(forwarded from my private mail and back to the mainlist)
"P. Minucia Tiberia" <
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "P. Minucia Tiberia"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hmmmm..... Intercessio in the the matter of the agreement between the Collegium Pontificum , the College of Tribunes and Senator L. Sicinius Drusus.
To: pompeia_minucia_tiberia
P. Minucia Tiberia Tiberio Galerio Paulino S.P.D.
WARNING FROM POMPEIA: This post contains prose where I tend to repeat myself, as I feel I need to, in response to the 'same thoughts' worded 'different ways', regarding the rationale given for this interesting intercessio.
--- In
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"
wrote:
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Tribunus Plebs
Ex Officio
The Constitution of Nova Roma empowers the Tribunes
"To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions
of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the
interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta,
and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of
this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus
Consulta or leges are being violated thereby;"
I hereby invoke Intercessio in the the matter of the agreement
between the Collegium Pontificum , the College of Tribunes and
Senator L. Sicinius Drusus. I here by forbid any action by the
Censors or the Consuls of Nova Roma that has been taken or that is
planed, that would remove him from the Senate and further forbid
any action that would revoke his citizenship in Nova Roma.
Pompeia: You cannot pronounce intercessio against an 'anticipated action' deriving from this agreement. You have to wait for an actual 'action' before you can pronounce intercessio. Please reread these portions of the constitution, in light of your premise of this action.
Also read: the Lex Labienia de Intercessio: Particularily section V, regarding the rights of your collegial Tribunes in this matter:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-02-26-i.htm
Earlier this year the Senator and the Censors with the Collegium
Pontificum , the College of Tribunes as witness and judges along
with the Praetors, reached this agreement.
Here is the agreement in full:
*********************************************************************
****************
Statement of Compromise and Settlement in the matter of the Nota
This document must be agreed to by M. Octavius Germanicus, Caeso
Fabius Quintilianus, and Lucius Sicinius Drusus. Each of the three
is required to swear an oath to abide by its provisions. The
document and the oaths will be reviewed by the Pontifices, the
tribunes, and three other witnesses (one chosen by each of the three
principals).
for MOG: L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
for LSD: G. Iulius Scaurus
for CFQ: Gn. Equitius Marinus
This agreement is considered valid upon receipt by the three
principals' chosen witnesses, regardless of whether other witnesses
received the notification.
The Censores hereby agree that:
I. The Censores will withdraw the Nota, and will post a statement
to the main list and the Senate list that the Nota is rescinded and
withdrawn; no record that there ever was to be a Nota will appear in
the Tabularium.
Pompeia: No, none such violation exists, that I see, unless it has been within the past few minutes :)
II. Lucius Sicinius Drusus will retain the title of Senator, the
Senator designation in the Album Civium, the century points of a
Senator, and the record will show that his tenure in the Senate was
not interrupted.
Pompeia: Yep. He's been there.
III. Lucius Sicinius Drusus will be fully reinstated in the Senate
on or before October 31st, 2004, provided that he adheres to this
agreement.
Pompeia: Yes
IV. The Censores will refer to his non-participation in the Senate
as a "voluntary withdrawal", "sabbatical", "break", or some such
positive term; the Censores will NOT call it
a "punishment", "banishment", "expulsion" or "nota"; use of the
forbidden terms will incur a $50 fine and immediate public apology.
Pompeia: Darn it!!!...we can use $$ for the Magna Mater Fund :), but no, as far as I can see, they've not violated this section
V. L. Sicinius Drusus is exempt from the minimum participation
requirements of the Senate for this year.
Pompeia: The Senate can best speak for this, and since you know more than I, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt in this regard, as shall I with the other Tribs.
VI. The Censores will not seek revenge or retribution of any kind
for the recent conflict.
Pompeia: "Recent" conflict, meaning said conflict which necessitated the nota and agreement we speak of...'not' the recent conflict beyond that...and not especially the recent 'conflict' as of late. The term 'recent' is relative, unless specifically specified in terms of dates and times.
L. Sicinius Drusus hereby agrees that:
I. L. Sicinius Drusus will voluntarily remain unsubscribed from the
SenatusRomanus mailing list for nine months, or a lesser period
of time at the option of the Censores.
Pompeia: As the senate can testify and prove...............and you and the other Tribs can attest
II. L. Sicinius Drusus will not participate in any Senate votes for
that same period of time.
Pompeia: Not that I have seen in the statements of Senate votes which have been issued by the Tribunes.
