LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 13 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On December 11, 2009, the Company, its CEO and transfer agent were named as defendants in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, by 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages in an amount greater than $15,000, punitive damages to be determined at trial, injunctive relief requiring the defendants to reissue the plaintiff’s stock without the restrictive legends, injunctive relief barring the defendants from removing the stock legends from any Seafarer stock until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, injunctive relief barring the defendants from selling their Seafarer stock, directly or indirectly, until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to have their shares reissued without the restrictive legend, such other incidental and consequential damages as may be proven at trial, costs, interest, and legal expenses allowed by law and such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company contends that the restrictive legends were either (i) not qualified for removal under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, (ii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts supporting removal of the restrictive legends, or (iii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the distribution was not part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. On September 1, 2011 the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in the matter. The Company then retained the below counsel to substitute for representation in the matter. Upon review of the facts of the case, the below signed counsel filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, in which pleading and supporting affidavit, the Company presented factual allegations that the initial investment by one of the Plaintiff’s, Micah Eldred, was made in the private company of Seafarer, Inc. on June 15, 2007 for $5,000. Eldred was issued shares of the private company Seafarer, Inc. which was later involved in a transaction of a reverse merger with a public company becoming Seafarer Exploration Corp. Upon the merger such private shares as held by Eldred were exchanged for 34,700,000 shares of the public company with all such share rights being held by Eldred. The Company alleged in its responsive court filing, that at the time of the investment, share rights and disbursal of such shares in the public company, Eldred was a registered and licensed broker with the NASD; any ownership interests and in this case a control position held by Eldred would have had to have been reported to overseeing authorities. The Company alleged in its filing that in order to avoid and evade the detection, knowledge of oversight authorities and restrictions of the Securities Act and regulations of the governing bodies over his licensing in the brokerage business, Eldred instructed the former transfer agency for the Company to not issue a physical certificate to himself, but keep the shares in book entry form. The Company alleges that Eldred then instructed the transfer agent to instead issue the shares to Am-Asia, a private entity, informing the transfer agent that he (Eldred) had sold the shares in a private transaction. The Company also alleged in the court filing that on or about July 18, 2008 Eldred instructed the transfer agent to issue the shares to Am-Asia, as a third party straw man entity. Then on or about October 13, 2008, Eldred, in order to avoid any level of scrutiny or restriction over his ownership of such shares, then “purchased” such shares back from Am-Asia, but in order to again avoid and evade detection, knowledge and regulation of governing authorities, Eldred immediately instructed the transfer agent that he was “gifting” such shares to family, friends, and his own acquaintances. Eldred made the distribution of such shares on that same date at the purchase from Am-Asia, and actually had Am-Asia “gift” the shares to the people and entities named as Plaintiffs in the main complaint on October 18, 2008. The Company and CEO maintain in their court filings that such transactions were unlawful under Rule 144 and that the distribution scheme was done in order to avoid the strictures of the Securities Act. The transfer agent has also brought on new counsel alleging the same matters in response to the case. On May 22, 2012 the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment at which time the court heard argument on the motion. The Plaintiffs argued that as a matter of law, that they were entitled to removal of the legend under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Seafarer and ClearTrust argued that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to removal of the restrictive legend due to the allegations and evidence that the lead Plaintiff, Eldred, was involved in an illegal distribution of the shares originally in order to avoid registration. The Court ruled in favor of the Defendants, Seafarer Exploration and ClearTrust, denying the motion for summary judgment as to removal of the restrictive legend from such shares. Such litigation continues, but no further events are scheduled. On December 17, 2009, the Company was named a defendant in Case Number 09-012905CO39, filed in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, by a limited liability company, of which the Company’s CEO was previously a minority, non-controlling member. The lawsuit alleges that the Company has failed and/or refused to pay for services rendered by the plaintiff, in breach of an agreement between the two parties. The plaintiff is seeking judgment against the Company in the amount of $13,520, plus damages that may accrue after the filing of the lawsuit, together with prejudgment interest, recoverable costs associated with the lawsuit and such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. The parties are currently in settlement discussions and case management has been extended. On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. Among other matters, the Company alleges that the defendant caused extensive damage to the Company’s main salvage vessel due to negligent operation, breached his separation agreement with the Company, and has made false and defamatory statements damaging the Company’s reputation and CEO’s reputation. The Company alleged that the defendant has engaged in such malicious and defamatory campaign as revenge for his termination by the Company and in effort to extort additional money from the Company. On April 5, 2011, a jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. The Company is currently pursuing the punitive damages portion and expects a substantial award of such at trial for the Punitive damages. The punitive damages portion of the case was set for trail but is being postponed due to the Court’s calendar. The Company’s management believes that collection of such award is extremely unlikely however it will continue to pursue the matter against the defendant. On February 24, 2011, the Company was named as defendants in Case Number 11000393CC filed in the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida, by a limited liability company. The limited liability company is claiming that the Company owes $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees under a lease agreement. The plaintiff is demanding that the court render judgment against the Company in the amount of $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 720.305(1) of the Florida Statutes costs and other relief as the court deems just and proper. Management believes that the limited liability company was paid all of the fees owed to it under the lease agreement. The Company plans to mount a vigorous defense against this claim and is currently seeking all attorney’s fees and costs for what it sees as a spurious claim. The Company has presented proof of payment for all billed liabilities and believes that full payment was made. The Company has filed and will keep pending a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the cause of action. The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to Seafarer, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against Seafarer and its CEO, individually, alleging that Seafarer and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that Seafarer’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 13 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On December 11, 2009, the Company, its CEO and transfer agent were named as defendants in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, by 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages in an amount greater than $15,000, punitive damages to be determined at trial, injunctive relief requiring the defendants to reissue the plaintiff’s stock without the restrictive legends, injunctive relief barring the defendants from removing the stock legends from any Seafarer stock until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, injunctive relief barring the defendants from selling their Seafarer stock, directly or indirectly, until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to have their shares reissued without the restrictive legend, such other incidental and consequential damages as may be proven at trial, costs, interest, and legal expenses allowed by law and such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company contends that the restrictive legends were either (i) not qualified for removal under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, (ii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts supporting removal of the restrictive legends, or (iii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the distribution was not part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. On September 1, 2011 the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in the matter. The Company then retained the below counsel to substitute for representation in the matter. Upon review of the facts of the case, the below signed counsel filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, in which pleading and supporting affidavit, the Company presented factual allegations that the initial investment by one of the Plaintiff’s, Micah Eldred, was made in the private company of Seafarer, Inc. on June 15, 2007 for $5,000. Eldred was issued shares of the private company Seafarer, Inc. which was later involved in a transaction of a reverse merger with a public company becoming Seafarer Exploration Corp. Upon the merger such private shares as held by Eldred were exchanged for 34,700,000 shares of the public company with all such share rights being held by Eldred. The Company alleged in its responsive court filing, that at the time of the investment, share rights and disbursal of such shares in the public company, Eldred was a registered and licensed broker with the NASD; any ownership interests and in this case a control position held by Eldred would have had to have been reported to overseeing authorities. The Company alleged in its filing that in order to avoid and evade the detection, knowledge of oversight authorities and restrictions of the Securities Act and regulations of the governing bodies over his licensing in the brokerage business, Eldred instructed the former transfer agency for the Company to not issue a physical certificate to himself, but keep the shares in book entry form. The Company alleges that Eldred then instructed the transfer agent to instead issue the shares to Am-Asia, a private entity, informing the transfer agent that he (Eldred) had sold the shares in a private transaction. The Company also alleged in the court filing that on or about July 18, 2008 Eldred instructed the transfer agent to issue the shares to Am-Asia, as a third party straw man entity. Then on or about October 13, 2008, Eldred, in order to avoid any level of scrutiny or restriction over his ownership of such shares, then “purchased” such shares back from Am-Asia, but in order to again avoid and evade detection, knowledge and regulation of governing authorities, Eldred immediately instructed the transfer agent that he was “gifting” such shares to family, friends, and his own acquaintances. Eldred made the distribution of such shares on that same date at the purchase from Am-Asia, and actually had Am-Asia “gift” the shares to the people and entities named as Plaintiffs in the main complaint on October 18, 2008. The Company and CEO maintain in their court filings that such transactions were unlawful under Rule 144 and that the distribution scheme was done in order to avoid the strictures of the Securities Act. The transfer agent has also brought on new counsel alleging the same matters in response to the case. On May 22, 2012 the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment at which time the court heard argument on the motion. The Plaintiffs argued that as a matter of law, that they were entitled to removal of the legend under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Seafarer and ClearTrust argued that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to removal of the restrictive legend due to the allegations and evidence that the lead Plaintiff, Eldred, was involved in an illegal distribution of the shares originally in order to avoid registration. The Court ruled in favor of the Defendants, Seafarer Exploration and ClearTrust, denying the motion for summary judgment as to removal of the restrictive legend from such shares. Such litigation continues, but no further events are scheduled.

