Salvete Omnes,

My sincere congratulations to our new Quaestor Diana Octavia and new
Rogator Stephanus Ullerius Venator. I'm sure Res Publica has two
good magistrates now.
I want to congratulate with Lucius Iulius Sulla too, he lost for few
votes, even good results at the end inviting him to continue in this
way. I hope to see him as Magistratus as soon as possible.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Salve Caius Minius Messala Bellator

Your e-mail is not working. If your are on this list please send me you new e-mail address.

Vale

Your Friend

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

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

Salvete!

Thank you to all who responded to my post, especially to
Gaeus Salix Astur. I will take your advice to heart and I am
in the process of contacting the other citizens who reside
in South Africa.

I hope to have good news soon!

Valete,
Lucius Cornelius Cicero

>
> It says "may" not "shall". The former denotes an option, the later
> would have made it a requirement.
>
> Fabia: Yes, Senator you are not required, you have choices that

are yours to make

>
> I Could have sought redress under Macronational Law by filing a
> Macronational civil suit for slander, and been within my rights

under

> the laws of Nova Roma. Instead I followed the procedures of
> Macronational Contract law
>

Fabia; Yes, but from one lawyer to someone who knows the law,
A)
as an officer of Nova Roma (Senator & Pontifex) you have a duty. Your
primary duty as an officer is to uphold the law of the Club, non-
profit org that you belong to. You have sworn this.

B) You also have a religious duty as Pontifex,
C)so to whom is your primary duty?

D) You could say 'to myself' but you have chosen to be an officer
as well as religious guardian of Nova Roma,
So I state from a Jurisprudential point of view, that your primary
duty is to Nova Roma and to preserve her legal integrity.

Jurisprudence was my forte, so I am sure of what I say, I'd suggest a
reading of Hobbes's "Leviathian" or any other texts that are given in
a legal course.
vale Fabia Vera J.D (U.S.A)

> Drusus

Please accept my enthusiastic congratulations to Gaius Minucius
Hadrianus for his appointment as Pontifex, and to Gaius Modius
Athanasius for his appointment as Augur.

I know that both will do a wonderful job for the religio.

Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia

G. Lanius Falco Omnibus SPD

Salvete, omnes

I extend my heartiest congratulations to Diana Octavia Aventina and Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus on their recent election victories. Nova Roma shall certainly prosper even more. Good luck in your new positions!

Valete,

G. Lanius Falco

SALVETE OMNES

My public congratulations to the new magistrates elected: Quaestor D
Octavia Aventina and Rogator St Ullerius Venator.

I'm sure they'll do their job for Res Publica as it is aspected from
them.

I also want to thank all my numerous supporters for this run, it was
a great and formative experience.

VALETE
L IUL SULLA
Italia

Congratulations Diana! I know you will be an excellent Quaestor!

vale bene,
Arnamentia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salve Diana,
>
> Congratulations on your new office as Quaestor. I know you will do

a

> great job here just as you did as our tribune. All the best!
>
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...>

wrote:

> >
> > Congratulations Diana Octavia Aventina on your election to
> Quaestor!
> > Well done!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> >
> > Palladius
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> > <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Consulis Quiritibus salutem plurimam
> dixit:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete Quirites,
> > >
> > > Voting ended at 18:00 Rome time yesterday, and our Rogators

have

> > been
> > > busy counting votes since then. I am pleased to announce that
> they
> > have
> > > completed their work, and we now have a new Quaestor and a new
> > Rogator.
> > >
> > > The results of the voting, including the alternative vote

process

> > used
> > > to decide a winner if there is no clear winner in the first
> round,
> > are
> > > shown below.
> > >
> > > QUAESTOR:
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Round 1:
> > >
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina 15 tribes
> > > Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> > > Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus 3 tribes
> > >
> > > 2 tribes are void, so the required majority is 17
> > > tribes. No candidate has a majority, so Petrus
> > > Domitianus Artorinus Longinus is eliminated.
> > >
> > > Round 2:
> > >
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina 16 tribes
> > > Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> > >
> > > 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina is elected quaestor.

Salve L IUL SULLA

Thank you for standing for election.

You have a great deal to offer Nova Roma and I am sure we will hear from you again, and soon.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Iulius
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations and Thanks


SALVETE OMNES

My public congratulations to the new magistrates elected: Quaestor D
Octavia Aventina and Rogator St Ullerius Venator.

I'm sure they'll do their job for Res Publica as it is aspected from
them.

I also want to thank all my numerous supporters for this run, it was
a great and formative experience.

VALETE
L IUL SULLA
Italia





Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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]

My congratulations as well as those of our esteemed Senator, may
your activities only lead our Res Publica to greater glory,
vale Fabia Vera

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> My sincere congratulations to our new Quaestor Diana Octavia and

new

> Rogator Stephanus Ullerius Venator. I'm sure Res Publica has two
> good magistrates now.
> I want to congratulate with Lucius Iulius Sulla too, he lost for

few

> votes, even good results at the end inviting him to continue in

this

> way. I hope to see him as Magistratus as soon as possible.
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar

Rogator A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens,
greetings.

I notice we're still getting votes coming in.

Now, it's true that we do love to count your votes,
and they're very nice votes indeed, thank you.

However, please don't feel you have to carry on voting
just to amuse us - once the election's over and the
results have been announced, it's okay to stop if you
want.

(Just teasing. But seriously, you can stop now.)

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salvete all!

Well this is a pleasant surprise!

I see that Lucius Iulius Sulla and I tied in the first round and that I squeezed by him in the
second round. I'm not surprised at that at all because he was an excellent candidate. I'm sure
that this isn't the last that we'll here from him in an election or at least I certainly hope not.


I want to thank everyone who supported me especially (a sometimes too outspoken fellow citizen) Q
Fabius who reminded me that although I'm not a Tribune, a Consul or a Senator, I could still serve
our Republic and to my paterfamilias Marcus Octavius Germanicus for his support and friendship.

Thanks to all for once again giving me this opportunity to serve Nova Roma.

Diana Octavia Aventina
Quaestor :-)

In a message dated 23/01/04 06:41:19 GMT Standard Time, xwood@... writes:

> Bronze would be inexpensive, and historically authentic. Magnesium
> bronze polishes to a golden sheen and does not tarnish quickly.
>
> -TAS
>

Salvete,

I'd be delighted if there were a special ring and would welcome as much
authenticity as possible. However, would it please be viable to investigate and
cost as wide a range of materials as possible - I, for one, am allergic to quite
a few metals and suspect there may be others in the same position.

Valete,

Placidia Prisca


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

L. CORNELIA HIBERNIA QUIRITIBUS S.P.D.

Congratulations to both Diana Octavia Aventina and Stephanus Ullerius
Venator Piperbarbus on their election!

Bene Vale
Livia Cornelia Hibernia

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

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Consulis Quiritibus salutem plurimam dixit:
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Voting ended at 18:00 Rome time yesterday, and our Rogators have

been

> busy counting votes since then. I am pleased to announce that they

have

> completed their work, and we now have a new Quaestor and a new

Rogator.

>
> The results of the voting, including the alternative vote process

used

> to decide a winner if there is no clear winner in the first round,

are

> shown below.
>
> QUAESTOR:
> ---------
>
> Round 1:
>
> Diana Octavia Aventina 15 tribes
> Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus 3 tribes
>
> 2 tribes are void, so the required majority is 17
> tribes. No candidate has a majority, so Petrus
> Domitianus Artorinus Longinus is eliminated.
>
> Round 2:
>
> Diana Octavia Aventina 16 tribes
> Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
>
> 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> Diana Octavia Aventina is elected quaestor.
>
> ROGATOR:
> --------
>
> Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus 31 tribes
>
> 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus is elected rogator.
>
> Congratulations to Diana Octavia Aventina, and to Stephanus

Ullerius

> Venator Piperbarbus. I also extend my sincere thanks to all who

stood

> for office. Nova Roma is blessed in the willingness of her

citizens to

> serve.
>
> Valete,
>
> --
> Gnaeus Eqiutius Marinus
> Consul, Presiding Magistrate of this election

Felicitatio, Diana Octavia Aventina et Stephanus Ullerius
Venator Piperbarbus! Our res publica will be well served with your
dedication.

---
cura ut valeas,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factio Praesina
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/factiopraesina/



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

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Consulis Quiritibus salutem plurimam dixit:
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Voting ended at 18:00 Rome time yesterday, and our Rogators have

been

> busy counting votes since then. I am pleased to announce that they

have

> completed their work, and we now have a new Quaestor and a new

Rogator.

If the Consules approve;
I would be happy to offer to Yahoo as a person with a legal
background evidence that
1. Senator Drusus broke Yahoo guidelines by publishing a private
communication
2) then complained about harassment most probably in order to avoid
punishment for infraction of 1.
3) show to Yahoo by a choice selection of Senator Drusus's posts
that he is no shrinking violet, has little regard for Yahoo "Yahoo
Sux" posted openly on the Back Alley, and is more than able to defend
himself robustly with choice phrases in any argument.
I of course will not pursue this action unless both Consuls ask me
to on behalf of the Res Publica
optime valete Fabia Vera

> I think, however, that Corenlius Moravius forgot to mention a third
> option. If senator L. Sicinius Drusus reconsiders his decision and
> withdraws his petition of intervention to Yahoo, we might be able

to

> return to normality.
>
> S.V.B.E.E.V.
> CN.SALIX.T.F.A.NEP.OVF.ASTVR

Po

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem plurimam dixit

Salvete Quirites,

I very glad that things worked out so well, and that we are blessed with an
abundance of able and qualified candidates from which to choose.

Congratulations to my friends Diana Octavia Aventinaon her election as
Quaestor and Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus as Rogator.

Thank you both for your devotion.

Valete

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0500
> From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
> Subject: Election results in the Comitia Populi Tributa
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Consulis Quiritibus salutem plurimam dixit:
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Voting ended at 18:00 Rome time yesterday, and our Rogators have been
> busy counting votes since then. I am pleased to announce that they have
> completed their work, and we now have a new Quaestor and a new Rogator.
>
> The results of the voting, including the alternative vote process used
> to decide a winner if there is no clear winner in the first round, are
> shown below.
>
> QUAESTOR:
> ---------
>
> Round 1:
>
> Diana Octavia Aventina 15 tribes
> Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus 3 tribes
>
> 2 tribes are void, so the required majority is 17
> tribes. No candidate has a majority, so Petrus
> Domitianus Artorinus Longinus is eliminated.
>
> Round 2:
>
> Diana Octavia Aventina 16 tribes
> Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
>
> 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> Diana Octavia Aventina is elected quaestor.
>
> ROGATOR:
> --------
>
> Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus 31 tribes
>
> 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus is elected rogator.
>
> Congratulations to Diana Octavia Aventina, and to Stephanus Ullerius
> Venator Piperbarbus. I also extend my sincere thanks to all who stood
> for office. Nova Roma is blessed in the willingness of her citizens to
> serve.
>
> Valete,
>
> --
> Gnaeus Eqiutius Marinus
> Consul, Presiding Magistrate of this election

Salve Fabia Vera,

Perhaps your efforts should be directed to more
constructive assistance to our republic.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus


--- "P. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
If the Consules approve;
I would be happy to offer to Yahoo as a person with a
legal
background evidence that
1. Senator Drusus broke Yahoo guidelines by
publishing a private
communication
2) then complained about harassment most probably in
order to avoid
punishment for infraction of 1.
3) show to Yahoo by a choice selection of Senator
Drusus's posts
that he is no shrinking violet, has little regard for
Yahoo "Yahoo
Sux" posted openly on the Back Alley, and is more than
able to defend
himself robustly with choice phrases in any argument.
I of course will not pursue this action unless both
Consuls ask me
to on behalf of the Res Publica
optime valete Fabia Vera



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

I agree entirely Decime Iuni;
this entire issue should be decided internally, meaning according to
Nova Roman Law. I would never act in such a manner unless called upon
by the Consuls to save the State.
Constructively I will do my best to become expert in Roman law, and
thus be a help in legislation and all kinds of law-making to Nova
Roma,
optime vale Fabia Vera


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decimus Iunius Silanus
<iuniussilanus@y...> wrote:

> Salve Fabia Vera,
>
> Perhaps your efforts should be directed to more
> constructive assistance to our republic.
>
> Vale
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus
>
>
> --- "P. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> If the Consules approve;
> I would be happy to offer to Yahoo as a person with a
> legal
> background evidence that
> 1. Senator Drusus broke Yahoo guidelines by
> publishing a private
> communication
> 2) then complained about harassment most probably in
> order to avoid
> punishment for infraction of 1.
> 3) show to Yahoo by a choice selection of Senator
> Drusus's posts
> that he is no shrinking violet, has little regard for
> Yahoo "Yahoo
> Sux" posted openly on the Back Alley, and is more than
> able to defend
> himself robustly with choice phrases in any argument.
> I of course will not pursue this action unless both
> Consuls ask me
> to on behalf of the Res Publica
> optime valete Fabia Vera
>
>
>
>

______________________________________________________________________
__

> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, Senator D. Iuni Palladi.

Salve Consul,

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...>

wrote:

> We, the People of Nova Roma, have created this Res Publica in order
> to reconstruct the Roman culture. We, the People of Nova Roma, have
> voted to adopt certain procedures to deal with this kind of affairs
> among ourselves. If a citizen of Nova Roma decides to ignore our
> judicial system, he is deciding to ignore our laws.

Section II.B.2. of the Constitution specifically states that citizens
retain "The right and obligation to remain subject to the civil
rights and laws of the countries in which they reside and/or hold
citizenship, regardless of their status as dual citizens of Nova
Roma;"

Furthermore, since we are using Yahoo's service, we are at least in
theory, if not general practice, subject to their rules and
regulations before ours.

> Novoroman citizenship is like a contract. Upon joining, a new
>citizen accepts to be subject to the laws of Nova Roma in exchange
>of certain rights and privileges.

I agree but he does not accept them in lieu of other rights. This
"like a contract" is not a contract and does not preclude one from
seeking redress elsewhere. Whether one *should* look elsewhere is a
different matter but we cannnot prevent one from going elsewhere.

