Salve Gaius Iulius, et salvete quirites,

g_iulius_scaurus wrote (in part):

> The first problem is a lack of definitions. What is a "person of
> higher rank"? A "person of lower rank"?

They are whatever a provincial governor or head of sodalitas
says they are. If the provincial governors attempt to abuse
their authority the Senate can remove or censure them. If a
head of sodality attempts to abuse this authority, the sodality
can lose its recognition from the Senate.

> Without a legal definition
> there will be lawsuits the first time people are classed by the
> Censores below where they think they should rank,

The Censors will use the information provided by provincial
governors and heads of sodalities.

> the Lex Vedia de Provinciis amended the
> Constitution to permit appointment of multiple provincial officials
> (the current version of the Constitution in the Tabularium does not
> reflect this amendment),

I'm told that it has been updated just this evening, but I have
not personally looked. The website is supposed to be corrected
though.

> as some have suggested. However, the law
> does not define what levels of work are to be associated with each
> rank.

True. But to quote from the Lex Vedia de Provinciis:

> This Lex Vedia de Provinciis is hereby enacted to enable governors
> and the Senate _more flexibility_ (my emphasis) in establishing
> and maintaining the administrative institutions and
> mechanisms of provincia.

Given the clear intent of the Lex Vedia de Provinciis to provide
the Senate and the governors with greater flexibility, I see
having the governors be able to assign rankings as being in line
with the intent of that law.

> This will invite different provinces to apply different standards,

I would expect that a governor who deviated significantly from
expected norms would hear from the Senate. Governors are supposed
to enjoy broad powers, but they are not beyond the power of
the Senate to regulate them.

> What is to
> stop a promagistrate from appointing every cives in the province an
> official of the first rank

(1) That governor's oath of office, and (2) The ability of the
Senate to relieve the governor for cause. Furthermore, by
the logic you suggest, what's to prevent a current governor from
appointing every citizen in the province a legate right now?
I answer that exactly the same two things apply.

[...]

> For ordinarii magistrates, the point system is mainly skewed to
> provide incentives for already active magistrates to seek higher
> magistracies. Why should a Tribunus Plebis receive a large increase
> in points, while a Quaestor whose duties are probably more
> time-consuming receives none? We have seen no tribunician legislation
> thus far this year, but Quaestores are handling our entire tax system.
> If the Tribuni Plebis are to be increased, why not the Quaestores?

Because the office of Tribunis Plebis has far greater responsibility
and authority. For all that Quaestors do a lot of work, the office
of Quaestor is a junior magistracy on the cursus honorum. To give
Quaestors century points commensurate with those of Tribunes of the
Plebs would seem to me to be a departure from the spirit of the
mos maiorum.

> The increase in points for apparitores is a step in the right
> direction for encouraging new citizens to participate more in
> political life, but these positions are entirely appointive and the
> lack of limitations on staff appointments creates the possibility of a
> magistrate appointing a huge staff to permanently increase his power
> in the Comitia Centuriata (just appoint a large number of the same
> people every time you hold office. as they accumulate points for each
> term of service).

What would you recommend? I'm disinclined to specify a particular
number, because that would make a de facto requirement for each
magistrate to appoint that many apparitores. As things are now,
I have a small Aedilean staff while my colleague has a large one,
and that's fine for both of us. Furthermore, as the active size
of Nova Roma's body politic changes a magistrate should reasonably
have the option of adjusting staff size to match. Perhaps a
small percentage of the current assidui population as the maximum
number of apparitores per magistrate, scaled to permit more for
the more senior magistrates? What would you recommend?

> This is a formula for the creation of political
> clientage. Given the general (and to my mind unfounded) suspicion of
> the Roman institution of patron/client, I am confused as to why this
> law should create incentives for it. If we want people to become more
> active in public life, why take a point away from someone who runs for
> office, but doesn't prevail?

I think the reasoning there was to prevent frivilous candidacies,
but I'll let the Consul answer you on this and your remaining
points after he's had time to sleep and gets back from work tomorrow.

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

M/ CON SERAPIO C IVL SCAVRO SPD
SVBEEV

> What is a "person of
> higher rank"? A "person of lower rank"?

The proposed law says
"The ranks and titles of officials included in each rank are defined
by each Head."
It wasn't possible to list all of the tiles of our Sodalitates, as
each Sodalitas has its own particular titles (and comsidering that
we'll probably have new Sodalitates in the future).
For example, in the Egressus there are Domini Praefecti and
Praefecti. The former are of higher Rank if compared to the latter.
So you see, the Censors will have no problem while classing people.
It will be the Head which will tell the Censores which rank that
official belongs to.

You'll find the same sentence ("The ranks and titles of
officials...") as to provincial positions.

> However, the law
> does not define what levels of work are to be associated with each
> rank. This will invite different provinces to apply different
> standards, leaving people doing exactly the same work in two

different

> provinces receiving very different century points for it.

We have the same problem with the current system. A citizen can be
appointed Scriba and get century points for doing a job which
another citizens does in another provincia without any title nor
century points. If you think we need to sandardize in some way the
porvincial structure, I could agree with you, but that's another
matter. This law deals with century points, not with provincial
organizations.

> What is to
> stop a promagistrate from appointing every cives in the province an
> official of the first rank to collectively increase the weight of

the

> province in the Comitia Centuriata?

In the proposed Lex Salicia Poenalis, which you took part in
writing, it's included the crime of Abusus Potestatis (Magisterial
Abuse). Should the Lex Salicia pass, that promagistrate you speak of
would fall under this case.
For the time being, paragraph V.C of the constitution provides for
this cases: "The Senate may review each governor on a yearly basis
and it remains in the discretion of the Senate whether or not to
prorogue such governors, although this review shall not constitute a
ban on the authority of the Senate to remove governors from office
as its discretion."
Therefore, should that promagistrate act as you said, I'm sure our
Senators would act accordingly.

> why
> doesn't a law which creates specific ranks and assigns them century
> points not define what level of work is required for each rank?

Because each Provincia is different from the others. Each Governor
knows what the needs of the provincia are. An official in a
developed provincia will most probably work more that an official in
a stagning one. Our Provinciae are different, they're not all at the
same level of development. I'm sure you know this. It is impossible
to standardize the amount of work officials in so different
provinciae shall do. Yes, the 4-ranks system provides a relative
awarding, but in this way you'll be sure that within the same
provincia those who work more will be awarded more than those who
work less. Those how have an easy job will be awarded less than
those who ave a difficult one.
You see, it's better than our present system, where a Scriba
supervising a wide provincial website which needs to be updated
monthly gets the same amount of points of his citizen fellow which
looks for pictures and links to be put on the website itself. Just
an example.
Before setting standards for the provincial structures/officials,
all Novae Romae Provinciae shall be at the same level.

> Why should a Tribunus Plebis receive a large increase
> in points, while a Quaestor whose duties are probably more
> time-consuming receives none?

A Quaestor is assigned to another magistrate, and assists that
magistrate in his/her duties.
A Tribunus has the power to issue a veto against any ordinary
magistrate's action, against any law, against any Senatus Consultum,
against any religious decreta. To be able to do this fairly he/she
has to learn the whole legislation of Nova Roma, both the political
and the religious one. Then the Tribune has to carefully follow the
debate of the Senate in order to keep citizens informed. the Tribune
has the power to call the Senate to order. The Tribune has the power
to call the Comitia Populi Tributa, thus legislating. The
Constitution also says "to administer the law".
To my point of view, Tribunes have a much bigger responsibility than
Quaestors.
In fact to be Quaestor you need to be at least 21 years old, while
to be Tribune you need to be at least 25.
I'm a Quaestor, and even though I'm working hard, I'm getting the
same amount of points Cn Salix Astur got last year as Tribune, when
he had the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria passed. I'm getting the same
amount of points Diana Moravia is getting now, and I think his
position is much more difficult than mine.
That's why points awarded to Tribunes has been incresed in the
proposed Lex Faia Centuriata.

> the
> lack of limitations on staff appointments creates the possibility

of a

> magistrate appointing a huge staff to permanently increase his

power

> in the Comitia Centuriata

Last year (I think you where not in Nova Roma yet) Junior Consul L
Cornelius Sulla proposed a Lex Cornelia Centuriata whith limitations
on the number of officials magistrates and promagistrates could
appoint. That Law was rejected for this very reason, even though
there were several good ideas in it.
Setting limitations on the number of staff appointments is
impossible. Each magistrate needs his own staff, which can be 10
people or none. If it is Abusus Potestatis he will be prosecuted
either by the Praetors should the Lex Salicia Poenalis pass, or by
the Senate.

> If we want people to become more
> active in public life, why take a point away from someone who runs

for

> office, but doesn't prevail?

How do you think a person which decided to run for office pushed by
those three points will hold his magistracy if appointed? If one
runs for office he should do it for Nova Roma, not for three points.
We don't need people filling the positions. We need people to work.
I even suggested to eliminate those points, but it was decided to
keep two.

> What is the rationale for increasing the points of

promagistrates? Do

> we have a dearth of provincial governors? We have more of a

problem

> with governors who do little. Why reward inactivity?

So here is my question: why those Governors which work hard for
their Provincia and for Nova Roma should be damaged because of a
group of citizens not doing their duty? The problem is not the
amount of points here. The problem is having all Governors working.
This laws says how many points a Governor will get for doing his
work. If he doesn't, it's not this law's fault, nor it is the other
Governors' fault. In this case we must against inactive Governors,
not against active ones.

> We have had exactly one dictator and he is no longer a citizen.

Why

> increase the century points for an office we may never see filled

again?

Who tells you that? As long as we keep the magistracy of the
Dictator in our Constitution, we can have other Dictators in the
future.
When a Dictator is appointed, the destiny of Nova Roma is in his/her
hands. Isn't saving our Republic worth 30 points?

> One of the most critical problems we have is
> recruiting qualified sacerdotes. Should we address this problem by
> creating disincentives to service?

I'm sure if we ask one of our Sacerdotes why he/she is Sacerdos of
the Religio Romana, he/she will answer "Pro Deis et Roma", for the
Gods and Rome. Or would he/she answer "For 20 Century Points"?
The Religio Romana, as any other religion, is not a trade.

> Pater Patriae is the highest title the republic can award and its
> greatest reward. Why do we need to increase the honour by awarding
> century points for it?

Because such a title gives the person who holds it a major
authority, which leaves a mark on the weight his opinions have on
the Republic. In Nova Roma this is expressed through century points,
so the law proposes century points for this title.

I hope I answered all of your questions. Should you have more don't
hesitate to ask! :-)

OPTIME VALE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Qvaestor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> If I may take your last paragraph first:
>
> > All I am asking, and have been asking is that the
> > wording in this
> > section be rewritten to protect the mater's and
> > pater's of Nova Roma.
> > As it stands it leaves them wide open to anything
> > and everything.
> > This one section as it is written is all I object to
> > in this what I
> > feel is an otherwise sound proposal.
>
> I must say, and I'm sorry for omitting to say it
> before, that I do appreciate your constructive
> attitude and polite tone, both of which are
> characteristic of your correspondence.

Thank you. I've offered an alternative text in a previous posting to
G. Iulius

> I shan't quote the rest of your response here, but I
> just want to ask a brief question of clarification: do
> you mean that you consider it impossible to interpret
> this clause to mean 'the paterfamilias or
> materfamilias of an under-age reus may be required to
> account for his or her failure to prevent the reus'
> offence'?

It doesn't say "may be" is say "shall be", nor does it say "failure"
it says "inability." "May be" is optional, "shall be" is not optional.

I can say, "I may go to the store" that means I might or I might not
go the store. If I say, "I shall go to the store," that means I will
be going to the store. However, even there in legal usage the word,
"may" is generally interpeted to mean obligatory or a must. If I say,
"I failed to put a stamp on the envelope." That means I had the
ability to put a stamp on the envelope but did not. If I say I am
unable to put a stamp on the envelope," that means I am incapable of
putting a stamp on the envelope (most likely because I don't have any
stamps, not because I'm so stupid that after almost 36 years on planet
earth I have yet to figure out the sticky side goes down<G>).

> If so, then I guess we had better make sure that
> either the law is changed or you don't become praetor.
> :)

Why would I want that thankless job? Everyother day someone
complaining about something. That's why I'm not married. <G>

> But more seriously, I would have thought that in the
> case of clause which seemed technically to say one
> thing but which was plainly intended to say another,
> both interpretations would be legitimate and the
> praetor could choose between them. What's your view?

