hahahahaha
& just when i find something i really would like to dispute at last
but of course we are all safe in any case
so long as we are having fun
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I think we're all safe so long as we seek the Court's reasoning
without
> disputing their finding.
>
> By the way, Delaware was similarly enjoined vis-à-vis New
Jersey.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:27 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: delaware fires back
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >