fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at l

RGecy,

i think what you heard was wrong about the fishers owning any new found 1715 wrecks.what they do have is a ruling from a judge on the atocha.that if anyone else finds the stern castle or any other parts of the ship,that the fishers own it.
ivan,
any new found shipwrecks even if you think they are spainish,are not spanish,they are in fact pirate wrecks.spain isnt interested in pirate wrecks.get a permit from the state of fl before you show them anything.or at least apply for it.a treasure co that i know of right now,the state is trying to take the wreck away from them.and they can do it too.it has happened before.

rgecy give me a call at home.im back from sebastian.
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

as far as the 1715 ships go --fishers group has the all the rights to all of their known "wrecks" of that I have no doubt but how can they have "rights" to ones they have not yet "found" unless they have "bought out" spain's interest in the wrecks in writing? ---as a "finder" you have a stake in the deal---because without the "find" nothing else happens---zip ---nada ---nobody gets nothing----as such you "have" the rights to a finders fee ---of sorts---its kinda hardto "stiff" the "finder" totally---courts would not say its "fair"----Ivan
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

the legal reasoning that I would use was when spain "sold" florida to the united states in 1819 that it included in the sale the rights to "claim" the territorial waters of florida as belonging to the USA and thus "ownership" of items in it were likewize conveyed ---in effect spain "abandoned" or "gave up on the" the land (and also the coastal waters and items in it) by selling it to the USA and thus any claims to anything in or on the land or its coastal waters in the process ---they "sold" all rights to the area forever---the brits and spain screwed sea hunt by claiming their 1763 treaty didn't cover it ---BS---what part of "ALL RIGHTS" ---don't you understand? the two "countries" got together "cooked up" a statement in effect saying "our treaty means what we say we want it to mean" so that spain could screw sea hunt---- by stating "it means what we say it means"---- instead "reading" exactly what it in fact "states"--- they give "ALL RIGHTS" ---THAT REALLY SIMPLE IN MY BOOK AS WELL AS PLAINLY EASY TO READ---Ivan
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Hi congratulation on that find so long ago. I hope that every thing goes well for you. I have just one question for you. Just how far off the beach is consider territorial waters?
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

normally the absolute minimum is 3 miles to 12 miles depending on who your talking to in my case its a non issue ---clearly in USA / fla state waters with out any doubts --- Ivan
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Ivan,

I guess it is up to you if you want to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and refuse to accept that the US Court of Appeals has now made the definitive ruling, and has ruled that the Treaty of Paris did not include the territorial sea, nor anything on the sea bed.

I asked Jim Goold, the attorney for Spain, about the supposed side agreement on wrecks dating from before 1750. He says that no such agreement exists, and he should know as he is the person who would have been involved in drawing it up.

If I were you, I would think very carefully about whom I told about this wreck, and would certainly not divulge its location until you get the appropriate agreement about recovering it. You can continue to accept the situation, but if this is one of the 1715 fleet, then the wreck belongs to Spain, and the State of Florida has no jurisdiction. My advice is to talk to Spain about salvaging the wreck,without divulging its location at this stage. You never know, they might appreciate the approach and make a deal with you. If you choose to ignore Spain, and get a permit from Florida (not that I think they will issue a permit for a wreck that might belong to Spain without checking it out with Spain) you will just be following the same road as SeaHunt: Spain will intervene and the courts will confirm their rights and give you nothing. It seems like a no-brainer to me, unless you decide to become a looter, working outside the law and exposing yourself to the consequences.

Good luck.

Mariner
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Ivan, I think you get a couple of the boys in here and go out and find the bell. After taking anything that might give away the name, buy a few coins dated later and spread them over the site. That way there will be a lot of confusion. LOL... Anyways, one day if you ever need some help, I am a diver and think it would be fun. Plus I know and abide by the three S's.. ;)
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Ivan,

You seem determined to ignore the facts of life and listen only to ideas that suit you, but I will try once again, and deal with your latest comments.

The definitive agreement between the United States and Spain on shipwrecks in US waters is the 1902 Treaty between Spain and the US, which coming after 1819, supercedes it. The meaning of this Treaty was interprated by the Court of Appeals in the SeaHunt Case. The US and Spain both told that Court that Spanish shipwrecks in US waters are not abandoned unless they have been specifically and expressly abandoned. If Spain has not specifically and expressly abandoned them, then these wrecks are not abandoned, do not come under the terms of the 1987 Abandoned Shipwrecks Act, and title and management of them are not delegated to the coastal state, in this case Florida.

The one chink in that armor, it seems to me, was the letter that the then Spanish Ambassador sent to Mel Fisher, but as far as the law is concerned, I think the SeaHunt case, which did not consider that letter, supercedes that argument.

You have been working under a series of false assurances, including that concerning the nonexistent side agreement about wrecks dating frombefore 1750. Time to wake up, stop listening to the people who are feeding you BS, and reassess your position. And remember this. You have publicly declared your views on this ship, on this forum and probably elsewhere. Now if you come up with a ship in the same area with the bell removed and salted with a few later coins as suggested by scottone 928, you are more likely to end up the subject of a criminal investigation. My advice remains to keep the exact location and go talk to Spain, unless you embrace the criminal tendencies of some others on this forum, whose attitudes explain why THers are so often treated like potential outlaws.

Mariner
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Oh boy, you make a small crack and the next thing you know you are bringing down the hobby! Geeez mariner relax, it was just a joke! :o
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

scottone 928,

Sorry for taking it seriously. I could not detect the tongue in your cheek!!

Mariner
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

I do not condone doing anything ilegall myself---as it tends to be non profitible in the long term---thus not wise---I find it quite odd indeed that the us govt would claim that items that are clearly in its territorial waters (and the sea bed that is part of the territorial waters) do not belong to them after they "paid" 5 million bucks for them---yet in the "abandoned shipwrecks act" the us govt clearly states that all wrecks "embedded" in the sea floor belong to the states who territory they are in-----under what "legal logic" are the spanish vessels from over 200 years ago not "abandoned" (did spain actively search for them in any way? NO they did not---what "proof" of non abandonment can spain "show" to prove that it did not give over the territorial waters when it sold florida to the united states? ---if the territorial waters and thus what it contained were sold---then spain has no "rights" to claim ---they since they "sold" off the land and thus the "right" to claim the the territorial waters of florida at the time of sale (and thus anything "contained" in them)
----the land was sold thus "abandoning" the land and territorial waters to the USA for money---they sold their "rights" --to claim both the land and territorial waters of florida to the USA---thus with it comes whats in it ---both on the "land and territorial waters"---thats fairly simple and straight foward and "legally logical" ---
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Ivan,

Your legal logic may make sense to you (and us as well), but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation of the law doesn't matter. The interpretation of the attorneys (protecting the relationship between Spain, America and other nations) are all that matters. And precedence has already been set forth in the Sea Hunt case. I don't like it, you don't like it, but our dislikes simply don't hold weight in negotiating with govt attorneys. They will do what is in the best interest of their respective nations. I think you would do well to heed Mariner's advice. Get in touch with Jim Goold. It's all about relationships. Show that you're trying to do it right and respect their interests. Perhaps it will be mutually beneficial.

All the best,
Darren
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

well does anyone know what was spains % cut of mel fishers 1715 finds was?
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

There was no cut. Mel filed admirality claims on the 1715 wrecks before the Abandoned Shipwreck Act went into effect and before the Seahunt ruling.
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Sounds like Spain is playing this rather cunningly. Let a bunch of 'gringos' do all the research, work, expense, risk, etc. and they get to reap the reward.

That's it...INVADE SPAIN!! ;D

Pcola
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

I think Ivan may be on to something. Virginia is not Florida.
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

Jeff,

But the USA is the USA.

Mariner
 

Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long

ah THERE ARE (2) differant treaties ---the (land swap of cuba and florida) 1763 treaty of paris was between britain and spain thus the courts were "forced" by the british and spanish "joint statement" to accept that it DID NOT INCLUDE the territoral waters and the items within them---even in its statements the courts said "it was the major factor" in deciding the case---SAYING WELL SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT "MADE" THE TREATY THEY WOULD "KNOW" WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT IN IT OR MEANT BY THE WORDINGS IN IT-----perfectly logical I must admit sadly for sea hunters ---they didn't see the legal blindside "joint statement" coming---frankly the treaty says "ALL RIGHTS" --- but with the two of them (spain and britian) agreeing that it did not "mean what it clearly said"--the "fact" of what was written "changed"----weasel politicans at work---

now the 1819 treaty is a whole differant matter---its in effect is a "bill of sale" ---the usa buys florida from spain for 5 million---the parties ---are spain and THE USA---big differace from the 1763 treaty since "the USA" is one of the "parties"TO THIS TREATY our courts do not need to ask what the "words" mean from "others" ---its "OUR' treaty so we know what it does or does not "include" ---(the "right" to claim the territorial waters of florida would have been sold along with the "territory" of florida of course and thus anything within the waters or sea bed area (shipwrecks) goes with them---thats SOP)----and if spain and the USA has "disagreement" about what it says under US LAW the courts are legally bound to uphold the american govts veiw of it---over a foreign govt.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Odyessy sueing Spain ?????

⬅️ Previous Thread

very interesting note---on names of ships of the 1715 fleet

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top