> This contract can be broken at any time by
> both parties. If senator Drusus does not want to be subject to the
> laws of Nova Roma, he will be breaking the contract. As simple as
> that.
>
> Senator Drusus will always keep his macronational rights. But if he
> wants to keep his Novoroman rights, he will have to follow the laws
> of Nova Roma.

Of course. But consul, you are walking on thin legal ground if you
are saying that going over the praetors' heads to Yahoo is a
violation of Nova Roman law. Which law would that be?

I agree it was bad manners to post a private email in a public forum
but not illegal. Drusus should apologize if wishes to lessen the
damage to his dignitas but not be taken to task legally. Anyone who
tries to make a legal issue out of this is either overreacting or
using this as an opening to politically damage someone they don't
agree with.


Vale,

Palladius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, laureatusarmoricus@t... wrote:

>
> Salve Iuni Palladi,

Salve C. Moravi,

> Dixit Palladius :
> Although I wholeheartidly share your concerns about macronational
> status of our citizens and their rights within that context, I was
>also under the impression that Nova Roma's goals and status were
>clearly expressed in its constitution. I therefore assumed that any
>Nova Roman made a COMMITMENT to our micronation to HOLD AND RESPECT
>ITS LAWS regardless of external rights they might have and the
>possibilty they have to resort to them when all else fails.

You may assume so but that is not the case. Our constitution
recognizes reality and the preeminent status of macronational rights
and laws. It recognizes that we are citizens of our macronations
first.

> We now have two choices : Get rid of our constitution as a worthless
> document and move towards being only an internet community as so
>many others OR trial senator Drusus according to our laws.

And just which law would that be? What Nova Roman law has he
violated?

>The choice we make
> as nation will decide its future : Honour or oblivion.

I think it's time to turn down the drama just a bit. Our Constitution
explicitily recognizes the right of citizens to remain subject to
macronational law: "The right and obligation to remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which they reside and/or
hold citizenship, regardless of their status as dual citizens of Nova
Roma;"

If we respect our constitution then we must respect what it says.

Vale,

Palladius

>
>
> I want to thank everyone who supported me especially (a sometimes

too outspoken fellow citizen) Q

> Fabius who

Salve Octavia Moraviana; I guess we get the friends we deserve....

As for myself, I'll make sure in the future that no one thinks I
belong to the Patrician Gens Fabia, I don't think it 'outspoken' to
insult and belittle others's personal attributes, but that's my
morality,
vale P. Fabia Vera, pleb

>
>
>
> Diana Octavia Aventina
> Quaestor :-)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

> If the Consules approve;
> I would be happy to offer to Yahoo as a person with a legal
> background evidence that
> 1. Senator Drusus broke Yahoo guidelines by publishing a private
> communication

Yahoo TOS
You agree to not use the Service to:

1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing,
tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's
privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
2. harm minors in any way;
3. impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to,
a Yahoo! official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or
otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
4. forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to
disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service;
5. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law
or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside
information, proprietary and confidential information learned or
disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure
agreements);
6. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright
or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
7. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk
mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form
of solicitation, except in those areas (such as shopping rooms) that
are designated for such purpose (please read our complete Spam Policy);
8. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
material that contains software viruses or any other computer code,
files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the
functionality of any computer software or hardware or
telecommunications equipment;
9. disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll"
faster than other users of the Service are able to type, or otherwise
act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage
in real time exchanges;
10. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks
connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures,
policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
11. intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local,
state, national or international law, including, but not limited to,
regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange,
including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the
American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the
force of law;
12. "stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
13. collect or store personal data about other users.

I Don't see anything about forwarding a post here.

I Will go one step farther. I Don't consider Unsolicited Poison Pen
Letters to be any more deserving of being treated as private
communications than Spam.

I Did Not write to this person, I did not address him in any manner on
this list, but he took it apon himself to start dumping a series of
insulting posts into my inbox.

You are defending a person who had ZERO respect for my privacy on the
grounds of privacy.

Drusus

AVE DIANA OCTAVIA

My warm congratulations on your election! You'll make an excellent
Quaestor, I'm sure!

BENE VALE
M'Con.Serapio

A ring can be made in any metal one desires as long as you have the
model. Whatever design is adopted, NR should own rights to the actual
model.

TAS

-----Original Message-----
From: KECTAM@... [mailto:KECTAM@...]
Sent: Monday, 26 January, 2004 14:33
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma Ring
Salvete,

I'd be delighted if there were a special ring and would welcome as
much
authenticity as possible. However, would it please be viable to
investigate and
cost as wide a range of materials as possible - I, for one, am
allergic to quite
a few metals and suspect there may be others in the same position.

Valete,

Placidia Prisca

Salve,

All who are regulars here know that I am new but so far I am getting
quite sick and tired of the bickering about who violated Yahoo TOS!
If there was a breach of netiquette then the proper punishment from
NR should be given correct? If not shall we stop beating the dead
horse and get on with more productive matters? Surely this is not
all that NR consists of.
Valete,
Publius Galerius Cicero

Pueri puellaeque,

I do not like to involve myself in the affairs of others, but I find
this behavior most disgusting.

This hair-splitting over legalistic interpretations should be taken
offline, or at very least to direct mailings between the various
participants in this vile, inchoative civil war.

I cannot imagine a single new citizen recently subscribed to this
list NOT viewing Nova Rome as a group of children arguing petty
squabbles over smooth calculi found in a river.

For the sake of the nation, PLEASE remove this discussion to a
private forum.

Q. Valerius Callidus

Cives!

The citizen Adrianus Sarus, member of the rally committee, wants to
announce that any citizen is invited to visiting his wonderful
Seville before or after the Rally.

Contact:

maadsarus@...


Salix Galaicus, propraetor Hispaniae

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

I disagree absolutely with L. Sicinius' decision to file a Yahoo TOS
complaint. However, it might be useful to point out the slender
iurisprudential base on which a prosecution of L. Sicinius Drusus for
laying complaint with Yahoo for violation of Terms of Service. The
only statute under which an actio petitionis could be presented is the
Lex Salicia Poenalis:

XXI. LAESA PATRIAE (Treason Against the Republic):
A. The definition of laesa patriae includes, but is not limited to,
any overt act by a citizen which a reasonable person would conclude to
be damaging or defamatory to the republic, its religio, or its
institutions, including acts which may expose the republic, its
religio, or its institutions to macronational legal action, if such
act is not legally authorised by the republic or its agents, and/or
acts which endanger the ability of the republic, its religion, or its
institutions to perform its legal functions...

The theory of the offence is that the complaint could result in
withdrawal of the right of NR to use Yahoo groups as its principal
means of communication, which would, in turn, "endanger the ability of
the republic, its religion, or its institutions to perform its legal
functions..." Whether this theory is legally sustainable depends on
whether L. Sicinius' complaint was aimed at a single poster's posting
or NR'S praetores for permitting the posting to pass the moderation
process. If the former, then it is unlikely that the respublica
itself was threatened. If the latter, a prima facie case could be
made. In passing I should also mention that the intention of this
article of the statute was to deal with an individual's posting
macronationally actionable libels which could entangle the corporation
in litigation. The situation presented by L. Sicinius was not
envisioned when the statute was drafted.

However, the Lex Salicia Poenalis also provides a set of absolute
defences:

VI. Exclusion of Offence, Presumption of Innocence, and Burden of Proof:
1. No act shall be punished when any of the following conditions apply:
1. The reus acted in self-defence to repel an illicit
violation of the legal rights of an innocent, including himself,
through proportional and reasonable measures.
2. The reus acted in exercise of his legal rights.

Responding to a public accusation of mental illness by lodging a
complaint with Yahoo could be construed as an act of self-defence,
although whether it was "proportional and reasonable" is a matter open
to dispute; under those circumstances a praetor might permit the actio
to proceed to trial to resolve this defence as a matter of fact to be
found by the tribunal.

The second absolute defence is more problematic for prosecution. The
Lex Salicia Poenalis specifies:

III.D. Nothing in this lex shall be construed as constraining Nova
Roman citizens from seeking macronational redress for actions which
constitute offences under macronational law.

And the Constitution of Nova Roma in article II.B.2 enumerates among
the rights of citizens:

The right and obligation to remain subject to the civil rights and
laws of the countries in which they reside and/or hold citizenship,
regardless of their status as dual citizens of Nova Roma...

Yahoo terms of service are a contract under U.S. law to which every
Yahoo customer agrees as a condition of using Yahoo's services. They
also provide a means of redress for those injured by the contract's
violation. It is difficult to see how seeking such redress does not
fall under the Lex Salicia Poenalis' absolute defence clause in III.D
and the guarantee of article II.B.2 of the Constitution. I do not
understand how an impartial praetor could fail to dismiss an actio
petitionis against L. Sicinius on these grounds.

Regardless of how angry many of us are at L. Sicinius for taking this
action, we must remember that we are a republic of laws and our
magistrates must act in accordance with them.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

We, the Censores, find that the recent actions of Lucius Sicinius
Drusus are an affront to "public morality and honor", have damaged
the reputation of the Senate, and show disregard for the Nova Roman
community.

Specifically:

On 25 December 2003, Lucius Sicinius Drusus referred to the results
of the Consular elections as a "vote counting scam". He then referred
to his activities here as "wasting my time on an organization that
is showing less and less intrest[sic] in Roma" and that "My intrest
[sic] in Nova Roma is wanning[sic] as Nova Roma's intrest[sic] in Roma
declines." Such comments, made in public, are inappropriate for a
director of this corporation and a Senator of Rome.

On 23 January 2004, Lucius Sicinius Drusus published the private
email of Citizen Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to a public
mailing list, without the consent of Flavius Galerius, in violation
of the well-established standards of the Internet community, the
Yahoo terms of service, and our list policy as set by the Praetores.

On 24 January 2004, Lucius Sicinius Drusus invited an outside party
to meddle in the internal affairs of Nova Roma, complaining to Yahoo
that F. Galerius' response to Sicinus' earlier posting of his private
mail was abusive. This action endangers the integrity of our
principal form of communication and shows contempt for the processes
and legal institutions of Nova Roma. Furthermore, this is a stunning
display of hypocrisy, being that Senator Sicinius was himself in
violation of the terms of service due to his misappropriation of
Citizen Galerius' private email.

As authorized by the Constitution of Nova Roma ( IV.A.1.f ), the
Censores "safeguard the public morality and honor through the
collegial administering of nota".

We do then hereby administer this NOTA against Citizen Lucius
Sicinius Drusus and remove him from the Senate of Nova Roma until
further notice. Should he refrain from conduct unbefitting a
Senator, he may be considered for reappointment to that body at a
later time.

Signed,
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor.
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, Censor.

ante diem VI Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
Censor, Consular, Citizen.

---Salvete Fabia Vera et Omnes:

While I am certainly not lilly pure with respect to a Pompeius-like
burst of vent on this list, and although I rate one in every four
years, I do not condone, as a rule, bad language, stating things in a
less than therapeutic manner.

However, I am forced to agree with you, P. Fabia, with respect to the
point of calling rather scurrilious statements made during this
election by posters as mere 'outspokenness'. One can be outspoken,
yet not defamatory, nor inappropriate in terms of one's language
abilities, and revealing Senate information regarding an idle comment
on one's ability to urinate in a Toga. If anyone has worn a toga and
tried to have a whizz in one, it, I'm sure is quite a challenge. It
was likely a joke, folks. Further, it was Senate dialogue and although
not illegal in itself, none of anyone's business outside chambers.

Sulla, Franciscus and his supporters have had their dignatis flaked
like paint from a cheaply-made scutum. Even Manius Constantius is
blamed for his ancestral lineage as commiting nefarities to Rome, a
blow well below what it merited in a Quaestorial election. Further,
they are not jackals, but homosapaiens, moreover, they are Nova Romans.

For a fleeting moment I found the stance of Diana Octavia in
denouncing these behaviours as honourable. But now I see that she is
thanking Q. Fabius for his support of her, and dismissing behaviour
which I appraise personally as utterly awful, and hyperproportionate
to what is necessary in support of a candidate, and/or nonsupport of
another. His support of Diana, to me, entailed the virtual
crucifixion of her opponent and supporters, whom are also her brothers
in Rome. So he is suddenly to be commended because it served her
purpose at this time of victory?

To me, woefully misbehaved as I can be, much to my discredit I admit,
plus a Nova Roman nonpractitioner, to the angst of some, I see Justice
as an impartial concept; it dictates what is right and wrong, usually
measurable to what degree of iniuria is at stake. True justice is not
less wrong/more right, at any given person's convenience. If it is
wrong in the middle of the election, in a candidate's appraisal, it is
'just' as wrong, at the end of the contest.

I am truly in applause of the gracious manner in which Manius
Constantius, M. Iulius Sulla, and Senator Fr. Apulus Caesar have
congratulated Diana for her victory....a victory which was won
marginally by her, at personal sacrifice to them, all for a simple
desire to serve Nova Roma.

What does one gain when one says something in stance of a wrongdoing,
then tacitly condones such action by saying 'thanks', after the
election? Does one think that such a victory gains longlasting
friendship and bonding with citizens in Nova Roma? Does it gain trust
for higher position on the Cursus? Or does it perhaps breed mistrust
and trepidation. And to the Paterfamilias who thinks that as an
Octavia, these perpetrators cannot be supported in keeping with being
an Octavia (referring to message 19972), I wonder if you are perhaps
assuming 'a much', with what could be entirely good intentions on your
part.

Quintus Fabius Maximus, you and have shared agreements in the past,
and I know you are capable of doing much better. I am not ashamed to
say that at times you have produced viable ideas, which I agreed with.
I will stand by this, and I would never wish you harm or unjust
persecution. I don't wish anyone this. But who are you hurting most
with these antics, Senator? The right answer is 'you'. I cannot
condone the bullidome you have put Diana's opponent and supporters
through. And I will not condone her sudden support of these, in
complete contradiction to statements she issued during the election.

Naturally, I welcome clarification. But this is how I view things at
present.

