Odyssey Marine Article...

If smash and grab is the biggest problem, maybe spain and other countries should outlaw fishing! Lets see them break the seafood industry! Let efficien tcompanie such as Odyssey go get these artifacts and treasures before they are gone. Use some transparency Odyssey will show all their cards if they know their not being screwed. Its the greed from Spain and whoever else that ruins deals such as this. Transparency is the answer, yet will Spain cooperate 100% or hold back?
 

Vox veritas said:
Jeff K said:
Ossy... I copied the following from an affidavit of Gregory P. Stemm filed with the Court.
Click to expand...


Jeff, Odyssey is a public company that needs to have profit. The Spanish law about underwater cultural patrimony #16/1985 http://www.mcu.es/bibliotecas/docs/Articulo66PHE.pdf
it doesn't recognize profit in all related with this patrimony. An agreement had meant to go against this law.
Click to expand...
Thank you Claudio for the information, I wasn't sure why Spain would not deal with Odyssey.
It,s their law good or bad, I think it could be modified to be more flexable, it was written in 1985
with technology now things have changed. the problem for odyssey it showed their true colours
Hit and run and then play dumb, What ship? the coins must have been throw overboard :icon_scratch:
sabre15 I agree on finding these artifacts before they are gone but respect must be given to the
nation of origin.
where do you get this "Greed from Spain" the only public company is odyssey and they sell lots of ship
wreck coins and artifacts for profit.
Can you give me one example when Spain has sold any of its historical artifacts for profit ?
Odyssey has a whole Webb page full of them, Odyssey did not have to take the coins, they could have
easily left them, knowing they where from a Royal war ship, that's when Greed gets the better of you
whats $500 million, Spain spends more that that a year just cleaning their streets.
maybe Spain should buy O.M.R
Cheers Ossy
 

Spain Expressly Abandon’s Its Shipwrecks!

Intro by Pat Clyne

In early 1965 a well known Florida salvor asked his attorney to write to the Embassy of Spain in Washington D.C. to determine if he had the right to salvage Spanish shipwrecks. This Salvor and the response he received from Spain’s ambassador, unknowingly to them at the time, was to set a precedent that undoubtedly will be used in a maritime court of law to leave unfettered access of Spain’s wrecks and their cargo to the State of Florida. In turn, Florida’s long tradition of cooperation with private salvors will allow them, with a permit from that State to continue to recover Spanish vessels and their contents legally without having to consult Spain for their “approval”

The argument that has been used in the courts for some time now has been that of semantics. The courts did not easily interpret the word abandonment. Even the Supreme Court of the United States debated the argument over “express” abandonment and “implied’ abandonment. Implied wasn’t good enough, even if a nation made no attempt at salvaging their own vessel which lay rotting on the ocean’s bottom for hundreds of years. In order to truly abandon a vessel you must “express” it in a document. Something similar to, “Hey, we don’t want it, you can have it!” Now, if a country wrote that in a document and signed it, they would have explicitly “EXPRESSED” their feelings of disowning ownership toward that vessel and it’s contents.

In regards to content, cargo or Treasure’s, (a word not often used any longer in the courts because of its lack of archaeological Political Correctness.) if such a document would have also included that wording there would be absolutely no misunderstanding of their intent. The following is the reply our salvor received from the Ambassador of Spain, which is the definitive, official and legal definition of the phrase “Expressed Abandonment.”

Letter From the Ambassador of Spain

Washington, D.C.
January 11, 1965

THE AMBASSADOR OF SPAIN
WASHINGTON. D.C.

Mr. D. Victor de Avenell
3345-14th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your kind letter of last December 20, which I read with extreme interest.

The legal question of the ownership of the treasure on the east coast of Florida can raise questions as to whether said state has rights to all or part of it, with or without compensation. I do not know what solution is found to this issue in the applicable law.

In any case, there is no doubt that the Spanish State may not claim any title to said treasure for the following reasons:

1.) If the discovery is considered "marine salvage," the owner of the ship and/or merchandise would have lost all rights because he abandoned any attempt of recovery.

2) If the discovery is considered a discovery of a treasure in the territory (including the territorial waters) under the jurisdiction of a state, in this case the state of Florida, the laws of this state will determine title to the treasure.

In most cases extinctive prescription would act against any right possibly reclaimed by a previous owner.

I thank you again for your interest, and I remain,

Sincerely,

Marquis de Morry del Val,
AMBASSADOR OF SPAIN
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • letter from spain.jpg
    letter from spain.jpg
    112.8 KB · Views: 785
Hi Robert,
the governments change, the laws and the opinions change. In 1993 Portugal took out a very permissive but very selective law. The following government swept it.
 

Vox veritas said:
Hi Robert,
the governments change, the laws and the opinions change. In 1993 Portugal took out a very permissive but very selective law. The following government swept it.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about Spanish law. These wrecks are in international waters or other countries. Once you abandon something, it is abandoned!

So, what you are saying is, its OK to abandon it today, but we may claim it again tomorrow! :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch:
 

Spain is playing a dangerous game and if the rules change, they are going to end up being big time losers. When it was published the Reales were minted in Lima, I immediately thought that Peru should try to stake their claim. Essentially, Spain pilfered the Americas for a couple hundred years and their government feels they are entitled to said lootings indefinitely. If a ship is discovered from the colonial era, they automatically claim ownership and are beyond uncooperative.

With Peru stepping into the mix, they have a chance to set a very big precedent of ownership. Their gold/silver, their treasure. In all actuality, it would be benefit Odyssey to have Peru to win the claim. Peru is very friendly politically with the States and more than likely they would be one of the 50/50 or better split nations. They definitely know not to look a gift horse in the mouth, so some free money is better than none. Also, with Peru winning, the precedent would be made that the origination is the important factor. They are the ones with the heritage at stake, not Spain.

Odyssey is a very lucrative outfit that know's the business and regulations. Odyssey isn't going to spend $30k a day if they don't think they will be able to claim some ownership of the finds. They have approached Spain in the past and Spain wants no part of them, because the Spanish government's attitude is that they should get it all. If Odyssey by chance does lose to Spain, they should go back to the site and dump their findings. If Spain wants it that bad, let them spend the money to recover it. This is simply about money for Spain, not heritage. Gold does strange things to people and governments are not exempt from its effects either. As an archaeologist I can safely say that archaeologically, there isn't an institute out there that can compete with the standards Odyssey employees for deep see recovery.
 

Warships remain property of their sovereign nation, regardless if the wreck is in international waters.
 

Robert,

Am I not right in saying that the International Convention on Salage protects Sovereign Vessels from salvage claims? The question with the Victory is whether it is a Sovereign Vessel, defined being a State owned ship on. I do not know to whom the gold on the Victory belonged, and that would be an important factor in determining whether it is indeed a Sovereign Vessel, and therefore immune from salvage claims (although the Country owning a Sovereign Vessel can choose to have her salvaged)

As for the letter from the Spanish ambassador, while it was his opinion, and very helpful to Mel Fisher at the time, the opinion he states has since been over-ruled, at least in US waters, by the US Court of Appeals in the SeaHunt judgment. An Ambassador's opinion may be useful politically, but it is not definitive in a Court of Law, and as far as I know, it has not been specifically tested yet for a ship in International Waters. I don't think that Odyssey has tried to use it in the case of the Black Swan, for example, and I personally don't think it would stand up in Court.

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 commercial 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.""

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7h.htm
 

Well, that the judge's wisdom in Tampa decides when, how and where. Conjectures now is pure speculation.
 

If there is no sovern immunity on cargo, lets treat it like the trawlers, push the historic shipwreck debris aside and take the gold and silver.

"Hit and run and then play dumb, What ship? the coins must have been throw overboard
sabre15 I agree on finding these artifacts before they are gone but respect must be given to the
nation of origin.
where do you get this "Greed from Spain" the only public company is odyssey and they sell lots of ship
wreck coins and artifacts for profit.
Can you give me one example when Spain has sold any of its historical artifacts for profit ?
Odyssey has a whole Webb page full of them, Odyssey did not have to take the coins, they could have
easily left them, knowing they where from a Royal war ship, that's when Greed gets the better of you
whats $500 million, Spain spends more that that a year just cleaning their streets.
maybe Spain should buy O.M.R
Cheers Ossy"

Odyssey is the only public company in this trade because they are a first, just like you said spain were great conquerors and we americans should have done the same. Well the chickens come home to roost my friend, spain does not control the oceans anymore. Spain should sit back like they expected everyone else 400 years ago and accept they have no contro over this! Spain sold Florida, that was historic, there is your example! $500 million to clean streets, thats how Socialist do it, we allow the free market do decide who will clean the streets, right now Odyssey is winning that contract!
 

Sabre15, Jamie heard the news ? Odyssey has competition, you mention ass kicking, well the Spanish navy carry
big guns and they will control their Territorial waters !
We Americans should have done the same. You did!!!! forget about the red Indians you forced off the land?
I wouldn't be counting my chickens yet mate !
The game has changed :icon_sunny:
Ossy
 

Jeff,

It is not true that Soverein Vessel immunity does not extend to its cargo.

So the question is whether the Victory was on non-commercial duties. As I said earlier, I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding the gold that the Victory was carryng. Did it belong to the British Government, or was some of it privately owned?

Mariner
 

Mariner... I'm talking about commercial cargo.

"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."

Sovereign immunity does not extend to commercial cargoes. The commercial cargo on the Mercedes is not immune, as is the commercial shipment of the Portuguese merchants on the Victory. Any State owned cargo on these ships would be immune, such as any specie taken as prizes or money to operate the fleet.

"Research shows that substantial quantities of gold were being carried on a regular basis from Lisbon to England on the larger Royal Navy ships during this period. The Dutch financial publication Amsterdamsche Courant of November 18/19, 1744, reported that Balchin’s flagship carried a huge sum of money when she foundered: “People will have it that on board of the Victory was a sum of 400,000 pounds sterling that it had brought from Lisbon for our merchants.” Based on contemporary accounts of coinage being shipped from Lisbon at the time, this cargo most likely consisted of gold coins minted in Portugal and Brazil, although it could also have included other colonial coinage. If gold, this would equate to approximately 100,000 1 oz. gold coins weighing approximately 4 tons.

Additional research indicates that there were large quantities of both silver and gold coins aboard the Victory from enemy prize ships captured by Balchin’s fleet. Research suggests that this prize money will also likely be located at the wreck site."
 

Jeff,

Thanks for that information.

I have no problem with the fact that the Mercedes was carrying commercial cargo, which was not immune from salvage. My problem with that case is the manner in which Odyssey acted in removing ALL the coins before going to court.

If it proves to be the case that the Victory was also carrying commercial cargo, then that too will be subject to salvage, and the contemporary commentary that you quote suggests that might be the case. Maybe that is why the British Government is apparently being so cooperative. As I said, I do not know the circumstances surrounding the gold it was carrying.

However, I did want to pick up on your comment that no cargoes are protected from salvage. You saw the immediate reaction that it produced from Sabre15, and I am sure his was not unique.

Mariner
 

Spain is trying to claim that they paid restitution to the merchants/heirs of the Mercedes, when in fact they never did. Shame on Mr. Goold! Here's a link to a court motion filed by David Horan for some of the heirs. Some here will remember he represented Mel Fisher.

http://tinyurl.com/ae4drg
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

JW Fisher Proton 3 Mag for sale

⬅️ Previous Thread

La Galga?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top