Odyssey Marine Article...

[diggerww]

There is a significant difference between "exclusively" and 'on'. Exclusively means that the entire vessel was on non-government service, ie ALL the cargo was non-government for the sovereignty not to apply.

Sovereign or not, Spain is still an owner. Spain owned the vessel, as well as a significant portion of the cargo. In an Admiralty issue, the owner has the right to refuse aid or salvage. Spain did refuse, and as master of the vessel, speaks for the entire vessel, and the associated cargo.

Obfuscation means that you are trying to cloud the factual data. You continue to rant that Spain never paid the descendants, well, this is true, it is also true that Spain was not required to, Britain was. Spain represented the claimants in the Admiralty Court after the war was over.

The documentation provided to the Court on the Mercedes case is very easy to obtain. The disposition on Alvear was submitted to the Court, Exhibit 2. Why does your version contradict every other version available, as well as the version that Odyssey Marine submitted themselves?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[jeff k]

"Spain did refuse, and as master of the vessel, speaks for the entire vessel, and the associated cargo."

Spain never refused salvage of the Mercedes, because Odyssey never told Spain what ships they were looking for. Odyssey asked if they wanted to participate in the project, and they said no.

 

[Panfilo]

I’m no Admiralty lawyer Diggerww, but as one of my law teachers used to remind us constantly, “the spirit of the law” is what one must try and understand, this si the central issue being debated in the Tampa/Atlanta courts. Was the Mercedes on a military non commercial mission when she sank, or not? That is what will be decided. Clearly you, Judge Merryday and Judge Pizzo believe that carrying women and children along with coins owned by private merchants (74% was private, the rest belonged to the King) was a military mission. I don’t much think that the Santisima Trinidad on her way to Trafalgar (what is really an exclusively military non commercial mission) was carrying cascarilla wood, alpaca wool nor discarded bronze cannons…but that’s just my personal obfuscating view of things.
The rest, semantics, doesn’t really affect the issues here. I have a great deal of faith in the US legal system and of the wisdom of its magistrates. I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that the appeals court will rule in favor the descendants and consequently in favor of Odyssey.
Thank you kindly for your generous words Trinidad…though I suspect you’re no Santisima Trinidad in the literal sense of the word my friend!
Panfilo

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

"Spain did refuse, and as master of the vessel, speaks for the entire vessel, and the associated cargo."

Spain never refused salvage of the Mercedes, because Odyssey never told Spain what ships they were looking for. Odyssey asked if they wanted to participate in the project, and they said no.

Odyssey knew exactly what they were looking for ! The Mercedes was one off their main targets !
So why not tell Spain Did they think they would get away with it.
Didn't Odyssey solicit some Spanish business people inc Claudio for Information.
Ossy

 

[Panfilo]

Ossy, if you start a shipwreck project based on two facts, that you are going to work (read explore) in international waters and that you are going to search for a Spanish wreck that was in a commercial mission, why would you need to inform Spain? One gets the impression that Spain is hiding behind the very venerable concept of Sovereign Immunity to claim for itself private property that was never properly expropriated in a court of law, abiding by the elementary concept of due process nor did it in any way indemnify its rightful owners.
Panfilo

 

[diggerww]

"Spain did refuse, and as master of the vessel, speaks for the entire vessel, and the associated cargo."

Spain never refused salvage of the Mercedes, because Odyssey never told Spain what ships they were looking for. Odyssey asked if they wanted to participate in the project, and they said no.

Again, Spain has categorically denied salvage. In the Court documents, in the mercedes claim, Odyssey stated they met with Spain, and Spain denied salvage.
Spain in on record, with the UN, denying salvage.

Again. these claims were subject to lengthy, and due process, in the US Court, where Odyssey was denied the claim.

You claim you are smarter that the lawyers for Spain, that you are smarter that the judges of the US Court....

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Ossy, if you start a shipwreck project based on two facts, that you are going to work (read explore) in international waters and that you are going to search for a Spanish wreck that was in a commercial mission, why would you need to inform Spain? One gets the impression that Spain is hiding behind the very venerable concept of Sovereign Immunity to claim for itself private property that was never properly expropriated in a court of law, abiding by the elementary concept of due process nor did it in any way indemnify its rightful owners.
Panfilo

I am surprised by your lack of Historical importance given to the Mercedes. Spain joined the French and declared WAR
on the English after this unprovoked attack.
Do you care about the life's lost or only the commercial gain
What would the people on board the Mercedes say if they were alive today, Knowing the ancestors of people that sent them to the bottom, came back to get the Treasure they killed them for !!!!!! So they can sell them on ebay.
The only thing I agree with you, is the family's of the Merchants should receive compensation, but by the British, they killed their
family's and sold the other ships and cargo for their on gain !!
Ossy
,

 

[Panfilo]

You have your facts wrong Diggerww:I refer you to filing 131, September 22 2008, by james Goold:Spain said that 3 years before the Black swan case, on February 5 2004, Spain “notified US persons that its sunken warships may not be disturbed without authorization” . This was a general notification and was not directed towards the Mercedes as it was 3 years before it was discovered by Odyssey:
Two months later, Odyssey requested Spain’s consent to recover and sell artifacts
from shipwrecks of historical or cultural interest to Spain. At Odyssey’s request, its CEO
and Co-Founder Gregory Stemm and its Spanish counsel met on November 13, 2006
with the Assistant Subdirector General of the Directorate for the Protection of Fine Arts
and Cultural Assets of Spain’s Ministry of Culture. (Ex. F, ¶¶ 3-8 (de Cabo Decl.).)
Odyssey had sought the meeting because it desired to conduct commercial operations on
shipwrecks in which Spain had historical, cultural, or other interests. (Id. ¶ 4.) Odyssey
asked for authorization and consent to recover and sell artifacts from such shipwrecks.5
(Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
Odyssey’s request was denied in no uncertain terms. Odyssey was informed that
it would not be given authorization or consent because artifacts from archeological
excavations and from underwater cultural heritage are for public benefit and not for
private sale. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9.) Odyssey was also informed that Spain has adopted the
UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage, which provides, inter alia, that
“underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold or bartered as commercial goods.”

Odyssey could not and did not request Spain’s authorization to recover the Mercedes because Odyssey did not know the identity of the wreck as court documents state.
In which filing did you find that information Diggerww? What page, what date?Where is your source?
Panfilo

 

[Panfilo]

Ossy you’re switching from a legal discussion to a moral discussion, not fair. In this particular case, some very nice and thoughtful ladies, direct descendants of don Diego de Alvear are claiming the family artifacts that belonged to the family before the cruel episode that has ended this families life in tragedy. No economic intent, merely to reach out to their ancestors. I only see the best intentions and desire to put to rest the souls of their ancestors and in my humble opinion if one could ask don Diego his opinion I would speculate that he would be happy to have some of his wife’s silver tea service (that is seen in the videos) rest in Carolas or Matildes dinner table.
Panfilo

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

" Odyssey could not and did not request Spain's authorization to recover the Mercedes because Odyssey did not know the Identity of the wreck, as court documents state" What a load of crap !
Judge Pizzaro had no problems seeing right through this lie ! On odyssey own paper work, the Mercedes was one of there main
targets, Just ask Claudio.
Panfilo, did you see there own filming of the recovery of the coin's, They blew the sand away from the cannons, saw what they
were and didn't recover them, No point having a wallet with the owners name on it, just take the cash.
They also looked at the ships food plates and other relics that would , with out doubt confirm it was the Mercedes, but chose to ignore them.
Ossy

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Ossy you’re switching from a legal discussion to a moral discussion, not fair. In this particular case, some very nice and thoughtful ladies, direct descendants of don Diego de Alvear are claiming the family artifacts that belonged to the family before the cruel episode that has ended this families life in tragedy. No economic intent, merely to reach out to their ancestors. I only see the best intentions and desire to put to rest the souls of their ancestors and in my humble opinion if one could ask don Diego his opinion I would speculate that he would be happy to have some of his wife’s silver tea service (that is seen in the videos) rest in Carolas or Matildes dinner table.
Panfilo

We are on the same page with this
Ossy

 

[jeff k]

"In the Court documents, in the mercedes claim, Odyssey stated they met with Spain, and Spain denied salvage."

REALLY? What are you smoking? Here's what Odyssey did say. (Doc 138, Exhibit D)

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

"In the Court documents, in the mercedes claim, Odyssey stated they met with Spain, and Spain denied salvage."

REALLY? What are you smoking? Here's what Odyssey did say. (Doc 138, Exhibit D)

Greg Stemm, own words, Who should we believe, Jeff.
Ossy

 

[trinidad]

Believe me, with the official information that one can get about this case (Black Swan) is perfectly and legally possible to soustain that there are, at least, one or two ways to put a great interrogation about the identity of the wreck.

 

[FISHEYE]

I was hoping that with the server hardware crash that this thread would have just gone away.

 

[jeff k]

I was hoping that with the server hardware crash that this thread would have just gone away.

Why?

 

[cornelis 816]

I am with you Fisheye ! Cornelius ( I hope I don't get banned now )

 

[Panfilo]

This Odyssey thread is very interesting in many respects, historical, Admiralty law, underwater recovery systems, politics, international law, and for the novice its extremely educational. The final outcome of this case will be definitive for any person or company that has an interest in shipwreck recovery as legal precedents are being established. This is by far the most controversial shipwreck case in recent history that will define the rules for future recovery of state ships that sank while on a commercial mission, which amount to a great majority of Spanish colonial era wrecks . It’s a true landmark case that is worth following closely and in great detail, if one likes these sort of things. If Spain were to win on the subsequent appeals…it would have some very far-reaching effects on the future of underwater cultural patrimony, most not beneficial, the worst of which would be that it would discourage the reporting and scientific recovery of fortuitous finds which account for over 90% of all finds worldwide. A sad day for the recovery and preservation of mans sunken history. But then there are those people that would prefer that a wreck disappear forever than have a non archaeologist find it and recover it, even if its done with the highest technical standards available.
Perhaps people who like to post unsubstantiated comments and facts that can not be documented would like for threads like this one to disappear but no, fortunately its still here.

 

[trinidad]

Hi everybody! Just two things. First a curious new: Spain signed an agreement with US to look for a spanish galleon in California waters. If you can read spanish you can do it here:

http://www.abc.es/20101124/cultura/galeon-201011241029.html

Second, and this goes to Ossy. If I were you I'd be careful about the moral aspects of this issue. There are, at least, three or four points that show that some spanish people involved in the Black Swan case weren't as moral as you (and me) wish. They were directly involved on it and, at the present day, they are not anymore in their respective jobs because their dubious behaviours. I'm not an OME or Spain supporter. I just want to have the elements enough to elaborate my own opinion based in truly facts and events. And the deeper one go in this case, the harder it is to see clearly what is going on.

 

[VOC]

Fisheye and Cornelius

If you dont want to read this post its very simple "Dont click on it and it will not open up".