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

[enrada]

seekerGH

Just a simple unmasking of yourself would be really appropriate. Somehow I feel you are associated or have connections with the state or Goold and are trying to goat GME into giving you information here on this site that you can use against them somewhere down the line in a court setting.
Just sayin.
I am really good at research and reading between the lines.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[seekerGH]

I am really good at research and reading between the lines.

No, you are not.

Since you are so good at research, look up ex-parte communication.

EDIT:

Found this story. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/...veral-linked-lost-french-colony-fort-caroline

GME president and CEO Robert H. Pritchett said he first thought his crews had found one or two of Ribault’s four ships. But he now believes they were Spanish or possibly English merchant vessels; the size of anchors found nearby suggest they were from ships far bigger than Ribault’s, he said.

“It couldn’t have been those (French) ships,” he said.

However, he thinks it’s almost certain that those ships were indeed carrying items from the conquered French fort, taking them to the Spanish outpost in Cuba.

Those items include the granite monument and the cannons. Pritchett said one of the weapons has markings from the reign of French King Henry II, which dates it to the 1547 to 1559.

Also found: 12 anchors, a grinding wheel, ballast and ammunition.

Though Pritchett doesn’t believe the artifacts came from Ribault’s fleet, others disagree.

The evidence seems clear that GME has indeed found evidence of the French captain’s missing ships, said Chuck Meide, a marine archaeologist, and John de Bry, director of the Center for Historical Archaeology in Melbourne Beach.

“There’s no doubt in my mind,” said Meide. He’s director of the maritime archaeological program at the St. Augustine Lighthouse & Museum and led a 2014 expedition in search of the fleet. “There’s no record of any other ship being lost off of Cape Canaveral in this period.”

De Bry said he believes the wreck is Ribault’s flagship, La Trinite. Accounts from survivors say it sunk in that area, and one survivor said it carried several stone monuments similar to the one placed near Fort Caroline three years earlier.

 

[ropesfish]

seekerGH

Just a simple unmasking of yourself would be really appropriate. Somehow I feel you are associated or have connections with the state or Goold and are trying to goat GME into giving you information here on this site that you can use against them somewhere down the line in a court setting.
Just sayin.
I am really good at research and reading between the lines.

I have always felt (and will continue to do so) that if someone refuses to identify themselves on a forum such as this, there is most likely a reason, and it seldom has to do with witness protection, national security or hiding from an irate ex-wife with a good lawyer.
If you want to put your thoughts and opinions out there and have people take them seriously, lay claim to them.
Just put your name, company and home port in your signature...If your words are important enough to share, you should lay claim to them. Intrigue and deception make for a good book but a poor discussion.

Darren- re: Trolls....it's a shame there's not a anti-troll spray. "Merely apply to your computer screen and watch those trolls melt away and disappear..."

 

[seekerGH]

At what point will you see that Seeker GH gets off on your responses, and responds even more? Classic rule of forums in this case - stop feeding the troll, gents.

Resorting to petty name calling?

I believe this was your post on the valuation?

After 25 years of doing this, I hear this all the time. Mel Fisher and Odyssey do the same thing - they always believe their finds are worth zillions and overstate their value. I do hope a "professional" will tell you otherwise. I really do.

This entire thread was started with this.

Can anyone help us put a value on the monument GME discovered last year? We have documentation proving this is the monument that was placed near Fort Caroline in 1562, it was later removed by the Spanish when the fort was captured and lost at sea.

 

[ARC]

Unless it is "giving away" information... OR a debate... talking / sharing in this forum is like talking to walls...

Very little comrade life in the shipwreck world these days.

Seems to each their own and everyone out for themselves... Hence... the current way of things stacked against the little guy / groups in this dwindling skill.

I bow out... on account of my heart feeds my head.

And to think... I joined this site primarily FOR this forum.

To each and all... I wish the best of luck in ventures that IMPROVE this craft.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Gentlemen END the insults and name calling or you may find you can't post. Calling a member a troll violates our rules, no one is required or obligated to give out their real name or personal information.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Legally it is abandoned. The U.S. federal government claimed them abandoned and asserted title to them and then in turn transferred title to the State of Florida.

Edit: Assuming it's a shipwreck

 

[Au_Dreamers]

I think a few attorneys are ruling the roost right now.

