Was Swire offering the government to do the job for free just to prove their capability and to get future contracts and make Odyssey look bad and incapable of following through?
Odyssey claims SS Mantola in Manhattan court...
- Thread starter Jolly Mon
- Start date
Xaos,
You should really make sure you get your facts straight before suggesting others have not read the Court documents.
Odyssey filed a maritime lien claim on April 21, 2017. In that claim they state that, "Upon information and belief, no other salvor is currently working on the Vessel. Odyssey does not have specific knowledge of any current recovery operations other than those by Odyssey which have been conducted on the Vessel or in the shipwreck site..."
The DfT joined the case as an alternative claimant on August 17, 2017. It wasn't until approximately November 14, 2017 that the DfT informed Odyssey that 526 silver bars had been salvaged by someone else.
From the Joint Status Report February 15, 2018: "Prior to the initial pretrial conference on November 14, 2017, DfT advised Omex that 526 of the 536 bars of silver known to be aboard the SS Mantola had been salvaged by another party and delivered to the UK Receiver of Wreck (RoW).
From Odyssey's Response to Request 11 February 13, 2018: "OMEX had no knowledge of the salvage of the 526 bars until it was informed by DfT at the time of the November 14, 2017 court conference.'
To say that Odyssey asked for the identification of the salvor in their initial claim is wrong and shows that it is you, not I that has not read the court documents.
The Judge has agreed with Odyssey that the identity of the Salvor is pertinent to their maritime lien case in more ways than just writing a letter. In his Opinion and Order of August 8, 2018, the Judge writes, "It appears highly likely that the circumstances surrounding the removal of the 526 bars of silver from the Mantola - including who salvaged them... will be integral to the claims of this Case."
The Judge did not write a letter to the RoW. The letter was delivered to the Senior Master of the Royal Courts of Justice. The UK Courts take the request from the US Courts and then compel those under their jurisdictions to comply. I explained this previously, but it seems your reading comprehension of my past comments is almost as poor as your reading comprehension of the Court documents.
Finally, when it comes to the contract details between Odyssey and Swire, in their February 13, 2018 Response to Request 13, Odyssey states that the, "M/V Seabed Worker crew, technical crew and owners are all subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements signed with Odyssey."
I wrote that if it is found that Swire participated in the recovery, that they could potentially be subject to a breach of contract lawsuit. That is certainly one possibility when one violates am NDA, so I don't believe I was speaking out of school regarding that.
You should really make sure you get your facts straight before suggesting others have not read the Court documents.
Odyssey filed a maritime lien claim on April 21, 2017. In that claim they state that, "Upon information and belief, no other salvor is currently working on the Vessel. Odyssey does not have specific knowledge of any current recovery operations other than those by Odyssey which have been conducted on the Vessel or in the shipwreck site..."
The DfT joined the case as an alternative claimant on August 17, 2017. It wasn't until approximately November 14, 2017 that the DfT informed Odyssey that 526 silver bars had been salvaged by someone else.
From the Joint Status Report February 15, 2018: "Prior to the initial pretrial conference on November 14, 2017, DfT advised Omex that 526 of the 536 bars of silver known to be aboard the SS Mantola had been salvaged by another party and delivered to the UK Receiver of Wreck (RoW).
From Odyssey's Response to Request 11 February 13, 2018: "OMEX had no knowledge of the salvage of the 526 bars until it was informed by DfT at the time of the November 14, 2017 court conference.'
To say that Odyssey asked for the identification of the salvor in their initial claim is wrong and shows that it is you, not I that has not read the court documents.
The Judge has agreed with Odyssey that the identity of the Salvor is pertinent to their maritime lien case in more ways than just writing a letter. In his Opinion and Order of August 8, 2018, the Judge writes, "It appears highly likely that the circumstances surrounding the removal of the 526 bars of silver from the Mantola - including who salvaged them... will be integral to the claims of this Case."
The Judge did not write a letter to the RoW. The letter was delivered to the Senior Master of the Royal Courts of Justice. The UK Courts take the request from the US Courts and then compel those under their jurisdictions to comply. I explained this previously, but it seems your reading comprehension of my past comments is almost as poor as your reading comprehension of the Court documents.
Finally, when it comes to the contract details between Odyssey and Swire, in their February 13, 2018 Response to Request 13, Odyssey states that the, "M/V Seabed Worker crew, technical crew and owners are all subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements signed with Odyssey."
I wrote that if it is found that Swire participated in the recovery, that they could potentially be subject to a breach of contract lawsuit. That is certainly one possibility when one violates am NDA, so I don't believe I was speaking out of school regarding that.
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Odyssey did not file the arrest until after the word of the recovery had been submitted to the ROW.
I never stated that the Judge wrote a letter, the Judge ordered that a letter be written, which Odyssey did.
" In April 2017, Odyssey brought this action in rem, invoking the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, against the Mantola and its cargo. Odyssey's complaint seeks to foreclose a maritime lien-a property interest explained below-that it claims against the Mantola for the services Odyssey performed in salvaging the wreck and its cargo. Odyssey has also asserted a claim for ownership over the vessel and its cargo.
At issue here is a motion by an alternative claimant. The United Kingdom Department for Transport ("DfT") entered this case as a claimant, asserting ownership over the Mantola. DfT now moves to dismiss Odyssey's claims against the Mantola. DfT argues that this Court lacks in rem jurisdiction over that portion of the wreck's cargo-some 526 of the 536 bars of silver-that it represents was removed from the wreck at an unspecified date in the past two years by an unspecified United Kingdom entity. Further, DfT argues, the removal of the vast majority of the wreck's valuable cargo makes the wreck no longer viable to salvage, such that Odyssey can no longer plausibly assert a claim for a salvage award, and thus cannot assert a maritime lien on the Mantola.
Separately, DfT contends that Odyssey has no right to disclosure of certain information relating to the circumstances under which the 526 bars of silver, take from the wreck, came to be deposited in the United Kingdom with the British government's Receiver of Wreck. DfT argues that disclosure of such information is prohibited by foreign law, and, in any event, is beyond the scope of the present litigation and thus irrelevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)."
I never stated that the Judge wrote a letter, the Judge ordered that a letter be written, which Odyssey did.
" In April 2017, Odyssey brought this action in rem, invoking the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, against the Mantola and its cargo. Odyssey's complaint seeks to foreclose a maritime lien-a property interest explained below-that it claims against the Mantola for the services Odyssey performed in salvaging the wreck and its cargo. Odyssey has also asserted a claim for ownership over the vessel and its cargo.
At issue here is a motion by an alternative claimant. The United Kingdom Department for Transport ("DfT") entered this case as a claimant, asserting ownership over the Mantola. DfT now moves to dismiss Odyssey's claims against the Mantola. DfT argues that this Court lacks in rem jurisdiction over that portion of the wreck's cargo-some 526 of the 536 bars of silver-that it represents was removed from the wreck at an unspecified date in the past two years by an unspecified United Kingdom entity. Further, DfT argues, the removal of the vast majority of the wreck's valuable cargo makes the wreck no longer viable to salvage, such that Odyssey can no longer plausibly assert a claim for a salvage award, and thus cannot assert a maritime lien on the Mantola.
Separately, DfT contends that Odyssey has no right to disclosure of certain information relating to the circumstances under which the 526 bars of silver, take from the wreck, came to be deposited in the United Kingdom with the British government's Receiver of Wreck. DfT argues that disclosure of such information is prohibited by foreign law, and, in any event, is beyond the scope of the present litigation and thus irrelevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)."
Last edited:
Xaos,
Odyssey filed the arrest April 21, 2017. As I showed above, they stated multiple times in sworn statements to the Court that they didn't find out that another salvor had salvaged 526 silver bars until November 14, 2017. You keep stating that they knew of the recovery before they filed the arrest. You are accusing them of lying to the Court?
In regards to the letter, Odyssey wrote the letter, but the Judge signed it and it was sent from his office. You wrote why would the RoW respond to such a letter and that they would tell them to go file in UK Courts. I was pointing out that this letter was sent to the UK Court and if they abide by the treaty, the UK Court will then compel the RoW and the DfT to comply with the request from the US Court.