Depends on the situation. Is there ambiguity? If there is ambiguity
then it is legitimate for the praetor to determine how to interpet
that ambiguity. In a case where there is ambiguity I would rule based
on how past praetor's have ruled as it applies to the situation using
logic tempered with mercy. If this is a first case where I'm the first
to have to make such a ruling I'd use logic tempered with mercy in my
ruling and hope those that come after me follow suit.

In this case however, the use of the words "shall" rather than "may"
(and that's questionable in the traditional legal use of the word
"may" to mean obligatory) and "inability" rather than "failure" does
not leave that ambiguity.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

G. Iulius Scaurus Gn. Equitio Marino salutem dicit.

Salve, Gn. Equiti.

> The first problem is a lack of definitions. What is a "person of
> > higher rank"? A "person of lower rank"?
>
> They are whatever a provincial governor or head of sodalitas
> says they are. If the provincial governors attempt to abuse
> their authority the Senate can remove or censure them. If a
> head of sodality attempts to abuse this authority, the sodality
> can lose its recognition from the Senate.

I do not think it equitable for one provincial governor to define a
given work-level as being of a particular rank with x century points
and another governor to define the same work-level as of lesser rank
with x-n century points. The came applies to sodalitates. The law
needs to more clearly specify what the various rankings entail. I'm
not proposing that an exhaustive list of tasks be specified, but that
general guidelines be clearly defined in the proposed lex.

> > Without a legal definition
> > there will be lawsuits the first time people are classed by the
> > Censores below where they think they should rank,
>
> The Censors will use the information provided by provincial
> governors and heads of sodalities.

That doesn't eliminate the fundamentally arbitrary power of definition
given to governors and heads of sodalities. All I am asking for is
clear guidelines. Without them a citizen whose equal work is valued
lower by one governor than another would have grounds in equity to
file an action with the praetores. Clear guidelines reduce the
likelihood of such cases arises and provide the praetores firm grounds
for deciding them.

> > the Lex Vedia de Provinciis amended the
> > Constitution to permit appointment of multiple provincial officials
> > (the current version of the Constitution in the Tabularium does not
> > reflect this amendment),
>
> I'm told that it has been updated just this evening, but I have
> not personally looked. The website is supposed to be corrected
> though.

It has been corrected.

> > as some have suggested. However, the law
> > does not define what levels of work are to be associated with each
> > rank.
>
> True. But to quote from the Lex Vedia de Provinciis:
>
> > This Lex Vedia de Provinciis is hereby enacted to enable governors
> > and the Senate _more flexibility_ (my emphasis) in establishing
> > and maintaining the administrative institutions and
> > mechanisms of provincia.
>
> Given the clear intent of the Lex Vedia de Provinciis to provide
> the Senate and the governors with greater flexibility, I see
> having the governors be able to assign rankings as being in line
> with the intent of that law.

Defining guidelines for the ranks limits the flexibility of governors
not a whit. It simply provides legal clarity for how the law is
implemented.

> > This will invite different provinces to apply different standards,
>
> I would expect that a governor who deviated significantly from
> expected norms would hear from the Senate. Governors are supposed
> to enjoy broad powers, but they are not beyond the power of
> the Senate to regulate them.

What you or I expect and what the law says are two different things.
There is no principle in Roman law (like that of incapacity which I
cited in the case Q. Cassius raised regarding the Lex Poenalis) which
requires the Senate to intervene. We do not make law on the basis of
the assumption of good intentions. We make law to clear govern
behaviour and specify procedures. It makes no sense to me to create
classes of recipients of political power (which is what century points
are) without clearly defining those classes in terms of equitable
standards applied across the entire citizenry.

> > What is to
> > stop a promagistrate from appointing every cives in the province an
> > official of the first rank
>
> (1) That governor's oath of office, and (2) The ability of the
> Senate to relieve the governor for cause. Furthermore, by
> the logic you suggest, what's to prevent a current governor from
> appointing every citizen in the province a legate right now?
> I answer that exactly the same two things apply.

Like the historical Senate restrained Sulla or Pompeius Magnus or
Caesar? That isn't meant as a cheap shot. Political circumstances
change and one of the purposes of law is to guarantee a degree of
permanence in relationships and procedures. I don't understand the
resistance to clearly defining the classes so that the Senate has a
firm legal basis for acting against an irregularity. When there is a
chance for greater clarity, why not take it?

> [...]
> > For ordinarii magistrates, the point system is mainly skewed to
> > provide incentives for already active magistrates to seek higher
> > magistracies. Why should a Tribunus Plebis receive a large increase
> > in points, while a Quaestor whose duties are probably more
> > time-consuming receives none? We have seen no tribunician legislation
> > thus far this year, but Quaestores are handling our entire tax system.
> > If the Tribuni Plebis are to be increased, why not the Quaestores?
>
> Because the office of Tribunis Plebis has far greater responsibility
> and authority. For all that Quaestors do a lot of work, the office
> of Quaestor is a junior magistracy on the cursus honorum. To give
> Quaestors century points commensurate with those of Tribunes of the
> Plebs would seem to me to be a departure from the spirit of the
> mos maiorum.

The Tribunate of the Plebs was ajunior magistracy historically and
ranked below the Quaestorship in precedence. It is this law which
departs from the mos maiorum by elevating the Tribunate to the rank of
the Praetorship in century points.

> > The increase in points for apparitores is a step in the right
> > direction for encouraging new citizens to participate more in
> > political life, but these positions are entirely appointive and the
> > lack of limitations on staff appointments creates the possibility of a
> > magistrate appointing a huge staff to permanently increase his power
> > in the Comitia Centuriata (just appoint a large number of the same
> > people every time you hold office. as they accumulate points for each
> > term of service).
>
> What would you recommend? I'm disinclined to specify a particular
> number, because that would make a de facto requirement for each
> magistrate to appoint that many apparitores. As things are now,
> I have a small Aedilean staff while my colleague has a large one,
> and that's fine for both of us. Furthermore, as the active size
> of Nova Roma's body politic changes a magistrate should reasonably
> have the option of adjusting staff size to match. Perhaps a
> small percentage of the current assidui population as the maximum
> number of apparitores per magistrate, scaled to permit more for
> the more senior magistrates? What would you recommend?

I support absolutely the right of a curule magistrate to have a staff
of whatever size he sees fit. To what I object is the creation of
past service points for apparitores which creates the possibility of
permanent increase in the apparitor's political power (again, that is
what century points are) beyond the term of service. It is this which
tends toward the creation of political clientage. If we enshrined the
legality of patron/client relationships in NR law, I'd withdraw my
objection.

> > This is a formula for the creation of political
> > clientage. Given the general (and to my mind unfounded) suspicion of
> > the Roman institution of patron/client, I am confused as to why this
> > law should create incentives for it. If we want people to become more
> > active in public life, why take a point away from someone who runs for
> > office, but doesn't prevail?
>
> I think the reasoning there was to prevent frivilous candidacies,
> but I'll let the Consul answer you on this and your remaining
> points after he's had time to sleep and gets back from work tomorrow.

One point isn't much of discouragement for a frivolous candidacy. We
can't have incentives for people to run and discourage frivolous
candidacies at the same time.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

I am He who is the Father, the Mother, and the Child

Through the Father I am the Action, the Fire, the Anvil

Though the Mother I am the Wizdom, the Way, the Magick

Through the Child I am the Infinite, the Continueing, the Inspiration

With a strike I bore the earth

With child I carried the sun

With inspiration I shed the moon

With a breath I bestowed the freedom

---------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Iulius Scaurus M. Constantino Serapioni salutem dicit.

Salve, M. Constantine.

> > What is a "person of
> > higher rank"? A "person of lower rank"?
>
> The proposed law says
> "The ranks and titles of officials included in each rank are defined
> by each Head."
> It wasn't possible to list all of the tiles of our Sodalitates, as
> each Sodalitas has its own particular titles (and comsidering that
> we'll probably have new Sodalitates in the future).
> For example, in the Egressus there are Domini Praefecti and
> Praefecti. The former are of higher Rank if compared to the latter.
> So you see, the Censors will have no problem while classing people.
> It will be the Head which will tell the Censores which rank that
> official belongs to.

What is so objectionable about asking that a law which establishes new
categories for he award of century points define those categories
precisely? The Constitution and existing law define precisely every
category for which century points are already awarded. Why is it too
much to demand that this law do the same? It is not the place for the
head of a sodalitas or a provincial governor to define a legal
category; that is the place of hte law. If all of this is so clear,
why is it not in the text of the proposed lex?

> You'll find the same sentence ("The ranks and titles of
> officials...") as to provincial positions.

And eactly the same problem. The Constitution and existing law define
precisely every category of century point recipient. The proposed law
does not do this for the new categories. I think it is a fundamental
legal defect.

> > However, the law
> > does not define what levels of work are to be associated with each
> > rank. This will invite different provinces to apply different
> > standards, leaving people doing exactly the same work in two
> different
> > provinces receiving very different century points for it.
>
> We have the same problem with the current system. A citizen can be
> appointed Scriba and get century points for doing a job which
> another citizens does in another provincia without any title nor
> century points. If you think we need to sandardize in some way the
> porvincial structure, I could agree with you, but that's another
> matter. This law deals with century points, not with provincial
> organizations.

There far greater latitude for inequity with four ranks of provincial
officials with different century points that for one rank with century
points (scriba). The proposed lex decreases any likelihood of
standardisation rather than increasing it. Why create a system which
is more susceptible to inequities and likely to create more
disparities between provinces?

> > What is to
> > stop a promagistrate from appointing every cives in the province an
> > official of the first rank to collectively increase the weight of
> the
> > province in the Comitia Centuriata?
>
> In the proposed Lex Salicia Poenalis, which you took part in
> writing, it's included the crime of Abusus Potestatis (Magisterial
> Abuse). Should the Lex Salicia pass, that promagistrate you speak of
> would fall under this case.
> For the time being, paragraph V.C of the constitution provides for
> this cases: "The Senate may review each governor on a yearly basis
> and it remains in the discretion of the Senate whether or not to
> prorogue such governors, although this review shall not constitute a
> ban on the authority of the Senate to remove governors from office
> as its discretion."
> Therefore, should that promagistrate act as you said, I'm sure our
> Senators would act accordingly.

Assuming that the Lex Poenalis is adopted, but I think it is bad
public policy to assume that a law to correct a problem created by
another law proposed at the same time will nccessarily be adopted. In
any case, I see no reason to create incentives for an abuse which the
Senate or a prosecution would have to correct after the ffact.

> > why
> > doesn't a law which creates specific ranks and assigns them century
> > points not define what level of work is required for each rank?
>
> Because each Provincia is different from the others. Each Governor
> knows what the needs of the provincia are. An official in a
> developed provincia will most probably work more that an official in
> a stagning one. Our Provinciae are different, they're not all at the
> same level of development. I'm sure you know this. It is impossible
> to standardize the amount of work officials in so different
> provinciae shall do. Yes, the 4-ranks system provides a relative
> awarding, but in this way you'll be sure that within the same
> provincia those who work more will be awarded more than those who
> work less. Those how have an easy job will be awarded less than
> those who ave a difficult one.

The law does not say that. It assigns "ranks," not tasks. It neither
defines tasks nor associates levels of work associated with them. If
a governor chose, he could assign rank as a matter of protocol
completely unrelated to the level or difficulty of work done and he
would be entirely within his legal right. That is why more precise
definitions should be written into the law.

> You see, it's better than our present system, where a Scriba
> supervising a wide provincial website which needs to be updated
> monthly gets the same amount of points of his citizen fellow which
> looks for pictures and links to be put on the website itself. Just
> an example.
> Before setting standards for the provincial structures/officials,
> all Novae Romae Provinciae shall be at the same level.

We know what a "scriba" is from the Constitution and existing law. We
know what an "Aedilis Curulis" is from the Constitution. We know what
an "accensus" from the Constitution and existing law. We have no idea
how to distinguish an official of the first rank from an official of
the fourth rank except "whatever Governor X says it is." This is
sloppy, incoherent law-making. All I am asking for is specific
definition of these categories _in the law_.

And, just as a matter of personal preference, "first rank official"
sounds more like something out of an 8th century Byzantine protocol
manual than a provincial officer of the Roman Republic.

> > Why should a Tribunus Plebis receive a large increase
> > in points, while a Quaestor whose duties are probably more
> > time-consuming receives none?
>
> A Quaestor is assigned to another magistrate, and assists that
> magistrate in his/her duties.
> A Tribunus has the power to issue a veto against any ordinary
> magistrate's action, against any law, against any Senatus Consultum,
> against any religious decreta. To be able to do this fairly he/she
> has to learn the whole legislation of Nova Roma, both the political
> and the religious one. Then the Tribune has to carefully follow the
> debate of the Senate in order to keep citizens informed. the Tribune
> has the power to call the Senate to order. The Tribune has the power
> to call the Comitia Populi Tributa, thus legislating. The
> Constitution also says "to administer the law".
> To my point of view, Tribunes have a much bigger responsibility than
> Quaestors.

Quaestores handle money. In the real world that is a very substantial
responsibility. Furthermore, historically the tribunate was of lower
precedence that the quaestorship. This law reverses one of the things
the Vedian Constitution got historically right: both the tribunate and
the quaestorship were junior magistracies. Raising the tribunate to
the century-point-equivalent of the praetorship violates the mos maiorum.

> In fact to be Quaestor you need to be at least 21 years old, while
> to be Tribune you need to be at least 25.
> I'm a Quaestor, and even though I'm working hard, I'm getting the
> same amount of points Cn Salix Astur got last year as Tribune, when
> he had the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria passed. I'm getting the same
> amount of points Diana Moravia is getting now, and I think his
> position is much more difficult than mine.
> That's why points awarded to Tribunes has been incresed in the
> proposed Lex Faia Centuriata.

There has been no Tribunician legislation this year. Gn. Salix,
bluntly put, was a prodigy as a tribune -- there was none like him
before and there have been none since. The argument is not apt.

> > the
> > lack of limitations on staff appointments creates the possibility
> of a
> > magistrate appointing a huge staff to permanently increase his
> power
> > in the Comitia Centuriata
>
> Last year (I think you where not in Nova Roma yet) Junior Consul L
> Cornelius Sulla proposed a Lex Cornelia Centuriata whith limitations
> on the number of officials magistrates and promagistrates could
> appoint. That Law was rejected for this very reason, even though
> there were several good ideas in it.
> Setting limitations on the number of staff appointments is
> impossible. Each magistrate needs his own staff, which can be 10
> people or none. If it is Abusus Potestatis he will be prosecuted
> either by the Praetors should the Lex Salicia Poenalis pass, or by
> the Senate.

I oppose imposing limitations on the staff of curule magistrates in
principle. To what I object is giving past service points permanently
once the apparitor no longer serves; it is that which lends itself to
political lientage.

> > If we want people to become more
> > active in public life, why take a point away from someone who runs
> for
> > office, but doesn't prevail?
>
> How do you think a person which decided to run for office pushed by
> those three points will hold his magistracy if appointed? If one
> runs for office he should do it for Nova Roma, not for three points.
> We don't need people filling the positions. We need people to work.
> I even suggested to eliminate those points, but it was decided to
> keep two.

C. Fabius told me it was na incentive to encourage people to run. I
am only taking him at his word. I'd just as soon see the category
abolished.

> > What is the rationale for increasing the points of
> promagistrates? Do
> > we have a dearth of provincial governors? We have more of a
> problem
> > with governors who do little. Why reward inactivity?
>
> So here is my question: why those Governors which work hard for
> their Provincia and for Nova Roma should be damaged because of a
> group of citizens not doing their duty? The problem is not the
> amount of points here. The problem is having all Governors working.
> This laws says how many points a Governor will get for doing his
> work. If he doesn't, it's not this law's fault, nor it is the other
> Governors' fault. In this case we must against inactive Governors,
> not against active ones.

That is why the points should be based on annual Senatorial review,
not just holding the promagistracy. But the proposed law does not do
this.

> > We have had exactly one dictator and he is no longer a citizen.
> Why
> > increase the century points for an office we may never see filled
> again?
>
> Who tells you that? As long as we keep the magistracy of the
> Dictator in our Constitution, we can have other Dictators in the
> future.
> When a Dictator is appointed, the destiny of Nova Roma is in his/her
> hands. Isn't saving our Republic worth 30 points?

I'd rather not give incentives for people to aspire to dictatorship.
It destroyed the historical republic.

> > One of the most critical problems we have is
> > recruiting qualified sacerdotes. Should we address this problem by
> > creating disincentives to service?
>
> I'm sure if we ask one of our Sacerdotes why he/she is Sacerdos of
> the Religio Romana, he/she will answer "Pro Deis et Roma", for the
> Gods and Rome. Or would he/she answer "For 20 Century Points"?
> The Religio Romana, as any other religion, is not a trade.

That remark is unworthy of you. Priesthoods are magistracies, as they
were in Roma antiqua. What is being proposed here is reducing the
political power (which is what century points are) of the junior
magistrates of the Religio Romana. If I did not believe C. Fabius
incapable of such a thing, I would regard it as a direct attack on the
political role of the Religio in the republic. If this provision is
passed, I shall volunteer to serve as advocatus for any sacerdos whose
century points are reduced who wishes to sue to have this lex struck
down under the blasphemy decretum. Reducing the political status of
sacerdotes constitutes undermining the Religio Romana as the state
religion. This provision is the most deeply offensive portion of this
proposed lex. If I were a plebian, I would ask the tribunes to
exercise intercessio for this clause alone.

> > Pater Patriae is the highest title the republic can award and its
> > greatest reward. Why do we need to increase the honour by awarding
> > century points for it?
>
> Because such a title gives the person who holds it a major
> authority, which leaves a mark on the weight his opinions have on
> the Republic. In Nova Roma this is expressed through century points,
> so the law proposes century points for this title.

Pater Patriae is the highest honour we can accord. What do century
points add to that honour?

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Here's a link to "Glass Production in the Roman Small Town of Tienen":

http://www.aihv.org/PDFfolder/Breekbaar.pdf

This site is an archaeological report by Peter Cosyns and Marleen
Martens on excavation of a glass works in Tienen in Civitas Tungrorum
and its implications for the local economy.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salvete Omnes,
latest news from the Factiones and virtual races at
http://aediles.novaroma.org/ludicircenses.htm


°°°° PRAESINAE ACTA DIURNA °°°°
http://aediles.novaroma.org/praesina/

- PRAESINA WINS AGAIN!
- THE NEW PALMARES
- IULIUS SCAURUS FIRST IN THE CHARTS


°°°° RUSSATAE ACTA DIURNA °°°°
http://aediles.novaroma.org/russata/

- AN UNLUCKY YEAR
- RUSSATA 2ND IN THE FACTIONES' CHART


°°°° ALBATAE ACTA DIURNA °°°°
http://aediles.novaroma.org/albata/

- WE DON'T GROW...
- THE LAST RACES TO RE-TAKE THE 2ND PLACE
- ADMIRATIUS MAGNUS KILLED!!!


°°°° VENETAE ACTA DIURNA °°°°
http://aediles.novaroma.org/veneta/

- WHAT A DELUSION!
- THE SACRIFICES OF AHENOBARBUS
- VENETA LAST IN THE CHARTS


°°°° CHARTS °°°°
http://aediles.novaroma.org/ludicircenses.htm

AURIGAE CHART '56
1) G. Iulius Scaurus [Raptor Cruentus] ......... 15
2) Gn. Octavius Noricus [Impactus Infrenatus] .. 13
3) M' Constantinus Serapio [Essedum] ........... 12

FACTIONES CHART '56
1) PRAESINA .... 62
2) RUSSATA ..... 42
3) ALBATA ...... 42
4) VENETA ...... 24


Ludi Victoria Coming soon .... prepare your horses and train your
auriga, stay ready to subscribe the new races.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

Thanks you C Fabius! I had no idea that the Consitution was not up to date!

Vale,
Diana Moravia

Salvete all,

Ok this is an exaggeration I know:

If an appointed magistrate would now get century points for past service,
isn't it possible that someone could hop positions and keep collecting
points for a year? By that I mean get appointed as a legate, then resign
(and collect 4 Century points) then become someone else's Ascensus then
resign and get 2 more century points and on and on. I didn't notice any rule
for how long a person has to stay in office to receive past service points.
So although unlikely, isn't it possible that as written someone could get
appointed and resign positions for a year and collect 26 century points for
the year (which is 6 points more than a Consul now gets)?

Vale,
Diana

G. Iulius Scaurus D. Moraviae Aventinae salutem dicit.

Salve, D. Moravia.

> Ok this is an exaggeration I know:
>
> If an appointed magistrate would now get century points for past

service,

> isn't it possible that someone could hop positions and keep collecting
> points for a year? By that I mean get appointed as a legate, then resign
> (and collect 4 Century points) then become someone else's Ascensus then
> resign and get 2 more century points and on and on. I didn't notice

any rule

> for how long a person has to stay in office to receive past service

points.

> So although unlikely, isn't it possible that as written someone

could get

> appointed and resign positions for a year and collect 26 century

points for

> the year (which is 6 points more than a Consul now gets)?

The proposed lex states:

II.B.1. MAGISTRATI ORDINARII

If a magistrate only serves part of his term as a suffectus or
resigns his/her office while in office, Past Service points will be
awarded partially. This will be based on two-month increments
rounding down.

Past service points accrue only after two months of service, so under
the reductio ad absurdam you propose, a maximum of 2 points would be
awarded for past service.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Cordus,

I'm well, thanks and I'm glad that you are well too.:-)

< I know the contio is short, but I think it's a little early to be urging
people to vote against things. There's

> time for that as we come up to the voting period. So for my own benefit

I'm going to imagine that you began

> your message with something like 'I have serious worries about this law

and would like to discuss it'.

> ;)

You are right of course, but honestly at this point, I simply hate any laws
that dish out punishment to citizens. Yes, it is certainly my problem and
not anyone else's!

At this point I feel that we don't need this type of law. Such strict laws
punishing people seems to take the friendship out of our micro-nation. And
many of us have really become good friends even though we may never ever
meet in person... I consider us more of 'a family' bound together by Laws
and rules that bring us closer together. But laws of punishment just split
us apart and add negativity to Nova Roma as if we all dislike eachother so
much that we need to take eachother to 'court' like a bunch of cry babies or
bullies.

List moderation we certainly need. On the other side I believe in freedom of
speech and a simple 'moderation' of people whose temper's get way out of
hand seems more than enough to me. And remember many of us were recently the
target of some pretty harsh slander on this list. *None* of us targeted
called to have the person thrown out of Nova Roma or wanted to press
charges. So I am wondering what circumstances have even made Gnaeus Salix
even think that we need such a Law. I much prefer the proposals of Labienus
Fortunatus: he saw something that needed to be fixed and now he is fixing
it.

Internet stalking and hackers into the NR database or website can be handled
only macronationally anyway. And as a macro-world professional in this area,
Marcus Octavius Germanicus is more than capable of handling these sort of
problems.

It is nothing personal when I say that I can't stand Gnaeus Salix's
proposal. He was unbelievably helpful to me when I first became Tribune and
I will always appreciate that and will never forget the help he gave me. In
the same spirit, I have already prepared a 50 page Tribune's handbook which
will be totally completed *before* the elections so that prospective
Tribune's can see what the job is all about and know exactly what they need
to do even before they decide to run!

Vale,
Diana Moravia

G. Iulius Scaurus D. Moraviae Aventinae salutem dicit.

Salve, D. Moravia.

While you addressed your remarks to A. Apollonius, I hope you won't
mind if I jump in to try to answer some of your concerns.

> You are right of course, but honestly at this point, I simply hate

any laws

> that dish out punishment to citizens. Yes, it is certainly my

problem and

> not anyone else's!
>
> At this point I feel that we don't need this type of law. Such

strict laws

> punishing people seems to take the friendship out of our

micro-nation. And

> many of us have really become good friends even though we may never ever
> meet in person... I consider us more of 'a family' bound together

by Laws

> and rules that bring us closer together. But laws of punishment just

split

> us apart and add negativity to Nova Roma as if we all dislike

eachother so

> much that we need to take eachother to 'court' like a bunch of cry

babies or

> bullies.

The Lex Salicia Poenalis was not written for today, nor for next week,
although circumstances under which it could be useful might arise that
soon. NR now owns real property. Within the next 3-5 years we will
likely have more property, property with buildings on it, property
where we will hold regular events. Under those circumstances it would
be remiss not to have a Lex Poenalis which spells out due process for
citizens when they violate the rules of civilised behaviour. The Lex
Poenalis was crafted for this purpose, and also to give us the
intervening time to debug any provisions of it which prove unworkable
or undesirable in day-to-day application before we have to deal with
large events on property we own and a growth in size which will make
NR seem rather more like a real republic than a small group of
family-like friends. The idea was also to draft a lawcode which
confirms as closely as possible to Roman law and the mos maiorum, so
that we do not enter into a period of growth and greater
responsibility by having to jury-rig ad hoc solutions to our own
self-regulation using Anglo-American legal principles rather than
historical Roman ones. It is a prudent step toward planning for a
realistic future.