Sitting on the bottom, the value is $0.

Under the Law of Finds, the salvor gets a percentage of the value of the recovered cargo. This recovery, while it has been found, it has not been recovered. There is no risk to the salvor to recover. There is no possession of the recovery by the salvor as it has not been recovered.

Under the Law of Salvage. There would have to be a defined shipwreck, and/or shipwreck area determined to grant the Admiralty claim. Unidentified is certainly an option, but reduces the value of the artifacts. A comprehensive list of the items would need to be in place before a Court would make a determination on ownership.

These are non-applicable to shipwrecks in State waters as the ASA supersedes those "archaic" laws.. cough cough...

 

[enrada]

seekerGH

If you were truly ex-parte you would not be afraid to disclose who you are.

 

[seekerGH]

If you were truly ex-parte you would not be afraid to disclose who you are.

Ummm, IF I was ex-parte, I would not be allowed to communicate between parties in a lawsuit. You really are sooo smart. ( I guess you did not bother to look up ex-parte communication) So much for you expounding on your research capabilities.

Since it appears your exhaustive research capabilities has not found this:

An ex parte communication is any communication between a judge or juror and a party to a legal proceeding or any other person about the case, outside of the presence of the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney
I know, that is tough to comprehend, so I will break it down for you. IF I was involved in any way with the lawsuit, I would NOT be able to communicate with any party in the lawsuit outside of counsel representation (okay for you, that means outside the Court or without attorneys present)

Who says I am afraid?
I just dont want you stalking me, following me on the internet, checking my garbage, and trying to get pictures of me naked in my backyard. That is just annoying.

These are non-applicable to shipwrecks in State waters as the ASA supersedes those "archaic" laws.. cough cough..

only if it has been abandoned...Law of Finds and/or Law of Salvage apply until abandonment has been determined.

The law provides that any wreck that lies embedded in a state's submerged lands is property of that state and subject to that state's jurisdiction if the wreck is determined as being abandoned. The National Park Service website states that these include:

"abandoned shipwrecks embedded in a State's submerged lands; abandoned shipwrecks embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on its submerged lands; and abandoned shipwrecks located on a State's submerged lands and included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.[2]"

In section 3, the act outlines what is meant by the use of certain words. In the case of the term "embedded," it states that it...

"...means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof."

A "historic wreck" is defined by the ASA has one that has been "deemed eligible" for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The States generally contend that most historic wrecks are "inherently eligible" for inclusion and do not need to have been evaluated to meet the criteria.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

seekerGH

If you were truly ex-parte you would not be afraid to disclose who you are.

As I have stated, no one is required to reveal their real name or personal info, please stop trying to hound them to do so.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Au_Dreamers]

only if it has been abandoned...Law of Finds and/or Law of Salvage apply until abandonment has been determined.

The law provides that any wreck that lies embedded in a state's submerged lands is property of that state and subject to that state's jurisdiction if the wreck is determined as being abandoned. The National Park Service website states that these include:

"abandoned shipwrecks embedded in a State's submerged lands; abandoned shipwrecks embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on its submerged lands; and abandoned shipwrecks located on a State's submerged lands and included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.[2]"

In section 3, the act outlines what is meant by the use of certain words. In the case of the term "embedded," it states that it...

"...means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof."

A "historic wreck" is defined by the ASA has one that has been "deemed eligible" for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The States generally contend that most historic wrecks are "inherently eligible" for inclusion and do not need to have been evaluated to meet the criteria.

So ok I guess where the difference is... that you believe that the United States with ASA did not declare all shipwrecks embedded in submerged lands of a State; embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands; and on submerged lands of a State and included or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Title to shipwrecks in these categories is transferred to the States within whose waters they lie; abandoned?

 

[seekerGH]

So ok I guess where the difference is... that you believe that the United States with ASA did not declare all shipwrecks embedded in submerged lands of a State; embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands; and on submerged lands of a State and included or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Title to shipwrecks in these categories is transferred to the States within whose waters they lie; abandoned?

Absolutely. Nothing is considered abandoned until expressly stated.

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act:

The Congress finds that–
(a) States have the responsibility for management of a broad range of living and nonliving resources in State waters and submerged lands; and
(b) included in the range of resources are certain abandoned shipwrecks, which have been deserted and to which the owner has relinquished ownership rights with no retention.

