Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on the way to menhus
Date: Mar 19, 2004 @ 15:47
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:03 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a funny thing keeps happening on the way to menhus
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>