On December 17, 2009, the Company was named a defendant in Case Number 09-012905CO39, filed in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, by a limited liability company, of which the Company’s CEO was previously a minority, non-controlling member. The lawsuit alleges that the Company has failed and/or refused to pay for services rendered by the plaintiff, in breach of an agreement between the two parties. The plaintiff is seeking judgment against the Company in the amount of $13,520, plus damages that may accrue after the filing of the lawsuit, together with prejudgment interest, recoverable costs associated with the lawsuit and such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. The parties are currently in settlement discussions and case management has been extended.

On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. Among other matters, the Company alleges that the defendant caused extensive damage to the Company’s main salvage vessel due to negligent operation, breached his separation agreement with the Company, and has made false and defamatory statements damaging the Company’s reputation and CEO’s reputation. The Company alleged that the defendant has engaged in such malicious and defamatory campaign as revenge for his termination by the Company and in effort to extort additional money from the Company. On April 5, 2011, a jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. The Company is currently pursuing the punitive damages portion and expects a substantial award of such at trial for the Punitive damages. The punitive damages portion of the case was set for trail but is being postponed due to the Court’s calendar. The Company’s management believes that collection of such award is extremely unlikely however it will continue to pursue the matter against the defendant.

On February 24, 2011, the Company was named as defendants in Case Number 11000393CC filed in the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida, by a limited liability company. The limited liability company is claiming that the Company owes $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees under a lease agreement. The plaintiff is demanding that the court render judgment against the Company in the amount of $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 720.305(1) of the Florida Statutes costs and other relief as the court deems just and proper. Management believes that the limited liability company was paid all of the fees owed to it under the lease agreement. The Company plans to mount a vigorous defense against this claim and is currently seeking all attorney’s fees and costs for what it sees as a spurious claim. The Company has presented proof of payment for all billed liabilities and believes that full payment was made. The Company has filed and will keep pending a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the cause of action.

The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to Seafarer, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against Seafarer and its CEO, individually, alleging that Seafarer and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that Seafarer’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial.