--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I do not really think for one minute that the USA/Mexico
boundary is anything
> other than absolutely vertical. I agree with Acroorca that, IF the
monuments
> indeed fix the boundary on the bridge; then the boundary
probably jogs away from
> the ever-moving thalweg along the flanks of the bridge to reach
the fixed
> monumented point. The notion of any contortions out of the
vertical are
> patently ridiculous in the absence of specific treaty language
(and would still
> be bizarre even with it).
i agree with acroorca too but here is what he may be missing
the freakin iwbc is probably going to say to you lowell
the thalweg rules on the ground & up to the upper surface of the
bridge
but the monument then causes the boundary to follow the right of
way or the bridge edges out to the monumented transsection
& since thats the way they probably see it & will probably call it
that means
de facto at least
vertical differentiation of sovereignty
& everyone will say de facto in such a case is as good as de jure
& they will be right too
for the prevailing perception however berserk is far more
important than the reality
in the illusion that we call reality
of which more below
> The US segments of bridges on the Rio Grande border tend to
be owned by the
> private sector or local governments. The State of Texas owns
only one (at
> Presidio), and the IWBC itself owns a few! Those that are
privately owned (all
> of the railway and some of the highway bridges) are subject to
property
> taxation.
yes this is the saving grace acro hadnt anticipated
a good & necessary reason to normalize & rationalize
however ineptly
this lurch & disjunction from normal reality
> For that reason alone, it would be most practical to fix the
boundary
> on bridges. Additionally, the railways have federal authority to
operate as
> common carriers. If the US railway built, owns, and maintains
the bridge to the
> boundary monument, and if the connecting Mexican railway
has the rest; what
> happens then if the boundary moves southward with the
accreting river. Private
> property would not pass to the other party. That would leave a
segment of track
> in the USA that pertains to a railway not having common-carrier
authority in the
> USA. (In the several cases where Canadian and Mexican
railways have and do own
> huge amounts of track in the USA, it is done through US
subsidiaries that do
> have such authority).
>
> I, like Acroorca, would be most interested to learn where it is
written that
> IWBC bridge monuments trump accretions of the thalweg. I
have been unable to
> find any copies of the applicable treaties on the web. (It's
almost as if the
> feds were intentionally hiding them, but I know that they're
published in
> books.)
maybe the feds of both countries
& here is where they may take you for an interesting ride
to the answer of another nagging question
why is it that every monument on caus is geopintpointed &
published online
but scarcely a one on mxus
could that have anything to do with all these embarrassingly fuzzy
bridge lurches they might prefer to keep secret
or to some other embarrassments we would like to know about
end of insertions
> I believe that the currently governing treaty would be that of
November
> 23, 1970. The treaties could very well provide for the joint
survey of the
> boundary and that monuments once established along the dry
boundary AND AT RIVER
> CROSSING POINTS and accepted by both sovereigns are
fixed. We all know that
> even an astronomically flawed demarcation of a dry boundary
governs nevertheless
> if it has been ratified by the parties.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:58 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: DEFRLU + BEDELU & eagle
pass
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >