Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Modi,

Gaius Modius Athanasius writes:

> Gaius Iulius Scaurus, as an Aedile, had Imperium. Something that Censors do
> not possess.

That is correct, Censors don't have imperium. They do, however, have
sanctity and they are immune from prosecution for any crime while they
are Censors, and for life for any actions taken in the line of duty as
Censors.

I suspect this truly extraordinary authority is one of the reasons that
there were so very few Censors elected.

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Modius Kaelus" <xkaelusx@y...>
wrote:

> Ahh, so were you referring to [select] documents found the Naj
> Hammadhi library and the Trismegestus texts as well? I have a few
> different copies of some of that material... and I must say, it's a
> shame that so little polytheistic gnostic literature has come down

to

> us. There is at least as much of a Valentian corpus to reconstruct
> both that school and a more general gnostic Christian viewpoint.
> Pagan gnostics weren't so blessed.
>
> Vale,
> L. Modius Kaelus
>

The PGM stands for "Greek Magical Papyri", and it is thoroughly
Pagan, not Gnostic. You can buy them all from Amazon, in impeccable
translation. Some of the PGM are the basis for copious amounts of
Hellenic Reconstructionism.

"Pistis Sophia" is not in the Nag Hammadi collection. It IS a Gnostic
work, and it must be bought seperatley.


G. Agorius Taurinus

Salve,

>But the structure, and the basics, probably remained the same, as the
>invaders in Greece (aside from marrying off their Gods to many of the
>local Goddesses- a common practise which reflected the marriage of
>conquering leaders to the daughters of local indigenous tribal or
>clannic rulers) often accepted large portions of the older order into
>their own culture- this is most neatly represented by linguistics,
>and the birth of the language we call "Greek" today.The very same
>thing happened with the birth of "Latin", and any other IE language.
>The linguistic mixture reflects a cultural mixture.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say "the very same thing"? If
it's the generic cultures mix, languages mix, then I've no
disagreement. But the actual history leading to the development of Latin,
versus Greek, is quite different. Instead of the Dorian invasion and
conquest, the Latins got the Etruscans. And the linguistic interplay (as
well as the cultural interplay) is rather different. Instead of a
relatively barbarous conquering force, the Latins were dominated (it
appears, rather than conquered) and by a more advanced culture. Instead of
the conquest of city builders, the reverse is really the Latin
experience--the city builders came and organized them into building cities.

And while the Etruscans certainly borrowed and adopted many things Greek,
including some deities, they were distinctly different. Since they were a
major root source for Roman religion, I remain very dubious--generally
speaking--about the value of Hellenic Reconstruction as a model which Roman
Reconstruction can ape.

Obviously, where the deity in question is a late addition to the Roman
pantheon, that's a different story.

Which isn't to suggest that I'm seeing a dispute; I rather agree with much
of what you're saying about a proper approach to Reconstruction. And about
the attitude one takes to the Gods and the idle use of their Names.

>It is likely that only the Cults of the Gods "knew"
>their actual names; the "names" we call most of the Gods by now are
>just descriptions- "Zeus" just means "God", for instance; "Dionysos"
>just means "The God of Nysa", and the like.

This is certainly true of many of the Latin deities--Diana being an
epithet, not truly a name, for example.

It's difficult to tell if the Etruscans shared such a perspective,
however. Given our limited grip on that language, it's hard to determine,
really. In some cases, it looks likely (tin- meaning day leads to Tinia as
an analog of Zeus). Others, however, really don't--though that may be for
lack of language, leaving us unable to grasp an epithet. But Losna, for
example, doesn't have any connection with the Etruscan word for the
moon--though it's reported to have been the Name of the goddess who IS the
moon. Still, it seems likely. Names and the power of names appears to
have been common through almost all cultures.

The fact that Rome had a secret name almost never spoken and known only to
a few would suggest that the idea certainly was prominent in Roman thinking.

Vale,
M Umbrius Ursus

O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato

Salvete, omnes.

Umbrius Ursus, a question. I noticed that you call "Diana" an
epithet. Is this why in the NT she is referred to as "Diana of the
Ephesians"? I had thought that they were taking a "possesive" view
of her, but what does "Diana" mean? Also, I was under the
impression that only Hreakles and Mars were truly Latin deities; the
rest were borrowed wholesale from the Greeks?

Valete,

Cato

oops. I meant "Herakles".

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:

> O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> Umbrius Ursus, a question. I noticed that you call "Diana" an
> epithet. Is this why in the NT she is referred to as "Diana of

the

> Ephesians"? I had thought that they were taking a "possesive"

view

> of her, but what does "Diana" mean? Also, I was under the
> impression that only Hreakles and Mars were truly Latin deities;

the

> rest were borrowed wholesale from the Greeks?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

Salve, Taurinus.

Nevermind. I misread and subsequently misunderstood the context of
what you were talking about.

Also, I know the Pistis Sophia isn't in the library... It's a
translation from the two coptic manuscripts obtained in 1785 in
Egypt, long predating the 1945 discovery in Naj Hammadi. I wasn't
indicating otherwise. That was part of a seperate comment based upon
my misunderstanding of what you said.. since almost all of the extant
material for pagan-based gnosticism is in that collection or comes
from the Hermes Trismegestus documents.

Though.. correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 'Piste Sophiea
Cotice' thought to have been in written in the third century A.D.,
and possibly of Manichaen origin? If that's so, then the "begotten
gods" of the pleroma spoken of in connection to the archons are
primarily CHRISTIAN in origin (and seems to have a touch of
Valentius, at that)? Granted, it was syncretic, but why would you
lean towards the opinion that the information in the narrative is
authentic when it comes from such disconnected origins? Not only the
interpretation of the theology conatined therein is at odds with the
ancient religion of the Hellenes, but by connection, probably also
the source material itself. You're trusting the word of one
individual who MAY just be a fictional _literary device_, because he
supposedly received gnosis. I haven't read the work in years, but I
don't remember any mention of the connections you mentioned, which
leads me to think you may just be jumping to conclusions about the
supposed origin of the information (i.e., the mystery cults). The
whole of the work is in context to Christ's resurrection. And while
it may have been aimed partially at a pagan audience, that doesn't
necessarily mean that the claims therein about the gods came from the
mystery religions, had any ancient origin, or any relevance outside
the school of theology the document was expounding. To accept simply
those few lines of material, based on flimsy evidence, but not to
accept anything else stated in the document such as the resurrection
of Christ, his power, the existance of on God over all, etc. is
simply eclecticism. That is, unless there is some logical, systematic
scholarship behind your statement of inclination. Just wondering if
you could give some justification to what you said.

Vale bene,
L. Modius Kaelus

> The PGM stands for "Greek Magical Papyri", and it is thoroughly
> Pagan, not Gnostic. You can buy them all from Amazon, in impeccable
> translation. Some of the PGM are the basis for copious amounts of
> Hellenic Reconstructionism.
>
> "Pistis Sophia" is not in the Nag Hammadi collection. It IS a

Gnostic

> work, and it must be bought seperatley.
>
>
> G. Agorius Taurinus

Actually, Cato.. there are SEVERAL "minor" dieties that are either
purely Roman, or based partially in all probability upon early
contacts with the Latins and the Etrustcans (The Romans are not the
same as the Latins, though eventually they became one people).
Herakles is neither. He's the Latin version of Hercules, known
throughout antiquity (and probably ante-deluvian) under multiple name
and titles.. with varying accounts of his life and attributes. He was
known as "Melqart" in Tyre, and was spread by the Phoenecians to
areas such as Carthage by the seventh century BCE. He was called by
the epithet "Baal" (Lord) in Canaan... though not to be confused with
the later development and application of the name. USUALLY, when the
prophets of Israel are talking about the Hebrews worshipping Baal,
their usually referring to him, if it isn't just a generic title for
a god. He may even have assumed different historically and locally-
based identities in cultures and cities almost as far as India. So..
he was adopted into the pantheon at some point; just because it may
have been before written history, he's obviously not Roman in origin.
The historical Herakles was probably semitic.

But.. Diana is simply a derivative of the latin word for "goddess".
It's what she was called more often than not, and what she widely
known throughout the Roman world as. That's part of what makes
tracing the history of her cult so difficult, besides her association
with various lunar goddesses and Artemis.

And besides... unless you subscribe to the belief the New Testament
is historically infallible... the Bible isn't necessarily the best
place for accurate information about Roman or Greek polythiesm.

Vale bene,
Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> Umbrius Ursus, a question. I noticed that you call "Diana" an
> epithet. Is this why in the NT she is referred to as "Diana of the
> Ephesians"? I had thought that they were taking a "possesive" view
> of her, but what does "Diana" mean? Also, I was under the
> impression that only Hreakles and Mars were truly Latin deities;

the

> rest were borrowed wholesale from the Greeks?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

> Actually, Cato.. there are SEVERAL "minor" dieties that are either
> purely Roman, or based partially in all probability upon early
> contacts with the Latins and the Etrustcans (The Romans are not the
> same as the Latins, though eventually they became one people).
> Herakles is neither. He's the Latin version of Hercules, known
> throughout antiquity (and probably ante-deluvian) under multiple

name

> and titles..

Err... slight correction. "Herakles" is Greek, "Hercules" is Latin. I
think that's my cue to hit the sack.

Kaelus

A. Apollonius Cordus omnibus sal.

I must admit to being slightly puzzled by this concern
about Nova Roma's status on Wikipedia. Until recently
I'd never heard of it, and certainly have never used
it. Is it a noted academic institution, or a branch of
the United Nations? Why are we so eager to have some
sort of recognition from it?





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Galo Agorio Taurino omnibusque
sal.

I may be holding the wrong end of the stick, but it
feels to me like you're getting a little defensive.
Let me assure you that I have no agenda except to
better understand the logic and the evidence behind
your view. If you'd find it more comfortable, I'd be
happy to continue the conversation privately.

> 1. There were Greeks, Greek Gods, and Greek Religion
> before Homer
> (although they didn't fit into such neat categories
> as that- there
> were many tribes, ethnic groupings, etc. all over
> that region, just
> like everywhere else, long before the rise of
> City-States and "Greek"
> as a national identity, mostly focused around
> Athens- which is itself
> a dangerously limiting factor when you think about
> it)

Fair enough, though I think we can agree that Homer's
poems show some very vague sense of a common identity
among Hellenes, at least as against Trojans; although
now I think about it, that may be a purely
circumstancial contrast deriving from the political
and military situation of the Iliad. Anyway, yes,
agreed.

> 2. Homer's Epics cannot be used as Historical
> sources, as you have
> pointed out;

Certainly that's the orthodox academic view. I admit
I'm inclined to be a little more adventurous with
sources, but I quite agree that the actual events
depicted in the poems can't be treated as factual, and
that any conclusions derived from them must be very
tentative.

> 3. We know a considerable amount from archaeology,
> from remains in
> the ground showing burnt offerings, votive
> offerings, and the like,
> suggesting sacrifices and other religious
> activities; many pre-
> Hellenic, pre-Myceanean ruins contain cult centers
> and sanctuaries;
> and much of later Greek religious practises and
> beliefs are thought
> to have a precedent in earlier, more indigenous
> practises, and in the
> case of some (the Cult at Eleusis being the best
> example) a good bit
> of continutiy is suggested. That follows; it's the
> same in Italia,
> and in most regions in Europe.

Again, agreed.

> 4. Bearing in mind that Homer didn't invent the
> pagan religions or
> practises from his part of the world, and that his
> epics can't be
> used as full-stop ethnographic accounts or ritual
> manuals, (they can
> act as valuble sources of information regarding
> these things, but you
> can't just look at them as technical manuals, as I
> have already
> discussed) then we find ourselves in the position
> that all people in
> the modern day find themselves in. We can't just
> ignore Archaeology;
> no one would ignore Homer; and inclining in just one
> direction to the
> exclusion of the other is not wise, nor would it
> result in an honest
> reconstruction.

Yes, indeed.

> To be a Hellenic Reconstructionist, requires the
> consideration of
> many sources. To be a Homeric Reconstructionist only
> requires one.
> I'm a Hellenic Reconstructionist.

Fine, but I've never suggested that you ought to rely
exclusively on Homer. I have merely been questioning
the logic behind your complete dismissal of Homer as a
source for information about the gods, or at least
about how people in Homer's time regarded the gods.

> > Apart from these poems there are very few sources
> > from around that period - there are the Homeric
> hymns,
> > which tell us something about religion but not
> much
> > about families,
>
> There is, to an extent, a large overlap between
> religion and family
> customs; no one doubts that the ancients (in any
> place) didn't have
> an ancestor cultus; it is one of the primal "common
> denominators" of
> all early peoples, world wide. The Homeric Hymns
> make references to
> the ancestral dead.

Yes, fine.

> > and then from slightly later there's
> > Hesiod, who tells us a good deal about mythology
> and
> > about farming, but again not much about how
> children
> > were brought up.
>
> Those 'Farming customs' he talks about are not
> limited just to
> planting and sowing. It covers the structure of
> Households, of
> sharing and collecting wealth in the form of cattle
> and other goods,
> how to treat guests, family, visitors, community
> Ethics, judgements,
> and many other things.

