Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Jul 18-25, 2005

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36349 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36350 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36351 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Citizenship test
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36352 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36353 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36354 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Roman legal system
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36355 From: chaz72002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36356 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Roman legal system
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36357 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36358 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Citizenship test
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36359 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36360 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Salvete cives novi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36361 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36362 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36363 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36364 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36365 From: Andrea Miriam Nelsson Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36366 From: Peter Bird Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36368 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Appointment Of Scribe For Canada Occidentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36369 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36370 From: raymond fuentes Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Tattoos in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36371 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36372 From: Andrea Miriam Nelsson Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Tattoos in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36374 From: Marcus Audens Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: (to senate) Forming a new province
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36375 From: chaz72002 Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36376 From: dcdardanius Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Question...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36377 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Question...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36378 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36379 From: Legion XXIV Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Legion XXIV Vicesima Quarta Newsletter July 2005
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36381 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36382 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36383 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Thules Academy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36384 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Thules Academy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36385 From: Sensei Phil Perez Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36386 From: dcdardanius Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36387 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36388 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36389 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: ATTENTION: Parents of Nova Roman Minors
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36390 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36391 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36392 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36393 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36394 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Thules Academy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36395 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Imperialism, Then and Now
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36396 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36399 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36404 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36405 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36406 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36407 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36408 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36409 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36410 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36411 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36412 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36413 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36415 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36416 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36418 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36420 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Silvanus & City Hall, Part I
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36421 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Silvanus & City Hall: references
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36422 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36423 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Silvanus & City Hall, Part I
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36424 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36426 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36427 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36428 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36429 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36430 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36431 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36432 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36433 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36434 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36435 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36436 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36437 From: Sextus Apollonius Scipio Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36438 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36439 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36440 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: My request for Provocatio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36441 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36442 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36443 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36444 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36445 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: My request for Provocatio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36446 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36447 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36448 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36449 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Cato to Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36450 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36451 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36452 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36453 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36454 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36455 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36456 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36457 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36458 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36459 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36460 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36461 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36462 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36463 From: Cnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Messages before november 2002
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36464 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Call to the Consuls and Praetors Day II
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36465 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Cato to Senatrix Minucia-Tiberia Strabo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36467 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Comitia populi tributa vs. comitia plebis tributa - Call to the Tri
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36468 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36469 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Intercessio, extended
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36470 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36471 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Intercessio, extended
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36472 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Intercessio, extended
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36473 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36474 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36475 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36476 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Contra Caesarem, leviter (WAS: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36477 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36478 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Taxpayers List IV
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36479 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36480 From: Quintus Hortensius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Digest Number 2016
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36481 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Contra Caesarem, leviter (WAS: Appeal for provocatio from Hon.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36482 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36483 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36484 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36485 From: Caius Curius Saturninus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: about the recent issue
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36486 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36487 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36488 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36489 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36490 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36491 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36492 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36493 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: about the recent issue
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36494 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36495 From: rustyatrpg@aol.com Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Castra Romana Invitation
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36496 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36497 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36498 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36499 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36500 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36501 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36502 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and Tribu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36503 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Against ad hominem
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36504 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36505 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and T
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36506 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36507 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36508 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36509 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: CENSUS BY PROVINCIAE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36510 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36512 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36513 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Census projections [was Taxpayers List IV]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36514 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribune Vetoing a Tribune?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36515 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36516 From: Michael Kelly Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes For Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36517 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Census projections [was Taxpayers List IV]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36518 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36519 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36520 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36521 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and T
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36522 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes For Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36523 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes For Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36524 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36525 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36526 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36527 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36528 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36529 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36530 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36531 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36532 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36533 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36534 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36535 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes For Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36536 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36537 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36538 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Pompejae Minuciae, de jurisdictione (WAS: Tribunes of Nova Roma for
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36539 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36349 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Salve,

According to Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his work De Re Militari
(written during the 4th Century):

"The recruit, however, should not receive the military mark as soon as
enlisted. He must first be tried if fit for service; whether he has
sufficient activity and strength; if he has capacity to learn his duty;
and whether he has the proper degree of military courage. For many,
though promising enough in appearance, are found very unfit upon trial.
These are to be rejected and replaced by better men; for it is not
numbers, but bravery which carries the day.

After their examination, the recruits should then receive the military
mark, and be taught the use of their arms by constant and daily
exercise. But this essential custom has been abolished by the relaxation
introduced by a long peace. We cannot now expect to find a man to teach
what he never learned himself. The only method, therefore, that remains
of recovering the ancient customs is by books, and by consulting the old
historians. But they are of little service to us in this respect, as
they only relate the exploits and events of wars, and take no notice of
the objects of our present enquiries, which they considered as
universally known."

It is not known if the mark was a tattoo, brand or something else. The
fact that during the 4th century it was known that workers in Imperial
armament "factories" were branded makes it seem likely that this
military mark was something similar.

The marking of troops in such way may be indicative of the decline in
the Roman military at the time, since it is almost certain such a
practice was meant to discourage desertion. That being said, there is no
clear evidence when the practice of "marking" soldiers began, though It
would seem likely that it was confined to the later empire, given the
native Romans' distaste for such body modification.

Hope that helps!

Vale,

Hadrianus





Triarius wrote:

>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Ken Scriboni <GnScribScriptor@g...>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Does anybody have any information in regards to tattoo's in regards to
>>Roma Antica? Especially military oriented, but also civilian.
>>
>>~Gn.Scrib.Scriptor
>>
>>
>
>Salvete,
>
>Along these lines, just rewatched "Gladiator" and was wondering if
>there is any basis for the arm tattoo "SPQR" for soldiers that Russell
>Crowe was wearing, or was that just Hollywood using creative license
>again?
>
>Valete,
>Triarius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36350 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
Salvete omnes,

It is sometimes said there is a fine line between genius and
insanity. That being said, apparently Nero was good in the arts as
well as a great architect. In a way he reminds me a great deal of
Herod The Great. Herod's genius at building, like Nero has for a
long time been overshadowed by his paranoia and crimes. Nero's
relatives always had that sword over their heads but there was also
a saying that you were safer being one of Herod's swine than one of
his sons.

