wowwww
hahahahaha
& that covers the fudge job forever too
hahahahahaha
for it means nobody ever
including ourselves now
can legally discuss & dispute the correctness of their judgments
since we must be included in what they refer to here as
all other persons
are perpetually enjoined

so we are all probably already wanted by the fbi
hahahahaha
whoooops
yet here is a case already sufficiently hilarious that i would enjoin
you all to disregard their injunction anyway & continue to try to get
to the bottom of the truth behind this crazy arc & now this crazy
law as well
under the special dispensation of the unalienable divine right to
pursue happiness clause in the declaration of independence

yikes
& i called it a cover up job
didnt i

indeed i have been wanting to test the legal validity of our
declarational rights for some time

& what better test of them to bring before the court

for we know many bum laws are fully constitutional but
undeclarational
indeed antideclarational

so lets keep boogying nonstop on this one for sure

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:

> There are, of course two questions at issue between Delaware

and New Jersey.

> One is whether Delaware should or should not allow the

construction of the pier

> extending into its sovereign waters. New Jersey politicians

can argue that one

> to their heart's content, but it's still Delaware's decision to

make. The other

> question is whether the boundary should even be where it is.

When New Jersey

> politicians rant about that, they are in violation of the following

1935 US

> Supreme Court injunction:
>
> ..the state of New Jersey, its officers, agents, and

representatives,

> sentatives, its citizens and all other persons are perpetually

enjoined from

> disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction, and dominion of the

state of Delaware

> over the territory adjudged to the state of Delaware by this

decree.

>
> Such violation constitutes contempt under 21 USC 401, which

the court may punish

> "by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion." Yikes,

indeed!

>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:18 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] delaware fires back
>
>
> >
> >

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/02/15del
awarefiresba.html

> >
> > yikes
> > the 1934 & 1935 supreme court decisions are under
> > review by nj now too
> >
> > wonder if they will button up when they find the
> > mistake was in their favor
> > hahaha
> >
> >
> >
> > & i also have to wonder
> > did these decisions freeze the boundary in 1935
> > or is it still subject to wander about with accretions
> > to the mean low water line
> > as one might otherwise expect
> >
> > for if you compare the present topos
> > especially in the denjpa vicinity
> > where the cumulative accretion of the mean low water
> > line is most extreme
> > as indicated by the dotted tidal flats here
> >

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4405613&e=46483
6

> > to the pre1934 topos
> > for example
> >

http://historical.maptech.com/getImage.cfm?fname=cstr98sw.jp
g&state=PA

> > you will see that the tidal flats have moved about
> > quite a bit
> > & have specifically advanced quite some distance
> > toward denjpa from the arc terminus that was set at
> > the mean low water mark in 1934 or 1935
> > then only 450 feet from marker 1
> > as compared to about 4 times that distance here on the
> > latest topo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
> > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >