Odyssey Marine Exploration sinks after judge rules $500 million treasure belongs

[mariner]

Mariner... I've never read that verdict, but I know the U.S. State Dept. was behind the whole fiasco. Don't be surprised if it's overturned by the Supreme Court. That's what I'm hearing.

Jeff,

The Supreme Court already refused to hear an appeal. David Horan sent me a copy of the case he had prepared for the appeal, and I thought it was very well crafted, but the Supreme Court would not even allow it to be presented. I do not know why they would want to do so now, especially as the US seems to be supporting the Unesco Convention, even if we have not ratified it.

I agree with you that the US State Department was behind the whole SeaHunt thing, though I have never been able to work out why. I said that in a recent posting, and somebody else suggested that it was the National Parks Service who were really dictating the agenda on these matters.

Best wishes,

Mariner

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

the us govt by drawing its power to exist from the will of the citizens of the USA has a duty to act in the fiscal best interest of it citizens and uphold their rights -- #1

thus they have a duty to act in the us citizens best interest vs any "foreign govts" #2

--- title to any spanish property left behind in florida or its territorial waters (including wrecks) was transfered by spain to the american when it turned over florida to the US GOVT --#3

it was very clearly and expressly stated in the agreement---- that spain was to remove its people and belongings to cuba (other than land records needed to process land claims --and other needed govt records) by not removing the items the effectively "abandoned them" to the US govt ---who in turn gave them to the state of florida via the "abandoned shipwreck act"

any attempt by the US and Spanish govts to "twist" their argeement is merely --a high level dual govt ploy --a ploy to prevent "private" treasure hunters from making a living thru blocking their legitimate claims to the wrecked and abandoned vessels --- spain by claiming every spanish vessel was a "warship" --- is twisting the treaty and is trying to give "warship"status over all of spains treasure fleet vessels -- thus claiming all the money carried upon them was spanish govt money --when in fact much of the money was in fact "private funds" just being transported according to spain's very own manifest for said vessels ( or "smuggled" moneies -- thus it belongs to the living next of kin of those that shipped it --rather than the spanish govt -- and as private money and of course a hefty "find and recovery fee" should be applied for recovery and return to the hiers of their money . -- but by no means should all the money just be handed over to spain --- only actual proven govt funds that were being transported belong to spain.

and peru should file suit vs spain (if spain is awarded it) -- for the money -- due to its being extracted from their country by spanish armed forces who used the locals as forced slave labor. --as part of "their culturial heritage"

 

[mariner]

Ivan,

Life isn't always fair. I should point out that the 1902 Treaty offers reciprocal arrangements, and that the clause about shipwrecks was designed also to protect US wrecks in Spanish waters. Incidentally, the intent of the Unesco Convention is to stop the recovery of all shipwrecks. The 1902 Treaty allows for the recovery of all Spanish wrecks in US waters. You just need the owner's agreement and permission to do so. Doesn't that seem reasonable?

Mariner

 

[billinstuart]

Re: Odyssey Marine Exploration sinks after judge rules $500 million treasure bel

So now Spain is claiming some treaty has been broken? As if that hasn't historically been THEIR method of operation?

Yes, I'm hard on Spain for its historical damages. For centuries they have not played by the book, so why start now? Turnabouts fair play. They obviously are incapable of discovering or recovering anything themselves, much less identifying or protecting what they feel is theirs. As such, they simply claim anything sunken is Spanish and protected unless proven otherwise.

Open letter to the Spanish government: I intend to find some of your lost treasure on our beaches. When I do I WILL keep it. Whatcha gonna do, big boy??

 

[mariner]

Re: Odyssey Marine Exploration sinks after judge rules $500 million treasure bel

Open letter to the Spanish government: I intend to find some of your lost treasure on our beaches. When I do I WILL keep it. Whatcha gonna do, big boy??

billinstuart,

LOL! I bet that's got them shaking in their Spanish boots!

There are no actions taking place at the moment, as far as I am aware, that involve the 1902 Treaty, so I don't understand your comment about Spain hiding behind a treaty. The 1902 Treaty only covers Spanish wrecks in US waters and US ships in Spanish waters. The treaty does not cover Spanish or British ships in Internanational waters, or British ships in Spanish waters, though there are International Treaties and conventions that cover those situations as well.

By the sound of it, though, you don't believe in the application and enforcement of International Treaties, anyway, even those designed to protect US interests.

I'll be watching the headlines to see what Spain does after you find their treasure on our lost beaches, and openly declare that you have done so. I think it will be the Florida police knocking on your door, not the Spanish militia, but I am sure that Spain will read about your find in the New York Times, or see it on CNN or Oprah, and will have a chance to shake at the knees. Maybe their spies have already read your post, and reported back to Madrid. (You're not one, are you, Ossy?)

And by the way, can you give us a list of these Treaties that Spain has broken over the centuries. We can compare that list with a list of the treaties that the US Government has broken, starting with virtually all those that it made with the Indian tribes, as we stole their lands. Remember Wounded Knee?

Mariner

 

[jeff k]

"There are no actions taking place at the moment, as far as I am aware, that involve the 1902 Treaty, so I don't understand your comment about Spain hiding behind a treaty. The 1902 Treaty only covers Spanish wrecks in US waters and US ships in Spanish waters. The treaty does not cover Spanish or British ships in Internanational waters, or British ships in Spanish waters, though there are International Treaties and conventions that cover those situations as well."

Mariner... I really wish you would do your homework before making these comments. Not only did Pizzo cite the Sea Hunt case seven times in his report, but he said the following.

"Odyssey argues contemporaneous diplomatic communications between the United
States and Spain suggest that Article X is limited to our nation’s territorial waters and would not
cover wrecks in international waters. (Doc. 138 at 19 & n. 9) As set out in part D.2.a., supra,
Odyssey has brought the res within Court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, within the coverage of the
Treaty. Odyssey’s other arguments as to the Treaty’s application are likewise without merit (i.e.,
the Treaty applies only to vessels and there is not a vessel here; the treaty does not protect
vessels on a commercial mission)."

 

[G.I.B.]

Re: Odyssey Marine Exploration sinks after judge rules $500 million treasure bel

Open letter to the Spanish government: I intend to find some of your MY lost treasure on our beaches. When I do I WILL keep it. Whatcha gonna do, big boy??

Grammatical error corrected...

 

[mariner]

Re: Odyssey Marine Exploration sinks after judge rules $500 million treasure bel

Open letter to the Spanish government: I intend to find some of your MY lost treasure on our beaches. When I do I WILL keep it. Whatcha gonna do, big boy??

Grammatical error corrected...

Again, thanks for the laugh. I bet Spain will be relieved that you won't be waving their treasure at them, and daring them to take some action against you. Good luck with finding some of your own. Do post the pictures on TNet.

Mariner

 

[sthone]

Odyssey should return the stuff..... and they should do so via a US Military Ship (because of the value and all of the publicity... just to be safe ) and I don't know what if something tragic happens and say that ship happens to sink who's the gold belong to now

-Steve

Great Idea sthone how much to do think a US war ship cost maybe only a few billion dollars
Ossy

Oh I'm sure there's a few mothballed ones they could scrounge up to use

-Steve

 

[mariner]

Jeff,

Once again you present information in a very misleading way, and as you are an intelligent man, I assume that this was deliberate on your part.

It was Odyssey who tried to introduce the 1902 Treaty into the Black Swan case. They argued that because they had brought the coins to the United States that these now came within the jurisdiction of the 1902 Treaty. The magistrate rejected this argument, and the quote that you present is a footnote that explains the background to his having to address the issue. The comment in brackets that the Treaty does not protect vessels on a commercial mission does not come from the magistrate. That is what Odyssey said when they tried to find a way of introducing the Treaty to this case, and they are wrong. In fact, the 1902 Treaty covers both State and individually-owned wrecks, and does not distinguish between vessels on military duties and those on commercial activities.

Mariner

 

[jeff k]

Mariner... I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it was James Goold that brought Sea Hunt (and treaty) into the case from day one. The difference between you and me is I have read every motion, and it seems you have not. The fact that you think Odyssey would introduce a case that went in Spain's favor is ludicrous. Odyssey was rebutting Spain's contention that the Sea Hunt verdict (and treaty) should apply to this case. They were trying to point out that the treaty only covered territorial waters, and rightfully so. Pizzo decided otherwise.

P.S. I guess I'm wasting my time here.

 

[mariner]

Jeff,

You are right that I have not read all the transcripts and motions, but took my information in this case from the magistrates' report and recommendations.

I will go back and read the transcripts, however, for the sake of understanding why Jim Goold would have introduced the 1902 Treaty into a case involving a wreck in international waters. The magistrate, however, was clear that Odyssey had attempted too use the Treaty by suggesting that artefacts (the coins) brought into the USA therefore came within its orbit.

Mariner