1. Spain was not a Modern Day Sovereign, as it did not exist before then and therefore Spain has no standing as such to that period in US Court.
2. Likewise, Sovereign Immunity had never been practiced, did not exist before then and therefore could no be asserted as a right to that period
3. Before 1648, Spain was a quasi-religious entity and therefore could not have standing as Sovereign and the US Court could not hear religious edicts or doctrine as law
4. The present day world order, that upon which our United Nations is founded is called "The Westphalian System" . After 1648, the first country to receive Diplomatic Recognition from that community of nations that were a party to the Peace of Westphalia, was the Russian Empire in 1721 and we were off and running.
Please reference Case Law and the numerous posts on TNET on this subject.
From your post.
1. Spain was not a Modern Day Sovereign, as it did not exist before then and therefore Spain has no standing as such to that period in US Court.
Spain is certainly a modern day sovereign, and there is significant case law in the US Courts, as well as the world courts on it assertions in ownership, including shipwrecks.
2. Likewise, Sovereign Immunity had never been practiced, did not exist before then and therefore could no be asserted as a right to that period.
Sovereign assertion has been made (the present Kingdom of Spain is a good example) Sovereign immunity has been established and upheld in the US Courts. Remember, this is the Kingdom of Spain, and that has broad reach and ramifications, with the Sovereign and it assigns throughout history.
3. Before 1648, Spain was a quasi-religious entity and therefore could not have standing as Sovereign and the US Court could not hear religious edicts or doctrine as law
Philip IV of Spain was King of Spain, as Philip IV in Castille and Philip III in Aragon, and Portugal as Philip III. He ascended the thrones in 1621 and reigned in Spain until his death and in Portugal until 1640. Spain has been a united kingdom since 1641, when Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile united the Crowns of Aragon and Castile into one, creating the early modern Spanish state, Habsburg Spain. Prior to 1641, these were established Kingdoms, thus sovereign entities. Where do you get quasi-religious entities from? There has been a continuity of the sovereign for a very, very long time, much the same as other parts of Europe.
I wish anyone extreme luck in pursuing this legal challenge. Hopefully, you have deep, deep pockets, and the Courts will ignore the multitude of legal precedence regarding these issues.
First of all, the "state" doesn't give us a percentage. We agree to give the state a percentage. Secondly, it doesn't cost the state a penny in tax dollars for us to work a site. The state is the beneficiary of our work, not the other way around. The fact that leases are involved is a state's way of control. They don't own the submerged lands, they "control" them in the name of public trust.
Who owns the public trust, or who administrates the public trust?
If one looks at the Federal and State code, yes, in fact, according to Federal Law, the State does own the land. If the have placed the land in a public trust, that still means they 'own' the land.
One has to lease the area from the State of Florida, correct? The State of Florida is leasing land that they do not own or are charged with administration? IF the State determines that they do not own the recovery, what are the provisions in the lease contract then? The State of Florida cannot give you a value nor take a percentage of a recovery that they do not own.
I really dont think you 'agree' to give them 20%, I believe you are required to give them 20% of the value, as a condition to work the lease, correct?
Looking back at the lease, what are you required to give them 20% of, and especially, when are you required to give them 20%?
Does your permit to work a leased land, state you get a percentage of the recovery, or a percentage of the value of the recovery? It DOES NOT compensate for the costs of recovery. (no cure no pay)
One needs to understand this part of the contract, as it makes a VERY big difference on when and how one gets compensated.
Relevance:
On April 27, 1999, the district court found that the express abandonment standard applied to these shipwrecks and that Spain had abandoned its claim to LA GALGA under Article XX of the 1763 Definitive Treaty of Peace between France, Great Britain and Spain.
See Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified, Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678, 690 (E.D. Va. 1999). It further found that Spain did not expressly abandon JUNO in the 1819 Treaty ending the conflict between Spain and the United States stemming from the War of 1812.
In a later decision the district court held that Sea Hunt could not rightfully claim a salvage award because Spain, as the acknowledged owner of JUNO, had expressly refused salvage services. The Kingdom of Spain now appeals the judgment concerning LAGALGA. The Commonwealth and Sea Hunt note a cross-appeal with regard to JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.
JUNO and LA GALGA Case law: published from appeal.
READ CAREFULLY
A.
Under the ASA, the United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is on or embedded in the submerged lands of a State. See 43 U.S.C. S 2105(a). Title is then automatically transferred to the State in whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located. See id.
Under the ASA, the United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck
that is on or embedded in the submerged lands of a State. See 43 U.S.C. S 2105(a). The determination, "that is on' has been established as case law, plain and simple and can be cited.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/4thseahunt.html
As noted with the Juno and LaGalga, the State of Virginia lost to Spain in part.
United States vessels may only be abandoned by an express, unambiguous, and affirmative act. Article IV of the Constitution states, "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. Const. art. IV, S 3. From this it follows that the Constitution precludes a finding of implied abandonment of federal lands and property -- dispositions of federal property require some congressional action. "[T]he United States cannot abandon its own property except by explicit acts." See United States v. Steinmetz, 973 F.2d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has emphasized that the United States cannot be precluded from asserting its ownership rights by private property "principles similar to laches, estoppel or adverse possession."
Thus, the US Government affords this principle to other vessels. What is the point to continue to harass me? I am just trying to point out all of the issues. If one continues along the path illustrated above, you will likely lose, after spending a lot of money.
