Florida Treasure Salvage boat boarded at sea, treasure confiscated

[patiodadio]

It all seems pretty simple to me. The pirates just wear suits now instead of the old eye patch and peg leg. In place of a ship and cannons attacking you, they now have lawyers and paperwork.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[capt dom]

It all seems pretty simple to me. The pirates just wear suits now instead of the old eye patch and peg leg. In place of a ship and cannons attacking you, they now have lawyers and paperwork.

You got it! " The rats are guarding the cheese" welcome to the new dark ages

 

[Hitndahed]

If I EVER,,,
"Find ANYTHING like this type of "treasure".
Trust this, I will just vanish from the face of this planet.
No goodbyes,,no telling anyone anything. Just "POOF".

And yes,,, it DOES bother me to put it out thee like that. Because it IS history lost.

 

[Jolly Mon]

Jolly Man

Why are you making incorrect statements " Burden of Proof is the key here" Guy you have no idea what you are talking about "Read the Rules"

Any one that has had a contract taking from them " is because it was not ratified" or a ship wreck because "it was military, built by the Gov" you are missing the whole point here

Please just state the facts

Global Marine Exploration, Inc. Home of GME, GME Deep and Anchor Research & Salvage - Part 1
Bobby

I will assume the actual definition of a “sunken military craft” under the SMCA of 2004 is known.

What may be less well known is the Department of the Navy's opinion on how the somewhat ambiguous and open ended definition of “sunken military craft” can be construed.

For example, the following is taken from the Navy Department's Final Rule explanation published in the Federal Register 8/31/2015: https://www.federalregister.gov/art...tions-and-other-activities-directed-at-sunken

“Whereas a number of public comments recommended further revision of the definition of “Sunken Military Craft”, the DON believes the established definition appropriately identifies the set of assets Congress intended to afford protection to and requires no alteration. In contrast with interpretations expressed in certain public comments, merchant ships in private ownership may not qualify as sunken military craft unless they served as vessels operated by a government on military noncommercial service when they sank. The DON does not believe that it is in the interest of international reciprocity to specifically delineate a category of foreign sunken military craft and exclude them from the set of assets afforded protection by the SMCA, as suggested by certain comments."

Emphasis added.

In many instances the question as to whether a “merchant ship in private ownership” qualifies as a “sunken military craft” will ultimately be the courts' decision. It is obvious from the above, however, that the DON believes “merchant ships in private ownership” CAN be considered sunken military craft depending on the nature of their service at the time of sinking.

Could a privately owned yet armed Spanish galleon, sailing in a naval military formation for mutual protection with other armed vessels, ultimately under the command of Spanish naval officers in the Almiranta and Capitana, be construed as being “operated by a government on military noncommercial service” ?

As to the “burden of proof” as to the identity of a sunken military craft, I will simply copy and paste the new permitting authority granted to the DON under the final ruling:

“767.15 Application to foreign sunken military craft and U.S. sunken military craft not under the jurisdiction of the DON.

(a) Sunken military craft are generally entitled to sovereign immunity regardless of where they are located or when they sank. Foreign governments may request, via the Department of State, that the Secretary of the Navy administer a permitting program for a specific or a group of its sunken military craft in U.S. waters. The request must include the following:
(1) The foreign government must assert the sovereign immunity of or ownership over a specified sunken military craft or group of sunken military craft;
(2) The foreign government must request assistance from the United States government;
(3) The foreign government must acknowledge that subparts B and C of this part will apply to the specified sunken military craft or group of sunken military craft for which the request is submitted.
(b) Upon receipt and favorable review of a request from a foreign government, the Secretary of the Navy, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Department of State, will proceed to accept the specified sunken military craft or group of sunken military craft into the present permitting program. The Secretary of the Navy, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Department of State, reserves the right to decline a request by the foreign government. Should there be a need to formalize an understanding with the foreign government in response to a submitted request stipulating conditions such as responsibilities, requirements, procedures, and length of effect, the Secretary of State, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, or his or her designee, will proceed to formalize an understanding with the foreign government. Any views on such a foreign government request or understanding expressed by applicable federal, tribal, and state agencies will be taken into account.
(c) Persons may seek a permit to disturb foreign sunken military craft located in U.S. waters that have been accepted into the present permitting program or are covered under a formalized understanding as per paragraph (b) of this section, by submitting a permit application or special use permit application, as appropriate, for consideration by the NHHC in accordance with subparts B and C of this part.
(d) In the case where there is reasonable dispute over the sovereign immunity or ownership status of a foreign sunken military craft, the Secretary of the Navy, or his or her designee, maintains the right to postpone action on §§ 767.6 and 767.12, as well as requests under paragraph (a) of this section, until the dispute over the sovereign immunity or ownership status is resolved.”