All in all both these figures are stigmatized by the fire in Rome
and Christian persecution then the slaughter of the innocents and
beheading of a famous prophet respectively. In fairness it was
mentioned that Nero was out of Rome when the fire started. Much of
the city, especially in summer was a tinderbox without safe
household cooking facilities and fire outbreaks were very common.
Nero rushed back to personally direct the fire fighting. Apparently,
there is no written record outside the bible of a slaughter of many
babies attributed to Herod as well.

Finally, I remember reading once that emperors who kept to
themselves, indulged in their wild times actually did less harm to
the overall social fabric and economic health of the empire than
others like Diocletian who ripped apart the status quo and did huge
reorganizations,

Regards,

QLP










--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Bird" <p.bird@n...> wrote:
> Salvete, omnes Â…
>
> Thanks for that interesting account of the great fire of Rome! I
wonder how
> much we know of Nero has been influenced by later Christian
writers, giving
> rise to his demonisation? An interesting point!
>
> Valete!
>
> Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf
> Of Triarius
> Sent: 18 July 2005 15:32
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> In light of the recent tragedies we are facing in the modern
world,
> we are reminded of the historical tragedy of July 18, 64 AD, when
> Rome burned. If Nero did infact order Rome to be burned, then the
> Citizens of Rome were exposed to terrorism as well. Here is a
summary
> of the event I found on line at:
>
> "The Burning of Rome, 64 AD," EyeWitness to History,
> http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfrome.htm
>
> The Burning of Rome, 64 AD
>
> During the night of July 18, 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant
> area of the city of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames
quickly
> spread through the dry, wooden structures of the Imperial City.
Soon
> the fire took on a life of its own consuming all in its path for
six
> days and seven nights. When the conflagration finally ran its
course
> it left seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins.
>
> Rumors soon arose accusing the Emperor Nero of ordering the
torching
> of the city and standing on the summit of the Palatine playing his
> lyre as flames devoured the world around him. These rumors have
never
> been confirmed. In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in
> Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without
> his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors
> persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. He found it in
the
> Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a
small
> following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had
his
> victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the
city's
> remaining amphitheater.
>
> From the ashes of the fire rose a more spectacular Rome. A city
made
> of marble and stone with wide streets, pedestrian arcades and
ample
> supplies of water to quell any future blaze. The debris from the
fire
> was used to fill the malaria-ridden marshes that had plagued the
city
> for generations.
>
> The Horror of Fire
>
> The historian Tacitus was born in the year 56 or 57 probably in
Rome.
> He was in Rome during the great fire. During his lifetime he wrote
a
> number of histories chronicling the reigns of the early emperors.
The
> following eye witness account comes from his final work The Annals
> written around the year 116.
>
> "Â… Now started the most terrible and destructive fire which Rome
had
> ever experienced. It began in the Circus, where it adjoins the
> Palatine and Caelian hills. Breaking out in shops selling
inflammable
> goods, and fanned by the wind, the conflagration instantly grew
and
> swept the whole length of the Circus. There were no walled
mansions
> or temples, or any other obstructions, which could arrest it.
First,
> the fire swept violently over the level spaces. Then it climbed
the
> hills - but returned to ravage the lower ground again. It
outstripped
> every counter-measure. The ancient city's narrow winding streets
and
> irregular blocks encouraged its progress.
>
> Terrified, shrieking women, helpless old and young, people intent
on
> their own safety, people unselfishly supporting invalids or
waiting
> for them, fugitives and lingerers alike - all heightened the
> confusion. When people looked back, menacing flames sprang up
before
> them or outflanked them. When they escaped to a neighboring
quarter,
> the fire followed - even districts believed remote proved to be
> involved. Finally, with no idea where or what to flee, they
crowded
> on to the country roads, or lay in the fields. Some who had lost
> everything - even their food for the day - could have escaped, but
> preferred to die. So did others, who had failed to rescue their
loved
> ones. Nobody dared fight the flames. Attempts to do so were
prevented
> by menacing gangs. Torches, too, were openly thrown in, by men
crying
> that they acted under orders. Perhaps they had received orders. Or
> they may just have wanted to plunder unhampered.
>
> Nero was at Antium. He returned to the city only when the fire was
> approaching the mansion he had built to link the Gardens of
Maecenas
> to the Palatine. The flames could not be prevented from
overwhelming
> the whole of the Palatine, including his palace. Nevertheless, for
> the relief of the homeless, fugitive masses he threw open the
Field
> of Mars, including Agrippa's public buildings, and even his own
> Gardens. Nero also constructed emergency accommodation for the
> destitute multitude. Food was brought from Ostia and neighboring
> towns, and the price of corn was cut to less than ¼ sesterce a
pound.
> Yet these measures, for all their popular character, earned no
> gratitude. For a rumor had spread that, while the city was
burning,
> Nero had gone on his private stage and, comparing modern
calamities
> with ancient, had sung of the destruction of Troy.
>
> By the sixth day enormous demolitions had confronted the raging
> flames with bare ground and open sky, and the fire was finally
> stamped out at the foot of the Esquiline Hill. But before panic
had
> subsided, or hope revived, flames broke out again in the more open
> regions of the city. Here there were fewer casualties; but the
> destruction of temples and pleasure arcades was even worse. This
new
> conflagration caused additional ill-feeling because it started on
> Tigellinus' estate in the Aemilian district. For people believed
that
> Nero was ambitious to found a new city to be called after himself.
>
> Of Rome's fourteen districts only four remained intact. Three were
> leveled to the ground. The other seven were reduced to a few
scorched
> and mangled ruins."
>
> Nero became Emperor in the year 54 at the age of 16. He quickly
> distinguished himself by murdering his mother and his wife and
> establishing a Reign of Terror over Rome. He committed suicide in
68
> after the Roman Senate declared him an "enemy of the State."
>
> During the reign of the Emperor Trajan, Tacitus was made Governor
of
> Western Anatolia.
>
> After discovering a plot against him, Nero vowed to rid Rome of
all
> philosophers. Seneca, his teacher and mentor, was forced to commit
> suicide in the year 65.
>
> References:
> Duruy, Victor, History of Rome vol. V (1883); Grant, Michael
> (translator), Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, (1989)
>
> Valete,
> Triarius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "Nova-Roma
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma> " on the web.
>
> * 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!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36351 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Citizenship test
Salvete everyone,

