HMS Victory 1774 Consultation

[diggerww]

The wreck of HMS Victory, the third ship of that name and known as “Balchin’s Victory” after the Admiral who commanded it, was recently rediscovered in the English Channel, outside UK territorial waters. In view of the unique importance of this Sovereign Immune wreck site for British naval heritage, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are issuing a public consultation paper on the possible future management approaches for the wreck site. DCMS will be coordinating responses to the consultation.

http://historyhuntersinternational.o...-consultation/

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Great Link diggerww It's nice to read stuff from people that know what they are talking about
Very interesting, thank you.
Ossy

[jeff k]

Great Link diggerww It's nice to read stuff from people that know what they are talking about
Very interesting, thank you.
Ossy

Ossy... You really need to buy some Odyssey stock. Then when Odyssey wins the case you can cry in your champagne instead of crying in your beer.

[diggerww]

Thanks Ossy....

This article http://historyhuntersinternational.o...r-archaeology/ has detailed explanations of the applicable laws, and understandings.

As far as enjoying "champaign" and investing, drop a dollar into this equation, and see what happens.

http://www.techagreements.com/agreem...on%20Agreement

(BTW: the 'case' has been closed and vacated http://dockets.justia.com/docket/flo...v01045/214517/ )

Enjoy.

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

More good reading I have asked the same question ?? " HOW CAN A US COMPANY ARREST IN A FLORIDA COURT A
SOVEREIGN VESSEL OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATE, IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS ??
Admiralty law, Who passed this law?
Ossy

[diggerww]

I think this line from Judge Merryday about sums up the US Courts position...

"mischievous exercise of admiralty jurisdiction"

One needs to remember that Odyssey filed the Admiralty Arrest, "Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel" on May 28, 2008.

Note Unidentified.

It would appear that while the wreck is unidentified in the US Court system, the UK MOD and Receiver of Wreck, were under a different impression. Interesting to note that while the US Court was administrating the site, under the Admiralty Arrest filed by Odyssey, and Odyssey had successfully petitioned the Court as "Court Appointed Custodian", Odyssey was turning over items recovered to the UK Government. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/system/f...ersion-web.pdf

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Great Link diggerww It's nice to read stuff from people that know what they are talking about
Very interesting, thank you.
Ossy

Ossy... You really need to buy some Odyssey stock. Then when Odyssey wins the case you can cry in your champaign instead of crying in your beer.

Thanks Jeff, but I'm enjoying my Cava (champagne, don't want to upset the French ) Right now !
and I will be crying tears of joy
Ossy

[jeff k]

More good reading I have asked the same question ?? " HOW CAN A US COMPANY ARREST IN A FLORIDA COURT A
SOVEREIGN VESSEL OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATE, IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS ??
Admiralty law, Who passed this law?
Ossy

Ossy... Anybody has the right to file an arrest on a commercial cargo whether it be on a barge or a sovereign warship. The other interesting thing is that Merryday's ruling in Tournay is opposite to his ruling in Black Swan. In the Tournay case, he said that only the stuff in the court's physical jurisdiction is in play because the court has no jurisdiction over where it came from. In Black Swan he said that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the stuff in the court's physical jurisdiction because there may be no jurisdiction over the site where it came from.

Merryday is trying to play the same scene in two different ways. In Tournay, he adjudged what Odyssey found and brought before the court isn't the whole shipwreck. In Black Swan, he adjudged that what Odyssey found and brought before the court is the whole shipwreck.

Admiralty law has existed since the first days of sea faring and had evolved into a very specialized aspect of international law. Jurisdiction exists or it doesn't. Admiralty jurisdiction is granted the U.S. federal courts by the U.S. Constitution.

[diggerww]

"Anybody has the right to file an arrest on a commercial cargo whether it be on a barge or a sovereign warship."
Whats is next, filing an arrest to recover the gold filings from the sailors on the Arizona?

Odyssey (page 17) broad brush references FSIA and SMCA, yet does not provide the court with any specific part of FSIA/SMCA. Odyssey appears to incorrectly paraphrase the SMCA, "only vessels on exclusively non-commercial missions are entitled to sovereign immunity" (emphasis added).

Note that the SMCA law states this...

From the Sunken Military Craft Act (SCMA);
"(3) The term “sunken military craft” means all or any portion of—
(A) any sunken warship, naval auxiliary, or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank;"

Perhaps it would help if you were able to provide some substantiation to your post, aside from highlighting.

[jeff k]

I think this line from Judge Merryday about sums up the US Courts position...

"mischievous exercise of admiralty jurisdiction"

One needs to remember that Odyssey filed the Admiralty Arrest, "Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel" on May 28, 2008.

Note Unidentified.

It would appear that while the wreck is unidentified in the US Court system, the UK MOD and Receiver of Wreck, were under a different impression. Interesting to note that while the US Court was administrating the site, under the Admiralty Arrest filed by Odyssey, and Odyssey had successfully petitioned the Court as "Court Appointed Custodian", Odyssey was turning over items recovered to the UK Government. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/system/f...ersion-web.pdf

Sorry, but the U.S. Court was aware of the identity of the shipwreck.

"On November 13, 2008, in camera, Odyssey advised this Court of its negotiations and propossed agreement with the United Kingdom regarding the Defendant Shipwreck Site."

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...045/214517/17/

[jeff k]

"Anybody has the right to file an arrest on a commercial cargo whether it be on a barge or a sovereign warship."
Whats is next, filing an arrest to recover the gold filings from the sailors on the Arizona?

Odyssey (page 17) broad brush references FSIA and SMCA, yet does not provide the court with any specific part of FSIA/SMCA. Odyssey appears to incorrectly paraphrase the SMCA, "only vessels on exclusively non-commercial missions are entitled to sovereign immunity" (emphasis added).

Note that the SMCA law states this...

From the Sunken Military Craft Act (SCMA);
"(3) The term “sunken military craft” means all or any portion of—
(A) any sunken warship, naval auxiliary, or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank;"

Perhaps it would help if you were able to provide some substantiation to your post, aside from highlighting.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

[diggerww]

Did you read the document from Wessex?

Was the US Court aware that the appointed Custodian of Record, was turning over the artefacts recovered to the UK receiver of Wreck for payment?

[diggerww]

"Anybody has the right to file an arrest on a commercial cargo whether it be on a barge or a sovereign warship."
Whats is next, filing an arrest to recover the gold filings from the sailors on the Arizona?

Odyssey (page 17) broad brush references FSIA and SMCA, yet does not provide the court with any specific part of FSIA/SMCA. Odyssey appears to incorrectly paraphrase the SMCA, "only vessels on exclusively non-commercial missions are entitled to sovereign immunity" (emphasis added).

Note that the SMCA law states this...

From the Sunken Military Craft Act (SCMA);
"(3) The term “sunken military craft” means all or any portion of—
(A) any sunken warship, naval auxiliary, or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank;"

Perhaps it would help if you were able to provide some substantiation to your post, aside from highlighting.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

Did you FORGET one very important issue in these regards?
I will give you a hint...((international waters))

“The award of title to a conspicuous wreck in international water implicates United States foreign policy, constitutionally committed to the executive branch of government.” http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...14516/29/0.pdf

[jeff k]

"Whats is next, filing an arrest to recover the gold filings from the sailors on the Arizona?"

The USS Arizona didn't carry any commercial cargo. In fact, no US Navy ship ever carried commercial cargo. I challenge you to find one that did.

[diggerww]

Military Sealift Command's Sealift Program provides high-quality, efficient and cost-effective ocean transportation for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies during peacetime and war. More than 90 percent of U.S. war fighters' equipment and supplies travels by sea. The program manages a mix of government-owned and long-term-chartered dry cargo ships and tankers, as well as additional short-term or voyage-chartered ships. By DOD policy, MSC must first look to the U.S - flagged market to meet its sealift requirements. Government-owned ships are used only when suitable U.S.-flagged commercial ships are unavailable.

http://www.msc.navy.mil/pm5/


Dont forget about the Space Shuttle.

[jeff k]

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Commercial cargo is the shipment of goods for non-military/non-govt. purposes where the shipper/merchant is charged a shipping fee. All your examples are either military or govt. shipments, and would not be considered commercial cargo.

[diggerww]

Is this the direction Odyssey is going to take on the HMS Victory as well? Odyssey claims that the Victory was carrying commercial cargo.

"While Odyssey has vacated the arrest on the HMS Victory, it did so, "without prejudice". Therefore, Odyssey maintains the ability to file an arrest on the location at any time.
If a salvage operation were to commence on the HMS Victory site, if Odyssey maintains the contention of the ability to separate sovereign vs private, what is to prevent, upon finding of what it contends is private, from filing the Admiralty Arrest in the US Court system, and spiriting off the recovery to the United States?"

http://historyhuntersinternational.o...tation/page-2/