For purposes of this chapter–
(a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof;
(b) the term “National Register” means the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a); [1]
(c) the terms “public lands”, “Indian lands”, and “Indian tribe” have the same meaning given the terms in the Archaeological Resource [2] Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa—470ll);
(d) the term “shipwreck” means a vessel or wreck, its cargo, and other contents;
(e) the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands; and
(f) the term “submerged lands” means the lands–(1) that are “lands beneath navigable waters,” as defined in section 1301 of this title.

(a) United States title

The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is–
(1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;
(2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a State; or
(3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
(b) Notice of shipwreck location; eligibility determination for inclusion in National Register of Historic Places
The public shall be given adequate notice of the location of any shipwreck to which title is asserted under this section. The Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, shall make a written determination that an abandoned shipwreck meets the criteria for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under clause (a)(3).

(a) Law of salvage and law of finds
The law of salvage and the law of finds shall not apply to abandoned shipwrecks to which section 2105 of this title applies.


One can either digest the rules and case law, or spend a whole bunch of money on lawyers in attempts to create a precedent. The term abandoned has been well established in case law, as well as ownership rights. Feed the lawyers?

I would note that a few sovereigns have expressed that they have specifically NOT abandoned their shipwrecks, notably Spain and France.

 

[Salvor6]

"Absolutely. Nothing is considered abandoned until expressly stated."

You're telling me if someone finds another vessel from the 1715 fleet in state waters that it will be property of Spain? I don't think so. In that case Florida would have to give Spain all the coins from the 1715 fleet that they have in the state collection. That will never happen. A precident has been set. The state claims all vessels, embedded or not, within state waters according to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act period!

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Absolutely. Nothing is considered abandoned until expressly stated

Section 2 provides Congressional findings regarding state jurisdiction over submerged lands which should include abandoned shipwrecks. The Committee notes that the term "abandoned" does not require the original owner to actively disclaim title or ownership. The abandonment or relinquishment of ownership rights may be implied or otherwise inferred, as by an owner never asserting any control over or otherwise indicating his claim of possession of the shipwreck.



This states the exact opposite.

 

[seekerGH]

C'mon guys, not this again.

Section 2 provides Congressional findings regarding state jurisdiction over submerged lands which should include abandoned shipwrecks. The Committee notes that the term "abandoned" does not require the original owner to actively disclaim title or ownership. The abandonment or relinquishment of ownership rights may be implied or otherwise inferred, as by an owner never asserting any control over or otherwise indicating his claim of possession of the shipwreck.

First off, this is from Committee notes, NOT the law, nor case law.

Please review the threads. It has been asked and answered several times with case law.

Look at the Juno and La Galga. It has already been ruled on. Spain has expressed their rights, and has no time limit to retrieve their property.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

Adams Onis Treaty


It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

Treaty of 1903

ARTICLE X
In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

Article X was cited in the Juno/La Galga case. The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty. Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals.

You're telling me if someone finds another vessel from the 1715 fleet in state waters that it will be property of Spain? I don't think so. In that case Florida would have to give Spain all the coins from the 1715 fleet that they have in the state collection. That will never happen. A precident has been set. The state claims all vessels, embedded or not, within state waters according to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act period!

Mel found the Atocha in 1985. This was before the ASA of 1988 (in reality, the find prompted the ASA) As noted with a recent find, which showed up on Good Morning America, Spain has become very interested in the shipwreck off of Florida, and has petitioned the State.

 

[ARC]

This may interest MANY here.

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/060197_rfa_keys_salvors.pdf

 

[seekerGH]

You're telling me if someone finds another vessel from the 1715 fleet in state waters that it will be property of Spain? I don't think so. In that case Florida would have to give Spain all the coins from the 1715 fleet that they have in the state collection.

As I am sure that many of you are aware, after the recent recovery by 1715 Fleet Queens Jewels, which was splashed all over Good Morning America, Spain has asserted its claims with the State of Florida.

AARC this stands out.

 

[ARC]

It is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage.

 

[ARC]

In other words...

IF France... OR Spain... OR anyone else for that matter lays claim to this or any other wreck and declines salvage... it is over.

Until court decides.