More info on Cape Canaveral Shipwreck Scatter Fields

[Black Duck]

There in is the problem..... some judges don't rule by laws.

au_Dreamer

We hope and believe she will rule by the law. And if so we will win.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[seekerGH]

But then, your opinion is completely meaningless.
By the way, Scrappy, how did you feel when your life's work was deleted from the Yahoo Omex message board
The rest of us found it absolutely hilarious...

No idea what you are talking about. OMEX has a message board? Is Odyssey Marine still in business? Provide a link, this might be an interesting read, especially given the history of failures, Contempt of Court charges, and all of the other issues.

In the event France is granted ownership under SMCA, GME might well be rewarded a contract to recover the artifacts.

Why on Earth would France do that? Look at the Maritime Archaeological recovery firms they use. Aside from that, GME is fighting France and Florida in Court, which usually does not end amicably.

They can win the case outright.

I cannot see one, but okay, name at least one. I have provided several reasons why France and the State of Florida will prevail.

There is the ASA as well as the numerous references to case law on these issues.

 

[Tnmountains]

Keep the conversation civil. You see your post deleted consider it a warning. Next time all your post will be deleted.

 

[seekerGH]

I will not respond to u anymore seeker as you are like fake news, and you obviously have no real experience, so YOU DO NOT COUNT

I expected no less of a response from you.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244135218&z=fa89d35d

"Admitted that GME discovered the Defendant Site. Although admitted that GME initially was granted an Exploration Permit modified to allow for limited test excavation at the Defendant Site, GME violated the terms of the permit and said permit was revoked by the State of Florida."

"GME’s permit has been revoked and GME cannot lawfully conduct operations at the Defendant Site."

"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and GME is barred from recovering any of the awards it seeks under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Sunken Military Craft Act as the Defendant Vessel represents the wreckage of sovereign military vessels of the Republic of France and apparel, tackle, appurtenances, cargo and remains and personal effects of citizens of France who perished in the service of France.

2. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act because, if the court denies the claim of the Republic of France, then the site contains an abandoned shipwreck embedded in the sovereign lands of the State of Florida over which there is no Admiralty jurisdiction.

3. Any salvage award or other award in favor of GME is barred by its unlawful conduct, damage to and endangerment of the Site and the Defendant Vessel, failure to comply with appropriate archaeological protocols and State of Florida permit requirements, and other failures to exercise due care.

4. Any salvage or other award in favor of GME is further barred by its unclean hands and misconduct, including misrepresentations, omissions and bad faith conduct prior to and in the conduct of in this case.

5. Any salvage award in favor of GME is barred because both the Republic of France and the State of Florida, the only possible owners of the Defendant Vessel, have rejected any salvage by GME."

The State makes an interesting point, even though one may not know the identity of the shipwreck, the identity of the artefacts are known, and under the Law of Finds, that is what counts.

As this is a response, it is too bad that the other questions and assertions are not available.

Can you provide the GME response that facilitated this response from the State of Florida?

Can you provide the details of why Florida has rescinded your permit? This may help others to avoid the same pitfalls with the State. Was it the use of blowers that caused the violation? Many groups use blowers.

Again, what was the specific reasoning for the permit to be taken away?

 

[Black Duck]

Maybe this will help clear this up

I expected no less of a response from you.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244135218&z=fa89d35d



Can you provide the GME response that facilitated this response from the State of Florida?

Can you provide the details of why Florida has rescinded your permit? This may help others to avoid the same pitfalls with the State. Was it the use of blowers that caused the violation? Many groups use blowers.

Again, what was the specific reasoning for the permit to be taken away?

I have more info but until turned into the State, France and or court it may not be correct to show.
I think it's ok to show what is public.
I can tell you we have letters approving us to do everything we did, and the State illegally stopped our permit, "Breach of Contract"
And they only stopped us when they found out we filed for arrest, the dates line up, everything proves what they did was illegal.
see attachment:

 

[Blak bart]

 

[Black Duck]

Black bart Seeker asked a question I answered, I see u have nothing positive to add

The truth proves the case
thanks

 

[old man]

Bobby good luck in court. I also think you should quite letting some posters bait you. Just stay mum and wait for a court decision.

 

[Blak bart]

Im on your side black duck. I believe all the positive things I had to add I sent in a personal email directly to you as requested. Hopefully some of those contacts were able to aide you in your case. Anyway I only tune into this thread to watch the back and forth between you and seeker now. You got to admit its pretty good entertainment, thus the popcorn imogi. Ive seen ufc cage matches that were less entertaining. There is only one interpretation of the law that should matter, and that is the one from the judge presiding over your case. All other interpretation does not really matter in your case. Good luck, most of us are pulling for you. Meanwhile im munching popcorn and sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a response from seeker. Ha ha lol !! Obviously he is not in your corner so dont let it get to deeply under your skin. He is entitled in a public forum to voice his opinion, even when we dont agree with it. Wasnt there some info on some scatter fields or somthing. Seems like a course in law school.

 

[Black Duck]

Im on your side black duck. I believe all the positive things I had to add I sent in a personal email directly to you as requested. Hopefully some of those contacts were able to aide you in your case. Anyway I only tune into this thread to watch the back and forth between you and seeker now. You got to admit its pretty good entertainment, thus the popcorn imogi. Ive seen ufc cage matches that were less entertaining. There is only one interpretation of the law that should matter, and that is the one from the judge presiding over your case. All other interpretation does not really matter in your case. Good luck, most of us are pulling for you. Meanwhile im munching popcorn and sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a response from seeker. Ha ha lol !! Obviously he is not in your corner so dont let it get to deeply under your skin. He is entitled in a public forum to voice his opinion, even when we dont agree with it. Wasnt there some info on some scatter fields or somthing. Seems like a course in law school.

Thanks Blak Bart and Old man

But there is a reason for me to put some of this info out here, "people are watching"

 

[seekerGH]

I am not on anyones side, just looking at the case law and factual information that has been provided or available. Previous interpretations and case law will be cited by the sides and the Court, so one must be aware of them.
This all began with questions of identification, as well as treaties on ownership, and definitions. Several other lawsuits were illustrated to show where that all went, perhaps to avoid going in that same direction.

The term embedded is interesting, as it has been noted that the artifacts were buried, and a blower was used to remove sediment. You may want to reconsider this argument, because blowers are widely used, so an adverse interpretation could easily have them shut down. Just because they have been used, does not mean they will be allowed to continue.

Attempts to redefine embedment appear a costly exercise, as embedment can simply mean depth of coverage. In can be embedded by its own weight, or by depth of the sediment covering it. This has been used before, with embedment interpreted as depth of cover. If breakout required sediment to be removed to recover the artifact, it is embedded, sorry.

Sovereign entities. The US Government will make certain that other Governments are well protected, especially when it comes to shipwreck. The last thing the US wants are issues protecting sunken assets inside other nations waters.

Encrusted is another term used, and it is clear from the images, and from the sworn statement, that the artifacts were encrusted.
the 'OR' part of the definition, will catch it all, as these artifacts certainly are of historical value and CAN be added.

In addition, Odyssey Marine admiralty cases have been illustrated as what not to do, and the associated damage to the industry in general.

In this particular admiralty adventure, when it goes to appeal, can then be cited, and will set precedents in these regards.

Does prodding the State of Florida appear to be in anyones best interest moving forward?

 

[Black Duck]

I am not on anyones side, just looking at the case law and factual information that has been provided or available. Previous interpretations and case law will be cited by the sides and the Court, so one must be aware of them.
This all began with questions of identification, as well as treaties on ownership, and definitions. Several other lawsuits were illustrated to show where that all went, perhaps to avoid going in that same direction.

The term embedded is interesting, as it has been noted that the artifacts were buried, and a blower was used to remove sediment. You may want to reconsider this argument, because blowers are widely used, so an adverse interpretation could easily have them shut down. Just because they have been used, does not mean they will be allowed to continue.

