- Thread starter
- #61
Odyssey Marine Article...
- Thread starter jeff k
- Start date
mad4wrecks
Bronze Member
- Dec 20, 2004
- 2,263
- 109
- Detector(s) used
- Aquapulse, DetectorPro Headhunter, Fisher F75
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Scubasalvor, I see the point you are trying to make. In fact, I looked into the matter of the La Salle shipwreck project myself. It seems an agreement was reached in which France was named the rightful owners of the artifacts, but Texas can keep them on "permanent loan."
- Thread starter
- #63
EU AVOIDS ODYSSEY ROW
by Brian Reyes
The European Commission and the EU Council of Ministers have both refused to comment directly on the controversy surrounding Odyssey Marine Exploration and the sunken treasure it recovered last year.
The haul, considered the most valuable shipwreck treasure ever raised from the seabed, pitched the Florida-based company into a head-on clash with the Spanish authorities that has yet to be resolved.
Last November a Spanish MEP formally asked both EU institutions for their views on the case.
Among other things, he wanted to know what mechanisms Europe had in order to prevent "archaeological pillaging of this kind".
"Furthermore, given that the treasure was removed from Europe without any problem at all from British territory [Gibraltar], does the Commission not believe that there needs to be greater cooperation between Member States in order to avoid similar situations arising in the future?" the MEP asked.
"Does the EU possess, or is it going to establish, some sort of customs mechanism for the specific purpose of controlling activities of this kind?"
Both the EC and the Council sidestepped the issue, not least because numerous questions arising from the case are still being resolved in a Florida court, and a La Linea judge continues to investigate whether Odyssey breached any Spanish heritage laws, something the company denies.
"It is not up to the Commission to comment on the ongoing litigation related to the cultural treasures found by Odyssey Marine Exploration," said Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini in a written response.
Mr Frattini went on to list the various legal instruments available at EU and international level to protect underwater and cultural heritage, including a convention that sets uniform rules and conditions for "restitution claims on stolen cultural objects and return claims on illicitly exported goods."
In a separate answer the EU Council also ducked the MEP's questions and said "…there are no Council conclusions, nor is there a Council position, on this subject."
It added that Cesar Antonio Molina, Spanish Culture Minister, had provided information concerning the protection of European underwater cultural heritage during a meeting last November.
Much of that presentation contained tough criticism of Odyssey and its activities.
The intervention prompted Odyssey to contact the EU to rebut what it described as the minister's "unjustified accusations".
"We replied with an open invitation for the ministers and staff to visit Odyssey at our facilities in Tampa, or on board our vessels, to observe first hand the meticulously high standards of operations in carrying out the world's most advanced archaeological excavations," said Ali Nesser, Odyssey's director for international development.
by Brian Reyes
The European Commission and the EU Council of Ministers have both refused to comment directly on the controversy surrounding Odyssey Marine Exploration and the sunken treasure it recovered last year.
The haul, considered the most valuable shipwreck treasure ever raised from the seabed, pitched the Florida-based company into a head-on clash with the Spanish authorities that has yet to be resolved.
Last November a Spanish MEP formally asked both EU institutions for their views on the case.
Among other things, he wanted to know what mechanisms Europe had in order to prevent "archaeological pillaging of this kind".
"Furthermore, given that the treasure was removed from Europe without any problem at all from British territory [Gibraltar], does the Commission not believe that there needs to be greater cooperation between Member States in order to avoid similar situations arising in the future?" the MEP asked.
"Does the EU possess, or is it going to establish, some sort of customs mechanism for the specific purpose of controlling activities of this kind?"
Both the EC and the Council sidestepped the issue, not least because numerous questions arising from the case are still being resolved in a Florida court, and a La Linea judge continues to investigate whether Odyssey breached any Spanish heritage laws, something the company denies.
"It is not up to the Commission to comment on the ongoing litigation related to the cultural treasures found by Odyssey Marine Exploration," said Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini in a written response.
Mr Frattini went on to list the various legal instruments available at EU and international level to protect underwater and cultural heritage, including a convention that sets uniform rules and conditions for "restitution claims on stolen cultural objects and return claims on illicitly exported goods."
In a separate answer the EU Council also ducked the MEP's questions and said "…there are no Council conclusions, nor is there a Council position, on this subject."
