len
of course this question refers only to the accreted sectors & not
to the avulsed ones at all
where there is no question the markers do rule
& then if you do learn that the ibwc markers do indeed legally
trump their corresponding thalweg position
& i would think there is certainly a good possibility of this
it will still be necessary to learn the path by which the boundary
gets from the ground to the bridge
or the presumption will remain that the bridge jog sector
whether expressly or implicitly
interrupts the thalweg boundary for the width of the bridge
& along its edges
but still without vertical differentiation of sovereignty
just as we saw occurs by law in lithuania
but please do continue the hot pursuit
i am sure you are on to something big here
if not a vertigal jog
then at least the clear delineation of a fantastic illusion
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > I think the answers to the question of their being dry land
areas
> > within the DE-LUX condo will be answered when we see the
> treaty text.
>
> i thought we already knew there are many such dry areas
>
> > I've ordered a copy of the book, and when I have digested it,
I'll
> > post whatever is there that exposes something.
>
> great
>
> > Also, sometime this week, I'll visit the Border Commission
HQ
> here in
> > DC and ask if a drug runner or people smuggler is captured
> under the
> > bridge south of the border marker but on the north side of the
> river
> > if the person is in the U.S. or in Mexico at that point, and I'll let
> > you know what they say.
>
> great
> you are on the leading edge of this question then
> which i think boils down to
> where does it actually say
> ibwc markers above the river trump the thalweg
>
>
>
> > It'll probably be some maneuver words, such as "we have a
hot
> pursuit
> > agreement so the government needn't establish a precedent
> by
> > ascertaining the answer".
> >
> > LN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > thanxx twice lowell
> > > for even without having seen the maps
> > > i am practically certain your analysis is correct
> > > & just the latest on our long trail of busted claims
> > > of vertically differentiated sovereignty
> > > a topic most recently revisited & summarized in messages
> 9963
> > > 9971 9973 9974 9975 9985 9990
> > >
> > > & similarly your very interesting eagle pass observation or
try
> > > just like all the other bridge markers along mxus
> > > is i think most probably overridden by the accretions of the
> river
> > > since the unavulsed rio border has been defined & oft
> reiterated
> > > as the living thalweg or middle of the deepest channel of
the
> rio
> > >
> > > & thus
> > > unless there is some legal provision here that i am
unaware
> of
> > > like the lithuanian one by which bridges & their markers
> trump
> > > thalwegs
> > > or say one that makes even the misguided & unratified acts
> of
> > > the ibwc trump the treaty texts & the laws of both countries
> > > then i think all mxus bridge markers are technically relict
> even as
> > > they are being installed
> > > since they refer at best to the accurate thalweg position in
the
> > > past rather than actually marking the present legal reality
> > >
> > > & the fact that these markers are far more likely to be
> observed
> > > than the thalweg ever is
> > > & are so official looking to boot
> > > indeed because they are official
> > > makes for a hilarious mass delusion
> > > but not yet necessarily for vertically differentiated
sovereignty
> > >
> > > usually the distances involved are so small & ephemeral &
> the
> > > practical distinctions so nonexistent that nobody notices or
> cares
> > > & i think that is where the matter presently stands
> > >
> > > however it does set up a situation in which the vertical
> > > differentiation could eventually accrue
> > > upon & above the bridges
> > > by uti possidetis juris
> > > if ever tested & adjudicated that way
> > >
> > > it is just that we have seen no evidence for this yet
> > > & until there is
> > > i think we have here & in many other places on the rio & in
> the
> > > world today illusory or fuzzy borders & the particular illusion
of
> > > differentiated vertical sovereignty
> > > but not yet the actual fact of it
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > L. A. Nadybal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > a. There is a piece of land on the France-Condo
border
> in
> > > white.
> > > > According to the Legend, the pink is the joint sovereignty
> area -
> > > and
> > > > the piece of land is not in pink, not in Luxembourg proper
> and
> > > not in
> > > > Germany proper, either.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the map shows TWO such mystery areas: (1)
The
> > > end of the island that
> > > > sticks from France into the condominium; and (2) the jetty
> or
> > > wing-wall that
> > > > extends twice as far from the lock in France at the left
edge
> of
> > > the lower map.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I think these lands and the bridge as well are
> within
> > > the condominium.
> > > > Notice that in the legend, the German and French texts
> relating
> > > to the condo are
> > > > right beside the island and bridge. I think they're saying
> that
> > > everything
> > > > between the pink dashed lines is condo (including
> lavender
> > > water and white lands
> > > > and bridge). All dry DELU boundary lines and those
> fronting
> > > the condo are shown
> > > > as pink dashed lines, and there are none around the
white
> > > island.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA