TIME SHIP (Book Two) - A Time Travel Romantic Adventure

by Ian C. P. Irvine

  The drive to prosecute the pirates came initially from the office of the Governor of Puerto Rico himself. However, in the months to come, he himself was dragged into the story and prosecuted by the United States government for theft and tax evasion.

  A month after the residents of the resort were finally released, a Florida newspaper published an astonishing story, claiming that the pirate ship at anchor in the Emerald Bay Resort was full to the brim with treasure: a vast, uncounted, treasure that was unparalleled in the history of man. The newspaper that had published the story, -along with photographs of the treasure taken on an iPhone, had bought the rights for the story from a medical worker. He had been helping in the resort and had been one of the only people allowed on board the vessel, and he had seen the treasure for himself.

  Several months later, during the court process and subsequent trials, the General Manager of the Blue Emerald Bay Resort, a Miss Sally-Anne Davis, had confirmed that such a treasure did in fact exist. She also stated that as part of the initial negotiation process to end the hostage crisis, the Governor of Puerto Rico had promised and assured the pirate captain that the pirates would retain all ownership of the ship and all of their possessions, - if they agreed to surrender. Which they subsequently did.

  A big legal battle then erupted as to who legally owned the treasure, and whether or not the treasure could legitimately be described as being part of the pirates' possessions.

  By this time, the treasure had been removed from the pirate vessel - the Sea Dancer - and had been transferred to several secure storage sites for safe keeping.

  Three months after the legal proceedings against the pirates began, several artifacts and gold coins began to appear on the black market, and a few were purchased and shown on television.

  Questions were soon being asked as to just 'how securely' the treasure was being stored in Puerto Rico. Federal agents were soon called into investigate, and suspicions emerged that during transit to the secure locations, a certain percentage of the treasure was 'lost'.

  Various charges were soon brought against the Governor of Puerto Rico, and other leading officials, including the Superintendent of Police. In the months to come, these charges were never proven, and the cases against the defendants were dropped. Shortly afterwards both the Governor and the Superintendent resigned and retired. The missing treasure was never recovered and never quantified.

  As soon as the proceedings in the first court case began, it became clear that this was going to be no ordinary case.

  What were the pirates guilty of?

  They had come ashore and attempted to steal food and water, and some alcohol. That much was clear, and the Puerto Rican pirates freely admitted to that. However, in their favor, as soon as they had realised that the laws under which they had lived all their lives had now changed, and that they were now somehow in another time, in another century, under different jurisdiction, they had negotiated with the authorities, surrendered, and offered to return anything they had stolen.

  A charge had been made that the pirates had shot at the guards of the resort, but witnesses amongst the residents later came forward and stated that in actual fact the first shot had been fired by the guards, and that Paddy O'Brian, now deceased due to the plague, had acted only in self-defense. Given that he was dead, the case was not pursued.

  Strangely, although some of the residents did lay initial allegations against the pirates for brutality, as the months passed, many of the residents dropped their charges, and the cases were abandoned. Residents of the resort who had endured and survived the crisis became media celebrities, and many went on to make a considerable amount of money from public, radio and TV appearances. As the popularity of the pirates grew, very few of the residents retained any long lasting grudge or negative feeling about what had happened to them. Those that did complain or seek any form of individual judicial redress against the pirates soon found themselves the target of social media hate campaigns, and many quickly withdrew their claims.

  During the trials, civil and criminal charges were brought against twenty-three of the individual pirates, for acts committed during the crisis at the resort. Sadly, all but three of those individuals had died during the outbreak and quarantine period, including those who had committed the rapes and been shot under curfew rules enforced during the crisis. Of the three that survived, two were successfully prosecuted for being drunk and disorderly, and fined. Their fines were paid by donations sent in by the newly formed fan club.

  It emerged during the trial hearings that two of the most serious offences, of brutality and theft, had been committed by the quartermaster of the Sea Dancer, - a Mr James Silver. When he was identified as missing, presumed dead, the case against him was suspended.

  Lawyers for the pirates settled out of court with the owners of the hotel chain that owned the Blue Emerald Bay.

  Afterwards, quite a few of the pirates were offered and accepted employment by the same hotel chain, which proposed to build a new pirate themed Hotel in Las Vegas. Advance bookings for the new hotel, and the opportunity to meet the pirates and have a banquet with them, soon outstripped availability. Within weeks the hotel was booked solidly for at least two years, and its future was almost guaranteed even though construction had not yet started. As part of the out-of-court settlement, it was agreed by the lawyers representing the pirates, that an undisclosed percentage of the value of the treasure would be paid to the hotel owners, if and when the treasure was returned to their ownership. However, it was also noted and agreed that, whereas the pirates were solely guilty of disrupting the running and business of the hotel for a period of at most twenty-four hours, the subsequent closure of the hotel, its quarantine and the imposition of Martial Law, was due to action enforced by the Puerto Rican Government. Consequently, any action seeking further redress for lost business and revenue would be a matter for resolution between the hotel chain and the Puerto Rican Government.