Bene valete,
P. Cornelia




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

> >
> >
> > I want to thank everyone who supported me especially (a sometimes
> too outspoken fellow citizen) Q
> > Fabius who
>
> Salve Octavia Moraviana; I guess we get the friends we deserve....
>
> As for myself, I'll make sure in the future that no one thinks I
> belong to the Patrician Gens Fabia, I don't think it 'outspoken' to
> insult and belittle others's personal attributes, but that's my
> morality,
> vale P. Fabia Vera, pleb
> >
> >
> >
> > Diana Octavia Aventina
> > Quaestor :-)

Perhaps it would be in the best interests of the Republic and the public
peace if this matter be dropped off the main list. If some citizens have "a dog
in this fight" then they should contact the appropriate magistrates about their
questions and concerns. After all, this matter has already gotten the
attention of the Censors, the Consuls, the Praetors, and a number of other
magistrates and citizens. It doesn't really matter at this point what is said on the
Main List since a chain of events has been set in motion that is now outside of
the control of Nova Roma. The decision on whether or not the Yahoo TOS was
violated is up to Yahoo Moderators/Employees. Those individuals will review
the posts that have been referred and will likely review all of the posts on the
Main List from the involved parties. I'm sure that some of them will get
enormous entertainment out of the posts from during and just after the election.
Most likely the involved parties will get a sharply worded warning not to
communicate with one another and say nothing else about each other on a Yahoo
List.
I personally intend to take no further action or make any public posts about
this matter after this one except to the Magistrates who are involved in this
specifically. The two principals in this matter have had no private
communication with each other for several days and one has given his public promise
that he will not make any response to the other principal regardless of what is
said to or about the former by the latter on the main list (that was a bit
convoluted, wasn't it?)
I would like to leave this topic with a story we have here in my part of the
world that some folks will find relevant, others will find amusing, and others
... will have their own thoughts.

A man was hauled up before a magistrate on charges of damage to the public
peace and was fined $50. As the man paid the fee, he asked the magistrate,
"Sir, what would you do if I said you were definitely a crazy son of a *****?"
The magistrate said, "I would find you in contempt of this court and make you
pay another $50 to the court and $50 to me in reparation for your slanderous
remark." The man then said, "What would happen if I just THOUGHT you may be a
crazy son of a *****?" The magistrate replied, "There is no crime or violation
of the law in thinking that another person MAY or MIGHT be a crazy son of a
*****. The man then said to the magistrate, "Sir, I think you may possibly be a
crazy son of a *****.

May the Gods grant all in Nova Roma good health, good fortune, good humor,
and good sense.

F. Galerius Aurelianus


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

Section II B 5 of Nova Roma's constitution states that I have

"The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi
tributa"

I Hearby invoke my right of provocatio under the constution of Nova
Roma and appeal this to the Comitia Populi Tributa.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
<hucke@c...> wrote:

>
> We, the Censores, find that the recent actions of Lucius Sicinius
> Drusus are an affront to "public morality and honor", have damaged
> the reputation of the Senate, and show disregard for the Nova Roman
> community.
>
> Specifically:
>
> On 25 December 2003, Lucius Sicinius Drusus referred to the results
> of the Consular elections as a "vote counting scam". He then referred
> to his activities here as "wasting my time on an organization that
> is showing less and less intrest[sic] in Roma" and that "My intrest
> [sic] in Nova Roma is wanning[sic] as Nova Roma's intrest[sic] in Roma
> declines." Such comments, made in public, are inappropriate for a
> director of this corporation and a Senator of Rome.
>
> On 23 January 2004, Lucius Sicinius Drusus published the private
> email of Citizen Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to a public
> mailing list, without the consent of Flavius Galerius, in violation
> of the well-established standards of the Internet community, the
> Yahoo terms of service, and our list policy as set by the Praetores.
>
> On 24 January 2004, Lucius Sicinius Drusus invited an outside party
> to meddle in the internal affairs of Nova Roma, complaining to Yahoo
> that F. Galerius' response to Sicinus' earlier posting of his private
> mail was abusive. This action endangers the integrity of our
> principal form of communication and shows contempt for the processes
> and legal institutions of Nova Roma. Furthermore, this is a stunning
> display of hypocrisy, being that Senator Sicinius was himself in
> violation of the terms of service due to his misappropriation of
> Citizen Galerius' private email.
>
> As authorized by the Constitution of Nova Roma ( IV.A.1.f ), the
> Censores "safeguard the public morality and honor through the
> collegial administering of nota".
>
> We do then hereby administer this NOTA against Citizen Lucius
> Sicinius Drusus and remove him from the Senate of Nova Roma until
> further notice. Should he refrain from conduct unbefitting a
> Senator, he may be considered for reappointment to that body at a
> later time.
>
> Signed,
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor.
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, Censor.
>
> ante diem VI Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVII a.u.c.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
> Censor, Consular, Citizen.

Salve G. Iuli Scaure,

It would appear that your efforts as Flamen Quirinalis and Pontifex
have not gone unrewarded. For the first time in many days, the favor
of Concordia Dea and the restoration of the Pax Deorum tonight seem
possible. I want to thank you for your gentle lead in this matter.
Over the past few days I added my own small offerings to Concordia;
and (much more difficult for me) I refrained from posting publicly
what I was thinking privately. My opinions, well-reasoned though they
were <grin>, would only have fueled the flames of discord.

-- C. Iulius Iustinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus Liviae Corneliae Hiberniae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Livia Cornelia.
>
> >I for one wish to thank you for your efforts to honor the Gods and
> >Goddesses and restore the Pax Deorum.
> >
> >What can we as individual Citizens do on ante diem V Kal. Feb. to
> >observe and aid in the expiation to the Goddess Concordia?
> >

> I shall be peforming anew the caerimonia for the feria and adding
an
> additional, more elaborate piaculum. I recommend that
practitioners of
> the Religio make special offerings to Concordia Dea at the Lararia
on
> that day.
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
> Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

---

Salvete Honoured Aedile G. Iulius Scaurus:

Although there are legal concerns involved, certainly, I do not
honestly think it merits a nota, although, of course, I am not the
Censor. I question highly, even the potential disintegrity of our
usage of Yahoo services, by Senator Drusus' actions:

Consider that we have been a part of Yahoo for a few years. Given the
numbers of persons who have subbed, unsubbed to this list, and have
seen a vast array of rather unpleasant posts, it is hard to believe
that nobody has never, ever written Yahoo with respect to the nature
of some posts, which are by the judgement of many, rather inflammatory
and borderline unlawful in nature. I believe Senator Drusus is
probably just the first person to admit it.

Yahoo! are not moralists, they are money makers. They will carefully
weigh out the probabilities of being sued against how much traffic
entertains their advertisement-sponsored, and personal information
(read the fine print, folks) service. To date we haven't been touched.

I believe in a practised respect for the laws we have established in
Nova Roma, and as a dedicated citizen, the republic's laws should be
the first course of action. This does not mean that one discounts or
overrides their macronational legal obligations (as per the
constitution) or basic civil rights to a fair trial, if need be.

The Lex Salicia is obscure with respect to this, but our constitution
is not. With respect to the censors, I do believe that the nota is
unconstitutional, given the wording therein with respect to the laws
of macronations. Perhaps we need to amend our Lex Salicia to
accommodate a practised respect for going through NR's law first.



Plus, there is a question of a possibility of a knee-jerk reaction in
the forwarding of Galerius' post to Drusus, by Drusus on the mainlist.
Has he done this in the past? Can this be shown? A one-time thing or
a chronic behaviour? The fact that he is not a fluff-bunny orator does
not prove condemnation of the law...only his style of communicating
which is frequently critized. One goof in one area does not
constitute immorality to me. I have goofed in the past, and I do not
consider myself insane or immoral, and an enemy of the state.

So, although I am not in much position to do anything about this,
except discuss my opinion, Senator Drusus is indeed entitled to
provacatio, and I encourage the Tribunes to examine our constitution,
and weigh it against the actual 'obligations' cited in the Lex Salicia.

Further, and I know this might sting with some, but if we are to
declare that Senator Drusus' behaviour is publicly nefarious to Nova
Roma, despite much emeshing of the concepts of legal infarctions vs.
immorality, where is the nota against Senator Maximus, who has issued
posts disclosing, even privately, to a privatus, what another Senator
said to the Senate in an effort of make him look foolish? Where is
his apology for his incidental iniuria in posting this to the
mainlist, with no apology, except to the populace for wasting
bandwidth? (if I accidentally hit your car, Gai Iuli, I still have to
pay for the damages) Where is the apology for name calling, to wit
'you bunch of jackals', and accusing someone of being an inferior
citizen due to his nomen, to wit Constantius . These postings are very
recent, and I will be happy to post actual message numbers if you wish.

When we weigh out what one man has done, who has a reputation for
being choppy in discourse and who is a conservative with opinions that
often conflict with the current status quo, versus another man who has
demonstrated chronically dishonourable and immorable behaviors, over
the last while, regrettably I must ask myself "where is the nota of
the latter man?"

Thanks for your time,
Pompeia

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

> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> I disagree absolutely with L. Sicinius' decision to file a Yahoo TOS
> complaint. However, it might be useful to point out the slender
> iurisprudential base on which a prosecution of L. Sicinius Drusus for
> laying complaint with Yahoo for violation of Terms of Service. The
> only statute under which an actio petitionis could be presented is the
> Lex Salicia Poenalis:
>
> XXI. LAESA PATRIAE (Treason Against the Republic):
> A. The definition of laesa patriae includes, but is not limited to,
> any overt act by a citizen which a reasonable person would conclude to
> be damaging or defamatory to the republic, its religio, or its
> institutions, including acts which may expose the republic, its
> religio, or its institutions to macronational legal action, if such
> act is not legally authorised by the republic or its agents, and/or
> acts which endanger the ability of the republic, its religion, or its
> institutions to perform its legal functions...
>
> The theory of the offence is that the complaint could result in
> withdrawal of the right of NR to use Yahoo groups as its principal
> means of communication, which would, in turn, "endanger the ability of
> the republic, its religion, or its institutions to perform its legal
> functions..." Whether this theory is legally sustainable depends on
> whether L. Sicinius' complaint was aimed at a single poster's posting
> or NR'S praetores for permitting the posting to pass the moderation
> process. If the former, then it is unlikely that the respublica
> itself was threatened. If the latter, a prima facie case could be
> made. In passing I should also mention that the intention of this
> article of the statute was to deal with an individual's posting
> macronationally actionable libels which could entangle the corporation
> in litigation. The situation presented by L. Sicinius was not
> envisioned when the statute was drafted.
>
> However, the Lex Salicia Poenalis also provides a set of absolute
> defences:
>
> VI. Exclusion of Offence, Presumption of Innocence, and Burden of Proof:
> 1. No act shall be punished when any of the following conditions

apply:

> 1. The reus acted in self-defence to repel an illicit
> violation of the legal rights of an innocent, including himself,
> through proportional and reasonable measures.
> 2. The reus acted in exercise of his legal rights.
>
> Responding to a public accusation of mental illness by lodging a
> complaint with Yahoo could be construed as an act of self-defence,
> although whether it was "proportional and reasonable" is a matter open
> to dispute; under those circumstances a praetor might permit the actio
> to proceed to trial to resolve this defence as a matter of fact to be
> found by the tribunal.
>
> The second absolute defence is more problematic for prosecution. The
> Lex Salicia Poenalis specifies:
>
> III.D. Nothing in this lex shall be construed as constraining Nova
> Roman citizens from seeking macronational redress for actions which
> constitute offences under macronational law.
>
> And the Constitution of Nova Roma in article II.B.2 enumerates among
> the rights of citizens:
>
> The right and obligation to remain subject to the civil rights and
> laws of the countries in which they reside and/or hold citizenship,
> regardless of their status as dual citizens of Nova Roma...
>
> Yahoo terms of service are a contract under U.S. law to which every
> Yahoo customer agrees as a condition of using Yahoo's services. They
> also provide a means of redress for those injured by the contract's
> violation. It is difficult to see how seeking such redress does not
> fall under the Lex Salicia Poenalis' absolute defence clause in III.D
> and the guarantee of article II.B.2 of the Constitution. I do not
> understand how an impartial praetor could fail to dismiss an actio
> petitionis against L. Sicinius on these grounds.
>
> Regardless of how angry many of us are at L. Sicinius for taking this
> action, we must remember that we are a republic of laws and our
> magistrates must act in accordance with them.
>
> Valete.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Consulis Lucius Sicinius Drusus civis Novae
Romae dixit:

Lucius Sicinius Drusus <drusus@...> writes:

> Section II B 5 of Nova Roma's constitution states that I have
>
> "The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
> has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi
> tributa"
>
> I Hearby invoke my right of provocatio under the constution of Nova
> Roma and appeal this to the Comitia Populi Tributa.

As Consul I recognize your right of provocatio. Write to me and my colleague
off-list, at the e-mail addresses indicated in the headers of this message.

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Consul

Salve Pompeia,

> Further, and I know this might sting with some, but if we are to
> declare that Senator Drusus' behaviour is publicly nefarious to Nova
> Roma, despite much emeshing of the concepts of legal infarctions vs.
> immorality, where is the nota against Senator Maximus, who has issued
> posts disclosing, even privately, to a privatus, what another Senator
> said to the Senate in an effort of make him look foolish?

Senator Q. Fabius Maximus was well within his rights to express an
opinion of another citizen, even though the rest of us may think
his opinion distasteful. Such an attack deserves a reply in kind,
and no more.

The former Senator Sicinius, on the other hand, attacked Nova Roma
as a whole, violated the privacy of a mailing that was not
intended for public display, and attempted to have an outsider
intervene in our affairs.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

G. Iulius Scaurus Pompeiae Corneliae salutem dicit.

Salve, P. Cornelia.

I agree that the nota was improper. If L. Sicinius has done what the
nota alleges, the proper action would have been prosecution under the
Lex Salicia Poenalis. I do not believe that such a prosecution would
have been successful on the merits of the case, given the defence
afforded by the right of macronational redress established in the
constitution and teh Lex Salicia Poenalis, but it would have been the
appropriate legal action. I am very uncomfortable with the censores
issuing notae on claims of what amount to violation of NR law without
the due process of a trial under the law being afforded. I am also
disturbed that the mere expression of personal opinions about NR, which,
in my view, are protected by our repblic's constitution should be the
basis for disciplinary action; I don't see much difference between L.
Sicinius' expression of disillusion with NR politics and T. Annaeus'
expression of his waning interest in NR, except that L. Sicinius is
abrasive (and has a reputation for being so), while T. Annaeus is not.
Being what some people might characterise as an "abrasive arsehole" is
not grounds for abrogation of freedom of speech (by those criteria Cato
Minor would have been chucked from the Senate very early in his career)
The claim that posting of a private email violates Yahoo TOS is
equally disturbing; prohibited actions under Yahoo's TOS are:

"You agree to not use the Service to:

1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive,
harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous,
invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or
otherwise objectionable;
2. harm minors in any way;
3. impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a
Yahoo! official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or
otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
4. forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to
disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service;
5. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that you do not have a right to make available under any
law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as
inside information, proprietary and confidential information
learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under
nondisclosure agreements);
6. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret,
copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
7. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials,
"junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any
other form of solicitation, except in those areas (such as
shopping rooms) that are designated for such purpose (please read
our complete Spam Policy
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/guidelines/spam.html>);
8. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
material that contains software viruses or any other computer
code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit
the functionality of any computer software or hardware or
telecommunications equipment;
9. disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll"
faster than other users of the Service are able to type, or
otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users'
ability to engage in real time exchanges;
10. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks
connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures,
policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
11. intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local,
state, national or international law, including, but not limited
to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, any rules of any national or other securities
exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock
Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any
regulations having the force of law;
12. "stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
13. collect or store personal data about other users."

Forwarding a private email by the recipient to the ML is not listed
there. Furthermore, US courts have ruled that the use of email for
communication does not entail an expectation of privacy and that any
email sent without an explicit claim of copyright is in the public domain.

I know of no historical case in Roma antiqua where censorial nota was
used in place of prosecution in the courts for an alleged criminal offence.

If there is a case against L.Sicinius, let him be prosecuted, but if
censorial notae replace the due process of the courts, I don't see why
we have the courts in the first place. We either trust the law to do
justice or we don't.

What L. Sicinius did, in my personal view, was an inappropriate and
stupid thing; what the censores have done is a threat to our legal
system and to the fundamental liberties of Nova Roman citizens.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>

Salve Gai Iuli,

> I agree that the nota was improper. If L. Sicinius has done what the
> nota alleges, the proper action would have been prosecution under the
> Lex Salicia Poenalis.

The Censores are charged to safeguard "public morality and honor".

This is not mere compliance with the laws; for one could act
dishonorably yet still be within the law. (As an example, consider
the SCO corporation's war against Linux).

It is not honorable, or ethical, to post another person's private
email to a public place. Were we to take no action, we would be
condoning this vile act.

> I am very uncomfortable with the censores
> issuing notae on claims of what amount to violation of NR law without
> the due process of a trial under the law being afforded.

He'll get that due process - he has appealed to the Comitia.

> I am also disturbed that the mere expression of personal opinions
> about NR, which, in my view, are protected by our repblic's
> constitution should be the basis for disciplinary action;

As a Senator, he was an officer of this organization. Would not
a director of a corporation who speaks against his employer
in public be fired? After his December statements, however,
L. Sicinius Drusus remained a Senator - it was only a month
later, after a pattern of disregard for our community had
emerged, that we finally took action.

> The claim that posting of a private email violates Yahoo TOS is
> equally disturbing; prohibited actions under Yahoo's TOS are:

> 6. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
> Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret,
> copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;

That's the one. That letter was the property of Fl. Galerius; Drusus
had no right to republish it elsewhere, particularly as he did so
deliberately and with the intent of harming the author's reputation.

> Forwarding a private email by the recipient to the ML is not listed
> there. Furthermore, US courts have ruled that the use of email for
> communication does not entail an expectation of privacy and that any
> email sent without an explicit claim of copyright is in the public domain.

We expect a higher standard of behaviour from the officers of Nova Roma.
It is a long-established part of Internet culture that forwarding of
private email without the author's consent is unacceptable. I don't
care if it is legal; it is not moral.

Is that really the sort of activity you want Senators of Nova Roma
to engage in?

> I know of no historical case in Roma antiqua where censorial nota was
> used in place of prosecution in the courts for an alleged criminal offence.

This is not a criminal offense. This is a moral offense.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

A correction:

> On 23 January 2004, Lucius Sicinius Drusus published the private
> email of Citizen Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to a public
> mailing list, without the consent of Flavius Galerius, in violation
> of the well-established standards of the Internet community, the
> Yahoo terms of service, and our list policy as set by the Praetores.

On the last of these I was mistaken; the list policy does not forbid
posting of other peoples' private email. In private discussions
leading up to this edict, I had seen a quote from another source
and had thought it part of the list policy.

The rest of the paragraph still stands.

Valete, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

G. Iulius Scaurus M. Octavio Germanico salutem dicit.

Salve, M. Octavi.

>>I agree that the nota was improper. If L. Sicinius has done what the
>>nota alleges, the proper action would have been prosecution under the
>>Lex Salicia Poenalis.
>>
>>
>
>The Censores are charged to safeguard "public morality and honor".
>
>This is not mere compliance with the laws; for one could act
>dishonorably yet still be within the law. (As an example, consider
>the SCO corporation's war against Linux).
>
>It is not honorable, or ethical, to post another person's private
>email to a public place. Were we to take no action, we would be
>condoning this vile act.
>

Perhaps, it would have been better to say "bad public policy" rather
than "improper." I think the prudent thing to have done was afford the
injured parties the opportunity to file petitiones actionis with the
praetores. If the state itself was the injured party with respect to
the Yahoo complaint, I am certain a senator who was not a curule
magistrate could have been found to file the petitio in that regard
(since the mos maiorum forbids curule magistrates from serving as
prosecutors or advocati). This opportunity has now been forestalled,
since a nota is a legal cognisance of fact, while a court proceeding is
designed to make a determination of fact. Since at least one of the
outrages of public morality cited in the nota is an offence under the
Lex Salicia Poenalis, I think it would have been better for that offence
to have been adjudicated by a court before a nota on the matter was issued.

>>I am very uncomfortable with the censores
>>issuing notae on claims of what amount to violation of NR law without
>>the due process of a trial under the law being afforded.
>>
>>
>
>He'll get that due process - he has appealed to the Comitia.
>

I am inclined to think that due process should apply to actions of
original jurisdiction as well as appellate actions. I simply think that
the legal cognisance of a fact which amounts to an offence against the
law should result from a trial rather than a censorial edictum. A nota
after conviction would have been entirely appropriate.

>>I am also disturbed that the mere expression of personal opinions
>>about NR, which, in my view, are protected by our repblic's
>>constitution should be the basis for disciplinary action;
>>
>>
>
>As a Senator, he was an officer of this organization. Would not
>a director of a corporation who speaks against his employer
>in public be fired? After his December statements, however,
>L. Sicinius Drusus remained a Senator - it was only a month
>later, after a pattern of disregard for our community had
>emerged, that we finally took action.
>

I think sometimes we make too much of the fact that incorporation
affords NR a certain degree of protection from legal liability and some
tax advantages and confuse what NR is, a club of like-minded individuals
with an interest in Rome, with a commerical corporation. L. Sicinius
was not compensated for his service as a director. And directors of
major corporations speak against the corporations of which they are
directors all the time in the real world -- fights over divestiture in
South African investments during apartheid were replete with them, as
have been fights over corporations respecting the Arab boycott of
companies which do business in Israel, not to mention less political
battles over business strategy which are routinely covered in the _Wall
Street Journal_, replete with quotes from feuding directors. Freedom of
speech is most important when it involves non-libellous offensive speech
-- even by directors -- because no one tries to suppress inoffensive speech.

>> The claim that posting of a private email violates Yahoo TOS is
>>equally disturbing; prohibited actions under Yahoo's TOS are:
>>
>>
>> 6. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any
>> Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret,
>> copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
>>
>>
>
>That's the one. That letter was the property of Fl. Galerius; Drusus
>had no right to republish it elsewhere, particularly as he did so
>deliberately and with the intent of harming the author's reputation.
>

Once F. Galerius sent the email he made a gift of it to L. Sicinius to
use as he saw fit. I suggest the directors consult a legal expert in
this area of communications and privacy law, since your interpretation
is not consonant with legal advice which I know, for example, the school
at which I teach has received from its attorneys on the question of
email privacy.

>>Forwarding a private email by the recipient to the ML is not listed
>>there. Furthermore, US courts have ruled that the use of email for
>>communication does not entail an expectation of privacy and that any
>>email sent without an explicit claim of copyright is in the public domain.
>>
>>
>
>We expect a higher standard of behaviour from the officers of Nova Roma.
>It is a long-established part of Internet culture that forwarding of
>private email without the author's consent is unacceptable. I don't
>care if it is legal; it is not moral.
>

Internet culture is neither Roman nor Nova Roman culture nor Roman nor
Nova Roman law. Things which were once commonplace when it was DARPAnet
are now regarded as violations of nettiquette and things which were
regarded as serious violations of nettiquette on DARPAnet are now
commonplace on the Internet. Times and standards change and I, for one,
would like to see a justification in Roman tradition or law or in Nova
Roman statute for the expulsion of a senator rather than an arbitrary
decision of the censores about what constitutes "internet culture."
Furthermore, such an argument as the one you make here comes very close
to a circumvention of the careful protection built into the Lex Salicia
Poenalis that legal action may not be taken without permission of the
aggrieved party (VI.A.4). F. Galerius has written to the ML that he did
not want the matter further pursued. Do the injured party's preferences
count for naught? When I filed a petitio actionis in a legal case some
time ago for what I thought was a serious violation of NR law, you asked
me not to include the counts which pertained to you on the grounds of
free speech and I agreed immediately to your request. Was F. Galerius
afforded the same opportunity? I am genuinely confused about what is
different here

>Is that really the sort of activity you want Senators of Nova Roma
>to engage in?
>

As a matter of personal opinion, I think that L. Sicinius did an
irresponsible and stupid thing. However, if we started a discussion of
what sort of activity in which I would prefer senators either to engage
or not to engage, we'd be at this discussion for weeks :-).

>>I know of no historical case in Roma antiqua where censorial nota was
>>used in place of prosecution in the courts for an alleged criminal offence.
>>
>>
>
>This is not a criminal offense. This is a moral offense.
>
>

One of the principal justification cted for the nota -- the Yahoo TOS
complaint -- is, in fact, actionable under the Lex Salicia Poenalis. If
that complaint had not been lodged, I doubt a nota would have ensued at
all. All I am sugesting is that a chance for our court system to
operate as it was designed should have been given before censorial
action was taken. I grant I have some emotional investment in this. I
spent many hours working with Cn. Salix and his cohors drafting the Lex
Salicia Poenalis and I'd just like to see its provisions applied when
actionable offences are committed rather than circumvented by censorial
fiat.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>

Salve Senior Censor Marcus Octavius Germanicus :

My comments below:

>From: "pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@...>
>To: scriba_forum@...
>Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The NR Legalities of the Yahoo TOS
>Situation
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:45:24 -0000
>
>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
><hucke@c...> wrote:
>Salve Pompeia,
>
> > Further, and I know this might sting with some, but if we are to
> > declare that Senator Drusus' behaviour is publicly nefarious to Nova
> > Roma, despite much emeshing of the concepts of legal infarctions vs.
> > immorality, where is the nota against Senator Maximus, who has issued
> > posts disclosing, even privately, to a privatus, what another Senator
> > said to the Senate in an effort of make him look foolish?
>
>Senator Q. Fabius Maximus was well within his rights to express an
>opinion of another citizen, even though the rest of us may think
>his opinion distasteful. Such an attack deserves a reply in kind,
>and no more.

Pompeia respondeo: Ahh, we've all heard this before, Honoured Censor, your
'let's yell fire in a blind school', and 'lets throw mamma from the train'
personal renditions of 'freedom of speech'. The problem is, we have to go
by Nova Roma laws and edictums which, barring veto, are to be manditorialy
considered when weighing out when one is subject to legal discipline or
not... in your jurisdictional case, a nota.

You have argued that Senator Drusus deserves a nota by a one-time action on
a legal discrepancy, but moreover, are arguing against a Nota in which
another Senator has clearly disobeyed Praetorial edictum, which were adopted
by the current Praetors in message 19068:

The prevailing Praetorial guidelines, which havent' been vetoed and are law,
state under section V.....

" Inappropriate behaviour includes: the use of profane language,
misrepresentation of the truth to make others look foolish (revealing Senate
material to a privatus to discredit a fellow Senator, accidentally
forwarding it to the list and failing to apologize for it), calling others
names (you bunch of Jackals), criticizing a poster's character as opposed to
criticizing his ideas (the attack on the gens Constantia as being adoptive
of those who demised Rome....a secret...that's not, as Pompeia understands
why they adoped the name)........ countless criticisms of language
deficiencies and one post suggesting that a Senator shouldn't speak in
public because his English is so bad. I may furnish you with the list
message numbers if you wish, but scrolling two or three pages down will
display all the proof you need, providing the archive rats are not too
hungry :)

Freedom of forums, is guaranteed to us all under our constitution, exept
where such is considered 'dangerous and disruptive'. Continually bullying
other citizens for reasons other than the ideas presented in their posts is
unconstitutional as well.

As to 'your' personal point of view in your personal life, this is all fine.
But it is totally against Praetorial edictum. Another term for these
guidelines is *law* which is subject to scrutiny under the Leges Salicia.

I fear, O Censor, that you are being overly harsh with one senator and
giving a carte blanche to another, Fabius Maximus, with complete disregard
to the prevailing legislation of Nova Roma, and in honour of your own
personal take on freedom of speech. As Censor, which do you think you
should honour, in keeping with the oath you have taken? Look at the laws
before you render a judgement ex officum against one Senator, and not
another.

You managed to circumvent, veto, and harass Praetorial edictum when you were
Senior consul in 2002, which created a rediculous religous war, which had
not been seen in several months....Its entirely OK, in your view to call
Wiccanism "bullshit" (quoting I have the post), and question the subsequent
judgement on other posts of the Priestess of Minerva, former list moderator,
and to a small extent, the Pontifex Maximus himself. However, you are now
Censor, and you have no imperium...you may not pronounce intercessio on the
list guidelines...that was a task of the Consuls and Tribunes, and their
48-hour deadline is well past.

