Odyssey Smoke and Mirrors

Quite on the contrary Ossy, the fundamental elements of this case are very basic and easy to assimilate, more so by a seasoned Admiralty judge: was the Mercedes, when she sunk, on a exclusively military non commercial mission or not? The rest of the issues surrounding the case merely distract like where the actual battle took place or if Bonifacio did or did not find this wreck in the eighties, all that matters here is that the site where the coins were recovered is in International waters, apply the Law of Salvage, take it to a judge and if indeed it was in a commercial mission, you’re awarded a substantial portion of the recovered commercial cargo. Very simple textbook case for an Admiralty 101 course that I’m sure the appellate judges will agree. Spain in the meantime can invest some of its public funds and search and recover its military historical ships like the Santisima Trinidad that are indeed Sovereign Immune ships but with no gold. Thats life, military ships normally did not carry much gold, with few exceptions.The “lets wait and see what other people search for and recover and we’ll claim it as a Sovereign vessel” strategy is bound to fail, the judges and governments can see through the smoke and mirrors that the Spanish Crown has been putting forth.
 

Mariner, the Sussex is not specifically protected but it should be by the archaeological protected area where it lays. Anyway, that "protected area" is day by day "brushed" by fish trawlers. And about the post of Ossy I have a doubt: can anyone here tell about some kind of scientist publication done by this foundation. The Bajo de la Campana research has a lot of voluntarism and a big lack of money. And Spain spend a lot of it every so often in this foundation (last time I remember it was a donation of 300.000€ from the spanish Ministry of Culture. In 2007 I think, I'm not sure). Because we are all the time saying this and that about the poor publication score of Odyssey and the poor archaeological standards they do on shipwrecks. But it harder to hear something like that about some others that are not "companies" but foundations and act on the same and dangerous edge of the knife (I mean publications and arch. techniques), doing jobs that get your blood cold (Mardi Grass recovery using giants clams) or collecting information for nobody (and when I say nobody I mean not for the citizenship). RPM nautical, Aurora Trust and some others didn't give a line (as far as I know) to archaeological scientist publications.
 

Panfilo said:
Quite on the contrary Ossy, the fundamental elements of this case are very basic and easy to assimilate, more so by a seasoned Admiralty judge: was the Mercedes, when she sunk, on a exclusively military non commercial mission or not? The rest of the issues surrounding the case merely distract like where the actual battle took place or if Bonifacio did or did not find this wreck in the eighties, all that matters here is that the site where the coins were recovered is in International waters, apply the Law of Salvage, take it to a judge and if indeed it was in a commercial mission, you’re awarded a substantial portion of the recovered commercial cargo. Very simple textbook case for an Admiralty 101 course that I’m sure the appellate judges will agree. Spain in the meantime can invest some of its public funds and search and recover its military historical ships like the Santisima Trinidad that are indeed Sovereign Immune ships but with no gold. Thats life, military ships normally did not carry much gold, with few exceptions.The “lets wait and see what other people search for and recover and we’ll claim it as a Sovereign vessel” strategy is bound to fail, the judges and governments can see through the smoke and mirrors that the Spanish Crown has been putting forth.
Click to expand...
Very well written Panfilo !
Ossy
 

Let’s concentrate on the facts and the legal principles that regulate this Admiralty case and not reply with attacks on ones character or making childish comparisons that don’t bring about a serious and documented discussion which is the purpose of this forum. I personally feel very offended by the arrogant and imperial position Spain has adopted throughout these past years, beginning with the Galga and El Juno, and this Mercedes case which, if you have read their filings, to mention one small example, they don’t even admit to the liberation struggle led by San Martin and Bolivar ending in the emancipation of most of South America. The Spanish Crown lawyers state “Spain awarder Peru its independence in 1824…” Give me a break! What happened to the 28 of July 1821 Declaration of Independence of Peru? Have they forgotten this crucial bit of history Ossy, have you? Spain now wants to recover what little gold and silver was left behind due to climatic or other navigational reasons in American waters after the most brutal exploitation that recent history has seen, devastating more than 90% of the native population, many dying working in the silver mines 18 hour days. This is all very cleverly disguised as Sovereign Immunity. In my modest view, there is nothing Sovereign about this procedure and the Spanish people who are a proud and noble people will not stand behind these shameful and lewd legal maneuvers. In Colombian waters there are close to 1,100 colonial shipwrecks and our Constitution says (Article 72) that these wrecks belong to Colombia. If Spain wants to come here and retrieve them as Sovereign ships we will have a very interesting battle ensuing. The Colombian Minister of Culture in 2001 that was promoting the signing of the UNESCO Convention was forewarned that should he sign the Convention, he would be accused of Diplomatic Treason, a crime that exists in our penal code. That stopped him on his tracks. There still exists in countries like ours a very deep rooted resentment against the Spanish colonial period and procedures like this Mercedes claim will only exacerbate these feelings.
 

Panfilo, sorry mate, I didn't mean to offend you ! I'm also sorry you feel that way about Spain !
Ossy
 

Hi everybody! 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” should be brand new, the coins Odyssey has found on the Black Swan site never were 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. But you know, it´s summer and papers say anything to catch people attention.

http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/ocio/486436/investigador/prueba/tesoro/odyssey/es/espanol.html
 

For an investigator with a Doctorate in history, as is the case with Antonio Moreno Hurtado, his arguments don’t hold much water and if they did, they might just end up hurting the very cause he’s trying to assist, his beloved Spain. He has apparently found documents that “prove” all the coins aboard the Mercedes were newly minted in 1803 and were uncirculated. We all know what the numismatic report says as to the years and places where the coins recovered by Odyssey are stamped and this in no way coincides with what this scholar is affirming. Secondly, one would like to ask Sr. Moreno what is his view of the Register of Loads (Registro de la Carga) where all the 173 entries denote a specific shipment of either coins or merchandise sent by one private party in Peru to another in Spain. What was that? Is he saying that these private parties and merchants had to have sent newly minted coins not the ones they had? Ridiculous! Now if the Kings money were to have been specifically ordered to be newly minted, that is possible yet unlikely, comprising the 26% that was not private amongst the specie that was registered aboard the Mercedes. He is saying though that ALL the coins were newly minted so if his argument and documentary proof were true, Odyssey has found another wreck that sank also in 1804 in the same vecinity as all the coins found predate this year. I somehow get the impression this religious scholar has been in the archives too long!
 

Panfilo you would have to be the most informed person on this subject here on Tnet :read2:
What do you think should happen with the treasure?
Ossy
 

Thank you for your kind words Ossy, but I think there are many far more informed people here on TN. Your question is exactly what all the parties involved have asked the Admiralty judges to determine, who the rightful owner of these 594,000 coins is. In my personal opinion the real issue behind this case is whether all the commerce and more specifically the “cargo” that traveled back to Spain during the colonial period, some 300 years, aboard the “Armadas” system, should be considered subject to Sovereign Immunity. The rest of the case is peripheral. Though neither the US nor Peru have adhered to neither the Law of the Sea Convention nor the infamous UNESCO Convention but Spain has, curiously these conventions do set international norms that set the standards for the Admiralty judges to guide themselves. I have found this to be very educational on my part. These countries have not signed these conventions but the lawyers all use the concepts in their arguments towards the judges. That being said, the Law of the Sea states that for a ship to be considered subject to Sovereign Immunity it has to be in an “exclusively military non commercial mission” and nowhere does it state that the cargo is considered to be sovereign immune. This is the essence of this case and it will affect the thousands of colonial wrecks in all the oceans of the world. In answering your question Ossy, the Mercedes was transporting women and children along with 74% of its registered cargo belonging to private individuals kind of like the Fed Ex of the time. Was this a military mission? Spain says yes, Odyssey and the descendants say no. If I were sitting in Admiralty as a judge (wishful thinking!) I would rule that the ship belongs to Spain as a sovereign vessel, Odyssey should receive a substantial part of the recovered coins in light of the Law of Finds, the descendants should receive a part of the coins belonging to their ancestors If they have proved their lineage. The King should receive his 26% also, discounting Odysseys’ recovery fee. Solomonic!
 

A group of fervent Spanish patriots is preparing a proposal go to look for the Mercedes and really discover what happened, but, the most important and very little thing discussed: where the treasure was really found?
Logically the Mercedes' search will have the pertinent government authorizations. Cheers
 

Thank you Panfilo, you are a wise man and very fair, I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Ossy
 

Vox veritas said:
A group of fervent Spanish patriots is preparing a proposal go to look for the Mercedes and really discover what happened, but, the most important and very little thing discussed: where the treasure was really found?
Logically the Mercedes' search will have the pertinent government authorizations. Cheers
Click to expand...
Claudio keep us in the loop with this, are they going to use the civil guard logged position of Odyssey?
and are you supplying them with the position you say the Mercedes lies?
As you know I was suggesting this back in 2008.
Ossy
 

You all probably wont believe it but there is a paper here in Spain that is trying to make believe everybody that Odyssey, as a malignus corporation, was the hand who push a spanish journalist to publish that crazy new about the gold from the galleons to balance the spanish national finances. Well, if you see the nervous faces that are after this last new you start to think that maybe it wasn’t that crazy. If you are able of reading spanish take a look over it and be prepared for a strange kind of journalism: opinion disguised as information.
Here is the link:

http://www.abc.es/20090822/cultura-patrimonio/odyssey-suma-otra-ficcion-20090822.html
 

Odyssey did mention the article in their objection to Pizzo's recommendation, so I guess that's what Calero is talking about. He always writes negative articles about Odyssey.

Here's the English version.

http://tinyurl.com/mcrq3p

"Second, the 1985 Heritage Act strictly prohibits any commercial use of historical heritage objects."

According to Odyssey's Spanish attorney, there is no law in Spain that prohibits the sale of historical artifacts.

www.treasurelore.com/charts/Goni_Affidavit.pdf
 

Jeff K said:
Odyssey did mention the article in their objection to Pizzo's recommendation, so I guess that's what Calero is talking about. He always writes negative articles about Odyssey.

Here's the English version.

http://tinyurl.com/mcrq3p

"Second, the 1985 Heritage Act strictly prohibits any commercial use of historical heritage objects."

According to Odyssey's Spanish attorney, there is no law in Spain that prohibits the sale of historical artifacts.

www.treasurelore.com/charts/Goni_Affidavit.pdf

In 2003 the Ministry of Culture of Spain signed an agreement with Sea Hunt for the Spanish military frigates Juno and Galga. The article tenth of the agreement said textually:
All the extracted movable objects are of the Spanish state, of public domain and they won't be trade object.
For the interested I can send the text of the agreement.
Cheers
Click to expand...
 

Vox Veritas, I am. If you don't mind I'll appreciate you send me the text of that agreement. Thanks in advance.
Jeff K, about the article from Calero, the strange thing to me is not the use Odyssey did of the information gave for Atenea but the insinuation of Calero that was Odyssey who promoted that article to use it later on the objections before Pizzo.
 

Trinidad... The insinuation that Odyssey promoted that article must have been lost in the translation. I didn't read it that way, but I'm not surprised. There have been many false accusations in the Spanish press over the last few years. I see Calero also claims that the merchants were compensated for their loss. Well, as far I know not one penny was ever paid by Spain. If they did then there would have been a record of payment. Gould has not produced one document to the court showing any payments were made. It is my understanding that Spain wanted England to compensate the merchants, but they never did.
 

Yes Jeff, It's subtlet the insinuation. Calero says "Pero el último volatín de los cazatesoros ha sido aprovecharse de especulaciones periodísticas sobre el valor del patrimonio sumergido español, en millones de euros -y su potencial contra la crisis- aparecidas casualmente un par de semanas antes de que Odyssey presentase su respuesta al juez." This "casual" coincidence is the way Calero uses to introduce the suspect that something dark is behind this temporal coincidence. To me, to say the truth, is not big deal the Atenea´s article nor the Calero´s reply. Just a little noise in all this issue. But you can be sure that Calero writes, almost all the time, what others "above" him think.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Ship wreck question?

⬅️ Previous Thread

Object from Oregon shipwreck

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top