Galleon find

[mariner]

Vox,

Thank you. This is fascinating, and I don't know how it all slipped under my radar.

So after Spain won the absolute title to the two wrecks in the court case, they came to an agreement to let SeaHunt salvage the wrecks, which seems the fair thing to do, but SeaHunt could not get the necessary permits in the USA? I can't understand that. If the owner gives permission for his ship to be recovered, what right does a court have to refuse the salvor permission?

I suggested in my earlier note that Spain might be more cooperative and reasonable than she is sometimes portrayed, and that the US Government had the hidden agenda to stop recoveries of old wrecks. Looks at the moment as if I was right.

I will try to get more details from SeaHunt themselves, but if anybody has more information, I would love to hear from them.

Thanks again, Vox. Is this agreement a public document, and if so, how can it be accessed. Any chance you could e-mail it to me?

Mariner

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Vox veritas]

Vox,

Thank you. This is fascinating, and I don't know how it all slipped under my radar.

So after Spain won the absolute title to the two wrecks in the court case, they came to an agreement to let SeaHunt salvage the wrecks, which seems the fair thing to do, but SeaHunt could not get the necessary permits in the USA? I can't understand that. If the owner gives permission for his ship to be recovered, what right does a court have to refuse the salvor permission?

I suggested in my earlier note that Spain might be more cooperative and reasonable than she is sometimes portrayed, and that the US Government had the hidden agenda to stop recoveries of old wrecks. Looks at the moment as if I was right.

I will try to get more details from SeaHunt themselves, but if anybody has more information, I would love to hear from them.


Thanks again, Vox. Is this agreement a public document, and if so, how can it be accessed. Any chance you could e-mail it to me?

Mariner

Mariner,
as I said there were strong oppositions, particularly from the National Parks Service. But behind there were pressures linked to very hidden interests and with long tentacles.
I have copy of the agreement because I participated in the negotiations between Sea Hunt and Spain. I was vice president of SH Spain.
The signature of this agreement destroyed certain plans that had traced people of doubtful seriousness and finally they had to appeal to not very elegant systems to achieve its goals: to sweep with the opponents to their interests !! Including the promoters of the agreement !!

 

[ScubaDude]

I think Knollenberg (Sovereign Exploration) bought Sea Hunt from Ben Benson and then put the deal together with Spain. I think the reason they never pursued it is due to several things. Difficulties with VA, a lack of funds, and continued interference from the Park Service. My understanding is their archaeologist (one of the best) suddenly fell victim to the lack of RPA credentials. His work was beautiful on the project up to the point where someone noticed the "RPA" was missing on the resume. Anyone can speculate why the project wasn't pushed. Perhaps there is more that is not known. Sovereign and Sea Hunt seem to have faded into the woodwork at this point.

 

[Vox veritas]

I think Knollenberg (Sovereign Exploration) bought Sea Hunt from Ben Benson and then put the deal together with Spain. I think the reason they never pursued it is due to several things. Difficulties with VA, a lack of funds, and continued interference from the Park Service. My understanding is their archaeologist (one of the best) suddenly fell victim to the lack of RPA credentials. His work was beautiful on the project up to the point where someone noticed the "RPA" was missing on the resume. Anyone can speculate why the project wasn't pushed. Perhaps there is more that is not known. Sovereign and Sea Hunt seem to have faded into the woodwork at this point.

Scuba, behind is much more and there are linkings of very black color, interest in favoring other competitors and........
As I said, this has long tentacles and intelligent people will know how to understand up where they reach.

 

[AssateagueRover]

If you want to know why Knollenberg, Sea Hunt and Spain have done nothing about the Juno and La Galga it's because neeither ship was found. La Galga is buried under Assateague Island and the Juno sank in deep water 250 miles off the coast. You can read the details here:
http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/treasurehunter.htm

The question that begs answering in the Sea Hunt case is this: Can a federal court interpret treaties with Spain and theories of abandonment when no Spanish shipwrecks were found? If so, the the court room door is open to con men. The wrecks found in the Sea Hunt case were unidentified merchant ships that belong to the Commonwealth of Virginia by virtue of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act. If you want to read about a huge court room fraud involving shipwrecks go here:
http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/Stateof Maryland.htm

In the Odyssey Marine case Spain is claiming Sea Hunt as legal precedent even though they know there were no Spanish shipwrecks found.

 

[Vox veritas]

Assateague, knowing the facts which is your opinion about this matter?
What about the boy's story that he appeared in a basket and the Spanish horses?

 

[AssateagueRover]

I believe the legend that horses came ashore from La Galga. Although th e Spanish records do not mention them the records leave out a lot. Horseshoes were found at the 1622 Santa Margarita site but there was no archival mention of them. The same people who told me the details of the legend told me how to find the wreck. As for that story of James Alone it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Juno. According to the Accomack census records, James Lunn (Alone) was born about 1810. The Juno was lost in 1802. You can read all about this in The Hidden Galleon.

 

[Darren in NC]

John, thanks for jumping in on the thread. I'll try to direct my questions to what may not be found in your book. Peter Knollenberg told me when your book came out that he was disappointed that you didn't get in touch with him for some details he would have included (not that you were obligated to include them). I'm curious as to why you didn't contact Sovereign for their angle on the LaGalga. Other than that, the book has been well received and was long overdue for those who wanted more details.

All the best,
Darren

 

[mariner]

John,

I am looking forward to reading your book, but you don't want to confuse the Law with Justice or the Truth. The SeaHunt verdict will stand no matter what the truth is about the wrecks that SeaHunt found or did not find. The US Government and Spain took the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the 1902 Treaty, that Spanish ships in US waters are not abandoned except by specific abandonment, and the judge ruled that a treaty between two countries means whatever those two countries say it means. That was the principle that the US Government particularly, in my opinion, wanted to have ruled on. The details of the wreck or wrecks was relatively unimportant. Of course, the 1902 Treaty says nothing at all about abandonment, or specific abandonment, but there you go.
I believe that the main motive was a desire on the part of the Federal Government to seize back the power they lost when the 1987 Abandoned Shipwrecks Act was passed, transferring title and mangement rights on abandoned shipwrecks to the coastal states, such as Florida. I am not saying thaty Spain was not a willing partner, but the US Department of State was the prime mover. People who have complained in the past about Florida's positioning on wrecks will soon be looking back on those times as the "good old days".

The Odyssey/Black Swan case is not the same, because the wreck does not lie in US Waters, and the 1902 Treaty does not apply. I know that Spain is quoting the SeaHunt case, but that is because the SeaHunt judge went on to state some other interesting principles, such as saying that it would be hard to say that a ship has been abandoned when the owner is standing in court claiming possession, and some other stuff. I look forward to reading your take on the case, but I think that the principle for Spanish ships in US waters is established, and will not be overturned. The Supreme Court would not even hear the appeal that David Horan prepared, and which in my opinion was very well set out.

Mariner,

 

[diverlynn]

PirateDiver,
I apologise for hijacking your thread.

AssateagueRover,
Excellent to have you show up. When $$ is more available I will be requesting a signed copy.

Thanks to all of you for your input on the La Galga & Juno. Very interesting.

I spend most of my days researching info from the former posts.

Diverlynn

 

[Vox veritas]

Assateague,
what about the goods given to NPS and that they were recovered by SeaHunt on the beach in shallow water? I believe to remember that there were also silver currencies.

 

[AssateagueRover]

Hello to all

First off, the Sea Hunt case is nothing more than a documentary on treasure fever. That whole thing started over some Spanish coins being found on the beaches of Assateague. The prnciple players thought that Spanish coins must mean Spanish shipwrecks. They do not. The coins were legal tender in this country until 1857. They would have been on almost every shipwreck up until that time. Go here for thathttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=011/llsl011.db&recNum=184. I recently saw Spanish coins for sale on Ebay that had been recoverd from a Civil War campsite. There certainly weren't any Spaniards there. But it does prove the universal use of Spanish coins in this country. Any research that contradicted the wishful thinking of Sea Hunt was ignored.

The official archaeological inventory of the Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize either site in the Sea Hunt case as Spanish. That's because there not. Now we have the the so called loan of artifacts from these two unidentified shipwrecks referred to by Vox Veritas. You can read all about that here http://www.nps.gov/archeology/SITES/npSites/assateague.htm. On August 23rd I contacted the National Park Service officials responsible for this "loan." I pointed out everything contained on my web site at http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/treasurehunter.htm. I said that if they felt that I was in error in any way I would correct my web site. They refused to to answer me. Why are they doing this? Its all about protecteg the ill-gotten legal precedent contained in Sea Hunt. It has nothing to do with historic preservation. We are all aware of how the archaeologists in the government and academia wail and moan when a treasure hunter disturbs a wreck site by removing even a single artifact. They say it destroys the "provenance" of the artifact. In the Sea Hunt case we have two entire shipwrecks that have been taken completely out of the factual context and put where they do not belong. The truth and historic preservation have been irrepareably harmed.

Had the district court in the Sea Hunt case known the truth about these two wrecks, Spain would have been dismissed from the suit. It would not have been necessary to interpret any Spanish treaties or theories of owner abandonment. What happened was the parties agreed to pretend that the unidentified wrecks were Spanish. This cannot and should not be done in an in rem admiralty action. It misleads the public and future generations.

Last February, the archaeological firm of Gray & Pape in Richmond, VA, filed for an exploration/verification permit on my behalf to make a non-intrusive magnetomer survey of the believed La Galga site resting under Assateague. THe authorities responsible for granting this harmless request refuse to talk about it. Why? Because of Odyssey Marine. THe federal government wants Spain to win that case. Winning that case is more important than the historic preservation they espouse. http://La Galga has become the shipwreck the U. S. Government wants kept secret.

Lastly, back to the original subject of this thread, the Buenos Aires shipwreck is an interesting find. If Spain has no objection to Argentina keeping the wreck (how can they object when the wreck is embedded in the sovereign lands of that country) then they should have no objection to the excavation of La Galga now buried under U.S. soil. Someday this wreck will have its own museum just like the steamboat Bertrand buried beneath the Desoto National Wildlife Refuge.http://www.fws.gov/midwest/desoto/bertrand.htm Stay tuned.

 

[diverlynn]

THe federal government wants Spain to win that case. Winning that case is more important than the historic preservation they espouse.

AssateagueRover
Why do you feel the Gov't. wants Spain to win?

Diverlynn

 

[AssateagueRover]

DiverLynn:

The federal government has never liked treasure hunters. They were solidly behind Spain in the Sea Hunt case. They even tried to legally represent them in court but were denied. Just look at the Atocha case for another example.

AssateagueRover

 

[Vox veritas]

THe federal government wants Spain to win that case. Winning that case is more important than the historic preservation they espouse.

AssateagueRover
Why do you feel the Gov't. wants Spain to win?

Diverlynn

Diver, Odyssey is behind many things. Time will give the opportune occasion of knowing them.
Assateague. In any event, Spain has recognized, in the agreement signed with SeaHunt, the JUNO and GALGA's finder`s right. Being Spanish property, anyone that recovers what is of these two shipwrecks will have to give a 50% to SH. It is the law.

 

[AssateagueRover]

Vox Veritas:

Is it your position that even if La Galga is buried beneath a federal wildlife refuge that it is stil property of Spain? That would contradict the Treaty of 1763. Spain gave up all things "dependant on the land." The possibility that the wreck was buried on land was never considered by the Sea Hunt court. If it had, it would have negated the court's special admiralty jurisdiction and forced the trial to another forum. Any and all artifacts recoverd from the site of La Galga should be put into a museum for the benefit of not only American citizens but all citizens of the world. That museum should be on Assateague. Because of the legend it created in American folklore, this ship is part of our heritage. If you read The Hidden Galleon you will learn that Spain in 1749 tried to sell La Galga to some merchants as it was considered at its end, There were no takers on the sale. You will also read that the wreck was in fact abandoned by her captain. He chose to give it to the English rather than burn it, in order to guarantee the safe passage of his crew off of Assateague. At his court martial on his return, he was exonerated of any wrong doing. Spain at the time did nothing to negate or reverse that abandonment. Captian Huony declared that "The owner of the land owns the ship." Today that owner is the federal government.


Assateague Rover

 

[Vox veritas]

Assateague,
1) the agreement establishes clearly that SH will have to get the due permits.
2) Article 3.9: the project will be carried out keeping in mind the appropriate ecological protection of the work area.....
3) 4.5: to pay to SH, in prize concept, the casual discovery of these wrecks (Juno and Galga) that will suppose 50% of the value of what found.
4) 10. The Spanish authorities and Americans will choose how many goods they consider important for the enrichment of their respective cultural historical patrimonies...... and that can be deposited in a North American public museum or private previous conformity of the North American federal authorities.....

This agreement was an example of scientific philosophy, open collaboration among Spain and USA, mutual understanding and collaboration to enrich the cultural knowledge of both countries. All according what settled down by the UNESCO.

 

[AssateagueRover]

Well Vox I guess you are saying that Spain owns La Galga even if it is buried under Assateague. To the contrary. Sea Hunt has no claim, nor ever made any claim to any shipwreck buried on Assateague. Spain has no claim to any shipwreck, Spanish or otherwise, buried on Assateague. Spain has no claim to the wreck in Buenos Aires. No federal admiralty court has made any award of La Galga buried under Assateague to Spain or anyone else. Neither Spain nor Sea Hunt can contract for anthing on La Galga. It belongs to the federal government and the citizens of the U.S. I was hoping you would read the 1763 treaty before jumping back in.


Assateague Rover

 

[mariner]

AR,

If the ships are on land, I think you are right, because of the 1763 treaty. There is no concept of "abandonment" of possessions lost on land, but by the treaty Spain clearly gave up their ownership of assets that were on the land, even if they were shipwrecks.

However, that does not alter the fact that the Court of Appeals passed legal judgement on the meaning of the 1902 Treaty for Spanish shipwrecks located in US WATERS, which will stand as a precedent for other Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, including any as-yet-unadjudicated 1715-1722-1733 wrecks.

One thing. I am surprised that you need a permit for a remote-sensing survey. Out here in Oregon, the State statutes are pretty forbidding about wrecks, but no permit is required for a remote sensing survey. I cannot understand why a State would require a permit for something that causes absolutely no damage. Are you absolutely sure that you need a permit?

Looking forward to reading your book even more now. Great stuff.

Mariner

 

[Voldbjerg]

<CUT>
One thing. I am surprised that you need a permit for a remote-sensing survey. Out here in Oregon, the State statutes are pretty forbidding about wrecks, but no permit is required for a remote sensing survey. I cannot understand why a State would require a permit for something that causes absolutely no damage. Are you absolutely sure that you need a permit?
<CUT>

Mariner,

Could this be a left over law from the "good old days"? Nautical charts used to be matters of national security, maybe this is a left over law/rule. Here in Denmark you have to apply for a survey permit and give authorities copies of your work, but I dont think it is being enforced when it comes to searching for shipwrecks.

/V