1. MXUS Treaty 1970
    I received in today s mail from the IBWC the promised copy of the 1970 boundary treaty that currently governs the river portions of the boundary (Rio Grande
    Jul 05, 2003 @ 18:39 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  2. Re: [BoundaryPoint] MXUS Treaty 1970
    I have abstracted the entire 1970 treaty, and it contains some fairly unorthodox provisions! My abstraction is attached in Word format. Yes, I know, I went
    Jul 06, 2003 @ 03:11 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@msn.com>)
  3. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    again in the absence of any wording that clearly establishes a nonstandard regime by explicitly delineating a vertical differentiation of some kind & in view
    Jul 06, 2003 @ 05:47 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  4. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    I think I agree - for this case only. I think however, the ambiguity in it all leaves the ground under the bridge subject to US sovereignty for all purposes
    Jul 07, 2003 @ 04:18 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  5. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    I witnessed the painting of the Mexican part of the bridge s steel structure that is right up to the monument. It was done with brushes and buckets by men
    Jul 07, 2003 @ 05:19 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@msn.com>)
  6. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    Interesting - another case of not wanting to create a precedent. The General Counsel of the border commission sent me a citation of a court case... I pulled it
    Jul 07, 2003 @ 22:16 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  7. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    lowell ... steel structure ... buckets by men ... any safety ... of course they too must have realized if they fell they would land in mexico so no problem but
    Jul 07, 2003 @ 22:38 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  8. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    My account of seeing the painting done by men upon the bridge was only meant to counter L.N. s mention of the possibility of Mexican painting trucks on the
    Jul 07, 2003 @ 23:20 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  9. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    whattt interesting how or why or is this just another case of wanting to create a non sequitur anyway to save on the bucks as well as the others of us i think
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 01:09 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  10. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    I m not sure they d be landing in Mexico - but in a place where the US decided not to exercise it s sovereignty but which isn t the other side s , either. It
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 02:44 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  11. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    ... I can t buy this business about free zones and shared sovereignty. What you re saying is that the land under the bridge is either a neutral zone or a
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 04:47 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  12. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    Lowell, this was a good effort at driving the logic to the bottom of the funnel to get at the logical end of interpretation. But (ampersand): take three of
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 16:25 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  13. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    I agree with your interpretation of a tongue of Mexican sovereignty filled with a bridge that extends out over and beyond the accretion-altered boundary in
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 17:23 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  14. Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    ...and with that, I think we ve reached the bottom of the funnel. Now what are we going to do? Maybe we can discuss whether or not the Mexican land under the
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 18:31 - L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
  15. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    Interesting questions! ... The masonry piers under the Mexican segment of the bridge, being part of the bridge structure, are clearly Mexico. I think the
    Jul 08, 2003 @ 20:17 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  16. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    does that treaty state anything about upper limits? everytime i go to san ysidro i see planes taking off from the Tijuana airport violating (or entering i
    Jul 09, 2003 @ 04:14 - Victor Cantore (Victor Cantore <drpotatoes@...>)
  17. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    http://gort.ucsd.edu//mw/border/new3&4.jpg here s a rather large file showing the runway with the straight shot over the line. where it says aeropuerto not
    Jul 09, 2003 @ 04:19 - Victor Cantore (Victor Cantore <drpotatoes@...>)
  18. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
    No, the 1970 treaty doesn t say anything specifically about airspace. It relates only to the two fluvial boundaries (Rio Grande and Colorado River) and the
    Jul 09, 2003 @ 04:39 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)