Replies to post #71287 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[LittleBirdin my Ear]

Thanks as always for your posts here My Friend.
Hope to see you Very Soon in Florida !!!!
Have a Great Weekend ....

[hedge_fun]

PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM RULE 1A-31.0045

Petitioner, Seafarer Exploration, Inc. (“Seafarer”), by counsel and pursuant to Section
120.542, Florida Statutes and section 28-104, Florida Administrative Code, requests a variance
from Rule 1A-31.0045 of the Administrative Code to allow the Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources (the “Division”) to issue a 1A-31 Permit to Seafarer for the recovery and
salvage of artifacts in an area deemed to by the Division to be an archaeological research reserve.
In support of this Petition, Seafarer states:
I. Petitioner
1. Petitioner, Seafarer Exploration, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in shipwreck
exploration and salvage, primarily off the coast of Florida. The address and contact information
for Petitioner is:

Seafarer Exploration, Inc.
14497 N. Dale Mabry Highway,
Suite 209-N
Tampa, Florida 33618
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

2. The name, address, and contact information for Seafarer’s counsel is:
Anthony J. Cuva
David A. Hayes
Bajo | Cuva | Cohen | Turkel
100 N. Tampa St., Suite 1900
Tampa, Florida 33602
telephone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

II. The Rule for which Variance is Sought and the Statutes Implemented by the Rule
3. Seafarer requests a variance from Rule 1A-31.0045, Florida Administrative Code
(the “Rule”). In particular, Seafarer is seeking a variance from Rule 1A-31.0045(6) so that the
Division can issue a recovery and exploration permit to Seafarer in an area which the Division has
designated as an Archaeological Research Reserve.
4. The particular portion of the rule at issue states:
The division will issue permits for the following areas and sites:
* * *
(6) Areas of state jurisdiction such as State Parks, State Aquatic
Preserves, Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, State
Archaeological Landmarks, State Archaeological Landmark Zones,
Underwater Archaeological Preserves, Underwater Archaeological
Research Reserves;

5. The Rule is implementing sections 267.031(2), 267.061(1), and 267.11, Florida
Statutes.
III. Facts Demonstrating Entitlement to Variance
6. In 2008, Seafarer entered into an agreement with Tulco Resources, LLC (“Tulco”)
memorializing a joint venture related to exploration and salvage of various shipwreck sites.
Specific to this request, Tulco and its owner Jud Laird held the salvage rights to a shipwreck site
located off the coast of Juno Beach, Florida (the “Juno Beach Site”).
7. On November 4, 2008, Seafarer and Tulco entered into a one-year agreement with
the Division for research and the recovery of archaeological material related to the Juno Beach
Site (“Research and Recovery Agreement”).
8. The Research and Recovery Agreement acknowledged that Mr. Laird had rights to
the Juno Beach Site pursuant to an admiralty arrest, and that the site was unique in that the
admiralty arrest was filed prior to the enactment of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.
9. Further, the Research and Recovery Agreement also acknowledged that, due to the
unique circumstances of the Juno Beach Site, the archaeological and historical integrity of the site
was potentially in danger.
10. After performing under the Research and Recovery Agreement for one year, the
Division refused to renew the agreement. Claiming that the refusal to renew the Research and
Recovery Agreement was improper, Tulco and Seafarer filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing
to resolve issues related to the denial.
11. Tulco and Seafarer reached a settlement agreement with the Division in that
administrative proceeding. As a result of that settlement, Tulco and Seafarer jointly applied for
and were ultimately granted a 1A-31 Recovery Permit from the Division. The Permit was issued
on April 25, 2011 and was set to expire on April 25, 2014.
12. Shortly after the Permit was issued, the business relationship between Tulco and
Seafarer soured and Seafarer initiated a lawsuit against Tulco for violations of their joint venture
agreement. After extensive litigation, on March 3, 2015, the court entered a final Order of
Judgment transferring all contractual and permitting rights which existed in Tulco’s and Seafarer’s
names jointly to Seafarer alone.
13. After obtaining this order, Seafarer initiated an in rem Admiralty Claim against the
shipwreck at the Juno Beach Site to clarify in its rights with respect to the Juno Beach Site in light
of the state court case with Tulco. See Seafarer Exploration Corp. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked
Vessel, Case No. 9:15-cv-81260, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
14. On November 14, 2017, the District Court entered a Final Judgment determining,
among other things, that Seafarer has the “exclusive right to conduct recovery operations on the
[shipwrecked vessel] and any items recovered therefrom” at the Juno Beach Site (“Final
Judgment”).
15. Accordingly, pursuant to the Final Judgment, Seafarer is now the sole entity that
the right to conduct recovery operations at the Juno Beach Site. In fact, the Division’s rules
prohibit the Division from issuing a permit for this site to any other entity in light of the Final
Judgment. See Rule 1A-31.0045(8), Florida Administrative Code.
16. In addition to being the only entity with the right to conduct recovery operations at
the Juno Beach Site, Seafarer has the expertise, capability, and desire to conduct such operations.
The Division has acknowledged as much by entering into the Research and Recovery Agreement,
by issuing a prior permit for the Juno Beach Site to Seafarer, and by issuing permits to Seafarer
for other sites.
17. Although the Juno Beach Site is in an area deemed by the Division to be an
archaeological research reserve, the Division previously entered into the Research and Recovery
Agreement and issued a permit to Seafarer for this area, demonstrating the Division’s willingness
to allow operations in this location.
18. If exploration and recovery operations are not conducted, the archaeological and
historical integrity of the site could potentially be in danger—just as the Division acknowledged
in the Research and Recovery Agreement.
19. Accordingly, as the sole entity with the right to conduct exploration and recovery
operations and as an entity with the wherewithal to conduct such operations, Seafarer should be
granted a variance to allow Seafarer to conduct recovery operations at the Juno Beach Site—an
area that has been deemed an archaeological research reserve by the Division. If not, the
archaeological and historical integrity of the Juno Beach Site could be in danger.
20. Beyond the integrity of the site, a variance is also justified in this instance given the
substantial time, money, and resources that Seafarer has devoted to recovery operations at the Juno
Beach Site based on its prior history of working with the Division pursuant to the Research and
Recovery Agreement and the permit that was issued in 2011.
21. Based the foregoing facts, a variance in this situation is warranted.
IV. Variance will serve the Underlying Purpose of the Statute
22. The purpose of the statutes implemented by the Rule is to designate significant
archaeological sites to scientific study and research. Additionally, the statutes seek to preserve
and maintain the integrity of artifacts, treasure trove, and other objects that have intrinsic or
historical and archaeological value to the State of Florida. Granting Seafarer the requested
variance will help fulfill these purposes.
23. The Juno Beach Site is of historical and archaeological significance as it contains a
historical shipwreck. The Division acknowledged as much in the Research and Recovery
Agreement, and also acknowledged the need for urgent exploration of the site because, due to the
unique circumstances of the site, its archaeological and historical integrity was potentially in
danger.
24. As explained above, Seafarer is the sole entity with the right to conduct recovery
operations at the Juno Beach Site. Further, Seafarer has extensive experience and expertise in
locating, exploring, and salvaging shipwrecks, all while maintaining the integrity of the site.
Seafarer utilizes state-of-the-art equipment to assist in mapping archaeological sites and to located
and identify potential artifacts with minimal disruption. Seafarer also employs a team of
archaeologists, historians, and professional divers to assist in the investigation of archaeologically
significant sites. By virtue of the Research and Recovery Agreement, the Division has previously
acknowledged Seafarer’s expertise and capability in conducting recovery operations at this site.
25. Seafarer has always, and will continue to, work diligently with the Division to
conserve archaeological materials through their archaeological conservation facility.
26. If exploration and recovery operations are not conducted within the Juno Beach
Site, the archaeological and historical integrity of the site could potentially be in danger. Because
Seafarer has the capability and expertise to conduct operations at the site and because Seafarer is
the only entity with the right to conduct such operations at the site, it is only through a variance
that the purpose of the underlying statute can be achieved. Indeed, Seafarer will work diligently
to maintain the integrity of the site, while simultaneously facilitating the study and research of the
site and any recovered artifacts by working closely with the Division.
V. Type of Variance Requested
27. Seafarer is seeking a temporary variance from the Rule for a period of three years
that begins on the issue date of a recovery permit and ends on the expiration date of that permit.
28. Seafarer reserves its right to seek a modification or extension of the variance.
VI. Type of Action Requested
29. Seafarer has an Admiralty award and federal court order that grants Seafarer the
exclusive right to conduct recovery operations within the entire Juno Beach Site, and it intends to
continue its exploration of that entire area. However, in an effort to narrow the scope of the
variance, Seafarer respectfully requests a variance from Rule 1A-31.0045(6) that will allow
Seafarer to obtain an exploration and recovery permit from the Division for the following limited
area:

The requested variance site starts at the Northwest corner at
N26°54.00’ and W80°02.00’ and proceeds to the Northeast corner
at N26°54.00’ and W80°01.00’, then proceeds to the Southeast
corner at N26°51.07’ and W80°01.00’, then to the Southwest corner
at N26°51.07’ and W80°02.00’.

A chart identifying this boundary is attached as Exhibit A.
30. Seafarer is prepared to promptly submit its permit application consistent with this
requested variance.
31. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seafarer reserves its right to seek subsequent
variances to allow for additional exploration and recovery in the remainder of the Juno Beach Site,
which Seafarer intends on continuing to explore.
32. A copy of this petition is being delivered to the Joint Administrative Procedures
Committee, Room 680, Pepper Building, 111 W. Madison Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
1400.

Dated July 24, 2020. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony J. Cuva
Anthony J. Cuva
Florida Bar No. 896251
Email: [e-mail]
David A. Hayes
Florida Bar No. 96657
Email: [e-mail]
BAJO | CUVA | COHEN | TURKEL
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

[hedge_fun]

TAMPA, Fla., July 19, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Seafarer Exploration Corp. (OTCQB: SFRX) announced today they have received from the Florida Department of State a notice of lack of authority to permit or deny recovery activities on the unidentified shipwreck on Juno Beach. The Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (the “Bureau”), Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State stated to Seafarer “The shipwreck is non-permittable pursuant to Rule 1A-31.0045(2), F.A.C.”

Since the state lacks the authority to permit or deny recovery activities, is that why the Corp is refusing to sign off? Does the Corp require the state to issue a permit before they will?

Non-permittable?

Just askin'

Apparently, Kyle didn't tell you Juno was in a reserve area.

And doesn't a variance for an area mean that area is, in fact, not in a reserve?

Did he tell you which Fisher it was that fed him a line of BS about Juno?

Happy Friday!!!

[LittleBirdin my Ear]

Thoughts and Prayers for those in Florida and other areas potentially affected by the hurricane Idalia.