Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

My mind races as I read the SEC filings......

regarding the current lawsuit and when I read the April 2016 transcript. I recall reading claims that the Defendant admitted "guilt" and all that was left was a trial for damages, which is what SFRX is filing in their reports.

On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com . On or about October 15, 2014, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion by the Company for continued internet postings and communications that violate his injunction imposed upon him, and the Company will be seeking further damages and an order of contempt against Mr. Volentine for a number of sanctions available.

Page 34 here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000165495416001738/seafarer_10q-16959.htm

Why did Judge Stephens tell them they have to prove the postings were (1) false and then (2) prove damages?

7 THE COURT: Once again, though, if you prove it's
8 all false, if you prove that the guy -- even if you
9 were able to prove that the guy just sits around and
10 makes stuff up for sport --
11 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
12 THE COURT: -- if you're able to do that, what's
13 the -- how do you get past the next couple of links
14 that you need in your chain; that is, how do you show
15 it caused any damages and how do you show that --
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Well that's for the finder of fact,
17 in deed, to make that nexus. But we show the postings
18 and you can show that --
19 THE COURT: Well isn't that me?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: It is.
21 THE COURT: Yeah.
22 MR. HUFFMAN: But we show the -- Judge, I believe
23 the evidence is there. This isn't my first rodeo.
24 THE COURT: Well I'm asking you so let's hear it.
25 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay. So he makes a posting on a
1 Tuesday -- all right? -- or a number of postings,
2 saying that there's insider trading, they're stealing
3 treasure. Because this is a treasure recovery company
4 that's out there on the east coast. Okay?
5 THE COURT: I thought he was saying that there
6 isn't any treasure.
7 MR. HUFFMAN: Exactly. Right. Or he says there
8 isn't any treasure or they're stealing it, or they're
9 giving these fraudulent and security ... and then the
10 next day there's a massive sale. Okay?
11 Or have people available who can come in and
12 testify that would have put money into the company
13 directly, but they read his postings and they did not.
14 We also have people available who said they read
15 his postings. They were shareholders of they company.
16 They sold, thus driving down the price because they
17 sold.
18 THE COURT: But when they found out it was false,
19 did they buy it back and drive the price back up?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, Judge that's not really --
21 THE COURT: No, it is. You've got to understand.
22 You can't show a temporary change in price which --
23 you know, if the price goes down tomorrow because of
24 something that somebody said that was false, the rest
25 of the world realizes it's true the day after
1 tomorrow, the price goes back up, then you don't have
2 any damages --
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Judge, I --
4 THE COURT: -- if that what happens.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: I understand the theory. However,
6 this was an ongoing -- our original lawsuit is an
7 ongoing period of time -- I believe covered a period
8 of six months -- that could show the diminution in the
9 value of the value of the stock price.
10 That continued. Okay? Even during the time of
11 his violation of the order -- okay? -- there was
12 reactions in the market -- okay? -- because of his
13 postings.
14 THE COURT: What I'm trying to tell you is --
15 MR. HUFFMAN: I can also argue res ipsa loquitur.
16 THE COURT: No, you can't.

Why didn't Huffman explain to the Judge "if" the trial was just for damages ONLY that there wasn't a need to prove anything was false? Do you think that is misleading to file with the SEC as they are if they still have to prove the postings were false? Why does Huffman say, "I believe the evidence is there" if the Defendant was already "found guilty" as has been alleged?

Plus they just filed for punitive damages, which as I understand can't be given until he's been "found guilty", so to speak. But there is no ruling I can see where he was found liable.

09/11/2016 AMENDED MOTION TO - FOR
ALLOW PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD AND AMENDMENT
Party: Seafarer Exploration Corp

My mind races........