yes
as i said before
my incomprehension is staggering
& continues to be
so i am not really surprised to learn that i misunderstood
but if i could ask
are you talking about the njny situation only in 1834
or today also
& do you suppose the situation has or hasnt variously &
fundamentally changed in the interim
& do you realize the recent supreme court ruling was about the
njny interstate boundary on ellis island
& what if anything are you trying to determine or say about the
state line or lines in 2003
& do you think state & county jurisdictions are the same thing
differing only in scale & scope
or are they as intrinsically different from each other as
say
sovereign power & administrative responsibility
i do appreciate the denver mountain parks as rare birds tho
& liberty & ellis islands as different rare birds
not at all of the same species
perhaps not even of the same genus
but in any case i dont believe i can answer your latest questions
even if i understood them better
so feel free to answer mine or not
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> No, you misunderstood: In the Denver example, the city -- not
the respective
> counties -- has jurisdiction over its parkland which is well
outside the
> city in at least three other counties, not the other way around.
That was
> the analogy I was drawing. Denver has police and other
governmental powers
> outside its boundaries in mountain parks that are located in
other counties.
>
> This has been my difficulty with the NY-NJ situation.
>
> The compact and everything derived from it establishes *two*
levels of
> interest, that of right of property (establishing which land is part
of the
> respective states -- not actually "ownership" of property) IN
ADDITION TO
> the right of exclusive jurisdiction, which seems to be
something less. What
> I am wondering is whether this right of jurisdiction leads one to
say that
> original Ellis -- while totally governed and maintained and ruled
by NY, as
> noted, from well established custom and practice even before
1834 -- is
> simply a piece of NJ that is ruled by NY. This appears to be the
simplest
> explanation -- Occam's Razor.
>
> That's because to simply say, no it's actually part of NY, flies in
the face
> of the other provisions of the compact with regard to property
vs.
> jurisdiction rights. To say the island is an actual part of NY
state and not
> just a "colony" outside NY boundaries sets up a contradiction
that no one
> here has been able to resolve.
>
> To wit: Clearly, the boundary line between the two states is the
middle of
> the Hudson River and on out through the Bay (right of property).
So
> everything west of the line is NJ. HOWEVER: it is also
stipulated that NY
> has exclusive jurisdiction (note: the language in the compact is
> jurisdiction, not property) *even west of the middle* -- in NJ --
over the
> surface waters and the islands. In other words, when talking
about the
> surface waters, clearly the compact says NY has jurisdiction
over NJ
> territory!! This same language is used for the islands as well --
which to
> me implies the same thing -- that the compact officially codified
NY's
> "jurisdiction" over pieces of NJ territory, without actually
conveying the
> "right of property" that would make the islands truly a part of NY
state.
> For if this language is taken to mean the islands are a literal
(and
> littoral in this case -- haha) part of NY state, then why should
the same
> language be construed as making the surface waters up to the
NJ shoreline a
> part of NY state too?
>
> You see? If that were true, there would be no boundary line
down the middle
> of the river -- it's a contradiction.
>
> Note that NJ maintains its jurisdiction over subsurface lands --
the
> submerged land that later was filled to become the larger part
of Ellis Is.
>
> My point is, both cannot be true if we are to regard Ellis as part
of NY
> state and not merely a colony of sorts of NY within NJ. How can
the boundary
> be the middle of the river, yet NY has jurisdiction up to the NJ
riverbank?
> This makes no sense if, as you would have us, we read the
rights of property
> and the right of jurisdiction as meaning the same essential
thing.
>
> I maintain that they do not mean the same thing; if the writers
meant the
> same thing by the two terms, they would have used one single
term.
>
> So how can the water flowing down the west side of the
Hudson be in NJ but
> NY has jurisdiction over them, and this is completely
understandable, yet
> the same language is used regarding the islands in the bay
but we hold them
> to be part of NY state and not just a colony?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: NYNJ - My take
>
>
> kevin i am again staggered by my incomprehension
>
> assuming you are talking to me just below
> if i may
> then i still dont know what assumption you are talking about
>
> nor do i follow your analogy
> even allowing for its admitted somewhativity
>
> the jurisdiction of the land denver owns out of county belongs
to
> the county in which it lies
> as you recognize
>
> the jurisdiction of the land new york has jurisdiction over
beyond
> the primary njny state line belongs to
> new york
> of course
> & thus is separated from new jersey jurisdiction
> obviously
> by secondary njny state lines
>
> topologically speaking
> there is not 1 but 3 jurisdictional new yorks
> just as there are 2 jurisdictional kentuckys
>
> & jurisdictional new jersey has 2 jurisdictional holes in it
> occupied by 2 of these jurisdictional new yorks rather than just
by
> new york property
>
> so this isnt at all like denver
>
> this is rather more like kentucky bend
> except here the 2 exclaves are enclaves too
> while the kentucky bend exclave isnt enclaved in anything
>
> also
> if not precisely these interstate boundaries then what interstate
> boundaries were the supremes talking about
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > No, your assumption is incorrect. Jurisdiction (in this case of
> NY over
> > Ellis and Bedloes/Liberty and the surface of the Hudson even
> on the NJ side
> > of the boundary, is *not* what makes something part of the
> state of NY.
> > That's what I've been trying to point out... If the islands are
> indeed a
> > part of NY state and not merely pockets of NY jurisdiction
within
> NJ
> > territory then there must be some other instrument or
mention
> of it as a
> > right of property.
> >
> > A somewhat analogous situation: The city and county of
> Denver owns 14,000
> > +/- acres of land in its Mountain Parks System, all of it well
> outside the
> > city borders up in Jefferson County, Douglas County and
> elsewhere. It has
> > jurisdiction over this land but it is not part of Denver County.
> >
> > -----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
> 1897
> > placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york city by
> then
> > & that the original consolidation of the laws of new york state
in
> > 1909 placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york
state
> > also
> > tho in both cases the original law of jurisdiction must have
> been
> > pursuant to the 1834 compact & thus may well have been
> much
> > earlier than the above earliest known codifications
> >
> > 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
> today
> > or are you
> > 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
> treaty
> > are sharp
> > > and clear. The exclusive right of jurisdiction by NY over
some
> of
> > the same
> > > 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
> NJ."
> > The
> > > surface of the Hudson River, for example, west of the
middle
> > line (the
> > > stated state boundary) is subsequently stated as being
> under
> > NY
> > > 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
> goverment
> > > > documents to make the possibility of a true state line
> > > > 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
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/