Flavia Scholastica Dianae Octaviae Aventinae aliisque omnibus S.P.D.

--- > Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.
I love when you talk dirty to me M.Flavius Philippus
Conservatus whoever you are!

Vale,
Diana

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

Not to throw any cold water on your ardor, Diana, but he isn't talking
'dirty' to you!

Perhaps Pontifex Scaurus will be able to offer the basic Latin course at
the Academia next year, or to delegate one (or more) of the other Latinists
here to teach this course. If so, I would invite you (and all citizens who
wish to learn Latin, or brush up on that which they have forgotten) to
participate so that you (and they), too, would understand what is being
written to you (and others) in the glorious tongue of the Roman people. An
acquaintance with Latin literature in the original wouldn't hurt any of our
citizens, either.

As for the identity of M. Flavius Philippus Conservatus, a check of the
archives, or a visit to the Tabularium, should reveal that.

Vale, et valete,

Flavia Scholastica




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

Salve, Cato.

That is one man, among countless others who did (and did not) publish
their words and/or attain such circulation of their writings that
they have come down to us in the present time. I know from the vast
amount of research that has kept me (thankfully) away from the forum
for a while, that the Mos Maiorum is more key than you would make it
out to be. Though it will take me a few days as I'll be extremely
preoccupied, I can attempt to find again all of the sources, primary,
scholarly, and otherwise that made this abundantly clear to me if you
so desire. The Romans were innovators, yes, but often unwilling ones.
The Mos Maiorum was believed to be so vital to the survival of Roman
identity, governance, and religion that almost any breach in it was,
as Scarus said, avoided unless absolutely necessary. Seeing the
recent turmoil here, I'm tending to agree with those voices who Livy
trumped in the course of history and wider translation.

The convolution of facts and knowledge here in Nova Roma is so
prevalent that it is disheartening; from the reliance of many who are
more vocal upon those basic encyclopedic volumes that barely scratch
the surface, and all of the modernism [conscious or not] that
pervades the consensus of idealogy. We must fit into and survive in a
modern context, but we must endevour to be like those of Roma
Antiqua, not simply emulate them. If we understand the breadth of the
Roman world, or at least make a concerted effort to do so, we'd all
be much better off.

I must also say that I've found the reversal of behaviour in those in
whom I respect quite disheartening. I may have been lurking in the
shadows of our forums, but I've heard some of this public argument
and much more privately. And I have to say, that from what I hear
from the latter, things don't bode well. But I'll not come to any
conclusions.

I consider you a friend, Cato; I also know you're more than capable
of innovation and insight in both creative and logical capacities. So
I ask you.. Use something else besides this tired quote from Livy,
eh? I've been seeing it for the last several months. And as for what
Livy had to say, with which you and I both agree to some extent, let
the old refrain be "Necissity is the mother of invention". They did
not 'would' because they 'could', as we do here. The kinks in the
armour of Nova Roma are not being hammered out it seems, but are just
being obscured by the cloak. Let's focus on balance and order,
civility and understanding... Easier said than done, but much better
and an obvious exercise of Romanitas than this vicious cycle of
insults and accusations.



Vale,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

P.S. Get on AIM a bit more often; I fear I'm far too grave through
this medium.



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

>
> G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Gaius Scaurus.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "As the huge extant canon of literary and epigraphic sources make
> patent, the Roman attitude was that the traditions of the

forebearers

> -- the mos maiorum -- must always prevail over innovation unless
> circumstances make it impossible for them to do so or there is a

clear

> portent from the Di Immortales."
>
>
>
> But the ancients declared:
>
> "Ought no innovation ever to be introduced; and because a thing has
> not yet been done - and in a new community there are many things

which

> have not yet been done - ought they not to be done, even when they

are

> advantageous? In the reign of Romulus there were no pontiffs, no
> college of augurs; they were created by Numa Pompilius. There was no
> census in the State, no register of the centuries and classes; it

was

> made by Servius Tullius. There were never any consuls; when the

kings

> had been expelled they were created. Neither the power nor the name

of

> Dictator was in existence; it originated with the senate. There were
> no tribunes of the plebs, no aediles, no quaestors; it was decided
> that these offices should be created. Within the last ten years we
> appointed decemvirs to commit the laws to writing and then we
> abolished their office. Who doubts that in a City built for all time
> and without any limits to its growth new authorities have to be
> established, new priesthoods, modifications in the rights and
> privileges of the houses as well as of individual citizens?" -

Livy,

> History of Rome 4.4
>
> As I said to Quintus Maximus, if there is a disparity between what

the

> ancients wrote and what you say, I will go by the ancients' words.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

Salve, Scholastica.

I had seen this elsewhere, and have always found this sentiment among
you and the other Latinists rather puzzling. While I'm not always too
keen on some of the actions (or more so, a lack thereof) of the
Collegium Pontificum, from what I know of those individuals in the
fold, the blasphemy decretrum would never be used against those who
were providing a service to the Collegium. They do not
decide 'orthodoxy', nor the absolute validity of anything; they are
charged with safeguarding orthopraxy. Nor do I think any of them
vicious (or alternately, stupid) enough to use it as political tool,
especially in this context. Though there may be many disagree with
these men, they DO have ethics. They would not cut off the hand that
so graciously feeds them with a pure intent. I can't speak for them,
but next time, it might be more utilitarian that if you have such a
proposal... To simply go and ask a few of the pontifices what they
think of that matter, and then see if they'll bring such a question
to the voices of the College. Of course, the preceeding interjection
is simply my opinion. Apollo and Iupiter are better entrusted with
the disclosure of future events. ;-)

I'm glad you're getting your chance to reform the "archaic" latin, as
you put it. I hope one day to join your ranks as someone who is quite
obviously competent in Latin.... Though, I'm afraid that's still
quite a few years off.


Vale,
Lucius Modius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Moderatrix Fori Romani
<fororom@l...> wrote:

> Flavia Tullia Scholastica G. Iulio Scauro Pontifici quiritibus,

sociis,

> peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Thank you for your kind comments, Pontifex Scaure. I'm sure

that I and

> the other Latinists in Nova Roma are relieved, even delighted, to

learn that

> the dreaded blasphemy decretum will not be wielded against those

who wish to

> correct the religious Latin as well as the secular version, which

has been a

> matter of some concern to us, especially since there is more to do

in both

> realms. For example, two of the three titles of the recently-

appointed

> priests are grammatically incorrect; to wit, 'Sacerdos Templi

Mercurius'

> should, (as you at least know very well) be 'Sacerdos Templi

Mercuri,' (or

> perhaps 'Mercurialis') and 'Sodalus Palatinus' should be 'Sodalis
> Palatinus.'
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica

G. Equitius Cato L. Modio Kaelo S.P.D.

Salve Modius Kaelus.

In many ways I agree with you; the quote from Livy (which, unlike you,
I do not find "tired") is primarily used as a response to those who in
extreme language insist that change is impossible if we're to be truly
Roman; that change is reprehensible if we're to honor the spirit of
the ancients; that change is abominable and unacceptable to the Dii
Immortales.

You should not tire yourself scooping together the mass of literature
to which you make reference; I know very well that change was
basically a method of last resort for the Romans. I do not dispute
this. I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated change "for change's
sake"; as I mentioned to Gaius Caesar in an earlier note, any change
considered must be done so in the critically-applied light of the
writings of the ancients --- and not just that passage from Livy. I
want to be shown sources that would support the change itself OR the
idea that a particular change COULD have come logically from the
thinking of the ancients.

What I do dispute is that change is wrong simply *because* it is
change; the obverse of the "change for change's sake" coin, if you
will. To this end, I will continually apply that passage from Livy;
as you know, the law was indeed changed as a result of Gaius Canuleis'
speech.

I agree entirely with on another point, which is more difficult to
encompass, however. That is the idea of "becoming" more Roman. I
have tried to begin broaching the subject (as has Gaius Caesar) in the
conversation regarding the garment we are weaving. I firmly believe
that one great step towards becoming Roman is to *assume* our
romanitas; to think of ourselves as Romans, and act, rather than going
on and on and on ad infinitum ad nauseum *about* being Roman.

OH --- I bought a new computer so I haven't had a chance to re-install
AIM, but I'm going to :-)

Vale bene,

Cato

In a message dated 2/3/05 8:12:22 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
spqr753@... writes:

Caius Curius Saturninus Post # 32025

..."I will unsubscribe from all the mailing lists so there is no
point of making any public non-sense about this. I resign from all
my posts and my citizenship....




Question?
Did he post his oath? If he did before resigning, then this resignation was
legitimate. Once he resigned, he is no longer a Tribune.
Now did the rest of the Tribunes accept his resignation? If they did not, by
saying so for the record
(publically), he could not resign, so he is retained.
If they did by being silent, then he resigned, and a new election must be
held. The Tribunes cannot disenfranchise the Plebs no matter how much they wish
they could.
In the Nova Roman Mos Maiorum "Silence indicates consent." It has been this
way since the founding.
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Salve Romans

I was about to take my oath as Quaestor and submit it to the Main List when I checked the calendar and found that until the 13 all days are Dies Nefastus. Can I take and submit my oath or do I need to wait?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

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

> I was about to take my oath as Quaestor and submit it to the Main List when I checked the calendar and found that until the 13 all days are Dies Nefastus. Can I take and submit my oath or do I need to wait?

In my opinion, taking an oath, since by its very nature it is more an
action to the Gods than men, and that since dies are nefastus because
they are supposed to be for business with the Gods rather than business
to men, would be a permissible action on a dies nefastus, and
accordingly I see nothing wrong with your doing so. I would, of course,
recommend you consult a pontifex on the matter, but that's my opinion.

Vale,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

G. Equitius Cato Q. Caecilio Metello Postumanio Pio Ti. Galerio
Paulino S.P.D.

Salvete viri.

Postumianus Pius, is not the taking of an oath a legal action? On
dies nefasti *all* legal actions are specifically banned. But you're
right, a pontifex needs to make a formal statement.

Valete,

Cato



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

> > I was about to take my oath as Quaestor and submit it to the Main

List when I checked the calendar and found that until the 13 all days
are Dies Nefastus. Can I take and submit my oath or do I need to wait?

>
> In my opinion, taking an oath, since by its very nature it is more an
> action to the Gods than men, and that since dies are nefastus because
> they are supposed to be for business with the Gods rather than business
> to men, would be a permissible action on a dies nefastus, and
> accordingly I see nothing wrong with your doing so. I would, of

course,

> recommend you consult a pontifex on the matter, but that's my opinion.
>
> Vale,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Salve Cato,

> Postumianus Pius, is not the taking of an oath a legal action? On
> dies nefasti *all* legal actions are specifically banned. But you're
> right, a pontifex needs to make a formal statement.

Well, according to Cordus, it's not. I happen to think it is, but
there's no need to dredge up that conversation. What influenced my
statement is my thought that it should be more a religious action than
anything else (this isn't to say it's not a legal action, of course),
because oaths are made to the Gods.

If we accept, as I do, what Michels* writes (p. 61), which she takes
from Varro, that what is forbidden is for a Praetor (and, I would
presume, a Consul) to say the words 'do', 'dico', or 'addico', words
which would be necessary for a Praetor (and, again, I presume, a Consul)
to exercise functions required under the actiones legis, then I would
have to say that not all legal action is forbidden, only those which
require a praetor to use those three words. In which case, it would be
perfectly permissible for legal action to be taken on dies nefasti.

Anyhow, if we are going to take the safest route regarding the character
of days and what is permissible to pass on them, then I might suggest
that Paulinus be allowed to take up his office now, and take his oath
later, in the interest of maintaining the Pax. A delicate issue this
is, I'd say.

Vale,

Metellus

*Michels, Agnes Kirsopp. _The Calendar of the Roman Republic._
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m...> wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
> I was about to take my oath as Quaestor and submit it to the Main

List when I checked the calendar and found that until the 13 all
days are Dies Nefastus. Can I take and submit my oath or do I need
to wait?

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Salve,

I would wait a little bit. Besides the Dies Nefastus issue the
actual results have not been formally announced by the presiding
magistrate.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

OSD G. Equitius Cato.

salvete omnes.

Hey, wait...the calendar has not been "officially" announced by the
College of Pontiffs so technically *no* day is actually nefastus,
fastus, comitialis, or whatever, is it? We're just winging it right
now, as far as I can tell.

Valete,

Cato

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

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > I was about to take my oath as Quaestor and submit it to the Main
> List when I checked the calendar and found that until the 13 all
> days are Dies Nefastus. Can I take and submit my oath or do I need
> to wait?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> Salve,
>
> I would wait a little bit. Besides the Dies Nefastus issue the
> actual results have not been formally announced by the presiding
> magistrate.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

Salvete;
sorry I do have Cordus's post on all this but I don't know how to
transfer it from the tribunes's files, bother. The Pontifex Maximus
did officially announce the moveable feriae, which was the Sementivae.
Anyhow it is just fine for Tibernius Galerius Paulinus to take his
oath on a Dies Nefast.
On a Dies Nefasti you cannot meet in assembly. So you cannot call a
comitia to meet, and you cannot initiate lawsuits, nor can
magistrates sit on judicial matters but apparently a praetor could
issue interdicts a very powerful magisterial remedy.

But I would say it is incorrect to think of Dies Nefasti as
religious. A religious day would be a Dies Festi or Dies Nefasti
Publici where there were public religious feasts, you were supposed
to give your slaves the day off, not start lawsuits...

>

As you said Cato the pontiffs are in charge of officially annoucing
the Calendar and in Roma Antiqua that was a jealously guarded
privilege as only they knew the permitted days to sue!
The Curule Aedile & plebian Cn. Flavius posted a calendar (304 B.C ?)
in the Forum and broke the pontifical monopoly. A very exciting
moment in Roman history!
bene vale in pace deorum
M. Hortensia Maior TRP




Hey, wait...the calendar has not been "officially" announced by the

> College of Pontiffs so technically *no* day is actually nefastus,
> fastus, comitialis, or whatever, is it? We're just winging it right
> now, as far as I can tell.
>
> Valete,
>
>

Salve, Luci Modi Kaele, et salvete, omnes.

I have replied to this privately.

Vale, et valete,

Flavia Scholastica



Salve, Scholastica.

I had seen this elsewhere, and have always found this sentiment among
you and the other Latinists rather puzzling. While I'm not always too
keen on some of the actions (or more so, a lack thereof) of the
Collegium Pontificum, from what I know of those individuals in the
fold, the blasphemy decretrum would never be used against those who
were providing a service to the Collegium. They do not
decide 'orthodoxy', nor the absolute validity of anything; they are
charged with safeguarding orthopraxy. Nor do I think any of them
vicious (or alternately, stupid) enough to use it as political tool,
especially in this context. Though there may be many disagree with
these men, they DO have ethics. They would not cut off the hand that
so graciously feeds them with a pure intent. I can't speak for them,
but next time, it might be more utilitarian that if you have such a
proposal... To simply go and ask a few of the pontifices what they
think of that matter, and then see if they'll bring such a question
to the voices of the College. Of course, the preceeding interjection
is simply my opinion. Apollo and Iupiter are better entrusted with
the disclosure of future events. ;-)

I'm glad you're getting your chance to reform the "archaic" latin, as
you put it. I hope one day to join your ranks as someone who is quite
obviously competent in Latin.... Though, I'm afraid that's still
quite a few years off.


Vale,
Lucius Modius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Moderatrix Fori Romani
<fororom@l...> wrote:

> Flavia Tullia Scholastica G. Iulio Scauro Pontifici quiritibus,

sociis,

> peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Thank you for your kind comments, Pontifex Scaure. I'm sure

that I and

> the other Latinists in Nova Roma are relieved, even delighted, to

learn that

> the dreaded blasphemy decretum will not be wielded against those

who wish to

> correct the religious Latin as well as the secular version, which

has been a

> matter of some concern to us, especially since there is more to do

in both

> realms. For example, two of the three titles of the recently-

appointed

> priests are grammatically incorrect; to wit, 'Sacerdos Templi

Mercurius'

> should, (as you at least know very well) be 'Sacerdos Templi

Mercuri,' (or

> perhaps 'Mercurialis') and 'Sodalus Palatinus' should be 'Sodalis
> Palatinus.'
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica

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
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .





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

Im reading Foucaults Pendullum...can someone tell me
what Panta Rei means?

=====
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

What the !?-@
--- dom.con.fus@... <dom.con.fus@...> wrote:

>
> Esteemed Censor
>
> May I convene the Comitia "to vote on a plebicite

(sic) Ante Diem IV Kal.

> Mar., February 26th to confirm Equitius Marinus in

his Censorial office"

> (If the Comitia would have the competence to wote on

anything teh

> magistrates would present it, as Cordus and Maior

affirm, I could indeed

> do it)? And if the Comitia would vote "no, we do not

confirm him", would

> you consider yourself as not being the Censor

anymore?

>
> I'm sorry you see my efforts to uphold and defend

the Constitutio as,

> quoting, "high drama". What can I say, you are

supposed to uphold the

> morals, I'm supposed to defend the Constitutio

(well, actually, you ar

> supposed as well, but anyway) an the people are

hopefully able to see

> who's doing his job properly.
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> Founder of Gens Constantinia
> Tribunus Plebis
> Aedilis Urbis
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

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

> Unbelievable Blog of the Week recommends: The

Lincoln Fry Blog.

> Read all about the French fry that looks like

Abraham Lincoln.

>

http://us.click.yahoo.com/bBwbuA/eV0JAA/Zx0JAA/wWQplB/TM

>

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

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

=====
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, Marce Flavi Fides, et salvete, omnes.

Im reading Foucaults Pendullum...can someone tell me
what Panta Rei means?

FTS: "Panta rhei" (the proper spelling) is classical Greek for "all things
flow," or, as it is more commonly interpreted, "all is flux," the doctrine
of Herakleitos (Heraclitus).

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen

=================

Flavia Tullia Scholastica



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

F. Galerius Aurelianus Flamen Cerealis S.P.D.

The Ludi Cerealia is celebrated in April but there are a number of festivals
honoring Ceres Mater throughout the year and each of them is a Cerealia. Some
of these festivals are held in the Greek Manner and are officiated by
priestesses while others are conducted by the Flamen Cerealia. This Cerealia was
declared as part of the movable feriae at the beginning of the year when the
Consuls took office. There are also Festivals that involve Ceres as part of the
Aventine Triad and others in which Ops and Tellus are also given worship,
prayer, and honors. More information can be found in the Religio section of the
Nova Roma website.

Valete.


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

G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino SPD.

Salve, Pauline.

My personal judgment is that it is permissible to take the oath as
soon as the results are announced by the presiding magistrate and that
they may be announced on a dies nefastus. However, I have submitted
the question to the Collegium and expect to have a collegial answer
for you shortly.

My reasoning is thus. Varro is very explicit in what he says the
prohibitions regarding the dies nefasti in religious law are:

Contrarii horum (dies fasti) vocantur dies nefasti, per quos dies
nefas fari praetorem "do," "dico," "addico"; itaque non potest agi:
necesse est aliquo (eorum) uti verbo cum lege qui(d) peragitur. Qoud
si tum imprudens id verbum emisit ac quem manumisit, ille nihilo est
liber, sed vitio, ut magistratus vitio creatus nihil setius
magistratus. Praetor qui tum fatus est, si imprudens fecit, piaculari
hostia facta piatur; si prudens dixit, Quintus Mucius aiebat eum
xpiari ut impium non posse. (De L.L 6.30)

The taboo is on the praetores and the consequences of praetorian
action. A quaestorian oath, in my view, would not be affected, nor
would consular announcement of election results (although in the
historical case the resultsd would be announced the same day as teh
election which would have, perforce, to be a dies comitialis).

Vale.

Scaurus

Salvete!

I wanted to make them notice you that, according to what I have studied of the topic, the Roman calendar was't so rigid in some aspects.

Only there is an exception to this norm of public inactivity in dies nefasti: the Senate. He didn't have fixed dates in those that to celebrate their sessions except for the official opening of the year in the Kalendis Ianuariis, moment in that the Consuls took possession of their magistracy for the rest of the year. Ttherefore the Senate was the supreme institution of the State and its works made certain sacred sense that allows him to meet whenever it considers it necessary, be already days fasti or nefasti.

Another form existed of deceiving these religious prescriptions that prohibited the profane work. Let us think of the months that possess great quantity of dies followed nefasti as Februarius (15), Aprilis (18), Iunius (10) and Iuius (9): it is completely impossible to leave to a city of a million inhabitants which ended up having Rome, without supply of foods or without administration during so many days. The solution was quite pragmatic: an opus was allowed whenever it is related with a sacred act that is very urgent or that it is very harmful not to carry out it. The tasks already begun that they cannot be continued without damage, and this aspect was generously adduced as excuse, they were also tolerated. The artifice consisted on the interpretation of the prohibitions that relapsed on the Rex and the Regina Sacrorum: they are people quotidie feriatus, that is to say, consecrated to perpetuity to their votes and each one of their acts has a religious purpose. In that case it is enough in their displacements for the city go preceded of a praeco, a herald that announces their step in advance so that they cease all the works that, naturally, they will be renewed the sacred person once it has happened. This way the city completed its religious obligations without stopping the daily activity.


[Maior] But I would say it is incorrect to think of Dies Nefasti as
religious. A religious day would be a Dies Festi or Dies Nefasti
Publici where there were public religious feasts, you were supposed
to give your slaves the day off, not start lawsuits...

Yes. I agree with you. But, in my opinion dies religiosi and dies nefasti they are similar things but not equal. In the nefasti the daily life is not paralyzed as it happens in the dies feriae, but rather it only remains inactive the government administration. On the other hand, the dies religiosi I think is a days fasti or comitiales in the calendar but in them they take place religious ceremonies as if they were dies nefastus. Then they are dies nefasti without being explicitly it.

Only the convocation of assemblies is forbidden.


On the other hand, I continue with a lot of interest the messages of Equitius about the calendar, and I have a lot of curiosity to know that books use and of where it takes out some interesting informations. I like a lot of east topic, but not very material encounter in Spanish (my maternal language), something more in English, a little in French and too much in German.


(I apologize for my disastrous domain of Shakespeare's language. Sorry!)

Valete bene.

Q. Salix Cantaber Uranicus


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

Salve G. Iulius Scaurus and everybody else who has commented on this question .

I await the posting of the results by the presiding magistrate.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Rose<mailto:gregory.rose@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Dies Nefastus


G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino SPD.

Salve, Pauline.

My personal judgment is that it is permissible to take the oath as
soon as the results are announced by the presiding magistrate and that
they may be announced on a dies nefastus. However, I have submitted
the question to the Collegium and expect to have a collegial answer
for you shortly.

My reasoning is thus. Varro is very explicit in what he says the
prohibitions regarding the dies nefasti in religious law are:

Contrarii horum (dies fasti) vocantur dies nefasti, per quos dies
nefas fari praetorem "do," "dico," "addico"; itaque non potest agi:
necesse est aliquo (eorum) uti verbo cum lege qui(d) peragitur. Qoud
si tum imprudens id verbum emisit ac quem manumisit, ille nihilo est
liber, sed vitio, ut magistratus vitio creatus nihil setius
magistratus. Praetor qui tum fatus est, si imprudens fecit, piaculari
hostia facta piatur; si prudens dixit, Quintus Mucius aiebat eum
xpiari ut impium non posse. (De L.L 6.30)

The taboo is on the praetores and the consequences of praetorian
action. A quaestorian oath, in my view, would not be affected, nor
would consular announcement of election results (although in the
historical case the resultsd would be announced the same day as teh
election which would have, perforce, to be a dies comitialis).

Vale.

Scaurus


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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

G. Iulius Scaurus D. Constantino Fusco SPD.

Salve, Fusce.

I am writing this as a iurisconsult who helped draft the lex under
which you propose to prosecute.

It is not possible under the mos maiorum to initiate an acceptable
petitio actionis before a praetor against a sitting tribunus plebis.

If you are serious about this charge, there are only two ways you can
proceed against a sitting tribunus plebis in accordance with the mos
maiorum:

1. Convene the Concilium Plebis and introduce a plebiscita impeaching
and removing the tribunus; the Concilium Plebis can remove a tribunus
plebis at will; or

2. Allege a serious vitium in the election of the tribunus plebis
which would void sacrosanctitas under religious law and submit the
matter to the Collegium Pontificum to determine whether or not the
purported tribunus is eligible for sacrosanctitas (e.g., a patrician
whose adoption into a plebeian familia was procedurally invalid, even
if elected a tribunus plebis, could be challenged as a matter of
religious law because of the vitium of invalid adoption, since
patrician status is religiously incompatible with tribunician
sacrosanctitas); if the Collegium determined that such a vitium
existed, the tribunus plebis would be deposed and an expiatory
offering made to Ceres.

I frankly think you'd have a tempestatem merdae on your hands if you
tried the latter, but the Collegium would be obligated to hear it.

Vale.

Scaurus

P. Minius Albucius Scauro omnibusque s.d.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gregory.rose@g...>
wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus D. Constantino Fusco SPD.

> (..) I frankly think you'd have a tempestatem merdae on your hands

if you (..)

> Vale.
> Scaurus

Ah ! "Tempestatem merdae" ! How this expression do smell good latin !
"Qui merdam seminat, merdam metet" would have said another author.

Valete,

PMA

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander Probus"
<alexprobus1@h...> wrote:

> (..) Hereby are results on the latest voting of Comitia Populi
>Tributa onelection of Quaestor, Magister Aranearius and Editor
>Commentariorum confirmed by Custos and Diribitors.

I present my sincere congratulations to the three brillantly elected
new magistrates, the Hon.Tiberius Galerius Paulinius, Quintus
Cassius Calvus and Marcus Tiberius Minucius Audens.

Optime valete !


P. Minius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis

>
>
> Ah ! "Tempestatem merdae" ! How this expression do smell good

latin !

> "Qui merdam seminat, merdam metet" would have said another author.
>
> Valete,
>
> PMA

Salvete,

Tempestatem merdae - storm of sh..(dung)?

Ah, my Latin practice - He who sows bs, reaps it? I threw in an extra
word bull to bring it to modern NA terms.

