Subject: Re: NYNJ - My take
Date: May 14, 2003 @ 20:46
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> No, your assumption is incorrect. Jurisdiction (in this case ofNY over
> Ellis and Bedloes/Liberty and the surface of the Hudson evenon the NJ side
> of the boundary, is *not* what makes something part of thestate of NY.
> That's what I've been trying to point out... If the islands areindeed a
> part of NY state and not merely pockets of NY jurisdiction withinNJ
> territory then there must be some other instrument or mentionof it as a
> right of property.Denver owns 14,000
>
> A somewhat analogous situation: The city and county of
> +/- acres of land in its Mountain Parks System, all of it welloutside the
> city borders up in Jefferson County, Douglas County andelsewhere. It has
> jurisdiction over this land but it is not part of Denver County.1897
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:12 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: NYNJ - My take
>
>
> bus&ss also indicates that the greater new york charter of
> placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york city bythen
> & that the original consolidation of the laws of new york state inbeen
> 1909 placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york state
> also
> tho in both cases the original law of jurisdiction must have
> pursuant to the 1834 compact & thus may well have beenmuch
> earlier than the above earliest known codificationstoday
>
> but anyway granted there was once a wild scramble here
> still arent jurisdiction rights rather than property rights what
> actually determine which state a piece of territory is in
> even if the state lines hadnt been clearly delimited in 1834
> nor as clear as they are today
>
> & it seems you are not really questioning the state lines of
> or are youtreaty
> kevin
> for i admit i have lost the boundary reasoning for this thread
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > I disagree only to the point that you belive treaty writers might
> use
> > different terms to mean the same things; my experience is
> precisely the
> > opposite. They only use different terms precisely when they
> intend to denote
> > different things. The definitions in a statute, document or
> are sharpof
> > and clear. The exclusive right of jurisdiction by NY over some
> the sameNJ."
> > physical territory that is clearly also defined as part of the
> exclusive
> > right of property on the part of NJ sets up a strange situation
> that can't
> > be answered by just saying,"well it's NY" or even "Well, it's
> Theunder
> > surface of the Hudson River, for example, west of the middle
> line (the
> > stated state boundary) is subsequently stated as being
> NYgoverment
> > jurisdiction. Therefore, they muyst mean different things.
> Otherwise, your
> > position is that the surface of the river west of the boundary is
> both NY
> > state and NJ state.
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@y...]
> > > Reply To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:55 PM
> > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] NYNJ - My take
> > >
> > > I considered writing this message just to Kevin, but I
> > > thought members of the group might support or oppose
> > > my viewpoint to educate me more.
> > > I totally understand how you think that Ellis Island
> > > is a NJ area with NY jurisdiction and obviously I
> > > can't (and I am not) excluding the possibility that it
> > > is such a case. There is also nothing to exclude the
> > > possibility that it is a true state line. However
> > > much you adhere to your reading of the 1834 treaty, it
> > > does not exclude the second possibility even though it
> > > might discount it. I haven't found a passage that
> > > specifically says that the boundary is not a true
> > > state boundary (I probably haven't looked at it as
> > > carefully as you, so you might educate me on that).
> > > What I don't understand is how you harp on the fact
> > > the similar, but not same, languages used for two
> > > different items has to mean two different positions.
> > > Treaty-makers are known for persnicketyness and they
> > > write way more than they need to and that looks to be
> > > the case here. I mean, Versailles Treaty could have
> > > just said that Germany lost and has to give everything
> > > up, but no, they have to write millions of words.
> > > The way I look at it, there are too many maps, too
> > > many magazines and too many sentences in the
> > > documents to make the possibility of a true state linehttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > much higher. Even the supreme court uses the word
> > > sovereignty on the subject of Ellis Island. There are
> > > many trials where a criminal was convicted with less
> > > circumstantial evidence. If you ever find a map or
> > > magazine that supports your position, let me know.
> > >
> > > About your comment on magazines, I have read too many
> > > magazines to know that you are right about questioning
> > > a magzine. But in the same breath, I can't also
> > > assume you are right over what looks like a geography
> > > magazine and many other documents.
> > > Arif
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > > http://search.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to