Odyssey Marine Article...
- Thread starter jeff k
- Start date
Really JeffK, that is your response? You fail to realize how insignificant Odyssey Marine is in world affairs. What you also fail to realize is how Odysseys actions have placed the actions and business of treasure hunting, and in some respects underwater archeaology, in peril.
Spain declared Spanish Wrecks off limits, but is now actively prosecuting any recovery.
How does that bode with all of your 1715 fleet buddies?
Spain declared Spanish Wrecks off limits, but is now actively prosecuting any recovery.
How does that bode with all of your 1715 fleet buddies?
- Thread starter
- #1,883
It takes two to tango.
- Thread starter
- #1,884
I guess you missed the Wikileaks.
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Sounds like you are upset Jeff, Did you know, part of the deal is to track Odyssey anywhere around Spanish waters, hopefully they won't have to use any missiles
Ossy
Not everything´s lost:
Lords Hansard text for 6 Mar 201206 Mar 2012 (pt 0001)
Lords Hansard text for 6 Mar 201206 Mar 2012 (pt 0001)
- Thread starter
- #1,889
That's Nelson's Victory. Santiago Mata posted that link on the Yahoo forum. He never gets anything right.
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=8604&offset=0
Odyssey raided four other sites !! In International waters ! Yer Right
and have taken artifacts from these sites.
Gibraltar container to be released or Odyssey will be in contempt of court.
United States judge orders Odyssey to return the treasure on Gibraltar to Spain
Ossy
Odyssey raided four other sites !! In International waters ! Yer Right
and have taken artifacts from these sites.Gibraltar container to be released or Odyssey will be in contempt of court.
United States judge orders Odyssey to return the treasure on Gibraltar to Spain
Ossy
- Thread starter
- #1,891
Odyssey Marine Exploration Provides Comments on Motion to Recover Fees in "Black Swan" Case
Press Release: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
TAMPA, Fla., April 16, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), pioneers in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, today called Spain's motion for costs in the "Black Swan" case inflammatory and without legal merit.
Fees are not typically awarded in admiralty claims. Under Local Admiralty Rule 7.03-(g), which Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo referenced in his February 17, 2012 Order in the case, to qualify for an award of attorney's fees, Spain must have requested fees at the same time it filed the claim and moved to have the arrest vacated. No such request was made. In its Motion, Spain attempts to circumvent the requirement of the Local Rule that requires a hearing on the issue of the admiralty arrest, and only "thereafter" may fees be awarded. Spain never requested a hearing and no hearing was ever conducted in the "Black Swan" case. Spain implies that the Court's decision not to conduct a hearing does away with the requirement insofar as attorney's fees are concerned, but Spain proved no support for this position.
The Motion estimates the amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred to be approximately $4 million but requests an initial determination of liability by the Court before submitting detailed costs. Spain also concedes that the matter is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"While we expected this motion based on past comments to the press, Spain has no statutory or contractual right to attorney's fees in this case," commented Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey's General Counsel. "We intend to vigorously defend our interests and will file an appropriate response."
Today's Motion is the latest example of the unsubstantiated and manipulative claims made by Spain's counsel, Jim Goold, throughout this case. For instance, the recent claim, reiterated in the Motion, that Odyssey tried to conceal evidence in the case by hiding artifacts in Gibraltar is totally fabricated. In fact, as early as Fall 2007, Odyssey requested the assistance of Spain's attorney to withdraw the Spanish Government's MLAs (Mutual Legal Assistance requests) which prevented these remaining artifacts from being exported and shipped to Florida for inventory and conservation.
Odyssey has always acted legally and with full disclosure. The Company voluntarily brought the "Black Swan" coins into the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court system so that any party with a valid claim could have its claim heard. Once the U.S. Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, Odyssey cooperated fully with the U.S. Marshal to release the coins to Spanish representatives in accordance with the Court's order. Odyssey also instructed Gibraltar Customs officials to release the coins and artifacts held there to Spain as ordered by the Court.
Press Release: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
TAMPA, Fla., April 16, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX - News), pioneers in the field of deep-ocean shipwreck exploration, today called Spain's motion for costs in the "Black Swan" case inflammatory and without legal merit.
Fees are not typically awarded in admiralty claims. Under Local Admiralty Rule 7.03-(g), which Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo referenced in his February 17, 2012 Order in the case, to qualify for an award of attorney's fees, Spain must have requested fees at the same time it filed the claim and moved to have the arrest vacated. No such request was made. In its Motion, Spain attempts to circumvent the requirement of the Local Rule that requires a hearing on the issue of the admiralty arrest, and only "thereafter" may fees be awarded. Spain never requested a hearing and no hearing was ever conducted in the "Black Swan" case. Spain implies that the Court's decision not to conduct a hearing does away with the requirement insofar as attorney's fees are concerned, but Spain proved no support for this position.
