--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> Re: River walk. I give up trying to talk sense to you.
thanx i graciously accept your resignation
especially as i know you know you couldve maintained the draw
& by repetition or stalemate equally well
If you don't realize
> that people can walk a natural boundary such as the south
bank of the Red --
> given accommodations naturally for the conditions to be met
there such as
> boats to float across tributary mouths -- then nothing I can add
would move
> this along.
ok then i take it you have begun a new game
with this addition of a boat
& you are evidently playing with the white pieces this time
delicious
thanx
or have you not really resigned but only considered resigning the
previous game of trying to talk sense to me
i cant tell
but you could have your move back
just let me know which it is
in any case & in the meantime
i can continue to try to talk sense to you
in this new game if any
you no longer have any real need to walk at all
but may just take your boat from start to finish really
changing the pedometer to a hydrometer etc etc etc
& voila
you may tell us you have measured or estimated the length of a
boundary river
or of a boundary river bank or thalweg or whatever
& we will believe you
no problem
in fact you have already checkmated me in this new game if i
object to your excellent project
no contest
& you wouldnt even have had to put your body where your mouth
is in this case
but in either game
the boundary itself remains your linguistic problem
& not mine
even as you keep telling me i have been saying more & more
things that i have never said nor maintained nor agreed
& all in the name of trying to talk sense to me
in any case i will continue to try & seek & speak the truest
available & most punctilious possible truth
with you &or anyone else who shares my interest in doing so
thank you
i am complete
I see people doing it all the time. I think we're not even
> talking the same language here.
>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 7:19 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
>
>
> hahahahaaaa
> what you mean us quimosabe
> hahaha
> & a river walk
> hahaha
> this is no river walk
> this is a freakin boundary walk
> & i never granted you any freakin boat
>
> now you want to go change the deal again
> ok be my guest
> do it your way
> do it any way
> but do something already rather than just yak
>
> it is still your point to make
>
> > Thanks for the perspective on NY-NJ
>
> you are welcome
> it was fun
> it was all fun
>
>
> >
> > As to the "river walk," I think a boat would help us get across
> mouths of
> > tributaries; there are many ways to follow the line. It is not
> impossible;
> > probably not even difficult.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:56 PM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> > <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > > Simply....
> > >
> > > The Compact delineates two separate rights... ownership
of
> > *and*
> > > jurisdiction over. They mean two different things, and this to
> me
> > implies
> > > heavily that Ellis, Bedloes and indeed the waters of NY Bay
> and
> > the Hudson
> > > that lie west of the middle -- which the compact says are
"in"
> > NJ, are
> > > nevertheless "ruled" by NY -- as the US has jurisdiction
over
> > Guantanamo
> > > although it is "in" Cuba.
> >
> > ahh ok very good
> > & there is other stuff in the compact that backs you up in this
> > such as a provision that ny quarantine law apply all the way
to
> > the nj shore
> > & another that nj fishery law apply on the nj side of the state
> line
> > provided there is no obstruction or hindrance to navigation
> > an interest presumably maintained if not actually ruled by ny
> > etc etc
> >
> > so a very impressive blindfolded sharpshooting exhibition by
> you
> > kevin
> >
> >
> > & what can we conclude
> >
> > that as the price for a confirmed equidistance state line in
1834
> > nj had to yield to ny 2 islands she had never ruled anyway
> > but also some of her sovereign rights upon the river
actualized
> or
> > potentiated by the compact itself
> > yet only those rights which were already exercised by ny
> anyway
> > so it was evidently another small price to pay for such great
> gain
> > & a payment which by now has probably been fully
discharged
> > while all the formerly intrusive rights & functions of ny into nj
> are
> > by now very probably covered by the port of new york authority
> > condominium
> > so there isnt likely to be any hangover of ny sovereign sprawl
> into
> > nj territory
> > but there evidently or certainly was considerable overreach in
> > 1834
> > just as you predicted
> >
> > does that fact diminish the fact of exclavity
> >
> > was that your question
> >
> > i dont believe that it does
> >
> > i think the state lines were still the state lines
> > all 3 of them fully actualized since 1834
> > despite certain anomalies of transborder sovereign rights
> >
> > & it is the lines of state that determine clavity
> >
> > a simple matter of topology i believe
> >
> > > And am I extremely puzzled that you appear to believe it's
not
> > possible to
> > > walk a riverbank. My my, it seems such an easy thing to do!
> >
> > you wouldnt be puzzled if you had seen this riverbank
> > say around aroktx
> >
> > we were talking about walking this state line along this
> riverbank
> >
> > i would agree it is a very easy thing to imagine
> > but it is frankly an impossible thing to do my friend
> > even if you could walk across the tributary mouths
> >
> > so i will gladly spare you the rough & tumble of the
experiment
> > unless you insist on proving me wrong
> > which is your right
> > but you will have to put your body where your mouth is now
> >
> > again
> > i am complete
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:51 PM
> > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> > > <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > > > Responding here to your inquiry over in the other thread
> (btw,
> > I
> > > didn't say
> > > > I would actually walk OK-TX! I merely meant it could be
> done
> > > and in all
> > > > likelihood, has)
> > >
> > > hahahahahahhh
> > > hahaha
> > > in your dreams baby
> > > hahahaha
> > >
> > > & i am still trying to understand the rest of your unclarity
here
> > > below
> > > & will report back if or when i do
> > >
> > > thanx
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I still believe this is unclear. The 1834 compact
> cites
> > > you posted
> > > > give specific reference to two levels of rights, a hierarchy
as
> it
> > > seems.
> > > > One is an exclusive right of ownership (statehood, not fee
> > > simple), the
> > > > other is that of exclusive jurisdiction.
> > > >
> > > > I would maintain that the writers of the compact would not
> > have
> > > delineated
> > > > these separate terms if they didn't mean separate things
in
> > the
> > > first place.
> > > > That's a fundamental principle in legal writing.
> > > >
> > > > The compact takes pains to prescribe the NJ-NY line as
> the
> > > middle of the
> > > > river and bay, but then gives NY continuing and exclusive
> > > jurisdiction over
> > > > not only the surface of the river all the way to the NJ
> > shoreline,
> > > but the
> > > > land the water flows over up to the low water level on the
NJ
> > > bank.
> > > >
> > > > If "exclusive jurisdiction over" is the same as statehood,
as
> > you
> > > infer,
> > > > then there would not have been a delineation of the NJ
> > > boundary as the
> > > > middle of the Hudson and NY Bay, for that would be an
> > > irreconcilable
> > > > conflict -- the same piece of land should not lie within two
> > > states at once!
> > > >
> > > > A good analogous example (in practicality although not
> > > analogous in legal
> > > > instrumentation) is Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (the land
> > > adjoining it, which is
> > > > a US military base). It is Cuban territory for sure -- in no
way
> > is
> > > it
> > > > "part" of the US -- but the US has complete and exclusive
> > > jurisdiction over
> > > > it. That's what I am trying to figure out for NJ-NY and Ellis
> > > Island.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:19 AM
> > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] new njny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > kevin
> > > > much intertwingling again below
> > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I would like to read them. Can you post them or
> give
> > a
> > > > > link? Also, is
> > > > > > there any written record of the practices prior to 1834
> that
> > > led
> > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Compact having to be written? IIRC, the compact was
> to
> > > > > memorialize and
> > > > > > standardize a set of past practices and customs
> > regarding
> > > > the
> > > > > islands in NY
> > > > > > Bay.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are probably right
> > > >
> > > > indeed you are definitely right
> > > >
> > > > & i omitted something important
> > > >
> > > > from the good book p79
> > > > as follows
> > > > btw please see messages 6 & 7 for the full skinny on
> > bus&ss
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > tho the original grant of 1606 from the english sovereign
> > > covered
> > > > the territory forming the present state of nj
> > > > the first grant that directly related to nj was given in 1664
to
> > lord
> > > > john berkeley & sir george carteret by the duke of york
> > > > 2 months before the setting out of his expedition to take
> > > > possession of ny
> > > >
> > > > the following extract from that grant defines the
boundaries
> of
> > > nj
> > > >
> > > > all that tract of land adjacent to new england
> > > > & lying & being to the westward of long island & manhitas
> > > island
> > > > & bounded on the east
> > > > part by the main sea & part by hudsons river
> > > >
> > > > & hath upon the west delaware bay or river etc
> > > >
> > > > more below
> > > >
> > > > > abstracts from bus&ss 1976 pp76f
> > > > >
> > > > > njny was plainly stated in the grant by the duke of york to
> > > > berkeley
> > > > > & carteret in 1664
> > > > >
> > > > > the geodetic sector from njne to njnypa was run &
> > confirmed
> > > > > between 1719 & 1773
> > > > >
> > > > > in 1833 commissioners were appointed by ny & nj for
the
> > > > > settlement of the territorial limits & jurisdiction of the 2
> > states
> > > > >
> > > > > agreement reached & ratified & confirmed 1834
> > > > > provided as follows
> > > > >
> > > > > article first
> > > > > the boundary line between the 2 states of ny & nj
> > > > > from a point in the middle of hudson river opposite the
> > point
> > > on
