TITANIC MISTAKE

piratediver

Sr. Member
Jun 29, 2006
264
6
newport, Rhode Island
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Judge's decision to keep Titanic remains on seabed
12:42PM Wednesday Mar 25, 2009

NORFOLK, Virginia - Nearly a century after the Titanic struck ice in the
North Atlantic, a federal judge in Virginia is poised to preserve the
largest collection of artifacts from the opulent oceanliner and protect the
ship's resting place.

US District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, a maritime jurist who considers the
wreck an "international treasure," is expected to rule within weeks that the
salvaged items must remain together and accessible to the public. That would
ensure the 5,900 pieces of china, ship fittings and personal belongings
won't end up in a collector's hands or in a London auction house, where some
Titanic artifacts have landed.

The judgment could also end the legal tussle that began when a team of
deep-sea explorers found the world's most famous shipwreck in 1985.

The salvage company, RMS Titanic Inc., wants the court to grant it limited
ownership of the artifacts.

At the same time, a cadre of government lawyers is helping Smith shape
covenants to strictly monitor future activity at the Titanic wreck 2 1/2
miles (4 kilometers) beneath the surface of the Atlantic. Amid evidence of
the ship's deterioration, experts and government lawyers say the sanctity of
the Titanic must be properly protected as a memorial to the 1,522 people who
died when it went down.

For the most part, the value of Titanic is its history - and not from some
pile of gold, silver and jewels," said Ole Varmer, an attorney in the
international law office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, a US government agency that has developed guidelines for the
Titanic.

Because the Titanic sank in international waters on April 15, 1912, and the
ship's owners are long gone, the wreck site and its artifacts have been
subject to competing legal claims since an international team led by
oceanographer Robert Ballard found it 24 years ago. The courtroom survivor
is RMS Titanic Inc., also known as RMST, which gathered the artifacts during
six dives. Courts have declared it salvor-in-possession - meaning it has
exclusive rights to salvage the Titanic - but have explicitly stated it does
not own the 5,900 artifacts or the wreck itself.

RMST is a subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions Inc., an Atlanta company that
bills itself as "a major provider of museum-quality touring exhibitions."
Its offerings include sports memorabilia, a traveling Star Trek homage and
"Bodies," an anatomy exhibit featuring preserved human cadavers.

RMST conducts traveling displays of the Titanic artifacts, which the company
says have been viewed by 33 million people worldwide.

Last month, RMST underwent a shakeup of its board and saw its director
resign over the company's poor financial performance, according to Premier
Exhibitions filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
statements by dissident shareholders. Smith had expressed concerns before
the board shakeup about RMST's ability to continue properly managing the
collection, considering the company's financial situation.

No one familiar with the case or the artifacts has questioned RMST's
handling of them.

RMST is seeking limited ownership of the artifacts as compensation for its
salvage efforts. In its court filing for a salvage award, the company put
the fair market value of the collection at $110.9 million. The same filing
states that RMST's costs associated with the recovery and conservation of
the artifacts have exceeded revenues from their display.

If the court agrees to RMST's request, the company could sell the entire
collection to a museum with court approval.

Robert W. McFarland, an attorney for RMST, declined to comment before Smith
rules.

Smith is drawing upon the State Department and the government oceanic agency
to help craft the covenants to keep the artifacts preserved, intact as a
collection and available to the public, and to guide future salvage
operations at the Titanic wreck by RMST. At a hearing in November, the
no-nonsense judge made clear the stakes.

"I am concerned that the Titanic is not only a national treasure, but in its
own way an international treasure, and it needs protection and it needs to
be monitored," the judge told lawyers in the case.

Congress has expressed its interest in preserving the Titanic as a memorial.
US lawmakers have not, however, implemented an agreement with the United
Kingdom, which has already embraced a ban on unregulated salvage of the
wreck.

J. Ashley Roach, a retired State Department lawyer who worked on the Titanic
case, said the Titanic is the first major shipwreck in international waters
to receive such close scrutiny.

"You have a domestic court and now the branches of government working
together to make sure the wreck itself continues to be available in the
future for the public good," he said.

International protections have been sought for the Titanic almost since the
wreck was discovered. Ballard, who led the team that found the ship, told a
congressional hearing in October 1985:

"Titanic is like a great pyramid which has been found and mankind is about
to enter it for the first time since it was sealed. Has he come to plunder
or appreciate? The people of the world clearly want the latter."

- AP



Pirate Diver
 

Darren in NC

Silver Member
Apr 1, 2004
2,780
1,574
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Sand Shark, Homebuilt pulse loop
Primary Interest:
Shipwrecks
Ballard's intention has clearly been to leave the wreck alone. I'm unclear as to why. Would he (and others) rather Titanic's history only be in books? No one is arguing that Titanic artifacts be available for a museum. Why have any artifacts at all? Why have any museums ever? Because it makes history more real...more tangible. What's the real fuss here?
 

silvercop

Silver Member
Dec 30, 2008
3,653
12
VALLEY ALABAMA
Detector(s) used
GARRETT GTA 500
it dont matter what a judge says someone will pillage the site and take whatever they want and all these artifacts will end up on the black market. i was watching a documentary not too long ago where a team placed a plaque on the wreck site and returned some months later and someone had stolen it. wish the judge would let someone salvage it for historic purposes before all the other vultures get to it
 

itmaiden

Hero Member
Sep 28, 2005
575
7
I can appreciate the respect being given here. While the Titanic is a shipwreck, it is too recent and too close to home in terms of affecting human sensitivity regarding this underwater gravesite.

At the same time, I would be concerned about the legal precedent stating that a company that has a right to "salvage" will not own the artifacts. Will this legal perspective be carried over to other salvage operations ?

itmaiden








quote author=piratediver link=topic=227199.msg1653068#msg1653068 date=1238010583]

Judge's decision to keep Titanic remains on seabed
12:42PM Wednesday Mar 25, 2009

NORFOLK, Virginia - Nearly a century after the Titanic struck ice in the
North Atlantic, a federal judge in Virginia is poised to preserve the
largest collection of artifacts from the opulent oceanliner and protect the
ship's resting place.

US District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, a maritime jurist who considers the
wreck an "international treasure," is expected to rule within weeks that the
salvaged items must remain together and accessible to the public. That would
ensure the 5,900 pieces of china, ship fittings and personal belongings
won't end up in a collector's hands or in a London auction house, where some
Titanic artifacts have landed.

The judgment could also end the legal tussle that began when a team of
deep-sea explorers found the world's most famous shipwreck in 1985.

The salvage company, RMS Titanic Inc., wants the court to grant it limited
ownership of the artifacts.

At the same time, a cadre of government lawyers is helping Smith shape
covenants to strictly monitor future activity at the Titanic wreck 2 1/2
miles (4 kilometers) beneath the surface of the Atlantic. Amid evidence of
the ship's deterioration, experts and government lawyers say the sanctity of
the Titanic must be properly protected as a memorial to the 1,522 people who
died when it went down.

For the most part, the value of Titanic is its history - and not from some
pile of gold, silver and jewels," said Ole Varmer, an attorney in the
international law office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, a US government agency that has developed guidelines for the
Titanic.

Because the Titanic sank in international waters on April 15, 1912, and the
ship's owners are long gone, the wreck site and its artifacts have been
subject to competing legal claims since an international team led by
oceanographer Robert Ballard found it 24 years ago. The courtroom survivor
is RMS Titanic Inc., also known as RMST, which gathered the artifacts during
six dives. Courts have declared it salvor-in-possession - meaning it has
exclusive rights to salvage the Titanic - but have explicitly stated it does
not own the 5,900 artifacts or the wreck itself.

RMST is a subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions Inc., an Atlanta company that
bills itself as "a major provider of museum-quality touring exhibitions."
Its offerings include sports memorabilia, a traveling Star Trek homage and
"Bodies," an anatomy exhibit featuring preserved human cadavers.

RMST conducts traveling displays of the Titanic artifacts, which the company
says have been viewed by 33 million people worldwide.

Last month, RMST underwent a shakeup of its board and saw its director
resign over the company's poor financial performance, according to Premier
Exhibitions filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
statements by dissident shareholders. Smith had expressed concerns before
the board shakeup about RMST's ability to continue properly managing the
collection, considering the company's financial situation.

No one familiar with the case or the artifacts has questioned RMST's
handling of them.

RMST is seeking limited ownership of the artifacts as compensation for its
salvage efforts. In its court filing for a salvage award, the company put
the fair market value of the collection at $110.9 million. The same filing
states that RMST's costs associated with the recovery and conservation of
the artifacts have exceeded revenues from their display.

If the court agrees to RMST's request, the company could sell the entire
collection to a museum with court approval.

Robert W. McFarland, an attorney for RMST, declined to comment before Smith
rules.

Smith is drawing upon the State Department and the government oceanic agency
to help craft the covenants to keep the artifacts preserved, intact as a
collection and available to the public, and to guide future salvage
operations at the Titanic wreck by RMST. At a hearing in November, the
no-nonsense judge made clear the stakes.

"I am concerned that the Titanic is not only a national treasure, but in its
own way an international treasure, and it needs protection and it needs to
be monitored," the judge told lawyers in the case.

Congress has expressed its interest in preserving the Titanic as a memorial.
US lawmakers have not, however, implemented an agreement with the United
Kingdom, which has already embraced a ban on unregulated salvage of the
wreck.

J. Ashley Roach, a retired State Department lawyer who worked on the Titanic
case, said the Titanic is the first major shipwreck in international waters
to receive such close scrutiny.

"You have a domestic court and now the branches of government working
together to make sure the wreck itself continues to be available in the
future for the public good," he said.

International protections have been sought for the Titanic almost since the
wreck was discovered. Ballard, who led the team that found the ship, told a
congressional hearing in October 1985:

"Titanic is like a great pyramid which has been found and mankind is about
to enter it for the first time since it was sealed. Has he come to plunder
or appreciate? The people of the world clearly want the latter."

- AP



Pirate Diver

[/quote]
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
itmaiden,

The ruling that RMS could manage the collection of artifacts, but does not own them, was made years ago by the court that ruled on the salvage claim, so it is not a new idea, and has not been adopted in many other cases. It has come up again now because RMS Titanic has applied for a change in the ruling, so that they can be given ownership of the artifacts, and then sell them.

Mariner
 

wwwtimmcp

Bronze Member
Sep 22, 2007
1,666
55
wakeman, ohio
Detector(s) used
J.W.FISHERS pulse 8x
Primary Interest:
Shipwrecks
how utterly stupid. the finder of the wreck should be the one who decides.
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
I've said it before. Don't confuse the law with logic or common sense.

What I can't remember off the top of my head is why RMS Titanic ended up being the salvor in possession, and not Bob Ballard who actually found the wreck. I don't think he was part of that particular group. Maybe that was part of the reason why RMS Titanic was allowed to hold onto and manage the artifacts they had recovered, but not actually own them.

Mariner
 

jeff k

Bronze Member
Mar 4, 2006
1,264
17
Florida
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Mariner... Ballard never arrested the Titanic, but someone else did. I think the present owners bought the rights to her.
 

Monty

Gold Member
Jan 26, 2005
10,746
166
Sand Springs, OK
Detector(s) used
ACE 250, Garrett
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Yes, let's keep everything hidden on the bottom so no one will ever be able to appreciate it. Same thing with detected artifacts. Leave 'em in the ground to rot so no one will ever be able to benifit from them. BS! M :-\ nty
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
Thanks Jeff,

I found this quote from Ballard, after he had gone back and conducted a second, more detailed examination of the site:

"It is quiet and peaceful, and a fitting place for the remains of this greatest of sea tragedies to rest. May it forever remain this way, and may God bless these new-found souls."

I guess that is why he never applied for the salvage rights, which would have given him the right not to salvage, and to let the wreck remain as he thjought it should. Ironic.

Mariner
 

paratrooper

Sr. Member
Sep 20, 2004
388
46
Kingman AZ
If my questions have already been answered please let me know . I have 2 things that confuse me . 1) Was there an insurance company ? If so I would think that they own it . 2) Why is a judge here hearing evidence of something that is even in the courts word in international waters . This should be (barring the answer to my question #1) discussed in The Hague .
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
paratrooper,

Almost any federal court can assume authority for a wreck in International Waters. I don't think that the country even needs to have formally adopted the International Laws of the Sea International Treaties, though I am not certain about this.

I can't remember if there was an Insurance company that had paid out on the Titanic.

Mariner
 

ivan salis

Gold Member
Feb 5, 2007
16,794
3,809
callahan,fl
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Detector(s) used
delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
ballard did not want to own / salvage the wreck --merely find and film it --he then wanted it to rest in peace -- however others later on "arrested" the wreck --- salvaging items from it and putting the items taken off of it in -- a traveling public " dog and pony" show type exhibit for the public to draw folks to measuems - that pay for them set up the disply with them.

this is an attempt via the courts to force the folks that salvaged the items to "keep the collection" together and force them not to sell it off bit by bit to "private" collectors ( where they could make alot of cash but which would in effect destroy the "collection"( thus forcing them to sell it intact to some measuem --where due to limited numbers of bidders and the size of it --the "overall price" would be less)

its the courts stepping in and saying what you can or can not do with items that you "legally" salvaged in international waters and as such its bad news for salvors --since it in effect limits who you can sell what you found to . ( ie --read it as saying ---- major important finds MUST be sold "intact" to measuems to "preserve" their historical importantace )
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
Ivan,

I think you are wrong. The original decision was that RMS Titanic could display the items, but did not own them. The present discussion arises because RMS said it needed to sell some of them in order to survive, and asked the court to change its original ruling. The court is reviewing their request. This has no effect whatsover on decisions reached in other salvages cases, and in no way sets a prescedent. Also, as the decision was made several years ago, it is clear that it did not have any effect on subsequent salvage judgments. I can't think of another case where the court placed restrictions on artefacts awardrd to the salvor in possession, except where they had to hand over a proportion to the authority granting the salvage rights.

Mariner
 

ivan salis

Gold Member
Feb 5, 2007
16,794
3,809
callahan,fl
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Detector(s) used
delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
question if they legally salvaged them -- why did they NOT own them? --- if not legally salvaged their "looted items" -- theres no in between ---- if they legally salvaged by them --they should in effect own them which is normal with salvaged items right ? and if they legally owed them why could they NOT sell whatever ,whenever to whomever they choose to?

while I can understand and think it noble to try to keep the "collection intact" -- exactly whos "collection" is it after all.? there must be an "owner" -- after all everything of this nature is owned by somebody --be it insurance company -- salvor --- country of origin --somebody . and sad but true --its the "owners" choice what to do with it.
 

mariner

Hero Member
Apr 4, 2005
877
18
Ivan,

I'm stretching my memory now (and really should go back and read the original transcipt of the admiralty hearing) but I think that RMS Titanic actually only asked for the right to hold onto and display the artefacts they had recovered, and the court gave them what they asked for. Maybe they thought it too controversial to ask for ownership of the artifacts, especially as it was well documented that they had not been the people who actually discovered the wreck. When I get a chance, I will check my records, and will let you know if I am wrong.

It illustrates, however, the principle that when you apply for salvage rights, you ask the court to arrest the ship, and then the court, having done so and taken control of the wreck, rewards the salvor in a way that it considers appropriate. There are no rules that say that the salvor has to be given ownership of the artifacts or the wreck.

Mariner
 

ScubaDude

Bronze Member
Oct 10, 2006
1,326
2
Coastal, NC
Detector(s) used
Garrett Infinium LS, Garret Seahunter MK II, Geometrics 882, Marine Sonic SS
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Mariner,
I think your correct on the legal background. One has to remember this was new turf back then, it was likely assumed the private sector would not be able to do much if anything that deep, or want to. Few governments could work that deep, very few private sector assets could. It is still a very expensive and difficult endeavor today. The deep ocean work community is a very small one. Silvercop - Odyssey's not a member so you can rest better tonight.

Ballard never sought an Arrest. IFREMER worked the site with the Nadir & Nautille after Ballard left; they recovered over 1500 "research" artefacts. That was also the group that also tried to raise a large section of bulkhead or hull plating. I'm assuming that was the beginning of the collection as it's known? Or is there another?

I think having to sell the collection is an unfortunate thing to do at this point. I do find it rather hard to believe that no other interested parties have ever come forward; believe me, they exist. If the ownership of the artifacts legally transfers, there will be a line at the courthouse of people wanting theirs. Can they not just sell their in rem interest, or substitute it somehow?
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top