Attempts to redefine embedment appear a costly exercise, as embedment can simply mean depth of coverage. In can be embedded by its own weight, or by depth of the sediment covering it. This has been used before, with embedment interpreted as depth of cover. If breakout required sediment to be removed to recover the artifact, it is embedded, sorry.

Sovereign entities. The US Government will make certain that other Governments are well protected, especially when it comes to shipwreck. The last thing the US wants are issues protecting sunken assets inside other nations waters.

Encrusted is another term used, and it is clear from the images, and from the sworn statement, that the artifacts were encrusted.
the 'OR' part of the definition, will catch it all, as these artifacts certainly are of historical value and CAN be added.

In addition, Odyssey Marine admiralty cases have been illustrated as what not to do, and the associated damage to the industry in general.

In this particular admiralty adventure, when it goes to appeal, can then be cited, and will set precedents in these regards.

Does prodding the State of Florida appear to be in anyones best interest moving forward?

Seeker you still do not understand the law here, and what it truly says, you keep leaving out parts, These sites are not embedded by the definition, they must be attached to a coral formation/reef,there is no reef around Cape Canaveral, or the use of a mechanical devise must be used ( required to be used) incrusted doesn't matter as in covered in incrustations, and the bronze cannon were not incrusted.

And yes I want the State to understand 100 % What we have on them.

 

[signumops]

Global Marine Exploration objects to the claim by France that the wreckage found along the shores of the Cape is that of a French vessel, specifically the Triniti. GME’s stance on the matter at this time is simply that France must prove the wreckage is French. Such was the case with the La Belle as Texas moved ahead with its cofferdam and subsequent recovery of that vessel. It was after-the-fact when John de Bry identified one of the cannon recovered as one found on the manifest of the La Belle, thereby confirming the ownership of La Belle, after-the-fact, I might add.

The situation with the Site 2 wreck is not quite the same; Florida has already officially surrendered ownership to France before-the-fact, whereas Florida might have initially seen to it that the invaluable artifacts so-far discovered by GME were recovered immediately, following said recovery by contesting further issues of ownership with a dispute centered upon the true identity of the sunken vessel. That was not done, so it is now possible for other parties to find the artifacts and make off with them. Once again, the state has fumbled in a matter of sovereignty. Had the state permitted GME to recover the artifacts, they would have consented to some allusion of approval for commercial salvage of historic wreckage, a thing they have never done in the past sans court order, since the establishment of the Florida Department of Historic Resources. Lacking any apparatus whatsoever to physically seize the Site 2 shipwreck, Florida must rely upon private business, read Global Marine Exploration, to do that work for them. The State of Florida now finds itself bound with knots of its own making… perhaps. Perhaps that is not the case at all. Perhaps Florida believes that France will win the case of ownership. If that were to happen, Florida officials may have already worked out some perfunctory understanding with the Republic of France wherein, as with the La Belle, Florida will control the artifacts to be found along the GME permit areas at last. That would mean some group of archaeologists, LAMP for example, must be employed to document, excavate, recover, and curate the wreckage. The keyword here is employed. Volunteers will not be able to do it. The environment is too brutal, the work schedule too questionable, and the satisfaction too elusive for both the working crew and the responsible administration. Often conveniently overlooked by government officials, the actual task of digging up ancient shipwrecks in the open ocean using divers is just as dangerous and expensive now as it ever was. Bill Seliger has attested to this, as I will myself, having worked in those waters for the same purposes.

 

[ARC]

Global Marine Exploration objects to the claim by France that the wreckage found along the shores of the Cape is that of a French vessel, specifically the Triniti. GME’s stance on the matter at this time is simply that France must prove the wreckage is French. Such was the case with the La Belle as Texas moved ahead with its cofferdam and subsequent recovery of that vessel. It was after-the-fact when John de Bry identified one of the cannon recovered as one found on the manifest of the La Belle, thereby confirming the ownership of La Belle, after-the-fact, I might add.

The situation with the Site 2 wreck is not quite the same; Florida has already officially surrendered ownership to France before-the-fact, whereas Florida might have initially seen to it that the invaluable artifacts so-far discovered by GME were recovered immediately, following said recovery by contesting further issues of ownership with a dispute centered upon the true identity of the sunken vessel. That was not done, so it is now possible for other parties to find the artifacts and make off with them. Once again, the state has fumbled in a matter of sovereignty. Had the state permitted GME to recover the artifacts, they would have consented to some allusion of approval for commercial salvage of historic wreckage, a thing they have never done in the past sans court order, since the establishment of the Florida Department of Historic Resources. Lacking any apparatus whatsoever to physically seize the Site 2 shipwreck, Florida must rely upon private business, read Global Marine Exploration, to do that work for them. The State of Florida now finds itself bound with knots of its own making… perhaps. Perhaps that is not the case at all. Perhaps Florida believes that France will win the case of ownership. If that were to happen, Florida officials may have already worked out some perfunctory understanding with the Republic of France wherein, as with the La Belle, Florida will control the artifacts to be found along the GME permit areas at last. That would mean some group of archaeologists, LAMP for example, must be employed to document, excavate, recover, and curate the wreckage. The keyword here is employed. Volunteers will not be able to do it. The environment is too brutal, the work schedule too questionable, and the satisfaction too elusive for both the working crew and the responsible administration. Often conveniently overlooked by government officials, the actual task of digging up ancient shipwrecks in the open ocean using divers is just as dangerous and expensive now as it ever was. Bill Seliger has attested to this, as I will myself, having worked in those waters for the same purposes.

Well said / written.

 

[seekerGH]

GME’s stance on the matter at this time is simply that France must prove the wreckage is French.

Global Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Wrecked and (for Finders-Right Purposes) Abandoned Sailing Vessel

Actually, the Admiralty case is based on "finders rights purposes", so no, France only has to submit identity, GME has to prove it cannot be identified, and are asking the Court to determine identity. Look what happened when Spence tried this approach. As France has claimed ownership, now it is up to GME to prove it is NOT French.

In Admiralty, there is the Law of Finds and the Law of Salvage.

Recovery Limited Partnership v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessell, S.S. Central America, et al., No. 2:1987cv00363 - Document 192 (E.D. Va. 2015)

"ORDER Denying 139 Motion for Award of Title by Recovery Limited Partnership. Since the court determines that the admiralty law of salvage, not the common law of finds, applies to the Central America wreck, RLP's Motion is DENIED."

Judges love when an 'experienced' team comes before them, alleging extensive 'research' and pounds of research, expounding in the press and online, information that identifies the artifact or shipwreck, yet feigns identification, especially when the obvious is sovereign. (while begging the Court to determine identification for finders rights)

Judges love when an 'experienced' team claims the artifacts are not embedded (when embedded simply means covered) nor encrusted, yet youtube videos show excavation and even statements provided to the Court state encrusted. I would caution and refer to Odyssey marine Mercedes case, where Odyssey was found in Contempt of Court and sanctioned for obfuscation of their own submissions to the contrary.

With the videos posted online, statements to the press, and other information, I could not rule out a Contempt allegation for protracted proceedings.

Lacking any apparatus whatsoever to physically seize the Site 2 shipwreck, Florida must rely upon private business,

The environment is too brutal, the work schedule too questionable, and the satisfaction too elusive for both the working crew and the responsible administration. Often conveniently overlooked by government officials, the actual task of digging up ancient shipwrecks in the open ocean using divers is just as dangerous and expensive now as it ever was.

Sorry, but France has some of the most advanced and comprehensive recovery teams in the World.

As noted, the "Florida Archies" used non intrusive probes to determine the extent and location of the artifacts, while GME used blowers to excavate the site to determine extent, and had their permit revoked, as a result.
Note that an initial permit allows for non-intrusive (non-mechanical) methods to work a permitted site. Is a blower non mechanical or non-intrusive?
Any chance any context, stratification, or small artifacts were lost in the blower excavation?

Looking at the videos, and reading the sworn statement, were intrusive and/or mechanical methods used, violating the permit, and was the permit responsibly revoked by the State?

 

[Black Duck]

Global Marine Exploration objects to the claim by France that the wreckage found along the shores of the Cape is that of a French vessel, specifically the Triniti. GME’s stance on the matter at this time is simply that France must prove the wreckage is French. Such was the case with the La Belle as Texas moved ahead with its cofferdam and subsequent recovery of that vessel. It was after-the-fact when John de Bry identified one of the cannon recovered as one found on the manifest of the La Belle, thereby confirming the ownership of La Belle, after-the-fact, I might add.

The situation with the Site 2 wreck is not quite the same; Florida has already officially surrendered ownership to France before-the-fact, whereas Florida might have initially seen to it that the invaluable artifacts so-far discovered by GME were recovered immediately, following said recovery by contesting further issues of ownership with a dispute centered upon the true identity of the sunken vessel. That was not done, so it is now possible for other parties to find the artifacts and make off with them. Once again, the state has fumbled in a matter of sovereignty. Had the state permitted GME to recover the artifacts, they would have consented to some allusion of approval for commercial salvage of historic wreckage, a thing they have never done in the past sans court order, since the establishment of the Florida Department of Historic Resources. Lacking any apparatus whatsoever to physically seize the Site 2 shipwreck, Florida must rely upon private business, read Global Marine Exploration, to do that work for them. The State of Florida now finds itself bound with knots of its own making… perhaps. Perhaps that is not the case at all. Perhaps Florida believes that France will win the case of ownership. If that were to happen, Florida officials may have already worked out some perfunctory understanding with the Republic of France wherein, as with the La Belle, Florida will control the artifacts to be found along the GME permit areas at last. That would mean some group of archaeologists, LAMP for example, must be employed to document, excavate, recover, and curate the wreckage. The keyword here is employed. Volunteers will not be able to do it. The environment is too brutal, the work schedule too questionable, and the satisfaction too elusive for both the working crew and the responsible administration. Often conveniently overlooked by government officials, the actual task of digging up ancient shipwrecks in the open ocean using divers is just as dangerous and expensive now as it ever was. Bill Seliger has attested to this, as I will myself, having worked in those waters for the same purposes.

Very well said

 

[Black Duck]

Seeker, I do not want to be rude or out of line, just asking and stating facts, are you saying GME did not have permission to use prop wash defectors ? If so where did you get that information ?
You seam to continue to state incorrect information, just making an observation

And no there is no chance of loosing anything, GME has a proven method of documentation and recovery proven over and over. Read about these reports on LuLu, if you have a interest.

I will not cover the rest, as I have already proven you wrong on all other accounts

And by law the burden of proof is on France and it has been stated the French/Gould must bring evidence into the court that proves the sites are French/military and the Trinite.

And yes we will prove and have proven it is not the Trinite to counter any mis-truths that may come up.
GME has the documentation and we have had it for some time now

 

[seekerGH]

As you are aware, I am simply asking why the State of Florida rescinded the permit.
I am asking if it was because of the use of the blowers, as the permit states that you had permission to make some small test holes.
As the use blowers is common, I am wondering if the State now considers their use a violation?
If not the use of blowers, how were the conditions of the permit violated that led to it being revoked?

I have postulated this in the other thread, but will repeat it here as you have claimed you have 'proven it is not the Trinite'. The claim you have proven it is not the Trinite, 'proven' means it has been ruled and established it is not the Trinite, is this by Court finding?

And by law the burden of proof is on France and it has been stated the French/Gould must bring evidence into the court that proves the sites are French/military and the Trinite.

The salvor has claimed that the artifacts found do not match the manifest of the Trinite, but Ribaults fleet consisted of 7 vessels which were lost in that hurricane.
Ribault lead a powerful fleet consisting of his 32-gun flagship, Trinité, the 29-gun royal galleon Emérillon, and five other war, supply, and dispatch ships.
It is known that there were other columns being transported, and the fleet was scattered along the Florida Coast in the hurricane. Would stone columns have been transported on the warships or perhaps a supply ship? I know if I had been the military commander, where I would have kept the columns.

Have the manifests of all 7 vessels been reviewed or provided?

The State has also made a claim against GME under the doctrine of unclean hands. As this claim can be the foundation for a Contempt of Court finding, would you be able to explain the reason(s) for this claim?

 

[Black Duck]

As you are aware, I am simply asking why the State of Florida rescinded the permit.
I am asking if it was because of the use of the blowers, as the permit states that you had permission to make some small test holes.
As the use blowers is common, I am wondering if the State now considers their use a violation?
If not the use of blowers, how were the conditions of the permit violated that led to it being revoked?

I have postulated this in the other thread, but will repeat it here as you have claimed you have 'proven it is not the Trinite'. The claim you have proven it is not the Trinite, 'proven' means it has been ruled and established it is not the Trinite, is this by Court finding?



The salvor has claimed that the artifacts found do not match the manifest of the Trinite, but Ribaults fleet consisted of 7 vessels which were lost in that hurricane.
Ribault lead a powerful fleet consisting of his 32-gun flagship, Trinité, the 29-gun royal galleon Emérillon, and five other war, supply, and dispatch ships.
It is known that there were other columns being transported, and the fleet was scattered along the Florida Coast in the hurricane. Would stone columns have been transported on the warships or perhaps a supply ship? I know if I had been the military commander, where I would have kept the columns.

Have the manifests of all 7 vessels been reviewed or provided?

The State has also made a claim against GME under the doctrine of unclean hands. As this claim can be the foundation for a Contempt of Court finding, would you be able to explain the reason(s) for this claim?

Ok fair enough, let me explain,The State of Florida illegally revolved our permit, there was NO violation other than what the state did. We followed all the rules to the letter. And I will add we had the proper permits and permission to bring up artifacts, by both Tim Parsons and Kerry Post. "In Writing !"
The 1A-31 permit still allows the use of blowers, its in the statue the law.
There was no Violation by GME, Only by the Secretary of State of Florida and Tim Parsons

Proven means right now I can prove and have proven its not the Trinite, The case is not over yet and France now needs to prove its the Trinity

It is not known and you have no proof that there were columns on the Trinity or any other ship from 1565, Because there were no columns on these ships from 1565.
Please provide proof of this lie John Debry and Chuck Meade are spreading, just saying they are making statements that are not true. "Pony up"

Yes we have the manifest and nothing we have found match's what was on these ships

As far as clean hands, the only dirty doings and dirty hands here is the Secretary of State of Florida, Tim Parsons and France and RPA archaeologist.
I want to say these post are for the State to see, maybe they will understand what they did was illegal and wrong.

Seeker you should tell everyone who you are " man up"

 

[seekerGH]

Why dont you simply disclose the facts?

You did not disclose the fact that Florida took away your permit. That was discovered by my research.
You will not disclose the reasons why Florida took away your permit.

You did not disclose the fact that in the press, GME stated it was a Spanish vessel taking the spoils of the fort to Cuba.
You started the other thread with this,

Can anyone help us put a value on the monument GME discovered last year? We have documentation proving this is the monument that was placed near Fort Caroline in 1562, it was later removed by the Spanish when the fort was captured and lost at sea.

Yet now, you claim GME was misquoted in the press.

You claim you have the manifest from one vessel, but not the manifest from the fleet. Logic would dictate that since you claim the inability to identify the wreck, that simply looking at one ship out of the fleet of 7 that was lost, fails on the face value of the effort.

France AND the State of Florida have laid claims. While a French column and French cannon are certainly not French, where is the argument against the State of Florida?

You have certainly not provided all of the facts, and GME has had the permit revoked and a claim of 'unclean hands' by Florida to the Court. I strongly suggest you look that up as well as the ramifications.

This is not about me, I am simply providing details and facts, this is about this disaster unfolding for all to see. Perhaps less time spent on my identity, and more on the identity of the recovery.

Time for you to 'man up' with the facts.