yikes
i have to correct myself
i would not really like to dispute even this supreme
idiocy
& i wouldnt even like to dispute the idea that i cant
legally dispute it either
for i was outjesting even myself when i said that
oops
the truth is
dispute is intrinsically worthless
but especially when compared with laughing
--- aletheiak <
aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> 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-�-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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo