1694 WRECK SUSSEX

[SHERMANVILLE ILLINOIS]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domest...5?feedType=RSS

Spain and Britain to dive for treasure on 1694 wreck
Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:27AM BST

MADRID (Reuters) - Three hundred years after the British
warship Sussex sank in a storm off southern Spain,
researchers are preparing to dive to the site to see if it
was carrying a fortune in gold coins.

Spain and Britain said on Friday they had agreed to
start underwater exploration to find the ship that
sank near Gibraltar in 1694. Any treasure will be
claimed by Britain, the Spanish foreign ministry said
in a statement.

According to the Council for British Archaeology's
(CBA) website, the Sussex was taking money to the
Duke of Savoy in Italy in exchange for his help in
the war against French King Louis XIV.

It says the booty could now be worth hundreds of
millions of dollars (pounds).

The CBA has criticised a deal Britain has done with
Florida-based salvage company Odyssey Marine
Exploration, which will run the dives under which
Odyssey will receive a share of whatever is found
on the wreck.

all have a good un..............
SHERMANVILLE

[old man]

Wreckdiver 1715,
First of all let me say that I hope OMR is successful. That said, when I read the newspaper article, I though it said, that they were only granted the permit to survey the wreck, not salvage it. Would you please let us know if they were also granted the right to salvage the wreck, once the survey is complete ? If they could, it sounds like a step in the right direction for all of us.

[jeff k]

Grubby... Now you're beginning to sound like Doc, and that's too bad. Just keep an open mind until they finish phase 1B, and I'm sure your the one that will be surprised.

Old Man... The Spanish already stated that if the ship is identified as the Sussex, the British will own her and all the contents.

[jeff k]

"OMR has had some very shady things in its past and I like some others choose not to ignore it."

Grubby... If you're going to accuse them of doing something shady, please fill us in.

[SHERMANVILLE ILLINOIS]

You folks sure do have a bunch of fun
over on this side of the board.

all have a good un........
SHERMANVILLE

[old man]

Jeff,
Great new thanks. I think I'll buy some OMR stock.

[jeff k]

Grubby... Just as I thought. You have no idea what you are talking about. First, Lee Spence did not win any court case against Odyssey. The SC judge only agreed to hear the case. Second, the location he gave was not even close to where they found the Republic. Third, he had no agreement with Odyssey in the first place. He had an agreement with Seahawk under different management. When Seahawk went out of business his agreement was dead in the water. He had a chance to file a claim with the US Court when the ship was arrested, but failed to do so. I wonder why? His claim is a joke.

[jeff k]

Cornelius... We're talking about public corporations traded on the stock exchange, not some private company. Do you have any idea the costs involved in starting a public company? You're comparison does not apply here.

[Bassfish]

Yes Jeff explain that to the Enron people
Grubby

That was partnership fraud.

[Bassfish]

Agreed.....just being a smart a$$.

Not enough people hung for that either.

[jeff k]

Cornelius... Seahawk was a public company also. They went out of business around 2000. Odyssey was formed a few years before that, and started trading in Oct 1999, if I'm not mistaken.

[jeff k]

Thanks Doc. Ever since you started trashing Odyssey, their stock has gone up to a new 52 week high. Keep up the good work. By the way, they arrested two more wrecks yesterday.

[Skimmer]

Jeff-
I know you're the moderator here and you have the responsibility and the final say on what gets said and posted (and not deleted). May I ask you to review some (all) of your posts on this thread and reconsider maybe a couple of your statements? I
have no right to do so, but, if you would, perhaps you'd realize that we don't all have the same perspective on ongoing events, and dissention, done with respect to theposter, is valuable to the hundreds of us who participate and read the posts..
Thanks for a moment of your time. Mike

[Skimmer]

OH Lordy=
I feel like an idiot/ you're right. Please disregard that post, I thought Jeff was Jeff of PA and I was WAY wrong. (sigh) Guesas I better go backto reading posts and just not answering anything. Sorry again.
In my defense, I just got in from a big nice day on the water, and I'm exhausted. We're on the trail!
I'll post some nice coin photos's in a couple days, if I can. Sorry Jeff, my mistake. Mike

[rgecy]

Doc,

That is very interesting. Your research seems very thorough and I for one can see the delima.

But, I hope things do pan out for Odyssey though. I don't have nay stock in them, but what they are trying to accomplish, the relationships and new technology they have pioneered will set the standard for Treasure Salvage for years to come. I hope this hasn't all been a sham, because it will only hurt the industry in the long run.

Odyssey has made some major break throughs with this contract and I think it would be in all of our best interest (the best interest for this industry) to hope it succedes.

I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens!

Robert

[jeff k]

Robert... Don't believe everything you read on the forums, especially by self-proclaimed experts. Doc doesn't have a clue.Odyssey's analysis of the Sussex data was accumulated from a review of ship's logs, court martial records, state papers, treasury books and various other letters and reports.

[Salvor6]

OK Doc, you're saying that all money appropriated in 1693 amounted to 4 1/2 mil. Do you expect us to believe that is the total wealth of the entire country? NO! Britan had reserves (just like we have Ft. Knox) and I'm sure there were some secret payoff deals that you haven't found the documents. It happens all the time.

[jeff k]

According to Odyssey's research the Bank of England was formed to payoff the borrowed money lost on the Sussex.

Formation of the Bank of England in 1694-97:

i) This was the project of Scottish promoter-financier named William Paterson, a group of London financiers, and the current Chancellor of the Exchequer [i.e., the finance minister], Sir Charles Montagu.10

ii) This group proposed to give the king a badly needed permanent loan of £1.2 million,

(1) at the bargain rate of interest of 8%, in return for

(2) the exclusive right to form the first and only joint-stock bank in England: i.e., to enjoy a monopoly on joint-stock banking.

(3) a bank that would also have a monopoly on government banking services.

iii) Financing the loan to the government:

(1) They proposed to raise this £1.2 million by selling shares, i.e., stock certificates, in this new Bank of England, to the public.

(2) In fact, they made the loan in printed Bank of England notes, for the full amount, when they had raised only 60% of the capital, about £720,000, thus creating new money.

iv) Parliament accepted this proposal in May 1694,

(1) and voted a new tax on ship-tunnage to pay the annual 8% interest on the loan, in effect a perpetual loan.11

(2) Hence bank was originally called the Tunnage Bank.

[HunleyFinder]

I don't understand exactly why, but my name came up in this thread. And "Jeff K." (who for some reason shows what appears to be a picture of Captain Cousteau) wrote: "Lee Spence did not win any court case against Odyssey. The SC judge only agreed to hear the case. Second, the location he gave was not even close to where they found the Republic. Third, he had no agreement with Odyssey in the first place. He had an agreement with Seahawk under different management. When Seahawk went out of business his agreement was dead in the water. He had a chance to file a claim with the US Court when the ship was arrested, but failed to do so. I wonder why? His claim is a joke."

I will make a few comments:

First - judges don't agree to hear cases that are "a joke." And, a judge certainly doesn't reinstate a "joke" case after the case had he himself had previously rejected on the alleged grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The judge allowed the case only after my company's attorneys showed sufficient evidence that we both had a case worth hearing on its merits and that the South Carolina court had jurisdiction.

Second - When I signed my initial agreements with Seahawk, Seahawk was under much the same management as Odyssey was when it found the Republic. John Morris actually signed the contracts and Greg Stemm was fully aware of the confidentiality and non-compete requirements.

Third - my claim is a contract dispute and not an admiralty claim as I was not ever an owner of the Republic. If my not filing an admiralty claim was a valid argument against me, this case would have been thrown out under summary judgement long ago.

Fourth - we plan to use Odyssey's own documents to show that Odyssey had obtained my research files from Seahawk and started to use them well prior to the expiration of my primary agreement with Seahawk and my files were clearly marked as my confidential, private property.

Finally- as to my location, the wreck was found within the "Deep Water" search area clearly defined in my agreement with Seahawk.

I suggest we wait until this case has finally been settled before deciding in this forum who is right and who is wrong.

Because it is an ongoing lawsuit, I will not be able to comment further on the case.

Lee

[wreckdiver1715]

Lee, welcome aboard TreasureNet.

Tom