Cape Canaveral Shipwreck finds

[Black Duck]

They didn't, there is no proof of this do to the fact there is no proof. And no one has proven that nor has it been ruled on.

The State really has nothing to with this issue other than they collaborated with France with out GME's knowledge to cause a tortious interference on Four of the Five shipwrecks discovered by GME.
Disputed Facts
A. La Trinité was not a Sunken Military Craft as defined
in the SMCA.

La Trinité was a civilian Huguenot re-supply vessel dispatched to the Fort Caroline Huguenot outpost at the present-day St. John’s River near Jacksonville. Doc. 64, Verified Statement of Dr. Robert H. Baer. “She was not any military ship, Trinité was a cargo ship, bringing supplies, civilians and money to the new French Colony.” Doc. 65, Verified Statement of Dr. Lubos Kordac. This position is universally accepted by academics and Huguenot historians as well as contemporary
historians of the French colonial period. Doc. 64, Verified Statement of Robert H. Baer. Use of the term “naval expedition” does not mean that Ribault’s colony resupply mission was actually a Navy warship in battle. The term “naval expedition” is often used by historians when referring to “waterborne” or “cargo” vessels. Doc. 64. At the time La Trinité sailed in 1565, France hadn’t yet organized a military navy, which happened in 1624. Doc 64, p. 1. At the time of Ribault’s resupply mission, France and Spain were not at war. Doc. 65, p. 1.

The SMCA prohibits the rescue or recovery of a sunken military craft. The Act defines “military craft” as “any sunken warship…owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank…” Id. at § 1408(3)(A). France asserts that La Trinité was a warship sunk in military battle. Neither the Admiralty Court in GME I nor the Eleventh Circuit declared La Trinité a warship on military noncommercial war mission when it sank. See GME I; Glob. Marine Expl., Inc. v. Republic of Fr., 33 F.4th 1312, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2022). The Admiralty Court resolved GME I on a single factual determination: whether the ship artifacts were that of La Trinité. Upon determination that the res was French, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) foreclosed subject matter jurisdiction absent statutory exception. GME I. Beyond finding the res to be La Trinité, the decision is dicta and has no precedential effect. See, e.g., Fresh Results, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. ASF Holland, B.V., 921 F.3d 1043, 1049 (11th Cir. 2019)

(dicta is those portions of an opinion not necessary to decide the case and has no precedential value). “Regardless of what a court says in its opinion, the decision can hold nothing beyond the facts of that case.” Id. (citing Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298 (11th Cir. 2010)).

Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision was limited to a determination whether French commercial activities fell within an exception to FSIA. In assessing France’s present-day actions, the Eleventh Circuit was required to analyze France’s present-day activities and determine if they were commercial in nature. Glob. Marine Expl., Inc. v. Republic of Fr., 33 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022). The Court’s depiction of Ribault’s acts in 1656 were not relevant to its analysis and adjudication of France’s present-day commercial activity and have no binding effect here. See Fresh Results, 921 F.3d at 1049.
France points to no factual record evidence to support its position that La Trinité falls within the definition of a military craft. Notably, it files this motion before discovery has even occurred. The only record evidence related La Trinité in these proceedings is presented by GME and that evidence refutes France’s claims. Given that GME presents record evidence contrary to what France contends, summary judgment must be denied.
This is public information

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Magoopeter]

SMCA, I take it the USA has not revoked their international agreement in terms of the definition of what a warship is, the SMCA, I’m not sure what way the law works in the USA, but I take it that unless all the other previous laws conventions have been revoked and replaced with the SCMA the previous case laws and conventions should take president over the SMCA.

The SMCA definition of a military craft or warship seems not to be consistent with the original international agreement on the definition of a warship, even if the Trinite was a warship under the definition, the fact the navel commander and crew left the ship abandoned it before sinking means it can not fall withing the definition of a warship.

Also, the United States by it own actions have not been consistent with this ruling in other words there are cases that could be used to show that the United States government has salvaged foreign warships, so has been carrying on and approving a completely different policy.

Then there is the question of obstruction of its own laws and sovereignty and the fact that the United States in granting immunity and protection from salvage or removal of artifacts from the ship could in fact obstructing its own law and other international agreements.

By the protection of a foreign states shipwreck within the United States own jurisdiction, this could mean it cannot enforce it own law or adhere to some international agreements it has in place with other Foreign States.

 

[Black Duck]

All good points

 

[TheRealTim]

I haven’t read the full case but will do and thank you for the link,

How did the state recognize or qualify the Trinite as a Warship, under the definition of War Ship.

The SMCA is a federal law, not a state law. The US Navy promulgated the regs for the SMCA, not the state.

 

[sprailroad]

Well, I'm sorry fellas, but after the last 14 yrs, I just have a difficult time believing anything or any clams that come from the Government or any of its agencies.

 

[Magoopeter]

The SMCA is a federal law, not a state law. The US Navy promulgated the regs for the SMCA, not the state.

Is it a law or a bill,

 

[Magoopeter]

It is an act?

 

[Black Duck]

The SMCA is a federal law, not a state law. The US Navy promulgated the regs for the SMCA, not the state.

Yes this is correct but the State and Tim Parsons jumped to the conclusion that it was a French ship WITHOUT proof, and there is still not enough proof that this is the Trinite "but for now we are stuck with that"

 

[Magoopeter]

Some interesting points in both,

 

[TheRealTim]

It is an act?

The Sunken Military Craft Act is a federal law (passed by Congress, signed by the President) with regulations promulgated by the US Navy.

 

[TheRealTim]

Yes this is correct but the State and Tim Parsons jumped to the conclusion that it was a French ship WITHOUT proof, and there is still not enough proof that this is the Trinite "but for now we are stuck with that"

Anyone who wants to can read the magistrate judge's ruling on that case. There is extensive documentation included in the ruling. One can draw his or her own conclusions.

In direct response, I'd just remind everyone that it was France, not Florida, that intervened in the arrest. People can read the case history for themselves and make up their own minds.

 

[ScubaFinder]

I'm curious how France knew to get involved? The location of the wreck (found under a legal and binding 1A-31 Exploration Permit) should have been GME's intellectual property. GME didn't notify France, so who did?

 

[TheRealTim]

I'm curious how France knew to get involved? The location of the wreck (found under a legal and binding 1A-31 Exploration Permit) should have been GME's intellectual property. GME didn't notify France, so who did?

The answer to this question is within the various court documents. I'm not going to get into this because it would inevitably lead to an argument, but that answer is discussed in the recent ruling, and previous ones I believe.

 

[ou8acracker2]

I do not support doing things illegally but man it would be fun to watch if someone "pillaged the village"

 

[Black Duck]

Anyone who wants to can read the magistrate judge's ruling on that case. There is extensive documentation included in the ruling. One can draw his or her own conclusions.

In direct response, I'd just remind everyone that it was France, not Florida, that intervened in the arrest. People can read the case history for themselves and make up their own minds.

The State can not override the Admiralty court and that is what has been done, the State has no authority of Admiralty arrest, or removing artifacts ( just this point only) for the purpose of going into admiralty ( this is where the State made its mistake) as well as the judge "coming soon"

 

[Black Duck]

I do not support doing things illegally but man it would be fun to watch if someone "pillaged the village"

GME was not going after the Trinite because its not there, its 90 miles North of Cape C, but GME discovered a shipwreck with French material on it.
And honestly it would not have mattered what we found, on the other 4 shipwrecks, the State would have a way to not let us recover, they just do not want for profit company's out there working.

 

[Black Duck]

I'm curious how France knew to get involved? The location of the wreck (found under a legal and binding 1A-31 Exploration Permit) should have been GME's intellectual property. GME didn't notify France, so who did?

Jason you are right and that will come out later in court, in both courts Federal and State

 

[agflit]

Just...holy s-c-h-i-t-e.....

Finally made time to actually READ thru the various documentation regarding this entire goat rope....my gawddddddddddd...... when will the average, blue coller American actually wake up and REFUSE....to tolerate this krap from our "Representatives" and "Curator's of History".

The Glowecki letter?....If THAT doesn't make it any clearer to the average person in regards to where the "Powers that be" stand, than....I got nothin....talk about straight up, in your face, "F*&(^% U!!" to the non gubmental who actually spends money, sweats bullets, bleeds and loses sleep about doing the job they love...

It amazes me...how the State and Feds want it both ways. Beyond comprehension. When will we just drop the mic, and say " stuffit" ? We need another " Boston Tea Party" imo. When you threaten my job, my livelihood, my life and my happiness....it ends. My response is no longer "reasonable or civilized".

BlackDuck, they got you on the removal of the items. Under the "auspices" of the " Permitting Process", they ensure that no matter WHAT you do, you cannot proceed without committing a crime against the state. Simple as that. But how in gawd's name the SAME authority's can tell a judge that the objects removed had no value in determing era or origin is absolute perjury in a courtroom. My Gawd, they have been using ballest and ball to help identify wrecks since "Archeology" actually became a "legitimate" discipline.

I feel for you...Florida will NEVER see a dime of my money...in ANY form....simply because of the way the powers that be in the state have treated Treasure Hunter's and salvage across the board.

I am VERY much, a law and order kind of guy.... follow the laws, and do the right thing. But the reality is, these toxic, self serving, corrupt megalomaniacs have done nothing more than insure that the average guy out there will have no choice but to become a pirate in order to function...and it's they're own doing.

I sincerely hope..there is a special place in helll for some of those responsable for this krrapp.

 

[enrada]

Tim
Would you please provide us here on treasure.net with first 4 forms of any communication with any French attache, Embassy or government. Also can you make sure to include the names and government department that sent the communication. Floida government Archaeologists have a SERIOUS credibility problem starting with what you did to Mel Fisher. Have you also lobbied De Santos about possibly changing the name of the Treasure Coast to the TakeAway Coast?

 

[enrada]

TheRealTim
Still waiting your reply.