a long gun would be a vastly better choice). The Bahamas have a high crime rate, so even other issues aside, he had valid reason. As for not declaring it in Australia, he'd just arrived after a harrowing survival ordeal. Prosecuting him would be somewhat akin to the Coast Guard rescuing people from a shipboard fire at sea, and then prosecuti8ng one for not mentioning he had a money belt with over $10,000 in it. A technical violation, but do you think a jury would convict?

 

I've been on two juries, both for minor issues. The first thing I needed to be clear of in my own mind before voting was: is the law right or wrong here? In both cases, I decided that the law was right and fair as applied to the case. One example (not what happened, but an easy one to use as an example) would be a speeding ticket. There's a notorious speed trap about 50 miles from me; the town lowered the speed limit 20 mph below what the state recommended, on a stretch of highway that's about 200 feet long. They did this to make a speed trap, not for safety reasons (and later admitted it). Now, if I'd been on a jury for somebody I thought was 100% guilty of going 20mph over the legal speedlimit in that spot, I'd have voted "not guilty" because in that case I'd feel the law was wrong. Would that be against the judge's directions? Probably, but I'd do it. I'd never convict on what I felt to be an unjust application of law, and so they'd have never gotten a conviction (at best a hung jury and a new trial). (Needless to say, I do believe in jury nullification of bad laws).

 

After two attempts on Trevor's life and a harrowing survival ordeal, I would not like to be the prosecutor who had to try to talk a jury into voting "guilty" for a victimless crime of keeping his own property.

 

Sorry CJ, Trevor knew he was unlawfully concealing that handgun throughout his trip. It is said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” He did not declare the firearms presence.

What he did in other countries isn't relevant to Australia, and he was never actually asked to declare the gun in Australia (for a normal arrival, he'd have had to fill in questionares while in quarantine). Blurting out the truth as he did does give them a case, but other than that, they'd have zilch.

 

I would speculate, with some degree of certainty, the following would occur if Greg Fowler reported the actual facts. Fowler’s first report would cover the rescue of Trevor and all concerns regarding his safety Two days later, without any assistance from Trevor, Greg discovers the concealed firearm. In that report, Fowler would have to include Trevor’s admission as to why he failed to disclose the presence of the handgun. Then Officer Fowler creates the necessary paperwork to inventory, secure and return the pistol to Trevor, immediately prior to his departure from Australia. All these reports are then forwarded up the line to Greg’s superiors. I find it very difficult to believe, none of the reviewing officers would not object to Officer Fowler bending the rules. I can understand them not pushing to prosecute Trevor. The only way I can see for that gun to appear now, and then be returned to Trevor as outlined, is for Trevor to have voluntarily surrendered the handgun to Officer Fowler. But, that is not the case, is it? Like I pointed out in a previous post. Officer Greg Fowler has a serious problem. The only way, I can see him not getting a complaint for trying to return the revolver to Trevor, by bending the rules, is for him and his partner, Craig Grundig, to be very creative in writing their reports. That by the way, is a polite way of saying, they lie through their teeth.

Well, that depends... we can't assume that seizure (as opposed to voluntary surrender) automatically equates to permanent confiscation. Trevor might, though, have an issue abotu getting it back; he's under 18, and they don't have emancipation of minors in Australia.

 

PS If you are willing to admit, here and now, the prediction I made regarding how Officer Fowler was alerted to the probable existance of a concealed firearm aboard Trevor's Atlantis, I am willing to consider softening my hard line approach. Heh Heh.

But, I can't admit to anything... I know nothing!!!

 

Or, if I do know, if I confirm, it's a spoiler. Also, if I deny, it's a spoiler too. So, all I can say is "I know nothing!" because everyone knows that already.

 

However... I can say this; the answer is in the chapter that posts within the hour.

[MartyS]

Sorry CJ,,

 

No way is this correct.

 

Trevor shouldn't have any troubles after Dec 17th though; in most regards, the emancipation makes him an adult.

A statutory age requirement, one that is set by law, has nothing to do with being an adult. Check it out.

[Zombie]

Needless to say, I do believe in jury nullification of bad laws

Do you believe it should just be for you or for everyone?

[MartyS]

Hi CJ,

 

I was not overly happy with some of your comments and justifications regarding Trevor’s arrival in Australia with an undeclared firearm.

 

When I am unhappy with any information I am being given, I tend to check it out. Since my discovery of the Internet, I have found many sources of information.

 

My surfing expedition on this subject has led me to the following listed site. It looks to me to be a Forum. Posters on this site appear to be discussing yachters arriving in Australia. The various dates shown on the individual posts are in the calendar year 2007. Because these dates, in my opinion, reflect the situation occurring in Australia, around the time of our adventure, I believe we should consider the information worthy to be mulled over. Some posts contain interesting links.

 

 

Arriving in Australia

 

For some reason or other, when I paste this address into my browser, the page does not open at the top. I would highly recommend, you scroll all the way to the first entry. Then be sure to read all the posts.

 

I will refrain, at this time, from making any comments. As the saying goes CJ, “The ball is in your court.”

 

Marty

[Benji]

...........If due to dangerous seas or their is a medical emergency etc occurs then the vessel is able to progress to a safe haven or the Boarding Station. All that is required is that Customs is informed at the first possible opportunity.

 

I think it safe to say that Trevor qualified for this, besides the custom guys really brought him in.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Benji

[MartyS]

...........If due to dangerous seas or their is a medical emergency etc occurs then the vessel is able to progress to a safe haven or the Boarding Station. All that is required is that Customs is informed at the first possible opportunity.

 

I think it safe to say that Trevor qualified for this, besides the custom guys really brought him in.

 

Hi Benji,

 

You seem to be overlooking something. From what I read in those rules in effect in 2007, (Trevor arrived in Australia in late November 2006) Trevor had to give previous notice of arrival. If you read more of the entries, the minimum time is 96 hours notice. The maximum time is not listed. If you do read more of the postings, the maximum time is discussed. I believe Trevor should have notified the Australian Customs Office before leaving Europe. That is how it apparently was done, back in 2006. I have been doing some additional reading on what was taking place at that time. Googel this (Australia arriving by private yacht) and this (entering Australia by boat with firearm). Read some of the Horror Stories some yachters became enmeshed in. Go to these two sites

 

http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/manzaris.html

 

http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/decision.html

 

These are dated as occurring back in 2008

 

Marty

[Benji]

Hi Benji,

 

You seem to be overlooking something. From what I read in those rules in effect in 2007, (Trevor arrived in Australia in late November 2006) Trevor had to give previous notice of arrival. If you read more of the entries, the minimum time is 96 hours notice. The maximum time is not listed. If you do read more of the postings, the maximum time is discussed. I believe Trevor should have notified the Australian Customs Office before leaving Europe. That is how it apparently was done, back in 2006. I have been doing some additional reading on what was taking place at that time. Googel this (Australia arriving by private yacht) and this (entering Australia by boat with firearm). Read some of the Horror Stories some yachters became enmeshed in. Go to these two sites

 

http://www.thecoasta...m/manzaris.html

 

http://www.thecoasta...m/decision.html

 

These are dated as occurring back in 2008

 

Marty

 

.....Would not his visa permit suffice then??

[Zombie]

Hi Benji,

 

You seem to be overlooking something. From what I read in those rules in effect in 2007, (Trevor arrived in Australia in late November 2006) Trevor had to give previous notice of arrival. If you read more of the entries, the minimum time is 96 hours notice. The maximum time is not listed. If you do read more of the postings, the maximum time is discussed. I believe Trevor should have notified the Australian Customs Office before leaving Europe. That is how it apparently was done, back in 2006. I have been doing some additional reading on what was taking place at that time. Googel this (Australia arriving by private yacht) and this (entering Australia by boat with firearm). Read some of the Horror Stories some yachters became enmeshed in. Go to these two sites

 

http://www.thecoasta...m/manzaris.html

 

http://www.thecoasta...m/decision.html

 

These are dated as occurring back in 2008

 

Marty

An interesting and monstrous miscarriage of justice certainly, but of no relevance to Trev who has a clear defence of necessity as he could reasonably be presumed to have intended to comply with the 96 hours requirement but, following a little mishap along the way, such compliance was outside his control (and he was not required to report a week ahead, or a month ahead, or when he set sail from Florida or at any other point on his voyage, merely to report no sooner than 96 hours before his arrival).

