Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Wow...I haven't been around for a long time. I can't believe I still see a lot of the same names. Hello to those I used to chat with. Looks like even the people that got banned are back on the board. Are they on the verge of finding anything?
What are the SFRX outstanding shares up to?
I assume SFRX hasn't found treasure yet. Did SFRX find anything? Any new sites on the horizon? Are they still diving?
Are there more SFRX lawsuits?
What happened with the SFRX lawsuit on that guy buc?
I haven't been around for a long time. Anyone want to give me an update on what has happened with SFRX in the last year or so? I am too lazy to go back though and read the previous posts.
Seafarer Gains Federal Admiralty Judgment on Juno Beach Site
TAMPA, Fla., Nov. 21, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Seafarer Exploration Corporation (OTCQB: SFRX), a company focused on archaeologically sensitive exploration, research and recovery of historic shipwrecks is pleased to announce that Seafarer has been granted, through the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a final judgment for its federal admiralty claim on the Juno Beach site.
Kyle Kennedy, CEO of Seafarer, stated, "I am very pleased to have this leg of the journey complete after 2 years of detailed legal work as requested by the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. While we now will file for a renewal of our recovery permit with the Bureau, the history of the continuous admiralty claims for the site gives us certain rights under Federal law. It will be exciting to receive our recovery permit and investigate the vastly undiscovered and approximately one-square-mile area in the deepest part of the site which was previously deleted from the magnetometer survey."
Mr. Kennedy further commented, "This year we have had to face challenges due to lengthy repair issues including some damage by Hurricane Irma to the Iron Maiden, our primary investigation vessel. I feel we have replaced and rewired the entire ship during a period of time which could have been very beneficial to the company and shareholders. We will now make best use of her on days the waves permit."
Additionally, Mr. Kennedy commented, "We have made good forward progress exploring and testing new technology to better identify buried artifacts. If anyone has a proven technology they would further like to test, please contact the company. The science and technology available today may very well eclipse what predecessors in the industry had access to. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Robert Baer who has written an archaeological research paper on our Melbourne Beach site which will inform shareholders on the history and potential of the site." The report can be found on Facebook and Seafarer's website.
About Seafarer Exploration:
Seafarer Exploration Corp. is a publicly traded underwater salvage and exploration company traded under the symbol SFRX. The principal business of the company is to develop the infrastructure necessary to engage in the archaeologically-sensitive research, documentation, exploration and recovery of historic shipwrecks. The company has secured multiple sites it believes contain historic and valuable shipwrecks. The company will use accepted archaeological methods to properly document, research and recover portions of the wrecks. Seafarer employs scientists and historians and is committed to preserving the cultural and historical significance of every wreck it finds. www.seafarercorp.com
Disclaimer:
The press release may include certain statements that are not descriptions of historical facts but are forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements may include the description of our plans and objectives for future operations, assumptions underlying such plans and objectives, and other forward-looking terminology such as "may," "expects," "believes," "anticipates," "intends," "projects," or similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of such terms. There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements made herein. Such information is based upon various assumptions made by, and expectations of, our management that were reasonable when made but may prove to be incorrect. All of such assumptions are inherently subject to significant economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies beyond our control and upon assumptions with respect to the future business decisions which are subject to change. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that actual results will meet expectation and actual results may vary (perhaps materially) from certain of the results anticipated herein.
Contact:
Kyle Kennedy
(813) 448-3577
SOURCE Seafarer Exploration Corp.
Related Links
http://seafarercorp.com
Not that this case really matters, but does anyone know what the below is all about?
01/04/2016
SUBPOENA ISSUED
Party: Defendant
01/08/2016
LETTER TO JUDGE FROM DARRELL VOLENTINE
Party: Defendant
01/15/2016
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
DEFENDANTS VERIFIED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY CRAIG HUFFMAN AND CLEARTRUST LLC / WITH EXHIBITS
Party: Defendant
01/15/2016
SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED ON ACCELL AUDIT AND COMPLIANCE P.A. - 1/8/16
I haven't read posts on the board for a long time, so if someone already posted this or answered it already, I am sorry for the repeat information. The only edit to this from the website was taking out the name of the defendant.
jrf30...don't let those people get to you. I always look forward to your updates.
I haven't been on here for a long time, but I just read up on the posts and seems like not much has changed. It always takes longer than we want for permits to be issued. I did look at the docket and found this interesting:
12/06/2015
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
OF COURT AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION
12/06/2015
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT A
12/06/2015
UNSIGNED ORDER FILED
It was filed by SFRX. I sure wouldn't want that filed against me. That sophisticated defendant better have brought his A game today.
Someone continually alleges that lenders and/or the company are involved in a pump and dump. Then they allege that those same investors are mad that KK lied to them about various things. If these lenders were involved in this alleged pump and dump why would they be mad if certain things didn't happen??? They would have been in on the pump all along and would have known that those things weren't really going to happen. Those lenders should not care, because they would have sold into the buying. Even if they were restricted shares, they would have had plenty of time to let the restriction expire and then sell.
LOL...DUE DILIGENCE. LOLZZZZZZZ
Capted...AGREED.
Ouch. That is just sad. I am glad I never bought any of this. I feel sorry for those that did.
Yes, I shall study that.
This should be studied.
You are free to feel that way.
new2you...I know what it is like to only be able to post once per day about SFRX, so I am honored that you would use your one post to say that you enjoyed my post.
I am in no rush either. If this takes five more days or five more years it is no big deal to me. Big buccs no whammies!
Still waiting for that return e mail huh? GL with that. My advice involves holding breath.
If an investor's dd shows that SFRX can't dive and doesn't have the permits to do anything then that is what that investor should base their investing decisions on. However, if other investors dd shows that they can dive then those investors should invest accordingly. And if someone sees them out there with their own eyes, I don't think the dd gets any better than that.
This is my opinion. Only worth a bucc or a bucc 2.0.
Let me get this straight. An investor wants all kinds of information spoon fed to them about SFRX. Someone is kind enough and offers to introduce the investor to KK where they can get all of the answers they want. However, that is not good enough for the investor. Reminds me of a movie quote:
I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a d@mn what you think you are entitled to.
SCM...investors with these questions should do some basic dd. These are easy questions to find answers to. And even if I answered it the next request would be for the link. So investors should just do their own dd. Then they can decide whether to invest, not invest or just ask the same questions over and over again.
I wonder who it was issued to.
See post 42223.
SCM...I don't need to educate someone with the dd that I have done on SFRX. I don't need to provide links about SFRX for anyone. I am completely fine if another investor thinks they have the correct information and it doesn't match what information I have found about SFRX. It is not my job to make sure they know everything I know about SFRX. I am sure there are other people out there that know MUCH more than I do. Maybe one of them will feel bad for a lost investor and give them links and information. I doubt it, but it might just happen.
SCM...investors should base their investing decisions on their own due diligence. If dd tells an investor that SFRX doesn't have the right permits then that investor should make their decisions accordingly. My dd doesn't jive with yours, but all investors are free to make their own decisions.
Right on NOAD. Sometimes you have to be careful who your "friends" are. I heard an expression that if you sleep with the dogs you can end up with flees. Seems appropriate in this instance.
SCM...please name one permit that KK and crew have gone after that they have not received. I have been here a long time and I do not know of one permit that they needed that they did not secure. It always takes longer than I want it to and sometimes they have to go to court to get it, but beating this drum about not having the permits they need is a waste of time. They have the necessary permits to do what they are doing and when the time comes to seek additional permits or amend current ones they will do so at that time and their success rate so far leads me to believe they will be able to get them.
HOT SPURS...any update you can provide would be much appreciated.
Looks like .0064 got hit.
capted,
I would be happy to see that information that you referred to in your post. I am no expert, but how could it be inside info when it did not even come from SFRX or originate from SFRX. If that was the case then all research would be insider info no matter who did the research. You can e mail or PM it to me if you don't want to put it on the board. Would love to hear anything else that you learned at the cookout.
Yes it would NOAD.
I would do my own due diligence instead of asking for the information on a board.
Hey GTG, I haven't posted here in a while, because this SFRX board seems to just go in circles with the vendettas for one reason or another. Seems like SFRX will be able to copy and paste their compliant on any new offender and not have to spend as much money on attorney fees. Why wouldn't SFRX do it a third time if they have already done it successfully twice? Your post is dead on and I fully support SFRX going after anyone that attempts to tarnish its reputation.
GO SFRX!
Thanks capted.
capted...I could not read that article. Can you copy and paste it into a post?
Am I reading that link correctly? I was always told the approved shares were 75M shares and now it appears to be 2.85B???
Can anyone comment on that?