C James

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

A paragraph space is a line on the page, isn't it?

It's a legitimate spoiler. It's a direct quote, taken right off the page of a coming chapter.

I think I've got a pretty good idea what he's up to. We should see the answer in the next chapter, Getting Warmer, to what he's up to... assuming I'm right. I can name one thing he possesses; the firsthand account of intercepting Atlantis off Carnarvon, after Trevor had run the gauntlet between Dorre and Bernier islands. Hrmmm.. maybe I just like key lime pie? Fowler certainly isn't objecting; when she makes a pie for Trevor, he gets some too. It wouldn't be fair to the readers to plant a misleading trail unless there was an alternative explanation for it. I'm not saying I didn't, but... if I did, there's also a reason that explains it at some point in the story. CJ

I can't say much, but I can say conclusively, without much fear of contradiction, that the primary gist of the theories espoused here are either correct, or incorrect. So, I've narrowed it down to two options. And hrmmm, perhaps I should give a little spoiler?

One thing I can promise; we don't do a chapter-a-day coverage between now and Dec 17th; things speed up.

Poor Trevor; getting blasted with a fire extinguisher definitely wasn't on his to-do list.

Ned and Shane's animosity... Well, I can't say what it is without giving a spoiler, but I can say it's not sexual, and that there is a root cause, which we'll see soon. Umm, well, a caveat on a small part of it; there's a minor sexual aspect, one we've seen; Shane was nice enough to flirt with Ned's wife, which he mentioned doing a few chapters back. That's the only sexual aspect, and it wasn't the root cause, just a continuation of their feud. :-)

Thanks! I wanted to make Kline not be just cut and dried bad; instead, he just has a very unusual moral compass. In his own eyes, he's moral, even though it's also rather conveniently (for him) self-interest centered.

But that's not a cliffhanger! We really don't know what Basingstoke will do to find Trevor. And besides, we don't even know that Basingstoke has evil intent; he might just want to help Trevor complete his circumnavigation, piecemeal. So, no worries... Hey now! It was clearly Ned, not me, who blasted Trevor with a fire extinguisher! And even that was accidental; he was aiming for Shane. So, blame Ned, not me!!! I'm innocent. There are as many ways to know of many things, as there are of things of which to know. Well, hrmmm, maybe Trevor will start looking for another haircut, and Basingstoke will pose as a barber, just be helpful. I'm sure he'd be delighted to give Trevor a few inches off the top.

I'm not saying this is, or isn't, in the story, but just as a point of law; the conspiracy rule for statutes of limitations starts ticking as of the last overt act of the conspiracy. :-)

"Turning up the Heat" is up. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have weighed in on recent issues and threads. And, now is a good time to announce a correction to the prior chapter; Basingstoke's call sign has been changed from four zulu uniform to delta zulu uniform. This is due to an error on my part; that call sign is, as is normal for general aviation, the last three digits of his tail number. However, Australia, unlike America, does not use numerics in their tail numbers, just letters, so the "four" was wrong, hence the fix. (thanks to Low Flyer for the help on this one!) CJ

Ooops!!! I forgot!!! Err, okay, I could release it now, but it's a tad late; the chapter just went live, and the thread will be up next.

Chapter 90: Turning Up the Heat Off the eastern Shore of Dorre Island, Trevor guided the Zodiac north, skimming along on the calm morning waters beneath the low, red, shore cliffs. Trevor spotted her first, as they rounded a headland and entered Disaster Cove. “There’s Star Child,” Trevor said, heading for her. “Great, I get to see Ole’ Ned again,” Shane said, wrinkling his nose. Trevor chuckled. “Just don’t let him get to you. Maybe he’ll be okay. When I saw him Monday I

Coincidentally, turning up the heat is actually the next chapter's title, which I'll be posting in a few minutes.

Cliffy?!?!? But I'd never do that!

Some great stuff here!!!! I can't say much, except to mention that part of the cites refer to civil statutes of limitations, which can be different in some regards to criminal ones. (though it's possible that both civil and criminal statues might be relevant). For fraud, you can escape criminal charges via the statute of limitations, but not civil in many cases; the damaged party can still sue you for recovery plus damages (interest, legal fees, etc) in civil court if the purpose was fraud. CJ :-)