Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

Filing 266

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 8 January 2009 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo. Court Reporter/Transcriber Linda Starr,Telephone number 8133015252. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 12/10/2009, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/21/2009, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/17/2010. (LS)

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

Doc. 266

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 1 of 22

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Odyssey Marine Exploration, Plaintiff, v s. CASE NO . 8 :07 -CV -6 1 4-T -23 MAP 8 JANUARY 2009 T A M P A, FLORIDA P A G E S 1 - 22

The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 8 Defendant. 9 v. 10 C l a i m a n t Kingdom of Spain 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings recorded a n d transcribed by computer -aided stenography . TRANSCRIPT OF S T A T U S CONFERENCE B E F O R E THE HONORABLE MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner : Allen K. Von Spiegelfeld Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A . 5 0 1 E. Kennedy Suite 1500 T a m p a, FL 33602 Melinda Joy MacConnel O 'Brien Bower , P A Bayshore Executive Center 5 1 1 W B a y St, Suite 3 3 0 T a m p a, FL 33606- 3533 M r. Greg S t e m m

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 2 of 22

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

For the Defendant :

James Goold Covington & Burling , LLP 1201 Pennsylvania A v e NW Washington , D C 2 0 0 0 4-2401 David Christopher Banker Bush Ross, PA 1801 N Highland Ave P O Box 3913 T a m p a, FL 33601- 3913 Mark Maney Maney Firm 711 Louisiana Suite 3100 Houston , T X 7 7 0 0 2-2711 Timothy Peter Shusta Phelps Dunbar , LLP Suite 1900 1 0 0 S A s h l e y Dr T a m p a, FL 33602- 5315

Court Reporter: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

L i n d a S t a r r, RPR Official Court Reporter 8 0 1 N. Florida Avenue S u i t e 1 3B T a m p a, Florida 3 3 6 0 2

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 3 of 22

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(Call to order of t h e C o u r t.) T H E C O U R T: Thank y o u. Please b e seated. We

have o u r next Odyssey case, T h e Odyssey Marine Exploration, I n c., plaintiff, versus T h e Unidentified Shipwrecked V e s s e l a n d t h e various claimants involved in this m a t t e r. Case N u m b e r 07 Civil 6 1 4-T- 23M A P. please announce their appearances . MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: Allen Von Spiegelfeld. This i s Will counsel

A n d I have Melinda MacConnel a nd Mr. Greg Stemm with me. MR . M A N E Y: Mark Maney and Mr . T i m Shusta f o r

t h e Republic of Peru. MR . H O R A N: claimants. T H E C O U R T: MR . G O O L D: T H E C O U R T: Thank y o u. J i m G o o l d, David Banker f o r S p a i n. Thank y o u. A n d M r. Horan, since David Paul Horan for t h e

y o u're appearing here by telephone, if y o u would p l e a s e just s i m p l y be patient with u s a n d hopefully we will n o t lose y o u. A n d if we do, well, I d o n't W e'l l just proceed without

know what we 'll do then.

y o u, b u t we' ll f i g u r e it o u t. MR . H O R A N: T H E C O U R T: A l l r i g h t. But you could call our chambers

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 4 of 22

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and s e e w h e r e w e a r e. I had to s a y that I had some hesitancy about even scheduling a s t a t u s hearing in this case because - - because much of what n e e d s t o b e done is still in t h e process of being done. But in

endeavoring to be a full service court a n d being customer friendly, t h e parties wante d a status conference, so -- at least some o f t h e parties wanted a s t a t u s conference as it w a s explained t o m e by my l a w clerk , a n d so we' ve scheduled a s t a t u s conference. A n d I 'm not sure -- I t h i n k i t w a s counsel f o r t h e Republic of Peru w h o w a s a s k i n g f o r a s t a t u s conference. But since w e have everybody here , i s

there an abridged version a s t o w h e r e w e a r e in this case? MR . G O O L D: T H E C O U R T: MR . G O O L D: process. T H E C O U R T: MR . G O O L D: For the briefing process, perhaps. I' ll be glad when January 27 rolls I' ll start. Well , t h e end is --

D o n't s a y that , M r. Goold. -- near as far as t h e b r i e f i n g

a r o u n d a n d I 've seen t h e confirmation o n t h e s c r e e n that the papers being done for that day have come through.