  Charge by charge, the other cases against the pirates were either dropped, or lost.

  Clearly, they were not 'terrorists', because in the end, no one had really been terrorized, and the company who owned the hotel chain would not prosecute, and more importantly, neither of the definitions of terrorism - as prescribed by Title 22 (Chapter 38) or Title 18 of the United States Code - could here be applied to the pirates.

  In the end, the actions against the Pirates of Puerto Rico boiled down to two distinct considerations.

  Undoubtedly, the men who had attacked the Blue Emerald Bay Resort were 'pirates'. Several of those that had survived were even known and identifiable from historical records: they were wanted men, with documented arrest warrants against their names. But could one country prosecute for crimes committed in another, over three hundred and fifteen years ago?

  Should they be set free?

  And the treasure?

  It was widely suspected that the treasure had been stolen, and had come into the possession of the pirates illegally. But could this be proven? Was this not actually an unfair supposition based upon prejudice towards pirates? Who was to say that the pirates did not legitimately own the treasure they held within the hold of their own ship, until it was removed- and 'stolen' from them by the authorities of Puerto Rico?

  The cases raised many questions which affected the interests of Americans at a national level, and which broke new legal ground.

  The cases against the Pirates of Puerto Rico were first heard in the courts in San Jose, and the charges were brought and prosecuted by the Puerto Rican legal authorities. Within days the Federal Court exercised its right to pursue the cases, on several grounds, not the least being that the pirates were not Puerto Rican nationals or citizens, thus granting the Federal Court jurisdiction. The trials were then moved to the Federal Court in San Jose under Federal Law. A case like this had never been tried before.

  Within weeks, the importance of the cases were fully realized by the legal authorities, and became arguably one of the most unique
in American history. To ensure that the best and brightest of the U.S. judicial system should deal with the cases - urgently and with adequate security and protection for all those involved, it was decided to move all proceedings to Washington D.C., close to the heart of Government.

  As the threats that time travel posed to the security of the United States became better understood, several Presidential Decision Directives were issued, temporarily outlawing all non-Government sanctioned time travel until Congress was able to bring new emergency laws into place which would fully legislate and cover the expansive national security and legal issues that time travel now created.

  As such, the remaining cases against the 'Pirates' soon found themselves, not surprisingly, being heard in Washington D.C. by the Supreme Court of the United States.

  --------------------

  At 4.05 p.m. the decisions of the Supreme Court were announced by the Chief Justice, who spoke on behalf of himself and his eight associate justices. Their first decision had been unanimous.

  The Pirates of Puerto Rico were to be set free. The Chief Justice had cited a long list of reasons why they felt compelled to support the dropping of all charges and find the claims against the defendants not proven. These included, amongst others, the simple fact that although some of the group of alleged pirates were known criminals and were suspected or even indicted in reported crimes against individuals, companies and several different countries, these crimes had been committed over three hundred and fifteen years ago. The prosecution today would have been unable to provide any witnesses: all those involved, apart from the defendants, were dead, and none of the aggrieved companies still existed.

  In essence, the statute of limitations on all their historical crimes had been exceeded.

  Furthermore, these crimes were committed in lands and territories which did not come under the jurisdiction of the United States, and at a time when the United States of America did not exist and hence no judicial system yet existed to establish the civil and criminal laws by which it could be judged whether or not any offences had been committed.

  Lastly, as many of the men did not lay claim to any specific nationality, and carried no identification papers, it would be impossible to forcibly repatriate them to any other country where alternative legislation may apply: not surprisingly, advised by their lawyers to do so, many of the pirates had also claimed asylum in the United States.

  --------------------

  The decision about the ownership of the treasure was more complicated, and had been divided.

  Clearly, the artifacts forming the pirate hoard found aboard the Sea Dancer, were in all probability, stolen. However, the pirates did claim ownership, and when it was confiscated from the pirates, it was at that time found to be within their group possession and located within their communal property. Property which quite obviously, had been in the possession of the pirates for the last three hundred and fifteen years. At least.

  And yet, it was allegedly stolen.

  If the treasure had been in the possession of the pirates for over three hundred years, and no one else had made specific claim to ownership of the afore mentioned treasure during that time, on what basis should the Supreme Court now challenge said ownership?

  Furthermore, if the Supreme Court was to rule that the property was stolen, and that the stolen property should be returned to its 'legal' owners, who should it be returned to? No prior owners could be identified. And if the Supreme Court did rule that the assets should be returned, would it not then open the flood gates to other claims that were clearly not in the interests of the United States of America, as a whole?

