C James

A big THANK YOU to Graeme for organizing the latest anthology! Thank you also to Lugh, for putting it online and also for helping with the technical side. And thanks also to the authors and their teams! The latest anthology is Legends, and it looks like some good reading!

Basingstoke? He's not really a worry for Trevor and Shane, at all.

But Zombie... I'd never do anything bad! Fowler and Martin don't trust what's going on back in Florida, so they want to drum into Trevor's head: NEVER trust the phone or radio. Now, regarding what kind of high tech gear Basingstoke would have; no worries, it's just stuff that fits in with his two careers (security gadgetry and killing). You asked what kind of gear would be needed to evesdrop on a phone... Much depends on the phone. An analog cellular phone is supremely easy; a simple scanner (often called a police scanner) will do. In the US you can't buy them with the ability to scan cellular freqencies, so you either get one from overseas or just chip the thing. It's quite easy. Digital is a whole different ballgame. It's far more secure, because you need to know the algorithm used to reassemble the signal. Many cells today are digital, but in 2006, analog was far more common. A satellite phone is digital. So, if analog cellular is used at either end of the conversation, eavesdropping via a scanner is easy, provided you're within a few miles. A cordless home phone is easier, though you need to be closer. This, btw, is why it's never a good idea to use a credit card over a wireless phone of any kind (including a cell) unless it's secure digital. The long and the short of it is that phones are nowhere near as secure as most people think, so "not trusting the phone" for sensitive info is a pretty well-founded concern. And BTW, I had nothing to do with Basingstoke's skills; I didn't pick him, Sanchez did, so blame him, not me! There's been a large scandal in the UK regarding journalists hacking into phones. Look at the records for any real investigation when there were strong elements of doubt at first. They zig and they zag all over the place. People have parts right, parts wrong, and struggle to put together a solid case. Insidious? Sweet little me? Basingstoke might just be a plain old uninteresting background characther, like a store clerk, etc. We really don't know. Yes, I really beleive that!!! I never use cliffhangers, so of course that's not why Basingstoke is there. Also, as is often said, one hit man does not a cliffhanger make! It was also, I need to point out, not me who sent basingstoke; sanchez did. And... there's not much time left to fill. We do skip ahead a few days here shortly.

Benji, the US can't do much with foreign citizens who aren't within the US; they cannot be compelled to testify, nor would telling one something overseas be a crime from a US perspective. Marty, I don't always keep the Florida scenes perfectly synced with respect to timezones, unless there's a phone call involved, but basically I do keep to the same day as other events, so you don't have to worry that there's a differing timeline for Florida. There sometimes is, but it's on the order of hours, not days.

Thank you!!! I can take no credit for the editing and betaing to give a polished result; all credit there goes to my awesome team. They are the best, and this story is very much a team effort.

One thing to bear in mind: What's the reason for the phone security? Martin Blake summed it up pretty well in the final line in chapter 91: They know there's likely a leak in Florida. Their main concern isn't the calls being overheard in Australia, but to keep Trevor from spilling anything to anyone in Florida, by making him treat phone calls with great care. :-) Manipulative, but well-intended. :-)

They did well to sneak in right under his nose. BTW, if anyone thinks I took liberties with the tide, river flow, and weather conditions, I didn't. Those wee the actual conditions that day (Dec 7, 2006) in Kalbarri. The Murchison had a high flow that year, due to a major storm inland a few months prior. For those with Google Earth, you can see the differences in river flow between years by using the time feature to look at older satellite images. As for the rain; that was the only day in December 2006 that it rained in Kalbarri. Thanks Red! Yep, I've been in a few river mouths, and those with bars (shallows across the mouth) are tricky. The Columbia Bar at the mouth of the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington is notorious, and I was just a passenger, hanging on with white knuckles. Red A helped me a lot with this chapter, he's a real pro. Trying that river mouth at night was risky... trying it in a storm was worse. If Trevor was a regular there it might have been safer, but he was literally running blind and depending on instruments a lot. Heh, it was actually dumb luck. I';d already picked Kalbarri. It's basically the only navigable river on that coast, and also the only port or anchorage in the area (there's nothing between there and Shark Bay). An Australian freind sent me the map below that shows the names well.

Thanks!I had help on the boat handling: Red A is a real pro, and he advised me on quite a number of things for this entry.

Thanks!River bars are hairy, especially in high seas. That one is worse than most; it has both rocky outcroppings and sand on the bar, a very bad mix.

You're right; a calendar date is needed. I'll add that in 93. For now though, they are at anchor in the early morning hours of Friday, Dec 8th, 2006. The day which reveals all the backstory, all of it, (to us readers, at least) is Sunday, Dec 17th, 2006. The days-per chapter speeds up as well, so we get there rather fast. And of course, there are no cliffhangers on the way (there never are in my stories!)

Running the Gauntlet is up. I added some maps, placed inline, because it's hard to understand where they are at without them. And BTW, though it might look like it, no, I didn't make up any of the place names. (such as an island mentioned). :-)

I'll have to see if I can find the chapter, ah, here we go, 33, in which we learned a lot about Bridget. Here are two key paragraphs; It's mentioned later in the story that the "something else" is quite real. It is also what Bridget truly fears (thus showing that it's a far greater danger than the asset list). We don't yet know what it is. See? No spoiler! Under the influence, eh? The upgrade is still ongoing. However, I use the spellchecker in Firefox, which works just fine. I think there may be one for IE now too. CJ

I aspire to be many things, but dinner is not amongst them!

