International Demand?

[Jimi D Pirate]

I ran across this , this morning

Potosi to claim treasure sunk off Florida in 1622

The Bolivian district of Potosi with the legendary Cerro Rico, the greatest silver deposit in the time of the Spanish conquest announced it was preparing an international demand to recover a sunken treasure which was lost in 1622 but was found three centuries later in 1985 along the coat of Florida, United States.



According to the local press Rene Joaquina mayor of Potosi signed a contract with a United States law office to recover the several tons treasure of silver and coins minted in the Potosi Minting House and which where en route to Spain aboard the “Nuestra Señora de Atocha” which sunk in the middle of a storm in 1622.
The current value of the several tons of precious metals is estimated in three billion US dollars and was recovered in 1985 by the US company Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society Museum.

“The value of the treasure is three billion US dollars but the cultural heritage value is priceless”, said Ricardo Gonzalez, spokesperson for the government of Potosi who insisted once the treasure is recovered it will be exposed in Bolivia’s museum belonging to the National Minting Office.

This is the first time Potosi has initiated such a demand to recover the treasure that left the heart of Bolivia for Spain originally from the Cerro Rico, exploited in the time of the colony and destined to pay the Spanish Court’s bills.

The Spanish galleon with the treasure sunk on entering the Florida Strait when a fast moving hurricane surprised the heavily armed flotilla. It was recovered by the Mel Fisher company following fifteen years of surveying hundreds of miles in the area.

“Nuestra Señora de Atocha” according to the description in The Archives of the Indies in Seville, was carrying 24 tons of silver made up of 1.308 ingots; 180.000 coins; 582 ingots of copper; 125 gold rods and disks; 350 coffers of indigo; 525 bails of tobacco; 20 bronze canons and 1.200 lbs or finely worked silversmith, reports the local press.

Mercopress.com

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[buscadero]

Oh Boy! I don't think they have a leg to stand on, but you never know with all the Ambulance Chasing Lawyers, & Glory Seeking Judges out there! My recommendation would be to Sell it all Now! Put Phony Silver in it's place! (If they haven't already)

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI, so it starts, the first of many to follow, such as a class action by the Indians who originally owned the land and the mines, who will claim that it was taken from them by force and so it still remains theirs..

Sigh, goodbye to treasure hunting in the near future, since no treasure could conceiveably be without a legal owner, surmounting the salvor's labor rights, which can easily be dismissed /discounted unless a prior agreement is reached before starting the search.

Tropical Tramp

I suppose that a counter suite against Potosi will be in order if they are successful, which in turn could be taken by the Indians in a class action Sheesh , where would it end?

 

[jeff k]

They have two chances of winning, slim & none, and slim left town.

 

[Peg Leg]

Well my friends it looks like Pirate days are going to return with a full metal jacket.
Many of you on this forum have told me many times to do thigs LEGAL and let the Courts handle it and to deal with the State of Florida by Legal means.
Well my friends I have been trying to do just that without butting heads or upsetting anyone.
For the past several weeks I have been in direct contact with the State of Florida.
I was told the reason that NO permits/linceses were being issured was because the Federal Government and the Courts have said that the 1733 fleet belongs to Spain.
We will see what happens in the near future.
Keep your powder dry.
Peg Leg

 

[mariner]

Peg Leg,

I think you will see, when this action by Potosi eventually works its way through the courts, how right Mel Fisher was to legalise his claim to the Atocha. I do not think there is any chance that this action by Potosi will work, because at the time, that part of Bolivia was controlled by Spain, as a result of Conquest. You ought to pursue the claim to the wreck you think you have found, before something happens to change the law once again.

As for the chances of a claim by an Indian group, which one would have the right to claim all that treasure? When Cortes overcame the Aztecs, he was only doing what the Aztecs did to the group that was there before them, etc. etc. etc. It's called the spoils of war.

Mariner

 

[ScubaFinder]

AND think of what little the Fisher organization would have in it's defense had it NOT gotten permission from the U.S. and State governments. Greed is an awefully ugly thing, and we will have to fight it as long as we continue this hobby. However, I think statements about this being the end of treasure hunting and that we must all now act like pirates are a little over the top. The proper way to handle this would be for the Fisher organization to offer to donate a good chunk of artifacts back to Potosi so that they may preserve their cultural heritage. If they refuse to accept the offer, then the real reason becomes apparent to any court.