Although twice the Tribunes have been in violation of the Lex Moravia de Renuntio Senatus, and thus owe the populace a recent apology for failure to produce an account of the recent Senate Agenda prior to the vote of the Conscriptii:
http://www.novaroma/tabularium/leges/2003-11-15-ii.html
You reported the Senate results...were you to have also reported the notice of impending Senate Session? Just asking :)
I applaud this law, but Tribune Diana should have imposed a penalty for failure to comply to this fundamental duty of a Tribune...even a public apology would suffice....my humble opinion....anyway, on to the business at hand.....
III. L. Sicinius Drusus will make a post on the main list stating
that he is "withdrawing from", "refraining from participation
in", "[taking/on] sabbatical from" the Senate for a limited time, or
any alternative approved by the Censores.
Pompeia: I believe I saw that, and could look for it, if it ever became a question, but I am sure it is on record....somewhere
IV. L. Sicinius Drusus will remain civil and courteous on the
mailing lists of Nova Roma, compliance with which will be judged by
the Praetores. This, however, does not limit him from responding
with reasonable alacrity if he is the recipient of a personal attack.
Po: Ahh, 'the Praetores"...well, Galerius Tribune..we have not had a full compliment of Praetores for the entire year...we have had G. Octavius Noricus, who was in office at the time of this agreement, our Consul G. Equitius Marinus acting in loco as a Praetor/Moderator, M. Arminius Maior serving throughout the year, and G. Popillius Laenus serving since August.....'the Praetores'...these are the persons, in my opinion, who judge this, not those necessarily in office at present, any more than the 'recent' conflict you discuss in Section VI above. Praetores, in the same plane, as recent, are those who have served during the term of redemption Drusus has been responsible for..not just the Praetores serving in office now. I am endeavoring to judge all aspects using the same yardstick here....more below....
V. L. Sicinius Drusus will not seek revenge or retribution of any
kind for the recent conflict.
Pompeia: the very reason for his nota, which initially, I admit, I had misgivings about, and was happy he was given a chance to redeem himself in lieu of a nota. Whether he has succeeded or failed is up to the bodies of Priests and Tribunes in question, pursuant to this agreement.
Nos Lucius Sicinius Drusus Senator et Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Caesoque Fabius Quintilianus Censores rei publicae Novae Romae coram
Pontifice Maximo Collegioque Pontificum et Collegio Tribunorum
Plebis omnes sempiternum hoc iureiurando obstringemur:
Iovi Optimo Maximo Iunoni Reginae Minervae Marti Patri Quirino Patri
et omnibus Dis Consentibus Indigitibusque et Dis Infernis atque
coram Pontifice Maximo Collegioque Pontificum et Collegio Tribunorum
Plebis ego Caeso Fabius Quintilianus in haec verba iuro me plane
omnino conventum inter Lucium Sicinium Drusum Senatorem et Marcum
Octavium Germanicum Caesonemque Fabium Quintilianum Censores
conservaturum esse et me de his rebus in
ullo modo non ulturum esse et Collegium Pontificum et collegium
Tribunorum Plebis coniunctim iudices ullae iolationis huius
iurisiurandi fore.
Si hoc iusiurandum violo, exactionem civitatis Novae Romanae ad
vitam subibo et neque ius provocationis contra hanc exactionem
exercebo neque ullam legem in Comitiis quae hanc exactionem
rescindit accipiam.
Si hoc iusiurandum violo, omnibus Dis sacer, impius prudens dolo
malo, ero.
Si hoc iusiurandum violo, Deos Infernos et Deos Manes precor ut me
eieciant et sempiternum apud lemures me dinumerent.
Sine fraude aut exceptione hoc iuro.
Pompeia: I can only pray that if I ever am blessed with an opportunity to serve as a magistrate, that I can have such a wonderful Latinist :) Or learn it so fluently myself..
We, Lucius Sicinius Drusus, Senator, and Marcus Octavius Germanicus
and Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, Censors of the Republic of Nova Roma,
in the presence of the Pontifex Maximus and College of Pontifices
and the College of Tribunes of the People all shall be bound
eternally by this oath:
To Iuppiter Best and Greatest, Queen Iuno, Minerva, Father Mars,
Father Quirinus and all the Di Consentes and Indigites and the Di
Inferni and in the presence of the Pontifex Maximus and College of
Pontifices and the College of Tribunes of the People I, [State
Name], swear in these words that I shall observe the agreement
between Lucius Sicinius Drusus, Senator, and M. Octavius Germanicus
and C. Fabius Quintilianus, Censors, perfectly in all respects, and
that I shall take no vengeance in any way concerning these matters,
and that the College of Pontifices and College of Tribunes of the
People collectively shall be the judges of any violation of this
oath.
If I violate this oath, I shall suffer expulsion from Nova Roman
citizenship for life and neither shall I exercise the right of
provocatio against this expulsion nor shall I accept any lex in
Comitia to repeal the expulsion.
If I violate this oath, I shall be sacer, impious without expiation,
to all the Gods.
If I violate this oath, I pray to the Di Inferni and Di Manes that
they cast me out and number me among the lemures for eternity.
Without deceit or reservation I swear this oath.
End of agreement
*********************************************************************
****************
Pompeia: so this agreement was sworn of the Censors and Senator Drusus to the Pontifex Maximus and the Tribunes, and it looks like, by the oath sworn to solidify the contract between the Censors and Senator Drusus, that the Pontifices and Tribunes were the final judges as to whether or not Senator Drusus fulfilled his oath...atleast as I read it.
First and foremost there is absolutely no evidence that the Senator
is not in full compliance with these sections agreement: 1,2 3, and
5 in that L. Sicinius Drusus did
Voluntarily remain unsubscribed from the SenatusRomanus mailing list
from the time the agreement was reached to now.
That he did not participate in any Senate votes for that same period
of time.
That he did make a post on the main list stating that he
is "withdrawing from "the Senate for a limited time.
No accusation has been make much less evidence produced to show
that the Senator has tried to get revenge or retribution of any kind
for the recent conflict.
Pompeia: Unless others can supply evidence, s the agreement is written, I am satisfied as a citizen.
Section IV of the agreement states that
"L. Sicinius Drusus will remain civil and courteous on the mailing
lists of Nova Roma, compliance with which will be judged by the
Praetores. This, however, does not limit him from responding with
reasonable alacrity if he is the recipient of a personal attack.
This is where the current argument is raging."
Pompeia: Oh, really? Amongst whom?
As you can see, in section IV the Praetors and only the Praetor were
to judge wither or not the Senator was civil on the main list of
Nova Roma. Both of our current Praetors have not only stated that he
has and both have said in addition that he has keep his oath.
Pompeia: Yes, but the agreement sworn to the divine indicates that the final judgement rests amongst the Pontifices and Tribunes, of which you are one...the involvement of the Praetors is a judgement of civility indeed, but the final assent to their judgement still rests on those who were given agreement to pronounce judgement. I can see this as a serious consideration for your collegues who might challenge you on this intercessio. In addition, you have not cited any imput from those who were either Praetor or acting in that capacity in locum this year, during the time in question, of Drusus agreement with said judges.
One of them did place him on moderation for two weeks in late May-
June but not one person in the Collegium Pontificum , the College of
Tribunes, the Censors office or anybody else who knew about the
agreement stated at that time that it was a violation of his oath
and he should be dealt with. Only now when it is almost November
does anybody bring up his conduct from May.
Pompeia: And since this affair was not to be taken up until on or before the 31 Oct, did you expect those concerned to get bent out of shape about anything in May? Senator Drusus had several months to redeem himself...and an infarction in May is supposed to have such a judgemental weight? I don't think so...I think that these two judging bodies were adopting a 'wait and see' attitude, and choosing to look at the whole picture, rather than hurl him off the Tarpein slap for one mistake. That's not nice, Galerius, really.
Without a finding by the Praetors that he was uncivil for most of
the year the Collegium Pontificum , the College of Tribunes are
being manipulated into finding that he violated his oath when this
can only come about AFTER a finding by the PRAETORS that his has
been uncivil. The has been no such finding!
Pompeia: Hmmm...I read this a bit differently....see below
Section iv of the agreement reads as follows:
IV. L. Sicinius Drusus will remain civil and courteous on the
mailing lists of Nova Roma, compliance with which will be judged by
the Praetores. This, however, does not limit him from responding
with reasonable alacrity if he is the recipient of a personal attack.
I then asked the Praetors theses questions:
Pompeia: Galerius, did you ask the Praetores these questions with the objective of seeking an OFFICIAL AND/OR PUBLIC statement from them regarding Drusus' past behaviours, or were you just feeling them out...you do not really specifiy that your queries as Tribune were official, on behalf of the Tribunes, to be used as a judgement against Drusus, or if they were independent queries. More specifically, did the Praetores in question think they were answering questions they thought might be used as a 'joint' offical judgement on the matter on their part?