Heh, I do try to put in a lot of info... such as making the places literally real. Sometimes that takes maps; here's one example; no matter how hard I tried in the narration, many people had a fixed impression that Gibraltar is at the narrowest part of the Strait of Gibraltar, and is also the south-westernmost point of Europe and the southernmost point on the Iberian peninsula. In fact, it is none of these things, but that seems a common misconception. So, I added maps. One of the hardest things to keep real was Trevor's improvised navigation techniques in the Southern Ocean. Some of it was standard emergency navigation techniques, but his method for compensating for the sun's seasonal changes (appearing higher in the northern sky every day, in this case) was difficult. Trevor's method is his alone; I've found no mention of it anywhere, even in emergency nav manuals, and it works a hell of a lot better (I have actually tried it from my house, just like his paper arbelast) than the "normal" method of just dividing the change by the number of days. Well, they do say that necessity is the mother of invention, and Trevor was certainly in a case of necessity, so he invented something new, without realizing it. :-) As for Trevor and Shane's wastelines; as anyone over 25 hates everyone under 25 for, at their age, so long as they are very active, they can get away with eating damn near anything. Oh, BTW, Zombie? You forgot something in the known-knowns: We all know that I never, ever use cliffhangers. That's a known known.

Chapter 92: Running the Gauntlet In Florida, Gonzalez and Henry were due to meet in the chandlery again. Gonzalez, with much on his mind and clutching the Coast Guard report on Ares, reached the chandlery’s back door, finding it unlocked. Gonzalez walked in and after a nod of greeting, Henry said, “Hi Mike. A few new developments. I did some checking into Bridget’s brother. He’s a silent partner in quite a few things. A very silent partner; no one will admit to even meeting him. I did a bi

All the threads come together very shortly, over the next few chapters. The phone security they keep emphasizing is mainly to keep Trevor from disclosing anything to anyone in Florida. You're right though, any eavesdropper might be bale to figure out from the description where they are going.

Just time for a quick post, due to my internet connection acting up. I'd like to add a bit to the reasons Bridget is after Trevor; She figured out that her late husband hid something on Ares, something other than her asset list (the latter is the reason she gave Sanchez). She fears whatever this is, believing it will be the end of her if it ever comes to light. That's why she does not want the wreck of Ares found, and so she wants to kill Trevor. She wants to either kill or imprison Lisa and Joel for a similar reason; she has good reason to believe they'd continue Trevor's quest for Ares if Trevor dies. Sanchez was paid by Bridget to put a hit out on Trevor, but so far he's failed twice, which is a professional embarrassment. Now, for the next chapter title: Running the Gauntlet CJ

BTW, something to be aware of; posts in threads sort themselves by time of posting, not time of starting he reply. What this means is if you're replying to a post, someone else might post in the meantime, and their post will appear before yours. Marty! Won't you even consider that Benji might be the culprit? Hrmmm... Benji, you say you're innocent? Hrmmm... sounds like denial to me! And BTW, Benji, wasn't it you who was speculating some time ago about Trevor and Shane heading inland? Won't they be doing just that, on Kookaburra, if the Kalbarri plan works?

You ate GOAT??!?!? :blink: :ph34r: And yep, They are mainly emphasizing the phone security to keep Trevor from blabbing to Florida. :-)

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. 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!?!?

I've tried Dragon... it's great, but not for me. I have a weird way of writing. I draft out a sentence, then rework it. It's very stop-and-go. Using Dragon, I end up with a mess. Also, Dragon is supposed to work in most languages, but it doesn't do very well with goat.

Hrmmm... Well, Henry's first trip to the chandlery (when he foxed the security cam) certainly drew quite police response. And erk, it says in chapter 55, hellbound, that it was NOT marked as a crime scene. Gonzalez had clearly been inside the chandlery at some point before meeting Henry, so it had been treated as a crime scene and thus he had to have some way in at leas once, but no mention of it since. And, uhoh, in 66, where Gonzalez thinks Trevor is dead and needs a place to meet with Lisa and Joel, he ASKS Henry to let him into the Chandlery. I'll add a mention in this chapter that Henry had given Gonzalez a key. He'd do so, because it's in his client's interests, so far as he has been told. (they do want Gonzalez's help and cooperation). Thanks!!!! CJ EDIT: The chapter now begins; It was a clear, cool morning in Ft. Pierce, as Gonzalez wore a path pacing down the aisle of the chandlery, waiting for Henry to arrive. He glanced around, seeing that the store was beginning to look a bit dusty, with a few cobwebs spun not far from the door. It was the first time he'd been in the chandlery alone - Henry had only recently given him a key, to facilitate their common goals. Gonzalez angled his head, wondering who was paying the rent, and how. He knew it wasn’t Dirk or Jim, not via their known accounts. He assumed that a landlord would not let the store sit idle for so long, if the rent was unpaid.

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.

Lisa and Joel will be heard form soon. Generally, if not much has happened with a character in the timeframe of the other scenes in the chapter, I tend to leave them out. If I didn't, we'd have had many scenes of Dirk and Jim in the Tampa condo, doing nothing. The plotlines are all converging, and yep, something very large and climactic is coming. :-)

Thanks!!!!I'm trying to bring it all together; the characters are now discovering things, and things come to a head very shortly. Umm, maybe the phrase "come to a head" isn't a good one for me to use, considering what Basingstoke is after.