I think a simple international law could be put into effect that would solve most of this crap. Like the abonadoned shipwreck law, but put a 100 or 200 year statute on it. Let's face it, if you haven't come and gotten it in 100 years, you aren't going to. If Potosi wants some of their cultural heritage back, give the the rights to come and salvage some of it like the fisher group did. There are still several ships laying on the bottom somewhere out there loaded with gold and silver. I do think Spain, Potosi, Peru, Mexico, and probably a few others should have the rights to come look for them too. But they shouldn't have the right to come claim everything when someone else did the finding! This stuff was laying on the ocean floor for hundreds of years, and they never gave it a second thought. Now that it has seen the light of day again, everyone wants to claim it as theirs.

If I drop a hundred dollar bill in Spain, Potosi, Peru, or Mexico, and a local finds it the next day, it's legally his. Can someone tell me the difference other than the amount of time it's been lost and the amount of money involved?

Jason

 

[Jimi D Pirate]

Mayor Rene Jouquina needs to go after the State of Florida and their portion of their 20% that they take yearly at division. This has amounted to tons of treasure through the years. This would eliminate alot of stuff that is just sitting around / laying on the floors and not being shown! Let the State make a donation to Potosi National Minting office or anybody else that would like to donate.

Scubafinder, If you drop a hundred dollar bill and I find it, its mine ... unless you told me you dropped it or I saw you drop it. Eather way I figure you would owe me a beer!

Jimi

 

[PhipsFolly]

All I can say is... I love a good party!! Drinks all around!!

 

[GorskiDvr]

I may get flamed for saying this .......... My personal feeling/opinion on this is that our hobby (livelyhood for some) is about to take a turn. As times & laws change , so must our ways of going about things. Whether things take a ugly turn for the shadows........ or a turn towards more money being spent on attorneys & litigation , who knows?
Theres gotta be a point where enough is enough ..............

 

[mariner]

Scubafinder,

I don't know the detailed laws in each of the countries you name, but in most countries I know about, if you find anything it does not automatically belong to you, as far as the law is concerned. The law is usually that you have to hand it in to the local Police, who have a responsibility to try to identify the rightful owner and return it. If they are unable to do so after a period that is usually about six months, then the finder becomes entitled to the object. Of course, many people who find things just choose to keep the item, but that is neither legal nor honest.

The exception is many countries is treasure whose owner cannot be identified. In that case, most countries claim that it belongs to the Government, though most have a percentage (traditionally 50%) of the value that they are obliged to pay the finder as a reward.

At sea, the situation is a little more complicated, depending on the location,but most laws and treaties recognize the rights of owners, if they can be identified, and give the finders what is usually a fair share. Military vessels are generally exempted from salvage claims, but if the vessel contained valuables,Governments have often been willing to reach an agreement with the finder. The US is an exception to all this in the case of Spanish shipwrecks and military vessels belonging to any government.

By the way, I found that $100 and handed it over to the local police. I think you still have four days to claim it if you remember where you lost it, and can demonstrate that it is the one you lost. Otherwise, I am looking forward to having that drink on you !!

Mariner

 

[ScubaFinder]

Good point Mariner, but we are talking about nearly 400 years! Florida never restricted who could get permits, or who could recover treasure. Potosi had the same rights to come get the silver as the Fishers did. I can see where they would consider themselves the "rightful owner", hell I can even see how Spain considers themselves the rightful owner (though to a MUCH lesser degree). What I don't see is...if they wanted it so bad, and considered it their heritage, why the heck didn't THEY come get it. They wait for Mel to spend 16 years, loose a son and daughter-in-law, and spend millions to find and recover it...and then...after all the hard work is done...come along and say "Hey, that's MINE!". That crap wouldn't fly in ANY other situation, and I doubt it will fly in this one either.

There are still several wrecks out there waiting to be discovered...if they want some heritage, they can buy a boat and come on over and get some of it. It isn't Mel's job to go find and recover it for them. They lost it, they can find it!

Jason

 

[Peg Leg]

Scubafinder,
I would lime to correct you on a point.
YES Florida DOES restrict who gets permits and who does not.
If you are Incorporated outside the State of Florida the State of Florida will NEVER issue you a permit or any rights to even look.
But I have been informed by the State of Florida that there is a Special License/Permit that can be issued to Individuals
It is a Proformence Bond Contract.
The State of Florida said that they are sending me the paperwork. This was qa week ago.
Things are changing.
Peg leg

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=mariner As for the chances of a claim by an Indian group, which one would have the right to claim all that treasure? When Cortes overcame the Aztecs, he was only doing what the Aztecs did to the group that was there before them, etc. etc. etc. It's called the spoils of war.
Mariner
**************
Evening Mariner, regarding spoils of war, I believe that the precedence was already established after WW-2. In any event
this would certainly put crimp in Spain's plans. Under WW-2 rulings broadly interpretated, She would legally only hold rights to the salvage of her ships, but not to the cargo's. Interesting ramifications.

Tropical Tramp









[/quote]

 

[mariner]

Grubbie,

It's OK to take that view when it is just a few coins, which you probably want to keep anyway. But what happens when you bring up the cannons, and especially if you find that your shipwreck is of considerable historic importance? Context is everything when it comes to determining the market value of an artifact from a shipwreck.

To illustrate this, I will use a different example: How much is a used baseball worth? The answer is about $10, unless it is the one that Mark MacGwire hit for his record-breaking homer. That sold a couple of years ago for $3 million.

I know somebody who has been looting a really important wreck, and selling the artifacts on the blackmarket. He is probably getting less than 10% of their value on the open market if he would only choose to follow the legitimate path that is open to him. He won't do so because he is afraid the State will simply confiscate the wreck. This fear is costing him hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars.

Not to mention the fact that the world is being deprived of information that would re-write the history books.

Mariner

 

[mariner]

TT,
I am not sure you are right. Can you give me an example where ownership of the wreck and the cargo have been separated by a court?

There is an interesting analogy on the West Coat, in the Pacific. Nearly all the Manila Galleons were owned by Spain, but most of their cargoes were owned by private merchants. Personally, I think that the cargo ought to be considered separately in a case like that, if you can get at it without having to excavate the ship itself, but I have read several US court rulings where the court refused to separate the cargo from the wreck.

Mariner

 

[jeff k]

Mariner... Sovereign immunity only applies to warships that have to fulfill very specific criteria – and must be on noncommercial service - there is no sovereign immunity for cargoes. There is no legal mechanism by which Spain can claim a cargo on a merchant ship unless it's in Spain’s territorial waters.

Sovereign rights on the high seas are affirmed in Articles 95 and 96 of The Law of the Sea Convention (1982). These provide a legal basis for the sovereign immunity of sunken warships and government vessels on the high seas. Article 95 states, "Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag states," and Article 96 continues, "Ships owned or operated by a state and used only on government noncommercial service shall, on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag state."

 

[mariner]

Jeff,

I never suggested that Spain could claim a cargo that was on a privately-owned merchant ship acting of its own accord, though I think it would argue that a private ship that was acting under contract to the Spanish government of the day should be treated as if that ship had been owned by Spain. Thus I think that Spain would claim, and the US Courts would agree, that all the ships in one of the Treasure fleets would be treated as if they had been owned by Spain.

Traditionally, it was true that State owned ships on non-commercial duties were subject to salvage claims, but the SeaHunt case of 2000 marked a fundamental change in the treatment of ALL Spanish shipwrecks in US waters.

The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that Spanish shipwrecks were not abandoned, and therefore not subject to salvage claims,unless they had been expressly abandoned by their owners. This applies whether the Spanish ships were on commercial or non-commercial duties, so it applies, for example, to Manila Galleon wrecks in US waters.

I cannot remember off the top of my head the ruling where a US Federal court ruled that it is impossible to distinguish between a ship and its cargo, but I will look it up over the next few days and post it for you.


Mariner

 

[mariner]

Grubby,

Glad to hear you are headed in that direction. Look forward to finding out more at some stage.

Best of luck.

Mariner