  For example, much of the land that formed part of the United States had been stolen or swindled from the native Indians who had occupied or lived in America for centuries prior to the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers and the 'White Man.'

  If the Supreme Court were to rule that the treasure on board the Sea Dancer should be returned to its owners - and they were subsequently identified - would that not create a legal precedent which allowed the Indians to reclaim the land that the Government of America had stolen from them?

  If the treasure had been taken during combat with other nations, by decreeing that the pirates were not the legal owners - after three hundred and fifteen years of possession - how far back in history would prior enemies of America be allowed to go in claiming back lands, money, or possessions that America had taken from them against their will in previous conflicts?

  And so on.

  There were many variations of the question that could be created, and all would lead to the same thing: it was against the U.S. interest to decide that the pirates were not the legal owners of the treasure.

  And yet, by doing this, it would create other problems. Problems which were new in nature and had never been faced by any court before.

  --------------------

  "...And so, in summary of the discussion concerning the matter of 'possession' and the decision as to who is the legal owner of the artifacts collectively grouped together and described as the 'Pirate Treasure' that was found aboard the Sea Dancer,...it is the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice that the Pirates are the legal owners. In this instance we are reminded of the saying that many young lawyers learn in law school, namely that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. In other words, there is a presumption that a person or group of people in possession of assets have the right to possess those assets: in this case, since the pirates have been in possession for over three hundred and fifteen years, we find it not possible to dispute their claim."

  A large cheer went up from the crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court Building as this section of the decision was read out by one of the pirates' lawyers from the Courthouse steps.

  "However, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is cognizant of the uniqueness of the circumstances surrounding the arrival of the defendants at the Blue Emerald Bay Resort in Puerto Rico, namely, that they traveled through time from the year 1699 and arrived in the year 2014. Whereas the scientific basis upon which such events is not clearly understood by the Court, we are advised by our scientific advisors that this has happened, and this consequently represents the first recorded proven instance of such an event occurring in the history of mankind."

  "As such, we must be prepared to accept that such events will happen again. In particular, we would be foolish not to anticipate that scientists around the world will now focus heavily on making this possibility a reality. Consequently, given the rapid advancement of scientific discoveries and capabilities over the past few centuries, it is our view that the possibility of a man, woman or groups of people travelling from one time period to another is likely to happen again sooner rather than later."

  "As jurists, this creates for us a unique problem. Today we have agreed that the ownership of the treasure discovered aboard the Sea Dancer collectively remains with the pirates who sail aboard the Sea Dancer. Yet, understanding that it will soon be possible for individuals to travel back and forward in time through the artificial creation of what we understand is called a 'Hunraken Vortex', we must consider that not all those who will embark upon such an adventure will do so for the common good, or for purposes of scientific research. In fact, it is highly likely that, at some point in the future, individuals will chose to travel through time purely for personal gain, namely, travelling back to a previous time, with the premeditated intention of stealing items of significant worth or strategic or political value. Alternatively, we must also consider that possible instances may occur where time travelers may return to the present from the future or the past, carrying items of considerable value, but where there is no premeditated or malicious intention relating to theft."

  "In summary, we must be aware that some people will see the opportunity that may exist to steal or plunder valuable items from the past, and bring them back to the future."

  "Having been assured that this may in future be possible, and with an example of it alr
eady happening in Puerto Rico, the Supreme Court of the United States must support measures now taken to prevent this from happening again. As such, we issued an exceptional writ to the United States Attorney General demanding him to present the argument to this court that new laws must go into effect immediately which specifically and categorically forbids the temporal transfer of assets from one time period to another. We have been advised by the scientific community that 'temporal asset transportation' could, under certain circumstances, threaten the stability of our societies, and could even threaten our very existence by creating an imbalance in the time-space continuum. It is therefore very clear that this behavior must be prevented - at all costs. For example, what would happen if someone were to travel back in time and steal the body of Jesus, the Mona Lisa or the Magna Carta, or the paperwork that led to the discovery of penicillin, or the plans for the first atomic bomb - before those plans had been used and the first bomb had been built? Whereas these may not be the best examples of the sort of problems that stealing objects from the past could create, we are confident that criminals could and would find others more appropriate and dangerous."

  "In consideration of the unparalleled threat that 'temporal asset transportation' could pose, the Supreme Court of America rules that the new laws now created by Congress and earlier argued in front of this Court by the Attorney General, are constitutional, and therefore we uphold these laws, which seek specifically to ensure that anyone found attempting to, or having engaged in this practice, will be guilty of the crime of treason against the United States. Furthermore, we agree that all goods and assets recovered at any time from crimes involving 'temporal asset transportation' within our borders, will be immediately forfeit and will and do automatically become the property of the United States Government."