can you tell me what the test I will have to take at the end of
probation period will be like? Apart from what can be read in FAQ, I
mean. Do you have to undergo the online equivalent of an oral exam or
do you get a handful of question and a week of time?

In the latter case, whats the point of it? Theres not much you cant
find out in 5 minutes using google/yahoo or something.

Take care.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36352 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Papinianus Marco suo salutem!

Although i feel every upright Roman should support the BLUE team ;) I
gladly accept (and hereby return) your greetings. Are you interested
in a specific aspect of Roman life or are you just generally
fascinated? I have some professional interest in the ROman legal
system, but otherwise I'm just curious about all and everything.
Since my school-days I loved the Latin language, although I fear I'm
not very accomplished. Which province are you living in?

By the way, someone jokingly suggested Tennis and soccer were no
proper sport for a good Roman who should take on the gladius instead.
I seem to recall that ball-playing games were not only common in
Rome, but socially accepted even in the ordo senatorius. M. Scaevola
(a famous lawyer) is reported to have stopped and watched a trial on
his way to the ball games, and in some letter I think Pliny the
younger expresses his warm feelings towards an elderly friend of hi
who is still capable of some sport. Does anyone know any more about
this?

Sadly, I couldnt find the time to visit ROme on market day as I
intended. Have you ever been there? is it fun?

Cura ut valeas (which, by the way, is not my name, but a Roman
farewell, meaning something along the lines of: take good care of
yourself).



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "chaz72002" <crosa@h...> wrote:
> WELCOME Curate ut valeatis.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36353 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
G. Equitius Cato S. Pilato Barbato S.P.D.

Salve Pilatus Barbatus.

"It is a dangerous office to give good advice to intemperate princes."
- L. Annaeus Seneca, Morals

As you can see from the quotes from Dio Cassius, Tacitus, and
Seutonius, Nero didn't need much help from the Christians to be
demonized. Pretty much everybody who had the pleasure of knowing him
(or even had read about his antics) decided that he was an almost
indescribably horrible man. The Early Church did, though, feel very
strongly that even if Nero was not "the" Antichrist, he was at least
"an" antichrist:

"He [St. Paul] alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as
the deeds of Antichrist. And hence some suppose that he shall rise
again and be Antichrist. Others, again, suppose that he is not even
now dead, but that he was concealed that he might be supposed to have
been killed, and that he now lives in concealment in the vigour of
that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have
perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and
restored to his kingdom." - St. Aurelius Augustine of Hippo, The City
of God 20.19

"What means the declaration, that the mystery of iniquity already
works?... Some suppose this to be spoken of the Roman emperor, and
therefore Paul did not speak in plain words, because he would not
incur the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman
emperor: although he always expected that what he had said would be
understood as applying to Nero." - op.cit.

"This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the
number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is
666." - The Revelation of St. John the Divine 13:18

Of course, it helps that in the Greek and Hebrew versions of Nero's
name we find that infamous calculation of "666". 666 is most likely
a reference either to Nero himself or to some imperial title or slogan
known at Ephesus. From other contemporary apocalyptic sources we know
that they used numerology in this way. For example, among the
fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found just such a numerical
calculation based on the name of Nero using Hebrew letters. It is
difficult to know precisely what combination of letters was intended
to total 666 in Revelation, but several suggestions have been made
that fit. There was also a rumor current in Asia Minor at that time
that Nero had come back to life as Domitian. And it was Domitian who
set up the Imperial cult in Ephesus in A.D. 89. So, it remains
unclear --- Nero or Domitian?

Another problem is that Roman coins and inscriptions almost always
employ abbreviated forms of names and titles for Emperors. So it is
quite possible that the slogan was something like that, and the
abbreviations would have only been understood by people from the local
contexts. What was the mark, then? It probably was a form of imperial
propaganda, closely aligned with the imperial cult, which was used in
commercial contracts and affidavits. Or it might have been the images
and inscriptions on the money itself, that to the author of Revelation
symbolized collusion with the "beast". Probably, it was meant only
to emphasize that the antichrist was not the real Christ, and to draw
an association to Nero Caesar as the actual antichrist, as a potential
antichrist, or as a type of antichrist. And the New Testament teaches
that there would be many antichrists before The Antichrist:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come." - The
Second Letter of John 2:18

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the
flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver
and the antichrist." - The Second Letter of John 7:7

But no matter how you slice it, Nero comes up bad.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36354 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Roman legal system
Papinianus omnibus salutem - iterum!

While I'm at it, are there any legal historians (or hobby-researchers
like myself) within our ranks who would discuss Justinian's Digest and
other legal sources with me? Enough even for a new club, maybe? Three
is company! (Marcellus Dig. 50, 16, 85: Neratius Priscus tres facere
existimat collegium - Neratius Priscus felt that three make a company).

Cant wait for responses.

Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36355 From: chaz72002 Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Sorry indeed about the name thing! (I have serious hurdles to
overcome with the Latin)

But I do DIG the Romans...
My Province is MEDIATLANTICA - I live in NYC.

I love reading about the Emperors, generals, maps showing the extent
of the empire/republic, etc. Also I have alot of DVD's on all of it
too. (cant wait for ROME on HBO!)

I guess in NEW ROME I shall pursue something in either the military,
politics or even gladiator and/or chariots.
(I cant seem to find out who/what/where this stuff is happening. (IF)
I find the RED team site but cant join the yahoo group, etc.

Oh well - alot to learn and do around here.
VALE,
ROSEAUS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "numerius2002" <numerius2002@y...>
wrote:
> Papinianus Marco suo salutem!
>
> Although i feel every upright Roman should support the BLUE team ;)
I
> gladly accept (and hereby return) your greetings. Are you
interested
> in a specific aspect of Roman life or are you just generally
> fascinated? I have some professional interest in the ROman legal
> system, but otherwise I'm just curious about all and everything.
> Since my school-days I loved the Latin language, although I fear
I'm
> not very accomplished. Which province are you living in?
>
> By the way, someone jokingly suggested Tennis and soccer were no
> proper sport for a good Roman who should take on the gladius
instead.
> I seem to recall that ball-playing games were not only common in
> Rome, but socially accepted even in the ordo senatorius. M.
Scaevola
> (a famous lawyer) is reported to have stopped and watched a trial
on
> his way to the ball games, and in some letter I think Pliny the
> younger expresses his warm feelings towards an elderly friend of hi
> who is still capable of some sport. Does anyone know any more about
> this?
>
> Sadly, I couldnt find the time to visit ROme on market day as I
> intended. Have you ever been there? is it fun?
>
> Cura ut valeas (which, by the way, is not my name, but a Roman
> farewell, meaning something along the lines of: take good care of
> yourself).
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "chaz72002" <crosa@h...> wrote:
> > WELCOME Curate ut valeatis.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36356 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Roman legal system
Flavia Tullia Scholastica Papiniano quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
omnibus S.P.D.

> Papinianus omnibus salutem - iterum!
>
> While I'm at it, are there any legal historians (or hobby-researchers
> like myself) within our ranks who would discuss Justinian's Digest and
> other legal sources with me? Enough even for a new club, maybe? Three
> is company! (Marcellus Dig. 50, 16, 85: Neratius Priscus tres facere
> existimat collegium - Neratius Priscus felt that three make a company).
>
There is a mailing list--not really a sodality--devoted to Roman laws.
Our resident legal eagle, Aulus Apollonius Cordus, would be happy to chat
with you. We also have other attorneys among us--Marca Hortensia Maior and
Publius Memmius Albucius, among others. In addition, several citizens who
are not in the legal field share this interest.

> Cant wait for responses.
>
> Valete.
>
Vale, et valete,

Flavia Tullia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36357 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
> Salvete,
>
> Along these lines, just rewatched "Gladiator" and was wondering if
> there is any basis for the arm tattoo "SPQR" for soldiers that
Russell
> Crowe was wearing, or was that just Hollywood using creative license
> again?
>
> Valete,
> Triarius

Salve,

I suspect that it was creative license akin to Michelangelo's "David"
being part of the statuary in "Demetrius and The Gladiators" It's a
1950's movie now out on home video. It looks real good in the
background until one realizes that it wasn't sculpted until 1400 years
later.

Vale,

Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36358 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Citizenship test
Salve, Numeri, et salvete, omnes!

> Salvete everyone,
>
> can you tell me what the test I will have to take at the end of
> probation period will be like? Apart from what can be read in FAQ, I
> mean. Do you have to undergo the online equivalent of an oral exam or
> do you get a handful of question and a week of time?

The citizenship test is a short, primarily multiple-choice test covering
a little of this, and a little of that. Latin, Roman culture and
civilization, religion, Nova Roman government, etc., are among the items
tested. When your probationary period is up, the scriba who handled your
application will send you a copy of the test, which must be returned within
72 hours.
>
> In the latter case, whats the point of it? Theres not much you cant
> find out in 5 minutes using google/yahoo or something.

The point is that we have a law mandating this in order to discourage
frivolous citizenship applications and to ensure that new citizens know
something about ancient Rome and its language, culture, and history AND
something about Nova Roma before they are allowed to vote. Tests normally
are taken under test conditions, that is, without the use of books or
internet resources.

>
> Take care.
>
Vale, et valete,

Flavia Tullia Scholastica
Scriba Latinitati Censoris Gnaei Equiti Marini
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36359 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Vir novus omnibus salutem!
Salve, Rosaee, et salvete, omnes!



> WELCOME Curate ut valeatis.
>
> I am Marcus Octavius Roseaus and a NEW ROMAN myself. I too find it
> cool to see a group of people who share my passion for The Roman
> Republic/Empire...
>
> Enjoy and hope to see you around the...well....around ROMA!
> VALE,
> ROSEAUS

[Roseus...]
>
> PS - I am in RUSSATA - can anyone tell me if the races are active and
> if so, how does one get involved? (I have tried to join the group
> with no luck.

Races are often part of ludi (games), which are held on some of the
major religious festivals under the supervision of the aediles. Information
on subscription to individual races is posted in advance of these events by
the aedile in charge of the ludi in question. If you're interested, you
should be able to find information on the last set of races by searching the
archives of the Main List. Don't worry; you'll have plenty of time to enter
before the next set of races. As for joining a factio, perhaps the dominus
factionis Russatae (leader of the Red Faction) is on vacation, or has ISP
problems, or is MIA. I know people in the Factio Albata and the Factio
Praesina, but I'm afraid I can't help you with Russata as I don't know who's
in charge thereof.

In order to pass your citizenship test, you must learn a bit of
Latin...there's a section on the website which should help with this--and we
will be offering a wide range of Latin courses at the Academia Thules in the
Fall, should you be interested in a deeper acquaintance with the language of
the Romans.

