Wrong again Convict. Mary was referring to simply
Post# of 7802
Posted On: 06/22/2016 6:38:33 AM
Wrong again Convict. Mary was referring to simply identifying evidence that a ship had been found. She did not specify the ship must be "named" - those were your words you added to twist the facts in your favor like you always do. If identifying a ship's name was required for a recovery permit they would not have received a recovery permit for the Juno site as was also discussed in the deposition.
Excerpt from the deposition between Mr. Kidd and Mary, page 70:
21 Q. Did Seafarer ever have a recovery permit?
22 MR. FUGETT: Object to form.
23 THE WITNESS: In association with Tulco, yes.
24 There was a recovery permit.
And another quote from Mary on page 66:
THE WITNESS: We allow minimal recovery of
artifacts in consultation with our office in order
to identify evidence of a shipwreck.
And yet another exchange between Huffman and Mary proving your unending twisted manipulation of information in order to harm the company:
Q. Okay. As of February 14th, 2016, at
22 5:32 p.m., to your knowledge did Seafarer have any
23 permits under 1A-31 with your bureau?
24 A. Yes.
Here is your lying post where you state the opposite:
Excerpt from the deposition between Mr. Kidd and Mary, page 70:
21 Q. Did Seafarer ever have a recovery permit?
22 MR. FUGETT: Object to form.
23 THE WITNESS: In association with Tulco, yes.
24 There was a recovery permit.
And another quote from Mary on page 66:
THE WITNESS: We allow minimal recovery of
artifacts in consultation with our office in order
to identify evidence of a shipwreck.
And yet another exchange between Huffman and Mary proving your unending twisted manipulation of information in order to harm the company:
Q. Okay. As of February 14th, 2016, at
22 5:32 p.m., to your knowledge did Seafarer have any
23 permits under 1A-31 with your bureau?
24 A. Yes.
Here is your lying post where you state the opposite:
(6)
(0)