Ah, yes, thank you for meeting me on such short notice. I realize that my message was rather dire, but then again these are peculiar circumstances. I also know that you don't know me from Adam, and that it took a great deal of trust for you to agree to this meeting. For that, I thank you.
No doubt you are here because I mentioned in my letter that this has to do with your late husband's will, and some of the more peculiar aspects of it. Yes, I can see by your expression that this is a sensitive subject, and I hope that I can explain this matter clearly. I am indeed referring to the, er, belt ... that you wear about your person at all times. If I understand correctly, it was an out-of-court settlement to halt divorce proceedings. Am I right?
Ah, please, do not be upset by this. I make no judgement about your actions or your relationship with your late husband. I know that you were very young when you married him, and his cruelty was indeed legendary. No, I am here for more technical matters which I hope to cover, but I must be clear that we both are on the same page when it comes to your current situation. Please, have a glass of wine and hear me to the end.
The will was recently unsealed and placed in the public record due to a dispute with your late husband's financial interests, and I have had the opportunity to both read the transcript and watch the video declaration. The section on your inheritance was quite generous, to your credit, but at the end of it he held up a Daveys Cryptographic RadioKey and slipped it into his pocket. At this point, he announced that the key was to be in his pocket during cremation, and that you would receive it as promised in the urn with his remains.
Ah, please, I cannot stand to watch such a beautiful woman cry. Please, accept my handkerchief and I will allow you a few moments before continuing. You must understand that I have pieced most of this story together from outside sources, and I wanted to make sure that I had all the facts straight before telling you what I have to say. No, please, keep the handkerchief. It is the least I can do.
Now, I understand that your counsel has gone to great lengths to try and acquire a copy of this key, with no success. The Daveys CryptoLock corporation did not keep a copy in escrow, and your late husband never requested that a second key be made. I can say this for a complete certainty because I am the son of Richard Daveys, founder of the company, and I designed the particular model used by Chastity Secured, Ltd.
Ah, now I can see that you have a thousand questions, and rightly so. Please understand that because of the sensitive and personal nature of this situation, I require that you permit me to explain things in an order of my choosing.
Now, I was approached by CS Limited to do the design work, and my company won the contract partly by accepting payment in voting shares. What this means is that for the past several years I have been sitting on the board of Chastity Secured, and occasionally voting in board meetings. It is from this perspective that I witnessed their decline and fall.
One of the moments that clued me into the unsustainable nature of the company's business was when we had a recall. Having done the technical design work on the locking and cryptographic entry system, I acutely understood all of the security and privacy implications of any system errors. The CS Guarantee was trusted by thousands of customers, and they relied on their good word. But they dragged their heels on the recall, and in the end only managed to send out recall notices to a particular class of customer. On a number of special cases, yours included, they buried the problem until the company dissolved completely.
Please, I understand that this gives you great anxiety, but I must insist that on every board meeting I did everything within my power to see that your needs and those of others in similar situations to yours were met. I voted uselessly against all manner of procedural blocks that stalled such critical company decisions in favor of executive pay rises and layoff strategies. I saw this as a human rights issue, but the board did not see things my way.
Now, to cover specifics, the recall had to do with a particular added feature to the CS Long-Term PleasureShield model. I believe your late husband purchased the complete EterniTease package for your belt, shortly after you were fitted for it. I must ask you now: did he have it installed before he died? Ah, yes, did he. Well, I'm afraid that is the bad news.
Please be honest with me, now: is it still functioning completely? The warmer? The tickler? The massager? Please, I understand that this is embarrassing to tell a complete stranger, but it is of the utmost and vital importance that I know the facts. Is it ... teasing you, right now?
Yes? Ah, good. You may be in luck then. We may still have time.
You see, I designed the CRK system -- oh, sorry, Cryptographic RadioKey -- anyway, I designed the locking and entry system to have an internal power source that would last the wearer's lifetime. The entire system remains idle until a key entry is attempted, at which point the challenge-response system engages and -- Ah, I see, you are familiar with the lock's operation. Yes, I'd imagine that in your circumstances you've become a quick study on locksmithing, metalwork, cryptography, and reproductive biology. I hope I'm not being too forward to say that your particularly ... blonde reputation in the popular press is entirely undeserved.
At any rate, the locking mechanism itself has no problem, and there are all manner of safeguards to prevent drain either accidentally or by a malicious individual. The power to unlock the belt is a problem that I thought long and hard about, and I am very pleased with the solutions that I developed for it. I assume you've read the relevant patents? Ah, commendable!
.... There is more of this story ...