Has he in your judgement remained civil and courteous on the mailing
lists of Nova Roma from May 2757 until now?
Has he been placed on any moderation by you this year? Are you
planning on putting him on moderation?
Are there any pending suits against him filed with your office?
In your opinion has he keep his oath?
In your opinion has anybody party to this agreement, namely M.
Octavius Germanicus, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, or Lucius Sicinius
Drusus violated it in any way?
This is what they have said
*********************************************************************
**************
" Salvete, Tiberio Galerio, Tribuno, et Gaio Popilio,
collega
--- Stephen Gallagher
> Private and Privileged communication
Pompeia: Private and Privileged, eh? I believe that is was Maior, Citizen et Attorney who pointed out tonight that this in itself doesn't seem appropriate... and, well,probably because it is not . If you write someone seeking private and privileged info, that 'implies' to anyone that you are dealing within confidentiality and that you are perhaps seeking an opinion on which to base your personal judgement on the matter. It hardly implies that you are seeking information that is going to be conveyed publically ex officium....especially when an offical statement requires the two of them...and more than two of them, judging by who's been in the Praetoral capacity this year. You have goated them Galerius, I fear. Especially when their conversation seems rather undecided, in that one Praetor is seeking the views of another, in a 'privileged' capacity.
>
> Salve Praetors
>
> As you know you were charged ,in the settlement of
> the Nota issue between L. Sicinius Drusus and the
> Censors with determining if he has remained civil
> and courteous
[..]
> Has he in your judgement remained civil and
> courteous on the mailing lists of Nova Roma from May
> 2757 until now?
M. Arminius: Yes, i think so.
Pompeia: So M. Arminius said 'I think so". Did Praetor Arminius realize that he was being called upon by you in an official and 'decisive'capacity to render a statement that would be publically produced, or any manner of Edictum Praetoribus, regarding the official judgement of the Praetores upon this agreement, which, is ultimately sworn to the Gods to be judged by the Tribunes and Pontifices, taking into account of course, the testimony of 'the Praetores'...**all** of them in question, Sir, and not just the two currently in office
???
. Could you please produce for us, that you were indeed asking for a publically publishable judgement of the Praetores, as opposed to just asking then individually about unofficial opinions, solicited by a solitary Tribune. "I think so" ...doesn't sound like this Praetor had completed any manner of "official" investigation....and I wonder if he realized how truly 'official' it was. Oh, it is well that these Praetores could be being very truthful about what they thought at the time, first impression-wise, but that they thought it was a 'carved in stone' final analysis of the issue, is to me, questionable.
Again, a request for "Private and Privileged" information, is not a request of any manner of statement that is intended to be used publically, and can certain 'not' be consider a consensual 'ex officium' from the Praetores in office now, although I reiterate that you need to consult more than just the current Praetores, if you insist on being nitpicky.
> Has he been placed on any moderation by you this
> year? Are you planning on putting him on
> moderation?
M. Arminius: No, and No.
> Are there any pending suits against him filed with
> your office?
M. Arminius: No, up to my knowledge.
Pompeia: Here again. If Arminius Praetor was aware of the weight of his words to you, would he have said 'not up to my knowledge;...a Praetor knows what Petitio Actione are against whom, unless he has been out of the action for a bit and his colleague is looking after things...but this doesn't indicate to me that he was producing an official response after an investigation...sounds to me like he was asking quasi-offical questions from 'one' Tribune....Tribune Galerius...did you announce to these Praetores that this was a request for an official decision as per their role in the agreement concerning Senator Drusus...you do not indicate such...only the questions you asked of the Praetores, which, so far, seem to be of your own independent action.
Am I repeating myself???? Damned right!!!!!...just as Galerius is attempting to, by what appears to be legally fruitless 'substantiation'
> In your opinion has he keep his oath?
> In your opinion has anybody party to this agreement,
> namely M. Octavius Germanicus, Caeso Fabius
> Quintilianus, or Lucius Sicinius Drusus violated it
> in any way?
M. Arminius: Yes, and No. Well, at first sight, we will
welcome Lucius Sicinius back to the Senate, at the end
of this month.
What is your opinion, Gaius Popillius?