Senator Drusus and Senator Maximus' judgements will prevail on Nova Roman
Law, part of which is, whether you choose to ignore it or not, the
Praetorial MainlList Guidelines.

I am sorry to say that I see your judgement and application of our laws as
rather maladroit in my view. I cannot believe for a moment that you are
doing this upon the councel of C. Fabius Quintilianus, the recent Censor
elect whom has to date exercized atleast the ability to divorce his personal
feelings in favour of adoption of the laws of the res publica, to which we
collectively agree, and to which he chooses to obey in his administration,
as opposed to employing his own personal notions.

Naturally, I cannot ask the tribunes for a nota against anyone. However, I
can ask them to comb the constitution, the obscurities of the Leges Salicia
with respect to a citizen's manditory approaching of Nova Roma laws FIRST
before seeking macronational alternatives, and to seriously consider whether
the actions of Lucius Sicinius Drusus, Pontiff, et Senator, and yes hothead
:) deserve the lowest of magisterial chastisement, which is a nota..

I am further forced to ask the Tribunes to examine the obvious lack of
ability our Senior Censor displays to keep focussed on our laws of Nova
Roma, rather than go with his own beat, regarding freedoms of speech, to
which he is rendering such weighted judgements. Upon what justice are notae
being issed...Nova Roma Law, or the personal inclinations of Marcus Octavius
Germanicus?




Vale, and crossposting this to the Tribunes and Praetores,
Pompeia Cornelia
Former Praetor et Senator
citizen
Nova Roma

>
>The former Senator Sicinius, on the other hand, attacked Nova Roma
>as a whole, violated the privacy of a mailing that was not
>intended for public display, and attempted to have an outsider
>intervene in our affairs.
>
>Vale, Octavius.
>
>--
>Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
>http://www.graveyards.com/
>Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
>moderation is for monks. - Heinlein
>--- End forwarded message ---
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

G. Iulius Scaurus Pompeiae Corneliae Straboni salutem dicit.

Salve, P. Cornelia.

I fear we must part company on your latest remarks about the nota
against L. Sicinius. If you believe that Q. Fabius has violated the
law, file a petitio actionis with a praetor. My objections to the nota
have to do with public policy concerns about how justice is administered
in NR, not speculation about personal vendettas or double standards. I
think that actionable offences should be addressed in legal actions
before they are the subject of censorial notae. I see no reason to drag
in extraneous material about the alleged views of M. Octavius about
Wicca or suggesting that the nota is an attempt to exercise
intercessio. None of this is relevant to public policy question which
is at the core of the recent nota.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites

Today is ante diem VI Kalendae Februarii; the day is comitialis and
the feria Castori et Polluci ad Forum. The feria Castori et Polluci
ad Forum is the anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Castor
and Pollux in the Forum in 484 B.C.E. The temple was erected after
the Twins (Dioscuri) aided the Romn army in victory at Lake Regillus
over King Tarquinius Superbus. Tradition holds that they were see
watering their horses in the forum by a man to whom they proclaimed
that the Romans had won the battle before even the combatants were
sure of the outcome.

Tomorrow is ante diem V Kalendae Februarii; the day is comitialis. A
piaculum publicum de feria Concordiae will be observed.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Here's a link to "Slavery in the Roman Empire: Numbers and Origins":

http://www.ucd.ie/classics/96/Madden96.html

This essay by John Madden (Univ. College, Galway) originally appeared
in _Classics Ireland_ 3 (1996).

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Fabia Vera,

<Salve Octavia Moraviana; I guess we get the friends we deserve....

I'm sorry but I really assumed that our brief offlist contact had us kinda-sorta agreeing to treat
eachother with Concordia on this mainlist. Or at least not to throw unnecessary barbs at
eachother.

For my part I mean to stick by my half of my assumption.

Vale,
Diana Octavia

Salve Adrianus Sarus,

<The citizen Adrianus Sarus, member of the rally committee, wants to
<announce that any citizen is invited to visiting his wonderful
<Seville before or after the Rally.

I'll do my best to get to the Rally and if so, I'll be sure to take you up on your most generous
offer!

Vale,
Diana Octavia

---

Honoured Aedile:

I fear we do not have to part company to an exteme venue. Shucks I
thought I was just getting to know you, after all the trouble I caused
you........please give me another chance, I can produce letters from
friends telling you I am not all that bad, honest:)

I was merely pointing out, that our Senior Censor has proven to employ
a personal 'freedom of speech' mandate which does not entirely agree
with Nova Roma legislation, and that sometimes, he tends to,
(remember he is the total of your and my ages divided by atleast four)
in my opinion, obscure his personal opinions of such, with the laws of
Nova Roma.

Bear in mind that I am, without shame, in conquest of the removal of
the Nota against Senator Drusus, issued by the Senior Censor whom has
had difficulties, as demonstrated in the past, with differenciating
his own personal feelings with the mandated laws of Nova Roma.

The Wiccan incident, as one, I am happy to point out as one area of
point.... regardless of whether you or I agree on what the poster
presented, was hailed as BS, and sanctioned as "OK" by who is now the
Senior Censor, in contradindication to the list guidelines and to our
current stance on nonreligio pracitioners as defined in the
consitution.We do not sit in the same pew in this one, but my point is
such was incongruent with list guidelines. I am not arguing the
validity of Wiccan, I am arguing the ability of a Censor to pronounce
a nota on someone who has more respect for his personal take on
freedom of speech as opposed to the list guidelines, which barring
veto, are law.
I am sorry sir, but I do not regard this as irrelevant. If the
Senior Censor continues to exercize his own personal judgement as to
who deserves a nota and who does not, I am forced to recant past
examples where he has acted on his own sketches of acceptability as
opposed to what is acceptable by Nova Roma law.

Vale,
Pompeia

G. Iulius Scaurus Pompeiae Corneliae Straboni salutem dicit.

>
> Salve, P. Cornelia.
>
> I fear we must part company on your latest remarks about the nota
> against L. Sicinius. If you believe that Q. Fabius has violated the
> law, file a petitio actionis with a praetor. My objections to the nota
> have to do with public policy concerns about how justice is

administered

> in NR, not speculation about personal vendettas or double standards. I
> think that actionable offences should be addressed in legal actions
> before they are the subject of censorial notae. I see no reason to

drag

> in extraneous material about the alleged views of M. Octavius about
> Wicca or suggesting that the nota is an attempt to exercise
> intercessio. None of this is relevant to public policy question which
> is at the core of the recent nota.
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Honoured Praetor:

No, such was not intended to be a private message, but to clarify my
position; I am not in any shape or form acting on a personal vandetta, just
on my analysis of the law. This is what I conveyed to the Senior Curule
Aedile. I am sorry. I think the nota against L. Sicinicus Drusus is such
that it could be declared unconstitutional. I have a right to speak out
regarding this, and to site reasons as to why I think miscarriages of
justices might prevail.

Your paterfamilias, the senior censor, has a history of not being able to
differentiate his own views of freedom of speech unthwarted, with what is
mandated by pratorian guidelines. I pointed this out, to convey that his
inefficiencies with regard to this realm of his judgement might interfere
with a true saction of a Nota with respect to Nova Roman law.

With respect, honored Praetor, I do not see what your judicial 'beef' with
me is; I was merely clarifying a position which might have been misconceived
by the Senior Aedile.

And with respect, with all the iniurias which could have been declared as
contra rem publicum within this past election, I think that my posts are
rather 'thin pickings' with regard to the need to issue me a warning of any
kind.

Vale et Magnus cum reverentius,
Pompeia (scratching her head trynna figgure jus what she dun wrong)..

>From: Gnaeus Octavius Noricus <cn.octavius.noricus@...>
>To: "pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@...>
>Subject: ML Message #20126
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:57:16 +0100
>
>Cn. Octavius Noricus Pompeiae Cornelia SPD
>
>The latest message you sent to the main list seems to be a private message
>to
>C. Iulius Scaurus, misdirected to the main list.
>While I suppose that this happened by accident, I still have to draw your
>attention to � I of the list guidelines:
>"You are not issuing a private email. If your reply is intended for only
>one
>member, and has no benefit to the rest of the list subscribers, consider
>sending it privately."
>I would be glad if you could be more careful in the future.
>
>--
>Optime vale!
>
>Gnaeus Octavius Noricus
>Praetor
>

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Salvete Praetores,

Is it to be a stated policy this year that all debates
between two individuals, whatever the topic, be taken
off-list else warnings will be issued to the posters
concerned? If so, I wish you well as it will be an
extremely busy year for you. However, I do hope you
will apply this policy with consistency lest you
attract accusations of partisanship.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus


________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete Omnes,
today, 27th january, it is the Day of the Memory remembering the
horrors and the tragedies of the Holocaust.
Please stop just for 1 minute the discussions and your activities
and dedicate this minute to the Hebrew victims of the Shoah, the
most sad page of our history.
Remember means fight for the freedom, fight because nobody will
nobody endures the suffering that the Hebrew have endured, fight for
the rights and the respect of everyone.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> >Senator Q. Fabius Maximus was well within his rights to express an
> >opinion of another citizen, even though the rest of us may think
> >his opinion distasteful. Such an attack deserves a reply in kind,
> >and no more.
>
> Pompeia respondeo: Ahh, we've all heard this before, Honoured Censor, your
> 'let's yell fire in a blind school', and 'lets throw mamma from the train'
> personal renditions of 'freedom of speech'.

If the Praetores choose to act against Q. Fabius Maximus, that's their
right, and I won't interfere. Personally, I don't think he has done
anything wrong. And, as the People elected me to this office fully
aware of my position on freedom of speech (as that occurred only a
month after the disagreement you and I had on this issue in 2002),
I conclude that they consider my views acceptable.

If you'd like some sort of sanctions against Q. Fabius, contact the
Praetores - it's not my affair.

> The problem is, we have to go
> by Nova Roma laws and edictums which, barring veto, are to be manditorialy
> considered when weighing out when one is subject to legal discipline or
> not... in your jurisdictional case, a nota.

The power of the Censores to issue notae is separate from the Praetores'
edicts. The Censores are explicitly granted the right and the duty
to safeguard public morality and honor - we are not merely implementing
the edicts of another magistrates.

Would you argue that an employee could not be fired by his superiors
becaue the police had not filed charges against him? Would you argue
that a priest could not be dismissed by his bishops if he had not
done anything illegal?

The Censores' nota ability exists in addion to the Praetores' list
moderation and list policy setting abilities; neither is subordinate
to the other.

> are arguing against a Nota in which another Senator has clearly
> disobeyed Praetorial edictum, which were adopted

That's a matter for the Praetores. Should they find him guilty of
some infraction and recommend a Nota, we would consider that request.

> Freedom of forums, is guaranteed to us all under our constitution, exept
> where such is considered 'dangerous and disruptive'.

Certainly, and I will defend such as long as I am here. That freedom
does *not* include misappropriation of another person's words.

> As to 'your' personal point of view in your personal life, this is all fine.
> But it is totally against Praetorial edictum.

I am Censor. I am empowered and required by the Constitution to act
in matters of public morality and honor. The Censores are not
subordinate to the Praetores.

> I fear, O Censor, that you are being overly harsh with one senator and
> giving a carte blanche to another, Fabius Maximus,

Now why would I do that? You know that I have no love for Q. Fabius
Maximus. But though he can be blunt, he has done none of the things
that L. Sicinius has done this past month.

I do not consider harsh words directed against another to be an
offense against public morality and honor. I *do* consider violations
of privacy to be such, and have acted accordingly.

> Its entirely OK, in your view to call
> Wiccanism "bullshit" (quoting I have the post), and question the subsequent
> judgement on other posts of the Priestess of Minerva, former list moderator,
> and to a small extent, the Pontifex Maximus himself.

For the benefit of newcomers, I point out that I did none of these things -
rather, I chose not to act against a citizen who did these. Pompeia
Cornelia disagrees with that decision.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

Salve Decime Iuni Silane!

Thank you for raising this issue and giving me reason to explain my ideas in
public. I have been working behind the scenes, and some issues seem to be
unclear.

| Is it to be a stated policy this year that all debates
| between two individuals, whatever the topic, be taken
| off-list else warnings will be issued to the posters
| concerned?

The new list guidelines are not yet ready, so I cannot say for certain, but I
don't suppose that this will be the case. The top priority is and will be:
freedom of speech.
The list guidelines that are in effect now state in § I: " If your reply is
intended for only one member, and has no benefit to the rest of the list
subscribers, consider sending it privately."
(see http://novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/praetor-2003-01-30.html)
These are the guidelines that I am executing.
As to this special case (message #20126), I was under the impression that this
guideline applied to this message since Pompeia Cornelia addressed only
Aedile C. Iulius Scaurus plus the post had been *forwarded* to the list.
Pompeia Cornelia made me aware that her post had indeed been intended for the
entire list and did not end up here by accident or negligence. I was wrong;
and I explained that to her in private.
Given the recent disputes caused by private posts that somehow were made
public, I seem to be a bit touchy in this respect.

| If so, I wish you well as it will be an
| extremely busy year for you.

LOL! Thank you, I cannot complain about being bored...

| However, I do hope you
| will apply this policy with consistency lest you
| attract accusations of partisanship.

I will be as impartial as humanly possible. Pompeia Cornelia is not the only
one who received similar messages (I wouldn't call them warnings, they are
more intended as friendly reminders).
Thank you for your concern, and if you should have the impression that I were
partial, please contact me and make me aware of it.

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

To the Senate and People of Nova Roma.

I take my position in the Public Forum to ask that we prepare ourselves tomorrow for special rites and sacrifices to Concordia Dea that the peace and public health of our Republic be restored.

Concerned citizens have flooded the main list with posts that support our Constitution, our Laws, our Religio, and their personal and/or professional opinions about all of the above. I have been in communication with the Consuls, the Praetors, the Tribunes, and many private citizens about the events that have led up to the current situation with a complaint being filed with Yahoo against my actions and a Nota being filed by the Censors against a Senator for actions that partially involve me. I make this post more as a response to the magistrates and citizens who have been in contact with me rather than in an effort to rationalize or make excuses for my contribution to the current situation.

Some portions of this post may break a promise I made to the Praetors, I will leave it to them to let me know so I can make amends. Sometimes the wind through the trees becomes a tornado and can no longer be ignored, while at other times, the wind blows from so many directions that the tempest in the teapot wrecks the whole tea party, the Rabbit is very late, and the Hatter is madder than usual.

For the public record, I made my Oath of Office as Rogator and believe that I have kept that Oath. If the Pontifex Maximus or the Curule Aedile believe that I have broken it in some way, I would appreciate in what manner I have done so and how I could make public amends. They are honorable, pious men and I believe they enjoy the trust of the Republic and its citizens.

When I took my office as Rogator, I posted that I would offer an olive branch to those who I had conflicts with so that our constant battling could be reduced to a cease-fire with periods of light skirmishing. In the spirit of that offer, I privately posted to another citizen in response to a public post he had made; his email address is public record. The post contained some bon mots, some explainations of some of my past & present actions, some observations, some opinions, and was not meant to slander his reputation because it was private nor was it meant maliciously or as electronic harassment. The post is now a matter of public record. I give my oath on this.

The individual responded privately with a single line insult that suggest my head was in an inappropriate anatomical position. I responded privately with some references to his family, that his home state needed another visit from General Sherman, and that I might need bail money for a future assault charge. This post was meant as sarcastic humor without intent and was meant in the same spirit of many public posts I had made to him in the past. I give my oath on this.

Shortly after this, I discovered that the individual had posted my private message to him on the mainlist. I was very angry (but not embarassed) that he had done this and I reacted without thinking how my next post to him might be perceived. I posted another private message to him letting him know that humor was no longer a part of my previous message. He notified me after this message that I was to stop stalking him. He did this at the same time he notified the praetors of my posts. I give my oath on this.

After being informed by the Praetors that they had been notified about my private posts but not about the complaintant's private response to my initial private message to him. I promised them that I would not have anymore private communication with the individual and have kept that promise.

However, I reviewed a number of posts in the 17000-19900 range from the mainlist and began to perceive a pattern of behavior in another citizen that led to a hypothesis about him. I posted my opinion that the citizen "may" have some issues that "may" or "might" explain some of his actions in post number 19966. This was a purely personal hypothesis and I encourage every citizen to review the material, draw their own conclusions, and form their own opinions. I did not mean it as a slander (the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody's reputation; malicious-defined as motivated by or resulting from a desire to cause harm or pain to others). I give my oath that I did not make post number 19966 on the Nova Roma Main List with the malicious intent to slander anyone's reputation. Since I am now aware that it was perceived in that manner, I publicly offer my sincere apologies to the individual that my post was perceived as malicious slander and I withdraw the personal opinion that I publicly expressed in post number 19966. I hope that I will be forgiven in turn.

Furthermore, I will not email this individual privately at any point for the rest of my life in Nova Roma except as is related to official business and then I will transmit it via the Censors, Consuls, Tribunes, Praetors, or Pontifex Maximus as may be appropriate. I will attempt to avoid any direct interaction with him at any public event held in connection with or under the auspices of Nova Roma except as may be demanded by official business or religious rites and festivals. I will not use his Nova Roman nomen on any public posts that I may make that is in reference to him and I will do my very best not to respond to any public posts he makes to me or about me unless it is related to some official business concerning government, the Religio, provincial business, or a current debate about the formulation of laws, edicts, official groups, and other such matters. I give my oath on this.

I sincerely pray that the current matter can be swiftly resolved according to the Laws and Traditions of Nova Roma and that all of our citizens will express there opinions to the appropriate magistrates as privately as they can but do not suggest that public posts are not a citizen's right under the Constitution.

May the Gods grant to Nova Roma and each and every one of her citizens all that is appropriate and auspicious.

Valete.

Salvete Marcus Octavius Germanicus Censor et Omnes;

****snippage for brevity******

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your views on freedom of
speech overriding established communication parameters as defined by
law. You are the one in office and you may think as you wish, with
respect to the evaluation of morality vs immorality, and in the
discipline of Senators. You will hear no more from me regarding
Maximus, and your freedom of speech policies.

I brought up the Wiccan issue as an example of how these personal
policies of yours have interfered with past application of the law,
and I can't help but ask myself if this is happening currently. But my
prevailing concerns can be taken up with the Praetores, as you say.

By the way, and with due respect, I am not a liar, sir. You didn't
just choose 'not to act against a citizen who did these' as you have
stated to newcomers in this forum, you wrote me private correspondence
stating concerns that I was asking him to rewrite a rather caustic
post berating the beliefs of Wiccans...the first of his many
nastigrams. You were concerned that I was censoring him
unnecessarily. No, I was just following list guidelines.

So this was a bit more than just passive resistance on your part as
you so claim..it would seem to me that you were rather active in the
application of your opinion vs. the lawful documentation of list
guidelines. If you want to see said correspondence(s) to refresh your
memory, I shall send these to you.

As for the reasons cited for the Nota against Senator Drusus I do
believe you may be on shaky ground, and with respect to both Censores
and the Senate, I think the issue merits a review by the tribunes. I
say this giving full acknowledgement to some comments recently relayed
to this forum By Galerius Aurelianus Secundus. With respect to these
behaviours, I do believe legal issues prevail, as I have said before.
But the reasons for the nota, to me, do not seem quite right.

Bene valete,
Pompeia

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your views on freedom of
> speech overriding established communication parameters as defined by
> law.

There's no overriding going on - my views on freedom of speech
aren't relevant to any action the Praetores may choose to take
in the matter of Senator Q. Fabius Maximus, as it is their
affair, not mine. In the matter of L. Sicinius Drusus, the primary
issue is that of violations of privacy, a different issue from
free speech altogether.

> By the way, and with due respect, I am not a liar, sir.

Certainly, I am not calling you that!

> You didn't just choose 'not to act against a citizen who did these'
> as you have stated to newcomers in this forum, you wrote me
> private correspondenc... You were concerned that I was censoring him
> unnecessarily.

True. I amend my earlier statement: I chose not to act against
that citizen, and also encouraged you to not act against that citizen.
I asked you to approve his messages, and approved them myself when
you took a break from moderation. I also later vetoed a provincial
magistrate's edict against that same person.

My statement earlier today was merely to clarify that I had not myself
made the offensive statements that you referred to; rather, I had
permitted another citizen to do so. Those statements were his, not
mine.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

M IVL PERVSIANVS DIANAE OCTAVIAE AVENTINAE L IVL SULLAE SPD

My best congratulations, Diana. I hope we can have a great
collaboration this year.
I'm going to write you soon to exchange information about our common
goal.

And compliments to L Iul Sulla. Great race, amice, I'm sure you'll be
elected next time. You had a great opponent, this only increases your
honor!

vale
Marcus Iulius Perusianus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aedile Curule MMDCCLVII
Legatus Internis Rebus et Scriba ad historiam Provinciae Italiae
Magister Academiae Italicae
Aedile Urbis Ad Interim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
Italia Provincia: http://italia.novaroma.org
SignaRomanorum: http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
--------------------------------------------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM

> > > Salvete Quirites,
> > >
> > > Voting ended at 18:00 Rome time yesterday, and our Rogators

have

> > been
> > > busy counting votes since then. I am pleased to announce that
> they
> > have
> > > completed their work, and we now have a new Quaestor and a new
> > Rogator.
> > >
> > > The results of the voting, including the alternative vote

process

> > used
> > > to decide a winner if there is no clear winner in the first
> round,
> > are
> > > shown below.
> > >
> > > QUAESTOR:
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Round 1:
> > >
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina 15 tribes
> > > Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> > > Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus 3 tribes
> > >
> > > 2 tribes are void, so the required majority is 17
> > > tribes. No candidate has a majority, so Petrus
> > > Domitianus Artorinus Longinus is eliminated.
> > >
> > > Round 2:
> > >
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina 16 tribes
> > > Lucius Iulius Sulla 15 tribes
> > >
> > > 4 tribes are void, so the required majority is 16.
> > > Diana Octavia Aventina is elected quaestor.

Salvete omnes,

I have no further comments on this on going debate. I am, however
posting a simple summary of the various magisterial ofices with their
duties and powers in Ancient Rome for the benifit of new citizens or
new people to the list. Take note of the "censors" and see what kind
of power they held. I hope this helps for the newbies to understand
better.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


The Magistrates of Rome

"In time, age and discretion cooled his ardour; and he always
remembered the hardest lesson that philosophy teaches-- a sense of
proportion."
-- Cornelius Tacitus, "Agricola" (A.D. 98)

The Roman Republic was governed by two Consuls, elected by selected
parts of the population for one-year periods. There were two consuls
to guard against one trying to claim absolute power or using trickery
to obtain more influence. If one of the consuls was a weak character,
though, it might unbalance the division of power. On selected
occasions, the Senate could extend the Consul's term of office.

In times of war, Republican consuls would ride out and lead armies
into battle. Having two consuls meant that two large armies could
always be fielded, with relatively unified commands. The Consuls
appointed someone to be their Master of Horse, a type of secondary
position. This had great ceremonial importance. The man was probably
be a key military advisor. Originally, it was likely associated with
cavalry, which was often under a separate command due to tactical or
class considerations.






The Knights probably originated in the horse-riding tradition of
mounted soldiery, at a time when soldiers had to supply their own
weapons and equipment. Only the rich could supply horses and enlist
in the cavalry. Time diluted their original role as individuals
wealthy enough to supply mounted soldiers, and the "Equestrian Order"
represented nothing more than a form of minor aristocracy. They came
to be a class of wealthy patrons, not actually responsible for much
outside a few religious and sacrificial duties, but the titles had
great honour associated with them and an ancient history. They were
not "knights" in the mediaeval sense. As time went on, they lost
their central importance in the Roman social order, and took on the
roles of minor merchants, tax "farmers" (collectors) and contractors.






The Senators retained much of the state's power and legitimacy,
especially religious authority and some economic and military rights.
It was the Senate which made the central decisions affecting the
Republic, and the ongoing battle with Senatorial aristocratic power
was the key element in Roman history. Ultimately, both the people and
the Senate lost as each side backed tyrants of their own.






The people's Tribunes had the ability to veto any legislation passed
by the elites or the National Assembly, or any other act of
government. They could prevent arrests and stop the conscription of
armies, even in a time of crisis. This power and position was
theoretically meant to protect the interests of the common Roman from
the powers-that-be. But in the later Republic, the wealthy had
usurped the Tribune's position through bribery and corruption, often
buying off voters with gifts of money. Some Tribunes used their
powers to serve themselves or a selected faction of the Roman
populace. Abuse of the peoples' Tribune position was common.






Censors were appointed for long terms, and acted as the "moral
guardians" of Rome. They had the power to determine what category
citizens belonged to in the lists, the population tables, and the
rolls which kept track of who was eligible to be a member of the
Senate. The Censor could use this power to strip a noble family of
its Senatorial rank or upgrade the status of others. He also had the
final vote on any issue concerning moral or value questions, and as
such had an immense influence.







Provincial Governors were appointed by the Senate. They were
entrusted with the task of ruling and maintaining the various
provinces of the Roman Republic's far-flung Empire. Even though Rome
enjoyed Republican government, the provincials generally did not have
the rights of citizens, but were subjugated peoples. This was common
in the ancient world; it was accepted as a matter of fact that
foreigners were not deserving of any real consideration, whether in
Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Gaul or ancient Germania. It was a
matter of course that foreigners were "less than Romans".








Provincial governorships usually brought great wealth and prestige,
because corrupt governors, clans or corporate interests could win
their positions by bribery and favouritism, and then bleed the
provinces dry. This left the Senate responsible for the mess as
desperate provinces revolted from Rome or economically decayed.
Tacitus was highly critical of some of his influential and wealthy
colleagues, who used their positions to grow wealthy and powerful at
the expense of the people they governed.








The authorities used Lictors, or enforcers, to enforce their wishes.
They carried sacred staves, which were (originally) used as weapons,
probably at a time when Rome had had kings, but were later only
ceremonial. In the old Republic, Lictors were responsible for
arrests, guarding suspects during trials and the enforcement of
government ordinances. Lictors were often written about with special
contempt by ancient authors. This was as close as early Rome ever
came, really, to developing a police force. In the Empire, the
Lictors were eventually replaced with Imperial guard troops, special
military divisions or regular soldiers.






When in times of great danger, the Consuls could appoint a Dictator,
who had absolute military control of Rome. He could "dictate" policy
in times of need. Rome was frequently in great danger of being
sacked, raided, invaded, seiged and generally harassed, so this was
probably a prudent thing to do at the time. The Tribunes couldn't
help protect people from this leader, as he was temporarily all-
powerful. He was, however, answerable for his actions, and might have
had to justify them before the Senate or in a trial when his term of
office was over.






Constitutionally, a dictator was only allowed to serve for a limited
period of time, after which he had to either disband his armies or
hand over control of them to the state authorities. He could be
recalled at any time by the Senate, which theoretically had control
over his appointment. Dictators (usually military leaders of some
sort) frequently used political trickery to play the populace against
the wealthy and the aristocratic Senate, thus undermining both sets
of interests in order to curry more favour and power for themselves.








There were many other positions of influence and power in the Roman
social order, which developed and changed over time: Legate,
Proconsul and others. Some involved only specific duties, while
others covered a limited governorship of a territory or district,
often under the authority of higher officials. They changed name,
function, status and role over time. A successful public career was
usually carried through each required position, until the highest
ranks were attainable, according to hereditary background.

Back to Tacitus


Historia

Salve sis... mate... errrr??? cousin ? Diana !

And congrats on your election...;-)

Moravius Lauretus

A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

I hope you are all well; I'm well.

When in the subject-line I say a few remarks, perhaps
I ought to say 'as few as I can manage'...

On the nota:

I welcome the administering of a nota againts Senator
Sicinius Drusus. I must say that I would not regard
the first or second charges cited in the Censors'
edict worthy of a nota, and indeed I am slightly
worried by the possibility that the first charge might
discourage senators from voicing legitimate criticisms
of Nova Roman politics or society. Nonetheless, the
third charge, regarding the Senator's show of contempt
for our judicial system, is in my view enough to merit
a nota on its own.

I cannot agree with, though I treat very seriously,
the opinion of Aedile Iulius Scaurus that a nota ought
not to be administered on this ground. His argument,
if I have understood it and if I may heavily summarise
it, is that a prosecution under the lex Poenalis would
have been more appropriate. This seems to place notae
in the same category as judicial penalties, whereas I
understand them to be quite separate and different in
nature. I agree that if the ground for the nota were
the endangerment of the republic a prosecution would
be more appropriate, but since, as Scaurus rightly
points out, the basis for such a charge is slim, I
assume that the true ground is simply the contempt
shown by the Senator's action for the laws and
institutions of Nova Roma. If this is indeed the
reason, it seems to me a purely moral issue and
therefore precisely the right sort of issue to merit a
nota.

It will be obvious from what I have just said that I
also disagree with Cornelia Strabo's suggestion that
Senator Maximus be issued with a nota if Senator
Drusus is to receive one: though the former Senator
has done many things I would not condone and at least
one thing which I strongly suspect would be actionable
in court he has not, in my view, committed any moral
offence against the whole community (rather than
against individual members of it) of the seriousness
of what Senator Drusus has done. Her further
suggestion that the nota against Senator Drusus is
unconstitutional seems to be based on the assumption
that a nota is a form of punishment merited by
breaking the law, which it is not; the constitution
gives the censors ample discretion with the phrase
'public morality and honour', and I think it would be
hard to argue that the matter with which their nota
deals does not fall under that clause.

On Octavia Aventina's thanks to Senator Maximus:

This is really not my business, but I would like to
say that I understood our new Quaestor to be doing
nothing more than thanking the Senator for encouraging
her to run for the quaestorship. I don't believe she
said anything to suggest she condones the things the
Senator said and did during the course of her
campaign, and given that she had previously taken care
to distance herself from these I see no reason to
assume that she does condone them.

On tomorrow:

In recognition of the special dedication of the
tomorrow to Concordia I shall not comment on any of
these matters, or any others that might be divisive,
tomorrow, and I shall try not to comment on them much
thereafter, except perhaps to discuss the fine legal
points on the Laws list as matters of academic
interest. There seems little need for other comment
since the appeal of Senator Drusus (I continue to call
him Senator, for I don't wish to pre-judge the outcome
of his appeal) has been set in motion and matters are
taking their proper course.

There is a strong tradition in Anglo-American law that
matters relating to a case which is due to come before
a court or is currently before one ought to be left
alone and not subjected to running commentary until
the court reaches a decision. It's perhaps not a very
Roman tradition, but it makes sense to me and I hope
at least some of us will observe it, especially tomorrow.

________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Citizens of Nova Roma;

It has been brought rather heavily to my attention that I have mispelled
the word "Augur" in my last message to you. You have my apologies for
the oversight. My apologies also to Gaius Modius Athanasius, as no slur
or dig was intended. It was merely an honest error, of the type, I have
been known to make in the past, and due to my consistant eagerness to
talk with the Citizens of NR, will probably do again.

My Sincerest Apologies

Marcus Minucius-Tiberis Audens


Wishing you all the best, with Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Salve C Iulius Iustinus,

< I want to thank you for your gentle lead in this matter.
<Over the past few days I added my own small offerings to Concordia;
<and (much more difficult for me) I refrained from posting publicly
<what I was thinking privately. My opinions, well-reasoned though they
<were <grin>, would only have fueled the flames of discord.

Well said.
I will be making offerings to Venus Verticordia this evening in the hopes that there will be some
'changing of hearts' here in our Forum. A gentler touch is what we need right now to soften the
discussions that have been prevalent the last days.

Vale,
Diana Octavia Aventina
Sacerdos Veneris

M IVL PERVSIANVS QVIRITIBVS SPD

EDICTVM AEDILICIVM II - DESIGNATIO COHORTIS AEDILIS M IVL PERVSIANI
(Appointment of Apparitor).

I. In accordance with the Constitution of Nova Roma, I hereby
appoint the following citizen to serve as Apparitor in my Cohors:

- Lucius Iulius Sulla

II. This edictum takes force immediately.

Given on January 27 2757, in the year of Consulship of Cn. Salix
Astur and Cn. Equitus Marinus


Marcus Iulius Perusianus
Aedile Curule

--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
Italia Provincia: http://italia.novaroma.org
SignaRomanorum: http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
--------------------------------------------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM

Salve Quintus Lanius

First of all, thank you for the effort to compile this information.
However, there are a few points which I would like to make, minor
though they are.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> [...snipped...]
>
> ...The Consuls appointed someone to be their Master of Horse, a
> type of secondary position. This had great ceremonial importance.
> The man was probably be a key military advisor. Originally, it was
> likely associated with cavalry, which was often under a separate
> command due to tactical or class considerations.

The position of "Magister Equitus" was actually subordinate to the
Dictator, whenever there was such. The origins and even duties of
the position are somewhat obscure, but according to Adrian
Goldsworthy in his book "The Punic Wars", the position apparently
came about due to an ancient prohibition against the Dictator riding
a horse. Thus the Master of Horse may have been in direct command of
the cavalry units in the Dictator's army. This tradition of
prohibiting the Dictator from riding survived until the dictatorship
of Quintus Fabius Maximus in the Second Punic War, when he was
granted dispensation from it by the Senate due to the urgency of the
situation. It is also interesting to note that, despite tradition, Q.
Fabius Maximus's Master of Horse was also given imperium nearly equal
to that of the Dictator, something that had also never been done.
Extrodinary times call for extraordinary means.

The exact position of the Master of Horse within the cavalry
formations is also of much conjecture, since there typically were two
different cavalry units in a Consular Army, the Roman cavalry on the
right flank and the allied cavalry on the left flank. (see the
illustrations of the two legion Consular Army on the Sodalitas
Militarium's new web site at

http://members.cox.net/sodalitasmilitarium/LegionFrame.shtml
)

It is also important to note that the concept of a "second in
command" was not a strong one in the Republican legions. Certainly
there were subordinates; tribunes, centruions, and so on, but
an "Executive Officer" was not part of the organization of a Legion.
This was at times a very weak link in the chain of command,
particularly if a Consul was killed or seriously wounded in battle.
Typically the only other elected official who would accompany a
Consul would be his Quaestor, who, due to the lower-level of that
magistracy, would be very unlikely to take command.

In times of extream threat both Consular armies might operate
together rather than separately (often on different fronts). When
this happened the two Consuls held command on alternate days, with
neither otherwise being subordinate to the other.

>
> [...snipped...]
>
> Censors were appointed for long terms, and acted as the "moral
> guardians" of Rome. They had the power to determine what category
> citizens belonged to in the lists, the population tables, and the
> rolls which kept track of who was eligible to be a member of the
> Senate. The Censor could use this power to strip a noble family of
> its Senatorial rank or upgrade the status of others. He also had
> the final vote on any issue concerning moral or value questions,
> and as such had an immense influence.

An excellent summation of the office and duties of the Censors. It
should also be noted that in the Republic Censors were elected for a
term of 5 years. A rather considerable tenure given that every other
magistrate only served for one year. The Censorship was the
culmination of an illustrious career in the Cursus Honorum and was
highly prized and respected.

>
> [...snipped...]
>
> When in times of great danger, the Consuls could appoint a
> Dictator, who had absolute military control of Rome. He
> could "dictate" policy in times of need. Rome was frequently in
> great danger of being sacked, raided, invaded, seiged and generally
> harassed, so this was probably a prudent thing to do at the time.
> The Tribunes couldn't help protect people from this leader, as he
> was temporarily all-powerful. He was, however, answerable for his
> actions, and might have had to justify them before the Senate or in
> a trial when his term of office was over.

Actually the Dictator and Magister Equitus were selected by the
Senate, not the Consuls. Frequently a Dictator was needed when the
Consuls were deep trouble militarily and off in the field somewhere,
often in separate locations. During the Second Punic War there were a
few times when one or more of the Consuls had been killed in action
at the time of the appointment of the Dictator.

>
> [...snipped...]
>
> Constitutionally, a dictator was only allowed to serve for a
> limited period of time, after which he had to either disband his
> armies or hand over control of them to the state authorities. He
> could be recalled at any time by the Senate, which theoretically
> had control over his appointment. Dictators (usually military
> leaders of some sort) frequently used political trickery to play
> the populace against the wealthy and the aristocratic Senate, thus
> undermining both sets of interests in order to curry more favour
> and power for themselves.

The normal term of office for a Dictator was six months. However,
there were some Dictators served shorter or longer terms.
Cincinnatus, the ideal of Citizen Soldier and a model of Romanitas,
was approached, so the story goes, by a Senatorial delegation while
he was ploughing his fields. He left the plough in the field, went
off to meet up with the army, defeated the enemy, turned power back
to the Senate and returned to his farm all in the space of a month's
time.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, on the other hand, held the
Dictatorship for about two years (I don't recall the exact duration
off the top of my head) and he certainly _did_ use the office for
political more than military purposes.

The idea that there were such people as "military leaders"
or "generals" during the Republic is a tempting one, but an
inaccurate one. Everyone in the upper classes (Patricians,
Equistrians and wealthy Plebeians) was expected to shoulder the
burdens of command. During much of the middle Republic, especially
during the Punic Wars, the primary duties of elected magistrates were
far more military ones than civil or political. It was this "noblesse
oblige" of the upper classes that was to a very large extent the
justification for having an upper class.

There really was no professional military in those days and it is
doubtful that any Consul, Praetor, proroged or not really thought of
themselves as a "general" in the sense that a modern-day general or
field marshall would. They were aristocrats in service to the State.

>
> [...snipped...]
> Back to Tacitus
>

Ah! Tacitus! Another outstanding Cornelii! :)

Bene Vale
Livia Cornelia Hibernia

Gaius Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dictit,

I, Gaius Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus (Adrian Gunn), do hereby solemnly
swear to uphold the
honor of the Religio Romana in Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests
of the Roman Gods, the Religio Romana, and the Senate and People of Nova
Roma.

I, Gaius Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus (Adrian Gunn), as a member of the
Collegium Pontificum,
swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of
Nova Roma
and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the
State Religion.
I swear to serve the Roman Gods to the best of my ability in both public
and private life,
and to pursue the Roman virtues as an integral part of my priesthood.

I, Gaius Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus (Adrian Gunn), swear to protect and
defend the
Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Gaius Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus (Adrian Gunn), further swear to
fulfill the
obligations and responsibilities of the office of Pontifex to the best
of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and
Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the
position of Pontifex and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and
responsibilities
attendant thereto.

Valete,

C. Minucius-Tiberius Hadrianus

Salve Livia,

Thank you for your clarification and adjustments to the summary. Now
I think our citizens will have a pretty good idea about magistrates
offices.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Livia Cornelia Hibernia"
<livia_cornelia_hibernia@c...> wrote:

> Salve Quintus Lanius
>
> First of all, thank you for the effort to compile this information.
> However, there are a few points which I would like to make, minor
> though they are.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > [...snipped...]
> >
> > ...The Consuls appointed someone to be their Master of Horse, a
> > type of secondary position. This had great ceremonial importance.
> > The man was probably be a key military advisor. Originally, it was
> > likely associated with cavalry, which was often under a separate
> > command due to tactical or class considerations.
>
> The position of "Magister Equitus" was actually subordinate to the
> Dictator, whenever there was such. The origins and even duties of
> the position are somewhat obscure, but according to Adrian
> Goldsworthy in his book "The Punic Wars", the position apparently
> came about due to an ancient prohibition against the Dictator

riding

> a horse. Thus the Master of Horse may have been in direct command

of

> the cavalry units in the Dictator's army. This tradition of
> prohibiting the Dictator from riding survived until the

dictatorship

> of Quintus Fabius Maximus in the Second Punic War, when he was
> granted dispensation from it by the Senate due to the urgency of

the

> situation. It is also interesting to note that, despite tradition,

Q.

> Fabius Maximus's Master of Horse was also given imperium nearly

equal

> to that of the Dictator, something that had also never been done.
> Extrodinary times call for extraordinary means.
>
> The exact position of the Master of Horse within the cavalry
> formations is also of much conjecture, since there typically were

two

> different cavalry units in a Consular Army, the Roman cavalry on

the

> right flank and the allied cavalry on the left flank. (see the
> illustrations of the two legion Consular Army on the Sodalitas
> Militarium's new web site at
>
> http://members.cox.net/sodalitasmilitarium/LegionFrame.shtml
> )
>
> It is also important to note that the concept of a "second in
> command" was not a strong one in the Republican legions. Certainly
> there were subordinates; tribunes, centruions, and so on, but
> an "Executive Officer" was not part of the organization of a

Legion.

> This was at times a very weak link in the chain of command,
> particularly if a Consul was killed or seriously wounded in battle.
> Typically the only other elected official who would accompany a
> Consul would be his Quaestor, who, due to the lower-level of that
> magistracy, would be very unlikely to take command.
>
> In times of extream threat both Consular armies might operate
> together rather than separately (often on different fronts). When
> this happened the two Consuls held command on alternate days, with
> neither otherwise being subordinate to the other.
>
> >
> > [...snipped...]
> >
> > Censors were appointed for long terms, and acted as the "moral
> > guardians" of Rome. They had the power to determine what category
> > citizens belonged to in the lists, the population tables, and the
> > rolls which kept track of who was eligible to be a member of the
> > Senate. The Censor could use this power to strip a noble family

of

> > its Senatorial rank or upgrade the status of others. He also had
> > the final vote on any issue concerning moral or value questions,
> > and as such had an immense influence.
>
> An excellent summation of the office and duties of the Censors. It
> should also be noted that in the Republic Censors were elected for

a

> term of 5 years. A rather considerable tenure given that every

other

> magistrate only served for one year. The Censorship was the
> culmination of an illustrious career in the Cursus Honorum and was
> highly prized and respected.
>
> >
> > [...snipped...]
> >
> > When in times of great danger, the Consuls could appoint a
> > Dictator, who had absolute military control of Rome. He
> > could "dictate" policy in times of need. Rome was frequently in
> > great danger of being sacked, raided, invaded, seiged and

generally

> > harassed, so this was probably a prudent thing to do at the time.
> > The Tribunes couldn't help protect people from this leader, as he
> > was temporarily all-powerful. He was, however, answerable for his
> > actions, and might have had to justify them before the Senate or

in

> > a trial when his term of office was over.
>
> Actually the Dictator and Magister Equitus were selected by the
> Senate, not the Consuls. Frequently a Dictator was needed when the
> Consuls were deep trouble militarily and off in the field

somewhere,

> often in separate locations. During the Second Punic War there were

a

> few times when one or more of the Consuls had been killed in action
> at the time of the appointment of the Dictator.
>
> >
> > [...snipped...]
> >
> > Constitutionally, a dictator was only allowed to serve for a
> > limited period of time, after which he had to either disband his
> > armies or hand over control of them to the state authorities. He
> > could be recalled at any time by the Senate, which theoretically
> > had control over his appointment. Dictators (usually military
> > leaders of some sort) frequently used political trickery to play
> > the populace against the wealthy and the aristocratic Senate, thus
> > undermining both sets of interests in order to curry more favour
> > and power for themselves.
>
> The normal term of office for a Dictator was six months. However,
> there were some Dictators served shorter or longer terms.
> Cincinnatus, the ideal of Citizen Soldier and a model of Romanitas,
> was approached, so the story goes, by a Senatorial delegation while
> he was ploughing his fields. He left the plough in the field, went
> off to meet up with the army, defeated the enemy, turned power back
> to the Senate and returned to his farm all in the space of a

month's

> time.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, on the other hand, held the
> Dictatorship for about two years (I don't recall the exact duration
> off the top of my head) and he certainly _did_ use the office for
> political more than military purposes.
>
> The idea that there were such people as "military leaders"
> or "generals" during the Republic is a tempting one, but an
> inaccurate one. Everyone in the upper classes (Patricians,
> Equistrians and wealthy Plebeians) was expected to shoulder the
> burdens of command. During much of the middle Republic, especially
> during the Punic Wars, the primary duties of elected magistrates

were

> far more military ones than civil or political. It was

this "noblesse

> oblige" of the upper classes that was to a very large extent the
> justification for having an upper class.
>
> There really was no professional military in those days and it is
> doubtful that any Consul, Praetor, proroged or not really thought

of

> themselves as a "general" in the sense that a modern-day general or
> field marshall would. They were aristocrats in service to the State.
>
> >
> > [...snipped...]
> > Back to Tacitus
> >
>
> Ah! Tacitus! Another outstanding Cornelii! :)
>
> Bene Vale
> Livia Cornelia Hibernia

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Munucio Tiberio SPD

No offense taken. I must have understood what you were trying to say because
if the word had been spelled wrong I must have understood you at the time.
Thanks for the apology, but I can assure you none was needed. Thanks again for
the words of encouragement!

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 1/27/2004 4:47:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jmath669642reng@... writes:
It has been brought rather heavily to my attention that I have mispelled
the word "Augur" in my last message to you. You have my apologies for
the oversight. My apologies also to Gaius Modius Athanasius, as no slur
or dig was intended. It was merely an honest error, of the type, I have
been known to make in the past, and due to my consistant eagerness to
talk with the Citizens of NR, will probably do again.

My Sincerest Apologies

Marcus Minucius-Tiberis Audens


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

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites

Today is ante diem V Kalendae Februarii; the day is comitialis. Today
a piaculum to Concordia Dea will be observed.

Tomorrow is ante diem IV Kalendae Februarii; it is comitialis.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Since crucifixion was a prominent form of execution of non-citizens by
Roman authorities, I thought it might be useful to have a few links
which discuss the principal archaeological evidence for the technology
of crucifixion:

"Jesus and Jehohanan: An Archaeological Note on Crucifixion":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html

This essay, by Dr. J.H. Charlesworth, appeared in the _Expository
Times_ in Feb. 1973 and is presented in connection with a PBS
"Frontline" series "From Jesus to Christ." The tone of the essay's
conclusion is a tad "preachy," but the essay contains useful analysis
of the Giv'at ha-Mivtar find and the Roman terminology for structures
of the cross.

"Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Archaeological Evidence":

http://www.tfba.org/articles.php?articleid=2

This essay, by retired Curator of Archaeology of the Israel
Antiquities Authority Joseph Zias, is presented by Dr. James Tabor's
"The Jewish Roman World of Jesus" site.

Dr. Tabor also presents images of three archaeologically attested
forms of crucifixion at:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/galleryb.html

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Marcus Iulius,

<I. In accordance with the Constitution of Nova Roma, I hereby
<appoint the following citizen to serve as Apparitor in my Cohors:
<- Lucius Iulius Sulla

Great news! I look forward to working with you both.
Vale,
Diana Octavia

Salve Senator Iuni Palladi,

I am happy to see that we are on agreement with respect to the right of
citizens to use their macronational rights. As I mentioned in my earlier
post, I do share your concerns on that matter and was pleased to read
the extract of the constitution you quoted where these rights are
clearly expressed :" The right and obligation to remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which they reside and/or hold
citizenship, regardless of their states as dual citizens of Nova Roma;"

In that light I do not dispute the right of illustris Senator Drusus to
report any abuse he may have been victim of to Yahoo.

My earlier post however was not primarily concerned with this aspect of
the constitution but was based rather on the following sentence :
"Preamble : We, the senate and the people of Nova Roma, as an
independant and sovereign nation, herewith set forth this constitution
as the foundation and structure of our governing and common society"

You will have noticed, I am sure , that the preamble of our
constitution clearly uses the words "independent and sovereign nation"
and "community" as a context for our constitution and Nova Roma's
"structure of...governing".
I hope you will agree with me that, at the very least, any prospective
citizen would clearly know what his citizenship will entail in terms of
rights and obligations should he/her should choose to proceed with the
application : Once a citizen he/she would be honour bound to respect and
abide by Nova Roma's laws. If one doesn't want to be tied by these rules
there is always the possiblity to be only registered on the ML and
participate in the discussions : No need to be a citizen for that.
Futhermore we do happen to have laws, on which we have voted, that
frame the way disputes within Nova Romans might and can be settled
internally, at least and hopefully, before external settlement is called
upon as a last resort.

The fact that one of our citizens (who, by his very acceptance of the
moral contract Nova Roman citizenship implies, should have tried to
settle his dispute within our own legal system first), resorted to bring
Yahoo into the dispute in the first instance is clearly undermining
everything the constitution and the laws of Nova Roma stand for. The
fact that this citizen is also a senator, guardian of our laws and
morals, is even worse !

As I said earlier there is nothing wrong in using macronational rights
when one is feeling threatened. But when belonging to a self proclaimed
micronation with its own laws, when belonging to the highest class of
citizens as a senator, when having held offices that were an integral
part of the workings of that micronation, then the least senator Drusus
could have done was to work within our legal framework first and try to
resolve his dispute with the Praetores first.
He didn't and thus doing sent a clear message to the rest of the
citizenry : He doesn't have much regard or hold much respect for our
imstitutions. If our laws cannot be followed by our senators, the whole
edifice is nothing but a hollow shell and I for one would then have
better things to do than elect magistrates or read laws that do nothing
else than looking nice.

If senator Drusus holds so much contempt for our laws that he does not
want to use them in his dispute then I am sure the meaningless title of
senator he holds will also mean nothing to him should he lose it as a
result of the censorial nota. What I don't understand, then, is why now
he is invoking his right to provocatio!!!! Does senator Drusus wants to
work within Nova Roma's legal framework or not ? He can't have it both
way; He can't use the system only when it suits him; Nor can anybody
else for that matter ( I am thinking of Formosanus here for those of you
who remember).

I hope, Senator Palladius et omnes, that I haven't taken too much of
your time and that you will be able to see some of the little
hypocrisies our young nation is facing. For my part I have said enough
and will leave the matter in the hands of our magistrates without adding
to this thread any more : As a citizen of Nova Roma I trust and empower
them to do their job.
I would be happy to carry on the discussion off list should you wish
it,

Most respectfully,

Optime valete

Moravius Laureatus

I, Diana Octavia Aventina (Joanna Agate-Amodea)do hereby solemnly
swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Diana Octavia Aventina swear to honor the
Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman
Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Diana Octavia Aventina swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as
the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would
threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Diana Octavia Aventina swear to protect and defend the Constitution of
Nova Roma.

I, Diana Octavia Aventina further swear to fulfill the obligations and
responsibilities of the office of Quaestor to the best of my
abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of Quaestor and all the rights,
privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Diana Octavia Aventina
28 January 2757

Salve Corneli Moravi,

Not wishing to get embroiled in this debate but you
said one thing I cannot agree with;

> He can't have it both way;

Actually he can, and this right is enshrined in the
constitution:

B. The following rights of the Citizens who have
reached the age of 18 shall be guaranteed, but this
enumeration shall not be taken to exclude other rights
that citizens may possess:

2. The right and obligation to remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which they
reside and/or hold citizenship, regardless of their
status as dual citizens of Nova Roma;

This section of the constitution recognises not only a
right, but an obligation to follow the laws of his
macronation. Further, it recognises the reality of
dual citizenship, not the precedence of Nova Roman law
over macronational law. Indeed it could be argued in
times of conflict of interest that macronational law
should take precedence.

I agree with others in that what Drusus did was wrong.
However, in this respect it did not violate the
consitution. Issuing this nota on moral grounds with
regards to this is thin ice IMHO and a dangerous
precedent to be setting.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus


________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Antonius Nebrissensis sodalis suis S.P.D.
Avete, optimissimi!
Aliquis adiuvare in ha re potest?

Valete!

Salve,

There is something that many of you might not know about me. I Have
held a dual citizenship long before Nova Roma was founded. I'm a
Citizen of the United States and of the Cherokee nation. I Know far
more about holding a Dual Citizenship and it's limitations than the
vast majority of Nova Romans who are new to the concept.

Wuth the exception of being eligible for some quotas under US laws
that I disagree with, my Cherokee citizenship is meaningless off the
reservation. I Can't invoke any tribal law off reservation.

The Cherokee have two distinct advantages over Nova Roma. The first is
the United States recognizes us as a sovereign nation with rights
under treaties. The Second is we actually have land that is more than
symbolic.

Nova Roma has a long way to go before it reaches the level of
sovereignity held by the Cherokee. Pretending that it has been achived
dosen't make it reality. Declaring yourself a sovereign nation is a
gesture with no basis in reality until that sovereignity is
recognized. Acting as if it has been achived when it hasn't is an
exercise in role playing, something that Nova Roma claims it isn't doing.

I'm a hard headed realist. Nova Roma has a goal of sovereignity that
hasn't been reached. Until that sovereignity is recognized Nova Roma
is legaly nothing more than a Non Profit Corporation, no diferent than
any other Non Profit. Failure to recognize that fact, preceding as if
we were an independant Nation whos sovereignity has been recognized by
the international community is something that will result in legal
problems sooner or later.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Laureatus Armoricus"
<laureatusarmoricus@t...> wrote:

>
> Salve Senator Iuni Palladi,
>
> I am happy to see that we are on agreement with respect to the right of
> citizens to use their macronational rights. As I mentioned in my earlier
> post, I do share your concerns on that matter and was pleased to read
> the extract of the constitution you quoted where these rights are
> clearly expressed :" The right and obligation to remain subject to the
> civil rights and laws of the countries in which they reside and/or hold
> citizenship, regardless of their states as dual citizens of Nova Roma;"
>
> In that light I do not dispute the right of illustris Senator Drusus to
> report any abuse he may have been victim of to Yahoo.
>
> My earlier post however was not primarily concerned with this aspect of
> the constitution but was based rather on the following sentence :
> "Preamble : We, the senate and the people of Nova Roma, as an
> independant and sovereign nation, herewith set forth this constitution
> as the foundation and structure of our governing and common society"
>
> You will have noticed, I am sure , that the preamble of our
> constitution clearly uses the words "independent and sovereign nation"
> and "community" as a context for our constitution and Nova Roma's
> "structure of...governing".
> I hope you will agree with me that, at the very least, any prospective
> citizen would clearly know what his citizenship will entail in terms of
> rights and obligations should he/her should choose to proceed with the
> application : Once a citizen he/she would be honour bound to respect and
> abide by Nova Roma's laws. If one doesn't want to be tied by these rules
> there is always the possiblity to be only registered on the ML and
> participate in the discussions : No need to be a citizen for that.
> Futhermore we do happen to have laws, on which we have voted, that
> frame the way disputes within Nova Romans might and can be settled
> internally, at least and hopefully, before external settlement is called
> upon as a last resort.
>
> The fact that one of our citizens (who, by his very acceptance of the
> moral contract Nova Roman citizenship implies, should have tried to
> settle his dispute within our own legal system first), resorted to bring
> Yahoo into the dispute in the first instance is clearly undermining
> everything the constitution and the laws of Nova Roma stand for. The
> fact that this citizen is also a senator, guardian of our laws and
> morals, is even worse !
>
> As I said earlier there is nothing wrong in using macronational rights
> when one is feeling threatened. But when belonging to a self proclaimed
> micronation with its own laws, when belonging to the highest class of
> citizens as a senator, when having held offices that were an integral
> part of the workings of that micronation, then the least senator Drusus
> could have done was to work within our legal framework first and try to
> resolve his dispute with the Praetores first.
> He didn't and thus doing sent a clear message to the rest of the
> citizenry : He doesn't have much regard or hold much respect for our
> imstitutions. If our laws cannot be followed by our senators, the whole
> edifice is nothing but a hollow shell and I for one would then have
> better things to do than elect magistrates or read laws that do nothing
> else than looking nice.
>
> If senator Drusus holds so much contempt for our laws that he does not
> want to use them in his dispute then I am sure the meaningless title of
> senator he holds will also mean nothing to him should he lose it as a
> result of the censorial nota. What I don't understand, then, is why now
> he is invoking his right to provocatio!!!! Does senator Drusus wants to
> work within Nova Roma's legal framework or not ? He can't have it both
> way; He can't use the system only when it suits him; Nor can anybody
> else for that matter ( I am thinking of Formosanus here for those of you
> who remember).
>
> I hope, Senator Palladius et omnes, that I haven't taken too much of
> your time and that you will be able to see some of the little
> hypocrisies our young nation is facing. For my part I have said enough
> and will leave the matter in the hands of our magistrates without adding
> to this thread any more : As a citizen of Nova Roma I trust and empower
> them to do their job.
> I would be happy to carry on the discussion off list should you wish
> it,
>
> Most respectfully,
>
> Optime valete
>
> Moravius Laureatus