Odyssey filed the arrest April 21, 2017. As I showed above, they stated multiple times in sworn statements to the Court that they didn't find out that another salvor had salvaged 526 silver bars until November 14, 2017. You keep stating that they knew of the recovery before they filed the arrest. You are accusing them of lying to the Court?
In regards to the letter, Odyssey wrote the letter, but the Judge signed it and it was sent from his office. You wrote why would the RoW respond to such a letter and that they would tell them to go file in UK Courts. I was pointing out that this letter was sent to the UK Court and if they abide by the treaty, the UK Court will then compel the RoW and the DfT to comply with the request from the US Court.
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
What I am saying is, that they had not done anything with the Mantola for years, and suddenly, file an Admiralty Arrest on it. Why? No activity for what 5 years?
Look at the posts on this board, the rumors of the recovery had been around, and of course, Odyssey had AIS tracks of Swire in the area?
Coincidence?
I am not calling anyone anything, but then again, how was it filed, "Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Shipwrecked and Abandoned SS Mantola"...was it a known owner, and was it abandoned at the time of the filing??
Look at the posts on this board, the rumors of the recovery had been around, and of course, Odyssey had AIS tracks of Swire in the area?
Coincidence?
I am not calling anyone anything, but then again, how was it filed, "Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Shipwrecked and Abandoned SS Mantola"...was it a known owner, and was it abandoned at the time of the filing??
Last edited:
I will grant you that the timing of the Admiralty Arrest and the recovery of the silver are highly coincidental and I posted about such concerns previously. It could be possible that they had seen Swire nosing around the area but were not aware that a salvage operation had taken place.
Regardless of the timing, Odyssey had performed salvage services on the Mantola and was entitled to seek a maritime lien and a salvage award for their services rendered. The Judge so far has found their claims plausible. It is not really relevant in this case if their was a known owner or if the shipwreck has been abandoned or not. “Upon rendering salvage service, a salvor obtains a lien...This lien attaches to the property to the exclusion of all others, including the property’s true owner.“
If Odyssey’s previous work on the Mantola paved the way for a successful salvage by another salvor, Odyssey may be entitled to a salvage award from the 526 silver bars. In order to determine this though the court needs information regarding the other salvage operation. If it was on the up and up, why the fight to keep the details under wraps?
Regardless of the timing, Odyssey had performed salvage services on the Mantola and was entitled to seek a maritime lien and a salvage award for their services rendered. The Judge so far has found their claims plausible. It is not really relevant in this case if their was a known owner or if the shipwreck has been abandoned or not. “Upon rendering salvage service, a salvor obtains a lien...This lien attaches to the property to the exclusion of all others, including the property’s true owner.“
If Odyssey’s previous work on the Mantola paved the way for a successful salvage by another salvor, Odyssey may be entitled to a salvage award from the 526 silver bars. In order to determine this though the court needs information regarding the other salvage operation. If it was on the up and up, why the fight to keep the details under wraps?
Xaos,
I think you need to take your own advice and read the court documents because you do not seem to have a clue as to what is going on here. I have taken nothing out of context and anyone who has read the court documents will see that. This case is absolutely an Admiralty Arrest case and I’m at a loss as to how you could claim it isn’t. One of the first orders in the case issued by the Judge, on May 2, 2017, was a Warrant for Arrest of Vessel in Rem.
Have you looked at Odyssey’s contract with the DfT? DfT argued for dismissal of the case “on one principal ground: that because nearly all of the Mantola’s precious cargo has been removed, Odyssey does not have—and will never have—a maritime lien on the Mantola.” If the DfT’s contract with Odyssey prevented Odyssey from claiming a salvage award as you suggest, why did they not present it to the Court and have the case tossed? The Judge wrote that, “DfT has not presented evidence substantiating it’s claim that Odyssey, pursuant to a contract, was ineligible to serve as a salvor.” Why would they not present this evidence if it exists as you suggest? The case would have been dismissed. It would seem likely therefore that there is nothing in the contract between Odyssey and DfT that prevents Odyssey from seeking a salvage award or from obtaining a lien on the Mantola and her cargo.
