End of the Admiralty Arrest: Odyssey Marine and the Le Marquis Tournay

[diggerww]

The Court ruling in the Admiralty Arrest, Case #: 8:08-cv-1044-T-23MAP, Le Marquis Tournay is certainly one of the most comprehensive rulings on recent admiralty arrest, law of finds, and res issues.
The US Court has clearly voiced its opinion on the “mischievous exercise of admiralty jurisdiction” which Odyssey has enjoyed for the past few years.

http://historyhuntersinternational....yssey-marine-and-the-le-marquis-tournay/#p445

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[jeff k]

There was no need to appeal, so why waste money on legal fees. Odyssey wasn't really denied anything with that ruling, which was based in law of finds, not salvage. No matter how off track the court's musings may have been, the lower court's ignorance regarding admiralty law can be easily corrected when it is important to do so. This is being demonstrated with the Black Swan appeal. The folks at HHI don't have a clue.

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."

 

[jeff k]

In May 2007, Judge Merryday granted Odyssey possession of the Lands End site. Then he denied Odyssey possession of the Tournay site this year. What changed between then and now? I suspect it was the Black Swan case, and he didn't want to go against that ruling.

ORDER
Engaged in the ongoing recovery of a 17th Century merchant vessel located
within a radius of five nautical miles of 49° 25' N, 6° 00' W (“the shipwrecked vessel”),
the plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 55(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a
default judgment (Doc. 22), which motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to
(1) enter final judgment awarding the plaintiff title to the unidentified shipwrecked vessel,
its apparel, tackle, appurtenances, and cargo; (2) terminate any pending motion; and
(3) close the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 30, 2007.
Judge Steven Merryday.

 

[diggerww]

Did you read the order?

Perhaps your statements rely on the readers inability to locate the court order, or comprehend, thus you feel the need to 'interpret' the terms of the Courts order?

"The plaintiff offers no justification for such an expansive and mischievous exercise of admiralty jurisdiction."

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2008cv01044/214516/29/0.pdf