I don't remember anything about the structure of
households, but I'll take your word for it because
it's about three years since I read Works & Days and
to be honest I found it rather boring. :)

> Considering how packed Greek mythology is with
> references to human
> sacrifice, the propitiation of the Dead, and even
> very
> obviously "matrifocal" instances of Goddesses and
> divine beings like
> the feminine Furies punishing sins against the
> Mother, and the family
> as a whole, (which scholars are almost unanimous on
> agreeing that
> these beings stem from a very dim pre-hellenic
> social order, which
> was less patrifocal) we can easily see Athenian
> social structures
> like the Phratry as being something that came down
> to the ancient
> Greeks from a time that probably long pre-dates
> Homer or Hesiod. This
> is the conclusion of evey scholar I have personally
> read, at any rate.

Hmm, okay, I'll accept that conclusion for the
purposes of this conversation, but I'm sure you'll not
take offence if I check for myself when I next have
time to spare. Can you recommend a book or two?

I've omitted to quote your further descriptions of the
phratry, but what I am still unclear on is this: how
do you get from "we know that children received some
religious instruction within the phratry" to
"therefore people did not receive any religious or
mythological information from other sources such as
poetry and drama". There is, as I have suggested, some
evidence (mostly revealed by Wiseman and his fans)
that drama was an important source of mythological
education for ordinary Romans, and of course they too
were given some religious education within the family.
Why could the same not be true for the Greeks?

> >So, you
> > see, I'm wondering how you can so confidently talk
> > about the way families operated and the way
> children
> > learned mythology in a period which was very
> different
> > from the classical period and for which we have
> very
> > few sources.
>
> No one "confidently" talks- we talk with the best
> that we have. You
> can either just say "well, these scholars didn't
> live in ancient
> Greece, so what can they know" and say they were
> wrong, and ignore
> every book written on the subject, or you can agree
> with them, and
> try to base a reconstruction off of the best
> scholarship available.
> There really is no middle ground, if you want to be
> a
> reconstructionist that is more than a Homeric
> Reconstructionist.
>
> Of course, if you are willing to side on the "the
> academians are all
> wrong" side of doubt, and toss all scholarship, you
> might as well
> forget about Roman Reconstructionist Paganism as
> well, or any
> paganism at all, for that matter, that comes from
> Europe.
>
> You might want to go ahead and toss everything we
> know about Egypt,
> Mesopotamia, and Central America as well- as well as
> literally
> thousands of other studies on the Indo-Europeans,
> and other peoples
> all over the globe.

No need to go overboard, Taurine! I just felt that
your statements about social structures before the
time of Homer were excessively categorical given that,
as you yourself have said, they are mostly conjectures
(though fairly probable conjectures) derived partly
from archaeology and partly from projecting back from
the historic period. It seemed to me that some caveats
such as 'probably' and 'to judge from later evidence'
were called for, and these you've now supplied; thank
you.

> > Now, about the inscription at Delphi:
> > Well, there is always the possibility that whoever
> > composed the inscription was simply incorrect; so
> I'm
> > interested in what brings you to the conclusion
> that
> > he or she was not.
>
> I'm sorry, but I have no choice, as a Hellene and as
> a
> Reconstructionist, to believe that the cult of
> Apollon would not have
> allowed a "wrong" statement to adorn the outside of
> his most sacred
> sanctuary. I am not going to sit here and explain
> why I believe this;
> I don't feel that I need to.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to persuade you that the
inscription was wrong. I was simply troubled by your
failure to mention, even when prompted, the
possibility that it could be wrong. It's helpful in
debate, when one is going to dismiss a possibility, to
mention it and explain briefly why one is going to
dismiss it. Otherwise it may give the impression that
one simply hasn't thought of it, which is the
impression you were giving me. You see?

> If I wasn't pagan, and didn't care about Hellenism
> or the Gods, and
> if I didn't care about my ancestors, I might be more
> content to laugh
> it off and suggest that the builders of these
> magnificent works of
> culture and religion were just "wrong-o" and let
> that be that.
>
> But as it is, I feel and I trust that this statement
> was a true
> reflection of the thinking of the Cult of Apollo
> regarding the nature
> of Apollon's great Metis, and not a typographical
> error carved in
> stone.

Okay, I'll accept for the purposes of the argument
that it was correct.

> > Okay; so in that case, why couldn't both the Iliad
> and
> > the inscription at Delphi be true and accurate
> > representations of the nature of the gods?
>
> Because the Iliad is a one-sided, dramatic view,
> which doesn't go
> along with the Cult's belief that Apollon could be
> in many places, in
> many forms. If we believed JUST as the Iliad said,
> he would have to
> be a physical, anthropomorphic being with a bow and
> arrow, and with
> golden hair, and with some very human-like
> proclivities. In short, he
> would be a living comic book hero, with very
> violent, unbecoming
> tendencies, and a large appetite for interfering
> with mortal affairs,
> FULL STOP.

It seems to me that you're treating the Iliad with a
different set of standards to those you're applying to
the inscription. The inscription doesn't give a full
and comprehensive picture of the nature of the god
either, does it? Frankly it doesn't say very much. But
that doesn't stop you accepting what it says as true.
Well, then, why could the information conveyed by the
Iliad not also be true, while also not being a full
and comprehensive description? It never says that the
god was *not* also in many other places simultaneously
in a non-physical way. It just says that on a
particular occasion, he appeared in physical form and
fought in a battle, which, as you agreed in your
previous message, is perfectly compatible with the
inscription from Delphi since a god could exist both
in a physical manifestation and in a non-physical
omnipresence simultaneously. I really cannot see
anything about the inscription which is incompatible
with the Iliad. That's not to say that the Iliad *is*
a true description, just that you have so far provided
no satisfactory evidence to suggest that it isn't.
What is the evidence?





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Equitio Marino Consuli et
amico omnibusque sal.

> I shall forward the list of priorities in the next
> message. Here is the
> Code of Conduct that failed to obtain a majority of
> votes.

Thank you for both.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus M. Vitellio Ligo omnibusque sal.

> Does this set a prescident that a current Censor
> cannot have charges levied
> against him when violations of the constitution are
> clearly alleged? This
> seems a bit much, and does not further the cause of
> justice. In effect, we
> have this renders a standing censor omnipitent and
> in effect can grant
> imperium.

The Consul has already answered most of this, but let
me say a couple of extra things.

Remember that many modern democracies have the
principle of executive immunity, which protects
elected public officers from being prosecuted while in
office. This is a very reasonable principle, for it is
not in the public interest for public officers to
spend their time fighting court cases when they ought
to be serving the public. It doesn't, of course, mean
that they get away with any crimes they commit,
because they can be prosecuted after they leave
office.

It certainly does not make the censores, or any other
magistrates, omnipotent. If a sitting magistrate tries
to do something which is beyond his constitutional
powers, it will simply be ineffective. This doesn't
require any sort of trial. The powers of the
magistrates are clearly defined by law and historical
practice, and if a censor tries to do something he has
no power to do he simply won't succeed.

It also does not remotely resemble a de facto grant of
imperium. Censores were historically immune from
prosecution, but they were not considered in Roman law
to hold imperium.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Pompeiae Minuciae Tiberiae
Straboni omnibusque sal.

There is an old Confucian principle that one ought to
treat others as one would prefer to be treated. I
believe a certain fellow from Judaea said something
similar a few centuries later, also. I find it
extremely tedious to have to wade through masses of
quotation, since I am perfectly capable of remembering
what was said a mere couple of days ago and equally
capable of checking in the archives if I have
forgotten. Accordingly I do not include masses of
quotation in my messages, since I credit my
correspondents with intelligence and powers of memory
equal to or greater than mine. I can't see that such a
practice could even in the wildest paranoid fantasies
amount to a deliberate attempt to deceive those who
read my messages, since I always preserve enough to
make it clear what I am responding to, and since in
any case it is all a matter of public record, making
any attempt to deceive utterly ineffective. Frankly I
think your reprimands could be far better kept for
those (and there are not a few of them) who habitually
omit to quote anything at all and do not even say whom
they are addressing, or for those (equally numerous)
who habitually quote an entire digest in order to make
a one-sentence reply. However, since you evidently
prefer to have every item of the entire correspondence
quoted back to you, I shall oblige when writing to
you; when writing to others I shall keep my usual
practice, since no one else has ever complained about
it. I shan't venture to imagine that even doing
precisely what you ask will stop you believing that I
am engaged in some dastardly plot, since that seems to
have become an article of faith for you, but at least
it will give you one thing less to complain about. So,
please find below the quotation of the entirety of
your last message, altered only for me to insert my
responses. May the gods of bandwidth forgive you.

--- pompeia_minucia_tiberia
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

> ---Salvete Apollonius Cordus et Salvete Omnes:
>
> Although this is a bit after the fact, I think there
> are some
> elements which bear a certain degree of
> attention...one can always
> press the delete key if one feels otherwise, nonne?

Indeed.

>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius
> Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus Pompeiae Minuciae Tiberiae
> > Straboni omnibusque sal.
> >
> > At the end of your message, you wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to continue this discussion, please
> > > carry the 'whole'
> > > conversation, and where you have snipped,
> indicate
> > > as such, whether
> > > you are snipping your words or mine...that way
> > > everything is kept
> > > straight. If not, never mind...it is your choice
> > > entirely.
> >
> > Since you ask, I'll do what I can to make it
> > absolutely clear what changes I've made to your
> text.
> > The first change I've made is to take this, your
> last
> > paragraph, and put it first.
> >
> > Next, I have gone back to beginning of your
> message,
> > and deleted the bits in which you quoted your
> previous
> > message and my response to it. So we go straight
> to
> > the beginning of your latest response.
>
> Pompeia: You have also deleted texts of yours to
> which I responded
> to in the last thread, and proceed to respond to my
> response (see
> below) I find you do this often in your
> discussions, only to
> say 'you need to go back and reread what I
> wrote'...or some such
> thing...alas

I've replied to most of this above, but let me also
say this: yes, I agree that it would be sensible and
helpful of me, if I want people to re-read what I
wrote, to quote it again. The reason I do not
habitually do this is simply this: I expect people to
read it properly the first time.

> >
> > > Respondeo: After I realized that I had
> accidentally
> > > used the wrong
> > > nomen in identifying the defendent in
> question...I
> > > thought "I wonder
> > > if Apollonius Cordus will point this out, as if
> it
> > > is the main idea
> > > of my initial post, perseverate on it at length,
> > > then proceed to
> > > lecture me on social inproprieties as though I
> > > 'deliberately' used
> > > the wrong nomen out of some 'assumed' ignorance
> and
> > > disrespect for
> > > Roman ancestory, or some such thing"...well, I
> see
> > > my crystal ball is
> > > working quite well...
> >
> > Yes, your precognitive powers are remarkable! Or
> > perhaps you just know how I think.
>
> Pompeia: I'll suggest that you have some rather
> predictable
> consistencies, how's that?

If I were a stoic I should take that as a compliment
(for the stoics valued consistency even more highly
than doing the right thing in a given circumstance).
Since I am not, and since it is a comment from you
addressed to me, I shall take it as an insult, for
which please be assured that I take no offence.

> >
> > Of course, I could quite reasonably say, "if you
> > thought that, why didn't you write a little post
> > correcting your mistake?" :)
>
> Pompeia: If you have little else going on to worry
> about, yes, I
> suppose...see below >>
> >
> > > At any rate, F. Apulus Caesar is a friend of
> mine
> > > and knows I do not
> > > deliberately berate him in public or hold his
> > > ancestory in
> > > disrespect. G. Agorius Taurinus' ancestory is
> not a
> > > question to me
> > > either, and he certainly isn't shy about making
> his
> > > needs known. If
> > > either of these citizens feel in any way injured
> or
> > > discouraged in
> > > their Roman walk by what is perceived to be an
> > > intentially placed
> > > socially grotesque transgression on my part
> against
> > > either of them as
> > > described above by Apollonius, I shall issue
> public
> > > apology to you
> > > both...
> >
> > I didn't perceive it or describe it as deliberate,
> and
> > I made that perfectly clear in my message. Please
> do
> > read what I write before you decide whether to
> take
> > umbrage. I was merely trying to point out that we
> > should all take even more care with names than
> with
> > other words.
>
> Pompeia: But few will know for sure...because you
> didn't carry the
> paragraph containing your statements to which I am
> responding
> above. You do not carry the whole
> conversation...nobody is going to
> bother going back and tracing a statement regarding
> a trivial
> affair or either social grace or law. I hope you
> don't think this
> is an advantageous thing to do, to your credit...I'm
> afraid it is
> regarded as an evasive technique. You could be
> Cicero, but if you
> do not present all the facts, people are not going
> to assume you are
> entirely correct simply because you are you. Same
> with me, but I
> carry my posts and mark 'snip' where I've deleted
> sentences,
> fostering continuity and accountability for 'all' of
> what I say, not
> just parts.

As I mentioned above, I do not take the view that the
readers of this list are chronic amnesiacs, or that
they are unable to look up in the archives anything
which they care to check.

> >
> > > Anyway, to the points of law....
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, it is not an established legal fact
> that
> > > a
> > > > nota can be the subject of a provocatio ad
> > > populum. I
> > > > know of no example of such a thing in Roman
> > > history,
> > > > and on the other hand it was a clear
> convention of
> > > > Roman law that the acts of a censorial college
> > > could
> > > > not be obstructed or overthrown except by a
> later
> > > > censorial college.
> > >
> > > Respondeo: As has been pointed out to you by
> > > others...'that was then'
> > > and 'this is now'...as much as we could like to
> say
> > > NR laws parallel
> > > the laws of antiquita, they do not....for a
> plethora
> > > of reasons which
> > > are the subject of another post.
> > >
> > > There is nothing stating that Censoral decisions
> in
> > > NR are immune
> > > from an appeal to the Comitia Popli
> Tributa...the
> > > decision of
> > > a 'magistrate'...you may review the language.
> > >
> > > Further, where is it written that a nota and a
> trial
> > > cannot exist
> > > concurrently? Perhaps the absurdity lies within
> the
> > > fact that they
> > > are "allowed" to proceed simultaneously, but
> > > currently in NR it is
> > > an option, regardless of how one feels about the
> > > situation.
> >
> > For my further comments on this interesting
> question,
> > please see the Laws list, where I'll write in a
> little
> > while to try to answer your points and others.
>
>
> Pompeia: So your response to the above is being
> written on the laws
> list? Why not here? You invited this discussion,
> not I.
> Whatever...I'll look when I get a chance.

Not here because the case itself is no longer a live
issue, so the questions it raised are purely
theoretical and thus better suited, in my opinion, to
a law dedicated particularly to theoretical
discussions of law. But if you would prefer, as I
suspect, to believe that I moved from one venue to
another for some nefarious reason which I have tried
to conceal by clever editing, I have not the energy to
dissuade you.

>
>
> >
> > > To further address the legals of your remarks
> on
> > > the 'absurdity' of
> > > an appeal of a nota to the CPT (in NR or just
> > > antiquita or both?),
> > > and the relevance of lack of 'established fact'
> in
> > > antiquita in the
> > > assessment of this case (see your paragraph
> above)
> > > I refer you to
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > On Jan. 26 2757 a nota was issued by the Censors
> > > against L. Sicinius
> > > Drusus, message 20108.
> > >
> > > On Jan. 26 2757, the above citizen appealed the
> > > right of Provacatio
> > > to appeal this decision to the Comitia Popli
> > > Tributa, message 20111.
> > >
> > > On Jan. 26 2757, Consul G. Equitius Marinus
> stated
> > > "As Consul I
> > > recognize your right of provacatio...", message
> > > 20114.
> > >
> > > Subsequent to this,internal arrangements were
> > > apparently made which
> > > did not involve provacatio ad populum
> proceedings,
> > > as the nota as I
> > > understand it, was removed in favour of a
> consensual
> > > agreement of
> > > alternate terms between Sicinius Drusus and the
> > > Censors.
> > >
> > > On Jan. 27 2757, A. Apollonius Cordus, I believe
> > > that's you, (and I
> > > hope I've spelled the name correctly), gave a
> > > lengthy oration of this
> > > appraisal of the details, reasons, and legal
> > > implications of this
> > > interesting case. You pointed out to me, and
> this
> > > was and is well
> > > taken, that a nota (paraphrasing) centers more
> on
> > > the public morality
> > > issues, as opposed to 'legal', although it seems
> to
> > > me both can
> > > certainly intermix, as in this case, and
> apparently,
> > > may occur
> > > simultaneously, as there is no law stating
> > > otherwise. ... the
> > > discourse in question is message 20138.
> > >
> > > Your discourse was an interesting read, but you
> > > never called the
> > > notion of a provocatio appeal of a nota
> > > 'absurd'...you never
> > > addressed it at all, unless you addressed the
> notion
> > > in a subsequent
> > > post. I just wonder why you think it is so
> absurd
> > > now, especially
> > > in light of a well-publicized precedent in NR,
> which
> > > you yourself
> > > took the time to comment on? Just wondering...
> you
> > > usually point out
> > > when something legally malaligns antiquita, or
> when
> > > an idea doesn't
> > > seem plausible to you.
> >
> > Yes, you have spelled my name perfectly. Thank you
> for
> > taking care with it.
> >
> > You'll notice that at the beginning of the message
> you
> > refer to I wrote that I would be addressing "as
> few as
> > I can manage" of the many issues arising from that
> > nota. That is one of the reasons I didn't comment
> on
> > the issue of provocatio: it simply wasn't one of
> the
> > most urgent matters at the time. The propriety and
> > even the legality of the original nota were still
> > being disputed; the first task seemed to me to be
> to
> > establish clearly that the nota was both legal and
> > appropriate. I had only a little time to write on
> that
> > day. The following day was dedicated to Concordia,
> so
> > I didn't say anything on that day. By the next day
> the
> > issue of provocatio had rather dropped off the
> > horizon, I think.
> >
> > I have a vague recollection of thinking to myself
> that
> > any attempt to actually set up a trial to overturn
> the
> > nota would have to be vetoed, and that I would ask
> the
> > tribunes to veto it. Possibly that's me re-writing
> > history in retrospect, but it may well have been
> what
> > was in my mind at the time. At any rate I remember
> > seeing that Senator Drusus had appealed and
> thinking
> > that that was perfectly in keeping with his
> disregard
> > for or ignorance of Roman law; and I remember
> seeing
> > that the Consul had accepted and thinking that it
> was
> > a shame that his efficiency and desire to deal see
> > things done fairly had made him spring in to
> action
> > before anyone had had a chance to mention to him
> that
> > a nota might not be liable to appeal. But the
> prospect
> > of an appeal before the comitia seemed pretty
> remote
> > after a couple of days anyway, since moves were
> afoot
> > to have the nota itself lifted.
>
> Pompeia: Strange that you wouldn't remember an
> incident of which you
> expended so much introspection. 'a nota might not
> be liable to
> appeal' is a far cry from the whole notion being
> absurd, which is
> how you challenged my thoughts in your response to
> me. It is this
> that I disagree with, and I think three others do
> too, as it is
> written in our constitution. Nobody is saying that
> it is not
> subject to Tribunal scruitany...the actions of any
> magistrate, even
> I know that :) That is also a far cry from a citizen
> not being able
> to lanch an appeal.

I have not said that it is absurd to consider notae
susceptible to appeal. I have said that in this
particular case, an appeal against Taurinus' nota
would have given rise to an absurd situation of two
independent trials running simultaneously to examine
identical charges.

>
> >
> > May I also point out that precedent is not binding
> > either in Roman or in Novaroman law?
>
> Pompeia: You may, but I am aware of this also.
> Precedents are
> worthy of examination though, giving us a history of
> how certain
> things were handled under the circumstances and why.
> We do not have
> to use them, but they remain a guide of what we
> 'may' and 'should'
> do.
> >
> > > I will address your 'assumptions' in the
> paragraph
> > > at the bottom of
> > > the page.
> > > >
> > > > It would also, in this particular case, be
> utterly
> > > > absurd for Taurinus to appeal against the
> nota,
> > > since
> > > > that would result in two trials simultaneously
> > > > examining precisely the same charges.
> > > >
> > > > I presume, however, that the nota will be
> lifted
> > > when
> > > > the court has pronounced sentence one way or
> the
> > > > other, since another Roman legal convention
> holds
> > > that
> > > > no citizen should be punished by both a nota
> and a
> > > > court sentence.
> > >
> > > Respondeo: One may certainly argue so, but again
> > > this is NR, and I'm
> > > afraid you 'assume' amuch, and things are not
> > > always cut and
> > > dry...nor is everything or everyone
> > > 'reasonable'...the law says this,
> > > but 'lets be reasonable' has not been the norm
> of
> > > legal behaviour to
> > > date in NR for a select few. The courts in the
> > > Taurinus situation
> > > have pronounced sentence of sorts, a decision if
> you
> > > will, 'one way
> > > or the other' (your verbage): the charges have
> been
> > > dropped. But
> > > alas, in message 28081 of Aug 29 or 30, 2757,
> one
> > > date or the other,
> > > I am reading from Censor Sulla that upon
> > > 'verification of the
> > > accuracy of his citizenship I will speak to my
> > > colleague regarding
> > > the removal of the nota'. Censor Sulla's
> second
> > > sentence makes no
> > > sense to me whatsoever, due to grammatical
> > > incorrectness...unless I
> > > am just not getting it, after a 12 hour shift.
> > >
> > > But apparently Taurinus will be the subject of
> a
> > > nota unless Censor
> > > Sulla's queries are satisfied... I guess. Should
> we
> > > uphold nota that
> > > were issued on reasons the courts have examined
> and
> > > dismissed? If
> > > there is immorality within a proven 'illegality'
> I
> > > can understand
> > > that. But I cannot see a ruling of immorality
> when
> > > it has been
> > > established judicially that an 'illegality'
> cannot
> > > be proven. But it
> > > boils down to the difference between 'can' and
> > > 'should', and 'can'
> > > and 'will'. I am not sure that a more
> scrutinized
> > > verification of
> > > one citizen's accuracy can be reasonably
> demanded,
> > > over and above
> > > that which is expected of anyone else who join
> NR on
> > > pain of Nota,
> > > but I am not the Censor...
> >
> > My understanding is that the nota was issued
> primarily
> > to ensure that Agorius Taurinus could not vote
> while
> > his eligibility to do so remained in doubt. There
> was,
> > indeed, a need to ensure that, as I'm sure you
> will
> > agree - a trial might have taken some time to
> arrange,
> > and it would not have done to allow him to vote
> during
> > that time. If it had not been for that need, then
> it
> > would have been improper for the censors to have
> > issued a nota regarding this case at all.
>
> Pompeia: I thought, from reading Censor Sulla's
> posts, the nota
> was issued because of the implied immoralities of a
> person who would
> lie about his citizen application, with the
> byproduct of not being
> able to vote. To my mind, it can't be assumed it
> was primarily to
> stop him from voting, because after the charges were
> dropped, one of
> which included Voter Fraud, the Censor continued to
> uphold the nota
> until he was satisfied that the reus' information of
> citizenship was
> accurate to his satisfaction...if the voting
> eligibility issue was
> the primary concern, he would have lifted the nota
> right away, as I
> see it, based on the Censor's statements to the
> mainlist.
>
> But, but, it is entirely possible that you are a
> better rapport and
> are more privy to his plans and reasoning than I am,
> and thus are in
> a better position to comment...otherwise you are
> speculating.

Because I was concerned about the imposition of the
nota, I immediately contacted the Censores to ask the
reason. I was informed that the primary reason was to
prevent Taurinus from voting until his eligibility to
do so could be clarified, and that the intention was
to lift it when the matter had been clarified.

As for your point that "if the voting eligibility
issue was the primary concern, he would have lifted
the nota right away", it seems to me that, on the
contrary, the concern about eligibility to vote is
precisely the reason why the Censores did not lift the
nota immediately. The Consul dropped his prosection
because he was shown evidence which satisfied him that
Taurinus was not guilty of the charges. But perhaps
the Censores were not shown the same evidence until
somewhat later; accordingly, they did not lift the
nota, since they were not yet satisfied. I don't know
the facts here, but that seems to me an eminently
plausible explanation. Another possibility I can
imagine is that the Consul, since he was acting as an
individual citizen, was able to make his decision
instantly, whereas the Censores, who are required to
act collegially, had to take some time to consult one
another, probably among many other tasks they had to
perform as part of their normal duties. That, too,
could account for the delay. Perhaps there is another
reason. Have you asked them?

>
>
> It would
> > have been desirable for Taurinus' ability to vote
> > until the trial was over to be suspended in some
> other
> > way, but at present our laws don't allow for that
> to
> > be done in any other way that I can think of.
> Perhaps
> > it would be a good idea for the law to be changed
> to
> > specify that someone whose eligibility to vote is
> to
> > be the subject of a trial may not vote until the
> trial
> > had ended. But as things stood at the time, I
> think
> > the Censores were right to issue that nota, even
> > though it was not entirely in keeping with Roman
> > practice. (Incidentally, I did write to the
> Censores
> > at the time to pick over these points with them.)
> >
> > If the purpose of the nota was as I've said, then
> it
> > would only be sensible for it to be lifted now,
> unless
> > the Censores are not satisfied that Taurinus is
> > innocent and wish to consider prosecuting him
> > themselves. Perhaps that's what they are
> considering.
> > Or perhaps they're considering whether Taurinus
> may
> > have committed some impropriety worthy of a nota
> even
> > if he has not committed a legal offence. I'm
> afraid I
> > don't know.
> >
> > Incidentally, you're not correct when you say that
> "it
> > has been established judicially that an
> 'illegality'
> > cannot be proven". There has been no judicial
> process
> > whatever, and nothing has been established
> judicially.
> > What has happened is that the prosecutor has been
> > satisfied in his own mind that it would not be
> proper
> > for him to proceed with his case, and so he has
> > withdrawn the charges. That doesn't mean that the
> > charges have been proven false. It just means that
> one
> > person has chosen not to prosecute.
>
> Pompeia: It all depends on what the nota was issued
> for, I would
> think. To me, the above seems to ignore the premise
> of innocent
> until proven guilty...so you are recommending that
> we think: 'ok,
> the charges have been dropped, but just in case
> there was foul play
> involved that we just couldn't prosecute, we shall
> continue with the
> nota?" Judicial and illegality , perhaps? For
> purposes of this
> discussion, I do believe you are splitting hairs.

People are innocent in the eyes of the law until they
are proven guilty. That doesn't mean that private
individuals are obliged to regard them as innocent in
the absence of any evidence. Private individuals are
entitled to believe whatever they please, and once
accusations have been made they tend to linger unless
put to rest by a fully acquittal. For that reason, I
would have advised Taurinus to go ahead with a trial.
But perhaps he had other reasons to wish to avoid a
trial of which I'm unaware. Anyway, so long as he's
satisfied with the outcome, his advocate has done his
job well.

It would certainly have been unjust for the Censores
to leave the nota in place just in case there had been
some irregularity. I didn't suggest that that had
happened, and indeed events have shown that it did
not. What I suggested, and still suggest, is that the
Censores had not yet seen or examined the evidence
which the Consul had seen and examined, and that
therefore they allowed the nota to remain in place
until they themselves were satisfied.

>
>
> From what you and
> > I know of the prosecutor, we may both be confident
> > that he has dropped the charges for no reason
> other
> > than that he believes the charges are not true.
> But
> > even that doesn't mean that they have been proven
> to
> > be untrue by a judicial process - they have not.
> > That's one of the principal reasons why I, had I
> been
> > Taurinus' advocate, would have advised him not to
> try
> > to get the charges dropped but to go through with
> a
> > trial and be acquitted. Then he would indeed have
> been
> > proven innocent. As it is, he is *presumably*
> > innocent, because no one's saying otherwise, but
> > nothing has been proven either way.
> >
> > > In either case, the nota in NR is appealable by
> > > provocatio. It was
> > > for Drusus...it is for Taurinus...there is
> > > nothing... no language to
> > > currently prevent it...and it would seem to me
> that
> > > it might be his
> > > only recourse for a final decision on this
> matter,
> > > 'one way or the
> > > other'
> >
> > Let me assure you that your extreme confidence in
> your
> > own rightness is misplaced.
>
> Pompeia: When all else fails, let's get
> sarcastic..'it would seem to
> me' and 'might' are not words suggesting an 'extreme
> confidence' in
> my own 'rightness' For someone who butchers posts by
> deleting his
> own texts so they can't be crossreferenced in the
> thread should be
> adjusting the wrinkles of his own toga before
> worrying about the
> attitudes of others...

I assure you that there was no iota of sarcasm in my
remark. It seemed, and seems, to me that "the nota in
NR is appealable by provocatio" was a statement which
did not admit any uncertainty, and thus could quite
reasonably be seen as a confident statement which you
believed to be correct and indisputable. That struck
me as rather over-confident, since it patently is
disputable (you can tell by the fact that I'm
disputing it).

>
> And might I say, that some of law is interpretation
> and application
> as well as knowing what the laws 'say'...that is why
> I hesitate to
> present myself as some 'vicar' of Roman law...there
> are many
> variables, and admittedly there are persons more
> educated in this
> area than I am. But I am entitled to my opinion,
> and O Cordus, Woe
> is you, I shall express it...

But perhaps if you wish to protect yourself from
accusations of misplaced confidence you would be
better to give it as an opinion rather than as
statement of fact.

>
>
> It is far from settled
> > that a nota can be overturned by the comitia.
> There
> > are very strong reasons to think otherwise, not
> least
> > of which is that if any attempt is made to call
> the
> > comitia to hear such an appeal, I shall be asking
> the
> > tribunes to veto it.
>
> Pompeia: Just reread what you wrote above.
> Although you have cited
> some misgivings in this thread, I find this one a
> trifle amusing
>
>
> "not the least of which is that if any attempt is
> made to call the
> comitia to hear such an appeal, I shall be asking
> the tribunes to
> veto it..."...that is not a 'strong'
> reason'...because 'you are 'you
> and 'you' want it..they'll look at the whole
> picture,what's in our
> constitution now, and the spirit of that. I'm sure
> they will look at
> your information, but they will examine its
> rationale as well. I
> don't think they will just take what you say at face
> value. It
> would be an interesting ruling, one we will never
> see..although its
> a shame we didn't get to see a Tribunal reaction to
> the 'strong
> reason' you present above for foregoing the appeal.

My brain is growing rather tired trying to understand
what you mean. I think you're saying that the tribunes
won't veto something just because I ask them to. Quite
so. But the fact that I would ask them is, in itself,
a reason - yes, a strong reason - to think that the
appellability of notae is not certain. Note that that
is what I was saying there were strong reasons for:
not reasons to believe that notae are not appellable,
but strong reasons to think that they may not be, and
that whether or not they are is not settled. The fact
that we haven't yet seen what would happen in the
event of a request for a veto shows that the matter is
not settled. That is the point.

>
>
>
> Further, we have to be careful, I think, in throwing
> a template over
> every appeal for provocatio appeals..every case is
> different,
> depends on the nature of the nota I think, for one.

I don't agree. It would, it seems to me, be the height
of iniquity to regard some notae as appellable and
others not. Either they are, or they are not. In my
opinion they are not, but I would prefer either option
to the highly unjust situation of "it depends on the
nature of the nota".

>
>
> I would have to have a very strong reason for
> wanting someone's
> rights under the constitution vetoed too, and I
> don't. But that is
> me.

I don't take the rights enumerated in the constitution
very seriously because they are nonsensical. It is
very hard to apply a law which cannot withstand a few
moments of grammatical analysis. If you are determined
to see those rights applied literally and without
exception, you will find yourself in considerable
difficulties.

>
>
>
>
> >
> > > ...valete
> > >
> > > If you want to continue this discussion, please
> > > carry the 'whole'
> > > conversation, and where you have snipped,
> indicate
> > > as such, whether
> > > you are snipping your words or mine...that way
> > > everything is kept
> > > straight. If not, never mind...it is your choice
> > > entirely.
> >
> > I hope my conduct has been satifactory.
>
> Pompeia: No, it hasn't. But I'm not your mother.
> I find your
> bebate techniques, bright as you are, equate with
> Mirror-style
> reporting (or Nationale Enquirer), or William Regal
> style wrestling,
> for reasons I have digressed on in the above.

Your allusions are completely lost on me, unless the
Mirror you refer to is any relation to the Daily
Mirror tabloid newspaper in Britain, in which case I
shall take this as another insult, for which again I
take no offence.

>
> Ahh, I guess that's why I have to take a round out
> of you from time
> to time...especially when you step into the ring
> first :)

If you think your periodic barrages damage my
reputation or self-esteem is the slightest, I doubt
you're correct. Perhaps you would like to take an
opinion poll? That way if it turns out that your
attempts to drag me through the mud are, as I suspect,
abject failures, you can save yourself the trouble
next time.

I've no further comments, but you may enjoy below the
full and unedited quotation of the rest of your
message.

>
> Vale
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

>
> Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
>

http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Cordus

Also, it has been estabilished in Nova Roma the principle that a sitting
magistrate CAN indeed be the object of a petitio actionis (and in this the
praetor made a huge mistake dismissing teh petitio on the reason the reus
was a sitting magistrate, ignoring a precendent), but the actual trial would
be held after the magistrate ends his term. And that was true even in the
ancient Rome. Now, if the office of Censor was an exception in antuiquity or
it is an exceptionin Nova Roma, that's another matter.

vale

DCF



--------- Original Message --------
Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Petitio Actionis
Data: 01/09/04 13:24

>
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus M. Vitellio Ligo omnibusque sal.
>
> > Does this set a prescident that a current Censor
> > cannot have charges levied
> > against him when violations of the constitution are
> > clearly alleged? This
> > seems a bit much, and does not further the cause of
> > justice. In effect, we
> > have this renders a standing censor omnipitent and
> > in effect can grant
> > imperium.
>
> The Consul has already answered most of this, but let
> me say a couple of extra things.
>
> Remember that many modern democracies have the
> principle of executive immunity, which protects
> elected public officers from being prosecuted while in
> office. This is a very reasonable principle, for it is
> not in the public interest for public officers to
> spend their time fighting court cases when they ought
> to be serving the public. It doesn't, of course, mean
> that they get away with any crimes they commit,
> because they can be prosecuted after they leave
> office.
>
> It certainly does not make the censores, or any other
> magistrates, omnipotent. If a sitting magistrate tries
> to do something which is beyond his constitutional
> powers, it will simply be ineffective. This doesn't
> require any sort of trial. The powers of the
> magistrates are clearly defined by law and historical
> practice, and if a censor tries to do something he has
> no power to do he simply won't succeed.
>
> It also does not remotely resemble a de facto grant of
> imperium. Censores were historically immune from
> prosecution, but they were not considered in Roman law
> to hold imperium.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Scegli il motore di ricerca Wizard NotebookÂ’s Shop e trova il
Notebook dei tuoi sogni con un clickÂ… Acer, Asus, HP, Toshiba, Sony
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2649&d=20040901

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

>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.
>
> Gaius Iulius Scaurus, as an Aedile, had Imperium. Something that

Censors do

> not possess.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
> Tribunus Plebis
>

G. Popillius Laenas Praetor G. Modio Athanasio salutem dicit

If you are implying that immunity from prosecution while in office
requires imperium, I disagree.

See Consul marinus' post # 28,196. I believe it summarizes the
issue very concisely

vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:

> Salve Cordus
>
> Also, it has been estabilished in Nova Roma the principle that a

sitting

> magistrate CAN indeed be the object of a petitio actionis (and in

this the

> praetor made a huge mistake dismissing teh petitio on the reason

the reus

> was a sitting magistrate, ignoring a precendent), but the actual

trial would

> be held after the magistrate ends his term. And that was true even

in the

> ancient Rome. Now, if the office of Censor was an exception in

antuiquity or

> it is an exceptionin Nova Roma, that's another matter.
>
> vale
>
> DCF
>

G. Popillius Laenas Praetor D. Constantino Fusco salutem dicit.

Salve,

Would you mind citing the precedent you are referring to?

In fact, the actor may resubmit his petitio to the new praetors once
Censor Sulla's term ends. My dismissal of the current petitio does
not remove that right. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in the Lex
Salicia Ivdiciaria.

Vale.

EDICTVM AEDILICIVM V - LVDI ROMANI MMDCCLVII AVC
Ex Officio Curulis Aedilis Marci Iulii Perusiani

I. According to the Official Calendar of the Nova Roman festivals (http://www.novaroma.org/calendar/september.html), from September 5th to September 19th 2005, the Ludi Romani will be celebrated.

II. It's a honor and a pleasure for me and my Cohors to offer to the Nova Romans the following games:

a. Ludi Circenses
from Sept 5 to Sept 19, by Q Salix Cantaber
(*** SUBSCRIPTIONS NOW OPEN to ludis@... ***)

b. Historical Contest
from Sept 6th to Sept 10th and from Sept 13rd to Sept 17th,
by L Iulius Sulla

c. Photo quiz
from Sept 6th to Sept 10th and from Sept 13rd to Sept 17th,
by M Iulius Perusianus

III. Rules and modalities of each of these events will be published on the NR main list before the beginning of the Ludi Romani.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given on Kalendis Septembris in the year of the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn. Equitius Marinus.

September 1st 2757

M. Iulius Perusianus
Aedilis Curulis



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Companion - Scarica gratis la toolbar di Ricerca di Yahoo!

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

Salve Praetor

your (sitting) collegue and the Consul both agreed on the fact a sitting
magistrate can be subject to a petitio, while the actual trial would be held
at the end of the magistrate term. Your collegue went a step further,
accepting my petitio against Scaurus, sitting aediles, postponing the trial
to a later date. I think both the Consul and your collegue Praetor will have
no problem confirming that. That actually is a precedent, which you ignored.


Now:

a) Either the precedent praetor (and the consul with him) was wrong about
the possibility of accepting a petitio against a sitting magistrate under
teh condition that the trial had to be celebraed at a later date

or

b) The office of Censor has to be treated differently than the one of
Aediles, which is indeed possible, but in this case I'd like to hear a
justification from you on the matter

or

c) you were wrong on rejecting a petitio on the only justification that the
reus was a sitting magistrate. The fact that the actor can resubmit the
action doesn't eliminate the mistake.


Incidentally, and that's something apparently anyone who has exercised the
powers of praetor directly or indirectly in the last months apprently failed
to see, a Praetor can only reject a petitio only if, *and only if* (why
apparently no one reads the lex Iudiciaria? Not even teh praetores?):

a) he lacks competence on the case or
b) either of the parties are not sui juris or
b) The claim is incongruent

All the rest, included the verification of the status of the reus and the
judgmenet on any defence and exceptio, for the law of Nova Roma (not the one
of Roma antiqua, but here we have an explicit Nova Roma law overriding
ancient procedure), should be left to the judices. Now, considering that the
fact Sulla is a magistrate surely doesn't fall into any of the three
categories above, among the rest, you also abused your powers (I'm genuinely
sure, in good faith, and you are not even the first one to do so), by
arrogating yourself something that the judices should had decided.

that's all and, believe me, all said without personal acrimony.

Vale

DCF


--------- Original Message --------
Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Petitio Actionis
Data: 01/09/04 15:34

>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> <dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:
> > Salve Cordus
> >
> > Also, it has been estabilished in Nova Roma the principle that a
> sitting
> > magistrate CAN indeed be the object of a petitio actionis (and in
> this the
> > praetor made a huge mistake dismissing teh petitio on the reason
> the reus
> > was a sitting magistrate, ignoring a precendent), but the actual
> trial would
> > be held after the magistrate ends his term. And that was true even
> in the
> > ancient Rome. Now, if the office of Censor was an exception in
> antuiquity or
> > it is an exceptionin Nova Roma, that's another matter.
> >
> > vale
> >
> > DCF
> >
>
>
> G. Popillius Laenas Praetor D. Constantino Fusco salutem dicit.
>
> Salve,
>
> Would you mind citing the precedent you are referring to?
>
> In fact, the actor may resubmit his petitio to the new praetors once
> Censor Sulla's term ends. My dismissal of the current petitio does
> not remove that right. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in the Lex
> Salicia Ivdiciaria.
>
> Vale.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Telefonare all'estero risparmiando fino all'80%? Con Email.it Phone Card
puoi, clicca e scopri tutti i vantaggi
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2683&d=20040901

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Ambrosi,
>
> Gaius Ambrosius Artorus wrote:
>
> > See: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/1998-05-26-i.html
>
> Thanks for the reference.
>
> I have established that this recognition dates from a time when
> Nova Roma was an active member of the micronations community, and
> that Corvinia does not satisfy the criteria later established by
> the Senate for diplomatic recognition. Apparently the Senate
> considered removing the recognition but decided to leave it in
> place since Corvinia hadn't done anything blatantly offensive,
> and had recognized us.

Essentially that's correct. Corvinia recognized us when we were a
handful of people and helped bring added attention to NR. They were
actually much bigger than us then. It wouldn't be recognized today
by Nova Roma but I think we keep it as a way to remember those early
days, thank them for their help and because as you say they've done
nothing offensive or drawn undue attention to themselves.

> If there's a sense that our recognition of Corvinia is damaging
> us, I can propose to the Senate that we reconsider withdrawl of
> that diplomatic recognition.

I don't think it hurts us any more than the entire concept of
diplomatic recognition or micronations, so while those remain we
might as well continue to recognize Corvinia. I see no reason for the
moment to change their status as long as they are still extant.

Vale,

Palladius

G. Popillius Laenas Praetor D. Constantino Fusco salutem dicit.

> Salve Praetor
>
> your (sitting) collegue and the Consul both agreed on the fact a

sitting

> magistrate can be subject to a petitio, while the actual trial

would be held

> at the end of the magistrate term. Your collegue went a step

further,

> accepting my petitio against Scaurus, sitting aediles, postponing

the trial

> to a later date. I think both the Consul and your collegue Praetor

will have

> no problem confirming that. That actually is a precedent, which

you ignored.

>

LAENAS: I did not consult with Marcus Arminius, since I did not
realize he had been involved in your case. I did, however, consult
with Consul Marinus.

In is my understanding based on that consultation that he did indeed
dismiss you petitio in a manner consistent with my dismissal of the
petitio against Censor Sulla. The precedent of your case,
therefore, does indeed support my decision in the case of censor
Sulla.

> Now:
>
> a) Either the precedent praetor (and the consul with him) was

wrong about

> the possibility of accepting a petitio against a sitting

magistrate under

> teh condition that the trial had to be celebraed at a later date

LAENAS: Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of the actual decision,
and, at any rate, a fine point or procedure really.

As I mentioned, as a practical matter, any actor can resubmit a
dismissed petitio to successor Praetors. In either your case, or
that of Censor Sulla, the successor Praetors would take office at
the same time the office of the reus expires.

Since Praetor, Arminius will not be in office when G. Iulius
Scaurus' term of office as Aedile is over, it is difficult for me to
understand how procedurally he could accept a petitio and then
schedule a trial for a time when he no longer holds the magistracy
needed to preside over a trial.

More likely, you will, if you still desire to pursue the matter,
have to resubmit the petitio to whoever the Praetors are on January
1st 2758.

>
> or
>
> b) The office of Censor has to be treated differently than the one

of

> Aediles, which is indeed possible, but in this case I'd like to

hear a

> justification from you on the matter

LAENAS: Consul Marinus cites differences for the office of Censor
in his post #28,217, although I did not rely on these differences in
reaching my decision.

>
> or
>
> c) you were wrong on rejecting a petitio on the only justification

that the

> reus was a sitting magistrate. The fact that the actor can

resubmit the

> action doesn't eliminate the mistake.

LAENAS: As explained above, I believe my decision was the correct
procedure. If fact, I fail to see how the alternative would work as
I have outlined.

>
>
> Incidentally, and that's something apparently anyone who has

exercised the

> powers of praetor directly or indirectly in the last months

apprently failed

> to see, a Praetor can only reject a petitio only if, *and only if*

(why

> apparently no one reads the lex Iudiciaria? Not even teh

praetores?):

LAENAS: Here sir, you insult me and my dignitas and apparently that
of that of Marcus Arminius and Consul Marinus (smiley faces not
withstanding – putting :) after the comment does not remove the
insult).

I have read in detail the Lex Salicia Ivdicairia and the Lex Salicia
Poenalis. In fact, I printed them out and reviewed them before ever
declaring for Praetor Suffectus in May of this year.

>
> a) he lacks competence on the case or
> b) either of the parties are not sui juris or
> b) The claim is incongruent
>
> All the rest, included the verification of the status of the reus

and the

> judgmenet on any defence and exceptio, for the law of Nova Roma

(not the one

> of Roma antiqua, but here we have an explicit Nova Roma law

overriding

> ancient procedure), should be left to the judices.

LAENAS: I disagree that the Lex Salicia Ivdiciaria "overrides
ancient procedure". Here in Nova Roma we are guided by the mos
maiorum as well as by our enacted laws. It is certainly clear the
mos maiorum precludes the prosecution of sitting magistrates. In
addition, it is clear to me that it benefits our Republic that
sitting magistrates be free to do their jobs during the course of
their term of office. This would no doubt be the same logic the
ancients incorporated into the mos maiorum.


Now, considering that the

> fact Sulla is a magistrate surely doesn't fall into any of the

three

> categories above, among the rest, you also abused your powers (I'm

genuinely

> sure, in good faith, and you are not even the first one to do so),

by

> arrogating yourself something that the judices should had decided.

LAENAS: I have certainly acted in good faith, and I contend
properly.

>
> that's all and, believe me, all said without personal acrimony.

LAENAS: Of course.


Vale.

Salvete Quirites, et salve Domiti Constantine,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

[...]

> b) The office of Censor has to be treated differently than the one of
> Aediles,

It is, for a couple of reasons. While both magistracies are curule
magistracies, that's where the similarity ends. Censors enjoyed an
immunity from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their
duties comparable to the immunity enjoyed by dictators. For this
reason, Consuls were typically very careful when nominating candidates
for the office of Censor.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve praetor

> In is my understanding based on that consultation that he did indeed
> dismiss you petitio in a manner consistent with my dismissal of the
> petitio against Censor Sulla. The precedent of your case,
> therefore, does indeed support my decision in the case of censor
> Sulla.

Your understanding is wrong. ;aybe you are are badly informed. Consul
Marinus eventually dismissed my petitio actionis on the basis of a defence
of "political speech" that he created on the spot (which is, per se, another
abuse, but at that time I was too disgusted and tired of teh whole matter to
procede against it). In any case, not because Scaurus was a sitting
magistrate. I can produce the dismissal document, if you please. You are,
again, wrong.

Then...

> As I mentioned, as a practical matter, any actor can resubmit a
> dismissed petitio to successor Praetors.

Which has, again, nothing to do with the fact your decision was a) wrong b)
aginst a precedent set in Nova Roma and c) an abuse of power under the Lex
Iudiciaria.

> LAENAS: Here sir, you insult me and my dignitas and apparently that
> of that of Marcus Arminius and Consul Marinus (smiley faces not
> withstanding – putting :) after the comment does not remove the
> insult).
>
> I have read in detail the Lex Salicia Ivdicairia and the Lex Salicia
> Poenalis. In fact, I printed them out and reviewed them before ever
> declaring for Praetor Suffectus in May of this year.

No, praetor, ay most I insult your intelignce or your reading skills. And in
fact, if you actually did read the law, you failed to explain how the only
three that the law consider valid point of rejection an your reason to
reject the petitio can go together. I had actually hoped you hadn't read teh
lex and therefore acted in good faith, but if you DID read teh law and yet
decide to dismiss the petitio not because you were lacking jurisdiction (and
you were not, both are cives, both are sui juris and as for subject, the
praetor is competent for everythig within Nova Roma), or because they wer
not sui iuris, nor because the claim was incongruent (an din fact it wasn't,
or you wouldhad dismissed it on teh basis of the claim, not using the
position of the reus), then, praetor, you either read it and didn't
understand that "if and only if" or you

As or the:

> LAENAS: I disagree that the Lex Salicia Ivdiciaria "overrides
> ancient procedure".

I laugh at that. You may disagree personally but it is a fact that laws
voted by the Nova Roma comitia ovverride the laws of teh ancients. That is
what the Constitution says and what was, i htought untill now, generally
understood by all the cives.

>Here in Nova Roma we are guided by the mos
> maiorum as well as by our enacted laws.

In your dreams. We are guided by the mos maiorum when we do not have
explicit laws, ancient and modern.

> It is certainly clear the
> mos maiorum precludes the prosecution of sitting magistrates.

Possibly, but not the Nova Roma law YOU are supposed to enforce.

> In
> addition, it is clear to me that it benefits our Republic that
> sitting magistrates be free to do their jobs during the course of
> their term of office.

Your personal ideas about what benefit the republic counts exactly nothing
when a law and a precedent says otherwise.

> This would no doubt be the same logic the
> ancients incorporated into the mos maiorum.

But not the logic used when the laws of nova Roma were written AND adopted
by general vote.

> LAENAS: I have certainly acted in good faith, and I contend
> properly.

Actually, untill this mail of yours, I did thought so too. Now I'ms tarting
to doubt it.

Vale

DCF
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Rivoluzione tecnologica e il fax va in soffitta...oggi i tuoi fax li ricevi
sul PC! Scopri come cliccando qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1628&d=20040901

Salve Consul

Yes, it might very well be the case. But it is a fact that this particular
point shouldn't had been judged by the praetor, but by the judges. The
praetor has only three reasons he can dismiss a petitio in Nova Roma, and
the position of the reus is not one of those.

"A praetor can dismiss a petitio actionis if and only if one of the
following cases applies:

a. The praetor has no competence in the issue.
b. The parts are not sui iuris in Nova Roma.
c. The claim is incongruent."

Within nova Roma law, the fact a censor cannot be proseuted is a matter for
teh judges to say, NOT the praetor.

Vale

DCF

--------- Original Message --------
Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Petitio Actionis
Data: 01/09/04 17:08

>
>
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Domiti Constantine,
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:
>
> [...]
> > b) The office of Censor has to be treated differently than the one of
> > Aediles,
>
> It is, for a couple of reasons. While both magistracies are curule
> magistracies, that's where the similarity ends. Censors enjoyed an
> immunity from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their
> duties comparable to the immunity enjoyed by dictators. For this
> reason, Consuls were typically very careful when nominating candidates
> for the office of Censor.
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Telefonare all'estero risparmiando fino all'80%? Con Email.it Phone Card
puoi, clicca e scopri tutti i vantaggi
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2683&d=20040901

Salvete Quirites, et salve Domiti Constantine Fusce,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

> The praetor has only three reasons he can dismiss a petitio
> in Nova Roma, and the position of the reus is not one of those.

I have just confirmed that this is correct, according to the LEX SALICIA
IVDICIARIA.

> "A praetor can dismiss a petitio actionis if and only if one of the
> following cases applies:
>
> a. The praetor has no competence in the issue.
> b. The parts are not sui iuris in Nova Roma.
> c. The claim is incongruent."
>
> Within nova Roma law, the fact a censor cannot be proseuted is a matter for
> the judges to say, NOT the praetor.

I find that I have to agree with you in terms of the letter of the law.
However, I must admit that I'm troubled by the implication here. It
seems self-evident to me that no panel of Iudices will agree to hear a
case involving a sitting curule magistrate. Furthermore, I can't
imagine a Censor being actually prosecuted. That the law prevents the
Praetor from exercising his judgement strikes me as a serious
infringement on the Praetor's imperium.

But yes, the law is in fact the law.

I note that the LEX ARMINIA EQVITIA DE SANCTITATE, passed quite
recently, stipulates that "A magistrate possessing sanctitas may not be
charged under Nova Roman law during his magistracy."

Therefore I think that what we have here is a conflict between two laws,
both passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa. I think that the reasonable
decision for the Praetor to reach is that a Censor, as a magistrate
possessing sanctitas, shall not be charged while in office. This leaves
the matter of deciding whether or not a Censor is immune from
prosecution for actions taken while a Censor to a panel of iudices to be
convened sometime next January.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

G. Popillius Laenas Praetor D. Constantino Fusco salutem dicit.


Salve,

LAENAS: I based my dismissal on the mos maiorum as well as the
president set in your action against Scaurus. Let's discuss the
precedent for now

> Your understanding is wrong. ;aybe you are are badly informed.

Consul

> Marinus eventually dismissed my petitio actionis on the basis of a

defence

> of "political speech" that he created on the spot (which is, per

se, another

> abuse, but at that time I was too disgusted and tired of teh whole

matter to

> procede against it). In any case, not because Scaurus was a sitting
> magistrate. I can produce the dismissal document, if you please.

You are,

> again, wrong.

LAENAS: Well I did not ask to review any "dismissal document", but
what I was told about your case is this: the charges were not
accepted because they were against a sitting magistrate, and that
the actor was advised to refile them with another Praetor in the
future.

I do not believe my understanding of the situation is wrong, or that
I am badly informed. My actions were in accordance with precedent,
not against it.

You have also failed to explain how a Praetor could have accepted
your petitio for a trial to occur after that same Praetor was out of
office. I submit it is your understanding that is wrong, or perhaps
you were badly informed.

As for the mos maiorum, you reject my respect for the traditions of
the ancients, and its role in our Republic. In fact, I believe the
quote is you "laugh" at it.