> List moderation we certainly need. On the other side I believe in

freedom of

> speech and a simple 'moderation' of people whose temper's get way out of
> hand seems more than enough to me. And remember many of us were

recently the

> target of some pretty harsh slander on this list. *None* of us targeted
> called to have the person thrown out of Nova Roma or wanted to press
> charges. So I am wondering what circumstances have even made Gnaeus

Salix

> even think that we need such a Law. I much prefer the proposals of

Labienus

> Fortunatus: he saw something that needed to be fixed and now he is

fixing

> it.

Much of the idea for the law comes from watching the development of
historical reenactment and recreationist organisations around the
world and seeing that responsible organisations have avoided
macronational legal problems by having clearcut internal rules,
enforcing them fairly, and providing due process to all. I know of
four cases personally where having such an internal system has
prevented lawsuits from disgruntled former members whose attorneys
told them that a judge would dismiss as frivolous a lawsuit against an
organisation which had a written set of internal rules of behaviour
which provided due process for redress of grievances. You may not
like the idea of our having to use such a system, but your preference
is no guarantee that it will not be neccessary to protect NR and the
corporation in the future. BTW, the drafting of this law began six
months before the slander incident to which you allude and very little
of it was influenced in any way by those events.

We are not going to be a close-knit group of friends on the internet
forever; NR will grow, face-to-face meetings will proliferate, we will
gain mor e real property and the legal responsibilities which go with
it. If we don't take steps to plan for that now, ensuring that we
develop the most historically-accurate system in accordance with the
mos maiorum that we can practically have, we will not be able to meet
those challenges and responsibilities. In ten years, when there are
10,000 Novi Romani and you don't know everyone by name and there are
those whose behaviour crosses the line and violates the rights of
other citizens or endangers, we will be glad that Gn. Salix was
foresighted enough to have commissioned this legislation. We'll
probably regard ourselves as lucky for it in many fewer years than that.

> Internet stalking and hackers into the NR database or website can be

handled

> only macronationally anyway. And as a macro-world professional in

this area,

> Marcus Octavius Germanicus is more than capable of handling these

sort of

> problems.

If the choice for dealing with violation of the canons of good
behaviour is to call the cops or to let it slide, we'll probably end
up letting a great deal of behaviour which makes the republic a worse
place for everyone slide. If we police ourselves internally, using a
system of safeguards and due process in open courts with written
rules, we are going to be fair better off in the long term in ensuring
that the virtues of Romanitas are respected and practiced in the
republic than otherwise. There is nothing sanctioned in this lex that
a reasonable person would not regard as unacceptable behaviour. We
cannot be Rome reborn if we do not embrace one of Rome's greatest
contributions to civilisation: Roman law.

Dis volentibus, M. Octavius will be with us for many years, but he is
mortal like us all. We are writing laws which will be the mos maiorum
for those who follow us. Too often we forget that we should be
writing laws which will stand as proper guidance for our descendants a
hundred years from now, a thousand years if we are as fortuante as
Roma antiqua. That is not hubris. This is the Roman conception of law.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your opposition to the Lex
Poenalis.

Vale bene.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Scaurus,

> While you addressed your remarks to A. Apollonius, I hope you won't
> mind if I jump in to try to answer some of your concerns.

Of course not! I like hearing different opinions.

<Within the next 3-5 years we will likely have more property, property with
buildings on it, property

> where we will hold regular events.

That's exactly why I don't feel that we need this law- yet!

> I respectfully ask that you reconsider your opposition to the Lex

Poenalis.
As usual, I reserve the right to change my mind :-)

And thanks for the info on the Centuriata law-- I obviously I missed the '2
month' passage. Jeez, but there is so much to read these last 2 days. I'm
obviously not keeping up with the conversations or grasping it all due to
other obligations. I'm sure that I am not alone in this! Ok back to reading
the emails...

Vale,
Diana

Salvete Quinte Fabi et Omnes,

> I have talked to F. Vedius Germanicus, PP. He is
> busy creating a
> reconstruction of a Germanic tribe, but he answered
> my questions.

With respect, Vedius' translation of the sovereignty
clause is irrelevant. He is no longer here and even if
he were I doubt very much that he would be in any
position to dictate terms. He may be the author of
this clause but it is up to his successors to
interpret its meaning and consequences.

I do agree that its position in the constitution does
make life difficult for Nova Roma's law 'enforcers'
and may even render some of our leges superfluous. I'm
not sure how successful you'd be in manoeuvring for
its removal however.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> In this case however, the use of the words "shall"
> rather than "may"
> (and that's questionable in the traditional legal
> use of the word
> "may" to mean obligatory) and "inability" rather
> than "failure" does
> not leave that ambiguity.

Well, if that's your interpretation then I shan't
expect you to accept the clause as it is. This leaves
us with a few options:

We can wait and see whether the praetor is inclined to
withdraw, amend, and re-submit the law as you request.

If he is not, then you can either vote against the
whole thing (better safe than sorry) or vote in favour
of it and then lobby for an amendment to that clause.
I know the Nova Roma tradition is to vote down or veto
any law that's not perfect, but I hope you'll consider
taking the second way. There are a couple of things in
the law that I myself would like changed, but the
praetor is in a position to promulgate a law and I am
not, so I'm going to vote in favour of it and then
push for that couple of things to be amended.

I don't see anyone voting against an amendment based
on your alternative wording. There's still time for
another legislative session this year, and plenty of
time early next year. The crucial question is, do you
think the danger of someone being prosecuted unjustly
under this clause before then is too great to risk?

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete,

Do we really need to legislate for local groups? If
people want to get together then so be it, if they
don't then fine. Why must Nova Roma incessantly
legislate for everything. It is fast becoming the
epitomy of a bureaucratic nightmare. We have our
provincial infrastructure in place which I believe is
perfectly capable of catering for the active
population that we currently have.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus




________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I must confess, I didn't work very much on the law in
question and I find it very hard to get my head around
the difference one or ten points here or there makes
to the whole system - I'm not arithmetically minded.

However, I wonder if I can offer a suggestion on one
of your major concerns:

> The law
> needs to more clearly specify what the various
> rankings entail. I'm
> not proposing that an exhaustive list of tasks be
> specified, but that
> general guidelines be clearly defined in the
> proposed lex.

This seems to be not so much a defect in the law as an
omission. Certainly it could be remedied by
withdrawing the law and re-submitting it, but this
would mean debating an important law during the
election period, when earnest discussion of the bill's
merits would most likely be drowned out by candidates
using the debate as an excuse to hit one another over
the head.

I wonder, then, whether an easier (and in the long
term more flexible) way for the gap to be filled would
be for us to vote this law through (subject to your
other objections, which I and my calculator are still
contemplating) and then have a senatusconsultum passed
in the next session of the Senate setting the sort of
guidelines you suggest. This would, I think, address
your concern effectively and would give the Senate
flexible and direct power and means to control
governors' use of this clause.

If either of the consuls would be willing to submit
such a motion to the Senate's next meeting (I haven't
asked them, but I should imagine they would be), how
would that sit with you?

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete,

For those who would like to hear a cerebral radio program discussing
the history of Rome, check out this link (Real Audio) to the Milt
Rosenberg show. It's very informative, and they cover a lot of
topics from to the Founding to the Fall, and what Romans ate and so
on.

Rise and Fall of Rome1 (59:42)
http://archive.wgnradio.com:8080/ramgen/wgnam/shows/ex720/Audio/rome0
10822mr1.rm

Rise and Fall of Rome2 (26:45)
http://archive.wgnradio.com:8080/ramgen/wgnam/shows/ex720/Audio/rome0
10822mr2.rm


The site with other radio programs is here:
http://wgnradio.com/shows/ex720/audio/index.html

Vale,

~Danono
Iacomus Gladius Darrius

Byark, what kind of crappy comments is this? This is a shame for the Roman
name! You are not Romans, you are geeks and womens! Ptoooeee! You dont have
any latin blood, barbarians!

Roma est imperare Orbi Universo!

Afranius Vispasianus Syagrius

>From: Decimus Iunius Silanus <danedwardsuk@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] noun genders
>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:03:36 +0100 (BST)
>
>Salve Aule Apolloni,
>
> > 'We-are-not-a-faction'
>
>Shouldn't that be the 'We-are-not-a-faction-faction'
>
>;-)
>
>Vale
>
>Decimus Iunius Silanus
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
>Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://fr.ca.search.msn.com/

Salve,

Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying to
get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of thing,
so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.

Hopefully to be,

Lucius Ambrosius Literatus.

I just got a copy of it. Is it any good?

Vestinia, called Vesta

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Salvete,

I am in full agreement with Diana Moravia, these are two very
sensible laws that will help us to smooth out some potential rough
spots that may, from time to time, occur.

I too wish to add my congratulations to Consul T. Labienus Fortunatus
for presenting this legislation and add my voice to the others who
are urging our fellow citizens to vote for these leges.

Valete,

Livia Cornelia Hibernia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:

> > Lex Labiena de Praetoribus Agendis in Loco Parentium
> <Lex Labiena de Custodia Perpetua Fori
>
> Salvete citizens,
> I fully support the above laws and urge all citizens to vote for

them! We

> need more laws like this which help Nova roma to function better.
>
> My congratulations to Consul T Labienus Fortunatus for taking the

initiative

> to author these 2 laws!
>
> Valete,
> Diana Moravia

Salve Marinus,

LSD: >>We have no legal status outside of North America. Any

>>sub groups we found outside the area where we have
>>legal status also have no legal status, and that
>>includes any legal ties to Nova Roma.

GEM> Senator Drusus' comments prompt me to wonder about the

> status of Nova Roman provincia outside of the United
> States. It would seem from what he's saying here that
> Provincia Hibernia, recently created by the Senate, has
> no legal tie to Nova Roma.

I think that Drusus is right.
From experience with the Pagan Federation which is a non-profit organization
in England, the other 25 countries of the PF are not considered legally part
of the group and can take no advantage whatsoever of their non-profit
status. We were told by our English lawyers a few years ago that if we
wanted to be 'legal' we would have to do so in each separate country. So
outside of the UK we are considered nothing more than a club of like minded
individuals.
Also in every international company that I've worked for, each international
branch of the Mother Company (located in the US) had to be separately
incorporated. I think in Nova Roma's case, this will be the same. But like
you, I would like to hear from one of our legal experts!

Vale,
Diana

Consider my comment something of a private joke.
Consider yourself a cretin.

> Byark, what kind of crappy comments is this? This
> is a shame for the Roman
> name! You are not Romans, you are geeks and womens!
> Ptoooeee! You dont have
> any latin blood, barbarians!
>
> Roma est imperare Orbi Universo!
>
> Afranius Vispasianus Syagrius
>
>
> >From: Decimus Iunius Silanus
> <danedwardsuk@...>
> >Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] noun genders
> >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:03:36 +0100 (BST)
> >
> >Salve Aule Apolloni,
> >
> > > 'We-are-not-a-faction'
> >
> >Shouldn't that be the
> 'We-are-not-a-faction-faction'
> >
> >;-)
> >
> >Vale
> >
> >Decimus Iunius Silanus
> >
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> >Want to chat instantly with your online friends?
> Get the FREE Yahoo!
> >Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
>
>

_________________________________________________________________

> MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme
> vous !
> http://fr.ca.search.msn.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

A. Apollonius Cordus to Tribune Diana Moravia Aventina
and all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I'm glad you're well, and I hope you can find some
time to relax amongst all this paperwork.

> You are right of course, but honestly at this point,
> I simply hate any laws
> that dish out punishment to citizens. Yes, it is
> certainly my problem and
> not anyone else's!

That's an admirably honest response, and I can well
understand the feeling. I'm not going to barrage you
with reasons to change your gut feeling about the law,
but I'm going to make just a couple of points to see
if I can get you feeling less bad about it - if not
enough to vote for it, perhaps enough to denounce it a
little less. ;)

As my colleague Iulius Scaurus has mentioned, this is
indeed a law for the long term. You quite reasonably
reply that perhaps it should be left for later, when
such problems actually occur.

