Cannon Experts?

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Thank you neo2868 you have a good eye !
Ossy

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Panfilo]

Ivan, you touch an interesting subject that is not very well understood. Contrary to what you state, according to Spanish Civil Law, the coins can not be claimed there by the descendants. Let me explain, they can be claimed, obviously, but the law is very specific in the sense that the coins at the moment of the sinking, the “owners” loose their property rights over these. It’s very unique and not very logical but that is the way the system there treats this subject, primarily because many of these laws are very ancient and were put on the books before ROV’s and AUV’s were invented. Basically the law in Spain says that ownership of the coins disappears with the sinking, the owner no longer “owned” the coins at the bottom of the sea, so that there is no real possibility for the descendants to claim the coins there.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Ivan, you touch an interesting subject that is not very well understood. Contrary to what you state, according to Spanish Civil Law, the coins can not be claimed there by the descendants. Let me explain, they can be claimed, obviously, but the law is very specific in the sense that the coins at the moment of the sinking, the “owners” loose their property rights over these. It’s very unique and not very logical but that is the way the system there treats this subject, primarily because many of these laws are very ancient and were put on the books before ROV’s and AUV’s were invented. Basically the law in Spain says that ownership of the coins disappears with the sinking, the owner no longer “owned” the coins at the bottom of the sea, so that there is no real possibility for the descendants to claim the coins there.

Very Interesting Panfilo ! you must know Spanish law.
I was surprised when the heirs of some of the merchants from the Mercedes joined with Odyssey in their claim, they would have done better talking to the Spanish government, they may not be Spanish Citizen's, Jeff may know?
Ossy

 

[ScubaDude]

This old Spanish law you speak of, does it not have some geographical boundaries as to where is is enforceable? It sounds like a rule that was made by the crown for the sole benefit of the crown.

Most countries laws don't extend past their borders, and aren't applicable or enforceable outside the country. I hate to break it you, but we're not in Spain, or on Spanish soil thus it isn't applicable, the claimants certainly aren't going to acknowledge it. We're also not in a Spanish court of law.

 

[jeff k]

"In Spanish Civil law where an asset has been destroyed, lost, or is no longer
capable of appropriation, it cannot be the object of ownership rights and the possession over
it also disappears and along with the possession goes the ownership. It cannot be recovered
with the means that existed at the time in history.

In the case of a vessel or its cargo that sinks on the high seas, it is a case of
destruction, loss and inappropriabilty; at least, up until recently, whilst there was no
possibility to reach it to recover it. Consequently, ownership as much over the still as yet
unidentified carrying vessel as over the cargo, disappeared and there are no rules in Spanish
law that allows for the subsequent restoration, or that the owner "maintains" that
ownership. It is a very different issue as set out earlier (point 7) where it contemplates the
exception in Spanish law of a vessel that sinks but can be immediately refloated, in relation
to which case the ownership is maintained unless it can be shown that there has been
express or implied abandonment. There is abandonment by virtue of the passage of time as
stipulated in the law [a maximum of 6 years for movable assets (Spanish Civil Code article
1962)].

Therefore the general basic principles of Spanish civil law lead us to conclude
that the cargo of the Black Swan was destroyed or lost. Destruction or loss means that the
asset ceased to be appropriable, by the standards at the time. In Spanish law, where an
asset has been destroyed or lost, ownership disappears. To this it should be added that
abandonment can be presumed in cases were no effort is made to recover the object lost. If
later (excluding temporary loss or not knowing where the object was lost or that it is
susceptible of recovery at a reasonable cost) the asset then "appears", on entering the world
of commerce, the appropriabilty and the possession, would operate to the legal concept of
"occupation" by virtue of which the party who enjoys the appropriation of the asset acquires
ownership over it. In short, Spanish law would recognize the right of a finder over
abandoned property such as the "Black Swan" treasure."

..... And in conclusion, it should be pointed out that as a matter of Spanish law
there is no similar doctrine to that of “escheats”, that is to say, there is no general principle
that establishes that assets that do not have an owner belong to the State. It may be seen
that even the Act of Mostrencos of 1835, derogated by the Civil Code, which by its name
regulated this very issue (“mostrenco” is an asset that lacks an owner or has been
abandoned) did not establish such a principle but rather specific situations in which the State
would be recognized as having an interest in the assets. The Civil Code and subsequent
specific legislation have followed the same reasoning to establish specific cases and to a good
measure exceptions instead of a general principle of property in the State. No such specific
legislation applies to the cargo of the Black Swan, so it has not escheated to the Spanish
state.

In short, we conclude that if issues of title or ownership to the Black Swan
treasure were adjudicated in a Spanish tribunal, applying Spanish law, the Kingdom of Spain
would have no colorable claim to ownership of the cargo, much less that which was owned
and shipped by private parties on board.

This analysis can be supplemented by reference to the legal texts,
jurisprudence and scholarly writings and can be clarified or amplified as required.

 

[Fla-Gal]

Jeff K.....as my eyes GLAZED OVER (and my BRAIN,TOO) after reading,then re-reading and then re-reading AGAIN , I am still so confused about soooo much of this 'legalease' stuff. So it a good thing I am not a lawyer !!!! But what does this all really MEAN ? Does this mean all will be decide by judges who interpret as they choose ? Like--WHO rules ? It is becoming more clear to believe in Pirates who abide by their own
laws - - if only it might be so.

 

[jeff k]

Fla-Gal... According to Spanish civil law the descendants of the merchants have no legal right to claim anything. I added a couple more paragraphs at the bottom starting with "And in conclusion..." The report was written by Odyssey's attorney in Spain, and he thinks the law applies to Spain also.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Jeff, You keep forgeting the Mercedes was a Sovereign vessel ! documented evidence show that under orders from Navel command the Money was to be protected from the Possible attack from the
English ! That's why it was on a Spanish war ship and not a merchant ship !
Documented Jeff ! The ship and every thing on it was under control of the Spanish crown, under orders!
If the Mercedes had got home, unloaded it's goods, then they were no longer under it's control, but as we know this did not happen ! Every thing that is still left from the Mercedes is still under control
of the crown ! It has never abandon it ships.
With the public outcry in Spain, it will have to get off it's back side. The wheels are just starting to turn.
Ossy

 

[Larsmed]

maybe this one?

 

[Panfilo]

More and Beyond Ossy, the legal procedures in Tampa are precisely dedicated to the legal determination by an Admiralty judge as to whether the Mercedes was or was not a Sovereign vessel or a commercial vessel so in my opinion it is a bit hasty to conclude on your part that indeed it is a Sovereign vessel at this point. That remains to be proved. Most of the commerce from the New world to Spain was transported aboard the Crowns galleons, frigates and other types of ships but the interesting facet of this system is that the same ship on one leg of the journey was a “galleon” and a “nao” on the returning trip. The same ship, different category due to the nature of the voyage. In my view of things, I would see it as a clear case if the “Santisima Trinidad” were recovered and the Spanish Crown claimed it as a Sovereign vessel as indeed it was sent on a military mission and sank in doing so. The Mercedes on the other hand was transporting women and children and 74% of the cargo was private, not what one would consider a naval mission, sacrificing gun powder, military personnel, cannon balls and other artillery pieces for the transportation of alpaca wool and copper ingots. We shall see what the infallible judges say as there are so many ways of seeing life that one is never certain that what is evident is necessarily accepted by the scholars. Don’t jump to conclusions Ossy, not yet.
Scuba Dude: some countries laws do extend past their borders in particular the US Admiralty laws, as this is the only country in the world that accepts claims in international waters, applying its own set of rules. I personally like that fact as I believe in the US justice system above many other less objective and fair systems. The issue regarding the coins is that in the eventuality that the 595,000 coins ever make it back to Spain, and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts they won’t, the descendants could not claim their ancestors coins because their system of justice treats these coins differently, they no longer belonged to the owners one millisecond after they sank.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Panfilo, you are side stepping the documented Navel command orders from the Crown ! Judge Pizzo also agrees
Plus it was a royal Frigate on the Navel register, not a tug boat.
crispy creams will be fine
Ossy

 

[Salvor6]

Ossy, the Santisima Trinidad which sank in 1711 in Cuba was definitely a soverign vessel. It is currently being salvaged by a private treasure hunting company. One question: why doesn't Spain claim this ship?

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Salvor6, I don't know why, they should , maybe they don't want to step on Castro ? maybe it's because it's in there waters, and not
only a few hundred miles from Spain !
what about the Atocha, 1715 fleet ?
How did your engine go ?
Ossy

 

[Panfilo]

Salvor 6, sorry for my lack of precision, I was referring to the Santisima Trinidad which was sunk by the British during the Trafalgar battle one year after the Mercedes, on October 24 1805, eight leagues South of Cadiz. This is a typical case of a Sovereign vessel in the execution of a military function.
Ossy: you’re right that both you and judge Pizzo agree it was a Sovereign vessel, that is what the “recommendations” he has put forward stipulate yet we shall wait and see what the final verdict says, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. The crispy creams will have to wait. (we don’t have those in these necks of the woods)

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Panfilo, Which Island do you live on ? amigo.
PS The fat lady may not be able to sing, with a mouth full of crispy creams

 

[Panfilo]

No island, geographically speaking, except in ideological terms where we do feel isolated from our close neighbors who all hate Americans, here we love them: Colombia, come and see, it’s nowhere as bad as the press has made it seem.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Colombia The most beautiful women in the world
Ossy

 

[Darren in NC]

Hard to argue with that, eh, Chagy?