Subject: corrected url Re: NYNJ - My take
Date: May 15, 2003 @ 22:24
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> excuse me kevin but upon further reflection & more carefulto
> review of the 1998 njny ellis case outline or syllabus
> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/120ORIG.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
> most if not all of the issues you have raisedthe
> 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
> > njny interstate boundary on ellis islandnot
> >
> > & 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 --
> > the respectivearound.
> > > counties -- has jurisdiction over its parkland which is well
> > outside the
> > > city in at least three other counties, not the other way
> > That wasin
> > > the analogy I was drawing. Denver has police and other
> > governmental powers
> > > outside its boundaries in mountain parks that are located
> > other counties.*two*
> > >
> > > This has been my difficulty with the NY-NJ situation.
> > >
> > > The compact and everything derived from it establishes
> > levels ofone
> > > 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
> toflies
> > 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,
> inproperty
> > the face
> > > of the other provisions of the compact with regard to
> > vs.contradiction
> > > jurisdiction rights. To say the island is an actual part of NY
> > state and not
> > > just a "colony" outside NY boundaries sets up a
> > that no onecompact
> > > 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
> is--
> > > jurisdiction, not property) *even west of the middle* -- in NJ
> > over thetalking
> > > surface waters and the islands. In other words, when
> > about thejurisdiction
> > > surface waters, clearly the compact says NY has
> > over NJwell
> > > territory!! This same language is used for the islands as
> --literal
> > 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
> > (andshould
> > > littoral in this case -- haha) part of NY state, then why
> > the samelands
> > > 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
> --NJ
> > 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
> > riverbank?writers
> > > 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
> > meant thebay
> > > 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
> > but we hold themabout
> > > 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
> > >belongs
> > > nor do i follow your analogy
> > > even allowing for its admitted somewhativity
> > >
> > > the jurisdiction of the land denver owns out of county
> > tocase
> > > 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
> ofthe
> > > 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
> > > state of NY.well
> > > > 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
> > > outside theCounty.
> > > > city borders up in Jefferson County, Douglas County and
> > > elsewhere. It has
> > > > jurisdiction over this land but it is not part of Denver
> > > >by
> > > > -----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
> > > thenhave
> > > > & 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
> > > beenwhat
> > > > 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
> > > > actually determine which state a piece of territory is in1834
> > > > even if the state lines hadnt been clearly delimited in
> > > > nor as clear as they are todayof
> > > >
> > > > & it seems you are not really questioning the state lines
> > > todaythread
> > > > or are you
> > > > kevin
> > > > for i admit i have lost the boundary reasoning for this
> > > >experience
> > > > --- 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
> isor
> > > > precisely the
> > > > > opposite. They only use different terms precisely when
> they
> > > > intend to denote
> > > > > different things. The definitions in a statute, document
> > > treatythe
> > > > 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
> > > > exclusivethings.
> > > > > 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
> > > > Otherwise, yourit
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > might discount it. I haven't found a passage thatthey
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > write way more than they need to and that looks to bequestioning
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > a magzine. But in the same breath, I can't alsogeography
> > > > > > assume you are right over what looks like a
> > > > > > 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/