You're presenting SFRX as some sort of victim, which is quite amusing. Especially in light of what occurred leading up to the current lawsuit THEY filed.
First, this was the email the Defendant posted. Just so you know the same poster that posted excerpts from the original complaint less than 12 hours after it was filed, encourage the Defendant to contact Roger Smith, which he did. Posters were claiming SFRX had salvage rights, and SFRX even suggested salvage rights were guaranteed if they found 3 items. Call it "ancient" if you want, but a LIE is a LIE.
First, this is Smith's email. And he is scheduled to be deposed next month. Notice what I highlight in bold . It's all consistent with Florida statutes.
Seafarers Quest received a 1A-31 Exploration Permit. It does not allow for salvage or selling of artifacts, only investigation of targets located by remote sensing instruments. Issuance of an exploration permit does not guarantee future issuance of a recovery permit. If exploratory digging is required, additional permits from the Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required. Under supervision of the permitee’s archaeologist, remote sensing targets will be investigated and evaluated. The permit allows for minimal recovery of diagnostic artifact to accomplish this, but these materials remain in public ownership. Interim written reports by the archaeologist are sent to this agency for review and evaluation. After completion of this work (the permit is for three years), the permittee may apply for a Recovery Permit, which carries archaeological guidelines and requirements for treatment and conservation of artifacts, which may periodically be divided between the permittee and this agency.
Roger C. Smith, Ph.D.
State Underwater Archaeologist | Bureau of Archaeological Research | Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 1001 DeSoto Park Drive | Tallahassee, Florida 32301 | 850.245.6444 | Fax: 850.245.6452 | www.flheritage.com
Now notice what SFRX claims in direct response to the Defendant's post. They suggest they have an agreement to a recovery permit, but the current permit has no such provision. I will post it further down.
82. In the above section of the post, XXXX is untruthful here, and when he continuously reposts such matters, since the permit issued by the State of Florida is in two parts being a survey permit, and a dig and identify permit, with complete transition to a recovery permit under such agreements with the State. XXXX makes such untruths without due enquiry into the actual agreements in place or the status of such permits.
The Defendant did inquire (not enquire). And when he posted Smith's email, Smith was trashed as a "has been" at the FBAR and having no power in his position. In other words Smith didn't know what he was talking about.
Now we have the next item.
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 offact, 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.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270686345/Seafarer-Complaint
I posted an email from Jim Sinclair, who Seafarer hired as the project archaeologist for the current site. He knows nothing about gold coins ever being found on the current site. But in less than 12 hours after this complaint was filed, a poster was posting excerpts including item 83. This false information, according to Sinclair, was being hyped by someone who claims he was holding for $2.00.
Now here's a link to the current permit.....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/298727048/2014-07-...t-EXECUTED
You show me where they have an agreement in place for a transition to a recovery permit.
You show me this readily available info that proves gold coins were found on the current site and the Captain's wife's name was inscribed on platters found there.
Instead of complaining only one side is being told, show proof for the other side.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone. And I would imagine if someone could get a court filing and post it before it could have been ordered and received, they most certainly could get whatever documents SFRX has to prove their points.
But for some reason that info hasn't made it's way onto the pages here or at Ihub.
Yes, in a court of law both sides get to tell their story, but their is nothing preventing SFRX from proving their points here, and the info would be public anyway. So where is it?
If I were CEO and I truly believed false info was being posted, I would make sure the truth got out ASAP.
Perhaps it wasn't the Defendant's posts that made the stock price drop. Maybe it just SFRX's lack of credibility.
They have none, so it's rather hard to "defame" them. Kyle Kennedy let the Defendant down. He was LONG SFRX. He knew and stated it would be a long process, but the ad agency was suggesting treasure would be on deck in 30 days. And when he posted the truth, the scheme was being threatened.
But feel free to set the record straight. Show the agreement for a transition to a recovery permit. Tell the other side. I have no problem admitting I was wrong, but I need to see proof I am.
Knock yourself out.
First, this was the email the Defendant posted. Just so you know the same poster that posted excerpts from the original complaint less than 12 hours after it was filed, encourage the Defendant to contact Roger Smith, which he did. Posters were claiming SFRX had salvage rights, and SFRX even suggested salvage rights were guaranteed if they found 3 items. Call it "ancient" if you want, but a LIE is a LIE.
First, this is Smith's email. And he is scheduled to be deposed next month. Notice what I highlight in bold . It's all consistent with Florida statutes.
Seafarers Quest received a 1A-31 Exploration Permit. It does not allow for salvage or selling of artifacts, only investigation of targets located by remote sensing instruments. Issuance of an exploration permit does not guarantee future issuance of a recovery permit. If exploratory digging is required, additional permits from the Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required. Under supervision of the permitee’s archaeologist, remote sensing targets will be investigated and evaluated. The permit allows for minimal recovery of diagnostic artifact to accomplish this, but these materials remain in public ownership. Interim written reports by the archaeologist are sent to this agency for review and evaluation. After completion of this work (the permit is for three years), the permittee may apply for a Recovery Permit, which carries archaeological guidelines and requirements for treatment and conservation of artifacts, which may periodically be divided between the permittee and this agency.
Roger C. Smith, Ph.D.
State Underwater Archaeologist | Bureau of Archaeological Research | Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 1001 DeSoto Park Drive | Tallahassee, Florida 32301 | 850.245.6444 | Fax: 850.245.6452 | www.flheritage.com
Now notice what SFRX claims in direct response to the Defendant's post. They suggest they have an agreement to a recovery permit, but the current permit has no such provision. I will post it further down.
Quote:We got a dig and identify permit". That is great news, and if told truthfully it would have probably managed a small gain on the PPS. BUT - it had to be shrouded in mysterious wording with claims that led us to believe it was a Salvage Agreement. I got excited, but I called the state to ask ... and was told nope, just a 1 a-31 exploration permit
that did not grant or guarantee SFRX artifact ownership, division of treasure or 80-20 splits.
82. In the above section of the post, XXXX is untruthful here, and when he continuously reposts such matters, since the permit issued by the State of Florida is in two parts being a survey permit, and a dig and identify permit, with complete transition to a recovery permit under such agreements with the State. XXXX makes such untruths without due enquiry into the actual agreements in place or the status of such permits.
The Defendant did inquire (not enquire). And when he posted Smith's email, Smith was trashed as a "has been" at the FBAR and having no power in his position. In other words Smith didn't know what he was talking about.
Now we have the next item.
Quote: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.
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 offact, 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.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270686345/Seafarer-Complaint
I posted an email from Jim Sinclair, who Seafarer hired as the project archaeologist for the current site. He knows nothing about gold coins ever being found on the current site. But in less than 12 hours after this complaint was filed, a poster was posting excerpts including item 83. This false information, according to Sinclair, was being hyped by someone who claims he was holding for $2.00.
Now here's a link to the current permit.....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/298727048/2014-07-...t-EXECUTED
You show me where they have an agreement in place for a transition to a recovery permit.
You show me this readily available info that proves gold coins were found on the current site and the Captain's wife's name was inscribed on platters found there.
Instead of complaining only one side is being told, show proof for the other side.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone. And I would imagine if someone could get a court filing and post it before it could have been ordered and received, they most certainly could get whatever documents SFRX has to prove their points.
But for some reason that info hasn't made it's way onto the pages here or at Ihub.
Yes, in a court of law both sides get to tell their story, but their is nothing preventing SFRX from proving their points here, and the info would be public anyway. So where is it?
If I were CEO and I truly believed false info was being posted, I would make sure the truth got out ASAP.
Perhaps it wasn't the Defendant's posts that made the stock price drop. Maybe it just SFRX's lack of credibility.
They have none, so it's rather hard to "defame" them. Kyle Kennedy let the Defendant down. He was LONG SFRX. He knew and stated it would be a long process, but the ad agency was suggesting treasure would be on deck in 30 days. And when he posted the truth, the scheme was being threatened.
But feel free to set the record straight. Show the agreement for a transition to a recovery permit. Tell the other side. I have no problem admitting I was wrong, but I need to see proof I am.
Knock yourself out.
1
