Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on the way to menhus
Date: Mar 19, 2004 @ 05:48
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on the way to menhus
> just one insertion below
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > I have inserted my thoughts at appropriate places below:
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:06 AM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on
> the way to menhus
> >
> >
> > > well & maybe i will nibble a quibble with you here too
> > > just to keep things light
> > >
> > > for tho the confusions are similar
> > > your njny had previously been definitely delineated in favor of
> nj
> >
> > You are correct that there was an existing interstate compact at
> NJNY. My
> > analogy was based on New York's reliance on federal
> bureaucratic indifference
> > and the doctrine of presecrption/acquiescence in its quest for
> the Ellis Island
> > extensions.
> >
> > > so there was really nothing for the supremes to adjudge
> there
> > > but only an old agreement to revisit
> > > hence that ridiculous & deliciously minute outcome on ellis
> > > island
> > > whereas
> > > our menh here around seavey island has previously only
> been
> > > indefinitely defined in favor of me
> > > meaning maine
> > >
> > > so
> > >
> > > unless i am mistaken
> > > & i know it happens
> > > hahaha
> > >
> > > either the states plus congress or else the supremes are
> > > imminently forced into motion
> > > to create an original definition for this still indefinite
> delineation
> > > & thus settle for the first time an already historic original
> > > confusion
> >
> > I think that they have a delineation already in the form of
> George II's "Middle
> > of the River."
>
> yes but i would stress the indefiniteness of this delineation
> for it is just a vaguely worded description
> & highly subject to various interpretations in its present form
> & thus not at all a precise geographic delineation yet
>
> & we are familiar with this particular phrase
> the middle of the river
> as a classic recipe for difference & dispute wherever islands are
> involved
>
> but i doubt demarcation is necessarily the next step
> or need be any step at all
> in resolving this particular dispute
>
> of course direct &or indirect riverine demarcation are always
> options
>
> but apart from occasional individual terminal & witness rocks etc
> we have seen these options used very sparingly within the usa
> in sharp contrast with their use on international boundaries
>
> in fact only 3 cases come to mind
> azca nmtx & orwa
>
> & i also think it is too late for simple allocation of the islands
> which might have been fine for the 17th or 18th centuries
> but an exact state line is what is needed now & what should
> emerge somehow
>
> so i believe the next step needs rather to be a refinement in the
> definition of the delineation
> or what you may also be calling redelineation here below
> whether done by the states or the supremes
>
> for i am not sure which way nor how this will proceed from here
>
> but we do know that the court decision expected later this month
> is expected to be appealed either way
> & thus to set something further into motion soon
>
> if the dispute gets resolved by an interstate compact
> rather than a supreme court decision
> then i agree that would give us the far better hope of a
> comprehensive settlement & thus of an early menhus
>
> but i also agree a compact is far less likely than a supreme court
> test
>
> so that probably leads me back to doing menhus myself
> with the navigational chart
> which would probably be more fun anyway
>
> end of insertions
>
>
>
> What lacks is any demarcation. Of course, an interstate compact
> > ratified by the Congress could redelineate or even reallocate.
> The two states
> > themselves could demarcate and ratify a survey based on the
> existing delineation
> > without asking anybody, but that would take two willing states.
> More likely,
> > the Supremes would order a demarcation based on either a
> special master's
> > findings or a consent decree (as was the case in the
> incomplete lateral boundary
> > a few years ago). Right now, though, the case is not even into
> federal courts.
> >
> > Mr. Bourre is a resident of New Hampshire who disputes
> Maine's right to tax his
> > former paycheck at the naval base. As I understand it, Maine
> has its own
> > administrative tax judgement against him, but he has no Maine
> assets to be
> > seized. Therefore, Maine is pursuing him in New Hampshire
> courts to get the
> > judgement enforced. If that doesn't happen, because New
> Hampshire law prohibits
> > its courts from enforcing any other state's taxes at the naval
> base, then Maine
> > would have to sue New Hampshire in the federal courts asking
> for its rights
> > under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV. The
> Supreme Court would
> > have original jurisdiction. If that is the question, Maine will win.
> If New
> > Hampshire were to assert, in its response to the suit, that
> Seavey Island is not
> > in Maine, only then would the boundary through the harbor
> become an issue before
> > the Supremes.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > & but does this even matter to the ultimate definition of
> menhus
> > > you may fairly wonder
> > >
> > > for it is always well to ask of all offerings here
> > > what do they have to do with anything anyway
> > >
> > > & did they in fact reach even the general neighborhood of
> even
> > > the broad side of our bp barn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > & i say yes i think it may matter
> > > especially if we think it may
> > > but i admit this one is a tossup
> > >
> > > for the pols &or the supremes could well settle the entire
> > > piscataqua controversy without ever glancing beyond the
> > > breakwater at gosport
> > >
> > > in fact i wouldnt put it past them
> >
> > I agree. The Supremes' policy is not to decide issues that are
> not before them.
> > There is no way that the question of the boundary beyond the
> breakwater would be
> > reached by a suit brought to enforce Maine income taxes on Mr.
> Bourre and the
> > 1,800 other New Hampshire residents similarly situated. The
> only hope for
> > getting a firm MENHUS out of this case would be if the
> prospect of an adverse
> > ruling would stampede New Hampshire into consenting to a
> preemptive joint
> > demarcation that might include both of the boundary segments
> that are still
> > flapping. Since income taxes are involved, this might be
> politically unpopular
> > in anti-tax New Hampshire.
> >
> > [End of insertions.]
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > so
> > > pending all these various & mostly inevitable outcomes
> > > i am preparing to order the nautical chart & run the
> equidistance
> > > line myself out to the 3mile limits
> > > between the scatterings of outer rocks & islets that can
> already
> > > be foreseen on this nonnavigational chart
> > > http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=42.971&lon=-70.605
> > > especially if you select the large map size
> > >
> > >
> > > & then afterwards
> > > the 100k topo series at 250k map scale
> > > to see the limits that will need to be reached by their original
> or
> > > my hypothetical delineation
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> > > <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > excellent analysis
> > > >
> > > > & of course it was multi wishfully thought from the start
> here
> > > too
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > I agree that the boundary through Portsmouth Harbor in
> the
> > > > wide mouth of the
> > > > > Piscataqua River lacks proper demarcation, but any fair
> > > > interpretation of the
> > > > > 1740 royal decree's "Middle of the River" would have to
> leave
> > > > the naval base on
> > > > > Seavey Island in Maine. There's no comparison between
> the
> > > > wide, deep channel
> > > > > south of the island and the narrow, shallow, and twice
> > > bridged
> > > > channel north of
> > > > > the island. Just look at the soundings on the topo map!
> > > > >
> > > > > New Hampshire's previous claim to the low water line on
> the
> > > > north shore (shot
> > > > > down by the Supremes in 2001 without telling us where
> the
> > > > boundary really is)
> > > > > was clearly based on something other than the
> > > > aforementioned order of George II
> > > > > in council--namely prescription and acquiescence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that the comedian from Dover, New Hampshire,
> > > who
> > > > wishes to avoid Maine
> > > > > income taxes on his earnings at the naval yard, is going
> to
> > > say:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Well, you know, Maine (and Massachusetts before it)
> were in
> > > > past times rather
> > > > > lax in asserting their sovereignty over Seavey Island, and
> the
> > > > feds were
> > > > > perennially confused as to the postal address for the
> naval
> > > > base, so that puts
> > > > > it in tax-free New Hampshire!"