Regards,

QLP

M. Hortensia Maior D. Constantino Fusco G. Iulio Scauro spd;

if this will lift Tribune Fuscus's veto for the calling of the
comitia plebis tribuna please feel free to go ahead, I will not veto
any action against myself.
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

> G. Iulius Scaurus D. Constantino Fusco SPD.
>
> Salve, Fusce.
>
> I am writing this as a iurisconsult who helped draft the lex under
> which you propose to prosecute.
>
> It is not possible under the mos maiorum to initiate an acceptable
> petitio actionis before a praetor against a sitting tribunus plebis.
>
> If you are serious about this charge, there are only two ways you

can

> proceed against a sitting tribunus plebis in accordance with the mos
> maiorum:
>
> 1. Convene the Concilium Plebis and introduce a plebiscita

impeaching

> and removing the tribunus; the Concilium Plebis can remove a

tribunus

> plebis at will; or
>
> 2. Allege a serious vitium in the election of the tribunus plebis
> which would void sacrosanctitas under religious law and submit the
> matter to the Collegium Pontificum to determine whether or not the
> purported tribunus is eligible for sacrosanctitas (e.g., a patrician
> whose adoption into a plebeian familia was procedurally invalid,

even

> if elected a tribunus plebis, could be challenged as a matter of
> religious law because of the vitium of invalid adoption, since
> patrician status is religiously incompatible with tribunician
> sacrosanctitas); if the Collegium determined that such a vitium
> existed, the tribunus plebis would be deposed and an expiatory
> offering made to Ceres.
>
> I frankly think you'd have a tempestatem merdae on your hands if you
> tried the latter, but the Collegium would be obligated to hear it.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

Salvete omnes;
congratulations to all three magistrates. Especially my fellow
labourer in the Censor's office Calvus, who works mightily hard! may
Fortuna always favour you amice:) and to Ti. Galerius Paulinus for
picking up a hard job while others just stand by and criticize. Good
for you Pauline, you show us all what character is. Finally it would
be presumtious to comment on Senator Audens other to say that we are
fortunate in his devotion.
optime valete magistri; Fortuna is for those who strive!
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

>
> I present my sincere congratulations to the three brillantly

elected

> new magistrates, the Hon.Tiberius Galerius Paulinius, Quintus
> Cassius Calvus and Marcus Tiberius Minucius Audens.
>
> Optime valete !
>
>
> P. Minius Albucius
> Tribunus Plebis

Salvete Tiberius Galerius Paulinius, Quintus Cassius Calvus and
Marcus Tiberius Minucius Audens!

I hereby Congratulate Tiberius Galerius Paulinius, Quintus Cassius
Calvus and Marcus Tiberius Minucius Audens to their newly elected
magistracies!
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Editor-in-Chief, Publisher and Owner of Roman Times Quartely
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salvete Caius Minucius Scaevola, G. Equitius Cato and A. Apollonius Cordus

Congratulation to all three of you on a GREAT calendar!!!! Very nice work indeed.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola<mailto:ben@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Non. Feb.


Salve, G. Equitius Cato amice; salvete, omnes.

On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:25:22PM -0000, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
>
>
> Thank you; I'm enjoying it. In the calendars I have access to, on one
> I see the FORNICALIA commencing on a.d. III Idus Februarius (11
> February), but on several others it's not listed at all; since we have
> no Rex Sacrorum to announce it, and the pontiffs have not set a
> calendar yet...
>
> IO FORNICALIA! :-)
>
> Thank you for the additional information; I encourage ANYONE who has
> interesting stuff to put on the calendar to do exactly as Calidius
> Gracchus has done; Minucius Scaevola and I are still working on a
> completely interactive calendar which will contain all of this
> information eventually, with enormous thanks to Apollonius Cordus for
> providing the foundation. Actually Minucius Scaevola did all the
> difficult-to-comprehend computer wizardry stuff --- I just get to plug
> in the fun bits.

The calendar framework is actually all set up and ready for "public
consumption" :), although the actual content, including the description
of how the calendar worked in antiquity, explanations of the
iconography, etc., is still in process. Again, my thanks to both A.
Apollonius Cordus and Gaius Equitius Cato for participating in this fun,
exciting, and above all useful project with me!

<http://okopnik.freeshell.org/NR/cal.cgi<http://okopnik.freeshell.org/NR/cal.cgi>>



Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas es.
Knowledge is power.
-- Sir Francis Bacon



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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

P. Minucia Tiberia A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.

quick and long.....



(snip):


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
wrote:
A. Apollonius Cordus Pompejae Minuciae Straboni
omnibusque sal.

I'm afraid you've been seriously misled by someone at
some stage about what the legal question is here. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Saturninus
resigned his office before, after, or in the very same
microsecond as he resigned his citizenship.



Pompeia: Yo, not my fiction. Please do not attribute the 'misguidance' to me! :D But since it is a fixed belief on the part of one or two, who will not relent to any other thinking in this regard, I have proposed a 'solution'...oh have a bit of fun, will you?

I am actually quite pleased, Corde that you do not see this as the prime factor in the legal evaluation of all of this...comforted actually. Because I too think it is ridiculous. Perhaps you might say something, because it is simply not well ' sinking in' coming from other sources, including yours truly.

Galerius Tiberius'' rationale,.... and he is an ardent supporter of the stopwatch or 'chicken or egg first' mindset we speak of above..... can be read in message 32349.



Mine is here: 32788

And I will get somewhat serious on some legal elements, Corde, and I am not delivering these in the spirit of 'vandetta' but in the spirit of serious legal consideration.



The issue is really very simple. Saturninus resigned
his citizenship and his office. His resignation of
citizenship is covered by the lex Cornelia Maria,
which allows him to revoke it within 9 days. There is
no such law which allows him to revoke his resignation
of office, and therefore he cannot do so. When he
stated that he was no longer a tribune, he ceased to
be a tribune.

Pompeia: When we resign ourselves of any capacity, we declare ourselves 'no longer to be in that capacity'. That with respect, is obvious, no? The dispute between yourself and the majority of Tribunes, and I'm afraid with myself also, is in illrecognition of the fact that Sat's resignation did not take legal effect until 9 days hence. It is not like he had to have anything reinstated. He never actually legally and bindingly lost any standing in the first place. He was allowed to return 'without penalty', which has meant 'without losing his magisterial credentials' since the lex was adopted by comitia. I know you dispute this, but I'll get to that after.

Check out my post above...I gave you the number...it has a link to the Lex in question. Another element is that if one was never intended to return in their magisterial capacity after the nundina of 9 days, why would this lex have a clause spelling out how the Censores might become involved in the case of a person resigning and being reinstated multiple times in a year? I tried to explain that to Galerius Quaestor , to no apparent avail.





If I drop an apple and a pear from a high building,
both will fall to the ground, yes? Now, what if
there's a magic net around the building which catches
only apples? I drop the apple and the pear. The apple
is caught by the net. The pear is not. The pear hits
the ground. It doesn't matter whether I drop the apple
first, or the pear first, or both together. The apple
will always be caught by the net, the pear will always
hit the ground. The lex Cornelia Maria is a net which
only catches apples.

Pompeia: That is indeed how you see it, but if you read the law as a whole, that is not what it 'says', with respect...and not what it 'means', atleast to me, and evidently to others who have applied it. So Cordus, by your opinions in this situation, you are proposing that it is ok that Saturninus (or perhaps Laenus in retrospect) is punished for taking advantage of a nundina to which he was lawfully entitled by blockading resumption of their duties. And a call of comitia to 'affirm' that this "is" or 'isn't (the flip side) lawful... to wit, the granting of something to which comitia already expressed as being a lawful entitlement, is an inappropriate reason to call comitia. You are asking the people to potentially backpeddle on something they rubberstamped in the first place. A 'legal' maneuver, by virtue of loophole, but is it a 'just' one? It is like saying to the people,"are you absolutely *sure* that Censores can confirm citizenship? 'Are you sure that you're happy
with Galerius as a Quaestor?" "Are you 'sure' that is is unlawful to rob banks?" "Are you 'sure' that the Religio Romana is the state religion?"...

Such scenerios, to me, are not remotely equitable to an appeal by a citizen through the Tribunes to comitia, where, say, a Tribune from antiqua could promulgate a plebicite allowing the people the final say in a judgement. In the case of Saturninus, he has committed no crime to which he needs appeal or a sentence, and the only person who is claiming injury or claiming entitlement to provacatio is one who felt that he could run for Tribune if Saturninus was declared *history*.. by.the same law that granted Consul Laenus a return to his Tribuneship duties unfettered.... and Scaurus a return as Curule Aedile...with narry a peep of objection, from a legal standpoint I have observed.



If I understand you correctly Cordus, you are, and perhaps very innocently, condoning the agenda of Galerius, in what I view is a rather legalistic fashion,through an appeal to comitia for 'affirmation' that Saturninus could maybe or welllll, maybe *not* be granted the protections of the law the people have already deemed lawful...???? Why??? Because we 'can'...but 'should' we? That is an embarrassing use of the people....and is inviting a partisan and rather playful employment of legal process....and if the people vote 'no' and thus not 'affirming' their position...they may call themselves , or others can call the people of the comitia backpeddlers to their own laws? And we can I suppose, 'rationalize' this by shrugging and saying " well....'the people voted this in....the *power* is with the people???: :(

Be careful of what your are condoning Corde, please.

Example: John Smith resigns his position as CEO of Herods Department Stores.

The Board of Directors 2 years prior voted to allow a week for resignees to change their mind by stating that resignations shall not be regarded as official for a week.

John Changes his mind and he's still working as CEO.

Bill Smith does the same thing a year later as Purchasing Administrator...resigns...the law is still in effect.

But Gary Paulinous is slighted because he had applied for this job before Bill's resignation was actually official....and Bill came back and Gary was rather upset with this.

Gary asks the Board of Directors to 'revisit this law' in a fashion where Bill's entitlement can be questioned by each member of the Board of Directors...akin to 'polling a jury'...they are asked if same entitlement given to John is also an entitlement for Bill, and a young lawyer finds a legal loophole and tries to have the process implemented....

Sound familiar?

And, Corde, I see a potential ex post facto element to this....we asking comitia to either affirm or potentially redefine the manner in which this lex is applied, declaring Saturninus to be 'wrong' in his capacity as Tribunus Plebis, after he has been declared beholding of his potestas under this same law. If you want to change or redefine the rules...which ever way you look at it, you are punishing him for 'new rules' or' new applications' to this lex which did not occur when he was reinstated. If you do this, you will have to hold the same rules for Laenus and strike the words 'Tribunus Plebis' from his record....and this is ex post facto too.



The fact that people in the past got it wrong means
nothing more than that if we agree with them we'll be
wrong too. Precedents have no binding force here.But
if we're looking for precedents, let's not overlook
the fact that there are precedents for both sides of
the argument. On the one side, previous magistrates
like Laenas and Scaurus have been allowed to resume
their magistracies after resigning them. On the other
side, when you resigned your praetura and your seat in
the senate, you were not allowed back into the senate.
Which was right?

Pompeia: My situation does not apply. I resigned my magistracy. Then two or three days later I resigned my citizenship. So, when I resigned my citizenship, as a citizen I had no magistracies to which I could be lawfully reinstated. So we have, that I can recall, three precedents where the magistrate, after resigning his citizenship, resumed his duties if he did so during the nundina where his resignation had not taken legal and binding effect. 2 Tribs, one Curule Aedile, under this legislation.



Now, if you wish to ignore what I just said, and take a circular route back to the element of precedents not being binding, you may. I only say this because you cited my situation as an example of differentiating application of this lex, and my situation was different, in that I had no magistracies when I resigned citizenship. Again, this cannot serve as coroboration to your statement above.

I can see where the 'precedents have no legal force' arguments could be used as an excuse to say that the same circumstances were ok to be positively applied to person X, yet applied in a negative fashion to person Y, in pretty much the same circumstances. Precedents which are conflicting I could see as presenting a dilemna...precedents which apply the law in exactly the same fashion under the same circumstances should not be cause for legal challenge unless someone can substantiate a good reason why. Especially when the reasoning of these precedents are shared by participant lawyers who were former Tribs..who can read laws.... lawslike the Lex Cornelia Maria. Oh we can say 'they don't matter'..'.I don't have to adopt past thinking, and nobody can make me' and/or ' I dont 'legally' need a reason'...but is this the route of impartial justice, or opportunistic legalism? A theoretical question.

I've used this anecdote before in this forum, but let
me wheel it out again because it's quite instructive.
When a certain fellow was made flamen Dialis he
claimed a seat in the senate, since from ancient times
that priesthood had entitled its holder to such a
seat. The tradition had fallen into disuse, and the
praetor objected that recent precedents must overrule
more ancient ones. The tribunes decided the matter.
They saw that there were precedents on both sides, and
thus they decided the issue not on precedent, but on
its own merits; and they found in favour of the
flamen.

Well, here again we have precedents on both sides; but
when we look at the merits of the case we find that
one side is correct and the other not. The problem is
that in this case the authority to settle the matter
lies with the concilium plebis, and until the
concilium plebis is called to settle it the matter
cannot be settled.

Pompeia: If you are applying my situation, I do believe that you are comparing a pear (me) to three apples (that of Scaurus, Laenus and Saturninus)....see your analogy to the Lex Cornelia Maria above as being an 'apple catcher'

As far as the settling of the matter by the Comitia Plebis, I see it as said body being called to settle a matter that is not a legal question to begin with, and you see his resignation of magistracy as something without recourse. I do not see where you, or anyone else suggested that Laenus' return be 'affirmed' by comitia in the archives. Perhaps you didn't like the law, or his return, whatever...but you appeared to be less vocal about it. This confuses me in light of current events.

