More info on Cape Canaveral Shipwreck Scatter Fields

[Red_desert]

As in dangling something over a map and then believing it somehow magically tells you where things are located?

If you check a certain nautical chart, about 8 (give or take 1) of the shipwrecks are identified by the word wreck and I think were encircled. We know most of these wrecks already are found or known wrecks. What the shipwreck hunters need is the unknown wrecks and only they would be able to confirm them. So, only about 8 of the locations confirmed or possibly confirmed by nautical chart. Don't ask me to confirm any of the unknowns because I have neither a boat nor any exploration permit.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red_desert]

Thanks LM for asking about it. Here is a much better way of explaining what I found. Put a red circle around the word wreck encircled with the number 9. Assuming the word wreck means a sunken ship, of coarse it's underwater and not a car wreck or anything else. Now if they are numbered inside Cape Canaveral National Seashore borders, then 9 refers to number of wrecks with this one at the south end. Otherwise 9 will be depth but not likely because encircled with the word wreck.

 

[Red_desert]

Looking at it again though, 9 could be a depth.

 

[seekerGH]

yes but Spain gave up any claims to pre 1750 vessels to win the Juno / Galga case *... this wreck would clearly be way before 1750 --so Spain's claim would be worthless because of the earlier case above * and France since the items were lost to Spain as War Booty--- would not have a valid claim either --so its GME's with the state of Florida getting their cut

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

Adams Onis Treaty


It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

Treaty of 1903

ARTICLE X
In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

Article X was cited in the Juno/La Galga case. The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty. Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals.

So, how did Spain give up its shipwrecks in the Juno/LaGalga adventure?

Aside from the Spanish precedent, (which this wreck may be Spanish), the same considerations would be afforded to France.
One would also note that attempts to claim lack of identity, especially when there are cannon, have not gone well. (Odyssey Marine and the Mercedes)
Hopefully the quest for cannon id extends beyond posting images on TNET.

 

[Black Duck]

Seeker, first off what Odyssey found was a proven military ship with name (end of story here)

What GME has found is 6 scatter fields in total, with a total of five different ships, one is from 1811 or newer one from late 1600s to early 1700s ( hmm)
Three from mid to late 1500s maybe early 1600s, I will say this again, what GME found is not on the manifest of the Trinity, anchors are the wrong size, ( and if the arch's do not understand this they should study more) the monument was on Shore and removed in 1565 after fort Caroline was taken over, and there is this map of where the Trinite really sank and the statement from the prisioner confirming what the map shows.

In a court of law you must bring proof that these ships are French and that they are Military "where is the Proof" !!! France named the ship as the Trinite, where is the proof
And I will add these scatter fields are not embedded by the definition of the word.

Good info on the treaty though

 

[seekerGH]

Dont stop at the first line of the Code.
43 U.S. Code Chapter 39 - ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS

(a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof;

43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership

(a) United States title
The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is—
(1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;
(2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a State; or
(3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Note that section(2) states OR and simply refers to submerged lands, which this appears to be.

(c) Transfer of title to States
The title of the United States to any abandoned shipwreck asserted under subsection (a) of this section is transferred to the State in or on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located.

Sorry, but the video on Youtube shows the cannon (at 53 seconds) clearly embedded. All the while a blower is going and removing material, while at 1:40, the cannon is almost completely uncovered....

the monument was on Shore and removed in 1565 after fort Caroline was taken over,

Removed after the Fort was taken over by the Spanish, correct?

 

[Black Duck]

Dont stop at the first line of the Code.
43 U.S. Code Chapter 39 - ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS

(a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof;

43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership

(a) United States title
The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is—
(1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;
(2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands of a State; or
(3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Note that section(2) states OR and simply refers to submerged lands, which this appears to be.

(c) Transfer of title to States
The title of the United States to any abandoned shipwreck asserted under subsection (a) of this section is transferred to the State in or on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located.

Sorry, but the video on Youtube shows the cannon (at 53 seconds) clearly embedded. All the while a blower is going and removing material, while at 1:40,
the cannon is almost completely uncovered....





Removed after the Fort was taken over by the Spanish, correct?

Yes we removed material to see cannon ( so what) and documented as per out contract, but we did not need to use nor were we required to use mechanical equipment, but we did because building a house with a nail gun and power saw is better than a hand saw and hammer, we are in the 21st century

Did you notice how shinny the cannon are ( why do you think this is ?, do you even know why)

And the blowers were on to push fresh water down so we could record the discovery, did you not know how this works ?

On this on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Its not registerd nor can it be after the fact "check your facts"

 

[old man]

Nice video Bobby.

