C James

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.

Thanks!!! Yep, the pieces are starting to come together for all concerned.. but will it be in time? Basingstoke is a professional, so he's far more a threat than Trevor has faced before.

You've figured out a lot of things in the past, so if you're right, no surprise here. I wish I could do daily postings! I do feel this thing would read better with less time between chapters, but alas, not possible. I'm a slow typist (keyboards aren't designed for hooves). Not necessarily; If Basingstoke finds Kookaburra soon, he'd have no need of Kline, so no worries. Gonzalez has access because the chandlery was considered a crime scene at one point. Or, Henry gave him a key. The thing is, they were initially very cautious about their meetings. That's changed a bit, though. What cliffhangers?! There never are any!!! I'm glad that you at least agree there's no cliffhanger! It saves me from having to say again "One measly hitman does not a cliffhanger make!"

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. 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. 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. 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; 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? The first possible opportunity in this case would be when customs boarded him, so yep! He was flying a handmade emergency flag, too. The only thing he had to do more than 96 hours in advance was his electronic visa, which he did from Europe, with Joel.

"Getting Warmer" is up. I barely got this chapter up; my internet connection is highly intermittent, due to the huge thunderstorm here. I had to make three tries. If anything is amiss, please let me know. CJ

Chapter 91: Getting Warmer 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

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Me? Evil?!?!? :blink: Zombie... shame on you! I'm not evil!! And as for misdirecting, would I do a thing like that? Are you guys familiar with the onion defense? It's a method used by intelligence agencies when concealing something. The wrap it in a lie, wrapped up in another lie, etc, many layers, like an onion. Solve one part of it, and in doing so, lead yourself astray on the others. CJ

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