Be that as it may, the mos maiorum is still relevant. No law can
encompass every eventuality, that is were tradition and precedent
step in. "A sitting magistrate cannot be reus in petitio"
(paraphrased) was the first statement of many cives who commented on
the case. In fact, the advocatus himself stated that he expected
the case to fail on those grounds. There are many cives, therefore,
who do not agree with your dismissal of a most basic tenant of the
mos maiorum.

>
> No, praetor, ay most I insult your intelignce or your reading

skills. And in

> fact, if you actually did read the law, you failed to explain how

the only

> three that the law consider valid point of rejection an your

reason to

> reject the petitio can go together. I had actually hoped you

hadn't read teh

> lex and therefore acted in good faith, (snipped).

LAENAS: Hahahah! So I am either (1) guilty of dereliction of duty,
but acting in good faith, (2) a stupid, bad reader acting in good
faith, of (3) an adequate reader of adequate intelligence acting in
bad faith?

Forgive me if I do not accept any of these scenarios. And, do not
worry, I do not believe in suing cives over name-calling and insults.

> Actually, untill this mail of yours, I did thought so too. Now

I'ms tarting

> to doubt it.

LAENAS: Certainly I am now in doubt of yours.

Vale.

---Salvete Omnes:

I am wondering if the Tribunes should rule on this dismissal, given
the language of the lex and the rationale for said action,given the
data presented below.

There seems to be a rather disturbing trait being established where
it is felt one can override the language of the law completely, as
being incongruent with antiquita, and using antiquita as a 'rabbit
out of hat' . I had such a discussion last night, and now I see two
more examples are being produced, the latter two actually being used
to make a formal ruling.

I am all for historically accurate laws as well, but the legacies of
antiquita are best used to amend legislation and to answer those
questions where are laws say nothing on given issues...otherwise, it
amounts to a legal melee of 'making things up as we go'...as long as
they are in the history books they are ok', this being in good faith
or not, it still is not 'law' based on what the Senate and populus
agreed to as law in NR.

753 BCE til the time of Caesar contains alot of legal history, and
some of it we have no means of enforcing in cyberspace and some of
it is inappropriate.

Another worry is that we are a nonprofit corporation out of Maine;
our constitution is our bylaws, and our leges are pursuant to the
constitution...if we start disregarding our established bylaws, we
could run into troubles this way, especially when it comes to
denying people justice.

Bene valete and without prejudice
P. Minucia Tiberia





In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:

> Salve praetor
>
> > In is my understanding based on that consultation that he did

indeed

> > dismiss you petitio in a manner consistent with my dismissal of

the

> > petitio against Censor Sulla. The precedent of your case,
> > therefore, does indeed support my decision in the case of censor
> > Sulla.
>
>
> Your understanding is wrong. ;aybe you are are badly informed.

Consul

> Marinus eventually dismissed my petitio actionis on the basis of a

defence

> of "political speech" that he created on the spot (which is, per

se, another

> abuse, but at that time I was too disgusted and tired of teh whole

matter to

> procede against it). In any case, not because Scaurus was a sitting
> magistrate. I can produce the dismissal document, if you please.

You are,

> again, wrong.
>
> Then...
>
> > As I mentioned, as a practical matter, any actor can resubmit a
> > dismissed petitio to successor Praetors.
>
> Which has, again, nothing to do with the fact your decision was a)

wrong b)

> aginst a precedent set in Nova Roma and c) an abuse of power under

the Lex

> Iudiciaria.
>
> > LAENAS: Here sir, you insult me and my dignitas and apparently

that

> > of that of Marcus Arminius and Consul Marinus (smiley faces not
> > withstanding – putting :) after the comment does not

remove the

> > insult).
> >
> > I have read in detail the Lex Salicia Ivdicairia and the Lex

Salicia

> > Poenalis. In fact, I printed them out and reviewed them before

ever

> > declaring for Praetor Suffectus in May of this year.
>
> No, praetor, ay most I insult your intelignce or your reading

skills. And in

> fact, if you actually did read the law, you failed to explain how

the only

> three that the law consider valid point of rejection an your

reason to

> reject the petitio can go together. I had actually hoped you

hadn't read teh

> lex and therefore acted in good faith, but if you DID read teh law

and yet

> decide to dismiss the petitio not because you were lacking

jurisdiction (and

> you were not, both are cives, both are sui juris and as for

subject, the

> praetor is competent for everythig within Nova Roma), or because

they wer

> not sui iuris, nor because the claim was incongruent (an din fact

it wasn't,

> or you wouldhad dismissed it on teh basis of the claim, not using

the

> position of the reus), then, praetor, you either read it and didn't
> understand that "if and only if" or you
>
> As or the:
>
> > LAENAS: I disagree that the Lex Salicia Ivdiciaria

"overrides

> > ancient procedure".
>
> I laugh at that. You may disagree personally but it is a fact that

laws

> voted by the Nova Roma comitia ovverride the laws of teh ancients.

That is

> what the Constitution says and what was, i htought untill now,

generally

> understood by all the cives.
>
> >Here in Nova Roma we are guided by the mos
> > maiorum as well as by our enacted laws.
>
> In your dreams. We are guided by the mos maiorum when we do not

have

> explicit laws, ancient and modern.
>
> > It is certainly clear the
> > mos maiorum precludes the prosecution of sitting magistrates.
>
> Possibly, but not the Nova Roma law YOU are supposed to enforce.
>
> > In
> > addition, it is clear to me that it benefits our Republic that
> > sitting magistrates be free to do their jobs during the course

of

> > their term of office.
>
> Your personal ideas about what benefit the republic counts exactly

nothing

> when a law and a precedent says otherwise.
>
> > This would no doubt be the same logic the
> > ancients incorporated into the mos maiorum.
>
> But not the logic used when the laws of nova Roma were written AND

adopted

> by general vote.
>
> > LAENAS: I have certainly acted in good faith, and I contend
> > properly.
>
> Actually, untill this mail of yours, I did thought so too. Now

I'ms tarting

> to doubt it.
>
> Vale
>
> DCF
> --
> Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:

http://www.email.it/f

>
> Sponsor:
> Rivoluzione tecnologica e il fax va in soffitta...oggi i tuoi fax

li ricevi

> sul PC! Scopri come cliccando qui
> Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?

mid=1628&d=20040901

isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am
sure.
--- pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

> ---Salvete Omnes:
>
> I am wondering if the Tribunes should rule on this

dismissal, given

> the language of the lex and the rationale for said

action,given the

> data presented below.
>
> There seems to be a rather disturbing trait being

established where

> it is felt one can override the language of the law

completely, as

> being incongruent with antiquita, and using

antiquita as a 'rabbit

> out of hat' . I had such a discussion last night,

and now I see two

> more examples are being produced, the latter two

actually being used

> to make a formal ruling.
>
> I am all for historically accurate laws as well, but

the legacies of

> antiquita are best used to amend legislation and to

answer those

> questions where are laws say nothing on given

issues...otherwise, it

> amounts to a legal melee of 'making things up as we

go'...as long as

> they are in the history books they are ok', this

being in good faith

> or not, it still is not 'law' based on what the

Senate and populus

> agreed to as law in NR.
>
> 753 BCE til the time of Caesar contains alot of

legal history, and

> some of it we have no means of enforcing in

cyberspace and some of

> it is inappropriate.
>
> Another worry is that we are a nonprofit corporation

out of Maine;

> our constitution is our bylaws, and our leges are

pursuant to the

> constitution...if we start disregarding our

established bylaws, we

> could run into troubles this way, especially when it

comes to

> denying people justice.
>
> Bene valete and without prejudice
> P. Minucia Tiberia
>
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus

Fuscus

> <dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:
> > Salve praetor
> >
> > > In is my understanding based on that

consultation that he did

> indeed
> > > dismiss you petitio in a manner consistent with

my dismissal of

> the
> > > petitio against Censor Sulla. The precedent of

your case,

> > > therefore, does indeed support my decision in

the case of censor

> > > Sulla.
> >
> >
> > Your understanding is wrong. ;aybe you are are

badly informed.

> Consul
> > Marinus eventually dismissed my petitio actionis

on the basis of a

> defence
> > of "political speech" that he created on the spot

(which is, per

> se, another
> > abuse, but at that time I was too disgusted and

tired of teh whole

> matter to
> > procede against it). In any case, not because

Scaurus was a sitting

> > magistrate. I can produce the dismissal document,

if you please.

> You are,
> > again, wrong.
> >
> > Then...
> >
> > > As I mentioned, as a practical matter, any actor

can resubmit a

> > > dismissed petitio to successor Praetors.
> >
> > Which has, again, nothing to do with the fact your

decision was a)

> wrong b)
> > aginst a precedent set in Nova Roma and c) an

abuse of power under

> the Lex
> > Iudiciaria.
> >
> > > LAENAS: Here sir, you insult me and my dignitas

and apparently

> that
> > > of that of Marcus Arminius and Consul Marinus

(smiley faces not

> > > withstanding – putting :) after the

comment does not

> remove the

=== Message Truncated ===


=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am sure.

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Salvete Omnes, et Salve Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia,

> I am wondering if the Tribunes should rule on this dismissal, given
> the language of the lex and the rationale for said action, given the
> data presented below.

Actually, I believe that the Tribunes have no competence on the issue. If we are to follow the mos maiorum, looking at the nature of tribunician veto and intercession, a tribune could only stop something from happening; he could not compel something to happen. Surely a tribune might be able to physically prevent a praetor from pronouncing a dismissal, but the tribune could not compel the praetor to appoint the judges, schedule a trial date, and so on. If we are to follow that same principle which our ancestors used, the tribunes cannot do anything in this case, except, perhaps, offering their opinions on things, though they would have no legal force whatsoever. Of course, my interpretation of Roman law is far from being backed by a doctorate degree. In this field, that is.

Valete Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Salvete Omnes, et Salvete Domiti Constantine et Cn. Equiti Consul,

> I note that the LEX ARMINIA EQVITIA DE SANCTITATE, passed quite
> recently, stipulates that "A magistrate possessing sanctitas may not be
> charged under Nova Roman law during his magistracy."
>
> Therefore I think that what we have here is a conflict between two laws,
> both passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa. I think that the reasonable
> decision for the Praetor to reach is that a Censor, as a magistrate
> possessing sanctitas, shall not be charged while in office. This leaves
> the matter of deciding whether or not a Censor is immune from
> prosecution for actions taken while a Censor to a panel of iudices to be
> convened sometime next January.

I'd like to add to the Consul's statement by pointing out a matter of constitutional law. Paragraph I.B. of the Constitution explicitely states:

"Should a law passed by one comitia contradict one passed by another or the same comitia without explicitly superceding that law, the most recent law shall take precedence."

Since the Lex Arminia Equitia is the more recent of the two, the Praetor did have sufficient ground for dismissing the petitio.

Valete Optime,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

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

> A. Apollonius Cordus Galo Agorio Taurino omnibusque
> sal.
>
> I may be holding the wrong end of the stick, but it
> feels to me like you're getting a little defensive.
> Let me assure you that I have no agenda except to
> better understand the logic and the evidence behind
> your view. If you'd find it more comfortable, I'd be
> happy to continue the conversation privately.

I don't mean to come off as defensive. Trust me, friend- this isn't my defensive
posture. My defensive posture includes a Corinthian Helm, a ,Hoplon and a long
spear. More than anything, I am simply concerned with being as clear as possible,
because I don't know quite how I am coming off in this forum- you will have to excuse
my clumsiness, as I have been wrong about how people here were taking my words
before,

>
> Certainly that's the orthodox academic view. I admit
> I'm inclined to be a little more adventurous with
> sources, but I quite agree that the actual events
> depicted in the poems can't be treated as factual, and
> that any conclusions derived from them must be very
> tentative.

I am adventurous with sources, as well. I don't hold that against anyone,

> Fine, but I've never suggested that you ought to rely
> exclusively on Homer. I have merely been questioning
> the logic behind your complete dismissal of Homer as a
> source for information about the gods, or at least
> about how people in Homer's time regarded the gods.

I think this is where we got off track. I don't dismiss him; far from it- I use the
Homeric Oracle as one of the means to interpret the will of the Gods and the motions
of Fate. But when it comes to the "bedrock" of reconstructionism, we always have to
keep open minds to all sources.

>
> I don't remember anything about the structure of
> households, but I'll take your word for it because
> it's about three years since I read Works & Days and
> to be honest I found it rather boring. :)

It's okay to be honest. Many people do find it boring. You have to be a hardcore
recon to *really* get into it.

> Hmm, okay, I'll accept that conclusion for the
> purposes of this conversation, but I'm sure you'll not
> take offence if I check for myself when I next have
> time to spare. Can you recommend a book or two?

I thought you'd never ask! When I get home, I shall select a few volumes from my shelf
specifically dealing with Life in the Ancient Mediterranean and send you their info.

>
> I've omitted to quote your further descriptions of the
> phratry, but what I am still unclear on is this: how
> do you get from "we know that children received some
> religious instruction within the phratry" to
> "therefore people did not receive any religious or
> mythological information from other sources such as
> poetry and drama".