We also have to remember who convenes the comitia plebis...the Tribunes or a Tribune...if said Tribune so convenes, he or she is subject to the veto of the remainder of Tribunes...and they are within their right to do so if they view a comitia is being called for a purpose which would potentially lead them to apply the law differently to one person over another. This is against the spirit of Roman justice and against the spirit of the constitution...and the Tribunes may veto on this basis, according to our constitution.

I also see the Tribunes as the elected representatives of the Plebs to guard the constitution and be mindful of pursuant laws. Why there are 5 of them (ahistorcial I know), so that no one tribune can run amok in NR, without any cability on the part of NR to keep potentially self serving and unlawful agendae in check. We have had rather negative results from lack of Tribune representation, and one Trib vetoing the other, when there were just two Tribs. I think Titus Labienus Fortunatus did a great service to NR in fashioning the number of tribs and their intercessio laws the way he did.

It is not a question of comitial authority...it is what is being promulgated before comitia...heck why any veto occurs...because the proposal is legally bogus.

I think, Corde ,we have to be careful in reminding ourselves that, as much as we admire the antiquated system of government, and we are able to say 'this or that' in Nova Roma is not historical, we cannot arbitrarily supplant the laws of antiqita with comitial decisions of Nova Roma...our constitution and some of our laws need work, and indeed there are some phrases in the Lex Cornelia Maria which need a spit and polish, although the core elements retaining Saturninus' potestas are clear enough to me...and obviously to others who have had no problem with Laenus' or Saturninus' situation..



What do we do? If we think certain laws need work? We lobby for change. To insist that a 'another take' be applied to the language of this lex is probably not going to do any good, except to call a comitia to 'affirm' Tribune potestas... the state of which is quite arguable as never being legally dispensed with in the first place. I invite you to reexamine the entire text of this lex.

Nixing Saturninus is not going to correct things for the future...it 'might' set yet another precedent of sorts, with likely an interesting twist from existing precedent to date, which may or may not be adopted in future as a good application.But, alas, we may also just turn around and remind ourselves that 'precedents are not binding'. If precedents illustrate a consistent adoption of logic, legality and justice, they should atleast be entertained before they are totally dismissed in our efforts to breed justice.... nonne?



Although such is your perogative, I fear you are some legally learned people *wrong,* when you suggest that they have misapplied this law..Even.... Marcus Marcius Rex, lawyer, Tribune of the Plebs 2003 who sanctioned that Laenus maintain his tribuneship? They have probably not behaved appropriately in terms of antiquita's approach to this, and you might be right in this. But they have evaluated the Lex Maria Cornelia in favour of the resigning Tribune, in agreement with this year's Tribunes. And they have recognized the lex as the will of the people of Nova Roma. According to the language in Nova Roma law...Saturninus never lost his potestas...so to me there is no legal justification for a comitia call, as really, we are calling them to affirm a law that they confirmed to be appropriate already, back in 2001.

Let us work on amending the existing law, which is likely to benefit us more in the long run.

Pompeia





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- End forwarded message ---








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

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

G. Iulius Scaurus Quiritibus SPD.

Salve, Quiritibus.

Marca Hortensia Maior scripsit:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:05:53 -0000, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

> But I wonder, as both Pontiffs Iulius Scaurus and Gaius Modius
> offered to lift my 'nefas' status if I vetoed the adlection of the
> Senatores.

This is a blatant lie. No such offer was ever made. There are no
circumstances under which I would consider such a thing. There
appears to be no fabrication to which this person will not stoop.

Vale.

Scaurus

Salve P. Minucia Tiberia who said in part

"My situation does not apply. I resigned my magistracy. Then two or three days later I resigned my citizenship. So, when I resigned my citizenship, as a citizen I had no magistracies to which I could be lawfully reinstated...."

EXACTLY !!!!!

Two or three days or two or three seconds, it does not matter you were and he was a FORMER magistrate when you/he resigned your/his citizenship.

Why is Cordus an "innocent" in holding a similar view as I do on this issue but I have an agenda?

The only "agenda" I have is to see that the law is followed and that an election is held.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus





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

Salvete Quirites:
this is post 33075# which I have snipped for brevity, but you can
look up for the entire text.
The pontiff Iulius Scaurus titled this to call on the Tribuna
Plebis, he then mentions me specifically, to also prove my sincerity
as a practioncer of the Religio.

Now this month my appeal to the Collegium Pontificum to have my nefas
status removed was rejected by Pontiff Scaurus and others but at the
time Pontiff Modius said he would bring it up before the CP
again...........So this is the background...M. HOrtensia Maior TRP
**********************************************************************
****

> I come before you as Pontifex and Flamen Quirinalis ex officio to
> discuss the EDICTVUM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS of
> Quintilianus and Marinus.
>...........SNIP
>
> G. Equitii Cato, Marca Hortensia Arminiana Fabiana, both of you have
> publicly declared a commitment to defend the place of the Religio
> Romana in Nova Roma. Now is the time to show whether that

commitment

> is sincere. If you want to show to practitioners of the Religio

that....SNIP

> . Show us that we can trust you to defend
> the Religio....SNIP , I beseech you.
>
> Valete.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
> Pontifex et Flamen Quirinalis

Salvete Quirites;
this is post 33094# in its entirety:
does anyone here think that if I had used the powers of the
tribunian veto, to prevent these Senatores from being adlected that
next month I would have "nefas" lifted and also have my application
for sacerdos reinstated.
"Nefas you shall stay" has a very big meaning.....

but I do not regret doing what is right.
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

>
> Salve, Marca Hortensia.
>
> Thank you for your pompt reply and for confirming that I was a
> complete damned fool for ever thinking even for a moment that there
> was any truth in your claims of being willing to defend the

Religio.

> Nefas you are and nefas you shall stay.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

Hello

Is there someone who can explain to me the difference between urbanae
cohortes and the cohortes of the vigiles?

Thank you

salve

Celine

Salve (hello),

The Vigiles was the Roman fire department. Under the reign of
Augustus this department , under the command of their own prefect was
a 7000 man corps divided into seven cohorts, each under a tribune
and composed of freedmen. The seven cohorts provided the 14 regions
of Rome with adequate protection; every two sections of the city were
patrolled by one cohort. It is believed they were also used in
keeping public order.

The urban cohorts were the actual police force of Rome, again
established under Augustus. There were 3 cohorts each 1000 men stong
and maintained public order in the city.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





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

>
>
> Hello
>
> Is there someone who can explain to me the difference between

urbanae

> cohortes and the cohortes of the vigiles?
>
> Thank you
>
> salve
>
> Celine

Salve (hello),

The Vigiles was the Roman fire department. Under the reign of
Augustus this department , under the command of their own prefect was
a 7000 man corps divided into seven cohorts, each under a tribune
and composed of freedmen. The seven cohorts provided the 14 regions
of Rome with adequate protection; every two sections of the city were
patrolled by one cohort. It is believed they were also used in
keeping public order.

The urban cohorts were the actual police force of Rome, again
established under Augustus. There were 3 cohorts each 1000 men stong
and maintained public order in the city.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





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

>
>
> Hello
>
> Is there someone who can explain to me the difference between

urbanae

> cohortes and the cohortes of the vigiles?
>
> Thank you
>
> salve
>
> Celine

In a message dated 2/5/05 5:16:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mjk@... writes:

The urban cohorts were the actual police force of Rome, again
established under Augustus. There were 3 cohorts each 1000 men stong
and maintained public order in the city.



Correction. The Urban Cohortes were standardized under Augustus. They were
around long before that.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Salve Quinte Fabi Maxime,

Oky doke; thanks!

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/5/05 5:16:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> mjk@d... writes:
>
> The urban cohorts were the actual police force of Rome, again
> established under Augustus. There were 3 cohorts each 1000 men
stong
> and maintained public order in the city.
>
>
>
> Correction. The Urban Cohortes were standardized under Augustus.
They were
> around long before that.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Iulius Scaurus Flaviae Tulliae Scholasticae SPD.

Salve, Flavia Tullia.

I think Diana was making a joke. I suspect that most of us could
imagine a circumstance in which the aphorism "I see and approve the
better, and follow the worse" could be suggestive. But, then, I'm the
great traducer of Ruritanian public morality, so it may just be all in
my head.

Vale.

Scaurus

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit.

Salvete

> Message: 4
>
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica G. Iulio Scauro Pontifici quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Thank you for your kind comments, Pontifex Scaure. I'm sure that I and
> the other Latinists in Nova Roma are relieved, even delighted, to learn
> that the dreaded blasphemy decretum will not be wielded against those who

wish

> to correct the religious Latin as well as the secular version, ...

L Equitius: It was never the intent of the Decretum to do anything of that
sort.
It's pretty clear to anyone who reads it, that it's to be used to protect
the status of the religio within the state. Especially against abuses of
'officials'.


<SNIP>

> Vale, et valete, Flavia Tullia Scholastica
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus Quiritibus SPD.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> ... Flavia Tullia is absolutely correct about the Latin
> (and there's not a chance the blasphemy decretum would be used against
> corrections of Latin grammar and style)...
>
> Valete.
> Scaurus

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> spqr753@... writes:
>
> Caius Curius Saturninus Post # 32025
>
> ...."I will unsubscribe from all the mailing lists so there is no
> point of making any public non-sense about this. I resign from all
> my posts and my citizenship....

L Equitius: Sounds clear to me. Can someone find the lex, or clause, where
it says that a magistrate can rescind a resignation. There is a law that
allows *citizens* to reconsider, but nothing that gives magistrates a "do
over".

> In the Nova Roman Mos Maiorum "Silence indicates consent." It has been

this

> way since the founding.
> Q. Fabius Maximus

L Equitius: Nonsense. I've been silent many times and have disagreed,
instead voting
my disagreement.

Valete

Flavia Tullia Scholastica Lucio Equitio Cincinnato Auguri quritibus, sociis,
peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.


L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit.

Salvete

> Message: 4
>
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica G. Iulio Scauro Pontifici quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Thank you for your kind comments, Pontifex Scaure. I'm sure that I and
> the other Latinists in Nova Roma are relieved, even delighted, to learn
> that the dreaded blasphemy decretum will not be wielded against those who

wish

> to correct the religious Latin as well as the secular version, ...

L Equitius: It was never the intent of the Decretum to do anything of that
sort.

FTS: I am pleased to hear a second member of the Collegium Pontificum
confirming that alterations to religious texts for the sake of improving
their Latin (or, apparently, their English translation, for that matter)
will not be considered offensive. Due in part to the orthopraxic nature of
the Religio, and to the various interpretations of the Decretum which have
been bandied about, as well as to other events we have witnessed, some of us
have become concerned that any alteration to the religious texts for any
purpose, or any assistance rendered to any sacerdos, flamen, etc. in
composing religious texts, might be negatively interpreted, and even bring
the Decretum to bear on us, with the result that we have hesitated to render
such assistance. It is gratifying to know that we may render assistance to
those who ask for it without having to fear the application of the Decretum,
and that those who may have suffered from such trepidation were apparently
unduly alarmed.

It's pretty clear to anyone who reads it, that it's to be used to protect
the status of the religio within the state. Especially against abuses of
'officials'.

FTS: Unfortunately, written texts can sometimes be interpreted in ways one
would not suspect, or which their authors never intended. It is possible to
construe the alteration of religious texts, or of the production of them,
particularly by non-practitioners, as being harmful to the status of the
Religio, though I certainly hope that this interpretation would not occur to
anyone here, most especially to members of the Collegium.

Vale, et valete,

Flavia Tullia Scholastica



<SNIP>

> Vale, et valete, Flavia Tullia Scholastica
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus Quiritibus SPD.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> ... Flavia Tullia is absolutely correct about the Latin
> (and there's not a chance the blasphemy decretum would be used against
> corrections of Latin grammar and style)...
>
> Valete.
> Scaurus

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> spqr753@... writes:
>
> Caius Curius Saturninus Post # 32025
>
> ...."I will unsubscribe from all the mailing lists so there is no
> point of making any public non-sense about this. I resign from all
> my posts and my citizenship....

L Equitius: Sounds clear to me. Can someone find the lex, or clause, where
it says that a magistrate can rescind a resignation. There is a law that
allows *citizens* to reconsider, but nothing that gives magistrates a "do
over".

> In the Nova Roman Mos Maiorum "Silence indicates consent." It has been

this

> way since the founding.
> Q. Fabius Maximus

L Equitius: Nonsense. I've been silent many times and have disagreed,
instead voting
my disagreement.

Valete









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

---P. Minucia Tiberia Tiberio Galerio Paulino Omnibus S.P.D.

Oh Tiberius Galerius:

You still do not understand, I'm afraid. Or you understand what I am
saying 'in certain cases' depending on whose resignaton situation we
are speaking of, even when they are indeed the same situation?


And if your pursuant and vociferously expressed 'agenda' was
such "that the law is followed", as you so claim below, you would
have stepped all over the post resignation returns of Laenus,
Scaurus *as well as* Saturninus....where was your oppositional
nitpicking when Laenus and Scaurus returned? So your quest
for 'justice' seems to me to be a bit *too* respective of the person
it affects. Does this have anything to do with how it might
adversely affect you per chance?



For the benefit of anyone who would read this post, I shall
endeavor to clarify my thinking, if for nothing but interesting
academics... So I address you all as well as Galerius. I do not
believe I can successfully reason with Galerius Paulinus because he
has an impermeable mindset and acute 'agenda' regarding the issues
of resignation, the demonstration of which has exacerbated by the
issues of Saturninus' resignation.