> > > > > the west shore thereof in the 41st degree of north
latitude
> > > > > as heretofore ascertained & marked
> > > > > aka njne
> > > > > to the main sea
> > > > > shall be the middle
> > > > > of the said river
> > > > > of the bay of new york
> > > > > of the waters between etc etc
> > > > > except as hereinafter otherwise particularly mentioned
> > > > >
> > > > > article second
> > > > > the state of ny shall retain its present jurisdiction of &
over
> > > > > bedloes & ellis islands
> > > > > & shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction of & over the
> other
> > > > > islands lying in the waters abovementioned & now
under
> > the
> > > > > jurisdiction of that state
> > > > >
> > > > > article third
> > > > > the state of ny shall have & enjoy exclusive jurisdiction
of
> &
> > > over
> > > > > all the waters of the bay of new york
> > > > > & of & over all the waters of hudson river lying west of
> > > > manhattan
> > > > > island & south of the mouth of spuyten duyvel
> > > > > & of & over the lands covered by the said waters
> > > > > to the low water mark on the westerly or nj side thereof
> > > > > subject to the following rights of property & of
jurisdiction
> of
> > > the
> > > > > state of nj
> > > > > that is to say
> > > > > 1
> > > > > the state of nj shall have the exclusive right of property
in
> &
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > land under the water lying west of the middle of the bay
of
> > > new
> > > > > york
> > > > > & west of the middle of that part of the hudson river
which
> > lies
> > > > > between manhattan island & nj
> > > > > 2
> > > > > the state of nj shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of &
> over
> > > the
> > > > > wharves docks improvements etc etc
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > bedloes island & ellis island
> > > > > tho on the nj side of the boundary
> > > > > are under the jurisdiction of the state of ny
> > > > > & are a part of greater new york city
> > > > >
> > > > > end of extracts
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But the heart of the question remains unanswered:
> > > > >
> > > > > The compact as cited above declares two separate
> rights.
> > > That
> > > > of exclusive
> > > > > property and that of exclusive jurisdiction. It does not
say
> > that
> > > > Bedloes
> > > > > and Ellis islands are in the state of NY. It merely says
NY
> > has
> > > > exclusive
> > > > > jurisdiction over them... and that has been my question,
> to
> > > > determine
> > > > > whether Ellis and bedloes can be considered a *part*
of
> > the
> > > > state of NY, or
> > > > > merely a part of the state of NJ over which NY from
> colonial
> > > > times bullied
> > > > > itself into having jurisdiction.
> > > >
> > > > well i think
> > > > having exclusive property & exclusive jurisdiction rights
over
> > > any
> > > > lands
> > > > m e a n s
> > > > these lands are in the state that has these rights
> > > > & are certainly to be considered parts of it
> > > > rather than of any neighboring or surrounding or distant
> state
> > > > or of no state at all
> > > >
> > > > bullying apart
> > > > which is always a political fact
> > > > how else could you construe it
> > > >
> > > > > I note that the compact as cited also gives NY
jurisdiction
> > > over
> > > > the Hudson
> > > > > River and lands underneath it all the way to the low
water
> > > mark
> > > > on the NJ
> > > > > side of the river from Spuyten Duyvel south (Harlem
> River).
> > > >
> > > > here you have misconstrued this meaning from article
third
> > > > above
> > > > for it is subject to enumerated restrictions which you have
> left
> > > out
> > > >
> > > > that is just the way they constructed the deal
> > > >
> > > > rather elegantly
> > > > as follows
> > > >
> > > > ny owns it all
> > > > except nj owns half
> > > > except ny owns these 2 exclaves within nj
> > > >
> > > > given the new quote i added here at the top
> > > > about nj being bounded on the east by hudsons river
> > > > per the duke of york in 1664
> > > > who had himself just been granted all of hudsons river
> > > > including specifically
> > > > everything between the connecticut & delaware rivers
> > > > by charles ii
> > > > earlier in the year 1664
> > > > it isnt really surprising that
> > > > by the time of the inevitable 1834 compact & clarification
> > > > ny managed to keep all the islands
> > > > but nj managed to get half of the river
> > > >
> > > > given the reality of political bullying on top of the
> > documentation
> > > > this was actually a big win for nj
> > > >
> > > > > Yet all maps
> > > > > show the state boundary line going down the middle of
> the
> > > > Hudson west of
> > > > > Manhattan Island.
> > > >
> > > > correct
> > > >
> > > > > So it seems evident though not clear to me that the
intent
> of
> > > all
> > > > this is
> > > > > NOT to make Ellis and Bedloes a part of the state of
NY,
> > but
> > > to
> > > > memorialize
> > > > > and formalize NY's historic dominance over all
maritime
> > > activity
> > > > in the
> > > > > waters of NY Bay -- all but the wharves and docks
> > extending
> > > > from above the
> > > > > low water line on the NJ shore.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree?
> > > >
> > > > no
> > > > for as i think you may see clearly now
> > > > the historic dominance was entirely legal
> > > > bullying or no
> > > > & i say this as a proud native underdog of nj
> > > >
> > > > & thanx for the many great questions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/