There are a couple of problems, though, with creating
a law to deal with a crime after the crime occurs. The
first, as we can see from the case of Fannius and
Marconius in the archives, is this: if something
happens that is clearly a crime but there's no law to
say what happens to someone who commits it, chaos
ensues and no one knows what to do, it's hard for
magistrates to know what legitimate action they can
take, and everyone ends up dissatisfied.

The second is that if such a thing (think of the
Marconius case again, or the problems which led to the
resignation of praetor Cornelia Strabo last year)
happens and then afterwards we sit down to try to make
a law to deal with it if it happens again, everyone
will be so emotional about the thing that happened and
the arguments they had with each other that it will be
very, very hard to get a sensible and fair law
written. It's much safer and fairer to think about
these things in abstract before they happen so that if
the time comes (hopefully it won't) we can react
calmly and say 'there's already a law to deal with
this, here is what we do'.

The last thing I'd like to mention is about
'punishment'. You feel that thinking and talking about
crimes and punishments makes the whole group seem less
friendly and may erode the unwritten rules and bonds
that exist now. I can sympathize strongly with this
worry, and in the outside world too I worry about the
divisive effect that traditional 'punishment' has on
the integration of society.

But if you have another look at the 'punishments'
prescribed by this law, they are actually based
substantially on principles of reparation and
integration. In almost every case the first thing a
criminal is required to do as his or her 'punishment'
is to say sorry. In many cases he or she has to do
something to make amends to the person he or she
wronged. This sort of penalty is one which tends to
reinforce bonds of friendliness and mutual acceptance,
not one that destroys it.

I hope this eases your mind.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

A. Apollonius Cordus to D. Iunius Silanus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I hope you're well; I'm well.

> Do we really need to legislate for local groups? If
> people want to get together then so be it, if they
> don't then fine.

There are a few reasons I can think of.

First, we could bear to have a little encouragement
for people to form local groups. Offering them formal
status and recognition does this without putting
anyone to any great trouble.

Second, there is a clear demand for a law on this
matter: it was part of the Senior Consul's manifesto
(that's 'platform' in American) and he was elected be
a fair margin, and since then we have seen at least
one citizen (I think it was Tarquitius Rufus)
spontaneously offer a proposal to achieve a similar
goal, with many messages of support from others.

Third, if people do wish to set up groups, we need
some guidelines for Nova Roma to know how to relate to
them and whether or not to give them formal
recognition. If some citizens were to get together to
form a local group with a soviet-style communist
constitution and dedicated to the abolition of
teapots, Nova Roma might not want to give it any
formal status. However, if some citizens want to form
a group which is modelled on historical provincial
towns and works hard to promote Romanity and Nova Roma
in its area, it plainly deserves some recognition.
This law leaves most of the discretion in these
decisions to governors and the Senate, but it lays
down some very basic parameters to exclude groups of
the first type I described.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

--- Decimus Iunius Silanus <danedwardsuk@...>
wrote:

> Salvete Quinte Fabi et Omnes,
>
> > I have talked to F. Vedius Germanicus, PP. He is
> > busy creating a
> > reconstruction of a Germanic tribe, but he
> answered
> > my questions.
>
> With respect, Vedius' translation of the sovereignty
> clause is irrelevant. He is no longer here and even
> if
> he were I doubt very much that he would be in any
> position to dictate terms. He may be the author of
> this clause but it is up to his successors to
> interpret its meaning and consequences.
>

I Strongly disagree!

The notion of a "living constution" that can be
reinterpreted according to the whims of the moment
destroys the concept of a constitution. Rather than
following the procedures needed to amend the
constution a magistrate can in effect amend the
constution at will by changing the meaning via a
reinterpreton.

Original intent should allways be the primary
consideration when the constution or for that matter
any law is being considered. To do otherwise is to
transfer the powers of the Senate and the People
(acting through an assembly) to a magistrate.

The "anarchist" clause is a perfect example of the
dangers of ignoring original intent. A simple clause
that was intended to protect citizens physical homes
and properity in a future Nova Roman homeland has been
morphed into a crippling clause that makes Nova Roma's
government anemic and powerless via attempts at
reinterpatation.

If the constution is found to be lacking in some
respect it can be amended via the process embeded in
it. There is no need for stealth amendments by
changing the intent of a classe via reinterpatation at
the whim of the current magistrate.

Flavius Vedius played a major role in creating Nova
Roma, and it shaping it's current structure. There is
no need to reduce his status to that of an Orwellian
non person because of the actions his wife took
regarding the old main list, or the manner in which he
left us. What he did for the Republic and why he did
it are still important and will remain important as
long as Nova Roma exists in it's present form.

I Will however call for an amendment to the
constution. One that clairifies the "anarchist" clause
so that there is no doubt about it's intent, so that
future magistrates won't be able to use it as a catch
all reason to dispose of any existing leges they
dislike without bothering to promulgate a repeal in
the comita.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Salve Aule Apolloni,

Whilst I applaud the aims that this lex sets out to
achieve, namely foster local participation and
provincial activity, I do feel that these ends will be
better served by action rather than yet another lex in
the tabularium.

> First, we could bear to have a little encouragement
> for people to form local groups. Offering them
> formal
> status and recognition does this without putting
> anyone to any great trouble.

I have no objection to the formation of such groups. I
personally don't think that formal recognition is
really necessary but that's another debate. I
certainly don't believe we need to legislate for their
formation and structure.

> Third, if people do wish to set up groups, we need
> some guidelines for Nova Roma to know how to relate
> to
> them and whether or not to give them formal
> recognition.

Guidelines for recognition fine, if that's what some
want. But this lex goes a lot further than that and it
really does just add an unnecessary tier of bureacracy
to our provincial organisation. We have a recognised
grouping...our provincia. Are we really at a stage in
our development where we need to break this unit down
further, dishing out yet more titles to more people?
35 people to form a 'municipum'... we haven't even got
35 active cives in our entire provincia.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

Salve,

While I am not an attorney, I have been involved with multi-national
corporations at several points in my career and you are quite correct
in saying that each national entity of the multi-national must be
separately incorporated in the nation in which it is doing business.
Given the global span of Noava Roma, that could be a rather daunting
task.

Vale,

Livia Cornelia Hibernia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:

> Salve Marinus,
>
> LSD: >>We have no legal status outside of North America. Any
> >>sub groups we found outside the area where we have
> >>legal status also have no legal status, and that
> >>includes any legal ties to Nova Roma.
>
> GEM> Senator Drusus' comments prompt me to wonder about the
> > status of Nova Roman provincia outside of the United
> > States. It would seem from what he's saying here that
> > Provincia Hibernia, recently created by the Senate, has
> > no legal tie to Nova Roma.
>
> I think that Drusus is right.
> From experience with the Pagan Federation which is a non-profit

organization

> in England, the other 25 countries of the PF are not considered

legally part

> of the group and can take no advantage whatsoever of their non-

profit

> status. We were told by our English lawyers a few years ago that if

we

> wanted to be 'legal' we would have to do so in each separate

country. So

> outside of the UK we are considered nothing more than a club of

like minded

> individuals.
> Also in every international company that I've worked for, each

international

> branch of the Mother Company (located in the US) had to be

separately

> incorporated. I think in Nova Roma's case, this will be the same.

But like

> you, I would like to hear from one of our legal experts!
>
> Vale,
> Diana

Salve Luci Sicini,

> I Strongly disagree!

Actually, I don't think we do. More a poorly worded
post on my part. My point was that with Vedius gone,
it is the decision makers of today that get to
interpret this clause in the consitution. No matter
how much you may wish otherwise, Vedius is unlikely to
feature much in their summations, thus my use of the
term irrelevant.

I wish you well in your pursuit of an ammendment.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.




________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

P.M.AQUILA.PALLADIUS SALUTEM PLURIBUS OMNIBUS DICIT

Dear friends citizens,

I am me also for the creation of a National Anthem ! If I can you help has
anything! I am a composer-songwriter of trade and it would be for me an immense
honor to give my gifts has the republic!

Receive the greetings of Gens Minia!

Valete.

Pompeius Minius Aquila Palladius
Scriba Curatoris Differum
Civis Gallia Provinciae
Civis Plebiae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

M/ CON SERAPIO C IVL SCAVRO SPD
SVBEEV

>What is so objectionable about asking that a law which establishes

new

>categories for he award of century points define those categories
>precisely? The Constitution and existing law define precisely every
>category for which century points are already awarded. Why is it too
>much to demand that this law do the same? It is not the place for

the

>head of a sodalitas or a provincial governor to define a legal
>category; that is the place of hte law. If all of this is so clear,
>why is it not in the text of the proposed lex?

So, let's state that a Legatus will be a 1st rank official. Then a
Legatus in Italia (I mention Italia because I know it better than
other Provinciae), dealing with 50 citizens in his Regio, will get
the same amount of points as a Legatus in Venedia (with all respect
for this Provincia), where a potential Legatus would deal with 3 or
4 citizens in his Regio. Is that what you mean?
Or maybe: a Scriba appointed to be webmaster of the provincial
website is a 3rd rank official. So the webmaster of the Provincia
Italia website, which is wide and monthly updated (if not more) will
get the same amount of points as a webmaster of a provincia having a
one-page website. Is that what you mean?
How do you compare a Procurator in Germania and a Scriba Ludorum in
Hispania? How to you compare a Retiarius in some US Provincia and a
Rector in Italia?
Maybe you suggest to match ranks with the amount of hours per week
that official must work? How could you be sure that's the exact
amount of time he will work?
Please, understand our Provinciae are different. It's impossible to
standardize them until they've reached the same level.

>There far greater latitude for inequity with four ranks of

provincial

>officials with different century points that for one rank with

century

>points (scriba). The proposed lex decreases any likelihood of
>standardisation rather than increasing it. Why create a system which
>is more susceptible to inequities and likely to create more
>disparities between provinces?

It looks like you want to standardize provinciae. Ok, I agree with
you. So let's have not-developed provinciae developing. When all
provinciae will be at the same level, than we'll have the
opportunity to standardize positions and century points. Today it's
still impossible. But for the time being, why should a number of
citizens be damaged? Again, you propose to damage a number of
officials instead of facing the real problems:
1. inactive officials
2. disparity between developed provinciae and non-developed ones.

>Assuming that the Lex Poenalis is adopted, but I think it is bad
>public policy to assume that a law to correct a problem created by
>another law proposed at the same time will nccessarily be adopted.

This law does not create any problem. The risk of Magisterial Abuse
already exists. As someone else already pointed out, governor may
appoint 100 Scribae in a Provincia composed of 100 citizens.
With the proposed law governors keep having the power to appoint 100
Scribae in a Provincia composed of 100 citizens. It is not the aim
of this law to solve this problem. The subject of this law is
completely different.
Abuses, violations and crimes are the task of the Praetores and the
Senate.
You think this system could push governors to commit magisterial
abuse, so we shouldn't adopt this system. It's like saying we
shouldn't tell the greengrocer his vegetables could be sold at
different prices, otherwise he could sell all of them at the highest
one.

>We know what a "scriba" is from the Constitution and existing law.

We

>know what an "Aedilis Curulis" is from the Constitution. We know

what

>an "accensus" from the Constitution and existing law.

The Lex Vedia de Provinciis was issued to give Governors and the
Senate more flexibility on the structure of Provinciae. As a
consequence, let me say you know what a Scriba is in general, i.e.
an aid, an assistant. You know nothing more. And that's obvious,
because in each Provincia Scribae can do very different things.
These things can be more or less important, they can be more or less
time consuming. A Scriba working more than the others, or doing a
job which is more important for the Provincia, deserves to get more
points than the others. That's why this law proposes 4 different
level of awarding provincial activity. (The same could be said as to
Sodalitates).

>And, just as a matter of personal preference, "first rank official"
>sounds more like something out of an 8th century Byzantine protocol
>manual than a provincial officer of the Roman Republic.

"X rank official" is not a title. The title is the Roman one
(Scriba, Legatus, etc.) as always. "X rank official" is a
classification to help Censores with the software calculating
century points.

>Quaestores handle money. In the real world that is a very

substantial

>responsibility. Furthermore, historically the tribunate was of lower
>precedence that the quaestorship.

I agree with you as to the historical side. Still you surely see
Nova Roma is far from being like Rome. We are approaching that
status, but we didn't reach it yet. For the time being, we still
have 8 quaestors and 5 tribunes. Today our tribunes can legislate
and issue their veto. Today, "in the real world" the "very
substantial responsibility" as to money is not up to the quaestors,
but rather up to the Senate.
When Nova Roma will grow and will reach the same historical
difference between quaestors and tribunes as in ancient Rome, then
this law will need to be modified, probably for the last time.

