Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[Qutmjr]

your many, many posts trying to shame those that do suggests otherwise, unless you are trying to operate in some Clintonian, sematic wiggle room that isn't there, because even if everything you claim about Kennedy, Huffman or Seafarer at large is correct, there is no coercion in the buying and selling of SFRX stock, no one has a gun to their head and there is plenty of info out there, including your thousands of posts, upon which people can make the decision to voluntarily buy or not.

[trueblue]

I see them standing on the dock in the 16th century as the ship sails! Yelling the world is flat!!! There’s nothing out there!! Jmo

[Gman3343]

Maybe

[RC62]

Thanks for the info. You have a great understanding of it. You are the historical authority of seafarer. I’m betting that you have the Torres debacle down cold.

Since seafarer won the case against Torres, doesn’t that separate them? When they realized that he had defrauded them, they cut him loose.

I enjoyed watching a video about him, reading about him, and his ability to con people. A catch me if you can (Abagnale) that unfortunately mislead seafarer as well.
Still can’t believe that they didn’t check up with Abagnale’s supposed medical degree. But that’s why they unfortunately get away for awhile anyway with their con game.

[hedge_fun]

You have admitted selling shares already…..and

now you’re ASSuming folks got left behind because they doubted a company that has lost about 28MM dollars and issued over 8B shares without ever finding anything significant?

Are you saying if/when tech is proven there won’t be another opportunity to make money on SFRX?

That if you got left at the dock you’re SOL?

Is that why you sold some?

The reason I asked is because didn’t you admit to knowing things the public doesn’t know yet, and yet you sold?

Thanks for clarifying.

[hedge_fun]

The last permit was from the US Army……

Corp. of Engineers, which a federal. They already had the DEP permit from the state.

The only folks that appear to be upset are “real shareholders” who can’t believe anyone would have any doubts about SFRX and share them.

“Real shareholders” can’t highlight any accomplishments the company has made since inception, but in their mind all of that is irrelevant.

Kyle even admitted they have been a failure because they haven’t found treasure.

They have the permits, now let’s see RESULTS that proves the tech works, not more hype. If/when that occurs I will be the first to congratulate shareholders and sticky the post for one month.

Happy Good Friday!!!

[Coolhand_Luke]

When the hive swarms, shareholders can get their cigars ready. Great things are surely on the way. Poor hedge and his southern gal, they got left sitting on the dock of the bay...Drinking cheap wine and smoking menthols.

[trueblue]

Real shareholders are glad that Sfrx received the last permit needed to start work at the Juno site, from the state. I’m sure this makes some folks upset? Real shareholders are ready for news on what Sfrx finds!! Jmo

[Southern Gal]

For how many……

years have they been dangling the Juno carrot before shareholders’ eyes? More than a decade?

And now what’s supposed to make a big difference is that they have a lithium battery powered underwater Dustbuster?

[OutOfBounds]

Fair enough. I find the back stories interesting, but in the end all that matters from this point forward is… does the SeaSearcher tech work and/or are there valuable artifacts at any of the wreck sites, JMHO… some believe so based on the recent buying, others do not. It’s rhetorical until it isn’t..

[hedge_fun]

Make your plea and if it follows the…..

terms you agreed to follow when you joined, then Ihub will resolve it.

FWIW, it actually goes back to 2014. Folks were claiming SFRX had a Recovery Permit and treasure would be on deck in 30 days. The defendant was attacked repeatedly, but it turns out, he was right.

There was no Recovery Permit as SFRX claimed in SEC filings.

[OutOfBounds]

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=126031139

[OutOfBounds]

You can go back on this board to about 2016 and see a lot of the same posters discussing this. I’ve tried putting a link in my reply but my posts are deleted. Take that for what it’s worth.

[hedge_fun]

I have no issue with individuals engaged in such……

a transaction. To the contrary.

[Qutmjr]

if they are BS claims, I'm not making them

as a fan of Milton Friedman, it's odd that you would have a problem with what would amount to two individuals freely and voluntarily engaging in a transaction

[Qutmjr]

deflecting from what? and nothing I said was derogatory

and yes, I am a shareholder, as I've said before, and I will have zero guilt or shame if I sell at a profit as you apparently think anyone that does should

[hedge_fun]

I understand you likely have skin in the…..

game, but leave folks gender out of this while you enjoy the hot air balloon ride.

Plus, a confused Cajun millionaire is far more amusing. I mean if you’re going to deflect, like you all desperately do, let’s laugh about it.

Thanks

[Qutmjr]

what a strange thing to be defensive about

[hedge_fun]

Here’s more on the Torres lawsuit. Kyle……

once said he was a brilliant scientist and the mask find proved his tech worked. Lots of folks cashed in on some hot air profits then. Ran from the trips to near 2 cents in about 4 or 5 months.

Oh, and Spain’s attorney chimes in on SFRX’s view of salvage law…ie Sovereign Immunity.

Enjoy!

https://pretendradio.org/episode/treasure-hunter-michael-torres-vs-seafarer-exploration-corp/

[RC62]

Interesting read:

On April 17, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida against Michael Torres (“Torres”), regarding fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of contract and civil theft under Florida law, as well as for injunctive relief to cancel shares issued. Such shares are currently locked up with the transfer agent pending ruling of the Court. The civil theft claim seeks triple the damages for monies paid to Torres, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Torres filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the Circuit Court on July 28, 2020. Torres filed a general denial in an answer. Seafarer was in the discovery phase of the case when both sides agreed to a mediation of the matter. Mediation of the case occurred in January 2021, and the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement which is formally being entered, which includes cancellation of all shares issued to Torres.

On January 18, 2022, Seafarer received notification from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit that 61,183,646 restricted common shares from the Defendant could be returned to the Plaintiff. On January 19, 2022, such shares were returned to the treasury stock of Seafarer and accounted for by Seafarer’s transfer agent. The settlement also included “Defendant (Torres) has agreed and hereby it is recognized by the Court that Defendant has made a full retraction of his assertions…” and agreed to pay back an undisclosed amount of money to Seafarer that the Company does not anticipate being able to collect.

[hedge_fun]

He did, and the Judge rejected the settlement…….

in part, without a hearing. That hasn’t happened.

Been waiting on SFRX for almost 10 years to make a move.

SFRX has to prove he was libel and they were harmed.

His (ahem) admission was in order to get the issue resolved, but here we are almost a decade later and it still isn’t.

What are they waiting on?

[trueblue]

Nice! Good job!! I’m amazed at your opinion of Raider! Very interesting! Jmo

[RC62]

Interesting, why did he admit to being libel?
Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct,

[Coolhand_Luke]

My judgment is based on several factors. Their comments, for one. Lack intellect. And Hedge attempts to talk down to everyone. It's insulting. And I've seen photos of the guy. And "Southern Gal"seems like a female version of him. Might be his wife. Dunno.
I am very certain my assessment of them is spot on.

You however come across as a grizzled veteran of the business who is very skeptical and maybe slightly bitter that SFRX may succeed in doing something that you're not a part of. I'd love to interview you. Your story is likely very intriguing.

[hedge_fun]

You remember that convo y’all were having…..

with him when he was telling y’all to slow the heck down and SFRX didn’t have salvage rights?

He really made y’all look…..well, you know.

Almost 10 years later no treasure, not even a positive ID.

It doesn’t matter, SFRX shot itself in the foot by bringing up Spain’s property. The state would be liable if they allow SFRX to disturb a Spanish vessel without Spain’s permission.

But hey, hot air profits, right?

That’s really all that matters, isn’t it?

[trueblue]

I’m not surprised the name Darrell! Jmo

[hedge_fun]

Yes, I know it's still open and the.....

defendant has an attorney (Vinny Adam) who represented him at the last hearing when the Judge was about to toss the case because SFRX dragged its feet for years and didn't move the case forward.

You would think it was one of SFRX's salvage projects that never go anywhere.

You do know he was a SFRX shareholder, and he knew SFRX didn't have any salvage rights, and he confirmed that with the FBAR (Roger Smith).

Folks were on here claiming treasure would be on deck in 30 days at Melbourne. He simply said, not so fast they only have an Exploration Permit, which allows for minimal disturbance.

Then all hell broke loose.

About 10 years later the case is still open and SFRX is still exploring Melbourne.

Go figure!

[RC62]

Just pulled this off the website
Says that the case is still open

https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/searchResults.html
Put in his name when you get there and tell the judge that it is still open

Darrel Volentine,

It’s interesting that the judge joined the libel case with people who bought or sold stock because of it. Libel suits stand alone

Sorry for the duplication but the cut and paste section of the post was incoherent

[RC62]

Case
Status Filed Case Type
Click for Additional Information click here to open the case informationClick this button to create a report for the case 14-CA-008902 SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP VS
VOLENTINE, DARRELL Open 2014-09-03 Libel-Slander

Just pulled this off the website
Says that the case is still open

https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/searchResults.html
Put in his name when you get there and tell the judge that it is still open

[LittleBirdin my Ear]

Obviously Seafarer Exploration Corp believes there was a reason to pursue the Permits at Melbourne.
Otherwise, why spend the time, effort and $.
IMO....