I have no doubt that drama (after it came about) affected ordinary people's religious
views- it's just that (especially in Hellenism) you have to be very, very cautious when it
comes to the nature of the Gods and the character of their cults and worship-
99.999% of people have this idea in their head, culled from some of the beastly
"mythology" books that are available, of how "greek religion" was, and of how "people
thought" about the Gods- when most of those ideas are invalid to the extreme, in the
face of history, anthropology, and scholarship. Even I, as an 18 year old with a head
full of myth books got slapped in the face by the darker and more earthy realities of
how the Gods and their Cults were back in the day, apart from the late-period and
christo-sanitized "myth" books that were made available to me as a child.



I personally think that the average pagan in any era in Greece (or perhaps anywhere)
had a conscious or subconscious distinction in their head when it came to seeing a
play and their religious thinking/life. I mean, there was the play- which had its own
value, and then there was how you did things in the Temenos, how you approached or
thought of the Gods, etc.








There is, as I have suggested, some

> evidence (mostly revealed by Wiseman and his fans)
> that drama was an important source of mythological
> education for ordinary Romans, and of course they too
> were given some religious education within the family.
> Why could the same not be true for the Greeks?

As I said- in much the same way pop culture feeds modern christians a lot of their
conceptions, (think of that movie "The Passion of the Christ"- many chrisitans don't
realize that it wasn't biblically accurate on all points, nor were any of the catholic
priests I know happy with it, because they felt it grossly over-emphasized the
suffering aspect of the passion, and neglected the true point of the incarnation, which
was ressurection and life) You and I (and a LOT of christians) would have no trouble at
all agreeing that this movie, this modern drama, was and is very influential to
christians- but if we paid too much attention to just this movie, or movies like it, we
would be missing out on other realities regarding christianity.

So, I'm not trying to say we should ignore Homer- how could I? He will always be the
Poet Laureate of all Hellenic Pagans. He was in touch with the Muse, and able to craft
a fine as frog-hair tale of War and the Long Journey Home. His verses seem to yield
oracular insights when the Gods guide the cast of lots.

>
> No need to go overboard, Taurine! I just felt that
> your statements about social structures before the
> time of Homer were excessively categorical given that,
> as you yourself have said, they are mostly conjectures
> (though fairly probable conjectures) derived partly
> from archaeology and partly from projecting back from
> the historic period. It seemed to me that some caveats
> such as 'probably' and 'to judge from later evidence'
> were called for, and these you've now supplied; thank
> you.
>

Oh, was that all? :)

>
> Fair enough. I'm not trying to persuade you that the
> inscription was wrong. I was simply troubled by your
> failure to mention, even when prompted, the
> possibility that it could be wrong.

That's because for me, no such possibility exists. If you want to hear me say
something that I don't believe, just for the purposes of comfort in debate, well.... I
just don't really think in that way.

> It seems to me that you're treating the Iliad with a
> different set of standards to those you're applying to
> the inscription. The inscription doesn't give a full
> and comprehensive picture of the nature of the god
> either, does it?

*nothing* mortals make can give that kind of picture, when you are dealing with the
Deathless Gods, However- I must admit, that short statement about Apollon *does*,
in just one line, sum up something sublime about his power and essence- something
that I just don't find readily in the Iliad.




Frankly it doesn't say very much. But

> that doesn't stop you accepting what it says as true.
> Well, then, why could the information conveyed by the
> Iliad not also be true, while also not being a full
> and comprehensive description? It never says that the
> god was *not* also in many other places simultaneously
> in a non-physical way. It just says that on a
> particular occasion, he appeared in physical form and
> fought in a battle,

I think we have talked about this before. The Iliad also doesn't say that Zeus was *not*
in the North of Britain getting drunk with a Pictish God that he had a crush on; what
the book does *not* say is not grounds to base a belief on. I mean, once you start
that, anything goes- and for the sake of sanity and reconstruction, we rely on what is
stated, more than on what is not- except in very remarkable circumstances when we
are forced to allow intuition and the Gods to directly guide us.

I don't feel that on this subject of the Nature of the Gods that we find ourselves in
such a circumstance. What the Iliad does *not* say is in conflict (if you take its
omissions to be facts) with a more animistic, transcendental, and non-linear way of
thinking about the Gods, which I feel is both an ancient way, and a necesarry thing to
really grasp their power in your life.



FOR THE MOTHERS AND THE DEMETREIOI:


Taurinus

Salve Raymond (your Roman nomen is not listed)

I have a solution:

Press the delete key.

Pompeia

---Salve Marcus Flavius Fides:

You are free to press the delete key.

Vale,
Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes <praefectus2324@y...>
wrote:

> isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
> take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
> e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am sure.
>
> =====
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Salve Praetor

> LAENAS: I based my dismissal on the mos maiorum as well as the
> president set in your action against Scaurus. Let's discuss the
> precedent for now

So you ignored a law because yo uprefer the mos maiorum and on a precedent
of which, by you rown admission ("Well I did not ask to review any
"dismissal document") you haven't read the basic documentes. What a very
good job!

> LAENAS: Well I did not ask to review any "dismissal document",

but

> what I was told about your case is this: the charges were not
> accepted because they were against a sitting magistrate, and that
> the actor was advised to refile them with another Praetor in the
> future.

You "were told"? You "were told"??? You are supposed to administer the
justice in here and you base your decisions on something someone tells you,
without even *trying* or *asking* to see the documents? Good Lord(s, for the
ones believing in many). Next time someone "tells" you that charges can be
dismissed because the reus name starts with A, D or F, you gonna do it?

> I do not believe my understanding of the situation is wrong, or that
> I am badly informed. My actions were in accordance with precedent,
> not against it.

No, your actions were in accordance with your idea, based on hearsay, of the
precedent, an idea you didn't even care to substantiate with a single
document.

> You have also failed to explain how a Praetor could have accepted
> your petitio for a trial to occur after that same Praetor was out of
> office.

Exactly how your collegue did in the past: accepted the petitio and left to
his successor to noinate the judges to start the trial. I didn't thikn I had
to explain something that had already happened!

>I submit it is your understanding that is wrong, or perhaps
> you were badly informed.

I think this sentence has no meaning whatsoever, or at least no logical link
with the previous sentence.

> As for the mos maiorum, you reject my respect for the traditions of
> the ancients, and its role in our Republic. In fact, I believe the
> quote is you "laugh" at it.

No, Preator, I dismissed with a laugh your reconstruction of the Nova Roman
legal system where the Mos Maiorum prevails over the letter of a law. I
quote "I disagree that the Lex Salicia Ivdiciaria "overrides ancient
procedure". Here in Nova Roma we are guided by the mos maiorum as well as by
our enacted laws.". At that, yes, I laugh. I have the outmot respect for the
mos maiorum. Unlike most of my collegues, I took roman law courses rathr
than bank law or similr stuff out of rspect for teh tradition of my
ancestors. But that has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry a simple civis has
to remind you that by the Constitution, the Mos Maiorum is, in Nova Roma,
just a secundary source of law AFTER the laws of Nova Roma and in this case,
the Lex Salicia overrides whatever might had been teh mos maiorum about the
dismissa of petitiones. Deal with it.

> Be that as it may, the mos maiorum is still relevant. No law can
> encompass every eventuality, that is were tradition and precedent
> step in.

Sure, absolutely, butin this ase the Lex Iudiciaria encompasses fully the
subject "dismissal of petitiones" (the "if and only if" part) and you
blatantly decided to ignore it.

> "A sitting magistrate cannot be reus in petitio"
> (paraphrased) was the first statement of many cives who commented on
> the case.

Many cives who had an ida of roman law, but evidently didn't read Nova Roma
laws.. YOU are supposed to uphold the laws of Nova Roma before anthing else,
included teh Mos Maiorum, evn if you prefer the latter.

> In fact, the advocatus himself stated that he expected
> the case to fail on those grounds. There are many cives, therefore,
> who do not agree with your dismissal of a most basic tenant of the
> mos maiorum.

I didn't dimsiss anything, don't try to enlarge the meaning of my words as a
attempt to comfuse the waters. the Mos Maiorum, in Nova Roma, fills the
holes that the Nova Roman laws leave (many, but not in this case). That's
clear to me. Not to you, who enounced clearly the principle that Mos Maiorum
and nova Roma laws are on teh same level (shall I quote again?)

> LAENAS: Hahahah! So I am either (1) guilty of dereliction of duty,
> but acting in good faith, (2) a stupid, bad reader acting in good
> faith, of (3) an adequate reader of adequate intelligence acting in
> bad faith?

Now that *you* say it, yeah, apparently one of the three. I hope for number
2, it would had been better.

> Forgive me if I do not accept any of these scenarios. And, do not
> worry, I do not believe in suing cives over name-calling and insults.

Even because I didn't name called or insulted you, I merely stated facts.

DCF
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Conto Arancio. Zero rischi, zero spese, tanti interessi.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=658&d=20040901

---Salve Q. Caesilius Metellus:

I'll look at the Lex Arminia and barring anything in it disputing
your claim, it surely looks like you may have a point.

And I can accept that, because the rationale for dismissal you
present is based on a law voted in by comitia, not just the mos
maiorum and a precedent based on the mos maiorum also.

Now, in the case of the veto of a Tribune..if there was dismissal of
a case by the praetor rooted on shaky or absent legal ground, that
is an action of a magistrate...and such is, as I read it,
constitutionally subject to intercessio by the Tribunes I'm not
sure that it can be automatically viewed as a non-action, as he
entertained the petitio and dismissed the charges...that is the
action of a magistrate, addressable by the Tribs within 72 hours. I
would consider a nonaction being a case where the Praetor didn't
answer the initial filing of the petition, and I don't think the
Tribunes can compell an action either, as you say.

At any rate, I do not have a law doctorate either. I have no
doctorate period :)

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes, et Salvete Domiti Constantine et Cn. Equiti Consul,
>
> > I note that the LEX ARMINIA EQVITIA DE SANCTITATE, passed quite
> > recently, stipulates that "A magistrate possessing sanctitas may

not be

> > charged under Nova Roman law during his magistracy."
> >
> > Therefore I think that what we have here is a conflict between

two laws,

> > both passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa. I think that the

reasonable

> > decision for the Praetor to reach is that a Censor, as a

magistrate

> > possessing sanctitas, shall not be charged while in office.

This leaves

> > the matter of deciding whether or not a Censor is immune from
> > prosecution for actions taken while a Censor to a panel of

iudices to be

> > convened sometime next January.
>
> I'd like to add to the Consul's statement by pointing out a matter

of constitutional law. Paragraph I.B. of the Constitution
explicitely states:

>
> "Should a law passed by one comitia contradict one passed by

another or the same comitia without explicitly superceding that law,
the most recent law shall take precedence."

>
> Since the Lex Arminia Equitia is the more recent of the two, the

Praetor did have sufficient ground for dismissing the petitio.

>
> Valete Optime,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus

A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco amico
omnibusque sal.

As so often, I must respectfully and cheerfully
disagree with you.

For one thing, as Caecilius Metellus has pointed out,
the lex Arminia which states that a magistrate
possessed of sanctitas cannot be prosecuted is more
recent than, and so overrules, the lex Salicia.

Moreover, the lex Salicia does not forbid the praetor
to dismiss a petition against a sitting magistrate.
Let's look at those three valid grounds for dismissal:

"a. The praetor has no competence in the issue.

Example: a praetor can not mediate between two foreign
parts, for his competence is limited to the citizens
of Nova Roma.

b. The parts are not sui iuris in Nova Roma.

Example: a minor can not play the part of an actor.

c. The claim is incongruent.

Example: "Ticius must be expelled from Nova Roma
because he is bearded" is an incongruent claim, for it
is not supported by law, precedent or common sense."

The one we are concerned with here is (a): the praetor
has no competence. The reason is this: being a sitting
magistrate, the Censor is legally incapable of being
prosecuted. Just as the praetor has no competence to
hear a case between two peregrini, since peregrini are
not legally capable of access to Novaroman law (except
in certain circumstances laid down in the lex
poenalis), so the praetor has no competence to hear a
case against a censor, since a censor is not legally
capable of being the reus in a legal case.

You suggest that, if Praetor Popillius Laenas was
right to dismiss this particular case, then Praetor
Arminius Maior was wrong not to dismiss the case
against Iulius Scaurus. Well, there are two reasons
why that is not so.

The first is that there is, as you guess, a
significant difference between an aedile and a censor.
An aedile can be prosecuted after he has left office.
A censor cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during
his year of office even after he has left office. So
the Praetor could not do as his colleague did in the
case of Constantinus vs. Iulius - i.e. defer the
hearing of the case until after the reus became liable
to prosecution - because the reus will never become
liable for prosecution for the charges which have been
made against him. Consequently his only choice is to
dismiss the petitio outright.

But, you may still argue, either Praetor Maior ought
to have dismissed your petitio or else Praetor Laenas
ought to have indefinitely suspended Cato's against
the Censor. Perhaps in the interests of consistency,
this would have been desirable, but it is not a legal
necessity. The lex Salicia, although it does say that
the praetor may dismiss a petitio for any of those
three reasons quoted above, does not say that the
praetor must dismiss any petitio which meets any of
those three criteria. Perhaps it ought to, but it does
not, and I know that you are keen, just as the Romans
were, to interpret laws strictly and to the letter. So
although Praetor Maior would have been entitled to
dismiss your petitio under item (a), he was not
legally required to do so, and he did not.

In short, everything is completely legal and above
board as far as I can see. :)





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Pompiaea Minuciae Tiberiae
Straboni omnibusque sal.

> Now, in the case of the veto of a Tribune..if there
> was dismissal of
> a case by the praetor rooted on shaky or absent
> legal ground, that
> is an action of a magistrate...and such is, as I
> read it,
> constitutionally subject to intercessio by the
> Tribunes I'm not
> sure that it can be automatically viewed as a
> non-action, as he
> entertained the petitio and dismissed the
> charges...that is the
> action of a magistrate, addressable by the Tribs
> within 72 hours. I
> would consider a nonaction being a case where the
> Praetor didn't
> answer the initial filing of the petition, and I
> don't think the
> Tribunes can compell an action either, as you say.

According to the letter of the constitution, the
dismissal of a petitio may constitute an action by a
magistrate, but then against it may not. On the one
had, you could say that dismissing something is doing
something. On the other, I would say that dismissing a
petitio is nothing more than refusing to do anything
about it, and as such is a refusal to act rather than
an act.

Either way, I would hope that the tribunes would not
veto such a thing, even if they are legally competent
to do it (and I'm inclined to think they're not,
though I can see the sense in the other view), simply
because such a thing was outside the scope of the
tribunician veto under Roman law, and the departure of
the constitution from that principle is clearly not a
deliberate departure but simply an omission resulting
from the need to save space.

In any case it's now academic, since as you agreed
with Metellus the dismissal we're actually talking
about is perfectly legal.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yes there is, I own it.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomaLaws/?yguid=170941

Anyone is free to join it.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: raymond fuentes
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: does it ever end?


isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am sure.

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Salve Pompeia,

Yes, and once we get everyone to start hitting the delete key enough
times, we can start pointing out that they don't actually *have* to
subscribe to this list, so maybe it's better to just stay away
altogether, and if you're not on the ML, why bother to belong to NR
at all? Then the remaining members, who want to play a political
simulation game wouldn't be troubled by irrelvant topics. ;)

Now, having said tongue in cheek what others are probably thinking
saracastically, perhaps I can convince you that there's a larger
issue here. I would like to see this list become a place to discuss a
broader range of topics. I think it is too much just political
infighting and endless arguments about how to apply a set of laws
that is neither historically authentic or recognizably modern.

If you disagree, I'd love to hear from you. Maybe if I could
understand what's so fascinating about all this, I'd be more content
here.

Vale,
Ambrosius Artorus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:

> ---Salve Marcus Flavius Fides:
>
> You are free to press the delete key.
>
> Vale,
> Pompeia
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes

<praefectus2324@y...>

> wrote:
> > isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
> > take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
> > e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am sure.
> >
> > =====
> > S P Q R
> >
> > Fidelis Ad Mortem.
> >
> > Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com

I just picked up "Hadrian's Wall in the Time of the Romans" through
Hampstead House Books
(http://www.hampsteadhousebooks.com/default.php) for $9.99 CDN which
I believe is an excellent price for those interested.
Amazingly, I have been following Nova Roma for over 4 years and I
still have not become a citizen. Why? Every time I seriously think
about it (and there is no point in being a citizen if you are not
serious about it) I read the main NR list and get so turned off by
the bickering and name calling that I change my mind. In spite of
that, Nova Roma as a whole continues to amaze me, especially with
the attempts at some to bring it into the "real" world by initiating
face to face contact amongst Nova Romans and by sponsoring real
world projects. I also find the micro-national aspects a fascinating
international legal connundrum that would be fun to work on (I am a
non-practising lawyer). Anyhow, I will keep reading and thinking.
Some day...

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I come before you to most respectfully announce the issue of the August,
2004 "Eagle" for your reading pleasure. The URL to reach "Eagle" is:

http://livinghistoryengineer.com/roman/eagle/index.htm

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens -- Curator Differum "Eagle -- Nova Roma


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

hej!

what for is the salt on an altar used for?

thanks for answers
Kriss!

Salvete Qvirites! Today is the Kalendae of September,
sacred not only to Ianus and Iuno Regina, but also to
Iuppiter Tonans. A Happy Kalendae to all Romani!
Valete! Frater GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS, Flamen Floralis, PGI




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Salve Cecilius Metllus

Only, the two leges do not contradict each other. One set the line of action
of the Praetores, teh other paces a geneal statement. It is, again, the
judices that should have aknoweledged the Lex Arminia de Sanctitate and
declined judgment, but the Praetor doesn't have such option under the lex
iudiciaria, and tetwo leges can be carried to their respectiv effects, being
applied both, and thus they don't conflict.

Vale

DCF


--------- Original Message --------
Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Petitio Actionis
Data: 01/09/04 19:18

>
>
> Salvete Omnes, et Salvete Domiti Constantine et Cn. Equiti Consul,
>
> > I note that the LEX ARMINIA EQVITIA DE SANCTITATE, passed quite
> > recently, stipulates that "A magistrate possessing sanctitas may

not be

> > charged under Nova Roman law during his magistracy."
> >
> > Therefore I think that what we have here is a conflict between two

laws,

> > both passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa. I think that the

reasonable

> > decision for the Praetor to reach is that a Censor, as a magistrate
> > possessing sanctitas, shall not be charged while in office. This

leaves

> > the matter of deciding whether or not a Censor is immune from
> > prosecution for actions taken while a Censor to a panel of iudices to

be

> > convened sometime next January.
>
> I'd like to add to the Consul's statement by pointing out a matter of

constitutional law. Paragraph I.B. of the Constitution explicitely states:

>
> "Should a law passed by one comitia contradict one passed by another

or the same comitia without explicitly superceding that law, the most recent
law shall take precedence."

>
> Since the Lex Arminia Equitia is the more recent of the two, the Praetor

did have sufficient ground for dismissing the petitio.

>
> Valete Optime,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
LINEAR Assicurazioni: fai un preventivo online, confronta il prezzo con
quello
della tua attuale polizza, e bloccalo fino all'attuale scadenza!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2710&d=20040901

Salve Cordus amicus

Once again, as you did in the matter of constitutionality, you are following
common logic, but not juridical one.

As for the Lex de sanctitate conflicting with the lex iudiciaria, I disagree
and I explained why already and I shall not repeat it.

> The one we are concerned with here is (a): the praetor
> has no competence. The reason is this: being a sitting
> magistrate, the Censor is legally incapable of being
> prosecuted. Just as the praetor has no competence to
> hear a case between two peregrini, since peregrini are
> not legally capable of access to Novaroman law (except
> in certain circumstances laid down in the lex
> poenalis), so the praetor has no competence to hear a
> case against a censor, since a censor is not legally
> capable of being the reus in a legal case.

Here, you are wrong. I am not sure how well I will pass the concept along,
needing very specific juridical terms an lackin them in english, but I'll
try.

Jurisdiction is the power to express judgment in a legal case and it is
divided by persons and subjects. Now, romans have little idea of competence
by matter, as the praetores were competent about hearing about almost
anything. They had, tho, an idea about personal Ius, meaning the "law that
followed a person" so to say and thus they had the praetor urbanus, capable
of hearing any kind of case between cives and the praetor peregrinus,
capable of hearing cases involving foreigners. Among cives, they did not
make any distinction. It didn't matter if you were a plebeian or a senator,
the praetor heard your cases just the same.

Even more than the roman, the jurisdiction, or competence, of *our* *nova
roman* praetores is universal towards cives as they hear the cases of all
the cives (universal about persons) and about every single matter triale
(universal about subject).

You are mixing jurisdiction, or competence, with the possibility of a case
to be decided by a court. A judge can very well be competent by person and
subject, yet unable to issue a judgment. For instance, in the case of
extinction of the right to judgment (like, you have 5 years to go in
judgment about something, after that your right expires). What happens is
that the judge is competent about persons, is competent about subject, he
opens the trial and closes it a minute later taking official note of teh
expiration of the right.

The fact you were a sitting magistrate probably would have brought with it
an exceptio, but wouldn't have stopped a proceeding in tracks. So much that
magistrates were tried afterwards just like any citizen, by the same
magistrates, who of course had full competence on them (example, Verrus),
and always had, even when they were magistrates.

I'm not sure if I managed to explain clearly my point. In short, one thing
is competence, one thing is "triability" of the matter. What imports here is
competence, and the praetors *is* competent on the matter, even if that is
not immediatly up to be put to trial.

I disagree that a Censor is legally incapable of being persecuted under Nova
Roma law either. There is a clear precedent of a sitting magistrate against
which a petitio was accepted and put on hold. Unless there is a definite
reason why a censor has to be treated differently than anothe magistrate,
then the same rule should apply to him as it did in the previous case. I'm
afraid I do not find your explaination about it, which is basically a "they
are different in front of the law because they are different", condivisible.


I disagree that the praetor had not any other choice either. The choice of
the praetor was to follow the law ruling about procedure and pass the matter
to the judices, and let them decide. Again, within Nova Roma, is not the
place of the praetor to heck the status of the actor and the reus besides
the simple two questions: are they cives and are they "sui juris"? That's
all he is allowed to check, all the rest is to the judices. Even admitting
the Censor couldn't be put to trial, it was to the judices to say, not the
praetor.

For the last time, the NOVA ROMA praetor has only 4 things to do:

Check that he has generally competence about persons (and he had, being both
cives)

check that he had generally competence about matter (and he had, being the
matter one of the ones where a praetor can decide to call judices about)

check that the cives are bot sui iuris (and they were)

chek that the petitio was incongruent (and it wasn't, so much that no one
questione dit)

That's all. It may be that the pretores in Nova Roma have a very reductive
role compared ot the ones of Roma Antiqua, but utill the law is changed,
that's all the praetores can and have to do abou tpetitoines, al lthe rest
is to teh judices. I hope you shall see it.

Vale

DCF



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Pomodoro San Marzano DOP! Solo su Terrasolis.com Spedizione Gratis per
spese superiori a 85 Euro
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2497&d=20040901

---Salve Gai Ambrosi:

Now when you take the time to write to me I know the concern is
serious and genuine, and I'm actually happy you wrote me about this.
My comments below.

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Ambrosius Artorus"
<artorus@a...> wrote:

> Salve Pompeia,
>
> Yes, and once we get everyone to start hitting the delete key

enough

> times, we can start pointing out that they don't actually *have*

to

> subscribe to this list, so maybe it's better to just stay away
> altogether, and if you're not on the ML, why bother to belong to

NR

> at all? Then the remaining members, who want to play a political
> simulation game wouldn't be troubled by irrelvant topics. ;)

Pompeia: That, I think is the difficulty, one of them, with
diversified topics on a list with so many people and so many
interests. Rather than suggesting that comments regarding a
Praetoral decision, or in fact the decision itself, whatever is
a 'load of crap' , one should consider pressing the delete key, or
starting another topic, or finding a topic of interest concurrent
with this discussion.

I am actually enjoying some of the elements of the current
discussion on sacrifice, the Gods, the Temple of Delphi came into
play. While I don't have anything to add to it that hasn't already
been covered, I do read it....lately, not when it first started. If
If, say,I am not interested in it, I don't tell them in a curt
manner, that their discussion is 'chest beating crap',but rather
refrain from reading the posts.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting a move to another venue, but
one can make his needs known in a polite manner. The citizen in
question is a police officer, he states, and is better versed in
communication than that, I believe. And further, I would have been
disturbed if a Praetor had not announced an decision regarding an
Actio against one of the Censors here on the ML, but rather a
private laws list, which has a fraction of the subscribers of the
ML. There has been alot of litigation lately, and some controversy
surrounding that, which can be tiresome to some. I am interested in
making sure the law is applied properly, and regardless of how I
feel subjectively, I don't like to see people potentially given a
map to the door for the wrong reasons. So, again, and I'm sure you
know this of me :) that if and when I comment here, I feel a strong
conviction to do so, or an weighted interest, and said citizen would
likely have more success at pressing his delete key than gagging me,
providing I am not out of list guidelines.

I respect your opinion, but I think, with equal respect, the above
actions are a far cry from inciting unsubscription. I rarely
suggest people delete my posts, I don't have to. They likely
exercize that option without having to be advised to do so.

When I was praetor, I tagged a list that everyone received, and I
believe still does, upon subscription. It is a welcome, and a list
of URL's to the various lists and sodalitates in Nova Roma,yunno
Militarium, Egressus, Musarum, Laws List, Religio List...so folks
knew that there was something other than the activities presented in
the forum.

In all of this, when *you* have perceived a false impression as to
my motivations, there is cause to reevaluate my wording in the
future. Although not my intention, I'm sorry to have upset you as
one who takes the time to read my posts.

I hope all is well with you,
Pompeia

>
> Now, having said tongue in cheek what others are probably thinking
> saracastically, perhaps I can convince you that there's a larger
> issue here. I would like to see this list become a place to

discuss a

> broader range of topics. I think it is too much just political
> infighting and endless arguments about how to apply a set of laws
> that is neither historically authentic or recognizably modern.
>
> If you disagree, I'd love to hear from you. Maybe if I could
> understand what's so fascinating about all this, I'd be more

content

> here.
>
> Vale,
> Ambrosius Artorus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> > ---Salve Marcus Flavius Fides:
> >
> > You are free to press the delete key.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Pompeia
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
> <praefectus2324@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > isnt there a law list where all the nr atty- types can
> > > take this. i for one am tiring of the dozens of
> > > e-mails of chest beating crap. i am not alone,i am sure.
> > >
> > > =====
> > > S P Q R
> > >
> > > Fidelis Ad Mortem.
> > >
> > > Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> > > Roman Citizen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection

around

> > > http://mail.yahoo.com