Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases closed i think<br/>
Date: Dec 15, 2004 @ 05:44<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="16287.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic16274.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="16294.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16296.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1559280344">I agree.<br/>
<br/>
One thing that we don&#39;t know is the date of the latest revision of the statutes<br/>
relating to the Pima-Yuma boundary.  They might have been revised since the<br/>
latest (1990) USGS map.  It seems unlikely that a recent revision would decree<br/>
the use of a 1918 survey that might never have actually reached there at all,<br/>
but this might just be an example of statutory dumbness.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:aletheiak@...">aletheiak@...</a>&gt;<br/>
To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:53 PM<br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu corner cases<br/>
closed i think<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but clearly<br/>
&gt; on piyu<br/>
&gt; either<br/>
&gt; usgs mapping in all 3 scales as recently as 1990 is wrong<br/>
&gt; or<br/>
&gt; the latest revision of the arizona revised statutes is wrong<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but come to think of it<br/>
&gt; how could a statute be wrong<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; a statute cant be wrong<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; a statute can be dumb<br/>
&gt; but it cant be wrong<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & a statute can be revised<br/>
&gt; but its job & virtue is to only be right<br/>
&gt; for as long as it exists<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so i conclude<br/>
&gt; usgs is wrong<br/>
&gt; or is at least outdated & certainly trumped by the ars </span></blockquote></div>