Judge throws out Hunley countersuitJustice: Statute of limitations on Spence's claim as discoverer of sub has expired By Brian Hicks (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
For more than 30 years, E. Lee Spence has tried to get the courts, the government — anyone — to declare him the man who found the H.L. Hunley. On Tuesday, a federal judge said the time for that had passed. Senior U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt Jr. tossed out Spence's countersuit against author Clive Cussler and his National Underwater and Marine Agency Inc. on the grounds that the statute of limitations on the claim had expired. In his lawsuit, Spence claimed that he had suffered damages between $100,000 and $309 million because the discovery of the Confederate submarine was credited to Cussler. The lawsuit was filed in 2002, months after Cussler and NUMA sued Spence for defamation by continuing to say he first found the sub. Spence's attorney, Ronnie Richter, argued that the clock didn't start ticking on the three-year statute of limitations on admiralty claims until the coordinates of the Hunley, which were kept secret by the state to discourage looting, were published in October 2000. Blatt didn't agree, saying the issue was about whether Spence believed his claim had been jumped. "This is about who found the Hunley, not where the Hunley was found," Blatt said. According to Spence, on the 1995 day that Cussler and his team announced the Hunley's discovery, one of the NUMA divers said the sub was just where Spence had said. Although NUMA attorneys question, even dispute, that account, Blatt said that was reason enough for Spence to file suit — and start the clock ticking in 1995. This fight has already lasted longer than the Civil War. Spence first claimed to have found the sub in the 1970s while diving on a black-fish trap, but never saw it again. After Cussler's team found the sub in 1995, Spence said they had used his coordinates to find it. The state Hunley Commission listened to Spence's evidence at his request and eventually concluded that Cussler was the original discoverer. Spence then claimed the panel had no right to make that declaration. In 2001, Cussler sued Spence, arguing that his continuing claims to have found the sub hurt the reputation of NUMA and the divers who found the sub. That suit is expected to be heard in January. Spence's countersuit had been filed in response. Blatt seemed somewhat sympathetic to Spence's plight, telling his attorneys he wouldn't be upset if they appealed and the decision was overturned. But Eric Bland, another attorney for Spence, didn't say whether there would be an appeal. The focus for now, he said, is on Cussler's suit. "We still intend to vigorously defend against that," Bland said. Ric Tapp, an attorney for NUMA, said, "Justice was done." Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 2 comment(s)
Posted by HunleyFinder on May 16, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hicks lead his story with the statement: "For more than 30 years, E. Lee Spence has tried to get the courts, the government — anyone — to declare him the man who found the H.L. Hunley. On Tuesday, a federal judge said the time for that had passed."
First of all that is not what the judge even remotely stated. Only my case for damages was thrown out. His Honor Sol Blatt Jr. effectively stated that since I discovered Hunley in 1970, and actually filed Hunley's location in a case before his Honor in 1980, I knew that Cussler was lying about NUMA discovering it in 1995. Using 1995 as the date when I first knew Cussler was lying and should have known that I was being harmed, the judge held that I waited too long to seek damages against Cussler and NUMA. The judge did not agree that I had needed to wait until after the State finally revealed Hunley's location which matched mine, to go court. So, the judge threw out my counterclaims on the legal technicality that I waited to long to file suit. It was not thrown out for any lack of proof of discovery.
More importantly, Hicks seems to have missed the fact that NUMA's lawsuit against me still stands. I, for one, understand the importance of that case and want it heard.
Among other things, NUMA alleges that I slandered them by saying that I discovered the wreck of the Hunley.
So, when NUMA's case finally goes to court in January of 2008, I look forward to using the truth of my prior discovery as my main defense. The truth is I found Hunley and that has been a matter of public record since the 1970s.
I think that Hicks failed to make a major point. Yes, my case for damages is now out, but this has never really been about the money. To me it is about the truth. And thankfully the truth is still important to the court. I still have the opportunity to have a jury listen to the facts. I fully expect it to determine that I was the discoverer of the Hunley and to rule in my favor against NUMA.
E. Lee Spence
HunleyFinder@Yahoo.com
http://www.shipwrecks.com
843 532-8222
Posted by HunleyFinder on May 16, 2007 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps it should also be pointed out that Hicks was in the court room taking notes, yet afterwards he did not bother to even approach me for a comment. Also, in his article, Hicks reduces the judge's lengthy comments in support of me and his repeated criticism of Cussler and the State efforts to conceal the Hunley's true location to a mild statement that "Blatt seemed somewhat sympathetic to Spence's plight...." If I had been the judge having to make a similar decision against someone, it would have torn me up. I believe most people in the court room felt it was tearing up the judge. It would only have done so if the judge believed me to have been the true discoverer. Although I disagree with the judge's legal decision, I personally felt the judge acted with unquestionable integrity and honor.
I seriously wonder how a future jury verdict in my favor might affect the way readers look back on this article and might thereafter view Hicks's past reporting on the Hunley and his book crediting Cussler/NUMA with the discovery of the Hunley.
E. Lee Spence
HunleyFinder@Yahoo.com
www.shipwrecks.com
843 532-8222