yikes
who
might be right to call what who
was calling what
a what
hahahaha
& i cant recall the last time time you used the word
delimitation
not in this thread til now unless i missed it
the word
delimit
you used as recently as
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/13487
tho my collegiate dictionary is silent about your evident meaning
there
of
depict or show
perhaps an unabridged oed would support your sense there tho
on historic nontechnical grounds
& it may be pertinent here even if not a bulls eye
but if i understand you anyway in the present case
which of course i cant presume but only hope i might
since i do seem to follow & agree with much of what you are
saying here
hahaha
then i agree the scenario you are presenting is
a possibility
however
the great majority of compacts & judgments regarding riverine
state lines have not
to the best of my knowledge
gone that route
even the delimitation of orwa is just a series of verbal geodesics
without demarcation except on bridges & dams
& i think only azca & nmtx might actually fit your garden variety
model of delimitation
cum demarcation
but you may have dropped your earlier idea of
demarcation next
in favor of
exact delineation aka redelineation aka delimitation next
which i agree makes more sense
& i thought congress must consent
whether in advance or by subsequent ratification
whenever states fix their common boundary
regardless of how that fix might be made
perhaps you can give another example tho
of what you mean here by
we have lots of boundaries etc
lots of international river boundaries certainly
& lots of rationalized ridge lines certainly
etc etc
but so far
only the 2 or 3 riverine state lines mentioned above
all involving wild & fickle western watercourses
& seemingly nothing at all like we have here at menh
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> You might be right to call what I was calling a "delimitation" a
"refinement of
> the King's vague delineation" instead. Regardless of what one
calls it, I was
> thinking of surveyors going out and measuring either the
widths of the channels
> or sounding their depths and declaring where exactly is the
"Middle of the
> River" by whatever definition of "Middle" upon which the parties
might agree.
> This would be a garden-variety boundary survey of the existing
legal
> delineation, and would be binding if accepted by each state.
No compact would
> be necessary, nor any ratification by the Congress or the
courts. We have lots
> of boundaries that were established just that way--even some
that depart
> considerably from their delineations. By "delimitation" I meant
the location of
> the boundary on the surface of the harbor, whether any buoys
or on-shore witness
> rocks were installed or not.
>
> We already know what the Supremes would decree if the
question of the lateral
> boundary stitch beyond the breakwater and to the 3nm limit
were ever to come
> before them, because they've already told us. It is their policy
to apply
> Geneva principles to such matters. With your navigational
chart you can do that
> every bit as supremely as they can--and I know that you'll enjoy
it more! The
> only thing that might belie such a determination would be if the
two states beat
> the Supremes to deciding the matter and settled on extending
the last bearing or
> some such thing as that.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:51 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on
the way to menhus
>
>
> > just one insertion below
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > I have inserted my thoughts at appropriate places below:
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:06 AM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps
happening on
> > the way to menhus
> > >
> > >
> > > > well & maybe i will nibble a quibble with you here too
> > > > just to keep things light
> > > >
> > > > for tho the confusions are similar
> > > > your njny had previously been definitely delineated in
favor of
> > nj
> > >
> > > You are correct that there was an existing interstate
compact at
> > NJNY. My
> > > analogy was based on New York's reliance on federal
> > bureaucratic indifference
> > > and the doctrine of presecrption/acquiescence in its quest
for
> > the Ellis Island
> > > extensions.
> > >
> > > > so there was really nothing for the supremes to adjudge
> > there
> > > > but only an old agreement to revisit
> > > > hence that ridiculous & deliciously minute outcome on
ellis
> > > > island
> > > > whereas
> > > > our menh here around seavey island has previously only
> > been
> > > > indefinitely defined in favor of me
> > > > meaning maine
> > > >
> > > > so
> > > >
> > > > unless i am mistaken
> > > > & i know it happens
> > > > hahaha
> > > >
> > > > either the states plus congress or else the supremes are
> > > > imminently forced into motion
> > > > to create an original definition for this still indefinite
> > delineation
> > > > & thus settle for the first time an already historic original
> > > > confusion
> > >
> > > I think that they have a delineation already in the form of
> > George II's "Middle
> > > of the River."
> >
> > yes but i would stress the indefiniteness of this delineation
> > for it is just a vaguely worded description
> > & highly subject to various interpretations in its present form
> > & thus not at all a precise geographic delineation yet
> >
> > & we are familiar with this particular phrase
> > the middle of the river
> > as a classic recipe for difference & dispute wherever islands
are
> > involved
> >
> > but i doubt demarcation is necessarily the next step
> > or need be any step at all
> > in resolving this particular dispute
> >
> > of course direct &or indirect riverine demarcation are always
> > options
> >
> > but apart from occasional individual terminal & witness rocks
etc
> > we have seen these options used very sparingly within the
usa
> > in sharp contrast with their use on international boundaries
> >
> > in fact only 3 cases come to mind
> > azca nmtx & orwa
> >
> > & i also think it is too late for simple allocation of the islands
> > which might have been fine for the 17th or 18th centuries
> > but an exact state line is what is needed now & what should
> > emerge somehow
> >
> > so i believe the next step needs rather to be a refinement in
the
> > definition of the delineation
> > or what you may also be calling redelineation here below
> > whether done by the states or the supremes
> >
> > for i am not sure which way nor how this will proceed from
here
> >
> > but we do know that the court decision expected later this
month
> > is expected to be appealed either way
> > & thus to set something further into motion soon
> >
> > if the dispute gets resolved by an interstate compact
> > rather than a supreme court decision
> > then i agree that would give us the far better hope of a
> > comprehensive settlement & thus of an early menhus
> >
> > but i also agree a compact is far less likely than a supreme
court
> > test
> >
> > so that probably leads me back to doing menhus myself
> > with the navigational chart
> > which would probably be more fun anyway
> >
> > end of insertions
> >
> >
> >
> > What lacks is any demarcation. Of course, an interstate
compact
> > > ratified by the Congress could redelineate or even
reallocate.
> > The two states
> > > themselves could demarcate and ratify a survey based on
the
> > existing delineation
> > > without asking anybody, but that would take two willing
states.
> > More likely,
> > > the Supremes would order a demarcation based on either
a
> > special master's
> > > findings or a consent decree (as was the case in the
> > incomplete lateral boundary
> > > a few years ago). Right now, though, the case is not even
into
> > federal courts.
> > >
> > > Mr. Bourre is a resident of New Hampshire who disputes
> > Maine's right to tax his
> > > former paycheck at the naval base. As I understand it,
Maine
> > has its own
> > > administrative tax judgement against him, but he has no
Maine
> > assets to be
> > > seized. Therefore, Maine is pursuing him in New
Hampshire
> > courts to get the
> > > judgement enforced. If that doesn't happen, because New
> > Hampshire law prohibits
> > > its courts from enforcing any other state's taxes at the naval
> > base, then Maine
> > > would have to sue New Hampshire in the federal courts
asking
> > for its rights
> > > under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV. The
> > Supreme Court would
> > > have original jurisdiction. If that is the question, Maine will
win.
> > If New
> > > Hampshire were to assert, in its response to the suit, that
> > Seavey Island is not
> > > in Maine, only then would the boundary through the harbor
> > become an issue before
> > > the Supremes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > & but does this even matter to the ultimate definition of
> > menhus
> > > > you may fairly wonder
> > > >
> > > > for it is always well to ask of all offerings here
> > > > what do they have to do with anything anyway
> > > >
> > > > & did they in fact reach even the general neighborhood of
> > even
> > > > the broad side of our bp barn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > & i say yes i think it may matter
> > > > especially if we think it may
> > > > but i admit this one is a tossup
> > > >
> > > > for the pols &or the supremes could well settle the entire
> > > > piscataqua controversy without ever glancing beyond the
> > > > breakwater at gosport
> > > >
> > > > in fact i wouldnt put it past them
> > >
> > > I agree. The Supremes' policy is not to decide issues that
are
> > not before them.
> > > There is no way that the question of the boundary beyond
the
> > breakwater would be
> > > reached by a suit brought to enforce Maine income taxes
on Mr.
> > Bourre and the
> > > 1,800 other New Hampshire residents similarly situated.
The
> > only hope for
> > > getting a firm MENHUS out of this case would be if the
> > prospect of an adverse
> > > ruling would stampede New Hampshire into consenting to
a
> > preemptive joint
> > > demarcation that might include both of the boundary
segments
> > that are still
> > > flapping. Since income taxes are involved, this might be
> > politically unpopular
> > > in anti-tax New Hampshire.
> > >
> > > [End of insertions.]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so
> > > > pending all these various & mostly inevitable outcomes
> > > > i am preparing to order the nautical chart & run the
> > equidistance
> > > > line myself out to the 3mile limits
> > > > between the scatterings of outer rocks & islets that can
> > already
> > > > be foreseen on this nonnavigational chart
> > > >
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=42.971&lon=-70.605
> > > > especially if you select the large map size
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > & then afterwards
> > > > the 100k topo series at 250k map scale
> > > > to see the limits that will need to be reached by their
original
> > or
> > > > my hypothetical delineation
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> > > > <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > excellent analysis
> > > > >
> > > > > & of course it was multi wishfully thought from the start
> > here
> > > > too
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus"
> > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > I agree that the boundary through Portsmouth Harbor
in
> > the
> > > > > wide mouth of the
> > > > > > Piscataqua River lacks proper demarcation, but any
fair
> > > > > interpretation of the
> > > > > > 1740 royal decree's "Middle of the River" would have
to
> > leave
> > > > > the naval base on
> > > > > > Seavey Island in Maine. There's no comparison
between
> > the
> > > > > wide, deep channel
> > > > > > south of the island and the narrow, shallow, and twice
> > > > bridged
> > > > > channel north of
> > > > > > the island. Just look at the soundings on the topo
map!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New Hampshire's previous claim to the low water line
on
> > the
> > > > > north shore (shot
> > > > > > down by the Supremes in 2001 without telling us
where
> > the
> > > > > boundary really is)
> > > > > > was clearly based on something other than the
> > > > > aforementioned order of George II
> > > > > > in council--namely prescription and acquiescence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect that the comedian from Dover, New
Hampshire,
> > > > who
> > > > > wishes to avoid Maine
> > > > > > income taxes on his earnings at the naval yard, is
going
> > to
> > > > say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Well, you know, Maine (and Massachusetts before it)
> > were in
> > > > > past times rather
> > > > > > lax in asserting their sovereignty over Seavey Island,
and
> > the
> > > > > feds were
> > > > > > perennially confused as to the postal address for the
> > naval
> > > > > base, so that puts
> > > > > > it in tax-free New Hampshire!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I seem to recall that a long history of federal
involvement
> > that
> > > > > was oblivious
> > > > > > to the presence of any state boundary, coupled with
> > extended
> > > > > neglect by New
> > > > > > Jersey, did not avail New York any more of Ellis Island
> > than
> > > > > Charles II had
> > > > > > granted to the Duke of York in 1664. I suspect that the
> > > > > Supremes will rule this
> > > > > > time as they did then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't blame Mr. Bourre for pointing out that the
boundary
> > is
> > > > > uncertain and
> > > > > > bringing the issue to a head; but in the meantime, I'd
> > advise
> > > > > him to set aside
> > > > > > the money that Maine wants. Anything else would be
> > wishful
> > > > > thinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:30 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps
> > happening
> > > > on
> > > > > the way to menhus
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the legal briefs behind the tax revolt bravura
> > > > > > >
> > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/130ORIG.ZS.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & tho the usgs topo does indeed place seavey
island
> > > > > shipyard
> > > > > > > squarely within maine
> > > > > > >
> > http://topozone.com/map.asp?lat=43.08083&lon=-70.735
> > > > > > > if you zoom out & pan around from there
> > > > > > > especially toward the south
> > > > > > > you will find clear signs of the border uncertainty &or
> > > > conflict
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > does indeed prevail thruout this area
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > which btw is also the cause & general area of the
> > police
> > > > > condo
> > > > > > > tho i still cant positively identify its tripoints or true
extent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & the uncertainty of all the above is just the result of
not
> > > > > knowing
> > > > > > > which interpretation to honor of the legal delineation
> > > > > > > namely
> > > > > > > the middle of the river
> > > > > > > or the main navigation channel
> > > > > > > or whatever
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but especially wherever islands such as this one