[MartyS]

.....Would not his visa permit suffice then??

 

Benji,

 

Evidently not. I repeat my suggestions to read those links and do some reading from the Googel Search Strings. Also read ALL the postings in that forum I posted a link to.

 

Marty

Edited September 13, 2011 by MartyS

[C James]

Sorry CJ,,

 

No way is this correct.

A statutory age requirement, one that is set by law, has nothing to do with being an adult. Check it out.

 

Yes, and no. For example, some laws specify "minors". In those cases (in a country that recognizes emancipated minors) an emancipated minor would not be treated as a minor. But, if the law specifies an age, such as being 18 to vote, that means under-18 can't vote, emancipated or not.

 

In Trevor's case, in florida he'd been unabale to vote, but under laws that specify a status rather than an age, he'd be considered an adult (once emancipated). In Australia, it's more complex; they don't have emancipated minors. So, more likely than not, they'd treat Trevor as a minor until he's 18, irregardless of emancipation. At least that's my read on it. However, there would likely be minor exceptions, such as if Dirk demanded the Australians put Trevor on a plane and send him home. In that case, I think they'd take the fact that he's emancipated into account. That's my read on it, anyway.

 

 

Do you believe it should just be for you or for everyone?

 

LoL, I'm not a hypocrite. Obviously, if it's okay for me to do it, it's okay for any juror.

 

I probably picked a bad example. Okay, for another; in California one city was discovered to have installed red-light cameras for ticket revenue, and then, when they found they weren't getting enough, they reduced the yellow time on the traffic lights (so the lights went from green to red faster). That got them more tickets, but at the cost of putting people's lives at risk by making the roads a lot less safe. Okay, let's say a motorist got a ticket from that; would the be legally guilty? yes. But I'd have voted to acquit because the law itself is unjust (and in this case, unsafe). To me, the acquittal would be in the interests of Justice, far more than merely following the letter of the law. I'd have certainly tried to persuade my fellow jurors of that as well.

 

Hi CJ,

 

I was not overly happy with some of your comments and justifications regarding Trevor’s arrival in Australia with an undeclared firearm.

 

When I am unhappy with any information I am being given, I tend to check it out. Since my discovery of the Internet, I have found many sources of information.

 

Sorry to have to tell you this Marty, but that's impossible because the Internet is fictional; it doesn't actually exist. Kinda like unicorns, and Canada.

 

My surfing expedition on this subject has led me to the following listed site. It looks to me to be a Forum. Posters on this site appear to be discussing yachters arriving in Australia. The various dates shown on the individual posts are in the calendar year 2007. Because these dates, in my opinion, reflect the situation occurring in Australia, around the time of our adventure, I believe we should consider the information worthy to be mulled over. Some posts contain interesting links.

 

 

Arriving in Australia

 

For some reason or other, when I paste this address into my browser, the page does not open at the top. I would highly recommend, you scroll all the way to the first entry. Then be sure to read all the posts.

 

I will refrain, at this time, from making any comments. As the saying goes CJ, “The ball is in your court.”

 

Marty

 

Excellent info! Thanks.

 

Okay, yes, I admit that, especially in the 2006-2008 timeframe, Aussie customs had a reputation in the yachitie community as being rather draconian at times. This was IMHO a well-founded reputation, though many of the complaints (there are far more online than that thread) are specific to Queensland. I was aware of this issue. Here's a quote from that thread;

 

The Master of a vessel arriving in Australia is required by law to give notice of impending arrival NOT LATER than 96 hours before arrival. Customs does realise that not all vessels are fitted with the latest communication equipment. For these vessel this requirement seems to cause confusion as people interpret it as notification must be given 96 hours prior to arrival. This is not the case. This is the minimum requirement. I'll explain this with an example below.

 

A vessel is travelling from USA to Australia.The time frame is one month. The Master could report his impending arrival to Australia prior to departing USA. This would mean that he gives 1 months notice which meets the above criteria. Other alternatives is the Master could report his impending arrival from one of the ports he stops at on his way to Australia or prior to his departure from his last port before arriving in Australia. This may even be a week prior to his arrival, as long as the estimated sailing time is a minimum of 96 hours. Again this meets the above criteria for reporting to Customs. 96 hours notice may be given by either;

 

* Sending an email to yachtreport@customs.gov.au:

* Sending a fax to +61 2 6275 6331;

* Phoning the Australian Customs National Communications Centre on +61 3 9244 8973.

 

You will need to provide the following information

 

* The name of your craft;

* Your intended first port of arrival;

* Your estimated arrival time;

* Your last four ports;

* The details of people on board including name, date of birth, nationality and passport number;

* Details of any illness or disease recently encountered;

* If you have any animals on board;

* If you have any firearms on board.

 

Customs does not have access to SSB/HF radio communications. The preferred radio communication is through VHF.

Let me address a minor issue first; the SSB/HF radio. Aussie customs (some of their patrol units and shore stations) do have access to single sideband radio, BUT... they don't monitor it for arrival info, so effectively, SSB is not usable for arrival declarations.

 

Now, for the rest; as they say, VHF radio is the preferred option. BUT, VHF is mainly line-of-sight. So, best bet is sat phone or making arrangements prior to departure. Trevor had two options; give notice at his last port of call pre-arrival, or radio in from offshore and wait out the 96 hours. Long distance sailing is imprecise as to time, so the need to give a specific date would make it a bad idea to give notice prior to the last pre-arrival port.

 

Was Trevor in violation of these arrival laws? Absolutely, save for exceptions for a vessel in distress. Atlantis, I feel, was unarguably a vessel in distress, by any possible definition. Before the pirates, Trevor had planned on stopping at Rodregues Island in the mid Indian Ocean, and making calls from there even if he didn't go ashore. Had that not worked, he could have hailed Freemantle on VHF, waited 96 hours, then made port. But, he no longer had the equipment to do so. Under several international agreements he qualified as a vessel in distress (and he did have a Visa, though that doesn't okay the arrival of his boat). The Australians would have had one hell of a time trying to prosecute him for failing to notify them that he was nearing their shores. I'm not positive, but I think there are exceptions in their arrival laws for vessels in distress. I do think, for sure, they they would not choose to prosecute, even if they could, for any matter pertaining to Trevor's arrival other than the firearm, because all other objections aside, think how it would look; A teenager is his by pirates, nearly killed, and manages to con his derelict stripped hulk to Australia, and they prosecute him for not doing something that was impossible for him to have done?

 

...........If due to dangerous seas or their is a medical emergency etc occurs then the vessel is able to progress to a safe haven or the Boarding Station. All that is required is that Customs is informed at the first possible opportunity.

 

I think it safe to say that Trevor qualified for this, besides the custom guys really brought him in.

 

The first possible opportunity in this case would be when customs boarded him, so yep! He was flying a handmade emergency flag, too.

 

An interesting and monstrous miscarriage of justice certainly, but of no relevance to Trev who has a clear defence of necessity as he could reasonably be presumed to have intended to comply with the 96 hours requirement but, following a little mishap along the way, such compliance was outside his control (and he was not required to report a week ahead, or a month ahead, or when he set sail from Florida or at any other point on his voyage, merely to report no sooner than 96 hours before his arrival).

 

The only thing he had to do more than 96 hours in advance was his electronic visa, which he did from Europe, with Joel.

[Zombie]

... I think there are exceptions in their arrival laws for vessels in distress. I do think, for sure, they they would not choose to prosecute, even if they could, for any matter pertaining to Trevor's arrival other than the firearm, because all other objections aside, think how it would look; A teenager is his by pirates, nearly killed, and manages to con his derelict stripped hulk to Australia, and they prosecute him for not doing something that was impossible for him to have done?

Err, I already dealt with this in my last response (which you quoted ): "Trev ... has a clear defence of "necessity" as he could reasonably be presumed to have intended to comply with the 96 hours requirement but, following a little mishap along the way, such compliance was outside his control ..."

 

 

In other words "necessity" is a recognised legal defence in both the US and English / Australian legal systems - see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law

 

http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/qld_criminal_defence_necessity

 

LoL, I'm not a hypocrite. Obviously, if it's okay for me to do it, it's okay for any juror.

 

I probably picked a bad example. Okay, for another; in California one city was discovered to have installed red-light cameras for ticket revenue, and then, when they found they weren't getting enough, they reduced the yellow time on the traffic lights (so the lights went from green to red faster). That got them more tickets, but at the cost of putting people's lives at risk by making the roads a lot less safe. Okay, let's say a motorist got a ticket from that; would the be legally guilty? yes. But I'd have voted to acquit because the law itself is unjust (and in this case, unsafe). To me, the acquittal would be in the interests of Justice, far more than merely following the letter of the law. I'd have certainly tried to persuade my fellow jurors of that as well.

Hmm, no-one can get too worked up over the outcome of a speeding ticket. So let's take a more serious scenario. You're on the jury in a murder case. The defendent's clearly guilty. The guy's gonna fry. But some of your fellow jurists refuse to convict for murder because they think it's wrong to fry live people (although they are more than happy to fry dead goats ) therefore they will only agree to convict for a lesser charge with a prison term instead. So instead of a hung jury the jury brings in a guilty verdict for the lesser charge.

 

So you'd be comfortable with a jury system operating like that?

 

 

[C James]

Err, I already dealt with this in my last response (which you quoted ): "Trev ... has a clear defense of "necessity" as he could reasonably be presumed to have intended to comply with the 96 hours requirement but, following a little mishap along the way, such compliance was outside his control ..."

 

In other words "necessity" is a recognised legal defence in both the US and English / Australian legal systems - see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law

 

http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/qld_criminal_defence_necessity

 

Yes, but... a necessity defense is just that, a defense; it does not preclude charges nor change the fact that he did break the law. A prosecutor would be most highly unlikely to bring charges in such a case due to the certainty of acquittal, but he could bring charges. The same is true of the statute of limitations. If a crime was commited but the limitations clock has run out, the statute of limitations merely gives ironclad grounds for dismissal. Can the prosecutor still bring charges? Yep. Highly unlikely due to the certainty of dismissal, but still quite legal.

 

I particularly like that second link, to the Queensland site.

 

Hmm, no-one can get too worked up over the outcome of a speeding ticket. So let's take a more serious scenario. You're on the jury in a murder case. The defendent's clearly guilty. The guy's gonna fry. But some of your fellow jurists refuse to convict for murder because they think it's wrong to fry live people (although they are more than happy to fry dead goats ) therefore they will only agree to convict for a lesser charge with a prison term instead. So instead of a hung jury the jury brings in a guilty verdict for the lesser charge.

 

So you'd be comfortable with a jury system operating like that?

 

Interesting question! No, but where does one draw the line?

My own position is that I cannot, ethically, vote to convict if the law is massively wrong or has been outrageously abused (such as in the red light camera case I mentioned). That's not the same thing as me just disagreeing with the law. I mentioned speeding tickets because those were the only two real-world examples I could think of off the top of my head. The reason is that I only think jury nullification is warranted in extremely exceptional cases. Juries have to take oaths in the US, and those vary, but generally (going from memory of mine) they are to view the evidence and follow the law. So, would I violate my oath lightly? If I am forced to take it under duress (which is the case in some places, where you get cited for contempt if you refuse) no, because an oath taken under duress isn't bindings, and it's also unconstitutional and thus void. If not taken under duress, then it's a far stronger case. But still, there are clear areas where it's called for, such as in the case of an unconstitutional law. The constitution is the highest law, so I would feel it utterly consistent with my oath to vote to acquit of an unconstitutional law, for I would be following the law. I wouldn't do it just because I disagree with the law; I'd vote to convict someone of doing 86mph on the freeway in a 75 zone, even if I thought that section was safe at 86mph. (I've spent enough time on the autobahns to have strong opinions about that). That's different from voting to acquit where I feel the law is illegal or a fraud (the shortened-yellow red-light cameras). One is a law I disagree with, but its the law; the other (the one I'd vote to nullify) is no law at all, because it is a fraud.

 

But, as a hypothetical, take Trevor's case, plus add a new twist: suppose there was no necessity defense or legal exemption for emergency in Australia, and they decided to go ahead and prosecute him for arriving without radioing in (assume he was arriving just as he did, but sans firearm). Even if he was technically guilty of that in the eyes of the law, I could not vote to convict, because doing so would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

 

Some states still have laws on the books making homosexuality a serious crime. They don't enforce them, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try. If you were on a jury in a case like that, would you vote to convict?

 

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

 

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US v Moylan, 1969

 

The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)

 

When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic. -- Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No. 4, 1980

 

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams

Or, to put it in my own words, a juror's highest duty is to Justice.

[MartyS]

Yes, but... a necessity defense is just that, a defense; it does not preclude charges nor change the fact that he did break the law. A prosecutor would be most highly unlikely to bring charges in such a case due to the certainty of acquittal, but he could bring charges. The same is true of the statute of limitations. If a crime was commited but the limitations clock has run out, the statute of limitations merely gives ironclad grounds for dismissal. Can the prosecutor still bring charges? Yep. Highly unlikely due to the certainty of dismissal, but still quite legal.

 

I particularly like that second link, to the Queensland site.

 

 

 

Interesting question! No, but where does one draw the line?

My own position is that I cannot, ethically, vote to convict if the law is massively wrong or has been outrageously abused (such as in the red light camera case I mentioned). That's not the same thing as me just disagreeing with the law. I mentioned speeding tickets because those were the only two real-world examples I could think of off the top of my head. The reason is that I only think jury nullification is warranted in extremely exceptional cases. Juries have to take oaths in the US, and those vary, but generally (going from memory of mine) they are to view the evidence and follow the law. So, would I violate my oath lightly? If I am forced to take it under duress (which is the case in some places, where you get cited for contempt if you refuse) no, because an oath taken under duress isn't bindings, and it's also unconstitutional and thus void. If not taken under duress, then it's a far stronger case. But still, there are clear areas where it's called for, such as in the case of an unconstitutional law. The constitution is the highest law, so I would feel it utterly consistent with my oath to vote to acquit of an unconstitutional law, for I would be following the law. I wouldn't do it just because I disagree with the law; I'd vote to convict someone of doing 86mph on the freeway in a 75 zone, even if I thought that section was safe at 86mph. (I've spent enough time on the autobahns to have strong opinions about that). That's different from voting to acquit where I feel the law is illegal or a fraud (the shortened-yellow red-light cameras). One is a law I disagree with, but its the law; the other (the one I'd vote to nullify) is no law at all, because it is a fraud.

 

But, as a hypothetical, take Trevor's case, plus add a new twist: suppose there was no necessity defense or legal exemption for emergency in Australia, and they decided to go ahead and prosecute him for arriving without radioing in (assume he was arriving just as he did, but sans firearm). Even if he was technically guilty of that in the eyes of the law, I could not vote to convict, because doing so would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

 

Some states still have laws on the books making homosexuality a serious crime. They don't enforce them, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try. If you were on a jury in a case like that, would you vote to convict?

 

 

 

Or, to put it in my own words, a juror's highest duty is to Justice.

 

 

Well CJ, you certainly present a well constucted defense of your beliefs.

 

I guess that is why so few members of a well known organization, were convicted in certain areas of our country, for the lynching, or worse, of members of a minority residing in those locations.

 

Any prospective member of a jury can easily inform the court, they could or could not render a fair verdict.

 

Just the thoughts that entered my mind while reading your posts.

 

Marty

Edited September 14, 2011 by MartyS

[Zombie]

Thanks for this CJ

Like Marty I've done a bit of Googling myself on the, as you say, non-existent interweb and I now understand that what you call "nullification" is an unusual feature in the US system:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

 

It seems this arises from the US's colourful history of weird and wonderful laws (slavery, apartheid, prohibition etc) which US juries would, as you say, nullify if they felt the law was wrong.

 

But, as Marty points out, if juries refuse to convict because of their own personal beliefs then this can work both ways i.e. for bad outcomes as well good ones e.g. the jury believe the KKK are good guys doing a swell job cleaning up the neighbourhood.

 

So when you ask "where does one draw the line?" the answer is you can't because you've already crossed the line that was drawn for the jury by the judge when he directed the jury as to how they must consider the evidence presented during the trial and the offence charged in reaching a verdict.

 

And, of course, I'm not going to accuse you of succumbing to the "Twelve Angry Men Syndrome" - the temptation to become Henry Fonda as you step into the Jury Room, anticipating the thrill of a titantic tussle to get a "just" result; maybe some dramatic arm movements to help explain pertinent points of law and justice to especially dim jurors, perhaps with a bit of table thumping at really dramatic moments (and waking up those who've dozed off) until, that is, you remember that the accused is just some old codger on a shoplifting charge who "forgot" he'd trousered some rather attractive bright purple crotchless underwear

[Benji]

Thanks for this CJ

Like Marty I've done a bit of Googling myself on the, as you say, non-existent interweb and I now understand that what you call "nullification" is an unusual feature in the US system:

 

http://en.wikipedia....y_nullification

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

It seems this arises from the US's colourful history of weird and wonderful laws (slavery, apartheid, prohibition etc) which US juries would, as you say, nullify if they felt the law was wrong.

 

But, as Marty points out, if juries refuse to convict because of their own personal beliefs then this can work both ways i.e. for bad outcomes as well good ones e.g. the jury believe the KKK are good guys doing a swell job cleaning up the neighbourhood.

 

So when you ask "where does one draw the line?" the answer is you can't because you've already crossed the line that was drawn for the jury by the judge when he directed the jury as to how they must consider the evidence presented during the trial and the offence charged in reaching a verdict.

 

And, of course, I'm not going to accuse you of succumbing to the "Twelve Angry Men Syndrome" - the temptation to become Henry Fonda as you step into the Jury Room, anticipating the thrill of a titantic tussle to get a "just" result; maybe some dramatic arm movements to help explain pertinent points of law and justice to especially dim jurors, perhaps with a bit of table thumping at really dramatic moments (and waking up those who've dozed off) until, that is, you remember that the accused is just some old codger on a shoplifting charge who "forgot" he'd trousered some rather attractive bright purple crotchless underwear

 

............. Far from taking the goats approach, I am reminded of one of the most profound movies I have ever watched; 'To Kill A Mockingbird' with Gregory Peck as the defense attorney in a overly prejudiced town in the south, in the 30's or 40's. To watch this classic is an understanding of the mentality set of the people, this is where CJ's argument resonates the most. Hence the closing scenes by the little girl made was a social statement in which she told her dad, 'Wouldn't that be like killing a Mockingbird?" The social impact would not be felt until a generation later, how hatred is allowed to linger on is anyones guess, but it persists today.

[Benji]

.................. I am so pissed off, I spent an hour replying only to have it disappear because of my server glitch! Not the first time this has happened to me either. I think I should go to word and copy paste back here.

[Benji]

.................. I am so pissed off, I spent an hour replying only to have it disappear because of my server glitch! Not the first time this has happened to me either. I think I should go to word and copy paste back here.

 

“I agree. What’s his name?” Henry asked.

 

“I haven’t been able to find it yet, which is rather odd. We need to look into that, probably via doing some legwork and paying a visit to those businesses tomorrow, as well as looking into the sale's records of the Aries and the Atlantis".

 

I'm biased, but having no name, means having no person, I think it is part of Bridget's persona, there is no Brother.

 

 

 

Henry silently cursed himself for blithely walking into that particular minefield. He chose his words with great care. “I’m in an awkward situation. I could have raised that issue, but then I’d be misdirecting this investigation if I did, and my clients are adamant that the threat to Trevor takes absolute priority. So, I can’t misdirect this investigation, even if it’d help my clients. I do have reason to believe that Bridget and George had nothing to do with the destruction of Ares or Rachel’s death. However, I didn’t want to tell you that, because it sure as hell sounds like the reason would be that Dirk did it and I know it. That’s not true, but I can’t say why. That’s why I tried to let that one slide.”

 

Biggest clue here, Henry has basically told Gonzale's that Rachel is alive, neither killed by either parties Gonzale's thought of.

 

 

Then we get this:

 

 

In the customs shack, Fowler and Grundig browsed Kline’s story and then did a news search for related ones. Fowler cleared his throat, and said, a bit awkwardly, “Craig, I can let you in on some more of this now. I’m working with a police officer in Florida named Gonzalez, and we’re trying to set up whoever is after Trevor. It looks like a cop there is involved in it, and I just got confirmation: it appears that the threat isn’t over. The theory is that they’re after Atlantis for some reason, so we’re using her as bait, with a little help from Jason Kline. I don’t trust him, but so far, he seems to be playing it straight with us. All he knows is we think someone might show up looking for Trevor or the boat, and he’s helping, in return for an exclusive if we get ‘em.”

