excuse me kevin but upon further reflection & more careful
review of the 1998 njny ellis case outline or syllabus
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/1200RIG.ZS.html
with particular attention to terms like sovereign authority &
territory & boundary
i believe all your questions & concerns do get answered
by just these findings & rulings of the supreme court itself
which now in retrospect seem to have been extremely attentive to
most if not all of the issues you have raised
or do you still not agree
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> 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/