Pompeia: To repeat Arminius Praetor: "Yes and No. Well at first sight, we will welcome Lucius Sicinus back to the Senate at the end of this month...What is your opinion Gaius Popillius? " AT FIRST SIGHT....does not sound like a final and official agreement of the Praetores in the judging of L. Sincinius Drusus Senator's fate. Especially whe he is seeking the counsel of his colleague...well, one of them during the year. It is like looking at a law and saying 'at first reading' it sounds good..... Oh, but there is more below..........
> Vale
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
Valete
M.Arminius
Praetor
Salve Tribune et Salve Colleague,
I agree with my colleague M. Arminius Maior in that I do not recall
any instance of L. Sicinius Drusus violating the agreement. In
fact, Drusus unsubscribed from the Main List some time ago. My
specific answers are below.
Pompeia: Of 'course' Praetor Laenus is in full agreement, but Praetor Arminius doesn't seem to be, and is merely asking his collegue for an opinion, which cannot be rendered as the basis of an intercessio by this Tribune as collective 'ex officium' Praetoribus advice. Also, Praetor Laenus, although he may not care perhaps, was responding to what he considered to be 'privileged' information, as opposed to 'public' and a carved-in-stone ex officium action in collaboration with his current collegia.
Valete,
G. Popillius Laenas
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Gallagher [mailto:spqr753@m...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:04 PM
To: M Arminius Maior; gaiuspopilliuslaenas
Subject: Nota issue between L. Sicinius Drusus and the Censors
Private and Privileged communication
Salve Praetors
As you know you were charged ,in the settlement of the Nota issue
between L. Sicinius Drusus and the Censors
with determining if he has remained civil and courteous
section iv of the agreement reads as follows:
IV. L. Sicinius Drusus will remain civil and courteous on the
mailing lists of Nova Roma, compliance with which will be judged by
the Praetores. This, however, does not limit him from responding
with reasonable alacrity if he is the recipient of a personal attack.
Has he in your judgement remained civil and courteous on the
mailing lists of Nova Roma from May 2757 until now?
Has he been placed on any moderation by you this year? Are you
planning on putting him on moderation?
Laenas: Yes - No - No
Are there any pending suits against him filed with your office?
Laenas: No
In your opinion has he keep his oath?
Laenas: Yes
In your opinion has anybody party to this agreement, namely M.
Octavius Germanicus, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, or Lucius Sicinius
Drusus violated it in any way?
Laenas: No
Pompeia: Althought Laenus seems more firm in his opinions than his colleague, it cannot be said that two separate 'questionares', although addressed collectively to them by one Tribune, can be regarded with any reasonability as an official statement, to be used in judgement of this case....there were more parties either elected as Praetor or acting as Praetor during this time of Drusus' probationary period. "Privileged' information doesn't cut it for me.
*********************************************************************
************
I find it very interesting that half the votes cast so far to find
the Senator guilty of some breach of the agreement was cast by one
person. This smells like politics to me and not justice.
Pompeia: And, Galerius Tribune, it could possibly be considered equally rank from a political view that you would attempt to invoke an intercessio during the 'middle' of an action as opposed to the actual materialization of an 'action'. You seem very anxious to pronounce a veto .... you have stated, more or less, that you are not happy with the outcome of the judgements to date of those in question, viewing same as being politically partisan... you agreed way back at the outset of this,that as Tribune it would be appropriate for you to be a co-judge at the time of this agreement... you did,otherwise you would have vetoed the whole agreement months ago.
I ,Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, hereby invoke Intercessio in the
the matter of the agreement between the Collegium Pontificum , the
College of Tribunes and Senator L. Sicinius Drusus. I here by forbid
any action by the Censors or the Consuls of Nova Roma that has been
taken or that is planed, that would remove him from the Senate and
further forbid any action that would revoke his citizenship in Nova
Roma.
Pompeia: "you' may forbid as you wish. I am divinely thankful there are five tribunes, and atleast three of them I pray, will think differently within the next 72 hours. You cannot agree to something divinely sworn, to which you are a part, then 'veto' it months later, using niggardly evidence from only a fraction of the Praetoral staff as a reason, for what "appears" to be an issue of things not going your way, from either a political or personal standpoint. Either of which I don't care, but unless you can furnish me and the readers with some additional details of this move of yours, which would serve to mend a few of the rather gaping holes in your legal rationale in this matter, I will remain perplexed, with raised eyebrows, scratching an itchy chin, and saying 'hmmmm'
Pompeia
Vale
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- End forwarded message ---
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]