--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> --- 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
my compliments on the above analyses & predictions by us from
start to finish
tho one minor revision may be necessary
for upon further reflection it seems more likely that the marker
will be perceived to divide the entire bridge span than just the top
surface of the bridge
& if there really was anything relevant in the 1970 treaty
the ibwc informant probably would have known about it
so albeit a graceful escape for him
this is another likely dead end too
so it seems to me our diligence is just about done here
& the next step would rather be to stage a test case
like say stationing a lawyer & a photographer under the bridge
& just waiting for the first wetback to get arrested there