Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

SFRX ~ A History of Several False Statements......w/LINKS!

Now some have said these documented occurrences should all be dismissed simply as a typos, which is why I am posting links, so you can see for yourself.

SFRX's CEO claimed, under an amended exploration permit that they had recovered 2 of 3 items needed for a recovery permit, but the Bureau told the CEO that PR was FALSE, yet that PR is still on SFRX's website to this day.

Mr. Kennedy continued,...We have moved significantly closer to providing the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research two of the three pieces needed for conversion of our dig and identify permit to a full recovery permit.”

http://seafarerexplorationcorp.com/news/exciting-artifacts-pulled-up-during-first-melbourne-beach-dive/

This document below was obtained through discovery in their current lawsuit with an Ihub member. Dr. Glowacki explains to Kyle that they have no such agreement, as described in the PR linked above with the state.

See item 7: https://www.scribd.com/doc/315053337/Email-Aug-27-15


In the email linked above, Kyle is told by Dr. Glowacki that they were issued an Exploration Permit, which by definition does not allow transfer title on items recovered. For several filings they filed false statements with the SEC regarding said exploration permit and called it a recovery permit.

On July 28, 2014 Seafarer’s Quest, LLC received a 1A-31 Recovery Permit (the “Permit”) from the Florida Division of Historical Resources for an area identified off of Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Permit is active for three years from the date of issuance.

8-15-14
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983514000418/seafarer_10q-16107.htm

11-14-14
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983514000581/seafarer_10q-16212.htm

3-31-15
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983515000091/seafarer_10k-06335.htm

5-15-15
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1106213/000119983515000195/seafarer_10q-16411.htm


Further, in the link below see item 82. It is the original complaint filed against an Ihub member. They claimed they have "complete transition to a recovery permit" which as Dr. Glowacki said, was not true. No correction was ever filed with the Court.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/281084501/SFRX-v-Volentine

They also made false claims about an Ihub member in the complaint above. They claimed to a Court the Ihub member, as a Mod, banned posters, which can’t be done on a specific stock board. It is repeated no less than 3 times in this court filing. See item 13, 35, and 66.

If he could have done that, then why wouldn't he have banned every posters and had the board all to himself?

Finally, in the link above see item 58. They claimed the poster caused them to lose contracts (plural), but during discovery admitted they had not. See item 14 in the link below.

https://www.scribd.com/document/270687669/Seafarer-Response-Volentine-First-Interrogatory-Response-6-15-15

So was it a typo to say 2 of 3 items needed per their agreement?

Or call an exploration permit a recovery permit?

Or say Mods can ban posters?

Or say you lost contract when you didn't?