 

Hehehe, want a WAG? I bet you that before this saga is completed Kline and Henry will both be killed!

That leads me to assume there is nothing on the Atlantis, the boats were never switched, as Ned and Fowler went over her, so the officer's have to conclude why is Trevor being targeted? Gonzale's will be the factor here, will he arrive at the conclusion that Trevor is under the gun simply for looking for his mothers lost boat as it relates to Bridget's business as well as her crime?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Benji

[MartyS]

Copy Copy Copy

 

 

 

This is a copy of my post in the Chapter 91 Thread

 

 

Hi Benji,

 

There appears to be a problem. This post of yours refers to you replying in Brainstorming. I do not see any post by you, in Brainstorming, that was posted today. There is one from you posted yesterday, which has nothing to do with my post in the Chapter 91 thread. Maybe another glitch?

 

Marty

[Benji]

Copy Copy Copy

 

 

 

This is a copy of my post in the Chapter 91 Thread

 

 

Hi Benji,

 

There appears to be a problem. This post of yours refers to you replying in Brainstorming. I do not see any post by you, in Brainstorming, that was posted today. There is one from you posted yesterday, which has nothing to do with my post in the Chapter 91 thread. Maybe another glitch?

 

Marty

 

........... Err, it's right above yours and yes it was yesterday!

 

[C James]

All three of you raise good points on the jury issue, but here's the fly in the ointment; as you've pointed out, juries are already able to vote "not guilty" based on prejudice, and always have been. Someone who does that isn't going to have any qualms about lying regarding why they voted as they did, or just keeping silent. I also see no viable way of preventing them from doing so, as detestable as it is. So, where does that leave jury nullification? Any attempt to ban it will leave only the dishonest uses IMHO.

 

.................. I am so pissed off, I spent an hour replying only to have it disappear because of my server glitch! Not the first time this has happened to me either. I think I should go to word and copy paste back here.

 

Ouch!!!

 

Benji, if that happens again, one way out is to try using your browser back button to get back to the edit screen so you can salvage your test. Also, as a backup, you can do a select all and then copy the text to your clipboard before hitting the post button.

 

And, as to Henry's statement to Gonzalez, saying Bridget and George didn't sink Ares and kill Rachel; you've both overlooked another possibility: that somebody did sink Ares and kill Rachel, and Henry knows who, but it's not Dirk, Bridget, or George.

 

Here's one possible culprit; remember the shady lawyer Jim works with, whose office he used when Trevor tipped him off that all hel was abotu to break lose? That lawyer (he's from Vegas!) seems suspicious, and who were Ares last charters? Lawyers...

 

Now, what's that Vegas lawyer's name? Benji!

 

Umm, Benji, did you sink Ares!?!?

[Benji]

Ouch!!!

 

Benji, if that happens again, one way out is to try using your browser back button to get back to the edit screen so you can salvage your test. Also, as a backup, you can do a select all and then copy the text to your clipboard before hitting the post button. Thanks!

 

And, as to Henry's statement to Gonzalez, saying Bridget and George didn't sink Ares and kill Rachel; you've both overlooked another possibility: that somebody did sink Ares and kill Rachel, and Henry knows who, but it's not Dirk, Bridget, or George.

 

Here's one possible culprit; remember the shady lawyer Jim works with, whose office he used when Trevor tipped him off that all hel was abotu to break lose? That lawyer (he's from Vegas!) seems suspicious, and who were Ares last charters? Lawyers...

 

Now, what's that Vegas lawyer's name? Benji!

 

Umm, Benji, did you sink Ares!?!?

 

 

Erhem! Can't say I recall any such thing happening! After all I innocent of any crime!

[MartyS]

I refuse to reply directly to that Balderdash posted by the Goat.

 

I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, long before I had my First Erection. I would be more likely to revert to those childhood fantasies than believe what the "Goat" posted. Any fantasies after that point in time are private and XXX rated.