 

[seekerGH]

Yes we removed material to see cannon ( so what) and documented as per out contract, but we did not need to use nor were we required to use mechanical equipment, but we did because building a house with a nail gun and power saw is better than a hand saw and hammer, we are in the 21st century

You crack me up, you really do!.
The term embedded is very easy to determine, needing a method of excavation (which a blower is a means of excavation). Sorry, but it was obvious from the video that the cannon were embedded. I am merely observing what has been shown in the videos.

I suppose you are aware that the term "embedded" is defined as (a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof; Did you have to move any sediment in order to gain access to the artifact?

There are also the parameters of the definition, you know why this definition? Because if it is not affixed, it cannot be claimed under the Law of Salvage, it comes under the Law of Finds. What is the foundation of your arrest, Law of Salvage or Law of Finds?

Good Luck!





Lets assume one cannot identify the shipwreck. Who do the cannon belong to? If they were from a Fort, whos Fort? It is pretty obvious who the column belongs to. There is a copy of the column in a park, so an actual column would have historical significance.

Good luck.

 

[ivan salis]

is merely covered by loose and shifting sand "embeded"? --humm -- and did not America when it bought Florida from Spain obtain ownership of all of Spain's terrritorial land claims as well as the customary 3 miles of sea lanes of coastal water and things "embeded" within it in the Adams treaty of 1820 ( since it said "the king gives up all claims to"(which would imply abandonment) --thus any Spanish wrecks that were sunk pre 1820 in Floridas 3 mile limit became American property by transferring of ownership of said land / 3 miles sea bed and waters of Florida ...

 

[ARC]

Did you notice how shinny the cannon are ( why do you think this is ?, do you even know why)"

Bronze patination / resistance /reactions / corrosion / appearance can vary from several things...
The surface patina could be the result of the foundry applied finish... Foundries used a multitude of finishes...
Each one reacts differently in various environment and results in various corrosion / patina types and rate.
everything from protective treatment applied at foundries... to surrounding "pollutant(s)"...

But "probable" culprit in this scenario...
Adjacent materials including residual core materials... And ferric OR ammonia compounds leaching in proximity.
Some Florida sands have naturally occurring areas / pockets of this naturally in its sands... it seems.

Like I said... The surface patina could be the result of the foundry applied finish... Foundries used a multitude of finishes...
Each one reacts differently in each environment and results in various corrosion / patina types and rate.

But my first instinctual "guess" would be "galvanic corrosion"...
This is caused by electric potential between two dissimilar metals.

My 2 cents for what its worth.

 

[Black Duck]

Required is the word of the day

You crack me up, you really do!.
The term embedded is very easy to determine, needing a method of excavation (which a blower is a means of excavation). Sorry, but it was obvious from the video that the cannon were embedded. I am merely observing what has been shown in the videos.

I suppose you are aware that the term "embedded" is defined as (a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof; Did you have to move any sediment in order to gain access to the artifact?

There are also the parameters of the definition, you know why this definition? Because if it is not affixed, it cannot be claimed under the Law of Salvage, it comes under the Law of Finds. What is the foundation of your arrest, Law of Salvage or Law of Finds?

Good Luck!


Seeker you are not understanding the LAW here

Like I said you would have to really do this kind of work and be an expert in it to understand it, yes we did move sediment, BUT and here is the point you are missing ( the law) if you are required to use, read this carefully now, IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TOO, and we are not required too, We choose to use

let me be more clear, we could have used hand fanning or ping pong paddle to remove the sediment, dose this help you understand,
look up the case and you can see what it is, its public info

Any way maybe we have said enough on this issue I think you have made your point and mute as it is
I have made my point, so can we move on





Lets assume one cannot identify the shipwreck. Who do the cannon belong to? If they were from a Fort, whos Fort? It is pretty obvious who the column belongs to. There is a copy of the column in a park, so an actual column would have historical significance.

Good luck

Yes it belongs to GME because we discovered it, do you think people work for free, Archaeologist do not, they get big grants from your tax dollars and take big salaries and do very little field work, that is why they have very little experience and less success
just saying the facts

 

[Black Duck]

Oh I forgot in the video do you see how shinny the canon are, this means the sands in that area are moving all the time in fact the cannon are moving, so firmly fixed is also out of the question, since has more logged time surveying, discovering and identifying artifacts than any one off Cape canaveral I would say that makes us experts

 

[Black Duck]

AARC good point

But after 450 years in the sea, the reason not to have a greenish color or a calcium carbonate covering is sand blasting from the sand constinly blasting these cannon, look at the emblems they are whore down quite a bit almost to the point of being gone

 

[ARC]

Well that was a point I was going to address first... but it seemed too obvious ... heh

I was going to ask if the current was real strong there... but figured this was null and void to your question and would have been a known conclusion... SO...

Was this a "test" / "trick" question ? ? ?

