Odyssey Marine Article...

[Philvis]

SWR, I've read the cable in question. The US ambassador offered up a back door deal to the Spanish minister circumventing the legal system. Sorry, but if that doesn't make the US look bad, I am not sure what more proof you need. Making Odyssey the sacrificial lamb isn't exactly on the up and up. The ambassador represents the US. I don't think I need to explain anymore. I think you would argue the world is not round for arguments sake SWR. You will never be satisfied with an answer anyone gives. Thanks though!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

ok Ossy so could you give me your actual reasons why you believe OM did anything illegal?
What exactly did they do that has you "voting against them"?

oh and about Spain boarding OM legally- Great Britian believes otherwise!

and it seems as if Spain bullies more than "Treasure Hunters"

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6403538&c=SEA&s=TOP

They Sacked a Sovereign War Vessel. Without Permission ! That's Illegal in Spain.
Gibraltar is a tricky situation, Spain want it back , England don't care, But the people of Gibraltar want Independence. Not that you are having pot shots at Spain, Au_Dreamers .
How Odyssey handle themselves in Gibraltar only made things worse.
Ossy

 

[Au_Dreamers]

ok Ossy so could you give me your actual reasons why you believe OM did anything illegal?
What exactly did they do that has you "voting against them"?

oh and about Spain boarding OM legally- Great Britian believes otherwise!

and it seems as if Spain bullies more than "Treasure Hunters"

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6403538&c=SEA&s=TOP

They Sacked a Sovereign War Vessel. Without Permission ! That's Illegal in Spain.
Gibraltar is a tricky situation, Spain want it back , England don't care, But the people of Gibraltar want Independence. Not that you are having pot shots at Spain, Au_Dreamers .
How Odyssey handle themselves in Gibraltar only made things worse.
Ossy

Ok so was the Mercedes even though the artifacts OM has obtained are not proven to be from the wreck of the Mercedes, was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?

 

[Au_Dreamers]

and then there is this...

"2.Bryan Lieb Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for the comment and links, John. Your book looks like a fascinating read. In your opinion, even if the 4th Circuit got the facts wrong in *Sea Hunt*, did they have the law right? Trying to gauge the present “Black Swan” case, the law I’ve read (regarding express abandonment, etc) seems to favor Spain. What’s your take?

B

3.John Amrhein Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The 4th Circuit may have had the law right, but any pronouncement made without valid admiralty jurisdiction, which they did not have, is nothing more than an advisory opinion to the Kingdom of Spain. Article Three, Section II of U.S. Constitution prohibits such opinions. This decision must be set aside.

John"

http://blog.uslegal.com/2007/06/odyssey-marine-loot-the-treaty-of-paris-1763-and-sea-hunt-vs-spain/

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Err ah may I ask a question? what vessel? what ship?? As I understand there was only scattered debris that could have been thrown overboard for one reason or another. There apparently was no hull, so obviously technically and legally, they were not salvaging a ship, but debris scattered on the bottom of the ocean. Hmmmmm What does international law say about cleaning up debris from the bottom of the ocean?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

ok Ossy so could you give me your actual reasons why you believe OM did anything illegal?
What exactly did they do that has you "voting against them"?

oh and about Spain boarding OM legally- Great Britian believes otherwise!

and it seems as if Spain bullies more than "Treasure Hunters"

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6403538&c=SEA&s=TOP

They Sacked a Sovereign War Vessel. Without Permission ! That's Illegal in Spain.
Gibraltar is a tricky situation, Spain want it back , England don't care, But the people of Gibraltar want Independence. Not that you are having pot shots at Spain, Au_Dreamers .
How Odyssey handle themselves in Gibraltar only made things worse.
Ossy

Ok so was the Mercedes even though the artifacts OM has obtained are not proven to be from the wreck of the Mercedes, was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?

Ok, So what other Ship exploded in that area carrying about the same amount of coins and of that date
Odyssey had the opportunity to bring up other artifacts to Verify exactly what ship is was but chose only to take the coins.
Why

 

[Au_Dreamers]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

Yes commercial cargo, But under orders from Royal Naval command to be protected from English attack, Thus under
the Royal navy's control !
It's in the court documents, I'm sure you have read them. Copies have been presented to the courts.
Next question.

 

[ivan salis]

military cargo and the warship its self only is "protected" from salvage -- not commerical cargo carried on her * they are two very differant items "legally speaking" --and while normally cargo of warships in general is protected from being salvaged due to there being some "warship" hull work left ( one can not disturb the intact warship wreck to get at the "contents" within the wreck) --in this case there is in effect no "warship' left to loot since it was basically blown to splinters --so your not harvesting or bothering "the ship " because there is nothing really left hull wize to "bother" -- thus it is "commerical cargo" that was formerly aboard the vessel that was scattered all over on the seabed that was in effect "recovered"

if being under "protection" of the royal navy was to hold up as far as legally transporting "commerical cargo" -- would not all ships in a spanish convoy be "undernaval protection" of the spanish navy since the military escort ships are supposed to protect the convoy?-- see the flaw in the "under naval protection" ideal --it would mean ALL the ships in the convoy would become in effect "under naval protection " vessels and thus unsalvagible * which is utter nonsense-- since the convoys were privately owned commerical vessels --under military escort "protection" only --one can not convert private cargo into govt property by merely placing it upon a govt vessel "for protection" --since it still "belongs" to private persons or their hiers -- thus even though its on board a govt ship its not goverment gold and silver --thus the coins are not "govt cargo" but private cargo merely carried upon a govt ship for protection --

 

[Au_Dreamers]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

Yes commercial cargo, But under orders from Royal Naval command to be protected from English attack, Thus under
the Royal navy's control !
It's in the court documents, I'm sure you have read them. Copies have been presented to the courts.
Next question.

IV. Conclusion
Neither U.S. nor international law supports the extraordinary policy positions
advanced in the U.S. Brief: first, that a government vessel could engage in limitless
commercial activity and yet enjoy immunities simply by being characterized as a “warship;”
and second, that such immunities would extend to the privately-owned commercial cargo
carried on that vessel at the time of its sinking. Contrary to the assertions of the United
States, the SMCA and other relevant instruments extend the protection of immunity only to
vessels that are engaged in governmental non-commercial activities -- regardless of what the
vessels are called. Because the Mercedes was not engaged in such a mission, the U.S. Brief
has no bearing on the Court’s disposition of Spain’s motion to dismiss.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

Yes commercial cargo, But under orders from Royal Naval command to be protected from English attack, Thus under
the Royal navy's control !
It's in the court documents, I'm sure you have read them. Copies have been presented to the courts.
Next question.

IV. Conclusion
Neither U.S. nor international law supports the extraordinary policy positions
advanced in the U.S. Brief: first, that a government vessel could engage in limitless
commercial activity and yet enjoy immunities simply by being characterized as a “warship;”
and second, that such immunities would extend to the privately-owned commercial cargo
carried on that vessel at the time of its sinking. Contrary to the assertions of the United
States, the SMCA and other relevant instruments extend the protection of immunity only to
vessels that are engaged in governmental non-commercial activities -- regardless of what the
vessels are called. Because the Mercedes was not engaged in such a mission, the U.S. Brief
has no bearing on the Court’s disposition of Spain’s motion to dismiss.

Odyssey response.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

Yes commercial cargo, But under orders from Royal Naval command to be protected from English attack, Thus under
the Royal navy's control !
It's in the court documents, I'm sure you have read them. Copies have been presented to the courts.
Next question.

IV. Conclusion
Neither U.S. nor international law supports the extraordinary policy positions
advanced in the U.S. Brief: first, that a government vessel could engage in limitless
commercial activity and yet enjoy immunities simply by being characterized as a “warship;”
and second, that such immunities would extend to the privately-owned commercial cargo
carried on that vessel at the time of its sinking. Contrary to the assertions of the United
States, the SMCA and other relevant instruments extend the protection of immunity only to
vessels that are engaged in governmental non-commercial activities -- regardless of what the
vessels are called. Because the Mercedes was not engaged in such a mission, the U.S. Brief
has no bearing on the Court’s disposition of Spain’s motion to dismiss.

Odyssey response.

yep because the law is very clear but for some reason in this case they want to 180 it. hmmmm
Where was Spain for the preservation of the Reina Mercedes? If they are so keen on protecting their cultural heritage. Oh wait it wasn't carrying 500m in coins...

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

again please read what I wrote- I give you that the ship is the Mercedes for the discussion.
What about what I asked?

"was the Mercedes hauling commercial cargo? Does Spain argue that there was no commercial cargo onboard?"

Yes commercial cargo, But under orders from Royal Naval command to be protected from English attack, Thus under
the Royal navy's control !
It's in the court documents, I'm sure you have read them. Copies have been presented to the courts.
Next question.

IV. Conclusion
Neither U.S. nor international law supports the extraordinary policy positions
advanced in the U.S. Brief: first, that a government vessel could engage in limitless
commercial activity and yet enjoy immunities simply by being characterized as a “warship;”
and second, that such immunities would extend to the privately-owned commercial cargo
carried on that vessel at the time of its sinking. Contrary to the assertions of the United
States, the SMCA and other relevant instruments extend the protection of immunity only to
vessels that are engaged in governmental non-commercial activities -- regardless of what the
vessels are called. Because the Mercedes was not engaged in such a mission, the U.S. Brief
has no bearing on the Court’s disposition of Spain’s motion to dismiss.

Odyssey response.

yep because the law is very clear but for some reason in this case they want to 180 it. hmmmm
Where was Spain for the preservation of the Reina Mercedes? If they are so keen on protecting their cultural heritage. Oh wait it wasn't carrying 500m in coins...

Your doing a good job Au_Dreamers, maybe you should go argue the case for Odyssey.

 

[Philvis]

Wow, I gave a quote a couple posts up that should suffice. Sorry but I am typing on my phone and cannot cut and paste blocks of text, so I kept it short. Still typing on phone, but I will try to accommodate your needs for precise evidence of the US trying to make a backdoor deal with Spain for a painting also providing confidential customs docs to Spain for their case againgst Odyssey as means for making the US look bad.

"On September 6, DHS-ICE Attache delivered the Odyssey Customs documents to Director of Auduanas Nicolas Bonilla, as requested byGOS via the Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA) on July 24."
That was in regards to the confidential customs docs the US gave Spain.

Also, "Jorge Domecq, MFA's Deputy Director for Gibralter Issues, noted that MFA was interested in obtaining the Odyssey customs information to provide to lawyers representing the GOS in the Tampa Admiralty Court."


Hope those help.

 

[jeff k]

Wow, I gave a quote a couple posts up that should suffice. Sorry but I am typing on my phone and cannot cut and paste blocks of text, so I kept it short. Still typing on phone, but I will try to accommodate your needs for precise evidence of the US trying to make a backdoor deal with Spain for a painting also providing confidential customs docs to Spain for their case againgst Odyssey as means for making the US look bad.

"On September 6, DHS-ICE Attache delivered the Odyssey Customs documents to Director of Auduanas Nicolas Bonilla, as requested byGOS via the Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA) on July 24."
That was in regards to the confidential customs docs the US gave Spain.

Also, "Jorge Domecq, MFA's Deputy Director for Gibralter Issues, noted that MFA was interested in obtaining the Odyssey customs information to provide to lawyers representing the GOS in the Tampa Admiralty Court."


Hope those help.

Greetings...I can understand trying to type or copy/paste on a phone. And thanks for your attention regarding this matter.

Proper protocol was taken by Spain to request customs documentation via The Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAA)....as Spain is a member of the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC). Customs documentation is not classified as "confidential". Nothing out of the ordinary there, or backdoor shenanigans by either side. More info on the CMAA and CCC here:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_s..._operations/international_agreements/cmaa.xml

This also covers the second part of your post.

