ok all your points are well taken
& i do think you are right
& i agree we have probably milked this for all it is worth
til later in the month anyway
& i will order up the navigational chart
but only after the ends of the earth finally arrive here on cream hill
rather than beforehand
since i dont know if i could stand all that anticipation at once
& this earlier map order has been imminently expected since
tuesday
indeed
any funny thing that may actually keep happening here is as
much while waiting for the ends of the earth to arrive
as it is on the way to menhus
menhus itself has been doing positively yeoman work as a
backup or understudy attraction here & is in fact the only real
multipoint anyone has talked about visiting in any way
for several days
in heavy traffic
hahaha
not since djeret was last mentioned
last tuesday i think
hahahaha
yikes
we must be having a veritable
what was it called
ot
old testament
festival by now
but doesnt anyone care to really try pointing any more
& what is all this fluffing about
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Please let me apologize and plead insomnia!
>
> I wrote my reply too late at night, when I should have gone on to
bed and
> written it in the morning. I meant "demarcation" everywhere
that I wrote
> "delimitation." I don't know what I was thinking. Let's drop the
discussion of
> terminology, since I've already dropped the ball anyway.
>
> As for binding boundaries being fixed by mutually accepted
surveys, I did not
> restrict my intent to riverine boundaries, but meant
less-than-perfect surveys,
> what you called "rationalized ridge lines," and the kind of
situation found
> along KYTN. In the latter case, BUS&SS says, "There are
many angles and offsets
> in the line east of the Tennessee River that can scarcely be
attributed to
> errors in surveying. It seems, however, that the
commissioners who first ran
> the line between Virginia and North Carolina (the Byrd line) and
the Tennessee
> north boundary (the Walker line) were allowed to change the
lines at their
> discretion provided the commissioners for both States agreed;
consequently they
> ran the line on an irregular course to accommodate influential
inhabitants along
> the boundary who desired to remain in one State or the other."
This last would
> be the extreme example.
>
> Perhaps I am wrong, but as I understand it, joint
commissioners doing a survey
> to initially fix a boundary (as would be the case in Portsmouth
Harbor) can get
> away with considerable latitude in their fixing, so long as it is
mutually
> accepted. It is primarily upon the occasion of a subsequent
cession of
> sovereignty or imposition of a new and different survey that
Congressional
> consent would be required. Of course, these two states could
easily ask for and
> receive such consent if they were ever motivated to fix this
boundary
> themselves.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >