Capted,
Your information is not correct if you read the document now filed in Federal Court. It actually lists all of the Atocha cases and has a direct ruling on the ownership of future finds from the Atocha. The future ownership never was heard in the Supreme Court. It listened to the argument of the initial ownership of treasure located off the coast of Florida.
Another specific case after the US Supreme Court ask for ownership "wherever she may lie" and was DENIED repeatedly!! Again, this is online for everyone to read and I have had a few legal people read the entire filing and case online ( it really is interesting to anyone in the legal world) and they told me this means the Fisher's don't own the Atocha if found outside it's current 3000 yard circle.
Here is the specific information filed last week:
MOTIVATION’S CLAIM
The sole legal basis for Motivation’s claim is grounded in an Order of this Court entered on February 19, 1976 (the “1976 District Court Order”), by which Motivation claims its predecessor- in-interest, Treasure Salvors, Inc., was awarded ownership “as against the world of the Atocha and Margarita shipwrecks and their cargo and scatter ‘wherever the same may be found.’” A true and correct copy of the 1976 District Court Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. However, the 1976 District Court Order was expressly limited on appeal by the Fifth Circuit in Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F. 2d 330, 335-36 (5th Cir. 1978). As discussed further infra, the 1976 District Court Order was further limited by the Fifth Circuit and other Orders entered by this Court.
Motivation’s reliance upon the 1976 District Court Order is misplaced.
Motivation’s Verified Claim is based upon the 1976 District Court Order, entered February 19th, 1976 after the February 2, 1976 Summary Judgment against the United States in Case No. 75- 1416-CIV (Judge William O. Mehrtens) (D.E.10, paragraph 8). See Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 408 F. Supp. 907 (S.D. Fla. 1976).
However, the United States appealed the 1976 District Court Order to the Fifth Circuit, which limited the scope of the Court’s holding. The Fifth Circuit specifically stated:
In affirming the District Court, we do not approve that portion of its Order which may be construed as a holding that Plaintiffs have exclusive title to, and the right to immediate and sole possession of, the vessel and cargo as to other claimants, if any there be, who are not parties or privies to this litigation.
Treasure Salvors, 569 F. 2d at 335-36 (5th Cir. 1978).
Three years later, in a related matter, the Fifth Circuit reemphasized its modification of the
District Court’s Order upon which Motivation seeks to rely herein. Specifically, the Fifth Circuitstated:
CASE NO.4:11-cv-10074-JLK
Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Dismiss
On appeal, we affirmed the District Court’s Judgment insofar as it resolved the competing title claims of Treasure Salvors and the United States, however, we modified the District Court’s Order by refusing to approve that portion of the Order which purported to hold that Treasure Salvors had exclusive title to, and the right to immediate and sole possession of, the vessel an00d cargo as to other claimants, who were not parties and privies to the action.
Treasure Salvors, 640 F.2d 560, 563 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted).
In the Fifth Circuit’s 1981 opinion, the Court addressed the issue of a salvor’s . . .
“possessory interest normally granted to a salvor [that] vests title by occupancy in one who discovers such abandoned property and reduces it to possession.” Id. at 567. The opinion instructed the District Court to . . . “make a fresh and complete record concerning Treasure Salvors claim to exclude the defendants from this fifty square mile [enjoined] area in light of the basic principles of the maritime law of salvage.” Id. at 571 (emphasis added).
AI