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 5 of 22

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A n d o t h e r than that, I' m here because -- I didn't o p p o s e t h e request because I didn't think it was worth fighting about and I was going t o b e here , anyway. I have no -- I have n o a g e n d a other than t o

f i n i s h as rapidly as possible and g e t back to work on t h e b r i e f s I 've g o t t o d o b y t h e e n d of t h e month. MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: F o r Odyssey, we' re not W e'd like

t o o f a r away from Mr. Goold 's position.

to s e e this m o v i n g along as quickly as possible. O n e of t h e i s s u e s that h a s come u p i s t h e fact that there a r e -- we 're continuing to g e t calls from potential claimants, a n d we would like to be able t o file a notice o f a n end date for filing, something, because otherwise this c o u l d g o o n i ndefinitely with n e w claimants c o m i n g in. T h e time h a s r u n for claimants, theoretically. We have n o t moved f o r a default a s t o a n y f u t u r e claimants , b u t t h e time h a s r u n. T H E C O U R T: And --

Refresh my recollection , M r. Von

Spiegelfeld, b u t - - s i n c e I didn' t look at that issue b e f o r e I came here on t h e b e n c h. p e r i o d is specified b y l o c a l rule ? MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: Y e s, Your Honor. Well , The But the time

it' s b y t h e federal r u l e s a nd t h e local rule.

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 6 of 22

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

n o t i c e -- t h e - - n o r m a l l y i t's 30 days from t h e time of t h e n o t i c e. problem. T h e problem is -- well, it 's n o t a

In this case t h e r e w a s a s e c o n d n o t i c e

given that w a s given in Spain, if y o u r e m e m b e r correctly. T H E C O U R T: Y e s. And when that second

MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD:

notice w a s g i v e n, that's when n e w claim ants have come forward . N o w, that -- t h e time f o r that -- t h e

30 days h a s r u n on that n o t i c e, also . T H E C O U R T: So w h y i s t h e r e a need to set a n y

time f o r a d e a d l i n e i f, as I read it , t h e deadline -MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: Well , w e have not moved

f o r default at this time because of t h e fact that there have been people coming forward a l l t h e time. B u t we would like to move f o r a default at this point in time a s t o a n y f u t u r e claimants. do that. MR . H O R A N: b i t. MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: W e will -- we plan on Could you speak u p just a little We will

m o v i n g f o r a default in t h e near f u t u r e as to a n y future claimants. T H E C O U R T: A l l r i g h t.

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 7 of 22

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this.

MR . H O R A N:

I' m getting t h e same thing .

This

is Dave H o r a n i n K e y West.

I' m getting t h e same

thing with r e g a r d to inquiries as to additional parties. A n d i t w o u l d make it a l o t simpler f o r me

to have a default so that t h e r e w o u l d n o t be this continual -- I mean, it' s spreading like wild fire in South America. MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: A nd in that same r e g a r d,

we' d like t h e C o u r t t o e n t e r a n o r d e r setting -e n di n g t h e date of affidavits a n d t h i n g s s o that we have something. T H E C O U R T: W h y d o n' t y o u submit a motion ,

Mr. V o n S p i e g e l f e l d, as to that. MR . V O N SPIEGELFELD: T H E C O U R T: MR . M A N E Y: Okay .

A n d i t will be considered. Your Honor, I guess I a s k e d f o r

Mark Maney f o r t h e R epublic o f Peru . I' ve got t w o i s s u e s that I w a n t e d t o address

a n d, frankly , I also w a n t e d to s e e what w a s g o i n g t o h a p p e n in t h e o t h e r proceeding , because Peru is anxiously awaiting if there 's a n y c h a n c e t h e r e w a s Peruvian gold o n t h e Merchant Royal, a n d i f i t's t h e Merchant Royal. A n d that leads me -- given where it is , I 'll start with t h e first issue, which is other

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 8 of 22

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

claimants.

I didn 't have a piece of t h e last

hearing, b u t I am troubled by t h e prospects a s Peru is troubled by t h e prospects that a company c o u l d find part of a v e s s e l, give n o t i c e that gives very l i t t l e n o t i c e because they d o n't know what they' ve found or what t h e v e s s e l is , a n d o b t a i n order s that say they are owners o f that property , and perhaps i n t h e f u t u r e, in this case shutt i n g o f f f u t u r e claimants, before anyone knows exactly whose property it is. In this case, we inspected t h e s i l v e r in December or late N o v e m b e r a n d we found o n e coin from M e x i c o, mint ed in M e x i c o. notice. Mexico's never gotten

In fact, it w a s M e x i c o w h o sent m e t o Peru

to talk t o t h e Peruvians about bringing a claim. I don 't represent M e x i c o i n this case. d o n't have a power of attorney . I

B u t I know that if

material portions of Mexican s i l v e r a r e found a b o a r d a vessel, that Mexico has a n interest i n protecting them. So h a v i n g a n e n d f i l i n g date b e f o r e we know

what t h e v e s s e l is f o r sure a n d w h e r e i t i s I think is troublesome, particularly f o r sovereigns. In this case, there are p o te n t i a l sovereign c l a i m s from Colombia, Chile a n d Bolivia , a l l of whom have gold coins that were m i n t e d in their countries.

