Placing a value on the French monument removed by the Spanish and lost at Sea.

[huntsman53]

sadly ---the French won the wreck by claiming rights under the "sunken military craft act" ...by claiming all of the French fleet vessels that left fort caroline were on a "military mission" at the time of thier sinking being they were headed to attack the Spanish at St Augustine when they was struck by a hurricane / strong storm ...sadly for GME … it did not need to be sunk by enemy action to be thought of as "sunk while on a military mission" ….much like the Spanish Armada that sank while enroute to attack England by bad weather is thought of as "war graves" even thought they were not sunk by combat ---- the French in my view should at least have to at least pay a "finders fee" to cover the finding cost ...but we all know that's not happening ….

and if one claimed it was a "looted" monument from fort caroline on a Spanish vessel headed back to St Augustine --the Spanish would then step in claiming it as a "military craft on a mission" (returning proof that the French had tried to claim florida --thus justifying the attack on fort caroline--the monument would be the "proof" spain needed) --so basically your screwed either way ...esp when your own govt is working against you …

ivan...You are right are right if the shipwreck turns out to be a Spanish ship and not the La Trinite as the Spanish were on a military mission but as I noted in the other Thread (see the link below), Ribault's Fleet was on a relief mission, so France's claim that the La Trinite was on a military mission holds no water. However, like you said, when your own government is working against you as well as the State of Florida, you are screwed.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/s...ipwreck-found-off-florida-belongs-france.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

yes the French fleet WAS on a resupply mission --but once under attack by the Spanish fleet --its " mission status" changed ,,,it had to become a military attack force --to defend the settlement and themselves from Spanish attack by taking he fight to the Spanish at St Augustine ….it is known as "change of orders due to military necessity" where your forced to attack others due to being attacked by enemy ships ..

 

[Salvor6]

It doesn't matter what the mission was, the French fleet are still warships.

 

[QuartermasterD]

ivan...You are right are right if the shipwreck turns out to be a Spanish ship and not the La Trinite as the Spanish were on a military mission but as I noted in the other Thread (see the link below), Ribault's Fleet was on a relief mission, so France's claim that the La Trinite was on a military mission holds no water. However, like you said, when your own government is working against you as well as the State of Florida, you are screwed.

Genuine question: are there legal definitions of these terms (e.g., military mission, relief mission, etc.)? I would assume Ribault's mission was intended to serve both purposes, but from reading this thread there appears to be an unwritten rule of dichotomy.

 

[huntsman53]

Genuine question: are there legal definitions of these terms (e.g., military mission, relief mission, etc.)? I would assume Ribault's mission was intended to serve both purposes, but from reading this thread there appears to be an unwritten rule of dichotomy.

Well, on Treasure Net we are allowed to have a different take, interpretation or opinions on things as long as we keep it civil. Besides, the State of Florida and some countries involved in this and other shipwreck matters, all too often skew the facts to meet their needs. Call it distrust on my part which I have had ever since the State of Florida personnel removed the 3 cases of Brown Bess Rifles, barrels of Black Powder, Flints and other items from under the West Martello Towers Fort in Key West and all but one to three disappeared into the night. I was the one that located the void under the arched entrance way into the Fort which was being leased and used by the Key West Garden Club at the time. I found it while metal detecting but was not allowed to dig to see what was there. After 3 months of the State trying to decide what to do, they finally showed up and excavated the entrance way and found an underground bunker containing the items noted above. They covered it over, then came back in the middle of the night with a truck, loaded the items on the truck and left. No one knows or even seems to care where all of the other Brown Bess Rifles and other items found went to.

 

[releventchair]

Genuine question: are there legal definitions of these terms (e.g., military mission, relief mission, etc.)? I would assume Ribault's mission was intended to serve both purposes, but from reading this thread there appears to be an unwritten rule of dichotomy.

Manifest of April 28th 1565 for La Trinite contains no mention of pillars. If smuggling pillars and other non-manifested cargo was it then a pirate ship? Subject to such treatment of it's contraband? L.o.l..

 

[ivan salis]

by todays standards ..if you find a ship ... always say its a oirate / unknown ship ..so no nation can claim it out from under you ...pirate ships are by definition "ships of no nation" … let them prove otherwise...just because coinage of a certain nation is aboard does not mean that is the vessel's country of ownership / origin ---Spanish coins on it do not make it a Spanish ship -per si

 

[Darren in NC]

Is this a new lawsuit? It was posted last week on this site...

Treasure hunting exploration company, Global Marine Exploration - Crossroads Today

 

[signumops]

Yes.

 

[ropesfish]

Is this a new lawsuit? It was posted last week on this site...

Treasure hunting exploration company, Global Marine Exploration - Crossroads Today[/QUOTE

Where are statements 1 through 11? This starts with 12.

Bobby Pritchett CEO of Global Marine Exploration "You cannot trust the State of Florida, or at least the people whom run it, very dishonest and misleading.IMO
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, BREVARD, October 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ -- THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Over a period of time, the Division issued GME six exploration permits with dig addenda for different three-square areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral. These turned up shipwreck evidence (anchors) but mostly resulted in identification of rocket debris.
12. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, provided salvage easements for GME to use State-owned submerged lands for the areas and time periods for which the Division agreed for GME to explore for and recover shipwreck sites.

13. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Federal Corps of Engineers contemporaneously issued construction permits to GME for it to use the designated submerged lands and navigable waters above for exploration and salvage.
14. On August 14, 2015, upon detailed application by GME, the Division issued a seventh Exploration Permit (# 2015-03) for GME to explore another three-square mile area of State waters in the Cape Canaveral vicinity to locate and report information about shipwreck sites in that designated area.
15. In proceeding with respect to Permit # 2015-03, as amended, GME discovered at least five separate locations of apparently distinct shipwreck sites which GME reported to the State as agreed. The locations of the discovered shipwreck sites and the methods used to identify those locations were proprietary, confidential trade secret information, and there is no requirement or agreement for public disclosure of such information.
16. GME provided site locations to the Division only after the Division repeatedly assured GME that this proprietary information would be maintained confidential and not disclosed to third-parties or used without GME’s consent.
17. On August 19, 2015, the Division issued Amendment One of Exploration Permit # 2015-03, recognizing GME’s successful completion of sensing survey within the designated area, allowing activity to identify newly uncovered cultural materials and limited test excavation and diagnostic artifact recovery for shipwreck identification purposes, and specifying that recovered artifacts would be included in the pool of artifacts considered for transfer to GME if a recovery permit is issued in the future for the same area. This Amendment explicitly authorized recovery of shipwreck artifacts, and promised to pool their value with the value of all ultimately recovered objects to calculate 80% thereof to be paid to GME.
18. On September 9, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued Notice of Modification of its construction permit to include areas approved by Exploration Permit # 2015-03, reciting that the modification includes amendment of the easement for treasure salvage investigations to include the new approved area.
19. On December 7, 2015, the State executed a Modified Sovereignty Submerged Lands Cultural Resource Recovery Easement for Salvage Exploration and Operation Purposes, stating that it was “for salvage operations only,” that “any artifacts or materials recovered by the applicant shall be disposed of pursuant to the contract issued by the Department of State;” and that the easement was “valid only after the Department of State has issued a contract for exploration or salvage and shall remain valid only so long as the Department of State’s contract is in full force and effect.”
20. Copies of the Division’s Exploration Permit # 2015-03, Amendment One, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Salvage Work Permit Modification, and the State’s “Modified Sovereignty Submerged Lands Cultural Resource Recovery Easement for Salvage Exploration and Operation Purposes” for the approved area are attached as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4, respectively.
21. GME recovered certain items and provided recorded identification of certain cannons and monuments to the Division by photograph and video.
22. GME made proper application for a recovery permit to authorize full recovery of artifacts from the discovered shipwreck sites.
23. The Division had never raised an issue nor made any negative response as to any work not having been done, or done improperly, in connection with any GME permit requirement.
24. GME became concerned when it learned that the Division considered that identified artifacts from one of the sites were from an old French naval ship and was negotiating the shipwreck finds with France for it to claim without GME’s involvement or consent.
25. GME filed a federal court complaint in admiralty in rem against “The Unidentified, Wrecked and (for Finders-Right Purposes) Abandoned Sailing Vessel,” seeking to establish its ownership under the Law of Finds.
26. Incident to its filing of this action, GME was required to deposit recovered artifacts under the federal court’s control.
27. The Division demanded that GME turn over those recovered artifacts, but GME could not comply because the federal court controlled the property.
28. The Division then suspended GME’s exploration permit and would not issue a recovery permit to GME, stating that the only cure was for possession of the artifacts recovered for identification purposes to be delivered to the Division.
29. The federal court transferred control of the identified artifacts to the Division, fulfilling this demand; however, the Division still refused or otherwise failed to reinstate GME’s exploration permit so it could identify artifacts at the other discovered sites, and refused to issue a recovery permit for it to complete recovery of the finds.
30. The Division’s actions caused GME significant loss and deprived GME from realizing compensation value from shipwreck sites and artifacts it discovered, contrary to GME’s investment-backed expectations in undertaking salvage operationsRobert Pritchett
Global MArine Exploration Inc
772-205-8184

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Genuine question: are there legal definitions of these terms (e.g., military mission, relief mission, etc.)? I would assume Ribault's mission was intended to serve both purposes, but from reading this thread there appears to be an unwritten rule of dichotomy.

Yes there is and accordingly to screw the "little people". If they now take the "Mercedes" case as precedent that would serve a definition of a military mission, sovereign warships to be able to carry private citizens and commercial cargo for hire!

 

[xaos]

Most of the citations referenced in the Mercedes debacle were from the Juno/La Galga adventure. The appeal on the Mercedes is published, so it can be cited.
https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com...v_The_Unidentified_Shipwrecked_Ves?1540670369

"The fact that the Mercedes has been sitting on the ocean floor for over 200 years does not negate Spain's property interest in the shipwreck. Under the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States of America and Spain, shipwrecked "Spanish vessels, like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by express acts." Sea Hunt, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels"

"see also Sunken Military Craft Act, Pub.L. No. 108-375, § 1406, 118 Stat. 1811, 2097 (2004) ("The law of finds shall not apply to . . . any foreign sunken military craft located in United States waters," and "[n]o salvage rights or awards shall be granted with respect to . . . any foreign sunken military craft located in United States waters without the express permission of the relevant foreign state."); Protection of Sunken Warships, Military Aircraft and Other Sunken Government Property, 69 Fed.Reg. 5647-01, 5648 (Feb. 5, 2004) (President Clinton's January 19, 2001, statement that the United States "recognizes that title to a United States or foreign sunken State craft, wherever located, is not extinguished by passage of time, regardless of when such sunken State craft was lost at sea"). The shipwreck of the Mercedes is thus unquestionably the property of Spain."

this part in particular. "United States "recognizes that title to a United States or foreign sunken State craft," note 'military craft" vs "state craft". This was not appealed, so it now stands as a precedent, and can be cited in further admiralty cases.

Please make sure you give Odyssey Marine a big round of for this, and their ramifications to the business.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

AUVnav let's not digress yet another thread into the salvage debate.... That's not apples for apples.

There's a significant difference between relief missions and paid passengers and paid commercial cargo.

US naval officers would suffer a court martial if they carried paid passengers and/or commercial cargo.

Odyssey is not to be "thanked", the people that were elected to protect the interest of their bosses and the bureaucrats appointed by them are.
They have failed us.

 

[huntsman53]

As Au Dreamers pointed out, just because a Military Craft was used to haul commercial goods and paid passengers does not make it a Military Mission. Maybe Spain and France used Military Craft because they could see into the future and knew that the numb nuts that be, would pass stupid laws that would benefit them in the future in securing the cargo from their' sunken Military Ships that were or was in the process of being salvaged by a private Salvage company. Also, explain how that a ship, military or otherwise can sit on the floor of an ocean for some 200 to 400 years or more with no attempts at finding the ship and salvaging it's cargo over the same amount of years and not be considered abandoned? It seems that not much is heard from Spain or France until something of value that was their's is discovered, then they are all over it like files on sh%#.