The Motion estimates the amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred to be approximately $4 million but requests an initial determination of liability by the Court before submitting detailed costs. Spain also concedes that the matter is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"While we expected this motion based on past comments to the press, Spain has no statutory or contractual right to attorney's fees in this case," commented Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey's General Counsel. "We intend to vigorously defend our interests and will file an appropriate response."
Today's Motion is the latest example of the unsubstantiated and manipulative claims made by Spain's counsel, Jim Goold, throughout this case. For instance, the recent claim, reiterated in the Motion, that Odyssey tried to conceal evidence in the case by hiding artifacts in Gibraltar is totally fabricated. In fact, as early as Fall 2007, Odyssey requested the assistance of Spain's attorney to withdraw the Spanish Government's MLAs (Mutual Legal Assistance requests) which prevented these remaining artifacts from being exported and shipped to Florida for inventory and conservation.
Odyssey has always acted legally and with full disclosure. The Company voluntarily brought the "Black Swan" coins into the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court system so that any party with a valid claim could have its claim heard. Once the U.S. Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, Odyssey cooperated fully with the U.S. Marshal to release the coins to Spanish representatives in accordance with the Court's order. Odyssey also instructed Gibraltar Customs officials to release the coins and artifacts held there to Spain as ordered by the Court.
Last edited:
First off, there have not been posted, not do you post, the original Court documents, or a link to, the Motion to Recover Fees in "Black Swan" Case alluded to in the title.
Not knowing what the Court has asked for, nor what Spain has submitted, leaves this newsbrief copy post rather disconnected in context and content.
Can you provide the original Court documents regarding allocation of costs and Spain's response, that generated the Odyssey Marine press release alluded to in your post?
As a quick question, Odyssey Marine has a response similar to the one you posted on this thread, posted on their website, why didnt you reference the source?
Not knowing what the Court has asked for, nor what Spain has submitted, leaves this newsbrief copy post rather disconnected in context and content.
Can you provide the original Court documents regarding allocation of costs and Spain's response, that generated the Odyssey Marine press release alluded to in your post?
As a quick question, Odyssey Marine has a response similar to the one you posted on this thread, posted on their website, why didnt you reference the source?
Last edited:
AUVnav:
As a new member to Tnet you perhaps don’t know very well how things operate here. One gets the impression you expect Jeff K to post not only the pertinent article that he did but also all the possible and probable related websites and issues that have a relation to the story he posted. Not so. On Jeff’s second line it clearly refers to the source, a press release from OMEX, what more “reference to the source” do you expect?
Now if you request the original court filings most have been posted on Odyssey’s website for a prompt consultation.
Panfilo
As a new member to Tnet you perhaps don’t know very well how things operate here. One gets the impression you expect Jeff K to post not only the pertinent article that he did but also all the possible and probable related websites and issues that have a relation to the story he posted. Not so. On Jeff’s second line it clearly refers to the source, a press release from OMEX, what more “reference to the source” do you expect?
Now if you request the original court filings most have been posted on Odyssey’s website for a prompt consultation.
Panfilo
I guess, it just appears a response to something, which seems disconnected because one doesnt know what the questions were.
In regards to the source, it is shown as Globe Newswire, so I was curious why the actual press release from Odysseys website was not used.
These filings and rulings are not available on the Odyssey website, only the response, so as an attempt to engage in meaningful dialog, it would be prudent to include the entire scenario, not just a disconnected response.
I did find this reference from several news sources
It is unclear, given the story, if Spain is asking for legal cost of the contempt hearing, or all legal costs associated with the Black Swan adventure.
In regards to the source, it is shown as Globe Newswire, so I was curious why the actual press release from Odysseys website was not used.
These filings and rulings are not available on the Odyssey website, only the response, so as an attempt to engage in meaningful dialog, it would be prudent to include the entire scenario, not just a disconnected response.
I did find this reference from several news sources
It is unclear, given the story, if Spain is asking for legal cost of the contempt hearing, or all legal costs associated with the Black Swan adventure.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,895
Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to 'plunder' shipwreck...
Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to 'plunder' shipwreck | UK news | The Observer
Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to 'plunder' shipwreck | UK news | The Observer
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
VOC
Sr. Member
It is shameful when Politics pervert the court of law and fair justice.
VOC,
Perhaps you should actually read the very detailed and very well written responses from the Court on the legal issues.
The Law of Finds, Law of the Sea, and Admiralty Courts, were NEVER set up for shipwrecks on the bottom of the Oceans.
Filing an Admiralty Arrest on a shipwreck has always been a misapplication of an arrest. While the Courts may have allowed frivilous applications of 200 year old shipwreck being in 'distress', those day have passed.
Many salvage companies have gone down the path of dealing with the rightful owners of the shipwreck, be it the insurance companies or vessel owners.
So why, when Spain asserts its rights as a vessel owner, forget sovereign, but as a vessel owner, you feel it is a miscarriage of justice?
Spain owned the vessel, and owned a significant part of the cargo, yet somehow, you feel that Odyssey could cherry pick the silver off the bottom of the ocean, and claim it is the private owners silver, not Spains?
Aside from that, a reality check, space on a vessel was at a premium, shipping cost was at a premium, so private owners convert their monies and ship GOLD, not silver. We are all well aware how gold was shipped as jewelry to avoid tax, but also to optimize shipping costs.
So here you have 500,000 silver coins, all marked 1804, but they must be private cargo?
I Spain the owner of the vessel. yes
Is Spain responsible for the administration of the contents, yes
In the sinking of the Mercedes, did Spain adjudicate with the British in a Admiralty Court after the War?
Did Odyssey ask to recover the site, yes
Was Odyssey denied, yes
Did Odyssey recover the site, yes.
Did Odyssey have to give everything back, yes
Where is the perversion of law that you speak of?
Perhaps you should actually read the very detailed and very well written responses from the Court on the legal issues.
The Law of Finds, Law of the Sea, and Admiralty Courts, were NEVER set up for shipwrecks on the bottom of the Oceans.
Filing an Admiralty Arrest on a shipwreck has always been a misapplication of an arrest. While the Courts may have allowed frivilous applications of 200 year old shipwreck being in 'distress', those day have passed.
Many salvage companies have gone down the path of dealing with the rightful owners of the shipwreck, be it the insurance companies or vessel owners.
So why, when Spain asserts its rights as a vessel owner, forget sovereign, but as a vessel owner, you feel it is a miscarriage of justice?
Spain owned the vessel, and owned a significant part of the cargo, yet somehow, you feel that Odyssey could cherry pick the silver off the bottom of the ocean, and claim it is the private owners silver, not Spains?
Aside from that, a reality check, space on a vessel was at a premium, shipping cost was at a premium, so private owners convert their monies and ship GOLD, not silver. We are all well aware how gold was shipped as jewelry to avoid tax, but also to optimize shipping costs.
So here you have 500,000 silver coins, all marked 1804, but they must be private cargo?
I Spain the owner of the vessel. yes
Is Spain responsible for the administration of the contents, yes
In the sinking of the Mercedes, did Spain adjudicate with the British in a Admiralty Court after the War?
Did Odyssey ask to recover the site, yes
Was Odyssey denied, yes
Did Odyssey recover the site, yes.
Did Odyssey have to give everything back, yes
Where is the perversion of law that you speak of?
- Thread starter
- #1,899
You really have no idea what you are talking about. 73% of the silver coins were shipped by the merchants, as well as the 200 or so gold coins. The King's share of the silver coins was 27%. It's all documented in the manifest. Odyssey never asked Spain for permission to salvage the ship, and never told Spain what ships they were going to look for. Odyssey asked Spain if they wanted to come along, but Spain never responded.
Last edited:
VOC
Sr. Member
AUVnav
I have followed this case intensively from the start and have read all the court rulings.
I am sure that it will be shown over time that the courts have been lent on from above for USA/Spanish political reasons and due process has not been fully followed.
If Odyssey were trying to claim that the wreck was the Mercedes, most courts in the land and the opposition parties would be claiming that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the wreck was actually the Mercedes.
To my knowledge none of the court cases so far have heard all claims for ownership, only various courts saying that they have not got jurisdiction to hear the case.
Odyssey had every right in the world to excavate an unknown(unproved) wreck in international waters and use internationally agreed salvage law to establish ownership and look for an appropriate salvage award, especially as a large proportion of the recovered goods were privately held not state owned.
What they have not received is the proper court procedures to hear the case.
Odyssey could have landed the coins in many other countries and have been given ownership and disposed of the coins before Spain even knew they had been recovered, but no they did the honourable thing and voluntary placed them before the courts, but unfortunately they have been let down by a corrupt American judicial system that has not allowed due examination of all the facts in relation to the relevant laws.
I have followed this case intensively from the start and have read all the court rulings.
I am sure that it will be shown over time that the courts have been lent on from above for USA/Spanish political reasons and due process has not been fully followed.
If Odyssey were trying to claim that the wreck was the Mercedes, most courts in the land and the opposition parties would be claiming that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the wreck was actually the Mercedes.
To my knowledge none of the court cases so far have heard all claims for ownership, only various courts saying that they have not got jurisdiction to hear the case.
Odyssey had every right in the world to excavate an unknown(unproved) wreck in international waters and use internationally agreed salvage law to establish ownership and look for an appropriate salvage award, especially as a large proportion of the recovered goods were privately held not state owned.
What they have not received is the proper court procedures to hear the case.
Odyssey could have landed the coins in many other countries and have been given ownership and disposed of the coins before Spain even knew they had been recovered, but no they did the honourable thing and voluntary placed them before the courts, but unfortunately they have been let down by a corrupt American judicial system that has not allowed due examination of all the facts in relation to the relevant laws.
Last edited:
Top Member Reactions
-
3136 -
1857 -
1727 -
1543 -
1222 -
1143 -
934 -
903 -
829 -
771 -
763 -
759 -
589 -
570 -
527 -
449 -
429 -
420 -
418 -
405
