ivan salis
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2007
- 16,794
- 3,809
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
eagarly awaiting the "news" tomorrow---well later today really---Ivan
Spain suing Odyssey...
- Thread starter GarrettDealer
- Start date
Odyssey Marine Exploration Files for Extension in Three Admiralty Cases
Monday July 23, 4:05 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX - News) today filed Motions for an Extension of Time to file its responses to Claimant, Spain's, Motions for More Definite Statements filed in the three admiralty arrests which Odyssey currently has pending at the U.S. District Court that has assumed jurisdiction over the sites.
Odyssey filed these motions primarily as a result of the unexpected seizure and detention of Odyssey's survey vessel Ocean Alert by the Spanish Guardia Civil from July 12 through 18. Among other items, the Guardia Civil confiscated confidential attorney/client privileged documents as well as a laptop computer belonging to one of Odyssey's attorneys which also contained attorney/client privileged information relative to the documents being prepared for the court. To date the Guardia Civil has not yet released the hard drive of the attorney's laptop.
The detention also required two of Odyssey's lawyers to travel to Algeciras to deal with the legal issues there. The rest of Odyssey's legal team and in-house counsel have been working on issues related to the illegal boarding including flag state rights. As a result, Odyssey requested additional time to prepare its responses, but the Spanish Government refused. Consequently, Odyssey filed a motion with all three Judges in all three cases citing last week's extraordinary events and requesting more time for the preparation of additional pleadings.
"Since Spain's request, our team has been diligently working on Odyssey's responses to Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements in all three cases," said Melinda MacConnel, Esq., Odyssey's General Counsel. "Unfortunately, our legal team's focus was pulled away from this work by the recent illegal seizure and detention of the Ocean Alert and the continued blockade of our other vessel, the Odyssey Explorer. If the Spanish officials had abided by the terms of the inspection of the vessel which had been agreed to in advance, we would have had time last week to complete our responses. We had arranged for a compliant boarding with both the Judge in La Linea and the Guardia Civil but were frankly caught off guard when they reneged on the agreement and forcefully seized our vessel."
About the "Black Swan"
In May 2007, Odyssey announced the discovery and recovery of more than 500,000 silver coins weighing more than 17 tons, hundreds of gold coins, worked gold and other artifacts from a site in the Atlantic Ocean code-named "Black Swan." Odyssey has not yet been able to positively identify the site and has not disclosed the location in order to protect artifacts which remain at the site.
The "Black Swan" recovery was conducted in conformity with Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country. The work accomplished to date on this site has diligently followed archaeological protocols using advanced robotic technology. All recovered items have been legally imported into the United States and placed in a secure, undisclosed location where they are undergoing conservation and documentation.
The Kingdom of Spain has filed notices in three pending court cases in which Odyssey has filed Warrants of Arrest stating that the Spanish government does not intend to give up rights on any Spanish property which might be on the sites. Spain has not asserted a basis for any claims specific to any of the arrests.
In Odyssey's press release of May 21, 2007 the Company anticipated such an action from possible claimants and addressed the issue as follows:
"If we are able to confirm that some other entity has a legitimate legal claim to this shipwreck when - and if - the identity is confirmed, we intend to provide legal notice to any and all potential claimants. Even if another entity is able to prove that it has an ownership interest in the shipwreck and/or cargo and that they had not legally abandoned the shipwreck, Odyssey would apply for a salvage award from the Admiralty Court.
"In cases such as this, salvors are typically awarded up to 90% of the recovery. We do believe that most shipwrecks that we recover, including the `Black Swan,' will likely result in claims by other parties. Many will be spurious claims, but we anticipate that there might be some legitimate ones as well. In the case of the `Black Swan,' it is the opinion of our legal counsel that even if a claim is deemed to be legitimate by the courts, Odyssey should still receive title to a significant majority of the recovered goods."
Monday July 23, 4:05 pm ET
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX - News) today filed Motions for an Extension of Time to file its responses to Claimant, Spain's, Motions for More Definite Statements filed in the three admiralty arrests which Odyssey currently has pending at the U.S. District Court that has assumed jurisdiction over the sites.
Odyssey filed these motions primarily as a result of the unexpected seizure and detention of Odyssey's survey vessel Ocean Alert by the Spanish Guardia Civil from July 12 through 18. Among other items, the Guardia Civil confiscated confidential attorney/client privileged documents as well as a laptop computer belonging to one of Odyssey's attorneys which also contained attorney/client privileged information relative to the documents being prepared for the court. To date the Guardia Civil has not yet released the hard drive of the attorney's laptop.
The detention also required two of Odyssey's lawyers to travel to Algeciras to deal with the legal issues there. The rest of Odyssey's legal team and in-house counsel have been working on issues related to the illegal boarding including flag state rights. As a result, Odyssey requested additional time to prepare its responses, but the Spanish Government refused. Consequently, Odyssey filed a motion with all three Judges in all three cases citing last week's extraordinary events and requesting more time for the preparation of additional pleadings.
"Since Spain's request, our team has been diligently working on Odyssey's responses to Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements in all three cases," said Melinda MacConnel, Esq., Odyssey's General Counsel. "Unfortunately, our legal team's focus was pulled away from this work by the recent illegal seizure and detention of the Ocean Alert and the continued blockade of our other vessel, the Odyssey Explorer. If the Spanish officials had abided by the terms of the inspection of the vessel which had been agreed to in advance, we would have had time last week to complete our responses. We had arranged for a compliant boarding with both the Judge in La Linea and the Guardia Civil but were frankly caught off guard when they reneged on the agreement and forcefully seized our vessel."
About the "Black Swan"
In May 2007, Odyssey announced the discovery and recovery of more than 500,000 silver coins weighing more than 17 tons, hundreds of gold coins, worked gold and other artifacts from a site in the Atlantic Ocean code-named "Black Swan." Odyssey has not yet been able to positively identify the site and has not disclosed the location in order to protect artifacts which remain at the site.
The "Black Swan" recovery was conducted in conformity with Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country. The work accomplished to date on this site has diligently followed archaeological protocols using advanced robotic technology. All recovered items have been legally imported into the United States and placed in a secure, undisclosed location where they are undergoing conservation and documentation.
The Kingdom of Spain has filed notices in three pending court cases in which Odyssey has filed Warrants of Arrest stating that the Spanish government does not intend to give up rights on any Spanish property which might be on the sites. Spain has not asserted a basis for any claims specific to any of the arrests.
In Odyssey's press release of May 21, 2007 the Company anticipated such an action from possible claimants and addressed the issue as follows:
"If we are able to confirm that some other entity has a legitimate legal claim to this shipwreck when - and if - the identity is confirmed, we intend to provide legal notice to any and all potential claimants. Even if another entity is able to prove that it has an ownership interest in the shipwreck and/or cargo and that they had not legally abandoned the shipwreck, Odyssey would apply for a salvage award from the Admiralty Court.
"In cases such as this, salvors are typically awarded up to 90% of the recovery. We do believe that most shipwrecks that we recover, including the `Black Swan,' will likely result in claims by other parties. Many will be spurious claims, but we anticipate that there might be some legitimate ones as well. In the case of the `Black Swan,' it is the opinion of our legal counsel that even if a claim is deemed to be legitimate by the courts, Odyssey should still receive title to a significant majority of the recovered goods."
Re: Gibraltar Chronicle...
Odyssey row
A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
By Brian Reyes
Spain’s Ministry of Culture was given the opportunity to collaborate on the project that led to the recovery of a controversial $500m treasure from the seabed.
The ministry has been one of Odyssey Marine Exploration’s toughest critics over recent weeks and has repeatedly raised questions about the company’s activities.
Culture officials believe the haul of silver coins may have come from a Spanish shipwreck or from a site inside Spanish territorial waters.
The Spanish Government is seeking information on the haul through diplomatic channels and has filed a claim with a US court to protect its sovereign rights. Separately, a court in La Linea has opened a criminal investigation into claims that Spanish heritage laws may have been breached.
Yet a 109-page affidavit signed by Odyssey co-founder Greg Stemm suggests the company spared no effort in trying to engage with the Ministry of Culture and other official Spanish entities.
It also shows that Spanish authorities were kept fully informed of the activities of Odyssey’s ships in waters close to Gibraltar.
The affidavit documents a series of meetings, phone calls and written exchanges between company executives, government officials and diplomats in Spain, Britain and the US going back to 1998.
Most of those contacts related to a separate project to recover artefacts from the wreck of HMS Sussex, an English galleon that sank off Gibraltar.
Yet as recently as last November, Odyssey claims to have alerted the Ministry of Culture about other wrecks of possible interest to the Spanish Government.
The affidavit describes a meeting that month between Mr Stemm, Odyssey’s Spanish lawyer, Jose Luis Goñi, and Elisa de Cabo, an official at the ministry.
“The possibility of shipwreck finds which could have cultural or historical interest to Spain are discussed,” the Odyssey affidavit said.
“Odyssey offered to Spain the opportunity to collaborate in the projects discussed and made clear that some of the wrecks were in danger from other salvors and that the company was prepared to collaborate with Spain to identify and protect these sites.”
“This offer had also been made on various previous occasions to Spanish and Andalucian authorities.”
One of those wrecks, a colonial era ship located in international waters in the Atlantic Ocean, had been code-named Black Swan by the company.
It was from this site that the treasure was retrieved and subsequently brought to Gibraltar, from where it was flown to the US. It was also this wreck that sparked outrage in Spain.
Among the accusations levelled against Odyssey is that it secretly raised treasure from the seabed in Spanish waters close to Gibraltar, something which the company denies.
Odyssey said it had always been transparent about its operations in this area. To illustrate this, the affidavit includes details of correspondence between the company and the Guardia Civil headquarters in Algeciras.
Documents show that the company provided advance notice to the Guardia Civil every time its ships sailed from Gibraltar to work in the Alboran Sea.
The information included nautical charts and details of the ships’ planned operations.
Copies of the affidavit have been sent to the ministries of Culture, Foreign Affairs and Presidency in Madrid, as well as to the judicial authorities. Other interested parties including the British Government have also received copies.
