LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 12 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 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. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4,140,000 shares. On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse. Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. The proposed Counterclaim names as defendants the Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit, as well as non-parties Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., (“Spartan Securities”) and Am- Asia Consulting (“Am-Asia”) (collectively the “Proposed Counterclaim Defendants”). Neither Spartan Securities nor Am-Asia has yet been joined or served with any process in the Lawsuit. The allegations in the proposed Counterclaim arise from the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the Lawsuit. Specifically, the proposed Counterclaim alleges that the Plaintiffs including Eldred violated and conspired to violate securities laws, specifically Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, and Fla. Stat. § 517.301, in connection with the activities which form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Lawsuit. Included in the proposed counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was proposed and filed as a proposed claim against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorneys’ fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders. In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Management believes that this is a pattern of activity by the Plaintiff. Such litigation is now pending a motion to dismiss by the Counterclaim Defendants, as well as the Third Party Defendants, which motion is set for hearing in March 2014. Management and counsel of Seafarer stand by the legal argument that there no longer exists any legal basis under the Securities Act for such shares to ever have their legend removed. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense and the counterclaims and third party claims on behalf of the Corporation and its shareholders. 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 claimed that the Company owed $12,064, plus court costs. On February 21, 2013, both parties settled the matter with neither party making any admission of liability. Such settlement and dismissal was finalized and filed with no ongoing impact to the Company. 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. On April 5, 2011, a six person 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. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay. Seafarer Exploration Inc. 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 the Company, 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. Legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. There are currently no counterclaims or adverse liabilities of record in the above case as of the date of these financial statements. On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure cite at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 12 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 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. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4,140,000 shares. On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse. Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. The proposed Counterclaim names as defendants the Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit, as well as non-parties Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., (“Spartan Securities”) and Am- Asia Consulting (“Am-Asia”) (collectively the “Proposed Counterclaim Defendants”). Neither Spartan Securities nor Am-Asia has yet been joined or served with any process in the Lawsuit. The allegations in the proposed Counterclaim arise from the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the Lawsuit. Specifically, the proposed Counterclaim alleges that the Plaintiffs including Eldred violated and conspired to violate securities laws, specifically Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, and Fla. Stat. § 517.301, in connection with the activities which form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Lawsuit. Included in the proposed counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was proposed and filed as a proposed claim against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorneys’ fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders. In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Management believes that this is a pattern of activity by the Plaintiff. Such litigation is now pending a motion to dismiss by the Counterclaim Defendants, as well as the Third Party Defendants, which motion is set for hearing in March 2014. Management and counsel of Seafarer stand by the legal argument that there no longer exists any legal basis under the Securities Act for such shares to ever have their legend removed. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense and the counterclaims and third party claims on behalf of the Corporation and its shareholders.

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 claimed that the Company owed $12,064, plus court costs. On February 21, 2013, both parties settled the matter with neither party making any admission of liability. Such settlement and dismissal was finalized and filed with no ongoing impact to the Company.

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. On April 5, 2011, a six person 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. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay.

Seafarer Exploration Inc. 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 the Company, 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. Legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. There are currently no counterclaims or adverse liabilities of record in the above case as of the date of these financial statements.

On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure cite at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer.