And I thought Kyle was a Drama Queen. SFRX didn't
Post# of 7795
Posted On: 09/29/2015 8:02:54 PM
Re: To the Moon #1657
And I thought Kyle was a Drama Queen. SFRX didn't know the CEO was dead until a month before the permit expired. The poster, who like a LONG LIST OF SFRX SHAREHOLDERS obviously hadn't read the filings and was suggesting SFRX let it expire.This is EXACTLY what the poster posted......
That's what I was responding to. If he had read the filings he would know the permit was NEVER in SFRX's name.
That's an UNINFORMED statement. That's what I was correcting. And if SFRX's share price is as vulnerable as you make it out to be, maybe instead of whining people should look elsewhere to invest instead of trying to send veiled threats about ANOTHER lawsuit. No one is afraid of a SFRX lawsuit........I assure you.
Now here's the skinny on Juno as of April 2014. And yes, the past spring they got full rights per the court order, but this is where they were at the time the permit expired.
Juno Beach Shipwreck Site
The Company has previously performed exploration and recovery operations at what it believes to be a shipwreck site located off of the coast of Florida in northern Palm Beach County, more specifically in an area known as “Juno Beach” (the “Juno Beach Shipwreck”). The Company believes that it is possible that the Juno Beach shipwreck site may potentially contain remnants of a sunken Spanish 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 whether or not the ship was originally carrying cargo of any significant value. Only remnants and scattered pieces of a sunken ship have been located to date, no main shipwreck body has been located. It is also possible that a ship began to break up on the site but the body of the ship actually sank in another area that is outside of the designated Juno Beach site and all that was left on the Juno Beach site were scattered remnants of the original ship that have little or no archeological or actual value. There is a possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located on the Juno Beach shipwreck site. The chance that the Company will ultimately recover valuable artifacts or treasure from the Juno Beach shipwreck site is very remote.
Furthermore, many of the historical ships from the 1500s to the 1700s that sank off of the coast of Florida were not carrying treasure or other valuable cargo. It is possible that the cargo the ship was originally carrying, if any, had little or no value at the time that the ship sank. Many ships of this period were supply ships that carried cargo such as food stores, water, supplies, etc., and if found, this type of cargo would more than likely be completely worthless in modern times.
The Company’s exploration and recovery activities at the Juno Beach site were limited in 2013 due to some repair and maintenance issues with its main salvage vessel and a lack of financing. So far in 2014, the Company has performed some limited exploration and salvage activities as the weather has permitted.
Additionally, there is a very large amount of sand covering portions of the Juno Beach Shipwreck site and in the highly unlikely scenario that there are valuable artifacts located on the site it may be extremely challenging or impossible to recover them due to the degree of difficulty in being able to dig deep enough under the sand to access them. There is a very strong possibility that the Company will never recover any artifacts or cargo of any significant value from the Juno Beach Shipwreck site.
The Company and Tulco renewed their Exploration Agreement regarding the Juno Beach Shipwreck site in June of 2010.
Even though the Company had an Agreement with Tulco for the Exploration of the Juno Beach site through June 8, 2013, the Company is uncertain as to whether Tulco plans to renew this Exploration Agreement. Tulco did not cash the check that the Company paid under the terms of the Exploration Agreement in 2012. The Company has not paid Tulco the $20,000 fee due in January 2013 as contemplated in the Exploration Agreement and does not intend to make the payment until legal counsel is able to determine Tulco’s intent with regard to the Exploration Agreement. Tulco has not provided any conservation services as required under the Exploration Agreement. The Company has previously received correspondence from Tulco’s legal counsel demanding that the Company pay additional fees that are not in the Exploration Agreement and that the Company turn over artifacts to Tulco. Tulco has stated that if the Company does not meet its demands then Tulco will seek other groups to work at the Juno Beach site and that it will terminate its agreement with the Company and Tulco has also threatened to take legal action against the Company. The original three year term of the Exploration Agreement was valid until June 8, 2013 and both Seafarer and Tulco had the option to extend the agreement for an additional three years. There have been no discussions between Tulco and Seafarer to extend the Exploration Agreement. It is possible that Tulco may claim that the Exploration Agreement is no longer valid and therefore the Company has no further rights to explore and salvage the Juno Beach site.
