Black Duck
Sr. Member
- #21
Thread Owner
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.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.
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