RMS TItanic Inc Seeks Permission To Sell Artifacts

Dec 2, 2000
58,582
371
283
Easley South Carolina
Tracey, count me in on the dream. Dave Shuttle raises some good points regarding conservation. As this can get rather expen$ive, I don't see how any but some fairly wealthy collectors could afford it over a long span of time. A museum at least would keep the artifacts from crumbling to dust.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
6
168
South Florida
Dave, I share your concerns about what could happen to my collection. My inventory list is nine pages long! My daughter doesn't share my passion and is embarrassed by our house looking like a museum, although I've considered one of the young 'uns here as an heir (already selected, sorry.) My stuff is mostly authentic reproductions, books and such.
And Tracy, there is a Titanic museum in Orlando already set up as a permanent exhibit, housing many famous collections such as Denis Cochrane's and others. So if you have anything of true historical connection to the Titanic, this would be the place to send your collection.

All the best,
Kyrila
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
272
1
148
Update on the Richmond appeal.

The amicus brief is in at the Richmond court. I haven't finished scrutinizing it yet, but it is 70+ pages of a neutral party (in this case a law professor) siding with Judge Clarke for his early decisions and with Judges Clarke and Smith for their continuing watchfulness in this special case. In one sentence he uses the word "exemplary" when describing the Judge's work within the confines of the law.

I feel much better tonight after reading some of these pages.

The hearing, if the Court of Appeals decide to hear this, is tentatively moved now to February 25.

Bill
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
371
283
Easley South Carolina
Ahhhhh...the game's afoot! (Not that it hasn't been for some time now.) Let's hope for the best on this one. As an aside, is there any way I and others here can get their two cents in on this? I'm sure it would be helpful if a number of historians and enthusiasts could get their views in for consideration.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Mar 18, 2005
52
0
76
>

Unless you file a friend of the court brief, no. It is somewhat odd that none of the major Titanic organizations, historians, or researchers have not done so either. They should.
 
Apr 11, 2001
4,565
4
168
Best thing I have heard all year Bill- thanks for the speedy post! By the way, MANY Titanic historians whose names you would recognize instantly- and TIS have written to the powers that be in support of Judge Clark's ruling -both the legal and media movers and shakers in the controversy.
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
Just walked in the door and aisde from all the bad news (Middle East) being broadcast on CNN, I was very delighted in reading the subtitle at the bottom of the television screen..."RMSTI *CAN NOT* SELL ARTIFACTS FROM THE TITANIC.

To a one Mr. Arnie Gellar: "If monetary gain is your focus from our tragedy, you might want to look up a one Mr. Tidwell, and get in on some of that $20,000,000 gold bullion, that for now lies safely guarded by the perpetual abyss in the tomb of I-52...
...surrender your post Mr. Gellar!".

Michael A. Cundiff
USA
 

Jan C. Nielsen

Senior Member
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
0
0
Guys,

This is not a good opinion for those against selling the artifacts. The Circuit court appears to buy into RMST's business rationale about selling the artifacts. It ruled against the company here because they hadn't properly foreclosed on their salvor's lien, and therefore, didn't have title. I expect that RMST will go back to the District Court, and proceed with the foreclosure of its lien, and gain ownership of the artifacts. As such, others may bid on the artifacts in the course of that procedure. It's almost as if the Fourth Circuit is instructing RMST to go back and conduct a formal sale of everything, in the District Court. This is really bad, guys. It would have been better for the Circuit Court to recognize that the District Court had imposed a condition or restriction on ownership, or recognize that RMST was judicially estopped. It seemed to reject these arguments, and made statements favorable to RMST. So, RMST won. They didn't loose. The proof is in the pudding.
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
272
1
148
I disagree, Jan. The Appellate court states that Geller does not have the right to sell unchecked. That is a MAJOR victory for the anti-sale side.

If Geller has a proposed sale, ANY such sale must be approved by Judge Clarke. I have read Judge Clarke's and Judge Smith's statements in the past five RMSTI hearings. They won't allow a fire sale. In my opinion, if the Judges allow a sale, the sale will be in the best interests of the artifacts, meeting the criteria set forth earlier. The purchaser must be able to protect and maintain the artifacts, and must keep them available for public display. So, no fire sale to make quick bucks. We win again.

If there is an acquisition of artifacts by an outside interest, then it must be an honorable institution, such as a museum or similar facility. The artifacts would be safe, and again we win.

Just because RMSTI goes back and presents a formal plan to sell doesn't mean the court has to approve it. And, if Judge Clarke holds to his earlier statements, he won't unless he feels its in the best interests of the artifacts.
 
Apr 11, 2001
4,565
4
168
I might wager that there may be a closer look at the corporate overthrow of the previous RMST hierarchy- one which favored museum status for the artifacts, and whether, just perhaps, the new regime could possibly be..uh...entirely installed by fortuitious circumstances. It might certainly be an avenue for closer scrutiny, to be sure.
 
Apr 11, 2001
4,565
4
168
Yes Bill- I am being cautiously unsue-able and non- libelous! Cannot WAIT for the day to arrive when ALL is revealed in glorious techni-color! So glad I will be alive to see the denouement....
 
Apr 14, 2001
160
0
146
i think it would be sad for the rms titanic inc to sell the artifacts they have because there are millions and millions of people who havent seen the artifacts they have as a person who has seen the exhibition and as someone who has realitives who havent seen the exhibition yet i say please dont sell the artifacts yet eventhough the company is in finacial trouble jennifer mueller
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
272
1
148
The management at RMSTI lost the most recent battle with the appellate court. Now, they face an even tougher opponent.

Here we go folks:

Thanks to Marc Davis. He's written a story about the shareholder derivative filed on Monday in Norfolk.

Here's the link to the full story:

http://www.pilotonli ne.com/business/bz04 17tit.html

I promise it's not the last you've heard on this issue. Congratulations on your scoop, Marc!