I think you need to take your own advice and read the court documents because you do not seem to have a clue as to what is going on here. I have taken nothing out of context and anyone who has read the court documents will see that. This case is absolutely an Admiralty Arrest case and I’m at a loss as to how you could claim it isn’t. One of the first orders in the case issued by the Judge, on May 2, 2017, was a Warrant for Arrest of Vessel in Rem.
Have you looked at Odyssey’s contract with the DfT? DfT argued for dismissal of the case “on one principal ground: that because nearly all of the Mantola’s precious cargo has been removed, Odyssey does not have—and will never have—a maritime lien on the Mantola.” If the DfT’s contract with Odyssey prevented Odyssey from claiming a salvage award as you suggest, why did they not present it to the Court and have the case tossed? The Judge wrote that, “DfT has not presented evidence substantiating it’s claim that Odyssey, pursuant to a contract, was ineligible to serve as a salvor.” Why would they not present this evidence if it exists as you suggest? The case would have been dismissed. It would seem likely therefore that there is nothing in the contract between Odyssey and DfT that prevents Odyssey from seeking a salvage award or from obtaining a lien on the Mantola and her cargo.
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Of course, while under contract, Odyssey would have been the Salvor, and does get a salvage award. Where do you see that I have stated otherwise? Answering the phrase, what would the DfT present, a non-existent contract? Odyssey could be determined to be salvor in possession, while under contract. Once that contract ended, they have no claims.
It is correct, that Odyssey does not, nor ever did have a maritime lien on the Mantola, but not because all of the cargo has been removed, it is because they were working a contract.
the basic question, going back to the foundation of how or why did they file an Admiralty Arrest on a known wreck that was known not to be abandoned? (as they claimed in the filing)?
Known owner, known wreck, and known circumstances. After all these years of inactivity, to file an arrest under these circumstances, it was only about an arrest?
Odyssey has made no mention of plans, does not have the equipment to recover the wreck, yet suddenly, 6 years later, files an arrest?
Face it, Odyssey was hired to fix the sink, and did not fix the sink. Another plumber did, and now Odyssey wants to get paid for it.
So, Odyssey now has a letter that will be sent to the Uk to compel the name of the other salvor, and an Arrest on the Mantola as of the date of the ruling.
The transcript of the conference is now available, so it will be interesting to see what the negotiations are.
Last edited:
huntsman53
Gold Member
Wrong! Odyssey was under contract to salvage the cargo on the Mantola and while under contract, another Salvor (yet officially unknown but one is a suspect) salvaged most of the Silver Bars from the Mantola. This is a Breech of Odyssey's Salvage Contract with the DfT and likely the ROW and they also have a right to a Salvage Award, Court Costs and likely Damages from the unknown Salvor and possibly from the DfT and the ROW as well. Therefore, Odyssey has the right to sue the unknown Salvor, likely the ROW who received the Silver Bars from the unknown Salvor and likely the Dft as it is likely that they knew that the unknown Salvor salvaged the Silver Bars from the Mantola and may have even been party to it (i.e. contracted the unknown Salvor on the side without the knowledge of Odyssey).
You really need to go back to school and learn Case Law!
Last edited:
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Where do you get your information from?
There is absolutely nothing or no one that states the wreck was recovered while it was under contract. Even Odyssey doesnt alleged this. They were 'fishing' to try to get the information.
Nothing, not one shred of evidence. The contract expired in 2015. I suppose even you are aware that the silver did not get to the RoW until more than a year after the contract expired?
All that, yet Odyssey did not provide any evidence to the Court to substantiate this claim? Did Odyssey file in the UK Court to get the information from the DfT or the RoW on its claims that a salvor worked the wreck, and was in violation of a contract? Of course not.
How would filing an admiralty arrest in a US Court solve a UK contract issue between the DfT and Odyssey? They decided to file an arrest in a US Court, and compel the UK Govt to provide information... who needs to go to school to learn case law?
While you are contemplation the issue, think about these issues
Did Odyssey file an Admiralty Arrest on the SS Laconia? Did Odyssey file an Admiralty Arrest on the SS Cairn Hill?
Both of these were part of the UK DfT Commodity Wreck program, sovereign, and being worked by Deep6. Still, Odyssey dove on them and recovered artifacts to present to the US Court for the Arrest. Even after, the arrests were denied, did Odyssey then file an arrest in the US Court on the Cairn Hill for the parts of the wreck that the DfT did not cover under war insurance, again, while it was being worked under contract by another salvor?
Did Odyssey work the SS Central America while there was an Admiralty Arrest on it by CADG? Did Odyssey dive on the wreck and recover artifacts to present to the Court, while there was a very well known arrest on the wreck?
Did Odyssey ask Spain for permission to recover the Mercedes, and even though denied, dove on it anyways?
Oh really? When you graduate the 6th grade, lets talk.
There is absolutely nothing or no one that states the wreck was recovered while it was under contract. Even Odyssey doesnt alleged this. They were 'fishing' to try to get the information.
Nothing, not one shred of evidence. The contract expired in 2015. I suppose even you are aware that the silver did not get to the RoW until more than a year after the contract expired?
All that, yet Odyssey did not provide any evidence to the Court to substantiate this claim? Did Odyssey file in the UK Court to get the information from the DfT or the RoW on its claims that a salvor worked the wreck, and was in violation of a contract? Of course not.
How would filing an admiralty arrest in a US Court solve a UK contract issue between the DfT and Odyssey? They decided to file an arrest in a US Court, and compel the UK Govt to provide information... who needs to go to school to learn case law?
While you are contemplation the issue, think about these issues
Did Odyssey file an Admiralty Arrest on the SS Laconia? Did Odyssey file an Admiralty Arrest on the SS Cairn Hill?
Both of these were part of the UK DfT Commodity Wreck program, sovereign, and being worked by Deep6. Still, Odyssey dove on them and recovered artifacts to present to the US Court for the Arrest. Even after, the arrests were denied, did Odyssey then file an arrest in the US Court on the Cairn Hill for the parts of the wreck that the DfT did not cover under war insurance, again, while it was being worked under contract by another salvor?
Did Odyssey work the SS Central America while there was an Admiralty Arrest on it by CADG? Did Odyssey dive on the wreck and recover artifacts to present to the Court, while there was a very well known arrest on the wreck?
Did Odyssey ask Spain for permission to recover the Mercedes, and even though denied, dove on it anyways?
Oh really? When you graduate the 6th grade, lets talk.
Last edited:
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
What is an Admiralty Arrest from a US Court worth? Virtually nothing, especially in International Waters.
The recovery would have to land in the US, for the US Court to even consider it, and if under the Law of Finds, virtually nothing.
Under the Law of Finds. You get to claim what you found. You do not get to claim what you did not find.
In regards to the Mantola. The salvor, under the Law of Finds, submits the recovery for adjudication to the RoW, just like Odyssey would have under the contract. The UK DfT is the owner, and settles with the salvor for the recovery. This has nothing to do with any contract, it is simply the Law of Finds.
Note that Odyssey was not the 'salvor in possession" of the Mantola. They were working the wreck under the Law of Finds, getting paid a percentage of what they found.
Again, Odyssey does not get paid a percentage of what they did not find.
Odyssey could have submitted a claim to the RoW, claiming that they were owed a percentage of the find, and they likely did, and were likely denied, because they were not salvor in possession, and did not have an Admiralty Arrest, simply a contract under law of Finds..
The salvor did the right thing, took it to the RoW. Just like anyone could have, even if it were under a contract between the DfT and Odyssey. The RoW sorted that out. Seems to me when Odyssey lost, they filed an Admiralty Arrest in a US Court, and veiled the facts. They knew damn well it had been recovered, as they didnt file the arrest for 6 years, and only after it was landed in the RoW years later. Circumstantial evidence?
What does an exclusive contract under the law of finds get you? You get a percentage of what you found. Case closed.
The recovery would have to land in the US, for the US Court to even consider it, and if under the Law of Finds, virtually nothing.
Under the Law of Finds. You get to claim what you found. You do not get to claim what you did not find.
In regards to the Mantola. The salvor, under the Law of Finds, submits the recovery for adjudication to the RoW, just like Odyssey would have under the contract. The UK DfT is the owner, and settles with the salvor for the recovery. This has nothing to do with any contract, it is simply the Law of Finds.
Note that Odyssey was not the 'salvor in possession" of the Mantola. They were working the wreck under the Law of Finds, getting paid a percentage of what they found.
Again, Odyssey does not get paid a percentage of what they did not find.
Odyssey could have submitted a claim to the RoW, claiming that they were owed a percentage of the find, and they likely did, and were likely denied, because they were not salvor in possession, and did not have an Admiralty Arrest, simply a contract under law of Finds..
The salvor did the right thing, took it to the RoW. Just like anyone could have, even if it were under a contract between the DfT and Odyssey. The RoW sorted that out. Seems to me when Odyssey lost, they filed an Admiralty Arrest in a US Court, and veiled the facts. They knew damn well it had been recovered, as they didnt file the arrest for 6 years, and only after it was landed in the RoW years later. Circumstantial evidence?
What does an exclusive contract under the law of finds get you? You get a percentage of what you found. Case closed.
huntsman53
Gold Member
If you go back and read pages 1 and 2, you will see that Odyssey suspected and alleged that the unknown Salvor (which was likely Swire's Seabed Worker) salvaged the Silver from the Mantola some time between May and September of 2015. However, Odyssey's Salvage Contract with the DfT did not expire until September 15 of 2015. On page 2, information shows that Odyssey found clear proof through AIS that the Swire's Seabed Worker was anchored over the Mantola during this time period (May - Sept. 2015) before Odyssey's contract expired and another Swire Ship visited the area briefly in April 2017 before heading to England. This was only days before the Silver was turned over to the ROW, so coincidence or not??!! From all appearances, Swire's Seabed Worker was likely the unknown Salvor who then, stashed the Silver Bars in a retrievable basket some distance from the Mantola to keep it from being detected. After finding out that Odyssey was filing Court proceedings possibly through back channels or direct communications with Odyssey, the Silver Bars were raised from the Ocean's floor by another one of Swire's Ships and turned over to the ROW a few days later. According to AIS, no other ships have anchored over the Mantola during these time periods with the exception of a visit by Odyssey just before their' contract expired. All during the time while Odyssey's Salvage Contract was valid, Odyssey had a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Swire concerning the S.S. Manotola. While you may likely discount many of these as after the fact suspicions that are not valid, I believe that these facts all fell within the boundaries of Discovery and are pertinent and valid to Odyssey's claims.
While I always look forward to new factual information that comes to light concerning this subject, maybe it would be better if the Moderators locked this Thread as it is clear that the countering will continue back and forth until someone else gets really mad, goes overboard in a post and gets Banned which has already been the case for one!!
Last edited:
Xaos,
You should read the Judge's order and opinion from 8/8/18 again, or for the first time. You write a post going on and on about the law of finds, and I'm not sure why. The Judge writes in his ruling that, "The Court finds the law of salvage--to the exclusion of the law of finds--applicable here. The law of finds is inappropriate here because, as discussed above, the property at issue--the Mantola and it's cargo-- is clearly not abandoned."
This is the same ruling by the way in which the Judge writes that "Odyssey's actions to date already give rise to a plausible claim for a salvage award, and thus a plausible claim for a maritime lien." It seems that your hatred of Odyssey is coloring your understanding of the facts in this case as you have continually posted information that is opposite to what is found in the court documents. Despite your statements to the contrary, Odyssey has presented to the Court a compelling narrative on when and how the Mantola was salvaged and the Judge has written that Odyssey very well could have a claim to the salvaged silver.
You should read the Judge's order and opinion from 8/8/18 again, or for the first time. You write a post going on and on about the law of finds, and I'm not sure why. The Judge writes in his ruling that, "The Court finds the law of salvage--to the exclusion of the law of finds--applicable here. The law of finds is inappropriate here because, as discussed above, the property at issue--the Mantola and it's cargo-- is clearly not abandoned."