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 9 of 22

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T h e s e c o n d issue I w a n t e d to address w a s I became troubled with the motions that were being filed that I think there 's some confusion that m a y develop because three separate issues are being confused. Spain originally moved for sovereign They did that shortly

immunity against Odyssey . after Peru was entered.

It w a s unclear to me whether their motion w a s addressed to Peru, although t h e r e l i e f they requested included Peru' s c l a i m. Since then,

private claimants have come forward saying they had property on t h e Mercedes . In my mind there are three very distinct sovereign immunity issues here . Spain versus

Odyssey, t h e briefing on which I believe i s finished. my motions. T H E C O U R T: MR . M A N E Y: No . Okay. No. B u t the Spain v e r s u s T h e replies n o w a r e r e a l l y address ed to

Odyssey, what I would say i s really Spain versus Peru versus Odyssey. If there 's a sovereign owner

of this v e s s e l, does Odyssey - - o r i s t h e r e i m m u n i t y as against Odyssey 's claim f o r salvage or finds? There' s a distinct claim of immunity , whether Spain would have immunity against another sovereign

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 10 of 22

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

claimant.

Peru as a successor state to t h e f o r m e r Those

kingdom - - W o r l dwide Kingd o m o f S pain. issues, I think , are very distinct.

I also think there are very strong distinctions between c l a i m s by t h e private claimant s as owners of property a n d Peru an d S p a i n, because they'r e o f t h e same kind , that is , they 're ownership claims. My goal here w a s to try to convince this Court to d i v i d e those t h i n g s s o that they could be addressed logically rather than i n t h e -- what I view a s a confused m a n n e r that they' re being v i e w e d at n o w. T H E C O U R T: Well, y o u m a y view i t a s a

confused m a t t e r b u t I d o n't necessarily view it as a confused matter. I mean , a s b a d e n o u g h as it is ,

seems like this thing grows exponentially. Mr . G o o l d? MR . G O O L D: T H E C O U R T: single y o u o u t. Y e s, sir . L e t m e a s k you a question, n o t t o B u t l e t's assume f o r a moment

that - - and this i s not meant and please d o not take it as this w a y by t h e parties at a l l. B u t l e t's

assume for a moment for argument sake that I were t o determine that your sovereign immunity claim as with

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 11 of 22

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

respect t o t h e r e s a n d Odyssey 's claim to it h a d merit. A n d so Spain' s p r o p e r t y i s i m m u n e from a n y

judicial determination b y this Court . T h e r e s is still in the confines of t h e C o u r t. The Court has t o make some determination about the r e s as it pertains to t h e o t h e r parties w h o have filed c l a i m s, many of whom a r e Spanish subjects. Would not the appropriate approach b e t o make a determination that a Spanish court would b e the appropriate court to determine t h e c l a i m s at issue, a n d that that c o u r t c o u l d determine, as well, if appropriate a n d appropriate a n y c l a i m s by a n y foreign sovereigns , including Peru o r Mexico? And

if that i s t h e case, what w o u l d b e t h e vehicle f o r doing that? How would a n order b e fashioned,

thinking backwards? MR . G O O L D: Well, I think it would be the I t i s what the

appropriate and logical scenario.

outcome w a s, a l b e i t o n a smaller scale, of t h e S e a Hunt case where , a t t h e e n d of t h e d a y -- well, t h e Court is familiar with that . B u t that included --

it wasn't discussed i n a n y d e t a i l in t h e F o u r t h Circuit opinion , b u t it h a d been dealt with b y t h e district court that ownership, denial o f salvage , Spanish ownership, Spanish sovereign vessel,

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 12 of 22

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

anything -- a l l artifacts r e t u r n e d t o t h e custody o f Spain. A s i t happens , those w e loaned permanently

to t h e National Park Service f o r display i n Virginia, b u t that 's a different matter. It is t h e logical scenario . Spain h a s laws. Spain has c o u r t s,

I f - - the order that I would think

would be appropriate would be a natural o n e u n d e r Rule - - I think it 's E(5 )(C ) a b o u t release of arrested property. I 'll address this, y o u know, That it -- there were

later this m o n t h, also.

provisions there for release o f arrested property a n d they include b y o r d e r, court order, of c o u r s e. A n d that t h e Court 's order should direct that t h e material be returned to t h e owner of t h e v e s s e l from which it w a s taken . A n d i f i t - - I 'm not even going to suggest this, b u t I could s e e a court giving consideration to something about it being without prejudice to t h e ability o r t h e -- whatever rights others m i g h t have to p u r s u e c l a i m s against t h e sovereign a n d owner of that vessel. T H E C O U R T: If I were t o d e c i d e that a n

evidentiary hearing w a s n e e d e d, that is , I w a n t e d some explication a s i d e from what' s i n t h e papers a n d t h e affidavits, h o w much time do y o u think y o u w o u l d

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 13 of 22

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

need t o prepare for something like that ? much n o t i c e, I guess, maybe would be more appropriate? MR . G O O L D: T H E C O U R T: Mr. Goold . MR . G O O L D: Sixty days, Your Honor.

Or h o w

Location , location, location,

I was -- I' ll go with M r. Von I w a s starting to think 30 ,

Spiegelfeld on that.

b u t it would also d e p e n d on if t h e C o u r t gave a n y guidance on what i t w a n t e d to hear a b o u t. T H E C O U R T: MR . G O O L D: Sure. Sure .

I mean, you w o n't be surprised, B u t I -- y o u know, of

we' ve thought a b o u t that .

c o u r s e, I think t h e e v i d e n c e i s crystal clear an d there' s n o p o s s i b l e d o u b t, etcetera, b u t that if t h e Court h a d a n y particular i s s u e s w h e r e i t felt it would be appropriate to hear more evidence , o f course. T H E C O U R T: MR . H O R A N: T H E C O U R T: MR . H O R A N: Okay. Could I ask a question? Y e s, Mr. Horan . As f a r a s t h e people w h o consigned

cargo onboard that v e s s e l, if it is t h e Mercedes , i f this w a s contract salvage, we would just g o a h e a d a n d do a contract with Odyssey a n d they would go o u t

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 14 of 22

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

there as o u r contracted s a l v e r a n d salvage t h e c a r g o that w e o w n. A n d -- a n d in this case, it' s

voluntary salvage a n d it 's n o t contract salvage, b u t I'm n o t sure that does a n y t h i n g with regard t o whether t h e r e i s, in fact, a sovereign claim against t h e property that my clients consigned onboard. So t h e - - i t s e e m s like to me , I 'm not sure that Spain can claim sovereign immunity against the descendent claimants. they c a n do that. T H E C O U R T: Well, y o u'r e free to file any I -- I d o n't understand h o w

p a p e r s y o u want to , M r. Horan, with respect t o that issue. B u t I t h i n k t h e first order of business f o r

me to d e c i d e is , A -- a n d this is obviously part of t h e sovereign i m m u n i t y i s s u e - - i s, A, which vessel is it. I mean, is it t h e v e s s e l that S p a i n t h i n k s

it is a n d that t h e parties have discussed here i n these pleadings? MR . H O R A N: T H E C O U R T: So -Certainly. -- that will b e t h e first order of

business because that 's an integral question dealing with sovereign immunity a s p e c t, a n d we c a n go from there. MR . H O R A N: I -- the o n e t h i n g that I would

s a y is that t h e -- t h e - - t h e concept o f t h e --

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 15 of 22

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

treating t h e vessel a s a unity a n d n o t separating o u t t h e ownership of cargo, that w a s something that we faced in t h e Central America litigation a n d - a n d in o t h e r s that I' ve been i n v o l v e d i n. I was

also the attorney who took the review t o the Supreme Court right after t h e election mess in Florida a n d hanging c h a d s d i d away with o u r ability to g e t r e v i e w by t h e Supreme Court , b u t I w a s n o t involved in t h e prior litigation on t h e Kingdom of Spain case. T H E C O U R T: Well, Mr . - - l e t me ask Peru' s

counsel whether there w a s - - I kind of c u t y o u o f f. I didn 't -- I t h i n k t h e i s s u e s that y o u want to explore a r e issues that I d o n' t t h i n k a t l e a s t f o r me right n o w a r e ripe f o r m e t o i d e n t i f y. I think

t h e first order of business is to wait to s e e Spain' s response. If I think I need a s t a t u s

conference a f t e r that to discuss a n y dates f o r argument or dates f o r an evidentiary hearing, I c a n do that. B u t I 'd like t o proceed in a -- in a p i e c emeal fashion a n d first make some determination as to t h e identity of t h e v e s s e l a n d then g o from there . We' ll talk t o J u d g e M e r r y d a y t o s e e whether I need to do this o n a r e p o r t a n d recommendation or I c a n

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 16 of 22

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

do it on an order.

I d o n't s e e w h y I c a n' t perhaps

do it on an order, b u t w e'l l s e e where we a r e. I think as to the dismissal o f - - t h e potential dismissal o f - - l e t me p u t it this w a y. think as to t h e m o t i o n t o dismiss , I c a n e i t h e r proceed i f i t's to be d e n i e d e i t h e r on an order or a report and recommendation. Certainly, if there' s t o I

be a recommendation t o b e granted , i t must be done in a r e p o r t and recommendation to be dispositive . If it' s d e n i e d, it 's n o t dispositive of t h e case , it' s s i m p l y dispositive of t h e m o t i o n, perhaps. B u t l e a v e that as it m a y, that's an internal -- that's an i n s i d e t h e park, ballpark issue between t h e magistrate j u d g es a n d t h e district judges, s o w e'l l resolve that. A r e t h e r e a n y other matters with respect to this case that a n y o n e wants to raise ? MR . H O R A N: T H E C O U R T: MR . H O R A N: May I ask a question ? Y e s, Mr. Horan . T h e determination of whether or

n o t it is t h e M e r c e d e s, until such time as that determination i s made , t h e claimants d o n't have a claim. T H E C O U R T: MR . H O R A N: Correct. Okay. S o I guess I can just go

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 17 of 22

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ahead a n d wait until y o u make those -- that determination, a n d then we -- a n d then we go forward with r e g a r d to a n y -T H E C O U R T: Well, l e t m e make this suggestion.

If y o u have an argument to make n o w as to whether it' s t h e M e r c e d or n o t, y o u s h o u l d file t h e appropriate pleading so as to support your position , you shouldn' t wait . A n d I' ll e x p e c t a m o t i o n or

some p l e a d i n g from Mr . V o n Spiegelfeld on b e h a l f of Odyssey t o c u t o f f t h e date as -- as he h a s proposed, a n d w e c a n proceed i n that fashion, as well. MR . M A N E Y: Your Honor, I would like, if

possible, to address your suggestion that this m a t t e r that Peru's claim be moved to Spanish c o u r t s. T H E C O U R T: MR . M A N E Y: Well, I haven' t gotten that f a r. Well, I know. But even the

possibility r a i s e s t h e hair at t h e back of my neck because - T H E C O U R T: MR . M A N E Y: Why i s that ? Well, because Peru h a s a long

history o f dealing with Spanish justice a n d I 'm n o t sure i t's a welcome o n e. A n d o u r argument in this

case, Your H o n o r, is n o t that Peru h a s a c l a i m against property o f S p a i n. Our argument i s this

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 18 of 22

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

v e s s e l is no l o n g e r Spanish as that term i s used today. This v e s s e l a nd its contents were Spanish i n A n d, therefore,

1804 when Peru w a s part of Spain.

this v e s s e l today is -- a n d particularly t h e gold and silver o n i t are Peruvian, not Spanish . R u s s i a t r i e d this n o t that many years ago an d said they were the successor t o the Soviet Union and they wanted all the embassies, all the Merchant fleet, a l l t h e foreign gold reserves . they'r e n o w Russian. They said

The International Court said

no, it doesn 't work that w a y. Every o n e o f t h e successor nations to the former Soviet Union have a part o f that property , and if it originated in their territory, they g e t i t a l l. It is n o t e n o u g h t o s a y this w a s t h e Nuestra

S e n o r a de l a s M e r c e d e s, therefore, i t's Spanish, a n d, therefore, it 's Spain' s. sense of 1804. It 's not 1804 anymore a nd Peru h a s those rights. A n d we shouldn' t have to go to Spain to In fact, this C o u r t s h o u l dn 't It is Spanish in t h e

raise those rights.

be able t o a w a r d i t t o S p a i n u n l e s s it' s sure it 's Spain' s, as that term is used today, n o t a s i t w a s used i n 1804 . I mean, I c a n' t tell y o u h o w strongly Peru

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 19 of 22

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

believes that a n d that i s t h e l a w a n d i t's been t h e l a w in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s since when they l e t West Virginia back i n t h e Union a n d said they h a d to d i v i d e t h e a s s e t s and debts of Virginia equitably, just a s the same rule they applied t o the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia a n d Yugoslavia when they b r o k e up. To p u t i t another w a y, Peru a nd Spain got a divorce after this vessel sank . Y o u c a n't give it

to t h e husband without d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e o t h e r party has rights. A n d s o I d o n't think this Court And

c a n just s a y it 's t h e Mercedes an d pass on .

that's w h y I think Peru' s c l a i m i s very different from Odyssey 's claim or someone else 's claim. W e'r e

claiming essentially we' re -- y o u know, we changed o u r name b u t we 're part of that same f o r m e r King d o m of Spain in 1804. THE COURT : These coins have -So I take it by that token Peru

c a n l a y c l a i m t o most of t h e gold a l t a r s i n S p a i n where gold leaf is encrusted o n t h e a l t a r s a n d s a y it' s P e r u v i a n p r o p e r t y? MR . M A N E Y: N o t a t a l l, Your Honor. Those

were covered by t h e t r e a t y.

The Independence Treat y

divided property that they h a d, n o t property that had been lost before. This is -- I mean, this

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 20 of 22

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

property, found treasure that was sunk before the independence of Peru is u n i q u e. Property that was

in Spain' s possession since then, n o t t o mention adverse possession , i s different. T H E C O U R T: comes. MS . MACCONNEL: thing. Your Honor , i f I could say one Well, we 'll just take i t a s i t

W e talk ed about identifying t h e v e s s e l here I think Mr . H o r a n a nd

as a threshold issue.

Mr. M a ney will agree with m e that that issue is relevant only i nsofar as t h e p r o p e r t y that we have recovered an d whether it came from t h e Mercedes. Again, there i s n't a v e s s e l at this site a n d we' re n o t determining t h e r i g h ts to a v e s s e l. W e'r e

determining r i g h t s to property that m a y or m a y n o t have come from that vessel. And a s Your Honor perfectly well knows , there' s a l o t o f claimants here. There 's

individuals, there 's Peru, there' s S p a i n w h o m a y have owned some property aboard that . B u t we 're n o t

talking a b o u t just t h e v e s s e l or a v e s s e l at a l l. We' re talking a b o u t t h e property. I just want t o

p u t that on t h e r e c o r d a s a reminder . T H E C O U R T: MR . H O R A N: A l l r i g h t. Well, then, t h e analogy that he

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 21 of 22

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

made with r e g a r d t o t h e divorce, we' re grandc h i l d r e n a n d I d o n't care whether it 's t h e m o t h e r o r t h e father. T h e fact is we a r e grandchildren. Y o u know , this could be taken to

T H E C O U R T:

i t s logical beginning a n d that is Adam a n d E v e a n d we' re a l l desce n d e n t s of each other. MR . G O O L D: B u t that 's not f o r t h e Middle

District of Florida. T H E C O U R T: It certainly i s n' t. Although, Your H o n o r, Florida

MS . MACCONNEL:

w a s part of Spain in 1840. T H E C O U R T: I was thinking that as we heard A l l right. W e'l l b e

t h e history lesson here today. in r e c e s s. MS . MACCONNEL: MR . H O R A N:

T h a n k y o u.

Thank y o u, Your H o n o r.

(Hearing concluded.)

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SDM-MAP Document 266

Filed 11/19/09 Page 22 of 22

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA C O U N T Y OF HILLSBOROUGH

) )

I , L i n d a S t a r r, RPR , O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r f o r the United States District Court , Middle District, Tampa Division , D O H E R E B Y CERTIFY, that I w a s authorized to a n d d i d, through u s e of Computer Aided Transcription, r e p o r t i n machine shorthand t h e proceedings and evidence in t h e a b o v e-s t y l e d cause, as s t a t e d i n t h e caption hereto , and that the foregoing pages , numbered 1 through 2 2, inclusive , constitute a true a n d correct transcription of my machine shorthand report o f said proceedings and evidence. I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h e r e u n t o s e t my hand i n t h e City of Tampa , C o u n t y of Hillsborough , S t a t e o f Florida, this 18t h d a y of November 2009.

/s / L i n d a S t a r r Linda Starr , R P R, Official Court Reporter