I find the wording of the statute to allow the DON to issue permits to a foreign power for a “group of its sunken military craft” in US waters to be especially curious.

The authority to issue permits under these guidelines does not go into effect until 3-1-2016. Until that time, and indeed, probably for a substantial time afterward, the exact implication of the Final Rule will be unknown and thus a matter of opinion and conjecture.

 

[doc-d]

So the thieves write and interpret the rules……...

 

[Limitool]

If I EVER,,,
"Find ANYTHING like this type of "treasure".
Trust this, I will just vanish from the face of this planet.
No goodbyes,,no telling anyone anything. Just "POOF".

And yes,,, it DOES bother me to put it out thee like that. Because it IS history lost.

I agree.... but I believe the headaches and questions that come forth afterward if disclosed to the public would make "you" a villain then. Then... any value of your FOUND cache would be "wanted" by others! But I do agree a LOT of lost history is lost. But sharing even a find of a few hundred gold coins would open up a world of trouble for the finder.

 

[AUVnav]

SMCA argument is moot in regards to Spain's claims to its shipwrecks. As noted in the Mercedes case, Spain successfully claimed ownership and sovereign status under FSIA, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not SMCA.
Spain's claims were for sunken sovereign property, NOT sunken military craft.

In addition, from Seahunt vs unidentified vessel.

"Courts cannot just turn over the sovereign shipwrecks of other nations to commercial salvors where negotiated treaties show no sign of an abandonment, and where the nations involved all agree that title to the shipwrecks remains with the original owner. Far from abandoning these shipwrecks, Spain has vigorously asserted its ownership rights in this proceeding. Nothing in the law of admiralty suggests that Spain has abandoned its dead by respecting their final resting place at sea."

"[2] We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. The district court found, "It is the right of the owner of ANY vessel to refuse unwanted salvage. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and decline salvage . . . . Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree to salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to any salvage award." (emph added)

on a side note:

Odyssey stated they had no evidence of a shipwreck at the Mercedes recovery site, yet Odyssey filed both its original complaint against and a motion seeking the arrest of “The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo.”   The District Court, at Odyssey's request, issued a warrant for the arrest of “The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo."

Still, no shipwreck?

 

[Hitndahed]

I agree.... but I believe the headaches and questions that come forth afterward if disclosed to the public would make "you" a villain then. Then... any value of your FOUND cache would be "wanted" by others! But I do agree a LOT of lost history is lost. But sharing even a find of a few hundred gold coins would open up a world of trouble for the finder.

============================================================
I said that I would NEVER tell anyone anything,,,No sharing of anything,, even to those closest to me.
And a coin here and there would probably not (hopefully) draw any unnecessary attention to "me".
I would definitely just carry on my mediocre life as usual.

 

[old man]

Wreckdiver 1715, I met Dan. He's a Great guy. I have just one question. Is Dan's company going to sue Panama and UNESCO in the World Court

 

[ARC]

Wreckdiver 1715, I met Dan. He's a Great guy. I have just one question. Is Dan's company going to sue Panama and UNESCO in the World Court

I hope so.

 

[Stanislav M]

Thank you beyond this story. In America - i in shock. In my country also.
That's why i pirate

 

[Jason in Enid]

Man, what a truly lousy situation. And governments wonder why some folks don't bother with the bureaucracy...

Stupid power-mongers. Nobody wins in those situations. I mean seriously. These government PRINT THEIR OWN MONEY. Can't figure out, for the life of me, why that treasure would be so important to them...

Because a lot of it will find it's way into the pockets of the politicians and their friends.

 

[G.I.B.]

Nobody wins in those situations.

...the lawyers always win

 

[Jolly Mon]

SMCA argument is moot in regards to Spain's claims to its shipwrecks. As noted in the Mercedes case, Spain successfully claimed ownership and sovereign status under FSIA, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not SMCA.
Spain's claims were for sunken sovereign property, NOT sunken military craft.

Still, no shipwreck?

How could Spain possibly have claimed ownership of Mercedes under the SMCA, Scrapola? The SMCA applies only to U.S. vessels and foreign vessels sunk in U.S. waters.

 

[Tejaas]

This thread is extremely interesting.

I always wondered what non-hot topic (hot topics being the war, government spending, etc) information came out of the whole wikileak ordeal.

Thanks to everyone who has shared.





~Tejaas~

 

[AUVnav]

How could Spain possibly have claimed ownership of Mercedes under the SMC

Your post is out of context to my response. NOTE

SMCA argument is moot in regards to Spain's claims to its shipwrecks.

The thread is about Spains claims to shipwrecks in the US and Florida...

ALSO NOTE that Odyssey brought the Mercedes recovery into the US, whereas in rem adjudication applied. Hence, SMCA could have been applicable, as the Court case showed, Odyssey TRIED unsuccessfully with the SMCA 'non-commercial' attempt.

AS noted with the Cory determination in the Juno, the ruling was clear, "and where the nations involved all agree that title to the shipwrecks remains with the original owner."

A foreign embassy in the US is sovereign, and certainly includes non- military and commercial activity.

SMCA argument is moot in regards to Spain's claims to its shipwrecks. As noted in the Mercedes case, Spain successfully claimed ownership and sovereign status under FSIA, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not SMCA.
Spain's claims were for sunken sovereign property, NOT sunken military craft.

You should READ the rest of the post. Comprehension, well...

In addition, from Seahunt vs unidentified vessel.

"Courts cannot just turn over the sovereign shipwrecks of other nations to commercial salvors where negotiated treaties show no sign of an abandonment, and where the nations involved all agree that title to the shipwrecks remains with the original owner. Far from abandoning these shipwrecks, Spain has vigorously asserted its ownership rights in this proceeding. Nothing in the law of admiralty suggests that Spain has abandoned its dead by respecting their final resting place at sea."

"[2] We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. The district court found, "It is the right of the owner of ANY vessel to refuse unwanted salvage. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and decline salvage . . . . Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree to salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to any salvage award." (emph adde

 

[Salvor6]

There are many countries that do not recognize the soverignity of foreign vessels. Mozambique is one that says "any shipwreck in our waters belongs to us." They still continue to let commercial treasure hunters salvage Spanish and Portuguese treasure ships. Ecuador and Peru. Cuba and Columbia are some more.

 

[ARC]

There are many countries that do not recognize the soverignity of foreign vessels. Mozambique is one that says "any shipwreck in our waters belongs to us." They still continue to let commercial treasure hunters salvage Spanish and Portuguese treasure ships. Ecuador and Peru. Cuba and Columbia are some more.

As it should be.

 

[Booty Salvage]

Reputation is everything

 

[wreckdiver1715]

Wreckdiver 1715, I met Dan. He's a Great guy. I have just one question. Is Dan's company going to sue Panama and UNESCO in the World Court

Old Man, you would have to ask Dan for the answer to that question. However, word on the street is that IMDI is trying to resolve the situation down here in Panama. They have taken legal opposition to this contract all the way to the Supreme Court of Panama in the past, and I would suspect that they will again if they are not able to resolve the problem otherwise.