YEARS OF CONTACT
A detailed chronological account in an annexe to the affidavit shows that Odyssey’s relations with Spain go back to 1998, when the Partido Popular Government of Jose Maria Aznar was still in power.
The company was first granted permission to work on the Sussex project in May 1999, following discussions with both the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture in Madrid.
In the ensuing months, Odyssey carried out work on the Sussex project and took Spanish Navy observers on board its vessel to monitor its activities.
In June 2001 however, the Junta de Andalucia intervened and told Odyssey to cease its activities. The Junta argued that only its officials – and not the central Government in Madrid – could grant permission for Odyssey to work in waters off southern Spain. At the time the Junta’s culture department was headed by Carmen Calvo, who would go on to become Culture Minister under the PSOE Government of Jose Luis Zapatero, a post she held from 2004 until earlier this month.
What followed after June 2001 was four years of political and diplomatic wrangling, further complicated by the dispute over the territorial status of the waters in which the wreck of HMS Sussex was located.
Spain claims those waters as its own. The UK and Gibraltar regard them as international waters.
As the negotiations progressed, the dispute over the status of the waters was largely set aside in order to move ahead with the Sussex project, which was seen by some officials in Madrid as a potential model for the future recovery of Spanish wrecks.
By August 2005, after much work behind the scenes, it looked like the Junta was finally on side.
Odyssey was informed via US diplomatic channels that it was cleared by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to proceed with the Sussex project and carry out work to confirm the identity of the wreck. One of the conditions was that the company took on board its vessel a Spanish archaeologist to verify the work, a condition Odyssey agreed to.
But just a month later progress stalled again after the Junta raised further objections and refused to appoint the archaeologist because of concerns about the status of the project.
According to the affidavit the situation prompted the intervention of a senior Spanish diplomat with close knowledge of Gibraltar affairs, Jose Pons, Director General for Europe at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
Toward the end of November 2005 Sr Pons wrote to a senior official in the Junta noting that the Ministry of Culture and the Junta had set out their position on the project in a letter to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in June.
Both had agreed to the project so long as certain conditions were met and it was on this basis that Odyssey had received the green light from Madrid.
For Sr Pons, the content of the June letter was “…clear, emphatic and unmistakable.”
“It seems to me a very serious issue in which under no circumstances can we let it be understood that the procedure was incorrectly carried out by us,” he wrote to the Junta official. A copy of the letter is included in the affidavit.
Sr Pons urged the Culture Ministry and the Junta to clarify the terms of their position on the project.
The discussions continued into the following months, with the Junta continuing to raise questions about the archaeological aspects of Odyssey’s proposals.
According to the affidavit even Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Europe at the time, intervened and wrote to Manuel Chaves, President of the Junta, setting out Britain’s position on the project.
The company provided additional information in response to the Junta’s queries and by March 2007 an agreement on the Sussex project was finally reached.
By this time though, Odyssey’s attention was elsewhere: while everyone was busy discussing the Sussex project, the company had found a colonial era wreck in international waters of the Atlantic. It was code-named the Black Swan.
In early April a small sample of items from the wreck was flown from Gibraltar to Florida on a private jet. It was the physical evidence needed by the company to secure legal rights over the site and prevent anyone else from working there.
In the ensuing weeks the company’s vessel Odyssey Explorer was at work in international waters in the Atlantic Ocean, about 33 nautical miles off Faro.
Odyssey has not identified the name of the wreck but historical documents show that this spot was close to where a Spanish frigate called the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes was sunk by English warships in 1804. The Mercedes was carrying over a million silver coins at the time.
The Odyssey Explorer arrived back in Gibraltar on May 12.
On May 17, a chartered Boeing 757 flew from the Rock to the US carrying 17 tonnes of treasure, and in the process ignited a major row that has yet to be resolved.
Odyssey row
A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
By Brian Reyes
Spain’s Ministry of Culture was given the opportunity to collaborate on the project that led to the recovery of a controversial $500m treasure from the seabed.
The ministry has been one of Odyssey Marine Exploration’s toughest critics over recent weeks and has repeatedly raised questions about the company’s activities.
Culture officials believe the haul of silver coins may have come from a Spanish shipwreck or from a site inside Spanish territorial waters.
The Spanish Government is seeking information on the haul through diplomatic channels and has filed a claim with a US court to protect its sovereign rights. Separately, a court in La Linea has opened a criminal investigation into claims that Spanish heritage laws may have been breached.
Yet a 109-page affidavit signed by Odyssey co-founder Greg Stemm suggests the company spared no effort in trying to engage with the Ministry of Culture and other official Spanish entities.
It also shows that Spanish authorities were kept fully informed of the activities of Odyssey’s ships in waters close to Gibraltar.
The affidavit documents a series of meetings, phone calls and written exchanges between company executives, government officials and diplomats in Spain, Britain and the US going back to 1998.
Most of those contacts related to a separate project to recover artefacts from the wreck of HMS Sussex, an English galleon that sank off Gibraltar.
Yet as recently as last November, Odyssey claims to have alerted the Ministry of Culture about other wrecks of possible interest to the Spanish Government.
The affidavit describes a meeting that month between Mr Stemm, Odyssey’s Spanish lawyer, Jose Luis Goñi, and Elisa de Cabo, an official at the ministry.
“The possibility of shipwreck finds which could have cultural or historical interest to Spain are discussed,” the Odyssey affidavit said.
“Odyssey offered to Spain the opportunity to collaborate in the projects discussed and made clear that some of the wrecks were in danger from other salvors and that the company was prepared to collaborate with Spain to identify and protect these sites.”
“This offer had also been made on various previous occasions to Spanish and Andalucian authorities.”
One of those wrecks, a colonial era ship located in international waters in the Atlantic Ocean, had been code-named Black Swan by the company.
It was from this site that the treasure was retrieved and subsequently brought to Gibraltar, from where it was flown to the US. It was also this wreck that sparked outrage in Spain.
Among the accusations levelled against Odyssey is that it secretly raised treasure from the seabed in Spanish waters close to Gibraltar, something which the company denies.
Odyssey said it had always been transparent about its operations in this area. To illustrate this, the affidavit includes details of correspondence between the company and the Guardia Civil headquarters in Algeciras.
Documents show that the company provided advance notice to the Guardia Civil every time its ships sailed from Gibraltar to work in the Alboran Sea.
The information included nautical charts and details of the ships’ planned operations.
Copies of the affidavit have been sent to the ministries of Culture, Foreign Affairs and Presidency in Madrid, as well as to the judicial authorities. Other interested parties including the British Government have also received copies.
YEARS OF CONTACT
A detailed chronological account in an annexe to the affidavit shows that Odyssey’s relations with Spain go back to 1998, when the Partido Popular Government of Jose Maria Aznar was still in power.
The company was first granted permission to work on the Sussex project in May 1999, following discussions with both the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture in Madrid.
In the ensuing months, Odyssey carried out work on the Sussex project and took Spanish Navy observers on board its vessel to monitor its activities.
In June 2001 however, the Junta de Andalucia intervened and told Odyssey to cease its activities. The Junta argued that only its officials – and not the central Government in Madrid – could grant permission for Odyssey to work in waters off southern Spain. At the time the Junta’s culture department was headed by Carmen Calvo, who would go on to become Culture Minister under the PSOE Government of Jose Luis Zapatero, a post she held from 2004 until earlier this month.
What followed after June 2001 was four years of political and diplomatic wrangling, further complicated by the dispute over the territorial status of the waters in which the wreck of HMS Sussex was located.
Spain claims those waters as its own. The UK and Gibraltar regard them as international waters.
As the negotiations progressed, the dispute over the status of the waters was largely set aside in order to move ahead with the Sussex project, which was seen by some officials in Madrid as a potential model for the future recovery of Spanish wrecks.
By August 2005, after much work behind the scenes, it looked like the Junta was finally on side.
Odyssey was informed via US diplomatic channels that it was cleared by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to proceed with the Sussex project and carry out work to confirm the identity of the wreck. One of the conditions was that the company took on board its vessel a Spanish archaeologist to verify the work, a condition Odyssey agreed to.
But just a month later progress stalled again after the Junta raised further objections and refused to appoint the archaeologist because of concerns about the status of the project.
According to the affidavit the situation prompted the intervention of a senior Spanish diplomat with close knowledge of Gibraltar affairs, Jose Pons, Director General for Europe at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
Toward the end of November 2005 Sr Pons wrote to a senior official in the Junta noting that the Ministry of Culture and the Junta had set out their position on the project in a letter to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in June.
Both had agreed to the project so long as certain conditions were met and it was on this basis that Odyssey had received the green light from Madrid.
For Sr Pons, the content of the June letter was “…clear, emphatic and unmistakable.”
“It seems to me a very serious issue in which under no circumstances can we let it be understood that the procedure was incorrectly carried out by us,” he wrote to the Junta official. A copy of the letter is included in the affidavit.
Sr Pons urged the Culture Ministry and the Junta to clarify the terms of their position on the project.
The discussions continued into the following months, with the Junta continuing to raise questions about the archaeological aspects of Odyssey’s proposals.
According to the affidavit even Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Europe at the time, intervened and wrote to Manuel Chaves, President of the Junta, setting out Britain’s position on the project.
The company provided additional information in response to the Junta’s queries and by March 2007 an agreement on the Sussex project was finally reached.
By this time though, Odyssey’s attention was elsewhere: while everyone was busy discussing the Sussex project, the company had found a colonial era wreck in international waters of the Atlantic. It was code-named the Black Swan.
In early April a small sample of items from the wreck was flown from Gibraltar to Florida on a private jet. It was the physical evidence needed by the company to secure legal rights over the site and prevent anyone else from working there.
In the ensuing weeks the company’s vessel Odyssey Explorer was at work in international waters in the Atlantic Ocean, about 33 nautical miles off Faro.
Odyssey has not identified the name of the wreck but historical documents show that this spot was close to where a Spanish frigate called the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes was sunk by English warships in 1804. The Mercedes was carrying over a million silver coins at the time.
The Odyssey Explorer arrived back in Gibraltar on May 12.