On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 through April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer expects to have such final judgment within 90 days of March 1, 2014, unless another party or person responds to such lawsuit, including publication of such matter under Florida law.
As previously noted on its form 8-K filed on May 9, 2011, the Company and Tulco received a Recovery Permit from the Florida Division of Historical Resources. The Recovery Permit is active through April 25, 2014. The Permit authorizes Seafarer to dig and recover artifacts from the designated site at Juno Beach, Florida.
The Company has performed limited exploration and salvage activities at the Juno Beach site in 2014. It is possible that in the future, the Company will only be able to sporadically explore and salvage the Juno Beach site due to vessel repairs and a lack of financing. There may be extended periods of down time where the Company is not performing any operations at the site.
The Juno Beach Shipwreck site is an extremely speculative and highly risky project as far as the potential for the Company to ever locate valuable artifacts or treasure. Although the Company has recovered various artifacts that it believes are interesting, it has not located artifacts and/or treasure of any significant value from the Juno Beach Shipwreck site. There is also 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 extremely difficult or impossible due to a variety of challenges that include, but are not limited to; inclement weather, hazardous ocean conditions, large amounts of sand that cover large areas of the site, lack the necessary equipment to be able to dig deep enough into the sand, ongoing maintenance and repair issues with the Company’s main salvage vessel, permitting issues and/or a lack of financing, etc.
Moreover, the Company does not currently have sufficient data to positively identify the potential Juno Beach shipwreck, or its country of origin, and it is therefore not possible to determine whether or not the ship was originally carrying cargo of any significant value. Only remnants and scattered pieces of a sunken ship have been located to date; no main shipwreck body has been located. It is also possible that a ship began to break up on the site but the main body of the ship actually sank in another area that is outside of the designated Juno Beach site area and all that was left on the Juno Beach site were scattered remnants of the original ship that have little or no archeological or actual value. There is a possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located on the Juno Beach shipwreck site. The chance that the Company will ultimately recover valuable artifacts or treasure from the Juno Beach shipwreck site is very unlikely, however the possibility exists.
Have a nice evening........
Quote:
They let the permit expire and then looked like they were moving on. But that blanked out areas came into play, and they started working on getting the permit back, but only in their name.
That's what I was responding to. If he had read the filings he would know the permit was NEVER in SFRX's name.
Quote:
but only in their name.
That's an UNINFORMED statement. That's what I was correcting. And if SFRX's share price is as vulnerable as you make it out to be, maybe instead of whining people should look elsewhere to invest instead of trying to send veiled threats about ANOTHER lawsuit. No one is afraid of a SFRX lawsuit........I assure you.
Now here's the skinny on Juno as of April 2014. And yes, the past spring they got full rights per the court order, but this is where they were at the time the permit expired.
Juno Beach Shipwreck Site
The Company has previously performed exploration and recovery operations at what it believes to be a shipwreck site located off of the coast of Florida in northern Palm Beach County, more specifically in an area known as “Juno Beach” (the “Juno Beach Shipwreck”). The Company believes that it is possible that the Juno Beach shipwreck site may potentially contain remnants of a sunken Spanish 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 whether or not the ship was originally carrying cargo of any significant value. Only remnants and scattered pieces of a sunken ship have been located to date, no main shipwreck body has been located. It is also possible that a ship began to break up on the site but the body of the ship actually sank in another area that is outside of the designated Juno Beach site and all that was left on the Juno Beach site were scattered remnants of the original ship that have little or no archeological or actual value. There is a possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located on the Juno Beach shipwreck site. The chance that the Company will ultimately recover valuable artifacts or treasure from the Juno Beach shipwreck site is very remote.
Furthermore, many of the historical ships from the 1500s to the 1700s that sank off of the coast of Florida were not carrying treasure or other valuable cargo. It is possible that the cargo the ship was originally carrying, if any, had little or no value at the time that the ship sank. Many ships of this period were supply ships that carried cargo such as food stores, water, supplies, etc., and if found, this type of cargo would more than likely be completely worthless in modern times.