This is the same ruling by the way in which the Judge writes that "Odyssey's actions to date already give rise to a plausible claim for a salvage award, and thus a plausible claim for a maritime lien." It seems that your hatred of Odyssey is coloring your understanding of the facts in this case as you have continually posted information that is opposite to what is found in the court documents. Despite your statements to the contrary, Odyssey has presented to the Court a compelling narrative on when and how the Mantola was salvaged and the Judge has written that Odyssey very well could have a claim to the salvaged silver.
Last edited:
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
So April 2017, Swire visited the wreck, and after this, the recovery was brought to the RoW. Isnt June of 2017 quite a while after September 2015? Swire is a very reputable company, and does not need a few dollars from this type of recovery to taint their reputation. Did Odyssey ask Swire for information, or file a contract dispute with Swire on the issue?
Exactly my point. Odyssey suspected there was salvage, so filed an Admiralty Arrest. (after over 6 years of not working the wreck) My opinion, as well as DfT, was that the Arrest was filed as a fishing attempt to gain information, rather than to go to the UK RoW, DfT, or the UK Courts on the contract issue.
How was any of this supposed to be resolved in a US Court on an Admiralty Arrest? Oh, we are filing an arrest on this date, (not giving you all the details) but we want you to figure out what happened over the last 5 years and also, well, a settle a contract dispute....Again, why wasnt this filed in a UK Civil Court as a contract issue?
Didnt Odyssey file the Arrest, stating it had been abandoned? This statement by the Court is interesting, as the Law of Finds does not relate to property that has been abandoned, it is property that one has found, where the owner has NOT abandoned it. (ie, I found your property, and am claiming a salvage fee) If it were abandoned, the Law of Finds is not applicable. The Court statement is not correct.
How did Odyssey maintain continuous possession, when they never had possession in the first place?
I mention the Law of Finds, as it relates to the Contract with the UK Govt. Odyssey was never 'salvor in possession', and simply had contract to claim a salvage fee for whatever they found, hence the Law of Finds. They also had to bring the recovery to the RoW for adjudication, because there is cargo on the vessel that was not covered by War Insurance, again, the Law of Finds.
IF Odyssey had a claim, why not go to the RoW, the DfT, or file a contract dispute with the UK Court system? It is very clear to me why Odyssey did NOT file a claim with the RoW, the DfT, Sire, nor a UK Court.
Instead, they file an Arrest in the US Court and veil the circumstances and known information on the wreck and the recovery. They got what they asked for, they have an Admiralty Arrest on the Mantola, and a letter to the UK Court.
As the contract dispute and circumstances of the recovery have nothing to do with a US Admiralty Arrest, I am certain the UK Court will respond with a simple response, file in the UK Court system.
Ask yourself why, after all of the experience in shipwrecks and Admiralty Arrests, Odyssey chose to file not in a Florida Court, but in different Court...perhaps one that was oblivious to their antics? Again, circumstantial, or just another abuse of the judicial system by Odyssey Marine.
After what Odyssey did to Swire and Deep6, I really, really hope it was that team that did it.
Last edited:
eyemustdigtreasure
Silver Member
- Mar 2, 2013
- 3,602
- 5,581
- Detector(s) used
-
Fisher Gold Bug Pro
Tesoro Cibola
Nokta Pointer; Phillips SHS5200 phones
Nokta Macro SIMPLEX +
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
I figure , if someone has the tools and experience to use them, they should get most of the value of the treasure.
After all, they do the work, and its their gear and crews they're using...!
After all, they do the work, and its their gear and crews they're using...!
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,063
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Where is this information available?
Included here?
12/21/2018 73 LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from John D. Kimball dated 12/21/2018 Document filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kimball, John) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
Yes, in the Exhibits. One is an order for the RoW, the other is the order for the DfT.
Top Member Reactions
-
2352 -
1127 -
1051 -
887 -
824 -
798 -
753 -
753 -
606 -
500 -
490 -
473 -
465 -
423 -
387 -
383 -
381 -
381 -
377 -
O
377