On May 17, a chartered Boeing 757 flew from the Rock to the US carrying 17 tonnes of treasure, and in the process ignited a major row that has yet to be resolved.
Darren in NC
Silver Member
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,780
- 1,574
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Sand Shark, Homebuilt pulse loop
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Steve (spez) - gotta question for you. Usually, when a case is argued "precedence" is used from former cases. Is this the case in maritime law as well? How did Spain (or any nation) pass these fairly recent laws about what belongs to them without any precedence? The law of the sea has held true for hundreds of years, and then, boom, new laws overrule? Or are there any "laws" truly in effect? Does it yet have to be tested? Just curious...
rgecy
Bronze Member
hmmm said:
Odyssey filed for an extension based on Spain seizing the Ocean Alert and delaying their response. According to the news release, Spain seized several laptops and other materials from the Ocean Alert that were part of the documents to be filed in court.
Robert... This is an interesting paragraph from the filing.
As grounds for the instant request for an additional extension of time for its response, Plaintiff represents that as part of its response, it will file an Amended Complaint and/or provide additional factual information concerning the salvage activity detailed in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and expects that this additional information may render moot some or all of the bases upon which the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion is based.
As grounds for the instant request for an additional extension of time for its response, Plaintiff represents that as part of its response, it will file an Amended Complaint and/or provide additional factual information concerning the salvage activity detailed in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and expects that this additional information may render moot some or all of the bases upon which the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion is based.
Extension granted...
ENDORSED ORDER granting [19] Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to [16] Kingdom of Spain's MOTION for more definite statement. Plaintiff's response is due on or before Monday, August 6, 2007. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/24/2007. (lc, )
ENDORSED ORDER granting [19] Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to [16] Kingdom of Spain's MOTION for more definite statement. Plaintiff's response is due on or before Monday, August 6, 2007. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/24/2007. (lc, )
spez401
Hero Member
Darren
A "precedent" (which is a prior legal decision by the court which modifies or clarifies existing law) could exist, and if so it works the same in federal court (maratime law) as in any other court. Usually the precedent clarifies existing law... for example, even though we have freedom of speech, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, even though we have the 2nd amendment, there are limits to firearm ownership. These modifications and clarifications are based on court cases which clarified the issue (sometimes wrongly).
As for Spain passing new laws... I'm not sure if they have. They can say that they are the owners of anything, but it is still required that they prove their claim in accordance with the current laws. There are laws which govern the issues, in common law, Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, which do carve out exceptions for ownership. (Warships, ships in territorial water, etc) Either way, they are going to have to prove their claim in court... of which US federal court in Tampa has jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the amended complaint says regarding the last couple of weeks' incidents.
steve
A "precedent" (which is a prior legal decision by the court which modifies or clarifies existing law) could exist, and if so it works the same in federal court (maratime law) as in any other court. Usually the precedent clarifies existing law... for example, even though we have freedom of speech, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, even though we have the 2nd amendment, there are limits to firearm ownership. These modifications and clarifications are based on court cases which clarified the issue (sometimes wrongly).
As for Spain passing new laws... I'm not sure if they have. They can say that they are the owners of anything, but it is still required that they prove their claim in accordance with the current laws. There are laws which govern the issues, in common law, Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, which do carve out exceptions for ownership. (Warships, ships in territorial water, etc) Either way, they are going to have to prove their claim in court... of which US federal court in Tampa has jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the amended complaint says regarding the last couple of weeks' incidents.
steve
psdiver
Jr. Member
- Jun 19, 2007
- 79
- 6
- Detector(s) used
- Whites/JWFisher Pulse 8x
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Odyssey Marine Exploration Motions Granted in Two Admiralty Cases
Jul 26, 2007 09:09:25 (ET)
TAMPA, Fla., Jul 26, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (OMEX, Trade ) was granted two of the three Motions for an Extension of Time to file its responses to the Kingdom of Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements in the three admiralty arrests which Odyssey currently has pending at the U.S. District Court that has assumed jurisdiction over the sites. The third Motion has not yet been ruled on as the presiding Judge is currently in trial for several more days. The Company's responses to the first two Motions are now due on August 6, 2007.
Odyssey filed these Motions primarily as a result of the illegal seizure and detention of Odyssey's survey vessel Ocean Alert by the Spanish Guardia Civil from July 12 through 18 during which the Guardia Civil confiscated confidential attorney/client privileged documents as well as a laptop computer belonging to one of Odyssey's attorneys. The ship was released when no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered, but the hard drive of the attorney's laptop has not been returned.
Jul 26, 2007 09:09:25 (ET)
TAMPA, Fla., Jul 26, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (OMEX, Trade ) was granted two of the three Motions for an Extension of Time to file its responses to the Kingdom of Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements in the three admiralty arrests which Odyssey currently has pending at the U.S. District Court that has assumed jurisdiction over the sites. The third Motion has not yet been ruled on as the presiding Judge is currently in trial for several more days. The Company's responses to the first two Motions are now due on August 6, 2007.
Odyssey filed these Motions primarily as a result of the illegal seizure and detention of Odyssey's survey vessel Ocean Alert by the Spanish Guardia Civil from July 12 through 18 during which the Guardia Civil confiscated confidential attorney/client privileged documents as well as a laptop computer belonging to one of Odyssey's attorneys. The ship was released when no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered, but the hard drive of the attorney's laptop has not been returned.
Odyssey Marine Exploration Files Amended Complaints in Three Admiralty Cases
Tuesday August 7, 8:23 am ET
Spain Added as a Defendant in All Cases
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration (NASDAQ:OMEX - News) filed Amended Complaints on August 6, 2007 in three Admiralty arrest cases in response to Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements. The Company also filed Motions for Protective Order in all three cases to protect the confidentiality of the Preliminary Site Assessments, which include detailed information about the archaeological and exploration activities at the sites to date, and filed Motions for Preliminary Injunction in two of the cases.
As part of the amended complaints, the Kingdom of Spain has been added as a defendant in all three cases, with Odyssey seeking compensation for losses sustained through Spain's recent actions obstructing Odyssey's ability to conduct operations. Odyssey is seeking not only relief in the form of a set-off of any award Spain may ultimately receive on any shipwreck, but also affirmative relief for damages caused by Spain's interference with Odyssey's rights to all three sites. In its pleadings Odyssey refers to the activities in Spain during the past months regarding the illegal boarding and seizure of Odyssey's survey vessel, the Ocean Alert and the continued illegal effective blockade of the Company's archaeological recovery vessel, the Odyssey Explorer.
The Motions for Protective Order were filed to keep the preliminary site assessments under court seal to protect the security of the sites and to protect Odyssey's proprietary sources and methods from competitors. The motion requests that before providing the information contained in the reports to Spain, the Court require Spain's counsel and the Spanish authority taking control over the information to sign a Confidentiality Agreement. Among the reasons for this request is a history of repeated leaks of confidential information from some Spanish government agencies and the fact that Spain's counsel, James Goold, is the Chairman of an organization, the RPM Nautical Foundation, which is a potential competitor to Odyssey in the provision of underwater archaeological services to Government agencies.
"As demonstrated by the 109 page affidavit submitted last month to authorities, Odyssey has always practiced a policy of transparency and open communication with all governments interested in our deep ocean archaeological activities. We have invited the Kingdom of Spain to participate in our archaeological projects many times in the past, including the expedition that resulted in the discovery of the Black Swan site. We have made it abundantly clear that in each of the three pending cases, we did not operate in waters claimed by Spain, and that we have abided by all applicable legal requirements as set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention and the Salvage Convention," said John Morris, Chairman and CEO of Odyssey Marine Exploration.
"By properly arresting all three of these sites in U.S. Federal Court, we have shown that we respect the rule of law. The Court has assumed jurisdiction over the sites and Odyssey will work with the Court to protect the historical and archaeological value of the sites. After detailed research, we are now prepared to provide information about the sites to the Judge in each case, and it is the Judge who will decide which information is appropriate for release to any potential claimants," said Greg Stemm, Odyssey's Co-founder. "We continue to hope that Spain will recognize that we are acting in good faith and that we remain ready to cooperate with the Spanish Government on any sites that we discover that may involve Spanish heritage."
All complaints and motions were filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
About the "Black Swan"
In May 2007, Odyssey announced the discovery and recovery of more than 500,000 silver coins weighing more than 17 tons, hundreds of gold coins, worked gold and other artifacts from a site in the Atlantic Ocean code-named "Black Swan."
Odyssey has not yet been able to positively identify the site and has not disclosed the location in order to protect artifacts which remain at the site.
The "Black Swan" recovery was conducted in conformity with Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country.
The work accomplished to date on this site has diligently followed archaeological protocols using advanced robotic technology.
All recovered items have been legally imported into the United States and placed in a secure, undisclosed location where they are undergoing conservation and documentation.
The Kingdom of Spain has filed notices in three pending court cases in which Odyssey has filed Warrants of Arrest stating that the Spanish government does not intend to give up rights on any Spanish property which might be on the sites. Spain has not asserted a basis for any claims specific to any of the arrests.
In Odyssey's press release of May 21, 2007 the Company anticipated such an action from possible claimants and addressed the issue as follows:
"If we are able to confirm that some other entity has a legitimate legal claim to this shipwreck when - and if - the identity is confirmed, we intend to provide legal notice to any and all potential claimants. Even if another entity is able to prove that it has an ownership interest in the shipwreck and/or cargo and that they had not legally abandoned the shipwreck, Odyssey would apply for a salvage award from the Admiralty Court.
In cases such as this, salvors are typically awarded up to 90% of the recovery. We do believe that most shipwrecks that we recover, including the "Black Swan", will likely result in claims by other parties. Many will be spurious claims, but we anticipate that there might be some legitimate ones as well. In the case of the "Black Swan", it is the opinion of our legal counsel that even if a claim is deemed to be legitimate by the courts, Odyssey should still receive title to a significant majority of the recovered goods."
Tuesday August 7, 8:23 am ET
Spain Added as a Defendant in All Cases
TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Odyssey Marine Exploration (NASDAQ:OMEX - News) filed Amended Complaints on August 6, 2007 in three Admiralty arrest cases in response to Spain's Motions for More Definite Statements. The Company also filed Motions for Protective Order in all three cases to protect the confidentiality of the Preliminary Site Assessments, which include detailed information about the archaeological and exploration activities at the sites to date, and filed Motions for Preliminary Injunction in two of the cases.
As part of the amended complaints, the Kingdom of Spain has been added as a defendant in all three cases, with Odyssey seeking compensation for losses sustained through Spain's recent actions obstructing Odyssey's ability to conduct operations. Odyssey is seeking not only relief in the form of a set-off of any award Spain may ultimately receive on any shipwreck, but also affirmative relief for damages caused by Spain's interference with Odyssey's rights to all three sites. In its pleadings Odyssey refers to the activities in Spain during the past months regarding the illegal boarding and seizure of Odyssey's survey vessel, the Ocean Alert and the continued illegal effective blockade of the Company's archaeological recovery vessel, the Odyssey Explorer.
The Motions for Protective Order were filed to keep the preliminary site assessments under court seal to protect the security of the sites and to protect Odyssey's proprietary sources and methods from competitors. The motion requests that before providing the information contained in the reports to Spain, the Court require Spain's counsel and the Spanish authority taking control over the information to sign a Confidentiality Agreement. Among the reasons for this request is a history of repeated leaks of confidential information from some Spanish government agencies and the fact that Spain's counsel, James Goold, is the Chairman of an organization, the RPM Nautical Foundation, which is a potential competitor to Odyssey in the provision of underwater archaeological services to Government agencies.
"As demonstrated by the 109 page affidavit submitted last month to authorities, Odyssey has always practiced a policy of transparency and open communication with all governments interested in our deep ocean archaeological activities. We have invited the Kingdom of Spain to participate in our archaeological projects many times in the past, including the expedition that resulted in the discovery of the Black Swan site. We have made it abundantly clear that in each of the three pending cases, we did not operate in waters claimed by Spain, and that we have abided by all applicable legal requirements as set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention and the Salvage Convention," said John Morris, Chairman and CEO of Odyssey Marine Exploration.
"By properly arresting all three of these sites in U.S. Federal Court, we have shown that we respect the rule of law. The Court has assumed jurisdiction over the sites and Odyssey will work with the Court to protect the historical and archaeological value of the sites. After detailed research, we are now prepared to provide information about the sites to the Judge in each case, and it is the Judge who will decide which information is appropriate for release to any potential claimants," said Greg Stemm, Odyssey's Co-founder. "We continue to hope that Spain will recognize that we are acting in good faith and that we remain ready to cooperate with the Spanish Government on any sites that we discover that may involve Spanish heritage."
All complaints and motions were filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
About the "Black Swan"
In May 2007, Odyssey announced the discovery and recovery of more than 500,000 silver coins weighing more than 17 tons, hundreds of gold coins, worked gold and other artifacts from a site in the Atlantic Ocean code-named "Black Swan."
Odyssey has not yet been able to positively identify the site and has not disclosed the location in order to protect artifacts which remain at the site.
The "Black Swan" recovery was conducted in conformity with Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country.
The work accomplished to date on this site has diligently followed archaeological protocols using advanced robotic technology.
All recovered items have been legally imported into the United States and placed in a secure, undisclosed location where they are undergoing conservation and documentation.
The Kingdom of Spain has filed notices in three pending court cases in which Odyssey has filed Warrants of Arrest stating that the Spanish government does not intend to give up rights on any Spanish property which might be on the sites. Spain has not asserted a basis for any claims specific to any of the arrests.
In Odyssey's press release of May 21, 2007 the Company anticipated such an action from possible claimants and addressed the issue as follows:
"If we are able to confirm that some other entity has a legitimate legal claim to this shipwreck when - and if - the identity is confirmed, we intend to provide legal notice to any and all potential claimants. Even if another entity is able to prove that it has an ownership interest in the shipwreck and/or cargo and that they had not legally abandoned the shipwreck, Odyssey would apply for a salvage award from the Admiralty Court.
In cases such as this, salvors are typically awarded up to 90% of the recovery. We do believe that most shipwrecks that we recover, including the "Black Swan", will likely result in claims by other parties. Many will be spurious claims, but we anticipate that there might be some legitimate ones as well. In the case of the "Black Swan", it is the opinion of our legal counsel that even if a claim is deemed to be legitimate by the courts, Odyssey should still receive title to a significant majority of the recovered goods."
spez401
Hero Member
Jeff
thanks for the article. I was looking yesterday to see if anything popped up.
Now we'll have another 20 to 60 days before Spain answers the new modified complaints. I was just curious if anyone else thinks that it is a conflict of interest for Spain's attorney, Goold, the CEO of RPM, and a direct competitor of OMEX, to be lead counsel in this matter. If I were OMEX's attorney (and if they haven't thought about it already...), I would file a motion to have Goold and his firm disqualified as Spain's attorney, especially if the proprietary and confidential information that OMEX has is made part of the court file (sealed or otherwise).
Even if a protective order in this case were made, there is nothing to stop a competitor (in this case RPM) from gleaning and then integrating confidential information into their daily practice.
As I said long ago... the real battle is just starting, and is far from over.
steve
thanks for the article. I was looking yesterday to see if anything popped up.
Now we'll have another 20 to 60 days before Spain answers the new modified complaints. I was just curious if anyone else thinks that it is a conflict of interest for Spain's attorney, Goold, the CEO of RPM, and a direct competitor of OMEX, to be lead counsel in this matter. If I were OMEX's attorney (and if they haven't thought about it already...), I would file a motion to have Goold and his firm disqualified as Spain's attorney, especially if the proprietary and confidential information that OMEX has is made part of the court file (sealed or otherwise).
Even if a protective order in this case were made, there is nothing to stop a competitor (in this case RPM) from gleaning and then integrating confidential information into their daily practice.
As I said long ago... the real battle is just starting, and is far from over.
steve
ivan salis
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2007
- 16,794
- 3,809
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
fun,fun,fun ---Ivan
hmmm
Hero Member
- Jun 9, 2007
- 830
- 95
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I read this today, if there was any funny stuff, like "moving the treasure into international waters," , then finding it and scoping it up , this evidance should clear up any suspicion. the treasure would have to be dumped in the future path of the ship and they would eventually find it. I would love to see the footage of the dig.
"In interviews in Gibraltar, Odyssey Explorer crew members described their methodical search for the wreck. First, the company's main survey ship, Ocean Alert, spent weeks at sea towing a sonar device back and forth, at 5 mph, 24 hours a day, producing picture-quality images of the ocean bottom -- a tedious process known as "mowing the lawn."
Company experts on the Odyssey read the digital printouts, identified anomalies on the ocean floor, then returned in the Ocean Explorer with a deep-sea robot called Zeus. Controlled from the surface, Zeus deploys an array of brilliant strobe lights and cameras as it delicately pokes through debris on the bottom. Its operators say the 8.5-ton robot can pick up an egg without"
Ok ifinished the artical, what a bizzar turn of events. first of we can rule out this ship if there is no jewels.
"Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes; the Merchant Royal, a 36-gun British navy vessel that sank in 1641 in bad weather off southwestern England with a fortune in silver, gold and jewels;"
whats up with this,
"Much of what was recovered was in the form of large, rocklike collections of encrusted coins, weighing an average of 60 pounds apiece and discovered in a "debris field" rather than in a single area that might be the remains of a ship, according to Odyssey's Nesser. That suggests that people aboard the ship might have thrown the cargo overboard to try to prevent a sinking, he said.
Underwater and treasure Web sites, which are brimming with online chats about the Black Swan, have suggested that the absence of a ship indicates that the booty was from the Spanish galleon, which by some accounts disintegrated in a tremendous explosion.
Citing comments by Stemm, some online participants have speculated that the company is preparing to argue that the loot was, in fact, abandoned by people throwing it overboard."
abandoned hmmm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601409.html
"In interviews in Gibraltar, Odyssey Explorer crew members described their methodical search for the wreck. First, the company's main survey ship, Ocean Alert, spent weeks at sea towing a sonar device back and forth, at 5 mph, 24 hours a day, producing picture-quality images of the ocean bottom -- a tedious process known as "mowing the lawn."
Company experts on the Odyssey read the digital printouts, identified anomalies on the ocean floor, then returned in the Ocean Explorer with a deep-sea robot called Zeus. Controlled from the surface, Zeus deploys an array of brilliant strobe lights and cameras as it delicately pokes through debris on the bottom. Its operators say the 8.5-ton robot can pick up an egg without"
Ok ifinished the artical, what a bizzar turn of events. first of we can rule out this ship if there is no jewels.
"Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes; the Merchant Royal, a 36-gun British navy vessel that sank in 1641 in bad weather off southwestern England with a fortune in silver, gold and jewels;"
whats up with this,
"Much of what was recovered was in the form of large, rocklike collections of encrusted coins, weighing an average of 60 pounds apiece and discovered in a "debris field" rather than in a single area that might be the remains of a ship, according to Odyssey's Nesser. That suggests that people aboard the ship might have thrown the cargo overboard to try to prevent a sinking, he said.
Underwater and treasure Web sites, which are brimming with online chats about the Black Swan, have suggested that the absence of a ship indicates that the booty was from the Spanish galleon, which by some accounts disintegrated in a tremendous explosion.
Citing comments by Stemm, some online participants have speculated that the company is preparing to argue that the loot was, in fact, abandoned by people throwing it overboard."
abandoned hmmm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601409.html
- May 20, 2004
- 1,721
- 151
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab Excal 1000
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
It's only against the law to make money when you break the law doing it. This individual continued to purchase shares prior to the public announcement of the Black Swan recovery, even after signing a document instructing him not to purchase any more shares because he had inside information. This is a classic example of insider trading. The stock went up 80% following the announcement of the Black Swan, and this individual racked in a couple hundred thousand US dollars in the deal.
Top Member Reactions
-
2350 -
1127 -
1048 -
886 -
826 -
801 -
753 -
752 -
606 -
499 -
491 -
473 -
466 -
423 -
385 -
382 -
381 -
381 -
376 -
O
375