Then why did the State Dept. turn down their request for the documents on several occasions, and why did Homeland Security get involved? Validate that!

 

[jeff k]

Someone posted the following on the Yahoo forum. The parts I liked are in bold letters.


Ahoy mates:

I had the good fortune to attend oral arguments in Atlanta this morning. Thought I would summarize my impressions for the group, but please note that I couldn't have any electronics devices in court so couldn't transcribe the hearing contemporaneously; therefore it is possible this report may contain omissions or errors (and it certainly contains my subjective views). Moreover, when I "quote" a judge's comments, I am paraphrasing to the best of my recollection.

The panel was Hull, Black, and Stapleton (Stapleton was visiting judge from 3rd Circuit). I was glad to see Judge Black on the panel because she is the author of Aqua Log, an 11th Circuit case that came out after the district court ruled here, and one that is the focal point of OMEX's briefs.

All three judges were very attentive and engaged. While they had clarifying questions to ask of all parties, they seemed much more skeptical of Spain's position than OMEX's, and I came away with the distinct impression that OMEX is likely to prevail. Judge Hull asked pointed questions of Spain, positing hypotheticals such as "assume we find clear error in that the ship was on a commercial voyage, not a military mission as found below, doesn't that kill your (Spain)'s case?" (paraphrase, not quote). Spain counsel tried to dance around the issues and divert, frustrating the panel, with Judge Hull commenting "you're very good at avoiding my questions" at one point. More significantly (I thought), Judge Stapleton, towards the end of Spain's presentation, said "I just have to ask about the elephant in the room here. The district court said it lacked jurisdiction yet nonetheless assumed jurisdiction by awarding the res to Spain. Why isn't that error?" To this Spain tried in vain to appease the panel (IMO) --- the panel seemed (to me) convinced that the proper course would have been to restore the status quo --- the district court, if it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly lacked jurisdiction to award the res to Spain. OMEX did not face similar antagonism/hostility in the questions posited to it, in my view.

There were other arguments made (including smaller amounts of time allocated to Peru and some individual claimants), and in my view OMEX got the better of these as well. I noticed some folks in the gallery (btw, the gallery was packed, I would estimate 100 spectators including 2 sailors from the Spanish navy donning official uniforms!) who were apparently with OMEX seemed quite happy with how the hearing went.

I may be able to expand more later -- arguments lasted over an hour I believe -- but I have to catch a train and head back home for now. I wanted to just give the group my take on the arguments before I have to take off.

In summary, I thought it went very well for OMEX, and I have added OMEX shares upon reflecting on how it all went. I think it's difficult to read the tea leaves in arguments like these, but I'm glad I went and feel OMEX did a very good job, and was well received by the judges. I did not hear the judges give any indication of when a ruling would issue, but hopefully we don't have to wait long.

Toodles,
Bruce

 

[trinidad]

Any way to know a little more about this hearing?

 

[jeff k]

Any way to know a little more about this hearing?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/24/national/a110500D46.DTL

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Any way to know a little more about this hearing?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/24/national/a110500D46.DTL

Thanks Jeff.
Very Interesting " They recovered firearm remnants and 18 CANNONS " can you verify that Jeff.
US justice Department Attorneys said " The court can and must direct that the loot, be returned to Spain "
Makes it hard when your own Government isn't on your side, But I think there looking at the big picture.
Ossy

 

[old man]

Any way to know a little more about this hearing?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/24/national/a110500D46.DTL

Thanks Jeff.
Very Interesting " They recovered firearm remnants and 18 CANNONS " can you verify that Jeff.
US justice Department Attorneys said " The court can and must direct that the loot, be returned to Spain "
Makes it hard when your own Government isn't on your side, But I think there looking at the big picture.
Ossy

Ossy, It seems that even one U.S. Judge believes that this case about about Money and not much else. As I said, once before. Nothing but Greed and I don't mean on Odyssey's part.