> > > > >
> > > > > I seem to recall that a long history of federal involvement
> that
> > > > was oblivious
> > > > > to the presence of any state boundary, coupled with
> extended
> > > > neglect by New
> > > > > Jersey, did not avail New York any more of Ellis Island
> than
> > > > Charles II had
> > > > > granted to the Duke of York in 1664. I suspect that the
> > > > Supremes will rule this
> > > > > time as they did then.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't blame Mr. Bourre for pointing out that the boundary
> is
> > > > uncertain and
> > > > > bringing the issue to a head; but in the meantime, I'd
> advise
> > > > him to set aside
> > > > > the money that Maine wants. Anything else would be
> wishful
> > > > thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps
> happening
> > > on
> > > > the way to menhus
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the legal briefs behind the tax revolt bravura
> > > > > >
> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/130ORIG.ZS.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & tho the usgs topo does indeed place seavey island
> > > > shipyard
> > > > > > squarely within maine
> > > > > >
> http://topozone.com/map.asp?lat=43.08083&lon=-70.735
> > > > > > if you zoom out & pan around from there
> > > > > > especially toward the south
> > > > > > you will find clear signs of the border uncertainty &or
> > > conflict
> > > > that
> > > > > > does indeed prevail thruout this area
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which btw is also the cause & general area of the
> police
> > > > condo
> > > > > > tho i still cant positively identify its tripoints or true extent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & the uncertainty of all the above is just the result of not
> > > > knowing
> > > > > > which interpretation to honor of the legal delineation
> > > > > > namely
> > > > > > the middle of the river
> > > > > > or the main navigation channel
> > > > > > or whatever
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but especially wherever islands such as this one are
> > > > concerned
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & thats the question that is probably headed back to the
> > > > > > supreme court right now with our comedian friend here
> > > > > > one way or the other
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & we
> > > > > > the precision try pointers of the world
> > > > > > well we can only stand by hoping the court will have the
> > > good
> > > > > > sense to take this opportunity to secure the entire menh
> > > > border
> > > > > > from ever blowing in the wind again
> > > > > > & therefore to pin it down all the way to menhus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "acroorca2002"
> > > > > > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03162004/news/5522.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> > > > > > > <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > ah so
> > > > > > > > already plumbed your well to a happy ending too i
> trust
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & to review & summarize what else of relevance we
> > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > seeing here on menh in recent years
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > this man is just the van & tip of a rising iceberg of
> tax
> > > > revolt by
> > > > > > > > portsmouth shipyard workers resident in maine
> > > > > > > > which has been bringing this ill defined border to a
> > > > political
> > > > > > > head
> > > > > > > > over many months now
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > believe it or not
> > > > > > > > the unresolved legal issues are pretty much as
> stated
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > article
> > > > > > > > as i understand them
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so this boor fellow may really know whereof he
> boasts
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > in fact i would bet this mess is more than ripe
> enough
> > > to
> > > > rise
> > > > > > > > straight to the supreme court again
> > > > > > > > unless they nip it in the bud with an instant border
> > > > > > commission
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & that is something they appear to have been
> > > > assiduously
> > > > > > > > avoiding
> > > > > > > > unlike our wild & crazy ctri messers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > pro tempore
> > > > > > > > there is a de facto police condominium of the
> busiest
> > > > areas
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the piscataqua harbor area
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & 4
> > > > > > > > as you probably also know
> > > > > > > > & as has already come up in this case
> > > > > > > > even an official map does not necessarily define a
> > > border
> > > > > > > > nor dispose of a dispute
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > > > > > McManus"
> > > > > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I hope that this does lead to a clarification of
> > > MENHUS,
> > > > but I
> > > > > > > > don't think the
> > > > > > > > > fellow has much of a chance with his tax case. I
> have
> > > a
> > > > > > > "1977
> > > > > > > > Official Highway
> > > > > > > > > Map of New Hampshire" issued by the New
> > > Hampshire
> > > > > > > > Division of Economic
> > > > > > > > > Development that clearly shows (in its
> Portsmouth
> > > > inset)
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the Portsmouth
> > > > > > > > > Naval Shipyard is in Maine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Michael Donner" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:31 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] a funny thing keeps
> > > > happening on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > way to menhus
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > this one ought to spawn a whole new menh
> border
> > > > > > > > commission &or supreme court
> > > > > > > > > > culmination
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03152004/news/5417.htm
> > > > > > > > > > & put an end to both of the outstanding menh
> > > > enigmas
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > this famously convoluted & urgent one in
> > > piscataqua
> > > > > > > harbor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the forgotten
> > > > > > > > > > & indeed practically esoteric
> > > > > > > > > > final stitch
> > > > > > > > > > from the breakwater at the isles of shoals to the
> > > 3mile
> > > > > > > limits
> > > > > > > > at menhus
> > > > > > > > > > aka mes
> > > > > > > > > > aka nhe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & the gathering legal storm should lead to the
> > > > resolution
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > both areas &
> > > > > > > > > > thus to the tripoint
> > > > > > > > > > which is still technically flapping in the wind
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > _______________
> > > > > > > > > > Learn how to help protect your privacy and
> prevent
> > > > fraud
> > > > > > > > online at Tech
> > > > > > > > > > Hacks & Scams.
> > > > > > > > http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>