:P

 

[Black Duck]

Well that was a point I was going to address first... but it seemed too obvious ... heh

I was going to ask if the current was real strong there... but figured this was null and void to your question and would have been a known conclusion... SO...

Was this a "test" / "trick" question ? ? ?

:P

Did not mean it to be a treat question, and you are right but some people watching this need to be educated how this all works,

good post

 

[seekerGH]

Ivan, please look at the details provided in other threads. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/541336-spain-s-claim-shipwrecks.html

This concept was tried before with the Juno and La Galga. 4th Circuit Court ruled for Spain, and US Supreme Court refused the case.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

The Adams Onis Treaty
The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

Treaty of 1903

ARTICLE X
In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty.

Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals. This is very interesting.

I would appear that all of these agreements have been used by the Courts, and the Appellate Court ruling can (and has) been cited in other cases. The ASA was not until 1987. I really dont see any need to revisit, or spend any money claiming that Spain has abandoned or the US purchased the shipwrecks as part of a land deal.

is merely covered by loose and shifting sand "embeded"? --humm

Case law on this issue has been established.

Oh I forgot in the video do you see how shinny the canon are, this means the sands in that area are moving all the time in fact the cannon are moving, so firmly fixed is also out of the question,

Please look at the code, it does not state firmly affixed, it mearly states you have to remove sediment to recover.

Seeker you are not understanding the LAW here

oh really.

Claiming lack of identification (??) and not embedded...wait, let me guess, no evidence of a shipwreck? You just found this stuff laying around and cant figure out where it came from? According to the details you told the press, you had a pretty good idea. Are you going to claim that this was NOT one of the columns the French placed in Florida?

So you found this just floating around? Flotsam/jetsam? OR did you find it sunk on the bottom?

Again, research Law of Salvage vs Law of Finds. If you want to keep spending money on outhouse definitions, please do so, keep feeding the lawyers.

But after 450 years in the sea, the reason not to have a greenish color or a calcium carbonate covering is sand blasting from the sand constinly blasting these cannon, look at the emblems they are whore down quite a bit almost to the point of being gone

First off, several of the cannon shown in the video are encrusted and partially buried in sediment. When uncovered by the sediment, they were 'shinny" as you claim. Bronze is very difficult to wear down with 450 years of sand blasting, correct?

look at the emblems they are whore down quite a bit

If the cannon had been exposed for 450 years to sand blasting by the currents, even the best of whores would be worn out and gone. (much like this argument)

 

[Black Duck]

Ivan, please look at the details provided in other threads. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/541336-spain-s-claim-shipwrecks.html

This concept was tried before with the Juno and La Galga. 4th Circuit Court ruled for Spain, and US Supreme Court refused the case.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

The Adams Onis Treaty
The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

Treaty of 1903

ARTICLE X
In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty.

Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals. This is very interesting.

I would appear that all of these agreements have been used by the Courts, and the Appellate Court ruling can (and has) been cited in other cases. The ASA was not until 1987. I really dont see any need to revisit, or spend any money claiming that Spain has abandoned or the US purchased the shipwrecks as part of a land deal.



Case law on this issue has been established.



Please look at the code, it does not state firmly affixed, it mearly states you have to remove sediment to recover.



oh really.

Claiming lack of identification (??) and not embedded...wait, let me guess, no evidence of a shipwreck? You just found this stuff laying around and cant figure out where it came from? According to the details you told the press, you had a pretty good idea. Are you going to claim that this was NOT one of the columns the French placed in Florida?

So you found this just floating around? Flotsam/jetsam? OR did you find it sunk on the bottom?

Again, research Law of Salvage vs Law of Finds. If you want to keep spending money on outhouse definitions, please do so, keep feeding the lawyers.



First off, several of the cannon shown in the video are encrusted and partially buried in sediment. When uncovered by the sediment, they were 'shinny" as you claim. Bronze is very difficult to wear down with 450 years of sand blasting, correct?


If the cannon had been exposed for 450 years to sand blasting by the currents, even the best of whores would be worn out and gone. (much like this argument)

Seeker you keep trying to twist things around and avoid the truth, the judge will see right through this with the infamous James Goold, there is just no argument here.

GME will win this case by the Law, "period" now please give it a rest

 

[Black Duck]

What experience do you have

Your inexperience of artifacts and diving is really showing here


Seeker you keep trying to twist things around and avoid the truth, the judge will see right through this with the infamous James Goold, there is just no argument here.

GME will win this case by the Law, "period" now please give it a rest

Ivan, please look at the details provided in other threads. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/541336-spain-s-claim-shipwrecks.html

This concept was tried before with the Juno and La Galga. 4th Circuit Court ruled for Spain, and US Supreme Court refused the case.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), a state acquires title to all abandoned vessels embedded within its submerged lands. In defining the term abandoned, the ASA merely provides that abandonment occurs the moment an owner relinquishes its rights to a sunken vessel. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Virginia and Sea Hunt argued that the ASA's definition of abandonment should permit a court to imply abandonment where a sovereign fails to declare its ownership in a timely manner. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, as under admiralty law, a sovereign owner appearing before a court to assert its ownership to a shipwreck retains title to the vessel unless an express and affirmative declaration of abandonment is proven.

The Fourth Circuit applied the express abandonment standard to the 1763 Treaty and determined that Spain had not relinquished its rights to LA GALGA. First, although Article XX of the treaty contains "sweeping language of Spain's cession," it never explicitly refers to vessels, warships, shipwrecks, or frigates. Since the treaty contains a detailed catalogue of "non-territorial state property" to be conveyed, but does not include shipwrecks, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Spain had not expressly abandoned its title to the vessels. Likewise, Article XX expressly limits the cession to Spanish property located "on the continent of North America." The specificity of this territorial limit convinced the court that the shipwrecks were not part of the cession since they were located on the seabed.

Next, the court noted that Article XX grants the King of Spain an unlimited amount of time to retrieve his personal property; the other provisions of the treaty specifically set time limits on similar actions. Therefore, absent an affirmative act of abandonment, Spain could retrieve the vessels at any time.

Finally, both Spain and Great Britain agreed that the vessels were not included under Article XX. When the parties to a treaty agree to the interpretation of its provisions, the courts must defer to the parties' understanding unless there is "extraordinarily strong contrary evidence." The court was bound by Spain and Great Britain's interpretation since Virginia and Sea Hunt were unable to rebut.

In concluding that Spain retained its right to both LA GALGA and JUNO, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that anything short of an affirmative act of abandonment will undermine a state's or private salvage company's claim to a sovereign shipwreck. This decision stresses that, as under customary international law, sovereign shipwrecks should be protected from unauthorized interference.

It was also noted that the Treaty of 1903 between the US and Spain, (after the explosion of the USS Maine), protected the Nations rights to their warships when sunk in foreign waters.

The Adams Onis Treaty
The Adams* Onís Treaty sometimes referred to as The Florida Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819 and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820 and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14,1903 by a treaty of July 3, 1902.

Treaty of 1903

ARTICLE X
In cases of shipwreck, damages at sea, or forced putting in, each party shall afford to the vessels of the other, whether belonging to the State or to individuals, the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.

The treaty superseded the Adams/Onis Treaty.

Note it states belonging to the State or to individuals. This is very interesting.

I would appear that all of these agreements have been used by the Courts, and the Appellate Court ruling can (and has) been cited in other cases. The ASA was not until 1987. I really dont see any need to revisit, or spend any money claiming that Spain has abandoned or the US purchased the shipwrecks as part of a land deal.



Case law on this issue has been established.



Please look at the code, it does not state firmly affixed, it mearly states you have to remove sediment to recover.



oh really.

Claiming lack of identification (??) and not embedded...wait, let me guess, no evidence of a shipwreck? You just found this stuff laying around and cant figure out where it came from? According to the details you told the press, you had a pretty good idea. Are you going to claim that this was NOT one of the columns the French placed in Florida?

So you found this just floating around? Flotsam/jetsam? OR did you find it sunk on the bottom?

Again, research Law of Salvage vs Law of Finds. If you want to keep spending money on outhouse definitions, please do so, keep feeding the lawyers.



First off, several of the cannon shown in the video are encrusted and partially buried in sediment. When uncovered by the sediment, they were 'shinny" as you claim. Bronze is very difficult to wear down with 450 years of sand blasting, correct?


If the cannon had been exposed for 450 years to sand blasting by the currents, even the best of whores would be worn out and gone. (much like this argument)

Seeker you keep trying to twist things around and avoid the truth, the judge will see right through this with the infamous James Goold, there is just no argument here.

GME will win this case by the Law, "period" now please give it a rest

 

[huntsman53]

I am not going to get into any debate on the terms of salvage here but have to make a statement on the question on abandonment of a vessel by it's sovereign country! As the Law and/or Treaty reads, it clearly needs to be changed as it clearly was written by those who are biased against Treasure salvors (probably Florida Archies) and to possibly line their' pockets or budgets by helping a country arrest a found and/or salvaged shipwreck and it's treasures from the finders. The question is: How in the hell can a Spanish shipwreck lay on or under the ocean's floor (seabed) for 200 to 500 years without any attempt at salvage in all those years with the exception of initial attempts at salvage weeks, months or possibly a year or two after it wrecked and it not constitute it being abandoned? Even to a child, a ship that has laid on or under the ocean's floor for that many years without any attempts of salvage by it's sovereign country, has been clearly abandoned whether declared or not declared!! Come on...WAKE UP AMERICA...Pitts Off!


Frank