[hedge_fun]

Judge Stephens told SFRX that in order…….

to win their case they would need to provide witnesses who sold their stock based on the defendants postings, and then the witnesses would need to explain why they didn’t buy back at lower prices when they realized the postings were false.

The lawsuit is almost 10 years old, and SFRX has yet to go to trial. They also haven’t provided a list of witnesses that could testify as Judge Stephens directed.

BTW, the defendant has counsel, and has had counsel since June 2021, as well as given SFRX notice of availability.

The defendant rightly explained to the giddy shareholders here that SFRX only had an Exploration Permit at Melbourne, not a Recovery Permit as SFRX claimed they had.

For a year SFRX filed with the SEC claiming they had a Recovery Permit at Melbourne, which wasn’t true. Then they claimed it was a Dig and ID Permit.

Thanks to me they finally got it right and correctly said it was an Exploration Permit, with a Dig and ID amendment.

Glad I could help, along with Mary from the FBAR. She explained to Kyle there were only two types of permits the FBAR issued.

[Raider21]

Quote: Exactly. Bless her heart. They both sound like they wear crocs and smoke Menthol 24/7.
__________________________

A rather unfair judgment I would say. Perhaps giddy profits are inclined to do this to one.

[RC62]

Interesting read ….

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, 2015, 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 which was heard on April 7, 2016, whereby the Court found a violation and modified the injunction against the Defendant, and imposed other matters of potential penalties against the Defendant. The Court also awarded attorney’s fees against the Defendant on behalf of Seafarer for such motion. The Defendant subsequently attempted to have such ruling, evidence and testimony attacked through a motion heard before the Court on October 24, 2016. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion after presentation of the Defendant’s case at the hearing. The Plaintiff has set the matter for entry of the attorney’s fees amount due from the Defendant for hearing in December 2016. As well the Plaintiff has set for hearing its motion for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees for frivolous filing of the October 24th motion, which motion is also set for hearing in December 2016. The Plaintiff filed a renewed and amended motion for punitive damages in the case on September 11, 2016, which has not been set for hearing. The Defendant had also filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter of notice entitlement pre-suit, which motion is pending before the Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendant for the motion for summary judgment being frivolous under existing law, and such motion is pending ruling on the motion. On December 7, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and essentially attempting to rehear the motion for contempt against the Defendant. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motions, and renewed the ability of the Company to seek attorney’s fees on such matter, which hearing has not been set at present. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company has filed a motion for punitive damages in March 2021 to be added to the cause of action and to be heard by the Court. The counsel for Volentine filed a motion to withdraw which was granted on March 7, 2021, and Volentine was given 60 days to obtain new counsel or proceed without such. The Company is seeking to get such matter to trial as soon as possible. Volentine, as of the date of this publication, has not obtained new counsel.

[hedge_fun]

Huge news! I’m loading first thing in…..

the am!

Maybe pre-market.

Thanks for the heads up!

[torr100]

See news release from sfrx

[torr100]

NEWS RELASE FROM SFRX
AT 3÷ 57 Pm
SFRX Announces Renewal of
Melbourne Beach Shipwreck
Site Permit Through 2027
SEE WEBSITE.

[hedge_fun]

Maybe one day you fellas can point......

to an accomplishment SFRX has made.

And maybe one day they'll get the tech they've claimed works for almost 5 years........developed.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

[LittleBirdin my Ear]

You mean:
" Trailer Trash " ???
LOL 😂

[Coolhand_Luke]

Exactly. Bless her heart. They both sound like they wear crocs and smoke Menthol 24/7.

[hedge_fun]

GMan remember the SeaSearcher tech was not fully complete at Melbourne as it is now.

I guess you missed this from Tuesday's filing.

Up to the date of this filing, all tests of new and unproven technology and methods have failed with the exception of the Company’s proprietary SeaSearcher device which is still in development.

See page 4: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983524000134/sfrx-10k.htm

I guess that's why they say there is a "strong possibility" there are no valuable artifacts at Juno.

I didn't need the tech to know that.

[IronChefQuezon]

Somebody had to call his wife for help lmao

[Southern Gal]

Been waiting…….

a decade for that supposed tv show to materialize

And more than a decade for them to come up with financially significant treasure.

But hey, now they have a fancy new Dustbuster that they can sell on Amazon to the millions of likely customers just waiting for such a miracle to appear.

[hedge_fun]

I thought you sounded Cajun, and I'm.....

sure you do.

New Orleans street performers make GOOD money...

I didn't think you would be happy with this part, and are the currents too strong for the tech?

Strong possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value? How can that be IF the tech works?

The Company will attempt to complete a SeaSearcher survey of the entire deleted area when certain conditions are met. While non-ferrous targets have been identified by the SeaSearcher, none of these targets have been exhumed yet. There is also a strong possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located at the Juno Beach shipwreck site. Even if there are valuable artifacts and/or treasure located at the site, recovering them may be difficult due to a variety of challenges that include, but are not limited to; inclement weather, hazardous ocean conditions, sand and significant overburden that cover large areas of the site, strong multiple layer currents, etc.

I remember, you only respond to intelligent people.

Thanks

[northofadollar]

I'm pretty sure "Admiralty Claim" will come up frequently on the TV show :)

[LittleBirdin my Ear]

Remember, Seafarer Exploration Corp has an "Admiralty Claim" for Juno.
Big Deal, IMO.

[Coolhand_Luke]

Just FYI: New Orleans street performers make GOOD money...But, be forewarned, they are VERY talented. I saw a guy hypnotize a cat. It was incredible. Bring your A game, if you come down here!

[hedge_fun]

This is what they filed 2 days ago......

regarding Juno. Look at it in light of today's news about the Melbourne permit, as well as what they have said about the tech.

Notice the deleted area of the mag survey at Juno has no cannons. And how can there be a strong possibility the nonferrous targets have no significant value?

From November 2017 until July 2021, the FBAR had requested that Seafarer submit new recovery permit applications on three separate occasions. Two of the recovery applications were denied for reasons Seafarer found objectionable. After submitting the third recovery application, the FBAR correctly determined that they did not have the authority to issue the recovery permit all along because the site was awarded exclusively to Seafarer by way of an Admiralty Claim. The Admiralty Claim was originally provided to FBAR in November 2017. However, FBAR delayed Seafarer’s operations from continuing in Juno Beach until July 2021, a period of approximately three years and eight months.

The Company believes it is possible the Juno Beach Shipwreck site may potentially contain remnants of a sunken 1500s era ship; however, the Company does not have definitive evidence of the ship’s country of origin. Due to the fact that the Company does not currently have sufficient data to positively identify the potential Juno Beach shipwreck, or its country of origin, it is not possible to determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the ship was originally carrying cargo of any significant value.

With data from the Master Site Plan from entries by a Florida state archaeologist from 1988 who has since retired, which the Company believes may have been intentionally withheld from it for several years, Seafarer believes that it is possible that a 1500s era shipwreck may be located within the Company’s Admiralty Claim at Juno Beach, although it is very possible that if the shipwreck is located it does not contain anything of value. The Company has determined that a large portion of the magnetometer survey of the Juno Beach Shipwreck site that was originally provided to the Company by a past partner on the site was intentionally deleted. Shipwreck material and remnants including pottery, cannon balls, musket balls, ballast stones, nails, spikes, wood and scattered pieces of a sunken ship have all been found in the deleted area of a magnetometer survey.

The Company will attempt to complete a SeaSearcher survey of the entire deleted area when certain conditions are met. While non-ferrous targets have been identified by the SeaSearcher, none of these targets have been exhumed yet. There is also a strong possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located at the Juno Beach shipwreck site. Even if there are valuable artifacts and/or treasure located at the site, recovering them may be difficult due to a variety of challenges that include, but are not limited to; inclement weather, hazardous ocean conditions, sand and significant overburden that cover large areas of the site, strong multiple layer currents, etc.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983524000134/sfrx-10k.htm

[northofadollar]

Oak Island has been a huge success without any treasure found for many years. How much more a new Oak Island type show with treasure right off the bat?? Then you add the way it was found with tech that allows them to pinpoint treasure quickly on other sites. Of course "permitted" sites just off Florida but also sites that need no FL permits further out.

[Dspetry]

https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SFRX/news/story?e&id=2809478

[Southern Gal]

I remember........

reading identical posts/sentiment years and years ago. Never happened and probably won't ever happen.