No hatred here Ossy, much less towards our “Motherland”. What bothers me in this case is the biased coverage the Spanish press has shown in the way the “facts” have been presented since the very beginning. A perfect example is this article you posted, though published in a German newspaper, it states that the Alvear descendants are “pro-Spain” in this legal battle. Nothing farther from the truth. There are two teams of descendants claiming the coins as heirs, very crucial information the readers are not told. What happened with the “truth in journalism” that one can expect from a reputable paper? I love Spain!
Odyssey Marine Article...
- Thread starter jeff k
- Start date
It is not necessarily the case that every descendant of Alvear would have a legitimate claim to his former property. In many cases it is the eldest son that inherits the father's estate and belongings, unless specific provisions are put in the will. I don't know if that is the case with Alvear and his descendants.
I post this message here and in other thread (smoke and mirrors) because I dont known where it will fix better. Excuse me.
As usual, there is always somebody who add some new fact or theory to the Black Swan issue. And what is the most curious thing is that some people, trying to help Spain do exactly the opposite. Now there is a spanish researcher, Antonio Moreno Hurtado, who says that he has the documents that prove the coins belongs to Spain. He says that all the coins in “La Mercedes” belongs to Spain because all these coins were brand new (nuevo cuño), not coins already circulating on “market”, and for the same reason, not belonging to the spanish merchants on colonies. This argument, if finally were true, that looks at first glance very positive to Spain in this trial against Odyssey, could be the key Odyssey were waiting for: if all the coins aboard the “La Mercedes” were brand new, the coins Odyssey has found on the Black Swan site were never aboard the “Mercedes” because not even one (as far as I know) is a brand new coin. All the coins in this “treasure” are “used coins”, circulating money that was took at a moment to be keep in boxes to be send to Spain.
http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/ocio/486436/investigador/prueba/tesoro/odyssey/es/espanol.html
As usual, there is always somebody who add some new fact or theory to the Black Swan issue. And what is the most curious thing is that some people, trying to help Spain do exactly the opposite. Now there is a spanish researcher, Antonio Moreno Hurtado, who says that he has the documents that prove the coins belongs to Spain. He says that all the coins in “La Mercedes” belongs to Spain because all these coins were brand new (nuevo cuño), not coins already circulating on “market”, and for the same reason, not belonging to the spanish merchants on colonies. This argument, if finally were true, that looks at first glance very positive to Spain in this trial against Odyssey, could be the key Odyssey were waiting for: if all the coins aboard the “La Mercedes” were brand new, the coins Odyssey has found on the Black Swan site were never aboard the “Mercedes” because not even one (as far as I know) is a brand new coin. All the coins in this “treasure” are “used coins”, circulating money that was took at a moment to be keep in boxes to be send to Spain.
http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/ocio/486436/investigador/prueba/tesoro/odyssey/es/espanol.html
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #805
Thread Owner
Odyssey Marine Exploration Completes Phase One of "Symphony" Project
• Press Release
• Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
• Thursday August 27, 2009, 5:00 pm EDT
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM:OMEX), pioneers in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, recently completed the first phase of survey in the search area code named “Symphony”. The work was conducted under a government permit in an exclusive claim area and in conjunction with a project partner. Results of the survey are being analyzed and compiled into a report which will be provided to the government before the next phase of work is commenced. Preliminary review of the data suggests that four shipwrecks have been located in the phase one search area, but at this point, none of the sites have been conclusively identified.
“This new search area has long been considered a target-rich environment for valuable shipwrecks and we’re thrilled to have the opportunity to work here in cooperation with the government,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey CEO. “Research suggests that at least two shipwrecks in the ‘Symphony’ area are commercial vessels with significant cargoes of gold coins, which are very hot commodities today in the collector market.”
The expedition was conducted by the Odyssey search team on a chartered vessel. To protect the security of the search area, specific location details are not being released at this time. Proceeds of any recoveries from this search area will be split with the government and project partner with an anticipated 78% of the gross income of the project retained by Odyssey.
• Press Release
• Source: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
• Thursday August 27, 2009, 5:00 pm EDT
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM:OMEX), pioneers in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, recently completed the first phase of survey in the search area code named “Symphony”. The work was conducted under a government permit in an exclusive claim area and in conjunction with a project partner. Results of the survey are being analyzed and compiled into a report which will be provided to the government before the next phase of work is commenced. Preliminary review of the data suggests that four shipwrecks have been located in the phase one search area, but at this point, none of the sites have been conclusively identified.
“This new search area has long been considered a target-rich environment for valuable shipwrecks and we’re thrilled to have the opportunity to work here in cooperation with the government,” said Greg Stemm, Odyssey CEO. “Research suggests that at least two shipwrecks in the ‘Symphony’ area are commercial vessels with significant cargoes of gold coins, which are very hot commodities today in the collector market.”
The expedition was conducted by the Odyssey search team on a chartered vessel. To protect the security of the search area, specific location details are not being released at this time. Proceeds of any recoveries from this search area will be split with the government and project partner with an anticipated 78% of the gross income of the project retained by Odyssey.
