| 
Keyword
Welcome, Guest
(153 Viewing)  (153) Guest

TOPIC: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY

TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2104

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
Today Could be the Day

ATLANTA - Odyssey Marine Exploration of Tampa Florida is asking a three judge panel of the Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta today to grant them the rights to an estimated 17 Tons of Treasure belived to be worth $500 Million in silver coins and other artifacts salvaged four years ago in International waters.

A federal judge in Tampa ruled back in 2009 that Spain is the rightful owner of the treasure from a ship that is belived to be the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes las Animas, that sank in 1804 when the ship was attacked by the British Navy.

Since that ruling, it was revealed by Wiki Leaks that the US State Department was trying to broker a backroom deal with Spain. The US would help Spain get the Treasure in exchange for the return of a valuable painting lost to a US man family during Worl War II. It is not known at this time if this information will weigh in on the courts decision.

The Spanish Government successfully argued back in 2009, that the Mercedes is protected by the law of sovran immunity, and that the artifacts and treasure are the property of Spain.

Odyssey is countering that they are entitled to most of the treasure because historical records show the vessel was on a commercial mission at the time of its sinking, and thus not protected by sovran immunity under the law.
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2106

  • pacificnw79
  • pacificnw79's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Treasure Hobbyist
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
As a stock holder in Odyssey Marine, I hope that the court rules in favor of them. Why is it that every time someone spends thier time and money to recover the treasures of the deep, governments around the world start poping up claiming that the treasure is theirs. If they wanted it, they should have went out and got it. Good luck to Greg and the rest of Odyssey.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2107

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
Agreed pacificnw79, I have held Odyssey stock since they were just listed in the Pink Sheets as a penny stock back in the day. The back room deals to get around the court system is just wrong.
Welcome aboard!

Tom
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2108

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
I see that OMEX stock has a volume spike, trading 1.7 times the average, and the stock is up more than 14% so fare today. Of course, it may be months before the three judge panel issues its ruling in this case.
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2109

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
Someone posted the following on the Yahoo forum. The parts I liked are in bold letters.

Ahoy mates:

I had the good fortune to attend oral arguments in Atlanta this morning. Thought I would summarize my impressions for the group, but please note that I couldn't have any electronics devices in court so couldn't transcribe the hearing contemporaneously; therefore it is possible this report may contain omissions or errors (and it certainly contains my subjective views). Moreover, when I "quote" a judge's comments, I am paraphrasing to the best of my recollection.

The panel was Hull, Black, and Stapleton (Stapleton was visiting judge from 3rd Circuit). I was glad to see Judge Black on the panel because she is the author of Aqua Log, an 11th Circuit case that came out after the district court ruled here, and one that is the focal point of OMEX's briefs.

All three judges were very attentive and engaged. While they had clarifying questions to ask of all parties, they seemed much more skeptical of Spain's position than OMEX's, and I came away with the distinct impression that OMEX is likely to prevail. Judge Hull asked pointed questions of Spain, positing hypotheticals such as "assume we find clear error in that the ship was on a commercial voyage, not a military mission as found below, doesn't that kill your (Spain)'s case?" (paraphrase, not quote). Spain counsel tried to dance around the issues and divert, frustrating the panel, with Judge Hull commenting "you're very good at avoiding my questions" at one point. More significantly (I thought), Judge Stapleton, towards the end of Spain's presentation, said "I just have to ask about the elephant in the room here. The district court said it lacked jurisdiction yet nonetheless assumed jurisdiction by awarding the res to Spain. Why isn't that error?" To this Spain tried in vain to appease the panel (IMO) --- the panel seemed (to me) convinced that the proper course would have been to restore the status quo --- the district court, if it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly lacked jurisdiction to award the res to Spain. OMEX did not face similar antagonism/hostility in the questions posited to it, in my view.

There were other arguments made (including smaller amounts of time allocated to Peru and some individual claimants), and in my view OMEX got the better of these as well. I noticed some folks in the gallery (btw, the gallery was packed, I would estimate 100 spectators including 2 sailors from the Spanish navy donning official uniforms!) who were apparently with OMEX seemed quite happy with how the hearing went.

I may be able to expand more later -- arguments lasted over an hour I believe -- but I have to catch a train and head back home for now. I wanted to just give the group my take on the arguments before I have to take off.

In summary, I thought it went very well for OMEX, and I have added OMEX shares upon reflecting on how it all went. I think it's difficult to read the tea leaves in arguments like these, but I'm glad I went and feel OMEX did a very good job, and was well received by the judges. I did not hear the judges give any indication of when a ruling would issue, but hopefully we don't have to wait long.

Toodles,
Bruce

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/24/national/a110500D46.DTL
Last Edit: 3 years 6 months ago by Jeff_K.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2110

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
Thank you Jeff, as always you have a way of provideing much needed and appreciated information. I like what I hear from Bruce, and I do hope that he is right on with his observations.

Tommy
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2130

I hope the stock goes back up soon Tommy, Im still waiting for it to come back up to what I paid.
To Swim Is Human, To Dive Is SUBLIME
To bag a bug in total darkness . . . . is just the next step.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2131

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
Hi George, welcome back! How was the trip to the "Undisclosed Location"? Did you have any luck?
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2132

We did some good, nothing major to report yet. I will call you later tonight with details, and we can discuss a couple of options.
Got to run, back soon.
To Swim Is Human, To Dive Is SUBLIME
To bag a bug in total darkness . . . . is just the next step.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2133

  • wreckdiver
  • wreckdiver's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2085
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 48
I think Skype is back up, if not call the Florida Magicjack number.
“Treasure – If it’s out there, we’re going to find it!” (Tommy Vawter)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2159

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2161

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
House discussion on Amendment 48...

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Mack

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title X add the following:

SEC. __. SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT.

Section 1408(3) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (10 U.S.C. 113 note)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, that was'' before
``on military noncommercial service''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting a comma before ``that
was owned or operated''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is a mere
clarification of the Sunken Military Craft Act. The fundamental
objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United
States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical
correction will make clear that the term ``sunken military craft'' will
only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on
military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for offering the amendment.
We are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds: in
2005, Congress enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act and the principal
purpose of that law was to preserve U.S. sovereignty and Department of
Defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft and the
like for strategic and economic purposes, and also to protect the
remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken
vessels.
It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between
such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial
service. And although I think I understand the justification for that
distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that.
It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the
nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to
a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was
sunk--may have had some claim in the United States. I don't know if
that is the case. Our concern is that by taking statutory action here,
we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation
or the process of that litigation.
I would yield to my friend, the author of the amendment, to ask if
that is his intention.
Mr. MACK. The amendment is clearly to clarify that we are actually
talking about military craft as it is a military craft. In other words,
if it's involved in commercial activity, then it wouldn't be regarded
as military craft. So it's really to make the distinction, which is why
the act was put in place the first time, that it's not for commercial
craft--it may at one time have been--but it is for actual military
craft when they are sunk.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's distinction
makes sense. We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's
objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact
on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly
claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations.
So, reluctantly, we would be inclined to oppose the amendment, but
obviously be willing to discuss with the gentleman as time goes forward
ways that perhaps our concerns could be addressed. So for present
purposes, we would be in opposition to the amendment for the reasons
that I stated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MACK. I want to thank the gentleman for expressing his
reservations.
I would tell the gentleman and this body that I think it's clear that
the understanding of this act is to protect military craft that has
sunk; but when that military craft is no longer involved in the
military but now is used for commercial activities, then it's no longer
a military craft.

{time} 2030

So the purpose of this amendment is to clarify this distinction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I think the intent
here is just to clarify what is military versus commercial. I hope that
I can get the support of the Members.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2193

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
Amendment 48 passed the House 227-193, and now goes to the Senate.

Here are the links if any of you Florida residents want to send our Senators an email supporting Amendment 48 of the Defense Bill. If you live in another state I suggest you do the same for your Senators.

billnelson.senate.gov/index.cfm

rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2201

I will do that from Texas Jeff, Thanks!
To Swim Is Human, To Dive Is SUBLIME
To bag a bug in total darkness . . . . is just the next step.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2204

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
Amendment 48 in the House version is now Amendment 25 in the updated version of H.R. 1540.
Last Edit: 3 years 6 months ago by Jeff_K. Reason: Removed Link
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: TODAY COULD BE THE DAY 3 years 6 months ago #2221

  • Jeff_K
  • Jeff_K's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Treasure Hunter
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 7
Jeff_K wrote:
Amendment 48 in the House version is now Amendment 25 in the updated version of H.R. 1540.

I think it might be prudent to not only contact your own Senators, but the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I sent the following to some of the members on the committee. Use it as a guideline, but try not to send it verbatim. You'll notice that I never mentioned Odyssey.

armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm

Dear Senator *****,

As you may know, Rep. Mack (FL) introduced amendment #25 into the Defense Bill. This amendment having passed the House vote will make needed changes to SMCA. The objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical correction will make clear that the term "sunken military craft" will only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.

This amendment is not, and should not be a political issue, but one of U.S. national security. It only seeks to CLARIFY the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA). The State Department’s misinterpretation of SMCA in an Amicis Brief sets a dangerous precedent that could open our nation’s ports to ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES.

The current SMCA states: (Sec 1408 (3))
(3) SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT- The term "sunken military craft" means all or any portion of--
(A ) any sunken warship, naval auxiliary, or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank;
(B ) any sunken military aircraft or military spacecraft that was owned or operated by a government when it sank; and
(C) the associated contents of a craft referred to in subparagraph (A ) or (B ), if title thereto has not been abandoned or transferred by the government concerned.

The State Department misinterpreted it to mean only the last category in that list "or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government . . ." had to be on a non-commercial mission to receive immunity. If you apply the same grammar misinterpretation to (B ), sunken military aircraft would not have to be owned or operated by a government when it sank to qualify.

This misinterpretation means any nation can declare an owned ship as a "warship" or "naval auxiliary" even if carrying out commercial activities, making it "sovereign immune" and not subject to U.S. jurisdiction or laws.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I trust you will take this into consideration.

Respectfully,
Last Edit: 3 years 6 months ago by Jeff_K.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Moderators: LobsterPirate