These citizens/magistrates, Laenus, Scaurus and Saturninus
resigned away everything at once in the same post. Their citizenship
was most important as an element here. I signed away just my
magistacies at first, and this in itself does not carry a grace
period......then I resigned my citizenship 2-3 days later in a
separate letter...resignation of citizenship carries a grace period,
under the lex Cornelia Maria, which provides that I may return, and
if I have any magistracies they resume with me, said resignation not
actually taking legal affect until the 9 days is up.

I resigned as a citizen without magistracies...bottom line.



I returned as a citizen but my magistracies were not
automatically resumed..coz I had none when I resigned as a
citizen...I had tossed them.. 2-3 days in advance of resigning my
citizenship....this lex has no jurisdiction over resignation of
magistracies alone, for those who choose to remain a citizen.




MOREOVER (not yelling) the lex goes on to say that if a citizen
with magistracies pulls this stunt too often in a given year, the
Censor can intervene. So herein you see that citizens are intended
to return without strippage of their magistracies. This is what
Galerius persistently ignores, which renders invalidity to his
arguments.

One of the recogized flaws of this lex and the reason it needs to
be amended is that it punishes those who choose to resign their
magistracies and remain a citizen and awards those who resign their
citizenships who are also magistrates with better treatment. It has
never been meant to block the resumption of one's magistracy if they
return as a resigned citizen within the 9 day grace period...and the
resignation doesn't become official until after 9 days...so what is
the problem here with recognizing Saturninus as having potestas.

And when citizens such as Galerius ask for a comitia call asking you
to in essence call the interpretations to date of this lex 'wrong',
and block Saturninus' return...inviting comitia to 'change their
mind'. Sure, precedents are not legal and binding except when they
are law...but to date the magistrates/tribunes have always ruled in
favour of the resigned citizen returning to his magistracies. Couple
of them are lawyers.

If we don't like the law, the language and thus its application,
we lobby for an amendment...we don't ask for a comitia call to block
for Saturninus what has been given to all others, because we 'can'
and we dont' have to abide by precedents because we think they
are 'wrong'....that is not justice. That is not how we fix a law.
So my view of methodologies of seeing that the 'law is followed' is
that you are being selectively legalistic. You wanted this
Tribuneship and you have gone to exhaustive lengths to try to attain
it. A shame, really, imo.

Reminds me of a punch from a sitcom: "oh you will have a fair
trial...and 'then' you will be shot!"

Who is invested by comitia to define what is and isn't a 'mistake'
in interpretation of the laws and constitution in NR? The
magistrates they elect, indeed. The elected Tribunes, according to
the constitution 'administer the law', and of course in so doing are
subject to veto by their collegial peers. Lobby for amendments to
laws you don't like, if justice is really your quest, Galerius.
That's the legal mos on how we fix things. We do not request bogus
comitia calls asking for comitia to be a grand tribunal over laws
they establish in the first place and the magistrates they have
elected to represent them...Hey, we could have alot of fun with this
in future, now couldn't we?



Again, to Galerius..... If this in your mind was such a bad law, or
its interpretation has been so wrong to date, regardless of
precedent (which of course we don't HAVE to follow) ...you had every
opportunity to step on it when Laenus returned in 2003, when Scaurus
returned in 2004...but we only hear from you when Saturninus has
returned...what's wrong with this picture? Give it up please,
because now that you are Quaestor I believe you cannot hold the
Tribuneship anyway.

And I most assuredly would never want to get on your bad side.

Sleep well, as of late, Galeri Pauline?

Po


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

>
> Salve P. Minucia Tiberia who said in part
>
> "My situation does not apply. I resigned my magistracy. Then two

or three days later I resigned my citizenship. So, when I resigned
my citizenship, as a citizen I had no magistracies to which I could
be lawfully reinstated...."

>
> EXACTLY !!!!!
>
> Two or three days or two or three seconds, it does not matter you

were and he was a FORMER magistrate when you/he resigned your/his
citizenship.

>
> Why is Cordus an "innocent" in holding a similar view as I do on

this issue but I have an agenda?

>
> The only "agenda" I have is to see that the law is followed and

that an election is held.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus; salvete, omnes.

On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:25:44PM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
>
> Salvete Caius Minucius Scaevola, G. Equitius Cato and A. Apollonius Cordus
>
> Congratulation to all three of you on a GREAT calendar!!!! Very nice work indeed.

Thank you kindly. It's given me real pleasure to work with two such
capable people, and to be able to combine my skills with theirs to
produce something this useful. I wish interaction with my Web-design
clients was always this easy! :)

My most sincere wish for Nova Roma is that more of her citizens would
engage in shared projects that benefit her. I'm not out to toot my own
horn, but the synergy resulting from the cooperative efforts of a bunch
of smart, skilled people can create terrific results - and be great fun
for everyone involved in the process.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Amicus verus est rara avis.
A true friend is a rare bird.
-- N/A

In a message dated 2/5/05 9:47:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fororom@... writes:

FTS: Unfortunately, written texts can sometimes be interpreted in ways one
would not suspect, or which their authors never intended. It is possible to
construe the alteration of religious texts, or of the production of them,
particularly by non-practitioners, as being harmful to the status of the
Religio, though I certainly hope that this interpretation would not occur to
anyone here, most especially to members of the Collegium


Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
I find that while you what you say MIGHT come true, that it would happen by
this College is
impossible. The Decree is to keep officials from using their Imperium and
Auctoritas to diminish the importance the Religio Romana to Nova Roma and its
members. It also there to keep those citizens who love to debate religion for
the sake of conflict, "to get a rise out" of practitioners who take the
Religio seriously, from doing so.
Does it chill free speech? If one's idea of free speech is the ability to
mock the very bedrock of the organization that one is a member, then yes, it
does. But I see it as a small price to pay in the continuous restoration
process.
We have had Latinists, Historians, Jurists leave Nova Roma because they
couldn't abide by
the primacy the Religio Romana. That was a sensible choice, and I wish them
well. Its very clear
what Nova Roma is about on our web site.
If one comes here with the idea they are going to "screw" with the primacy
of the Religio, the Decree
should inform them in no uncertain terms that it is not going to happen.
That is its purpose and function in a nutshell.
Valete


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

Salve P. Minucia Tiberia

I posted to the main list the day after he resigned that he should reconsider his resignation of his citizenship and come back but that his resignation from his "offices" had taken effect immediately.

Not one person, not one , not even you, posted to say I was wrong in my interpretation.

On the 11th of January I sent a post to one of the Tribunes stating that I was interested in standing for Tribune now that they was a vacancy and asked them when they would be issuing a call for candidates. It was only after I sent my note that the Tribunes posted to the main list that a vacancy did not exist.

They were and are wrong.

I have asked for intervention by the Praetors and have been turned down. I appealed to the CPT but the call for it was vetoed by the same Tribunes that are at the center of this LEGAL dispute. At the minimum they should have been willing to risk letting the CPT decided this once and for all.

Not with standing the fact that I know that I am not the most popular people here. A reading of the fall election results made that quite clear. I was still willing to exercise my right of provocatio and risk losing in what amounts to a "court of public opinion". What are the Tribunes willing to risk?

Not to nit pick but the call for the Comitia Plebis Tributa to convene on this question is not who I appealed to and not who the constitution says I can appeal to. That would be the Comitia Populi Tributa. The issue has never been who is or is not a Tribune but when does a resignation take effect. Are the Tribunes so afraid they might be wrong that they do not want to risk asking the citizens to render a clear and unambiguous answer to end this argument?


Finally I am not yet a Quaestor as the presiding magistrate has not, as far as I can tell ,posted official election results.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus





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

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni Ti. Galerio Paulino
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

If I may interject...

Here is what the section of the law being tossed about says:

"If a currently serving magistrate submits and withdraws multiple
resignations of citizenship within the same calendar year, the
censores will have grounds, after a closed hearing at which the
magistrate will have opportunity to present reasoning for his/her
actions, to issue an edictum against the magistrate rendering him/her
ineligible to run for elected office for one year. Should the
magistrate believe that he/she has a case for appeal of such an
edictum, he/she can appeal to a Tribunus Plebis, Praetor or Consul
within 30 days of issuance of the edictum as follows..." - Lex
Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda Sec. III

As far as I know, this is the only mention of magistracies and
resignation in Nova Roman law, and it is almost comically
poorly-written.

What it *seems* to imply is that a magistrate can resign, re-think his
decision, realize he's made a mistake, and take up both his
citizenship and magistracy again; otherwise he would not be able to do
it "multiple" times. This interpretation is being used as the
foundation for having acted as was done with regards to Popillius
Laenas in 2756, Gaius Scaurus in 2757, and Curius Saturninus now.

But what if a citizen resigns his citizenship three or four times in
one calendar year and THEN is elected to a magistracy in December of
that year? He would fulfill the terms stated, having resigned
multiple times AND being "currently serving" in a magistracy; could he
then have the edictum pronounced against him? That would be
nonsensical --- but it *would* be correct, under the law as it stands.

Now, I happen to be one of those who think that a magistracy resigned
is a magistracy lost; that there ought not to be a "grace" period with
public office as there is with citizenship itself.

Citizenship itself is so much more precious and meaningful than a mere
public office that it should be extended in any way possible to
someone who is having macronational (or for that matter any)
difficulties which might arise; every attempt possible should be made
to encourage someone to be able to retain their citizenship. So I
support the "grace" period for citizenship.

But public office is a matter of trust and obligation, and if a
citizen reaches a point where they are seriously enough affected that
they are willing to drop their citizenship, then they have broken that
trust which the People have given them and the obligation they have
undertaken in the name of the Senate and People of Nova Roma even if
it is through what they would consider no fault of their own.

The gravity of breaking that trust and obligation cannot possibly be
over-stated. It is not a mark of cruelty or harshness or stubbornness
or lack of sympathy to ask that a magistrate fulfill his obligations;
if he cannot, for whatever reason, he should lay it down with no
expectation that it will be handed back to him if he feels better the
next day, or within the next nine days. It should be very clear that
resignation is a serious decision, and once made cannot simply be
forgotten. An appeal to emotion is uncalled for, unnecessary, and
inappropriate. This is not a matter of a child getting angry in a
sandbox, grabbing his toys and running away, and being coaxed back;
this is our government.

Once resigned, his office returns (or *should* return) to the
possession of the People, from whom that office receives its
authority; the People should decide who will receive that authority,
even if they are asked to re-elect the citizen who laid it down. Vox
populi vox dei.

Valete bene,

Cato

> Not with standing the fact that I know that I am not the most

popular people here. A reading of the fall election results made that
quite clear. I was still willing to exercise my right of provocatio
and risk losing in what amounts to a "court of public opinion". What
are the Tribunes willing to risk?

>
>>

Salve Tiberi amici,

LOL, never fret about that. The Book Of Proverbs, and later Niccola
Machiavelli said to beware when everyone speaks well of you!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve

> On the 11th of January I sent a post to one of the Tribunes stating that
> I was interested in standing for Tribune now that they was a vacancy and asked

> them when they would be issuing a call for candidates. It was only after I
> sent my note that the Tribunes posted to the main list that a vacancy did not

> exist.

You know that the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is not a logical sound argument,
right? Ever considered that the tribunes might had been already discussing
among themselves the matter when you posted (to a single one of them) your
candidacy and the fact our position came out after that was not actually caused
by that? Or you think that the whole thing is about you an the fact we meant
with all means to avoid your candidacy? Because, if it is the latter, I can
assure you that your candidacy has not even been considered, neither as a
factor of our decision nor as a candidacy per se, given there was not a
position to be filled.

> At the minimum they should have been
> willing to risk letting the CPT decided this once and for all.

Why, pray tell, should I (actually, the only vetoing ribunus it's me atm, in
fact, even if it is possible that the others are being quiet because they do
not see the reason to act while the right job is being performed and their
effort would be redundant) had let pass something that I consider
unconstitutional? In order to appear "better" at your eyes? Because it sounds
better to you? The CPT does not have the constitutoinal power to have this
"decided this once and for all" and the fact you came up with that unfortunate
line actually strenghtens me in my opinion (if I ever needed a proof) that I
did the right thing in vetoing the call.

> Not with standing the fact that I know that I am not the most popular
> people here. A reading of the fall election results made that quite clear. I

> was still willing to exercise my right of provocatio and risk losing in what

> amounts to a "court of public opinion". What are the Tribunes willing to

risk?

Well, I do not know, I can tell you what I'm not ready to risk: to have an
unconstitutional precedent estabilished. Oh, and btw, the public opinion count
in a legal systm just as much as the legal system says it does. The "the people
want it, so "it" is right end enforced" line is not universally right in a
legal system. The public opinion is just as right as it expresses itself on
matters and in the ways prescribed and, after that, effective and enforceable
only in the provided cases.

> Not to nit pick but the call for the Comitia Plebis Tributa to convene
> on this question is not who I appealed to and not who the constitution says I

> can appeal to. That would be the Comitia Populi Tributa.

Right. You can maybe, therefore, file a petitio against Maior for
maladministration (at the end of the year) who called the wrong Comitia or
against any other magistrate that is entitled to call the Comitia Populi
Tributa but that evidently felt not like doing it. If you were right, they
would have a duty to call the Comitia, after all. Surely, the tribunes would
NOT have that duty, given it is beyond their power.

> The issue has never been
> who is or is not a Tribune but when does a resignation take effect. Are the
> Tribunes so afraid they might be wrong that they do not want to risk asking

the

> citizens to render a clear and unambiguous answer to end this argument?

Again, not speaking for the other tribunes, but just for myself, even if
possibly the other (3) share my opinion. No, I'm not afraid. You are absolutely
free to draft a law about magisterial resignation and find someone to bring it
to the Comitia so that the Comitia can "render a clear and unambiguous answer"
(but not retroactive) and you can be sure no one will stop you. You can try
change the rules, but for doing that you have to follow the rules themselves.
You can also come up with a constitutional reform to remove what is basically
the referee position about the rules that the Constitutio assign to the
Tribunes from us, but untill then you are supposed to accept our decisions or
use the "legal" means you have to have them changed. That the system basically
impedes you to suit us whenever you please, that the Consitutio doesn't give
the Comitia the power that you'd like them to have and that you'd like to
assign them and that it gives us the intercessio power to exercise as we see it
(within given, xpressed, limits) and doesn't provide for another authority to
rule if we did it correctly besides the other tribunes, it's not my fault. It
is, again, part of the rules that you are fully entitled to try and change, but
that untill changed you are supposed to follow fully.

On the other side, ad personam votes which, in your view, might actually decide
the status of a magistrate are, in my opinion (and the other tribunes can,
following the appropriate rules, overrule me), beyond the comitia's power (so,
against the rules) and, at least for how much it is within my legal powers,
shall not happen. It's not "being afraid" (gee, it's so childish... it's when
you want to provocate a kid into doing something that you point at him saying
"chicken chicken, you are afraid!", I thought we were a tad more grown up at
the least), it is simply that it is not a correct procedure. Of course, you are
fully entitled to think otherwise.

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

OSD G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes.

I've just come back from a scrutiny of the laws that may be
applicable, and I've found the follwing:

"The Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda is hereby amended as
follows: A. Section III is hereby annulled." - Lex Equitia de civitate
eiuranda (non. Oct. 2757) (7 October A.D. 2004)

"An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." - lex
Equitia Galeria de Ordinariis, amending Art. IV of the Constitution
(prid. Kal. Iul. 2757) (30 June A.D. 2004)



Article III of the lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda, the
article from which it could be implied that a resigning citizen can
resume their magistracy upon the resumption of their citizenship
within the "grace" period has been annulled as of nonis Octobribus
2757 A.U.C. It no longer applies, in any of its convolutions.

The lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis, passed on pridie Kalendas
Iuliis of 2757 A.U.C. seems to be absolutely clear as to the fact
that a magistracy ends upon resignation, as the "office becomes
vacant" at the time of resignation (or death, the Gods forbid).

There is, as Apollonius Cordus has pointed out, a specific "safety
net" for citizens to use allowing them to resume their citizenship
within the "grace" period. There is NOT such a safety net for
magistracies, even implied as a legal construct by the use of Sec. III
of the lex Cornelia et Maria &c., because that section has been
annulled.

Anyone who has resigned a magistracy after the passage of the lex
Equitia de civitate eiuranda (non. Oct. 2757 / 7 Oct. 2004) has left
their office vacant.

Valete,

Cato

mlcinnyc wrote:

> The lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis, passed on pridie
> Kalendas Iuliis of 2757 A.U.C. seems to be absolutely clear
> as to the fact that a magistracy ends upon resignation, as
> the "office becomes vacant" at the time of resignation (or
> death, the Gods forbid).

And here comes the funny part from Lex Cornelia et Maria:
"When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation will
not take effect for nine days from the date of the censors being
notified, counting inclusively of the date of the notification."

So, as nine days did not pass, Saturninus DID NOT resign, and thus Lex
Equitia Galera does not apply, as it only removed the penalty for a
magistrate submitting and withdrawing MULTIPLE resignations the same
year and granted a recourse for returning citizens, neither of which is
the case here.

Anyway, the matter is over and dealt with; The tribunes have made a
decision and I see no reason to believe they will change their minds. To
keep discussing the matter on the main list is a rather futile
endeavour, I would rather advise you to speak to the tribunes personally
or collegially on the matter.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio Pio S.P.D.

Salve Titus Pius.

The problem is, my friend, that the part of the lex Cornelia et Maria
&c. that you refer to is talking ONLY about *citizenship*, not
magistracies. There is no "grace" period for the resignation of
amagistracy; as soon as a magistrate issues the declaration that he or
she has resigned, the office is vacant. What they do with their
citizenship is in their own hands for the next nine days; the vacant
magistracy returns to the hands of the People.

Besides which, the entire section dealing with even multiple
resignations and their effect no longer applies as it has been
annulled and superceded by a more recent law.

It is never too late to correct an action taken in violation of the
law. To ignore it once presented is only adding to the offense.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@d...> wrote:
> mlcinnyc wrote:
> > The lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis, passed on pridie
> > Kalendas Iuliis of 2757 A.U.C. seems to be absolutely clear
> > as to the fact that a magistracy ends upon resignation, as
> > the "office becomes vacant" at the time of resignation (or
> > death, the Gods forbid).
>
> And here comes the funny part from Lex Cornelia et Maria:
> "When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the censors being
> notified, counting inclusively of the date of the notification."
> So, as nine days did not pass, Saturninus DID NOT resign, and thus
Lex Equitia Galera does not apply, as it only removed the penalty for
a magistrate submitting and withdrawing MULTIPLE resignations the same
> year and granted a recourse for returning citizens, neither of which
is the case here.
>
> Anyway, the matter is over and dealt with; The tribunes have made a
> decision and I see no reason to believe they will change their
minds. To keep discussing the matter on the main list is a rather
futile endeavour, I would rather advise you to speak to the tribunes
personally or collegially on the matter.
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

> You are absolutely
> free to draft a law about magisterial resignation
> and find someone to bring it
> to the Comitia so that the Comitia can "render a
> clear and unambiguous answer"
> (but not retroactive) and you can be sure no one
> will stop you.

The very fact that we're still having this discussion
suggests to me that someone should put a short lex
before the people just to clarify the situation once
and for all - before a similar situation comes up
again.

Livia





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

P. Minius Albucius C. Fabiae Liviae s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Fabia Livia"
<c_fabia_livia@y...> wrote:

> The very fact that we're still having this discussion
> suggests to me that someone should put a short lex
> before the people just to clarify the situation once
> and for all - before a similar situation comes up
> again.

Done. LEX MINIA DE EIURATIONE CIVITATIS OFFICIORUMQUE on CT Plebis
vote from Feb. 18th to 25th.

Vale, Senator.

Tribunus PMA

Salve,

Eloquently put Cato.

Given that Saturninus has stated that he was considering his
resignation in the months (year!!) leading up to his candidacy for
Tribune in the first place, I would consider this breach of trust even
more significant in this particular instance.

Saturninus has been conspicuous in his silence. In his situation, at
the very least I should offer myself for re-election to let the plebs
decide. A sitting magistrate with a 'question mark' over his
authority, even if only in the eyes of a significant minority, does
no-one, least of all himself, any favours.

I'm convinced he would be re-elected anyway.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus

> The gravity of breaking that trust and obligation cannot possibly be
> over-stated. It is not a mark of cruelty or harshness or stubbornness
> or lack of sympathy to ask that a magistrate fulfill his obligations;
> if he cannot, for whatever reason, he should lay it down with no
> expectation that it will be handed back to him if he feels better the
> next day, or within the next nine days. It should be very clear that
> resignation is a serious decision, and once made cannot simply be
> forgotten. An appeal to emotion is uncalled for, unnecessary, and
> inappropriate. This is not a matter of a child getting angry in a
> sandbox, grabbing his toys and running away, and being coaxed back;
> this is our government.
>
> Once resigned, his office returns (or *should* return) to the
> possession of the People, from whom that office receives its
> authority; the People should decide who will receive that authority,
> even if they are asked to re-elect the citizen who laid it down. Vox
> populi vox dei.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato

Salve Tite Octavi,

> To
> keep discussing the matter on the main list is a rather futile
> endeavour, I would rather advise you to speak to the tribunes

personally

> or collegially on the matter.

The only futile discussion is the one with which no-one wants to engage.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus

T. Octavius Salvius G. Equitio Catoni S.P.D.

Salve,

> Once resigned, his office returns (or *should* return) to the
> possession of the People, from whom that office receives its
> authority; the People should decide who will receive that

authority,

> even if they are asked to re-elect the citizen who laid it down.

Thief! That's what I said in my post on the NR Laws Board ;-)

Anyway, I would assume that the act of resignation does surrender a
magistrate's authority back to the People. This is, after all, where
all magisterial authority comes from.

It should therefore not be possible for other magistrates to decide
on who fills a vacant office, because that is not within their
control.
Any magistrate who holds office in this way is more like an
appointee, and there are serious questions about the legitimacy of
their actions in an official capacity.

Surely putting it to the vote would end this argument one way or
another?

vale

T. Octavius Salvius

G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio Pio S.P.D.

Salve Titus Pius.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...> wrote:
>
> T. Octavius Salvius G. Equitio Catoni S.P.D.
>
> Salve,
>
>
> > Once resigned, his office returns (or *should* return) to the
> > possession of the People, from whom that office receives its
> > authority; the People should decide who will receive that
> authority,
> > even if they are asked to re-elect the citizen who laid it down.
>
>
> Thief! That's what I said in my post on the NR Laws Board ;-)
>
> Anyway, I would assume that the act of resignation does surrender a
> magistrate's authority back to the People. This is, after all, where
> all magisterial authority comes from.
>
> It should therefore not be possible for other magistrates to decide
> on who fills a vacant office, because that is not within their
> control.
> Any magistrate who holds office in this way is more like an
> appointee, and there are serious questions about the legitimacy of
> their actions in an official capacity.
>
> Surely putting it to the vote would end this argument one way or
> another?
>
> vale
>
> T. Octavius Salvius

>
> G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio Pio S.P.D.
>
> Salve Titus Pius.
>
> Exactly. I agree 100%.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

*Cough* SALVIUS *cough*

It was actually me who wrote that last message. Our names are a bit
similar, but I think my fellow Octavii sees this from a different
angle.


vale

T. Octavius Salvius

---Salve Cato:

And how is it determined that the resignation spoken of by the lex
Equitia Galeria is a valid one? I'll offer that its not a valid
resignation until 9 days after the initial letter of resignation as
determined by the Lex Cornelia Maria.(which is really a notice of
intent to resign to me, rather than a resignation, until the 9 days
are up. And it has always been treated as such...except for some
reason, in the case of Saturninus)

This law is not contraindicative of the lex Cornelia Maria...which
defines what is and is not a valid resignation.

I knew about this lex and its intent is dealing with those who have
longer term absences from citizenry in NR, and are returning. This
lex, and I'll look again, does not in itself 'define' resignations.
The Lex Maria Cornelia is more related to that, in my view.

Pompeia


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

>
> OSD G. Equitius Cato
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> I've just come back from a scrutiny of the laws that may be
> applicable, and I've found the follwing:
>
> "The Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda is hereby amended

as

> follows: A. Section III is hereby annulled." - Lex Equitia de

civitate

> eiuranda (non. Oct. 2757) (7 October A.D. 2004)
>
> "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." - lex
> Equitia Galeria de Ordinariis, amending Art. IV of the Constitution
> (prid. Kal. Iul. 2757) (30 June A.D. 2004)
>
>
>
> Article III of the lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda, the
> article from which it could be implied that a resigning citizen can
> resume their magistracy upon the resumption of their citizenship
> within the "grace" period has been annulled as of nonis Octobribus
> 2757 A.U.C. It no longer applies, in any of its convolutions.
>
> The lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis, passed on pridie Kalendas
> Iuliis of 2757 A.U.C. seems to be absolutely clear as to the fact
> that a magistracy ends upon resignation, as the "office becomes
> vacant" at the time of resignation (or death, the Gods forbid).
>
> There is, as Apollonius Cordus has pointed out, a specific "safety
> net" for citizens to use allowing them to resume their citizenship
> within the "grace" period. There is NOT such a safety net for
> magistracies, even implied as a legal construct by the use of Sec.

III

> of the lex Cornelia et Maria &c., because that section has been
> annulled.
>
> Anyone who has resigned a magistracy after the passage of the lex
> Equitia de civitate eiuranda (non. Oct. 2757 / 7 Oct. 2004) has

left

> their office vacant.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

---Salvete Tite Octavi et Omnes:

I apologize for my redundant reply to Equitius Cato Quaestor...you
essentially stated the same things I did, quite eloquently.

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@d...> wrote:

> mlcinnyc wrote:
> > The lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis, passed on pridie
> > Kalendas Iuliis of 2757 A.U.C. seems to be absolutely clear
> > as to the fact that a magistracy ends upon resignation, as
> > the "office becomes vacant" at the time of resignation (or
> > death, the Gods forbid).
>
> And here comes the funny part from Lex Cornelia et Maria:
> "When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation

will

> not take effect for nine days from the date of the censors being
> notified, counting inclusively of the date of the notification."
>
> So, as nine days did not pass, Saturninus DID NOT resign, and thus

Lex

> Equitia Galera does not apply, as it only removed the penalty for

a

> magistrate submitting and withdrawing MULTIPLE resignations the

same

> year and granted a recourse for returning citizens, neither of

which is

> the case here.
>
> Anyway, the matter is over and dealt with; The tribunes have made

a

> decision and I see no reason to believe they will change their

minds. To

> keep discussing the matter on the main list is a rather futile
> endeavour, I would rather advise you to speak to the tribunes

personally

> or collegially on the matter.
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio SALVIO S.P.D. (I s.d. Titus Octavius Pius
p. as well, but I apologize for the mistake in nomenclature and so
thus address only Titus Salvius right now)

salve Titus Salvius.

Sorry about that. I got so excited that Titus Pius was agreeing with
me that I read his name instead of yours. Not that I'm not excited
that *you* agree with me...

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio Pio S.P.D.
> >
> > Salve Titus Pius.
> >
> > Exactly. I agree 100%.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
>
>
> *Cough* SALVIUS *cough*
>
> It was actually me who wrote that last message. Our names are a bit
> similar, but I think my fellow Octavii sees this from a different
> angle.
>
>
> vale
>
> T. Octavius Salvius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:

>
> T. Octavius Salvius G. Equitio Catoni S.P.D.
>
> Salve,
>
>
> > (snip)

You wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Anyway, I would assume that the act of resignation does surrender

a

> magistrate's authority back to the People. This is, after all,

where

> all magisterial authority comes from.

Pompeia: It is unwise to assume anything.

Here is the text of the Lex Cornelia Maria in question:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-05-20-iii.html



Established law is the most prevailing legal and binding will of
the people. This law is being revised by one of the Tribunes and a
comitia call is pending. This is the proper way to call comitia to
change the future course of events regarding a resignation. Asking
them to amend a lex.

>
> (snip)>

> Surely putting it to the vote would end this argument one way or
> another?

Pompeia: Yes, but in the fashion discussed above.

>
> vale
>
> T. Octavius Salvius

Vale
Pompeia

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.

Salve Pompeia Tiberia.

With all due respect, you're making something much more complicated
than it need be; and I do not underestimate the importance of what I'm
saying, so I'm not simply trying to pass it off quickly.

As I said earlier, the lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis simply says
that an office becomes vacant when a magistrate resigns (or dies).
That's it. So I would assume that an office becomes vacant when a
magistrate resigns (or dies). When Citizen X says, "I hereby resign
from my magistracy, effective immediately", he has resigned his
office, and so the office becomes vacant. To try to convolute more
meaning, to try to add or subtract to this simple declamatory
explicatory statement is to create confusion where, I believe, none
exists.

UNLIKE with citizenship, which is explicitly granted a grace period,
there simply IS NO SUCH PERIOD (emphasis, not shouting) afforded
magistracies anywhere in Nova Roman law. It does not do the res
publica or the People justice to try to create one now, unless it is
done by passage of a new lex or by amending the current leges.

And please remember that the only part of the lex Cornelia Maria &c.
that dealt (note past tense) with magistrates and resignations,
section III, does not have the force of law as it was annulled. It
simply is not to be considered.

Therefore, anyone who has resigned a magistracy after non. Oct. 2757
has left their office vacant. The People should be allowed to
exercize their right to fill that office as *they* see fit.

Vale bene,

Cato




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

>
> ---Salve Cato:
>
> And how is it determined that the resignation spoken of by the lex
> Equitia Galeria is a valid one? I'll offer that its not a valid
> resignation until 9 days after the initial letter of resignation as
> determined by the Lex Cornelia Maria.(which is really a notice of
> intent to resign to me, rather than a resignation, until the 9 days
> are up. And it has always been treated as such...except for some
> reason, in the case of Saturninus)
>
> This law is not contraindicative of the lex Cornelia Maria...which
> defines what is and is not a valid resignation.
>
> I knew about this lex and its intent is dealing with those who have
> longer term absences from citizenry in NR, and are returning. This
> lex, and I'll look again, does not in itself 'define' resignations.
> The Lex Maria Cornelia is more related to that, in my view.
>
> Pompeia

M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
Salvete;
I'm really happy to see all this interest in law. About the
discussion of the Lex Maria et Cornelia, this section III was anulled
in the Lex Equitia De Civitate Eiuranda.

The basic issue that separates the tribunes is precedent, they have
applied the precedent from the past, meaning Scaurus and Laenas's
resignations to the current one. There is no law that currently
discusses the resignation of an office.
Now both Albucius and Fuscus are very strict Constitutionalists so
it is a bit odd for them to apply a type of extra-judicial precedent
(previous action, mos if you will) to this dispute.
So there is room for disagreement, plebians think so. As
representitives of the plebs, where does the duty of the Tribunes
lie?
To our own opinions or to leave a dispute to be settled by the plebs?
Omnes, this is very Roman, a discussion of the law in public, I'm
really happy to see it. I'm going to leave now, so please continue to
question & agree & disagree. That's the spirit!
optime valete
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

--- G Equitius Cato Quaestor S.P.D.

A resigning citizen's resignation doesn't become official until
after 9 days. And he is entitled to return 'without penalty'..and
this has to date been applied to the favour of having those citizens
return to their magistracies.

The Lex Equitia Familia speaks of resignations of magistrates. I am
sure that this lex would not be talking about 'invalid'
resignations...the only valid resignation of magistracy is either

a) one which materialized as a result of a person resigning
citizenship and not returning 'without penalty' and so their
magistracy is vacant.

b) a case where one resigned their magistracy only and remained a
citizen. There is a grace period allowed for resignations in the
Lex Cornelia Maria if one resigns his citizenship. Otherwise, there
is none for resigning magistracies in themselves, and retaining
citizenship. I recognize this and I said it before in another
post. It is the assinine element in this whole thing...that if you
resign your citizenship you can return to your previous
status 'without penalty', but if you resign your magistracies in
themselves and stay on as a citizen, you are up the creek.

So it is not me overcomplicating the issue. A couple of people want
to change the rules in the middle of the game, which I am not in
favour of, citing that 'everyone who has applied this law to date',
tribunes, curule magistrates have been 'wrong', and well, we don't
have to listen to them anyway because 'precedents aren't legal and
binding'...so lets go through with this Kangaroo arrangement, with
the unfortunate potential byproduct of Saturninus not receiving
protections that have been given to others under this law. There is
a 50/50 change he might not..because the comitia is different than
it was in 2001, with different persons, and we have heard a chorus
of posts from Galerius et al, 'interpreting the law' for these
comitia members...over and over again, so that they likely might
vote against Saturninus' maintaining his postestas.

I know you are not happy with the law Cato and certainly it is your
write to voice your concerns and lobby for change. But we are
putting the cart before the horse. We need to repeal the law first,
and then the elected magistrates can apply this new law for a more
desireable outcome...what that comitia would favour today.

I am sure it is not your intent to become part of a
legalistic 'linchin'.......let's linch tha boy!

I do not retroactive or ex post facto stuff unless in life or death
circumstance maybe. And if comitia were called and Saturninus was
stripped of his potestas, then laenus and scaurus should not be
listed as being Tribune or Curule Aedile. Because Galerius argument
is that the Lex Maria Cornelia has been misapplied all the while.
And I maintain that your argument of the lex Equitia Galeria is
dealing with 'valid' resignations as I endeavored to define above.

I do not mind that you suggest I am overcomplicating things...I am
not the one pestering for an opening of comitia which is totally
against the manner in which comitia is to voice their wishes. It is
easy to say...

'oh well, the matter is quite simple'...take it to comitia, and let
them interpret the law, instead of the Tribunes doing it, or having
the Tribunes promulgate another law...which is being done, but a few
people can't wait...because the bottom line one citizen wanted
Saturninus 'out' so that he could take his place.

It is like the Praetors are being bypassed...Saturninus has been
declared guilty by a few persons in comitia, and we are going to
comitia, who is asked to act like a jury...when there hasn't been a
bloody trial. The Praetores turned down Galerius petition that the
Tribunes were being naughty.

I know you don't like the law, and this is fine Cato. But just
about every angle has been explored to justify the expunging of
Saturninus' potestas. You want justice, it seems that others want
Saturninus' head on a platter.

Pompeia





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

>
> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.
>
> Salve Pompeia Tiberia.
>
> With all due respect, you're making something much more complicated
> than it need be; and I do not underestimate the importance of what

I'm

> saying, so I'm not simply trying to pass it off quickly.


>
> As I said earlier, the lex Equitia Galeria de ordinariis simply

says

> that an office becomes vacant when a magistrate resigns (or dies).
> That's it. So I would assume that an office becomes vacant when a
> magistrate resigns (or dies). When Citizen X says, "I hereby

resign

> from my magistracy, effective immediately", he has resigned his
> office, and so the office becomes vacant. To try to convolute more
> meaning, to try to add or subtract to this simple declamatory
> explicatory statement is to create confusion where, I believe, none
> exists.
>
> UNLIKE with citizenship, which is explicitly granted a grace

period,

> there simply IS NO SUCH PERIOD (emphasis, not shouting) afforded
> magistracies anywhere in Nova Roman law. It does not do the res
> publica or the People justice to try to create one now, unless it

is

> done by passage of a new lex or by amending the current leges.
>
> And please remember that the only part of the lex Cornelia Maria

&c.

> that dealt (note past tense) with magistrates and resignations,
> section III, does not have the force of law as it was annulled. It
> simply is not to be considered.
>
> Therefore, anyone who has resigned a magistracy after non. Oct.

2757

> has left their office vacant. The People should be allowed to
> exercize their right to fill that office as *they* see fit.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> >
> > ---Salve Cato:
> >
> > And how is it determined that the resignation spoken of by the

lex

> > Equitia Galeria is a valid one? I'll offer that its not a valid
> > resignation until 9 days after the initial letter of resignation

as

> > determined by the Lex Cornelia Maria.(which is really a notice

of

> > intent to resign to me, rather than a resignation, until the 9

days

> > are up. And it has always been treated as such...except for

some

> > reason, in the case of Saturninus)
> >
> > This law is not contraindicative of the lex Cornelia

Maria...which

> > defines what is and is not a valid resignation.
> >
> > I knew about this lex and its intent is dealing with those who

have

> > longer term absences from citizenry in NR, and are returning.

This

> > lex, and I'll look again, does not in itself 'define'

resignations.

> > The Lex Maria Cornelia is more related to that, in my view.
> >
> > Pompeia

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.

Salve Pompeia Tiberia!

And I certainly do not intend for this to be "aimed" at Curius
Saturninus; this is about the law, not an individual, and I hope that
any citizen reading this understands that.

The "rules of the game", unfortunately for Curius Saturninus, DID
change since the cases involving Popillius Laenas and Gaius Scaurus.
What changed was the annullment of sec. III of the lex Cornelia Maria
&c., which may have been used to provide some kind of legal construct
to allow them to regain their magistracies and/or other offices.

I am NOT calling for a vote in any comitia to "confirm" Curius
Saturninus. I am saying that Curius Saturninus is no longer a
tribune, and that there should be a call for candidates and an
election to fill that vacancy in the tribunate.

RATS! I'm at work and have to go for a bit, but I have a bunch more
to say (surprise) :-) Hold on to your teeth!

Vale bene,

Cato

--- Salve Cato Quaestor:

Oh I know you *you* are not aiming this at Caius Curius Saturninus,
but others *are*. Galerius Paulinus has said nothing about the Lex
Equitia Galeria, probably didn't remember it, and if he did he
likely thinks it doesn't apply either. I dunno. He is arguing that
we have been misinterpreting the Lex Cornelia Maria all along.. that
is the basis for their argument that Saturninus is not a Tribune.

I said in my last post to you...the one you are responding to,
that I am keenly aware you want justice.....read the last line of
that thread, please :)

And my we agree to disagree. I do not accept your interpretation of
the Lex Equitia Galeria, and so we can argue to the cows come home.
It is not up to us to judge its application, if any, to the current
predicament of Saturninus.

You say tomato and I say tomawwto.

I still do not agree with they dynamics behind all this. Perhaps
the idea is to overcomplicate issues here...so people will get
confused as to what the real nittygritty is.

I have to go to work too.

Pompeia



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

>
> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.
>
> Salve Pompeia Tiberia!
>
> And I certainly do not intend for this to be "aimed" at Curius
> Saturninus; this is about the law, not an individual, and I hope

that

> any citizen reading this understands that.
>
> The "rules of the game", unfortunately for Curius Saturninus, DID
> change since the cases involving Popillius Laenas and Gaius

Scaurus.

> What changed was the annullment of sec. III of the lex Cornelia

Maria

> &c., which may have been used to provide some kind of legal

construct

> to allow them to regain their magistracies and/or other offices.
>
> I am NOT calling for a vote in any comitia to "confirm" Curius
> Saturninus. I am saying that Curius Saturninus is no longer a
> tribune, and that there should be a call for candidates and an
> election to fill that vacancy in the tribunate.
>
> RATS! I'm at work and have to go for a bit, but I have a bunch

more

> to say (surprise) :-) Hold on to your teeth!
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

T. Octavius Salvius P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni G. Equitio Catoni
S.P.D.

Salve,

I'm getting good at this formal introduction thing!

Anyway:

>
> A resigning citizen's resignation doesn't become official until
> after 9 days. And he is entitled to return 'without penalty'..and
> this has to date been applied to the favour of having those

citizens

> return to their magistracies.

Here is the problem with that interpretation of 'Without Penalty'. I
would not take this to mean that a citizen can continue from where
he left off in public office. He can resume his citizenship without
penalty, but I would interpret this as meaning no loss of voting
rights etc.

If you resign your position as a magistrate then the office becomes
vacant. Your status becomes that of a normal citizen without and
additional responsibilities. It is that status to which you may
return 'without penalty'.

Resigning office is an act of a volition from a citizen. Losing
office in this way cannot be described as a 'penalty' because the
only one who decides on whether to resign is the citizen himself. If
he was stripped of office then that is a different matter (actually
that would make it even more complicated!).

So after resigning office and citizenship, it is only possible to
return to your citizenship in the 9-day period.

I hope that made sense. I'm a bit of a legal novice ;-)

vale

T. Octavius Salvius

G. Equitius Cato T. Octavio Salvio P. Minuciae Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.

Salvete illustri!

> Resigning office is an act of a volition from a citizen. Losing
> office in this way cannot be described as a 'penalty' because the
> only one who decides on whether to resign is the citizen himself.

CATO: EXACTLY! No-one has forced the citizen to resign, even (and
this must be *absolutely* clear) if that citizen "feels" like they are
being forced to do so.

By telling a magistrate who has resigned that they cannot simply pick
up their dropped magistracy as if nothing has happened is not
something for which the citizens of the res publica should bear any
"fault" or even feel any sympathy; the office-holder who resigned
bears the burden of responsibility, and should be prepared to have to
face the citizens via a new election if he wants his magistracy back.

I will sympathize with a citizen who feels that events in their life
have become so complicated that the only recourse they have is to drop
out of the life of the res publica; I certainly will wish them well
and do anything I can possible to help them.

But I cannot allow my sympathy for their situation allow me to ignore
the law.

Valete bene,

Cato

A. Apollónius Cordus omnibus sal.

I'll speak in another message about the question
whether Cúrius Saturnínus is a tribune or not. This
message is not about that.

There is a dispute about whether Cúrius Saturnínus is
a tribune or not. This dispute is an indisputable
fact. It requires resolution. This message is about
how to resolve it.

One way to resolve it would be for us to spend a long
time arguing about it until eventually everyone who is
right manages by sheer force of logic to persuade
everyone who is wrong; until, in other words, we all
agree and the dispute goes away.

Another way to resolve it is to say, "well, let's make
Saturnínus tribune *again*, so that his tribunate will
be indisputable by either party". This would be done
by calling the plébs to vote on a plébíscítum making
Saturnínus tribune. This is what I have been
suggesting.

Some people consider that this would itself be illegal
or, if legal, a bad idea. The arguments are as
follows.

"The concilium plébis has no authority to rule on the
interpretation of a léx."

This is true, which is why I am not suggesting it. My
suggestion is that the concilium plébis be asked to
make Saturnínus tribune. This is not a matter of
interpreting an existing léx, it is a matter of making
a new léx - a léx saying that Saturnínus is tribune.

"The concilium plébis has no authority to remove a
tribune from office."

Well, let us begin by saying that this is not true.
But it is extremely undesirable for such a thing to
happen, and I am not suggesting it. I am not
suggesting that the concilium plébis should be asked
to decide whether to remove Saturnínus or not. I am
suggesting that the concilium plébis should not be
given the option of removing him. It should be given
the option of either (a) making him tribune, or (b)
doing nothing. If it chooses (a), then Saturnínus will
undeniably be tribune. If it chooses (b), then he will
be no more or less tribune than he is now.

"The concilium plébis has no authority to pass légés
concerning individuals."

This is not true. The concilium plébis has the
authority to pass légés on any subject it is invited
to pass légés on. It frequently passes légés
concerning individuals: these are known as elections.
An election is a special type of léx. It says "these
people shall be magistrates". That is what I suggest
we do now: pass a léx saying "this person shall be a
magistrate". If this is illegal, then so are
elections.


Let's recap. Saturnínus either is or is not currently
tribune. There is no third possibility. He is or he is
not.

I am suggesting that the tribúní ask the concilium
plébis to vote on the proposal "Saturnínus shall be
tribune". The concilium plébis could vote "utí rogás"
("let it be as you propose") or "antíquó" ("let it
remain the same as before").

There are thus four possible combinations: Saturnínus
is tribune + "utí rogás"; Saturnínus is not tribune +
"utí rogás"; Saturnínus is tribune + "antíquó";
Saturninus is not tribune + "antíquó".

Possibility number 1: Saturnínus is tribune + "utí
rogás".

- Saturnínus is tribune. The concilium plébis votes
that he shall be tribune. So he continues to be
tribune. Nothing changes.

Possibility number 2: Saturnínus is not tribune + "utí
rogás".

- Saturnínus is not tribune; there is a vacancy for
tribune. The concilium plébis votes that Saturnínus
shall be tribune. So Saturnínus becomes tribune.

Possibility number 3: Saturnínus is tribune +
"antíquó".

- Saturnínus is tribune. The concilium plébis votes
that everything should remain as it is. Saturnínus
remains tribune. Nothing changes.

Possibility number 4: Saturnínus is not tribune +
"antíquó".

- Saturnínus is not tribune; there is a vacancy for
tribune. The concilium plébis votes that everything
should remain as it is. Saturnínus remains
not-tribune. There remains a vacancy for tribune.
Nothing changes.


So I ask those who are opposed to this course of
action: what on earth is the problem? The worst that
can happen is nothing; the best that can happen is
that the problem will be resolved. What is the problem?





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

In a message dated 2/6/05 11:06:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

So I ask those who are opposed to this course of
action: what on earth is the problem? The worst that
can happen is nothing; the best that can happen is
that the problem will be resolved. What is the problem?




I'm of the school, that he is not a Tribune, and to become a Tribune again,
let the assembly decide.
If the People decide he is deserving of a second chance, they will elect him
again.
But to have a fair election, someone else should stand as well. The People
then
have a clear choice. Your concept is two tiered. First the People have to
get rid of him,
then elect a replacement. You are assuming the People will reconfirm him,
after
his resignation, so the second step is not needed. I view this as an
involuntary attempt to
disenfranchise the people.
By the Nova Roman Mos Maiorum he has resigned. Therefore this is a
legitimate
replacement election, and there should be more than one candidate.
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

In a message dated 2/6/05 8:38:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@... writes:

I know you don't like the law, and this is fine Cato. But just
about every angle has been explored to justify the expunging of
Saturninus' potestas. You want justice, it seems that others want
Saturninus' head on a platter.



Actually he wants the system followed, to deprive the Tribunes of their
assumed extraordinary
powers and let the People hold a new election. Nobody wants to see anybody's
"head on a
platter." We just want the law followed. Colorful rhetoric is not going to
change that.
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

In a message dated 2/6/05 9:12:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fin37@... writes:

Here is the problem with that interpretation of 'Without Penalty'. I
would not take this to mean that a citizen can continue from where
he left off in public office. He can resume his citizenship without
penalty, but I would interpret this as meaning no loss of voting
rights etc.



Without penalty means that he cannot be banished, fined, or otherwise
punished by Law
for his resignation of Nova Roma citizenship. It has nothing to do offices
that were resigned
at the same time.

Q. Fabius Maximus.


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

Salve Cordus

In your accurate analysis of the situation, you, accidentally of course,
forgot the third way out of the problem: the half dozen of people out of
800 subscribed to this list (I counted no more than that) who are actually
repeatedly (because, despite the posts about the matter are probably about
a hundred or more, it's still half a dozen of people) voicing their own
opposition, for various reasons (not all necessarly hiding second goals or
an evil agenda), to how the things actually are deal with the fact that
there is not a vacancy and that Saturninus is indeed a Tribunus.

They shall not, you and they will continue repeat yourself, a few others
will continue thinking it's worth replying and will do so untill the
moment they will realize it's absolutely pointless and the matter will go
on for weeks or months with this nonsense. Why? Because 3 of 5 tribunes
decided it had no sense at all, and would had been profoundly unfair and
unethical, to treat a case differently than it had been treated all the
years before untill now. Unsensical, unfair, unethical *and* not required
by the law, if not downright against it.

Personally, I see in your mail nothing to make me change my mind about the
fact that

a) Saturninus is indeed a Tribunus and actually legally never lost his
position
b) the solution applied to the same case in the past by people in our same
position was indeed right, fair and good
c) the Comitia have not the right to vote on the matter in any way as they
do not have the right to vote if a tribunus "shall be a tribunus". Not
under nova roman law and not, probably, under RA law either.

If you want to condut a poll to check if the people consider Saturninus
rightfully in his position, you can ask the tribunes as moderators of the
group to create a poll about the matter. That will possibly reach part of
the results that you'd wish to achieve by calling the Comitia, it shall
not make any difference practically speaking, but will not raise no doubt
of constitutionality as everyone is free, as far as I know, to conduct a
poll. Of course, that will not satisfy youbecause you want an "official"
statement of some sort to bless your own vision. Whatever.

If you want the law to be changed, draft a proposal and find a Tribunus or
a consul to propose it to the comitia, I'm sure you shall have no problem
in finding one. But actually, it is already being done and you shall be
able to vote on that in less than 3 weeks. But I'm sure you can come up
with better solutions anyway so I'll be waiting for the draft.

If you want to legally and officially determine if Saturninus is a
tribunus...well, you can't. It's not in you, nor in the Comitia, who can
create someone a tribunus but, under Nova Roman law, can't legally have a
word about it afterwards, not untill the law is changed and even then,
only for the future. You want to force your vision that the comitia
apparently can do whatever they please, I do not think so, I see your
vision as in contrast with the Constitutio as it is an I will act
consequently. That's all hat the problem is, at least for me, and that's
my reply to your question.

At least, you try to force your way by simple attrition, while someone
else, no names, went so far as "suggesting" the three tribunes in question
that it would had been "prudent" to change our mind so that we could not
be put to trial in december. Bah.

And now, let's wait for another avalanche of posts by the same handful of
people. Time is a finite good, but for some is less finite than for
others, it seems.

Valete

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

G. Iulius Scaurus Marcae Hortensiae Maiori SPD.

Salve, Marca Hortensia.

You seem incapable of understanding a straightforward statement. My
remarks were a comment on the irony your repeated boasts of loyalty to
the Religio while you help to subvert it at every turn. What I said
was that your behaviour continues to confirm the judgment of the
Collegium that you are nefas, that you have not the slightest desire
to attempt to expiate your impietas. My position on reconsideration
of your status when the matter came before the Collegium was that a
number of conditions would have to be fulfilled:

1. An augurium or haruspicium indicating that reconsideration of the
issue was favoured by the Di Immortales;
2. Your performance of piacula and expiatory sacrifices;
3. A public apology to Magna Mater and the other Di Immortales for
your behaviour;
4. A public apology to the respublica for your behaviour;
5. A public apology to the Collegium Pontificum for your behaviour;
6. A public statement of your full acceptance of the authority of the
Collegium Pontificum in religious matters, including the definitive
nature of the decretum de sacrificiis; and
7. Completion of a substantial period of time in which your behaviour
was consistent with that of a person who was not willfully offensive
to the Di Immortales.

Since none of these conditions have been met, there is no chance
whatsoever that I would support any alteration of the Collegium's
original decision. You could change your political stripes tomorrow
and it wouldn't change the fact that you have committed gross impiety.

Vale.
Scaurus

>
> Without penalty means that he cannot be banished, fined, or

otherwise

> punished by Law
> for his resignation of Nova Roma citizenship. It has nothing to

do offices

> that were resigned
> at the same time.

That's what I thought, but it was said that 'without penalty' had
been used previously to allow magistrates who had resigned to resume
their offices after returning.

vale

T. Octavius Salvius

G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Well, Constantinus Fuscus, I would not want to disappoint you, so
here's the first of the "avalanche" of posts from one of the "handful"
of people who's driving this discussion.

There are a couple of things here to note:

1. I am NOT suggesting that any comitia be called to "confirm" any
magistrate in an office to which they were elected. I am saying
that there is a vacancy in the tribunate due to Curius Saturninus'
resignation, and that there should be a call for candidates and an
election held to fill that vacancy. I don't even care if he's the
*only* candidate, and I think that he would win and, in fact, would
vote for him if I was a Pleb.

2. Curius Saturninus is in a situation unlike that of Popillius Laenas
and Gaius Scaurus because he resigned AFTER sec. III of the lex
Cornelia et Maria &c. was annulled on non. Oct. 2757. There simply is
not the wiggle room for which that section MIGHT have been used to
justify handing a magistracy/offices back to someone who resigned
it/them, which is apparently what happened with Popillius Laenas and
Gaius Scaurus.

3. My concern is not why someone else is arguing their point; my
concern is obedience to the law; whether it benefits a "friend"
or a ... "not friend" ... means pretty much nothing to me. The law is
above all of us. I will not stop because someone else might be
perceived as having the wrong motive for correctly upholding the law.
I only care that the law be upheld.

So, yes, a new lex should be proposed, or the current ones
clarified/amended, if we want to ADD a grace period for magistracies
like that which exists for citizenship; but it does NOT exist
currently, I have NOT seen any legal construction which explains why
it might, and so I believe the tribunes have violated the law by
handing Curius Saturninus his tribunate back.

And Constantinus Fuscus, if you cannot show me why, under Nova Roman
law, I am incorrect, then this discussion will indeed continue. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities or takes up too much of your
time; I consider the issue of a level of importance such that it is
worth our time to put to rest.

Vale et valete,

Cato