Did anybody heard any statement of Barak Obama on these last days talking about the Black Swan issue or Odyssey? Yesterday, here in Spain, the TV channel La Sexta said on its news (Saturday, 15.30 PM) that Obama talk about it and the USA president said that any shipwreck over 100 years laying on the bottom of the sea was an archaeological site and shouldn't be touched. This channel also said that Obama recommended Odyssey to give back the treasure to Spain, the real owner the "treasure". I don't know, it sounded strange to me to imagine a president of USA directing an specific position about a legal issue still on trial. I went to Google and I didn't find anything in relation with this. Thanks.
Finally I have found the origin of this new:
http://www.abc.es/20090830/cultura-patrimonio/torpedea-futuro-odyssey-200908300013.html
It says that the US Navy (vice admiral James W. Houck) and the Secretary of State (by the ambassador David A. Balton, assistant to this Secretary for marines affaires) made a public statement "against" Odyssey commercial interests. Any information about this new situation?
http://www.abc.es/20090830/cultura-patrimonio/torpedea-futuro-odyssey-200908300013.html
It says that the US Navy (vice admiral James W. Houck) and the Secretary of State (by the ambassador David A. Balton, assistant to this Secretary for marines affaires) made a public statement "against" Odyssey commercial interests. Any information about this new situation?
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #809
Thread Owner
The Justice Dept. filed a brief that backs Spain's position. Coincidentally, the woman that drafted that brief for the DOJ is married to an attorney that worked for Goold's law firm. 
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/235/
Here's a translation of the ABC article.
http://tinyurl.com/njg7nj
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/235/
Here's a translation of the ABC article.
http://tinyurl.com/njg7nj
Could anybody clarify me two things? It is normal in US that the DoJ put its opinion on a legal issue that is still on his way to be solved? And two, how this brief can affect the final direction of this legal issue and how it could affect to Judge Marryday on his decision? Thanks.
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #811
Thread Owner
trinidad said:
Amicus briefs are normal. Judge Merryday should make his decision on the merits of the case.
Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE
A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth.
Referring to the 1902 Treaty between Spain and the USA, the judge in the SeaHunt case in 2000 said "A treaty between two countries means what those two countries agree that it means." That was the basis for the judge ruling that a Spanish shipwreck in US waters was not abandoned except by a specific statement of abandonment by its owner, even though the Treaty itself contains no such statement.
It strikes me that what the US Government apperas to be doing now is restating, for the purpose of the court, the meaning of the Treaty, extending it to International waters and to State-owned ships that were carrying personal property.
If this is the case, then I think that the court will act on the new interpretation of the meaning of the 1902 Treaty (Spain's arguments and the magistrate's preliminary recommendations already reflected this position, and this latest US Government statement demonstrates their agreement), and rule against Odyssey.
Personally, I don't think that the US Government should be acting in this way, but that's life, I guess.
Mariner
It strikes me that what the US Government apperas to be doing now is restating, for the purpose of the court, the meaning of the Treaty, extending it to International waters and to State-owned ships that were carrying personal property.
If this is the case, then I think that the court will act on the new interpretation of the meaning of the 1902 Treaty (Spain's arguments and the magistrate's preliminary recommendations already reflected this position, and this latest US Government statement demonstrates their agreement), and rule against Odyssey.
Personally, I don't think that the US Government should be acting in this way, but that's life, I guess.
Mariner
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #813
Thread Owner
mariner said:
Mariner... That's why we have a Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor has already stated in a previous case that, "treaties are not law."
“Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the ‘supreme law of the land,’ in most instances they’re not even law,” she said.
That principle, she said, explained the outcome of a high-profile 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Medellin v. Texas, which involved an International Court of Justice ruling that some Mexican inmates on death row in Texas should get new sentencing hearings because the authorities failed to help them get help from the Mexican Consulate, contrary to a treaty the United States had ratified.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the international court’s decision had no legal force and that the treaty was not binding, because Congress never passed a statute explicitly making it domestic law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11judge.html
What will be, will be but it sounds to me like we all were seeing a matchgame that was really interesting till today, when suddenly somebody came and tell us the final score of the match. We can keep seeing the game but it's not the same. It looks to me like the final decision is already made.
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Very Interesting turn of events.mariner said:
Ossy
Trinidad,
I don't think this is over, by a long chalk. As Jeff implies, this could well go all the way to the US Supreme Court, and I am not sure whether what the US Department of Defence is doing is constitutional. I don't think that a democratic Government can simply alter the law at will, especially if it also modifies a well-established international Treaty relating to events in international waters. It is one thing for Spain and the US to make rules covering their own waters, but the Convention on Salvage is clear in what constitutes a Sovereign vessel, and I don't think that the USA and Spain have a right to alter that unilaterally, much as it might suit them to do so.
Mariner
I don't think this is over, by a long chalk. As Jeff implies, this could well go all the way to the US Supreme Court, and I am not sure whether what the US Department of Defence is doing is constitutional. I don't think that a democratic Government can simply alter the law at will, especially if it also modifies a well-established international Treaty relating to events in international waters. It is one thing for Spain and the US to make rules covering their own waters, but the Convention on Salvage is clear in what constitutes a Sovereign vessel, and I don't think that the USA and Spain have a right to alter that unilaterally, much as it might suit them to do so.
Mariner
The spanish ministry of Culture just released a press communication to say thanks to US Gov. for the amicus curiae added to the legal issue about the Black Swan case. And Spain already sent the response to the last allegation of Odyssey in this case. Is not public at this very moment but it will be in hours or, as much, over the next days.
http://www.mcu.es/gabineteprensa/mo...ayout=notas&html=17542009nota.txt&language=es
http://www.mcu.es/gabineteprensa/mo...ayout=notas&html=17542009nota.txt&language=es
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #819
Thread Owner
Here's the translation.
The U.S. government supports the Spanish Government in the Case Odyssey
September 1, 2009
Spain claims the judge refers to the appeal by the U.S. company
The lawyer representing the Spanish government yesterday presented the case to court Odyssey Spain's response to allegations made by the company Odyssey Marine Exploration, Peru and elsewhere. The United States Government has also submitted to the U.S. court official position of the United States to support the interests of Spain: legal documentation prepared by the Department of Justice of the U.S. Government including the positions of the State Department and U.S. Navy .
The Ministry of Culture welcomes the support of the U.S. government because it represents the common interest of Spanish and U.S. governments of sovereign immunity to protect the wreck Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, prevent illegal disruption of ships forming part of the national heritage of their respective countries, and respecting the place where the remains of those who died while serving their country.
The U.S. legal process requires that all parties were filed in the judicial process argue before Judge Steven Merryday the legitimacy of the decision taken last June by Judge Pizzo which recognized all the rights of Spain and the implementation of principle of state sovereign immunity on the Spanish shipwreck Nuestra Senora de la Mercedes.
Before the report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Pizzo, the Spanish government lawyer demonstrates and argues that this decision reflects a proper and careful analysis of evidence and legal principles which state that the wreck, the sailors, coins and other objects are protected from unlawful interference and commercial exploitation. Also acknowledges that courts in other countries should join the Spanish State in the protection of underwater cultural heritage for public benefit.
The U.S. government supports the Spanish Government in the Case Odyssey
September 1, 2009
Spain claims the judge refers to the appeal by the U.S. company
The lawyer representing the Spanish government yesterday presented the case to court Odyssey Spain's response to allegations made by the company Odyssey Marine Exploration, Peru and elsewhere. The United States Government has also submitted to the U.S. court official position of the United States to support the interests of Spain: legal documentation prepared by the Department of Justice of the U.S. Government including the positions of the State Department and U.S. Navy .
The Ministry of Culture welcomes the support of the U.S. government because it represents the common interest of Spanish and U.S. governments of sovereign immunity to protect the wreck Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, prevent illegal disruption of ships forming part of the national heritage of their respective countries, and respecting the place where the remains of those who died while serving their country.
The U.S. legal process requires that all parties were filed in the judicial process argue before Judge Steven Merryday the legitimacy of the decision taken last June by Judge Pizzo which recognized all the rights of Spain and the implementation of principle of state sovereign immunity on the Spanish shipwreck Nuestra Senora de la Mercedes.
Before the report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Pizzo, the Spanish government lawyer demonstrates and argues that this decision reflects a proper and careful analysis of evidence and legal principles which state that the wreck, the sailors, coins and other objects are protected from unlawful interference and commercial exploitation. Also acknowledges that courts in other countries should join the Spanish State in the protection of underwater cultural heritage for public benefit.
I'll post this here and on thread of Robert Marx because has to do with Marx and Odyssey. Simply disgusting. I've just read an interview to R. Marx on an spanish paper, ABC, and I haven't see something so disgusting in a lot of time. The journalist tries to make appears R. Marx as an angel who saw the light and now denies his past and insults our intelligence throwing trash over Odyssey. And Marx doesn't loose the opportunity and says things that coming from him are hard to read and believe. Whatever for a contract, a permission or, even, an applause from the spanish audience. Lets wait and we'll see Robert Marx doing, on the way he use to do, a kind of work for Spain that Odyssey had no the way to get. Finally, it's not about what you do but about the things you're able to do to do what you want to do. If things keep going this way, forums about underwater cultural heritage will be rated only for adults.
Here is the link (Jeff, I'm sorry, it's really long to translate):
http://www.abc.es/20090901/cultura-patrimonio/torpedea-futuro-odyssey-200909011605.html
Here is the link (Jeff, I'm sorry, it's really long to translate):
http://www.abc.es/20090901/cultura-patrimonio/torpedea-futuro-odyssey-200909011605.html
Top Member Reactions
-
2879 -
2241 -
1270 -
1216 -
965 -
902 -
856 -
782 -
683 -
619 -
603 -
585 -
558 -
551 -
546
Similar threads