It added that Cesar Antonio Molina, Spanish Culture Minister, had provided information concerning the protection of European underwater cultural heritage during a meeting last November.
Much of that presentation contained tough criticism of Odyssey and its activities.
The intervention prompted Odyssey to contact the EU to rebut what it described as the minister's "unjustified accusations".
"We replied with an open invitation for the ministers and staff to visit Odyssey at our facilities in Tampa, or on board our vessels, to observe first hand the meticulously high standards of operations in carrying out the world's most advanced archaeological excavations," said Ali Nesser, Odyssey's director for international development.
- Thread starter
- #64
Archaeology Channel Video...
A tour of the exhibit and conservation lab.
http://www.archaeologychannel.org
Thanks kenb for the heads up.
A tour of the exhibit and conservation lab.
http://www.archaeologychannel.org
Thanks kenb for the heads up.
- Thread starter
- #65
Ruling Allows Odyssey Shipwreck Cases to Move Forward
Thursday March 6, 5:50 pm ET
U.S. Federal Judge Holds That Odyssey's Pleadings Meet Rules of Procedure In Three Shipwreck Cases
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) today announced that on March 6, 2008, Judge Steven D. Merryday issued an Order relating to Spain's Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints that were filed by Odyssey in the arrest of three wreck sites.
Odyssey is pleased with the ruling of the judge in the cases of the three arrested sites which specifically states that “the allegations in the complaint and the disclosure in connection with discovery satisfy the requirements of applicable procedural rules and pleading principles.”
“This makes it clear that the first phase of these cases is complete and we can get beyond Spain’s invalid arguments that Odyssey has not pled its case adequately. This means we can move forward to determine what basis, if any, Spain has for the claims it has made to these wreck sites,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Chief Executive Officer.
The Court’s Order makes it clear that if Odyssey promptly complies with the disclosure rulings of the Magistrate Judge in a satisfactory manner, the Company is not required to disclose any hypotheses as to the identities of the vessels.
“Odyssey has always complied with the Court’s orders requiring prompt disclosure of all discovery, and will continue to do so. We certainly hope that Spain will now follow suit,” stated Melinda J. MacConnel, Odyssey’s General Counsel.
The Court’s denial of certain Counts of the complaints relates only to jurisdiction. The Judge did not determine that Odyssey has no right to damages against Spain as a result of Spain’s illegal actions against Odyssey and its vessels, only that he does not have the authority to award such damages. The most significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s declaration that Odyssey’s pleadings and its disclosures have met all requirements of the federal rules of civil procedure. In every facet of its operations, whether they are archaeological or legal, Odyssey follows all applicable rules and procedures and conducts its business with the highest level of integrity.
Thursday March 6, 5:50 pm ET
U.S. Federal Judge Holds That Odyssey's Pleadings Meet Rules of Procedure In Three Shipwreck Cases
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) today announced that on March 6, 2008, Judge Steven D. Merryday issued an Order relating to Spain's Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints that were filed by Odyssey in the arrest of three wreck sites.
Odyssey is pleased with the ruling of the judge in the cases of the three arrested sites which specifically states that “the allegations in the complaint and the disclosure in connection with discovery satisfy the requirements of applicable procedural rules and pleading principles.”
“This makes it clear that the first phase of these cases is complete and we can get beyond Spain’s invalid arguments that Odyssey has not pled its case adequately. This means we can move forward to determine what basis, if any, Spain has for the claims it has made to these wreck sites,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Chief Executive Officer.
The Court’s Order makes it clear that if Odyssey promptly complies with the disclosure rulings of the Magistrate Judge in a satisfactory manner, the Company is not required to disclose any hypotheses as to the identities of the vessels.
“Odyssey has always complied with the Court’s orders requiring prompt disclosure of all discovery, and will continue to do so. We certainly hope that Spain will now follow suit,” stated Melinda J. MacConnel, Odyssey’s General Counsel.
The Court’s denial of certain Counts of the complaints relates only to jurisdiction. The Judge did not determine that Odyssey has no right to damages against Spain as a result of Spain’s illegal actions against Odyssey and its vessels, only that he does not have the authority to award such damages. The most significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s declaration that Odyssey’s pleadings and its disclosures have met all requirements of the federal rules of civil procedure. In every facet of its operations, whether they are archaeological or legal, Odyssey follows all applicable rules and procedures and conducts its business with the highest level of integrity.