are
> > > > > concerned
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & thats the question that is probably headed back to
the
> > > > > > > supreme court right now with our comedian friend
here
> > > > > > > one way or the other
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & we
> > > > > > > the precision try pointers of the world
> > > > > > > well we can only stand by hoping the court will have
the
> > > > good
> > > > > > > sense to take this opportunity to secure the entire
menh
> > > > > border
> > > > > > > from ever blowing in the wind again
> > > > > > > & therefore to pin it down all the way to menhus
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "acroorca2002"
> > > > > > > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03162004/news/5522.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
"m06079"
> > > > > > > > <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ah so
> > > > > > > > > already plumbed your well to a happy ending too
i
> > trust
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & to review & summarize what else of relevance
we
> > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > seeing here on menh in recent years
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > > this man is just the van & tip of a rising iceberg
of
> > tax
> > > > > revolt by
> > > > > > > > > portsmouth shipyard workers resident in maine
> > > > > > > > > which has been bringing this ill defined border
to a
> > > > > political
> > > > > > > > head
> > > > > > > > > over many months now
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > believe it or not
> > > > > > > > > the unresolved legal issues are pretty much as
> > stated
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > article
> > > > > > > > > as i understand them
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so this boor fellow may really know whereof he
> > boasts
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > in fact i would bet this mess is more than ripe
> > enough
> > > > to
> > > > > rise
> > > > > > > > > straight to the supreme court again
> > > > > > > > > unless they nip it in the bud with an instant
border
> > > > > > > commission
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & that is something they appear to have been
> > > > > assiduously
> > > > > > > > > avoiding
> > > > > > > > > unlike our wild & crazy ctri messers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > pro tempore
> > > > > > > > > there is a de facto police condominium of the
> > busiest
> > > > > areas
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the piscataqua harbor area
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & 4
> > > > > > > > > as you probably also know
> > > > > > > > > & as has already come up in this case
> > > > > > > > > even an official map does not necessarily define
a
> > > > border
> > > > > > > > > nor dispose of a dispute
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
"Lowell G.
> > > > > > > McManus"
> > > > > > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I hope that this does lead to a clarification of
> > > > MENHUS,
> > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > don't think the
> > > > > > > > > > fellow has much of a chance with his tax case.
I
> > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > "1977
> > > > > > > > > Official Highway
> > > > > > > > > > Map of New Hampshire" issued by the New
> > > > Hampshire
> > > > > > > > > Division of Economic
> > > > > > > > > > Development that clearly shows (in its
> > Portsmouth
> > > > > inset)
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the Portsmouth
> > > > > > > > > > Naval Shipyard is in Maine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Michael Donner"
<barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:31 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] a funny thing keeps
> > > > > happening on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > way to menhus
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > this one ought to spawn a whole new menh
> > border
> > > > > > > > > commission &or supreme court
> > > > > > > > > > > culmination
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03152004/news/5417.htm
> > > > > > > > > > > & put an end to both of the outstanding
menh
> > > > > enigmas
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > this famously convoluted & urgent one in
> > > > piscataqua
> > > > > > > > harbor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the forgotten
> > > > > > > > > > > & indeed practically esoteric
> > > > > > > > > > > final stitch
> > > > > > > > > > > from the breakwater at the isles of shoals to
the
> > > > 3mile
> > > > > > > > limits
> > > > > > > > > at menhus
> > > > > > > > > > > aka mes
> > > > > > > > > > > aka nhe
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > & the gathering legal storm should lead to
the
> > > > > resolution
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > both areas &
> > > > > > > > > > > thus to the tripoint
> > > > > > > > > > > which is still technically flapping in the wind
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
__________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > _______________
> > > > > > > > > > > Learn how to help protect your privacy and
> > prevent
> > > > > fraud
> > > > > > > > > online at Tech
> > > > > > > > > > > Hacks & Scams.
> > > > > > > > > http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >