Replies to post #46406 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

The info came from SFRX/Huffman. It's rather.....

obvious which site is being talked about. Juno isn't site 3.

The Defendant posted.....

1) Site 3 is a KNOWN TREASURE SITE - Problem, no treasure has ever been pulled from it, a pistol, a cannon, a platter ... great but a treasure wreck has stacks of bars and chests full of silver and gold, not a platter. The platter, while very nice, could have been traveling on any ship. Almost every ship afloat had nice dining wares in the captains quarters, a single silver platter does not make a treasure galleon.

And SFRX made this claim about the site and the post content above in the original complaint.


83. In actuality to the above portion of the post, there was readily available information to XXXX that there was treasure in the form of actual coins from such wreck that is the subject of such site. As a matter of fact, it was one of SEAFARER's actual archaeologists who made recoveries on such site. And in fact there were three platters that were found on such site, which included the name of the wife of the very Captain of the ship being pursued. All such matters are were publicly available from the State of Florida records that were publicly available. The site in issue is a known site, far removed from the falsities that XXXX posts.

Are you suggesting this isn't a SFRX filing?: https://www.scribd.com/doc/281084501/SFRX-v-Volentine

Also, are you saying coins weren't found on the site?