>There has been no Tribunician legislation this year.

So you think legislation is the sole criterion to value our
tribunes' activity, don't you?

> Gn. Salix,
>bluntly put, was a prodigy as a tribune -- there was none like him
>before and there have been none since.

I agree with you his tribunate was wonderful. Still Cn Salix'
tribunate shouldn't be the exception, but the custom. Laws must be
written on the custom, not on exceptions.

>To what I object is giving past service points permanently
>once the apparitor no longer serves; it is that which lends itself

to

>political lientage.

I wouldn't like to repeat myself, but again you are proposing to
damage honest citizens instead of facing the problem. If a citizen
works for Nova Roma, then it's logical his political weight (century
points) grows. This is what the century points are for. To reward
citizens for their work in favour of the Republic. This runs under
the principle that those who work more are also those who know Nova
Roma better, those who have more experience, so those who can make
the best choices. Being apparitor contribute to the creation of such
an experience within our Republic. If you eliminate past service
points, you eliminate the possibility of his experience to be
beneficial to Nova Roma.

>That is why the points should be based on annual Senatorial review,
>not just holding the promagistracy. But the proposed law does not do
>this.

Establishing the rules of the annual senatorial review is the task
of the Senate. The subject of this law is another one.

>Priesthoods are magistracies,

Magistracies and public religious institutions are two different
paragraphs in our constitution. I have nothing against our priest,
of course. Just your remark is incorrect. To be considered
magistrates of Nova Roma the Constitution should me modified.

>Pater Patriae is the highest honour we can accord. What do century
>points add to that honour?

My answer was probably badly expressed. Century points would add the
logical political weight which comes from being awarded the highest
honour of the Republic by the Senate.

BENE VALE
M'Con.Serapio

>
> > Byark, what kind of crappy comments is this? This
> > is a shame for the Roman
> > name! You are not Romans, you are geeks and womens!
> > Ptoooeee! You dont have
> > any latin blood, barbarians!
> >
> > Roma est imperare Orbi Universo!
> >
> > Afranius Vispasianus Syagrius
> >
> >

Salvete to some of you purfumed haired dandy Romans!

Urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!

Wunderbar!

Barbarian proverb:

"Ku'errels have tails and girls have curls / Clouds have rain and
trysters pearls"

Nunc est bibendum! Cenam, non cine candida puella!
Ha, ad Romanas dico, vidi, vici, veni!!

Quintus Lanius Paulinus,
lout of a barbarian!

Avete Omnes,

Wasn't a revision of the Soverignty Clause a campaign promise by one
of our Consuls?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

>
> --- Decimus Iunius Silanus <danedwardsuk@y...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Quinte Fabi et Omnes,
> >
> > > I have talked to F. Vedius Germanicus, PP. He is
> > > busy creating a
> > > reconstruction of a Germanic tribe, but he
> > answered
> > > my questions.
> >
> > With respect, Vedius' translation of the sovereignty
> > clause is irrelevant. He is no longer here and even
> > if
> > he were I doubt very much that he would be in any
> > position to dictate terms. He may be the author of
> > this clause but it is up to his successors to
> > interpret its meaning and consequences.
> >
> I Strongly disagree!
>
> The notion of a "living constution" that can be
> reinterpreted according to the whims of the moment
> destroys the concept of a constitution. Rather than
> following the procedures needed to amend the
> constution a magistrate can in effect amend the
> constution at will by changing the meaning via a
> reinterpreton.
>
> Original intent should allways be the primary
> consideration when the constution or for that matter
> any law is being considered. To do otherwise is to
> transfer the powers of the Senate and the People
> (acting through an assembly) to a magistrate.
>
> The "anarchist" clause is a perfect example of the
> dangers of ignoring original intent. A simple clause
> that was intended to protect citizens physical homes
> and properity in a future Nova Roman homeland has been
> morphed into a crippling clause that makes Nova Roma's
> government anemic and powerless via attempts at
> reinterpatation.
>
> If the constution is found to be lacking in some
> respect it can be amended via the process embeded in
> it. There is no need for stealth amendments by
> changing the intent of a classe via reinterpatation at
> the whim of the current magistrate.
>
> Flavius Vedius played a major role in creating Nova
> Roma, and it shaping it's current structure. There is
> no need to reduce his status to that of an Orwellian
> non person because of the actions his wife took
> regarding the old main list, or the manner in which he
> left us. What he did for the Republic and why he did
> it are still important and will remain important as
> long as Nova Roma exists in it's present form.
>
> I Will however call for an amendment to the
> constution. One that clairifies the "anarchist" clause
> so that there is no doubt about it's intent, so that
> future magistrates won't be able to use it as a catch
> all reason to dispose of any existing leges they
> dislike without bothering to promulgate a repeal in
> the comita.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

Livia Cornelia Hibernia wrote:

> While I am not an attorney, I have been involved with multi-national
> corporations at several points in my career and you are quite correct
> in saying that each national entity of the multi-national must be
> separately incorporated in the nation in which it is doing business.
> Given the global span of Noava Roma, that could be a rather daunting
> task.

Salve, Livia Cornelia Hibernia.

If this is true, even if it would be a daunting task to incorporate
"everywhere", how long dare we wait? Sooner or later, if for nothing
more than handling of taxes on a provincial level, we are bound to come
into contact with macronational law. Perhaps incorporation is something
each propraetor could check up for their provincia?

I would hate for us to be caught up in some legal mess unawares. Would
each provincia neet to be incorporated "on its own", or is it Nova Roma
which needs to be incorporated everywhere, or both?

(Your legally inept yet strangely paranoid webmaster. Darn those
conspiracy sites. Darn them to heck. To Phil his own!)

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Avete T. Octavius et Omnes,

It would be rather difficult to incorporate in areas where we have no
citizens. :) So, we should target our efforts in those areas where
we have provincia's already established, for the time being.

What we need to realize is that each jurisdiciton might and probably
does have different requriemets. There are some states, like Oregon
that will require incorporation if we intend to do activities like
fundraising...each state and for that matter each country will have
different requirements. I believe that the best course of action
would be to remove the Lex Fabia de Oppidis et Municipiis and have
the Consuls work with the governors to find out the various
requirements needed to incorporate Nova Roma within their local
jurisdictions. Then the Consuls can then report back to the Board of
Directors.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@d...> wrote:
> Livia Cornelia Hibernia wrote:
> > While I am not an attorney, I have been involved with multi-
national
> > corporations at several points in my career and you are quite
correct
> > in saying that each national entity of the multi-national must be
> > separately incorporated in the nation in which it is doing
business.
> > Given the global span of Noava Roma, that could be a rather
daunting
> > task.
>
> Salve, Livia Cornelia Hibernia.
>
> If this is true, even if it would be a daunting task to incorporate
> "everywhere", how long dare we wait? Sooner or later, if for
nothing
> more than handling of taxes on a provincial level, we are bound to
come
> into contact with macronational law. Perhaps incorporation is
something
> each propraetor could check up for their provincia?
>
> I would hate for us to be caught up in some legal mess unawares.
Would
> each provincia neet to be incorporated "on its own", or is it Nova
Roma
> which needs to be incorporated everywhere, or both?
>
> (Your legally inept yet strangely paranoid webmaster. Darn those
> conspiracy sites. Darn them to heck. To Phil his own!)
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "g_iulius_scaurus" <gfr@w...>
wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus D. Moraviae Aventinae salutem dicit.
>

<SNIP>
We are writing laws which will be the mos maiorum

> for those who follow us. Too often we forget that we should be
> writing laws which will stand as proper guidance for our

descendants a

> hundred years from now, a thousand years if we are as fortuante as
> Roma antiqua. That is not hubris. This is the Roman conception

of law.

>
> I respectfully ask that you reconsider your opposition to the Lex
> Poenalis.
>
> Vale bene.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve,

I agree with you that this law sets a precedent that is needed and
on time. Though no one has gotten upset with anything enough to
bring charges, it could happen and is bound to happen at some point
and it will be too late to promulgate a law such as this then.

That being said, I, like others, still have doubts about the
Pater/Mater portion of it. Since we are setting a precedent that
could need to be interpreted when none of us is around to let people
know what was really meant by it, it should be very clear and
precise. Our Gens system is ahistoric at this time. However, it
could be reorganized at any point, making those portions of this law
no longer valid in referencing the system and, if not altered at
that time, create an opportunity for further misunderstanding and
possible wrongful prosecution.

Perhaps instead the law can point to the person in legal/physical
charge of the minor being held accountable for their actions, rather
than the pater/mater. I think it has been made clear that our
current setup prevents the majority of gens heads from policing the
actions of most of their members. This puts the burden of assuring
the good behavior of minors on those who can reasonably be expected
to control them, the parents or legal guardians. If a minor does
join NR and a gens without a parental authority also joining, then
that person really has *no* physical guardian within NR and assuming
that the Gens leader will take legal custody to a limit of
prosecution will simply make the gens heads less inclined to permit
minors to join.

Just my view.

Vale,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

Salvete omnes,

Please visit NR Italia because Manius Constantinus Serapio wrote an
anthym for the Italian province. To my ear it is very lively, catchy
with an ancient martial type quality to it. If Manius and the Italian
province would let us use that tune, I for one would be very happy.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, giosuemini@v... wrote:
> P.M.AQUILA.PALLADIUS SALUTEM PLURIBUS OMNIBUS DICIT
>
> Dear friends citizens,
>
> I am me also for the creation of a National Anthem ! If I can you
help has
> anything! I am a composer-songwriter of trade and it would be for
me an immense
> honor to give my gifts has the republic!
>
> Receive the greetings of Gens Minia!
>
> Valete.
>
> Pompeius Minius Aquila Palladius
> Scriba Curatoris Differum
> Civis Gallia Provinciae
> Civis Plebiae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

Salvete Omnes,

I'm disapointed with many posts I have seen on the
Paters/Maters being responsible for minors in thier
Gens. It seems that many of our citizens want the
honors and powers of a Pater but want to dodge any
responsibilites that go with the powers.

Admitting Minors who's parents aren't citizens is a
danger to the Republic. All it will take is admitting
one wrong minor and we are screwed. One 16 year old
girl from a Xtian family joining our Pagan
organization. In much of the United States our chances
of winning the resulting lawsuit are close to nil.
OJ's lawyers couldn't win it let alone any that we
could afford. There wouldn't be a Nova Roma left for
Minors or anyone else to join.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

In a message dated 9/26/03 8:27:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@... writes:

> Wasn't a revision of the Soverignty Clause a campaign promise by one
> of our Consuls?
>

Yes, I lost the election, remember? <GRIN>

Q. Fabius Maximus



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/26/03 8:27:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@e... writes:
>
>
> > Wasn't a revision of the Soverignty Clause a campaign promise by

one

> > of our Consuls?
> >
>
> Yes, I lost the election, remember? <GRIN>
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus

I thought Consul Labienus made that as well....or am I mistaken?

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salve,

Diana is right. If I know the laws, the provincial government of Nova
Roma must be founded in each country as a Non-Profit Organization.
Each provincial government will be a separated Non-Profit
Organization recognized by the local government. I know that doing
this we can´t attach by any law the provincial government to the
central government by the own rule of the real countries, except if
owned by the central government (like International Holdings). Legaly
talking, even the provincial leader (the propraetor) really won´t
need any Senate approving, because most of the statute of a
Non_Profit Organization must have a way of the leader be choosen
inside it. (That is the big problem with ´micronations´. There is no
way to attach to the central government). And sending money to the
Central Govenrment can also be considered ´money-international-
sending´, on some countries ilegal or taxable if it is done by a
juridic person like a non-profit organizaton.

The big problem is that the recognizable legal form of NR by the real
countries is as a Non-Profit Organization, not a Micronation.

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus
Plebeian Aedile

> From experience with the Pagan Federation which is a non-profit

organization

> in England, the other 25 countries of the PF are not considered

legally part

> of the group and can take no advantage whatsoever of their non-

profit

> status. We were told by our English lawyers a few years ago that if

we

> wanted to be 'legal' we would have to do so in each separate

country. So

> outside of the UK we are considered nothing more than a club of

like minded

> individuals.
> Also in every international company that I've worked for, each

international

> branch of the Mother Company (located in the US) had to be

separately

> incorporated. I think in Nova Roma's case, this will be the same.

But like

> you, I would like to hear from one of our legal experts!
>
> Vale,
> Diana

Salve Lucius (soon to be) Ambrosius,

<Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying to

> get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
> not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of thing,
> so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.

She'll answer you. She's just not attached at the hip to her computer like
some of us here are :-)

Your future materfaimilias Merlinia Ambrosia is a really great person!
You've chosen a fine Gens!
Vale,
Diana Moravia

Salve Pompeius Minius,

> I am me also for the creation of a National Anthem ! If I can you help has
> anything! I am a composer-songwriter of trade and it would be for me an

immense

> honor to give my gifts has the republic!

Then you should really contact Manius Constantinus Serapio
mcserapio@... ! He is also a composer and wrote a wonderful anthem for
Provincia Italia. You can hear it by going to their provincia website which
http://italia.novaroma.org/

Vale,
Diana

Ahh oops.
I see that Quintus Lanius has already given the exact same reply that I
gave. Sorry for the bandwidth (and I guess this email is also bandwidth)
:-)

Salve Diana,

Don't worry. Great minds think alike! Thanks for putting on the
direct address to the site.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:

> Ahh oops.
> I see that Quintus Lanius has already given the exact same reply

that I

> gave. Sorry for the bandwidth (and I guess this email is also

bandwidth)

> :-)

Salve L Corneli

> I thought Consul Labienus made that as well....or am I mistaken?

No, you're not mistaken. You can look forward to voting on the amendment,
probably sometime next month.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, labienus@n... wrote:

> Salve L Corneli
>
> > I thought Consul Labienus made that as well....or am I mistaken?
>
> No, you're not mistaken. You can look forward to voting on the

amendment,

> probably sometime next month.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

EXCELLENT, I will be looking forward to it.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

> Salve,

And sending money to the

> Central Govenrment can also be considered ´money-international-
> sending´, on some countries ilegal or taxable if it is done by a
> juridic person like a non-profit organizaton.
>
> The big problem is that the recognizable legal form of NR by the real
> countries is as a Non-Profit Organization, not a Micronation.

<snipped for brevity>

Salve Lucius Arminus Faustus,

Ouch, the more I think about Nova Roma's very shakey legal ground
outside of the United States the worse it becomes. Could governments
outside of the US consider Nova Roma to be illegally soliciting funds
by way of Nova Roma's "taxes"? Nova Roma has many good and hard
working magistrates and Senators who are not citizens of the US, is
this another violation that Nova Roma may have committed unknowingly?

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
wrote:

> While I'm sure of Calvus' sincerity in making this statement, I'd
> like an opinion from a legal professional. If Tribune Marcus
> Marcius Rex is reading this, I'd particularly appreciate his
> legal opinion in the matter.
>
> If we are, in fact, operating illegally by having citizens and
> provinces outside of the United States (or North America) then
> we have far more to worry about than the status of local groups.
>
> On the other hand, if we are operating legally in Europe, Asia,
> South America, and Africa, then I don't quite understand why
> it is that having separate provincial governments there would
> be legal but having local groups would not be.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Salve Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,

Thank you for not doubting my sincerity. I too would like an expert
legal opinion on Nova Roma's exact legal status outside the US. My
statements were based on my experience with a for-profit (well we try
to be profitable anyway) corporation that operates internationally.
With non-profit/non-governmental corportate entities such as Nova Roma
the laws may be quite different, and most likely are quite different
from country to country. I can pretty much guess with confidence that
Nova Roma as its "state religion" is not Islam would be persona
non-gratia in say Saudi Arabia.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Avete Omnes,

I concur as well. There are a number of lawyers in Nova Roma, some
of whom have Not for profit experience, their input in regards to
this and other matters would be most beneficial.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@a...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

<gawne@c...>

> wrote:
>
> > While I'm sure of Calvus' sincerity in making this statement, I'd
> > like an opinion from a legal professional. If Tribune Marcus
> > Marcius Rex is reading this, I'd particularly appreciate his
> > legal opinion in the matter.
> >
> > If we are, in fact, operating illegally by having citizens and
> > provinces outside of the United States (or North America) then
> > we have far more to worry about than the status of local groups.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we are operating legally in Europe, Asia,
> > South America, and Africa, then I don't quite understand why
> > it is that having separate provincial governments there would
> > be legal but having local groups would not be.
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
>
> Salve Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
>
> Thank you for not doubting my sincerity. I too would like an expert
> legal opinion on Nova Roma's exact legal status outside the US. My
> statements were based on my experience with a for-profit (well we

try

> to be profitable anyway) corporation that operates internationally.
> With non-profit/non-governmental corportate entities such as Nova

Roma

> the laws may be quite different, and most likely are quite different
> from country to country. I can pretty much guess with confidence

that

> Nova Roma as its "state religion" is not Islam would be persona
> non-gratia in say Saudi Arabia.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

Salvete,

I am researching the continuing/surviving aspects of Byzantine
civilization, culture, religion, etc. If anyone has any ideas on
some aspects I should include please let me know. Many Greek
Orthodox monasteries still fly the imperial flag. There is a new
organization called Neobyzantium (not as cool as Nova Roma). The
Pope just apologized a few years ago for the sack of Constantinople
by the Ventian lead crusade. These are a few aspects which bring
Byzantium into the modern age. As for our group, from what I have
read, we would have to count Justinian as the last Roman Emperor of
the eastern half of the empire.


Vale

apologies, looks as though I left out the subject on posting

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tiberius Antonius Romulus" <...>
wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> I am researching the continuing/surviving aspects of Byzantine
> civilization, culture, religion, etc. If anyone has any ideas on
> some aspects I should include please let me know. Many Greek
> Orthodox monasteries still fly the imperial flag. There is a new
> organization called Neobyzantium (not as cool as Nova Roma). The
> Pope just apologized a few years ago for the sack of Constantinople
> by the Ventian lead crusade. These are a few aspects which bring
> Byzantium into the modern age. As for our group, from what I have
> read, we would have to count Justinian as the last Roman Emperor of
> the eastern half of the empire.
>
>
> Vale

In a message dated 9/26/03 11:14:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Salve,
>
> Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying to
> get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
> not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of thing,
> so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.
>
> Hopefully to be,
>
> Lucius Ambrosius Literatus.

Salve Lucius Ambrosius,

Welcome to Nova Roma! I'm Anneia Iulia Rusticiana. :) It's a pleasure to
meet you. I have been a tiny bit more active lately than I ever have been, but
I am still a resident "lurker" due to private affairs that sometimes make it
hard to fully devote myself to e-mails and groups and every email...but it
doesn't mean I don't love my family or care about other people or their problems.
I hope you learn much and enjoy your time here...you are part of New Rome.
Be well, take care, much love!

Vale,

~ Anneia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 9/26/03 2:13:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
chrismidwestwisconsin@... writes:

> As for our group, from what I have
> read, we would have to count Justinian as the last Roman Emperor of
> the eastern half of the empire.
>

Not really. He with aid of Belisarios and Narces reconquered most the
original Empire, deposing the Vandal, Ostrogothic kingdoms, coming to an agreement
with the Visigoths and Franks as allies. Setting a peace with Persia. So I
call him the last Roman emperor. His empire was short lived, but it was
reunited nevertheless. And that had been his true goal since coming into office.

Q. Fabius Maximus



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete:

Tiberius Antonius Romulus writes:

> As for our group, from what I have read, we would have to count Justinian as the last Roman Emperor of
> the eastern half of the empire.

Although Justinian (526-565 CE) temporarily re-gained control over parts of the defunct Western Empire (Italy, Africa, bits of Spain), most of it was lost again by the mid-eighth century. Emperors continued to rule in Constantinople until the death of Constantine XI in 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. Most histories switch to "Byzantine Empire" instead of "Eastern Roman Empire" during the reign of Heraclius (610-641 CE) because he replaced Latin with Greek as the official language of state documents (and Greek was already the lingua franca throughout his realm). The title, "Basileius" ("King") also came into common use when referring to the ruler.

L. Suetonius Nerva



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Apollonius Cordus to D. Iunius Silanus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> Whilst I applaud the aims that this lex sets out to
> achieve, namely foster local participation and
> provincial activity, I do feel that these ends will
> be
> better served by action rather than yet another lex
> in
> the tabularium.

Well, let's take action by all means, but what's on
offer now is a law, and regardless of what else we do
or don't do we each need to decide whether this is a
law we want or a law we don't. Given that having one
extra law in the tabularium yields a net disadvantage
of nil to the republic, I think that disadvantage is
outweighed by any law with the slightest benefit in
it. So the question is, do you think this law has the
slightest benefit in it?

> I have no objection to the formation of such groups.
> I
> personally don't think that formal recognition is
> really necessary but that's another debate. I
> certainly don't believe we need to legislate for
> their
> formation and structure.

...

> Guidelines for recognition fine, if that's what some
> want. But this lex goes a lot further than that and
> it
> really does just add an unnecessary tier of
> bureacracy
> to our provincial organisation. We have a recognised
> grouping...our provincia. Are we really at a stage
> in
> our development where we need to break this unit
> down
> further, dishing out yet more titles to more people?

You seem to be under the same misapprehension as some
others who have been discussing this law. This law
does not create new layers of provincial
administration. It does not give people titles. It
doesn't *do* anything. It just specifies the minimum
standards for a group to be recognized.

Let's be very clear: there is nothing in this law that
stops people forming a group that isn't structured the
way the law outlines. All it does it to set out those
structures as the necessary requirements for the group
to be recognized. The reason it does that is to
encourage people who want to form groups to model
their groups on the historical organization of the
towns and cities of the Roman world, just like our
central administration is modelled on the central
administration of Rome.

I don't like centralization and I don't like big
government, but this is neither. This is not extra
layers of bureaucracy. It doesn't cost more money. It
doesn't cause anyone extra trouble. It doesn't do
anyone any harm. If, like ours, a province is too
small for local groups to have much impact, then
there's no need for anyone to form them. That's not a
reason to vote down a law which people in other
provinces want and have been asking for for a year or more.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete Quirites!

I have decided to withdraw the Lex Fabia Centuriata on the request of
the Pontifex Maximus. I do this to demonstrate that I am not against
the Religio and that my changes of the CPs for priests never had the
intention to lower the influence of the priesthood.

One of my goals with this proposal was to differentiate between
differents levels of positions. I must admit that I never reflected
over the total influence of the priesthood. The lex is hereby
withdrawn and I will come back with it later.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Cn. Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

I have been waiting for a few days to see where the debate on my
latest legislative proposal was going. I have to say that I am quite
satisfied :-). For such an extensive law, the number of possible
problematic points pointed out by our citizens has been relatively
low. For that, I must thank the team that worked with me in the
creation of this law; that is, C. Iulius Scaurus, A. Apollonius
Cordus and C. Curius Saturninus.

Besides a few comments on the law's extension and
supposed "unloveliness", it seems that the main problem found by some
of our citizens has been paragraph VII.A.

Does that paragraph mean that a paterfamilias should be judged like
if the crimes commited by a minor under his guidance had been
commited by the paterfamilias? I think that that would be quite
irrational. That's why paragraph VII.A. of the Lex Salicia Poenalis
does NOT mean that. Let's have a look at it, shall we?

"VII. Sui Iuris Status Requirement:

A. Should a citizen who is not sui iuris under the laws of Nova Roma
commit any infraction specified by this law, his pater/materfamilias
or tutor shall be held accountable for inability to prevent
commission of the infraction."

This paragraph means that a paterfamilias who fails to prevent the
commission of an infraction by a minor who is under his
responsability could be judged under the accusation of having failed
to prevent the infraction.

That means that if Titus Tacius Iunior hacks the Novoroman
citizenship database, his pater Titus Tacius Maior will *not* be
accused of having hacked the citizenship database, but of having
failed to prevent Iunior's action. That is a *completely* different
affair. It means that there are *two* offences, not one being passed
from one shoulder to another. Now, the Praetores (or the Tribuni
Plebis, or the Consules) could be convinced that T. Tacius Maior
could not reasonably have done something to prevent Iunior's crime;
then, the case against Maior would be dismissed.

A paterfamilias who accepts the guardianship of a minor within Nova
Roma is accepting a position of responsability. That's what logic
*and* the laws of Nova Roma (see section II.D.3.a. of the
Constitution) say. It is reasonable that the paterfamilias be held
accountable for his proper performance as a guardian of the minor.

I hope that I have been able to transmit what I was trying to say.
Thank you for your attention, citizens.

S·V·B·E·E·V
CN·SALIX·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF·ASTVR

Ave,

Currently the Provincia Hispania is already a Non-Profit
Organization in Spain (therefore in all the European Union). The
members of this organization have to be NR citizens from Spain and
Portugal and to defend the constitution of NR.
We didn´t have any problems in our country for such a legalization.