- Thread starter
- #66
Federal Judge Advances Odyssey's Shipwreck Cases
Wednesday March 12, 6:43 pm ET
Order Protects Odyssey's Site Information and Requires Prompt Justification of Spain's Claims Based on Evidence
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) today announced that United States Magistrate Judge, Mark Pizzo, has issued orders in three pending Admiralty cases that the Company believes will help to expeditiously move these cases forward. Two of the orders were in response to Spain’s Motions to Compel Compliance and to Declare Certain Materials as Not Confidential.
In these orders, the Judge ruled that the artifact summaries provided to Spain with photographs are not confidential, but that in the interest of protecting the site, other information including the preliminary site assessments, the site plans, the photographs of the sea bed and the photomosaics should remain confidential at this time.
The Court also clarified its January 10, 2008 order and indicated that Odyssey need not provide Spain with open access to Odyssey’s research files at this stage of the litigation and that the information Odyssey has provided to Spain thus far is sufficient.
“We are extremely pleased with Magistrate Pizzo’s recent order which will move the cases forward and help protect the sites by keeping site information confidential at this time,” stated Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey General Counsel. “We believe that we have always acted in accordance with the Court’s directives and we are glad that the Court has issued confirmation that we have complied with the Court’s Disclosure order.”
The Judge also issued interrogatories regarding possible theories as to the identity of any vessels which may be related to the sites. After receiving Odyssey’s responses, Spain has 10 days to describe evidence that supports its claim to the vessel or artifacts.
Odyssey has previously avoided discussing speculative theories regarding the identity of the shipwreck sites because the analysis of the data available to the company did not, in the opinion of Odyssey's management and lawyers, rise to the level of certainty sufficient to meet the requirements of public disclosure pursuant to securities regulations. It is also clear that speculating about the identity of the sites at this stage would be inappropriate pursuant to nautical archaeological best-practices in the evaluation of complex underwater sites.
“We are pleased to provide Spain with possible theories about the possible identity of the sites under the protection of this Court order although, as we have stated on previous occasions, there is insufficient evidence at this time to confirm the identity of the sites,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey Chairman and CEO. “We look forward to resolving whether Spain believes it has a claim - and a justification for that claim - on any of the sites within 10 days of providing them with this information."
The third order issued by Magistrate Pizzo today requires Spain to provide a basis for a claim, if any, against the shipwreck believed to be SS Ancona within 30 days.
Wednesday March 12, 6:43 pm ET
Order Protects Odyssey's Site Information and Requires Prompt Justification of Spain's Claims Based on Evidence
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News) today announced that United States Magistrate Judge, Mark Pizzo, has issued orders in three pending Admiralty cases that the Company believes will help to expeditiously move these cases forward. Two of the orders were in response to Spain’s Motions to Compel Compliance and to Declare Certain Materials as Not Confidential.
In these orders, the Judge ruled that the artifact summaries provided to Spain with photographs are not confidential, but that in the interest of protecting the site, other information including the preliminary site assessments, the site plans, the photographs of the sea bed and the photomosaics should remain confidential at this time.
The Court also clarified its January 10, 2008 order and indicated that Odyssey need not provide Spain with open access to Odyssey’s research files at this stage of the litigation and that the information Odyssey has provided to Spain thus far is sufficient.
“We are extremely pleased with Magistrate Pizzo’s recent order which will move the cases forward and help protect the sites by keeping site information confidential at this time,” stated Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey General Counsel. “We believe that we have always acted in accordance with the Court’s directives and we are glad that the Court has issued confirmation that we have complied with the Court’s Disclosure order.”
The Judge also issued interrogatories regarding possible theories as to the identity of any vessels which may be related to the sites. After receiving Odyssey’s responses, Spain has 10 days to describe evidence that supports its claim to the vessel or artifacts.
Odyssey has previously avoided discussing speculative theories regarding the identity of the shipwreck sites because the analysis of the data available to the company did not, in the opinion of Odyssey's management and lawyers, rise to the level of certainty sufficient to meet the requirements of public disclosure pursuant to securities regulations. It is also clear that speculating about the identity of the sites at this stage would be inappropriate pursuant to nautical archaeological best-practices in the evaluation of complex underwater sites.
“We are pleased to provide Spain with possible theories about the possible identity of the sites under the protection of this Court order although, as we have stated on previous occasions, there is insufficient evidence at this time to confirm the identity of the sites,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey Chairman and CEO. “We look forward to resolving whether Spain believes it has a claim - and a justification for that claim - on any of the sites within 10 days of providing them with this information."
The third order issued by Magistrate Pizzo today requires Spain to provide a basis for a claim, if any, against the shipwreck believed to be SS Ancona within 30 days.
Regarding Spain's various positions on properties they claim right to - it seems that they want everything they have ever owned; they just press harder when they think they have a chance of winning, or hurting their opponent so badly that it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best, and an example for others.
They are perfectly capable of holding equal, diametrically opposing positions simultaneously: La Galga is theirs (sovereign title principle), despite the fact that it is in Virginia, while the HMS Sussex is theirs because it is near their waters, despite the sovereign title owned by the UK. They have fought and bullied for years, trying to force the return of Gibraltar, while maintaining full control over territories that Morocco has better title to than they do to Gib (Ceuta and Melilla). By the arguments they put forward for grabbing Gibraltar, they could just as easily justify taking over Portugal!
Several of the motions Spain has put forward in court seem absolutely extraneous to their efforts - until one realizes that public revelation of the map grids of the find would force OM to expend much effort and money just to defend the location from competition. Spain fights dirty; it seems that their lawyer (does he have to register as an Agent for a Foreign Power?) is more than willing to play dirty pool for them.
I wonder if those who attempted recovery of La Galga could cite the Spanish arguments in these cases as Spanish official positions... hmmm...
Ziad
They are perfectly capable of holding equal, diametrically opposing positions simultaneously: La Galga is theirs (sovereign title principle), despite the fact that it is in Virginia, while the HMS Sussex is theirs because it is near their waters, despite the sovereign title owned by the UK. They have fought and bullied for years, trying to force the return of Gibraltar, while maintaining full control over territories that Morocco has better title to than they do to Gib (Ceuta and Melilla). By the arguments they put forward for grabbing Gibraltar, they could just as easily justify taking over Portugal!
Several of the motions Spain has put forward in court seem absolutely extraneous to their efforts - until one realizes that public revelation of the map grids of the find would force OM to expend much effort and money just to defend the location from competition. Spain fights dirty; it seems that their lawyer (does he have to register as an Agent for a Foreign Power?) is more than willing to play dirty pool for them.
I wonder if those who attempted recovery of La Galga could cite the Spanish arguments in these cases as Spanish official positions... hmmm...
Ziad
- Thread starter
- #68
Spain's Claim To One Of Odyssey's Shipwreck Cases Dismissed
Thursday April 3, 4:01 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), the world leader in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, announced today that Spain’s claim in Admiralty case number 8:07-CV-00616 has been dismissed pursuant to a motion filed on behalf of the Government of Spain. The shipwreck in this case is believed to be a 20th century passenger liner reported to be carrying valuable cargo.
Following Odyssey’s May 2007 announcement of the recovery of 17 tons of silver and gold coins from the “Black Swan” site, Spain filed claims with the U.S. District Court's Tampa Division in three of the Company’s pending admiralty arrests. Odyssey made it clear that the Company was unaware of evidence suggesting any potential Spanish interest in the site, yet Spain pursued its claim without providing any information as to the basis for that claim.
“We are very pleased that Spain has acknowledged that its claim to this particular shipwreck is unfounded, and we are now looking forward to moving ahead in resolving all issues expeditiously with the other two cases,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Chief Executive Officer.
"Technically, Spain's dismissal of its claim in this case has no bearing on the other two arrests, but this shows that just because Spain files a claim against a particular wreck site does not mean it has a valid basis, or as in this case, any evidence whatsoever to support that claim," commented Melinda MacConnel, General Counsel for Odyssey.
Thursday April 3, 4:01 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), the world leader in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, announced today that Spain’s claim in Admiralty case number 8:07-CV-00616 has been dismissed pursuant to a motion filed on behalf of the Government of Spain. The shipwreck in this case is believed to be a 20th century passenger liner reported to be carrying valuable cargo.
Following Odyssey’s May 2007 announcement of the recovery of 17 tons of silver and gold coins from the “Black Swan” site, Spain filed claims with the U.S. District Court's Tampa Division in three of the Company’s pending admiralty arrests. Odyssey made it clear that the Company was unaware of evidence suggesting any potential Spanish interest in the site, yet Spain pursued its claim without providing any information as to the basis for that claim.
“We are very pleased that Spain has acknowledged that its claim to this particular shipwreck is unfounded, and we are now looking forward to moving ahead in resolving all issues expeditiously with the other two cases,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Chief Executive Officer.
"Technically, Spain's dismissal of its claim in this case has no bearing on the other two arrests, but this shows that just because Spain files a claim against a particular wreck site does not mean it has a valid basis, or as in this case, any evidence whatsoever to support that claim," commented Melinda MacConnel, General Counsel for Odyssey.
- Thread starter
- #70
Court Seeks Public Disclosure of Odyssey's Hypotheses Regarding Shipwreck Cases
Thursday April 17, 5:15 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), the world leader in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, announced that today Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Odyssey’s Motion for Protective Order in which Odyssey requested that the interrogatory responses filed under seal on April 14, 2008, remain confidential. In those interrogatories, Odyssey was asked to put forth its working hypothesis as to the identity of any vessels that may be related to the two sites that are the subjects of two arrests Odyssey has pending before the Court. Odyssey had been reluctant to disclose its working hypotheses because the company believes that there is insufficient evidence in either case to conclusively confirm the identity of any vessel that may be associated with the sites.
Odyssey had hoped to more fully explain its reasons for its confidentiality request but Odyssey’s motion to hold a hearing in camera rather than in open court was denied. As a result, with the Court’s order, and with Magistrate Pizzo’s specific caution about his expectations for justification for Protective Orders, the public will now be aware of speculation about possible identities of the sites in question.
A vessel named as possibly being related to the site which is the subject of case number 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP is the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas (the “Mercedes”), a Spanish vessel that had been assigned to transport mail, private passengers and consignments of merchant goods and other cargoes at the time of its sinking in 1804. In its response to the Court’s interrogatory, Odyssey also indicated that it had information under review which may be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the wreck site is that of the Mercedes.
Odyssey named the Merchant Royall, a British merchant vessel lost in 1641, as a possible identity of the vessel related to case number 8:06-CV-01685-SDM-MAP. Odyssey again indicated that it had information under review in that case which could be inconsistent with that hypothesis.
“We are all on new ground here and managing the disclosure obligations of a public company against the release of information in an Admiralty case like this is a complicated balance,” commented Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey’s General Counsel. “Judge Pizzo had previously invited us to submit a proposed protective order, which we did. In response, he has now made it abundantly clear how he wants us to proceed with public disclosures, and we will obviously fully comply.”
“As our Motion for Protective Order explained, we had hoped to maintain the confidentiality of information we consider to be speculative,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. “Experience has shown us how difficult it is to prevent unwarranted speculation about the identity and potential value of our finds once the possible identity of a site is made public, but we also respect the need to make sufficient information public to satisfy the requirement to alert potential claimants.”
Thursday April 17, 5:15 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), the world leader in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, announced that today Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Odyssey’s Motion for Protective Order in which Odyssey requested that the interrogatory responses filed under seal on April 14, 2008, remain confidential. In those interrogatories, Odyssey was asked to put forth its working hypothesis as to the identity of any vessels that may be related to the two sites that are the subjects of two arrests Odyssey has pending before the Court. Odyssey had been reluctant to disclose its working hypotheses because the company believes that there is insufficient evidence in either case to conclusively confirm the identity of any vessel that may be associated with the sites.
Odyssey had hoped to more fully explain its reasons for its confidentiality request but Odyssey’s motion to hold a hearing in camera rather than in open court was denied. As a result, with the Court’s order, and with Magistrate Pizzo’s specific caution about his expectations for justification for Protective Orders, the public will now be aware of speculation about possible identities of the sites in question.
A vessel named as possibly being related to the site which is the subject of case number 8:07-CV-00614-SDM-MAP is the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas (the “Mercedes”), a Spanish vessel that had been assigned to transport mail, private passengers and consignments of merchant goods and other cargoes at the time of its sinking in 1804. In its response to the Court’s interrogatory, Odyssey also indicated that it had information under review which may be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the wreck site is that of the Mercedes.
Odyssey named the Merchant Royall, a British merchant vessel lost in 1641, as a possible identity of the vessel related to case number 8:06-CV-01685-SDM-MAP. Odyssey again indicated that it had information under review in that case which could be inconsistent with that hypothesis.
“We are all on new ground here and managing the disclosure obligations of a public company against the release of information in an Admiralty case like this is a complicated balance,” commented Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey’s General Counsel. “Judge Pizzo had previously invited us to submit a proposed protective order, which we did. In response, he has now made it abundantly clear how he wants us to proceed with public disclosures, and we will obviously fully comply.”
“As our Motion for Protective Order explained, we had hoped to maintain the confidentiality of information we consider to be speculative,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. “Experience has shown us how difficult it is to prevent unwarranted speculation about the identity and potential value of our finds once the possible identity of a site is made public, but we also respect the need to make sufficient information public to satisfy the requirement to alert potential claimants.”
- Thread starter
- #71
In case anyone is interested here's a blog about the battle between Odyssey and Doc/HHI.
http://hh-watch.blogspot.com/
http://hh-watch.blogspot.com/
rgecy
Bronze Member
That is some funny stuff! 
I wish I actually cared what Doc, and others over there had to say, but I will not waste my time!
I wish I actually cared what Doc, and others over there had to say, but I will not waste my time!
Amona
Sr. Member
- Apr 11, 2005
- 383
- 9
- Detector(s) used
- GTI2500,Seahunter Mark II, Eagle eye two box
Little bit more about Odyssey, Claudio Bonifacio(My friend in mine) and 'Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes'(odyssey's nightmare)
http://www.ideal.es/granada/20080503/sociedad/hundidos-olvido-20080503.html
Amona
http://www.ideal.es/granada/20080503/sociedad/hundidos-olvido-20080503.html
Amona
- Thread starter
- #74
Amona
Sr. Member
- Apr 11, 2005
- 383
- 9
- Detector(s) used
- GTI2500,Seahunter Mark II, Eagle eye two box
more,more,more
According with this article Spain(Cadiz's government) will win the trial against Odyssey due there is enough historical and legal reasons. After analyze the coins, Spain can prove in court that the $500M came from the Spanish vessels "fragata Nuestra Señora de la Mercedes".
Also Mr. James Goold said "Spain doesn't lose rights over any war vessels because it was sank in international waters"
more to read here:http://actualidad.terra.es:80/cultura/articulo/cadiz-ampl_gobierno_odyssey_2458830.htm
According with this article Spain(Cadiz's government) will win the trial against Odyssey due there is enough historical and legal reasons. After analyze the coins, Spain can prove in court that the $500M came from the Spanish vessels "fragata Nuestra Señora de la Mercedes".
Also Mr. James Goold said "Spain doesn't lose rights over any war vessels because it was sank in international waters"
more to read here:http://actualidad.terra.es:80/cultura/articulo/cadiz-ampl_gobierno_odyssey_2458830.htm
- Thread starter
- #76
Odyssey Marine Exploration Responds To Recent Media Reports Following the Spanish Government's ''Black Swan'' Press Conference
Thursday May 8, 9:32 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Following a significant amount of international media coverage based on a press conference held by the Spanish Ministry of Culture in Madrid on May 8, 2008, Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM: OMEX) wishes to publicly address the most frequently asked questions by media and the public.
To clarify, Odyssey was not in attendance at the press conference, which was presided over by representatives of the Spanish government as well as Spain’s legal counsel. Our statements are therefore based on media reports of the actual event and Spain’s Responses to the Court’s Interrogatories that Spain filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 8, 2008.
What is Odyssey’s point of view regarding Spain’s definitive statement that the site code-named “Black Swan” is that of the “Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas”?
Although Odyssey has identified the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas (the “Mercedes”) as a working hypothesis as to a vessel that could be related to the “Black Swan” site, the Company does not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that the site is indeed related to the Mercedes or any other ship, and as we have previously mentioned, there is no hull of a shipwreck at this site. What we have found to date is apparently a cargo from a shipwreck as opposed to an actual vessel. It is surprising to us that the Spanish representatives who have viewed the photomosaics are not aware of this if they have any experience with shipwreck sites.
It is also surprising that the Kingdom of Spain has asserted conclusively (“without a doubt”) that the “Black Swan” treasure is from the Mercedes after viewing site photomosaics and video that show no hull, ballast pile, keel or vessel, and only a statistically insignificant sample of the coins from the site. We believe that the scientific process, archaeological integrity, and historical accuracy are not served by jumping to conclusions and confirming the identity without conclusive proof.
Does Odyssey have a claim to the treasure if the “Black Swan” is indeed the “Mercedes”?
If the “Black Swan” coins are determined to be from the Mercedes, based on our extensive archival historical research, archaeological assessments and thorough legal analysis the Company is confident in its legal position. Of course, it is up to the U.S. District Court to determine the final disposition of the “Black Swan” treasure.
Can you address Spain’s accusations of Odyssey “disturbing war graves”?
Odyssey deeply respects the maritime heritage of all nations and the final resting place of any sailors or passengers that may have perished in a shipwreck. However, in the case of the “Black Swan”, no vessel and no human remains have been located, a fact that the Spanish experts are well aware of. If indeed it is confirmed that this site is related to the Mercedes, the ship was lost over 200 years ago and if the hull is ever actually located, it is unlikely that any human remains will be found at the site. Nevertheless, Odyssey agrees that all sites should be treated with respect and proper archaeological protocols, which have been carefully observed in the case of the “Black Swan” site.
Is Odyssey willing to settle the ”Black Swan” case with Spain?
Odyssey has previously proposed to the Spanish Government on numerous occasions that Spanish archaeologists be allowed to participate in any expeditions that seek to explore shipwrecks which may be of Spanish historical interest.
As with our previous projects, including the SS Republic and HMS Sussex, Odyssey is diligent about notifying potential claimants when the ship's identity is determined. When, and if, Spain is determined to have a claim or cultural interest in any shipwreck, Odyssey would propose to enter a relationship just as it has on previous projects.
There have been some individuals that have been working hard to vilify Odyssey rather than acknowledging our company's repeated attempts to cooperate with Spain in any finds that may involve Spanish heritage. Odyssey has been and continues to be a steward of history. We bring stories of great cultural and historical significance to life, and we have always conducted our operations with archaeological integrity and technology that surpasses the capacities of many academic and governmental institutions.
Odyssey will continue to offer cooperation with Spain and any other government or potential owners of shipwrecks or cargo - and we hope that those who are concerned about underwater cultural heritage will see past the false representations about us by some who have a vested interest in seeing that Spain and Odyssey do not work together.
Thursday May 8, 9:32 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Following a significant amount of international media coverage based on a press conference held by the Spanish Ministry of Culture in Madrid on May 8, 2008, Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM: OMEX) wishes to publicly address the most frequently asked questions by media and the public.
To clarify, Odyssey was not in attendance at the press conference, which was presided over by representatives of the Spanish government as well as Spain’s legal counsel. Our statements are therefore based on media reports of the actual event and Spain’s Responses to the Court’s Interrogatories that Spain filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 8, 2008.
What is Odyssey’s point of view regarding Spain’s definitive statement that the site code-named “Black Swan” is that of the “Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas”?
Although Odyssey has identified the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes y las Animas (the “Mercedes”) as a working hypothesis as to a vessel that could be related to the “Black Swan” site, the Company does not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that the site is indeed related to the Mercedes or any other ship, and as we have previously mentioned, there is no hull of a shipwreck at this site. What we have found to date is apparently a cargo from a shipwreck as opposed to an actual vessel. It is surprising to us that the Spanish representatives who have viewed the photomosaics are not aware of this if they have any experience with shipwreck sites.
It is also surprising that the Kingdom of Spain has asserted conclusively (“without a doubt”) that the “Black Swan” treasure is from the Mercedes after viewing site photomosaics and video that show no hull, ballast pile, keel or vessel, and only a statistically insignificant sample of the coins from the site. We believe that the scientific process, archaeological integrity, and historical accuracy are not served by jumping to conclusions and confirming the identity without conclusive proof.
Does Odyssey have a claim to the treasure if the “Black Swan” is indeed the “Mercedes”?
If the “Black Swan” coins are determined to be from the Mercedes, based on our extensive archival historical research, archaeological assessments and thorough legal analysis the Company is confident in its legal position. Of course, it is up to the U.S. District Court to determine the final disposition of the “Black Swan” treasure.
Can you address Spain’s accusations of Odyssey “disturbing war graves”?
Odyssey deeply respects the maritime heritage of all nations and the final resting place of any sailors or passengers that may have perished in a shipwreck. However, in the case of the “Black Swan”, no vessel and no human remains have been located, a fact that the Spanish experts are well aware of. If indeed it is confirmed that this site is related to the Mercedes, the ship was lost over 200 years ago and if the hull is ever actually located, it is unlikely that any human remains will be found at the site. Nevertheless, Odyssey agrees that all sites should be treated with respect and proper archaeological protocols, which have been carefully observed in the case of the “Black Swan” site.
Is Odyssey willing to settle the ”Black Swan” case with Spain?
Odyssey has previously proposed to the Spanish Government on numerous occasions that Spanish archaeologists be allowed to participate in any expeditions that seek to explore shipwrecks which may be of Spanish historical interest.
As with our previous projects, including the SS Republic and HMS Sussex, Odyssey is diligent about notifying potential claimants when the ship's identity is determined. When, and if, Spain is determined to have a claim or cultural interest in any shipwreck, Odyssey would propose to enter a relationship just as it has on previous projects.
There have been some individuals that have been working hard to vilify Odyssey rather than acknowledging our company's repeated attempts to cooperate with Spain in any finds that may involve Spanish heritage. Odyssey has been and continues to be a steward of history. We bring stories of great cultural and historical significance to life, and we have always conducted our operations with archaeological integrity and technology that surpasses the capacities of many academic and governmental institutions.
Odyssey will continue to offer cooperation with Spain and any other government or potential owners of shipwrecks or cargo - and we hope that those who are concerned about underwater cultural heritage will see past the false representations about us by some who have a vested interest in seeing that Spain and Odyssey do not work together.
G.I.B.
Gold Member
- Feb 23, 2007
- 7,187
- 8,538
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- CTX 3030 / GTI 2500 / Infinium LS / Tesoro Sand Shark / 1 Garrett Pro-pointer / 1 Carrot / Vibra Probe 580 (out on loan) / Lesche M85 / Mark1 MOD1 EyeBall
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Here is the local news link for Fox 13 Tampa Bay, along with a video link to the story.
The photo credit is to www.treasurelore.com
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/...n=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
The photo credit is to www.treasurelore.com
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/...n=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
I love how Spain comes out of the woodworks laying their claim on their ill-gotten goods. The way I look at it, Odyssey Marine has a couple viable options. The first is to continue fighting Spain's claim. If things do not go in their favor, the 2nd option is to do a 2-3 mile or more dumping of the coins around the general area of the wreck location simulating the debris field of a wreck. Let Spain then spend their own dime to recover the loot from the "grave" of their sailors as they put it. If Spain can claim warships from an entirely different government 200 years previously, I do not see how Peru or even Ecuador cannot claim their fair share of the loot being the gold originated there and was minted in Lima. I love how greed drives the governments, including our own, to lay claim to the spoils of other peoples' hard work.
- Thread starter
- #79
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Good Morning Jeff:
An adequate, but not too precise, interpretation.by them.
Frankly, to me, the most telling thing against Odyssey "IS" the very lack of a ship. This would definitely indicate an explosion of catastrophic dimensions which is precisely what is claimed in the history records. Anything less, and there would be substantial remains of parts of a partially intact hull.
s for an unknown ship just dumping it over the side, that is just too weak a defense.
I personally am against Spain, but legally she shows a stronger case so far on it's Identity, than Odyssey.
Don Jose de La Mancha
An adequate, but not too precise, interpretation.by them.
Frankly, to me, the most telling thing against Odyssey "IS" the very lack of a ship. This would definitely indicate an explosion of catastrophic dimensions which is precisely what is claimed in the history records. Anything less, and there would be substantial remains of parts of a partially intact hull.
s for an unknown ship just dumping it over the side, that is just too weak a defense.
I personally am against Spain, but legally she shows a stronger case so far on it's Identity, than Odyssey.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Top Member Reactions
-
3105 -
1870 -
1728 -
1533 -
1212 -
1142 -
937 -
908 -
822 -
776 -
767 -
764 -
589 -
574 -
535 -
449 -
426 -
424 -
414 -
400