The Company’s exploration and recovery activities at the Juno Beach site were limited in 2013 due to some repair and maintenance issues with its main salvage vessel and a lack of financing. So far in 2014, the Company has performed some limited exploration and salvage activities as the weather has permitted.
Additionally, there is a very large amount of sand covering portions of the Juno Beach Shipwreck site and in the highly unlikely scenario that there are valuable artifacts located on the site it may be extremely challenging or impossible to recover them due to the degree of difficulty in being able to dig deep enough under the sand to access them. There is a very strong possibility that the Company will never recover any artifacts or cargo of any significant value from the Juno Beach Shipwreck site.
The Company and Tulco renewed their Exploration Agreement regarding the Juno Beach Shipwreck site in June of 2010.
Even though the Company had an Agreement with Tulco for the Exploration of the Juno Beach site through June 8, 2013, the Company is uncertain as to whether Tulco plans to renew this Exploration Agreement. Tulco did not cash the check that the Company paid under the terms of the Exploration Agreement in 2012. The Company has not paid Tulco the $20,000 fee due in January 2013 as contemplated in the Exploration Agreement and does not intend to make the payment until legal counsel is able to determine Tulco’s intent with regard to the Exploration Agreement. Tulco has not provided any conservation services as required under the Exploration Agreement. The Company has previously received correspondence from Tulco’s legal counsel demanding that the Company pay additional fees that are not in the Exploration Agreement and that the Company turn over artifacts to Tulco. Tulco has stated that if the Company does not meet its demands then Tulco will seek other groups to work at the Juno Beach site and that it will terminate its agreement with the Company and Tulco has also threatened to take legal action against the Company. The original three year term of the Exploration Agreement was valid until June 8, 2013 and both Seafarer and Tulco had the option to extend the agreement for an additional three years. There have been no discussions between Tulco and Seafarer to extend the Exploration Agreement. It is possible that Tulco may claim that the Exploration Agreement is no longer valid and therefore the Company has no further rights to explore and salvage the Juno Beach site.
On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 through April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer expects to have such final judgment within 90 days of March 1, 2014, unless another party or person responds to such lawsuit, including publication of such matter under Florida law.
As previously noted on its form 8-K filed on May 9, 2011, the Company and Tulco received a Recovery Permit from the Florida Division of Historical Resources. The Recovery Permit is active through April 25, 2014. The Permit authorizes Seafarer to dig and recover artifacts from the designated site at Juno Beach, Florida.
The Company has performed limited exploration and salvage activities at the Juno Beach site in 2014. It is possible that in the future, the Company will only be able to sporadically explore and salvage the Juno Beach site due to vessel repairs and a lack of financing. There may be extended periods of down time where the Company is not performing any operations at the site.
The Juno Beach Shipwreck site is an extremely speculative and highly risky project as far as the potential for the Company to ever locate valuable artifacts or treasure. Although the Company has recovered various artifacts that it believes are interesting, it has not located artifacts and/or treasure of any significant value from the Juno Beach Shipwreck site. There is also 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 extremely difficult or impossible due to a variety of challenges that include, but are not limited to; inclement weather, hazardous ocean conditions, large amounts of sand that cover large areas of the site, lack the necessary equipment to be able to dig deep enough into the sand, ongoing maintenance and repair issues with the Company’s main salvage vessel, permitting issues and/or a lack of financing, etc.
Moreover, the Company does not currently have sufficient data to positively identify the potential Juno Beach shipwreck, or its country of origin, and it is therefore not possible to determine whether or not the ship was originally carrying cargo of any significant value. Only remnants and scattered pieces of a sunken ship have been located to date; no main shipwreck body has been located. It is also possible that a ship began to break up on the site but the main body of the ship actually sank in another area that is outside of the designated Juno Beach site area and all that was left on the Juno Beach site were scattered remnants of the original ship that have little or no archeological or actual value. There is a possibility that there are no artifacts of significant value located on the Juno Beach shipwreck site. The chance that the Company will ultimately recover valuable artifacts or treasure from the Juno Beach shipwreck site is very unlikely, however the possibility exists.
Have a nice evening........
(0)
(0)Seafarer Exploration (SFRX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