Salix Galaicus
Propraetor Hispaniae

>
> Diana is right. If I know the laws, the provincial government of

Nova

> Roma must be founded in each country as a Non-Profit Organization.
> Each provincial government will be a separated Non-Profit
> Organization recognized by the local government. I know that doing
> this we can´t attach by any law the provincial government to the
> central government by the own rule of the real countries, except if
> owned by the central government (like International Holdings).

Legaly

> talking, even the provincial leader (the propraetor) really won´t
> need any Senate approving, because most of the statute of a
> Non_Profit Organization must have a way of the leader be choosen
> inside it. (That is the big problem with ´micronations´. There is

no

> way to attach to the central government). And sending money to the
> Central Govenrment can also be considered ´money-international-
> sending´, on some countries ilegal or taxable if it is done by a
> juridic person like a non-profit organizaton.
>
> The big problem is that the recognizable legal form of NR by the

real

> countries is as a Non-Profit Organization, not a Micronation.
>
> Vale,
> L. Arminius Faustus
> Plebeian Aedile
>
>

Salve If they will not answer your mail I know that you would be welcome in our family , the first family of ROME!!!!

The Galeria/us

Just drop a note to our mum, Helen Galeria at teleri@...


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Jay Hayden
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] New Member


Salve,

Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying to
get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of thing,
so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.

Hopefully to be,

Lucius Ambrosius Literatus.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Here's a link to "Sententiae Latinae: Latin Maxims":

http://members.chello.se/hansdotter/show-off.html

This site, created by Johanna Hansdotter Sundberg, is a collection of
aphorisms from Latin literature (with biographical sketches of each
author cited) and Neo-Latin sayings.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Lucius:

The Materfamilias of the Ambrosii is Merlinia Ambrosia Artoria, (Joanne
Shaver)
email her at merlinia@...

I am sure if she has not gotten to you immediately there must be some
pressing matter occupying her.

Tiberius Ambrosius Silvus

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Gallagher [mailto:spqr753@...]
Sent: Friday, 26 September, 2003 19:51
To: Cheri Henderson; Nova-Roma
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] New Member


Salve If they will not answer your mail I know that you would be welcome
in our family , the first family of ROME!!!!

The Galeria/us

Just drop a note to our mum, Helen Galeria at teleri@...


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Jay Hayden
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] New Member


Salve,

Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying to
get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of thing,
so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.

Hopefully to be,

Lucius Ambrosius Literatus.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

Salvete Omnes,

I'm glad that this matter is finally getting some
attention. The Needs of the corporation have been
taking a backseat to the needs of the micronation for
too long. That is a grave error, because it can
destroy the entire organization, both the corporation
and the micronation.

I Have seen the ideas of incorparating the provinces.
That would be a major mistake, one that would wreck
Nova Roma's unity, turning it into a bunch of
independant groups.

We need to syudy other international organizations to
see how they have overcome problems like this.
Fraternal organizations like the Masons managed to set
up Masonic Lodges in many countries without wrecking
the unity of the organization. The Masonic structure
could give us insights on how we can achive that goal.
It may not be a fully historic means of establishing
local groups, but when we are faced with National Laws
we have no choice but to follow them, and be as
historic as possible within the framework of national
legal codes.

The International Red Cross is another organization
that manages to work in many countries without falling
apart. The Catholic Church managed to operate
internationally for 59 years without having soverign
status.

There are many examples of non profits that have
managed to operate in many countries, and we need to
research how these other international organizations
operate. Once we know that then we can plan making
Nova Roma into a true international organization
rather than just an American NPC that happens to have
members residing outside the USA.

It will take research, hard work, and money. It will
be effort well spent, because correcting our shaky
legal status is the most important task facing Nova
Roma today. Far more important than any of the Leges
that are under consideration this year. None of them
will matter if our legal status causes problems that
disolve the organization.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

P. MINIUS AQUILA PALLADIUS PHILIPPO FLAVIO CONSERVATO SALUTEM DICIT

What a pleasure of having friends like you!

Dear Philippus, obviously which we will work together! For the glory of the
gods of Roma we will create in unit the future anthem of Nova Roma. I quickly
will put myself at work in studio of recording, to compose you an impressive
music worthy of the size of Rome. Here Tolosa has, I have at my disposal
a philharmonic orchestra and religious choruses which will be able to be
put has my provision to make this anthem in studio of recording. I puts itself
at work and puts regularly to you with the current news.

Your dear friendly Pompeius.

Valete

Pompeius Minius Aquila Palladius
Scriba Curatoris Differum
Civis Gallia Provinciae
Civis Plebiae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

Ave Lucius!

Welcome to Nova Roma!
I'm sure that you will here from the materfailias soon.
In the meantime, enjoy getting used to main list and don't be shy
about posting; the best way to learn about us is by jumping in.

Again welcome,

Vale,

Livia Cornelia Hibernia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Jay Hayden" <arannahs@y...>
wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Greetings my name is Lucius of no Gens yet. I have been trying

to

> get in contact with the Materfamilias of Gens Ambrosia, and still do
> not know if I have been accepted.I am quite new to this sort of

thing,

> so I will keep this short until I know if I have been accepted.
>
> Hopefully to be,
>
> Lucius Ambrosius Literatus.

Avete!

I believe that the Senator's path is the most sensible for this
issue. We need to get the legal status of Nova Roma itself clearly
established in multiple jurisdictions first, know where we stand with
our local status as a legal entity, a non-profit (and therefor non-
taxed!) corporation before we set up any local groups.

The legal status and tax-exempt status will vary wildly from one
macronation to another and even with-in macronations such as the USA,
where, while the Federal tax laws apply in all 50 states,
incorporation is done at the state, not national level and each state
has its own rules to understand and follow.

I have yet another issue with these local jurisdictions: how will
they be funded? Will they be funded at all? If so how? local taxes?
a distribution from the Provincial treasury?

I'm also still not certain that I like the idea of adding another
level of administration our government in the form of local
magistrates.

I'm also unsure of the historocity of locally elected local
magistrates. Was such a thing actually done in antiquity? Were not
any such local magistrates simply appointed and installed by Rome?

I think with all of these issues, we should put this lex aside for
the time being, get the non-USA legal status of Nova Roma firmly
established, at least in the other macronations where we have the
highest populations, and then reconsider legislation for the
establishment of local groups. Not having officially recognized
local groups does not in any way prevent any number of Citizens from
getting together to whatever they want.

Just my II sistersii,

Valete,

Livia Cornelia Hibernia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

> Salve,
> The provinces exist for "administrative purposes" and
> are a part of Nova Roma's central organization as per
> the constution and aren't seperate entities, though it
> is possible that the laws in some localaties may view
> them diferently.
>
> We need to clear up our legal status before we make it
> more complex by adding two more types of
> organizations. This lex could have some very bad legal
> consequances.
>
> Before we add any new groups we need to clear up our
> present legal status. We would be on far firmer ground
> in Europe if we incorporated in one of the EU
> countries. That might give us legal status in the
> remainder of the EU.
>
> --- Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> > quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> > Drusus"
> > > <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > >>Right now Nova Roma has legal status in the United
> > >>States as a non profit corporation. That is all we
> > >>are. We might have legal status in Canada and
> > Mexico
> > >>under the terms of the NAFTA treaty, but that is
> > >>questionable and it would be foolish to make
> > >>assumptions in this area.
> > >>
> > >>We have no legal status outside of North America.
> > Any
> > >>sub groups we found outside the area where we have
> > >>legal status also have no legal status, and that
> > >>includes any legal ties to Nova Roma.
> >
> > Senator Drusus' comments prompt me to wonder about
> > the
> > status of Nova Roman provincia outside of the United
> > States. It would seem from what he's saying here
> > that
> > Provincia Hibernia, recently created by the Senate,
> > has
> > no legal tie to Nova Roma.
> >
> > Calvus continued:
> > > Drusus is correct. [...] Without Nova Roma being
> > incorporated
> > > as a non-profit non-governmental organization in
> > each and every
> > > country in which Nova Roma has "tax paying
> > members" Nova Roma could be
> > > viewed as doing business illegally in any nation
> > outside of the United
> > > States.
> >
> > While I'm sure of Calvus' sincerity in making this
> > statement, I'd
> > like an opinion from a legal professional. If
> > Tribune Marcus
> > Marcius Rex is reading this, I'd particularly
> > appreciate his
> > legal opinion in the matter.
> >
> > If we are, in fact, operating illegally by having
> > citizens and
> > provinces outside of the United States (or North
> > America) then
> > we have far more to worry about than the status of
> > local groups.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we are operating legally in
> > Europe, Asia,
> > South America, and Africa, then I don't quite
> > understand why
> > it is that having separate provincial governments
> > there would
> > be legal but having local groups would not be.
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

Salve,

I believe that you have actually pointed out one of the flaws in this
Lex: proper, fair, and may I say Just, operation of this law relies
upon the exercise of good will, right intention, and common sense on
the part of one or more elected officials.

I do not believe that is a firm foundation for the building and
continued growth of our beloved Republic. Fair and Just law should
stand on its own, with out the crutch of hoping that someone,
somewhere will do the "right thing". The law should contain the
seeds of right action within itself. Otherwise, we are reliant not
on the Law, but on the good will of our fellow man.

While I would expect that we will someday need Leges that deal with
Criminal Law, I don't believe that this is the time, nor is this the
law by which to do it. We already have at least one Lex that deals
with harassement on the lists and at any physical gathering in the
non-cyber world the laws of the macronation in which the gathering
takes place will handle any offenses.

I will be voting against this Lex and I hope enough of my fellow
citizens will also.

Valete,

Livia Cornelia Hibernia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@a...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
> <richmal@a...> wrote:
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> > <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > > A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus, L.
> > > Quintius Constantius and all citizens and peregrines,
> > > greetings.
>
> Salve,
>
> I forgot about this legal recourse until after I hit send. While I
> would be forced as written to let legal proceedings begin, I can

also

> very publically announce, "...unless there is an intercesso issued."
> and hope that our Consuls, Tribunes, and/or my fellow Praetor would

do

> the right thing, because I know that if my fellow Praetor was in

such

> a situation and forced to begin proceedings under the section in
> question I'd issue that intercesso.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

Thank you for the clarification Gnaeus Salix,

But ok while I am still not convinced that we need this law--yet--, after
your clarification I withraw my opposition to it. What I am wondering is did
the Romans write laws years before they were needed? I don't think so, but I
am not an historian.

Vale and we all appreciate your hard work!
Diana Moravia

G. Iulius Scaurus D. Moraviae Aventinae salutem dicit.

Salve, D. Moravia.

> What I am wondering is did
> the Romans write laws years before they were needed? I don't think

so, but I

> am not an historian.

There is evidence that legislative long-term planning was a feature of
the development of law in the republican period. This is particularly
true in terms of agrarian and corn supply legislation as well as
Sulla's and Caesar's colonial policy legislation. There is
discussion of this sort of issue in P.A. Blunt's _Social Conflicts in
the Roman Republic_ (London, 1971), J.K.B.M. Nicholas' _An
Introduction to Roman Law_ (Oxford, 1962), H.F. Jolowicz's _Historical
Introduction to the Study of Roman Law_ (Cambridge, 1972), T.
Mommsen's _Römisches Staatsrecht_ (Leipzig, 1887-88), J.L.
Strachan-Davidson's _Problems of the Roman Criminal Law_ (Oxford,
1912), and E.T. Salmon's _Roman Colonisation under the Republic_
(London, 1969). It was also certainly a cornerstone of the Augustan
reform of the Religio in the early principate.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Aule Apolloni,

> This law does not create new layers of provincial
> administration. It does not give people titles. It
> doesn't *do* anything. It just specifies the minimum
> standards for a group to be recognized.

As ever, it seems we shall have to agree to disagree.

As I read it, for five people to be sanctioned as an
official group by Nova Roma, they must formulate a
charter, organise a comitia, elect at least two
magistrates and, in the absence of a local governor,
petition the senate.

To my mind, this is bureaucracy and, given our present
population size and provincial infrastructure,
unnecessary.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

I fully support passage of this lex. I think it
moves forward by rewarding non-political Nova Roman as
well as political Nova Roman offices.

I was especially heartened by the inlcusion of
century points for leaders of the soldalitates.

Question: Should century points also be granted to
the leaders of factions or participants in the various
Ludi? Perhaps a fraction of century points for each
Ludi participated in?


Lucius Quintius Constantius

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com