Vale, et valete,

Flavia

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "numerius2002" <numerius2002@y...>
> wrote:
>> Hi whats up Nova Romans, my name's C. Aemilius Papinianus. I have
> just
>> acquired citizenship, so hello everyone.
>>
>> Let me introduce myself. I am 31 years old, lawyer, like to play
> tennis
>> and soccer. I stumbled over Nova Roma while I researched a question
> of
>> legal history on the net, and was at once intrigued. So I applied
> for
>> citizenship and (having overcome a little difficulty with my name,
>> which seems to be no uncommon problem judging by the other
> postings)
>> was granted it just now. At the university I learned some Roman
> law,
>> that's how I came to be fascinated by all things Roman.
>>
>> I think I'll take a stroll around the forum come market day, so see
> you
>> all there.
>>
>> Curate ut valeatis.
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36360 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Salvete cives novi
A. Apollonius M. Octavio Q. Hortensio C. Aemilio
omnibus sal.

Welcome, three new citizens! I hope you all find your
places here and stay with us for many years.

M. Octavi, I'm glad you persevered to overcome the
difficulties with your name. I hope you've got in
touch with Cato - he's an excellent fellow and will
make you feel very welcome.

Q. Hortensi - ah, your namesake was a great man
indeed. What a wonder it must have been to see him
opposing Cicero in court. Indeed there's a story that
they once swapped sides before a court-case so that
Hortensius could go first and get away early to keep
another appointment! If you're as successful and
well-loved in our republic as he was in his, you'll be
doing very well indeed.

Salve C. Aemili. I'm an amateur historian with a
particular interest in Roman law - particularly,
though it may dismay you to hear it, republican Roman
law. Our fellow-citizen C. Julius Scaurus is a
professional epigrapher and very learned in Roman law
and religion, but regrettably he has of late withdrawn
from public life and is very rarely heard from. A
relatively new citizen, A. Sempronius Regulus, has
similar credentials, but he's been very quiet too
lately, I don't know why. M. Hortensia Major takes an
interest in such things, and there are several
citizens who know more about Roman law than they knew
in the spring, because I've been teaching it to them
in a little course in our Academia. So we have more
than enough for a collegium if you want one! There is
already an e-mail list - NovaRomaLaws@yahoogroups.com
- which plays host to discussions about both ancient
and modern Roman law (by "modern Roman law" of course
I mean that of our republic), though it has been quiet
lately.

So, welcome all of you. :)



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36361 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Salvete omnes,

It was previously mentioned that tatoos were for slaves and
criminals in Ancient Rome and the Jewish people frowned on them.
I noticed that even today they are discouraged in the professional
fields and offices. Even in the military I do not remember seeing
them hardly at all in the comissioned officers' ranks.

Still, in the right areas and artistcally done yet subtle they can
look quite sexy on a woman... but that's just my opinion.

Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius started persecuting
the Christians when there sect was probably unheard of and spread no
more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There was still Claudius'
reign to come before Nero.

Regards,

QLP




> > Salvete,
> >
> > Along these lines, just rewatched "Gladiator" and was wondering
if
> > there is any basis for the arm tattoo "SPQR" for soldiers that
> Russell
> > Crowe was wearing, or was that just Hollywood using creative
license
> > again?
> >
> > Valete,
> > Triarius
>
> Salve,
>
> I suspect that it was creative license akin to
Michelangelo's "David"
> being part of the statuary in "Demetrius and The Gladiators" It's
a
> 1950's movie now out on home video. It looks real good in the
> background until one realizes that it wasn't sculpted until 1400
years
> later.
>
> Vale,
>
> Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36362 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Salve,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

>Salvete omnes,
>
>It was previously mentioned that tatoos were for slaves and
>criminals in Ancient Rome and the Jewish people frowned on them.
>I noticed that even today they are discouraged in the professional
>fields and offices. Even in the military I do not remember seeing
>them hardly at all in the comissioned officers' ranks.
>
>
True, the are regarded as being "unprofessional" in the US armed force's
officer corps (as are moustaches interestingly enough...), but they are
very common in the enlisted and NCO ranks. This is partially due to the
demographics of the enlisted ranks (you see a lot of cross or Jesus
motif tattoos on Hispanic and Irish Catholics) and partially due to the
nature of military "tribal" culture (most Marines I know sport the globe
and anchor somewhere on thier body).
I picked up my first tattoo at 19 during my first tour in Korea (along
with a number of my platoon mates). =)

Vale,

Hadrianus

>Still, in the right areas and artistcally done yet subtle they can
>look quite sexy on a woman... but that's just my opinion.
>
>Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius started persecuting
>the Christians when there sect was probably unheard of and spread no
>more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There was still Claudius'
>reign to come before Nero.
>
>Regards,
>
>QLP
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36363 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Salve,

There is some evidence that when Caesar's army returned to Rome some
of its what would be today be called "enlisted" did come back with
tattoos having been exposed to the art during their tour of duty.
Speaking as a former petty officer in the US Navy, not much has
changed in a couple thousand years. The enlisted culture tends to
be a bit more on the rough and tumble than "polite society."
Though perhaps it would be more truthful to say that the enlisted
culture is more honest about the rough and tumble than the "polite
society."

Vale,

Calvus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:
>> True, the are regarded as being "unprofessional" in the US armed
force's
> officer corps (as are moustaches interestingly enough...), but
they are
> very common in the enlisted and NCO ranks. This is partially due
to the
> demographics of the enlisted ranks (you see a lot of cross or
Jesus
> motif tattoos on Hispanic and Irish Catholics) and partially due
to the
> nature of military "tribal" culture (most Marines I know sport the
globe
> and anchor somewhere on thier body).
> I picked up my first tattoo at 19 during my first tour in Korea
(along
> with a number of my platoon mates). =)
>
> Vale,
>
> Hadrianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36364 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-18
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius started persecuting
> the Christians when there sect was probably unheard of and spread no
> more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There was still Claudius'
> reign to come before Nero.

Salve,

There is an old Hollywood ditty when it comes to not letting
historical reality interfer with telling a good story:

Cecil B. DeMille
Much against his will
Was persuaded to keep Moses
Out of the War of the Roses

If one times Melanie's pregnancy with the Civil War battles in Gone
With the Wind she's pregnant for about 12 months!

Vale,

Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36365 From: Andrea Miriam Nelsson Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome
Salve,

Did time change for the Romans after being exposed to cultures who did ritual/social tattooing? I am think of some of the European tribes as well as Africa, the Near and Mid East

I see the military officer motioned quite a bit. At one time, none had any "ink" or at least hid it. Currently (at least in the U.S. army), you can see quite a few officers with tattoos, often acquired while in university. (12 of us in my officer basic course went and got tattoos together before graduation. Silly LTs)

This also seemed to be influenced a bit by post or Division as well. There are quite a number of female officers sporting the ankle or lower back tattoo. In fact tattoos and piercing became common enough in all ranks to update and amend the policies in the dress code during the mid-90s. Seems before that navel and tongue rings and such were just not in the regulations and were causing many a First Sergeant quite a headache.

Vale,

G.Iulia Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Tattoo's in Ancient Rome


Salve,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

>Salvete omnes,
>
>It was previously mentioned that tatoos were for slaves and
>criminals in Ancient Rome and the Jewish people frowned on them.
>I noticed that even today they are discouraged in the professional
>fields and offices. Even in the military I do not remember seeing
>them hardly at all in the comissioned officers' ranks.
>
>
True, the are regarded as being "unprofessional" in the US armed force's
officer corps (as are moustaches interestingly enough...), but they are
very common in the enlisted and NCO ranks. This is partially due to the
demographics of the enlisted ranks (you see a lot of cross or Jesus
motif tattoos on Hispanic and Irish Catholics) and partially due to the
nature of military "tribal" culture (most Marines I know sport the globe
and anchor somewhere on thier body).
I picked up my first tattoo at 19 during my first tour in Korea (along
with a number of my platoon mates). =)

Vale,

Hadrianus

>Still, in the right areas and artistcally done yet subtle they can
>look quite sexy on a woman... but that's just my opinion.
>
>Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius started persecuting
>the Christians when there sect was probably unheard of and spread no
>more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There was still Claudius'
>reign to come before Nero.
>
>Regards,
>
>QLP
>
>
>
>




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36366 From: Peter Bird Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome
Salve, docte G Equiti Cato!

And thanks for that digest on Nero - very interesting indeed. I suppose that
anyone in an emperor's position in that century had to look for saving his
own skin before any other considerations. If he saw a threat, real or
supposed, to his imperial power, his first job would be to eradicate it.
That's a perennial preoccupation of an absolute monarch. And in Nero's case,
even his mother was a threat!

Vale bene :-)

Sextus Pilatus Barbatus



_____

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of gaiusequitiuscato
Sent: 18 July 2005 20:28
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Anniversary of the Burning of Rome



G. Equitius Cato S. Pilato Barbato S.P.D.

Salve Pilatus Barbatus.

"It is a dangerous office to give good advice to intemperate princes."
- L. Annaeus Seneca, Morals

As you can see from the quotes from Dio Cassius, Tacitus, and
Seutonius, Nero didn't need much help from the Christians to be
demonized. Pretty much everybody who had the pleasure of knowing him
(or even had read about his antics) decided that he was an almost
indescribably horrible man. The Early Church did, though, feel very
strongly that even if Nero was not "the" Antichrist, he was at least
"an" antichrist:

"He [St. Paul] alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as
the deeds of Antichrist. And hence some suppose that he shall rise
again and be Antichrist. Others, again, suppose that he is not even
now dead, but that he was concealed that he might be supposed to have
been killed, and that he now lives in concealment in the vigour of
that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have
perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and
restored to his kingdom." - St. Aurelius Augustine of Hippo, The City
of God 20.19

"What means the declaration, that the mystery of iniquity already
works?... Some suppose this to be spoken of the Roman emperor, and
therefore Paul did not speak in plain words, because he would not
incur the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman
emperor: although he always expected that what he had said would be
understood as applying to Nero." - op.cit.

"This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the
number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is
666." - The Revelation of St. John the Divine 13:18

Of course, it helps that in the Greek and Hebrew versions of Nero's
name we find that infamous calculation of "666". 666 is most likely
a reference either to Nero himself or to some imperial title or slogan
known at Ephesus. From other contemporary apocalyptic sources we know
that they used numerology in this way. For example, among the
fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found just such a numerical
calculation based on the name of Nero using Hebrew letters. It is
difficult to know precisely what combination of letters was intended
to total 666 in Revelation, but several suggestions have been made
that fit. There was also a rumor current in Asia Minor at that time
that Nero had come back to life as Domitian. And it was Domitian who
set up the Imperial cult in Ephesus in A.D. 89. So, it remains
unclear --- Nero or Domitian?

Another problem is that Roman coins and inscriptions almost always
employ abbreviated forms of names and titles for Emperors. So it is
quite possible that the slogan was something like that, and the
abbreviations would have only been understood by people from the local
contexts. What was the mark, then? It probably was a form of imperial
propaganda, closely aligned with the imperial cult, which was used in
commercial contracts and affidavits. Or it might have been the images
and inscriptions on the money itself, that to the author of Revelation
symbolized collusion with the "beast". Probably, it was meant only
to emphasize that the antichrist was not the real Christ, and to draw
an association to Nero Caesar as the actual antichrist, as a potential
antichrist, or as a type of antichrist. And the New Testament teaches
that there would be many antichrists before The Antichrist:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come." - The
Second Letter of John 2:18

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the
flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver
and the antichrist." - The Second Letter of John 7:7

But no matter how you slice it, Nero comes up bad.

Vale,

Cato





_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "Nova-Roma
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma> " on the web.

* 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!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36368 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-19
Subject: Appointment Of Scribe For Canada Occidentalis
CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER NINETEEN


APPOINTMENT OF SCRIBE FOR CANADA
OCCIDENTALIS



19 July 2004

Salvete my fellow Nova Romans,

With great pleasure,

I, Quintus, Lanius Paulinus, Propraetor Canada Occidentalis, issue
the following Edicta XX
to announce the appointment of:

G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana as Sriba to Canada Occidentalis.

I look forward to working with this enthusiastic citizen who shall
promote and build our province in Res Republica!

Valete bene

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Propraetor

Canada Occidentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36369 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
M. Hortensia C. Aemilio, Q. Hortensio, M. Octavio salutem dicit;
Please forgive the lateness of my reply as I've just
returned from a non-Roman buddhist retreat;-). But I do wish to
welcome the new cives- Nova Roma is a wonderful place. And a
special 'ave' to the new member of the gens Hortensia, naturally a
place where I hope lawyers and oraters abound.
C. Aemili, as my good friend & law praeceptor Cordus has
pointed out, I also have an interest in Roman law. I graduated from
American law school and once in NR naturally took the name of the
only female jurist in the Republic (for one all too brief moment)
and am happily going to read my way through some nice tomes now that
I have access to a first rate university library.
I don't know if market days are lively, but there is an NR
laws list still in effect, at least there was and we can have happy
discussions there.
So welcome! It's wonderful to have you among us!
bene vale in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Caput Officina Censoris
Iuriis et Investigatio



In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius M. Octavio Q. Hortensio C. Aemilio
> omnibus sal.
>
> Welcome, three new citizens! I hope you all find your
> places here and stay with us for many years.
>
> M. Octavi, I'm glad you persevered to overcome the
> difficulties with your name. I hope you've got in
> touch with Cato - he's an excellent fellow and will
> make you feel very welcome.
>
> Q. Hortensi - ah, your namesake was a great man
> indeed. What a wonder it must have been to see him
> opposing Cicero in court. Indeed there's a story that
> they once swapped sides before a court-case so that
> Hortensius could go first and get away early to keep
> another appointment! If you're as successful and
> well-loved in our republic as he was in his, you'll be
> doing very well indeed.
>
> Salve C. Aemili. I'm an amateur historian with a
> particular interest in Roman law - particularly,
> though it may dismay you to hear it, republican Roman
> law. Our fellow-citizen C. Julius Scaurus is a
> professional epigrapher and very learned in Roman law
> and religion, but regrettably he has of late withdrawn
> from public life and is very rarely heard from. A
> relatively new citizen, A. Sempronius Regulus, has
> similar credentials, but he's been very quiet too
> lately, I don't know why. M. Hortensia Major takes an
> interest in such things, and there are several
> citizens who know more about Roman law than they knew
> in the spring, because I've been teaching it to them
> in a little course in our Academia. So we have more
> than enough for a collegium if you want one! There is
> already an e-mail list - NovaRomaLaws@yahoogroups.com
> - which plays host to discussions about both ancient
> and modern Roman law (by "modern Roman law" of course
> I mean that of our republic), though it has been quiet
> lately.
>
> So, welcome all of you. :)
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36370 From: raymond fuentes Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Tattoos in Ancient Rome
No offense to anyone but here in the NYPD we call the
infamous lower back tatoo a TRAMP STAMP. Not a good
thing to show off in a PT uniform!
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <vxgbhd@...>
wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Did time change for the Romans after being exposed
to cultures who did ritual/social tattooing? I am
think of some of the European tribes as well as
Africa, the Near and Mid East
>
> I see the military officer motioned quite a bit. At
one time, none had any "ink" or at least hid it.
Currently (at least in the U.S. army), you can see
quite a few officers with tattoos, often acquired
while in university. (12 of us in my officer basic
course went and got tattoos together before
graduation. Silly LTs)
>
> This also seemed to be influenced a bit by post or
Division as well. There are quite a number of female
officers sporting the ankle or lower back tattoo. In
fact tattoos and piercing became common enough in all
ranks to update and amend the policies in the dress
code during the mid-90s. Seems before that navel and
tongue rings and such were just not in the regulations
and were causing many a First Sergeant quite a
headache.
>
> Vale,
>
> G.Iulia Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Tattoo's in Ancient
Rome
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> >Salvete omnes,
> >
> >It was previously mentioned that tatoos were for
slaves and
> >criminals in Ancient Rome and the Jewish people
frowned on them.
> >I noticed that even today they are discouraged in
the professional
> >fields and offices. Even in the military I do not
remember seeing
> >them hardly at all in the comissioned officers'
ranks.
> >
> >
> True, the are regarded as being "unprofessional"
in the US armed force's
> officer corps (as are moustaches interestingly
enough...), but they are
> very common in the enlisted and NCO ranks. This is
partially due to the
> demographics of the enlisted ranks (you see a lot
of cross or Jesus
> motif tattoos on Hispanic and Irish Catholics) and
partially due to the
> nature of military "tribal" culture (most Marines
I know sport the globe
> and anchor somewhere on thier body).
> I picked up my first tattoo at 19 during my first
tour in Korea (along
> with a number of my platoon mates). =)
>
> Vale,
>
> Hadrianus
>
> >Still, in the right areas and artistcally done
yet subtle they can
> >look quite sexy on a woman... but that's just my
opinion.
> >
> >Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius
started persecuting
> >the Christians when there sect was probably
unheard of and spread no
> >more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There
was still Claudius'
> >reign to come before Nero.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >QLP
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
=== Message Truncated ===


S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36371 From: numerius2002 Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Papinianus M. Hortensia salutem!

Since you are an American lawyer (and have access to a good library)
maybe you can enlighten me on the legal status of NR. Apollonius told
me it is incorporated as a non-profit educational company in the
U.S.A., in the state of Maine. What legal consequences does this
have? I must confess I dont know the first thing about US law
(Corporate or general), but maybe you can recommend a good book?
Or better still, show me the ropes yourself?

I will gladly accept any help I can get. Maybe we should not discuss
this latter on the Law list, but - if you like - in private, since it
doesnt concern NR matters.

Vale.







--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M. Hortensia C. Aemilio, Q. Hortensio, M. Octavio salutem dicit;
> Please forgive the lateness of my reply as I've just
> returned from a non-Roman buddhist retreat;-). But I do wish to
> welcome the new cives- Nova Roma is a wonderful place. And a
> special 'ave' to the new member of the gens Hortensia, naturally a
> place where I hope lawyers and oraters abound.
> C. Aemili, as my good friend & law praeceptor Cordus has
> pointed out, I also have an interest in Roman law. I graduated from
> American law school and once in NR naturally took the name of the
> only female jurist in the Republic (for one all too brief moment)
> and am happily going to read my way through some nice tomes now
that
> I have access to a first rate university library.
> I don't know if market days are lively, but there is an NR
> laws list still in effect, at least there was and we can have happy
> discussions there.
> So welcome! It's wonderful to have you among us!
> bene vale in pacem deorum
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> Caput Officina Censoris
> Iuriis et Investigatio
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius M. Octavio Q. Hortensio C. Aemilio
> > omnibus sal.
> >
> > Welcome, three new citizens! I hope you all find your
> > places here and stay with us for many years.
> >
> > M. Octavi, I'm glad you persevered to overcome the
> > difficulties with your name. I hope you've got in
> > touch with Cato - he's an excellent fellow and will
> > make you feel very welcome.
> >
> > Q. Hortensi - ah, your namesake was a great man
> > indeed. What a wonder it must have been to see him
> > opposing Cicero in court. Indeed there's a story that
> > they once swapped sides before a court-case so that
> > Hortensius could go first and get away early to keep
> > another appointment! If you're as successful and
> > well-loved in our republic as he was in his, you'll be
> > doing very well indeed.
> >
> > Salve C. Aemili. I'm an amateur historian with a
> > particular interest in Roman law - particularly,
> > though it may dismay you to hear it, republican Roman
> > law. Our fellow-citizen C. Julius Scaurus is a
> > professional epigrapher and very learned in Roman law
> > and religion, but regrettably he has of late withdrawn
> > from public life and is very rarely heard from. A
> > relatively new citizen, A. Sempronius Regulus, has
> > similar credentials, but he's been very quiet too
> > lately, I don't know why. M. Hortensia Major takes an
> > interest in such things, and there are several
> > citizens who know more about Roman law than they knew
> > in the spring, because I've been teaching it to them
> > in a little course in our Academia. So we have more
> > than enough for a collegium if you want one! There is
> > already an e-mail list - NovaRomaLaws@yahoogroups.com
> > - which plays host to discussions about both ancient
> > and modern Roman law (by "modern Roman law" of course
> > I mean that of our republic), though it has been quiet
> > lately.
> >
> > So, welcome all of you. :)
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36372 From: Andrea Miriam Nelsson Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Tattoos in Ancient Rome
Shirts are tucked in our PTs, so if your uniform fits that is not when it is seen... but it is hard to hide in the shower.

Plus certain posts/divisions have a tatoo disclosure policy and all tatoos are checked for extremist/gang motifs (incidents at Fort BRagg in the 90s spurred that).

No offense, the NYPD is a bit smaller demographic that the entirety of the U.S Army + Reserve forces, plus you can get in a world of trouble if you reffered to your Commanding Officers tramp stamp.

On another note, there seems to be a lot of branding that guys are getting in fraternities...now from my paltry historical knowledge I can't recount where that started. I mean as in a positive way as opposed to being a slave.
----- Original Message -----
From: raymond fuentes
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Tattoos in Ancient Rome


No offense to anyone but here in the NYPD we call the
infamous lower back tatoo a TRAMP STAMP. Not a good
thing to show off in a PT uniform!
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <vxgbhd@...>
wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Did time change for the Romans after being exposed
to cultures who did ritual/social tattooing? I am
think of some of the European tribes as well as
Africa, the Near and Mid East
>
> I see the military officer motioned quite a bit. At
one time, none had any "ink" or at least hid it.
Currently (at least in the U.S. army), you can see
quite a few officers with tattoos, often acquired
while in university. (12 of us in my officer basic
course went and got tattoos together before
graduation. Silly LTs)
>
> This also seemed to be influenced a bit by post or
Division as well. There are quite a number of female
officers sporting the ankle or lower back tattoo. In
fact tattoos and piercing became common enough in all
ranks to update and amend the policies in the dress
code during the mid-90s. Seems before that navel and
tongue rings and such were just not in the regulations
and were causing many a First Sergeant quite a
headache.
>
> Vale,
>
> G.Iulia Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Tattoo's in Ancient
Rome
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> >Salvete omnes,
> >
> >It was previously mentioned that tatoos were for
slaves and
> >criminals in Ancient Rome and the Jewish people
frowned on them.
> >I noticed that even today they are discouraged in
the professional
> >fields and offices. Even in the military I do not
remember seeing
> >them hardly at all in the comissioned officers'
ranks.
> >
> >
> True, the are regarded as being "unprofessional"
in the US armed force's
> officer corps (as are moustaches interestingly
enough...), but they are
> very common in the enlisted and NCO ranks. This is
partially due to the
> demographics of the enlisted ranks (you see a lot
of cross or Jesus
> motif tattoos on Hispanic and Irish Catholics) and
partially due to the
> nature of military "tribal" culture (most Marines
I know sport the globe
> and anchor somewhere on thier body).
> I picked up my first tattoo at 19 during my first
tour in Korea (along
> with a number of my platoon mates). =)
>
> Vale,
>
> Hadrianus
>
> >Still, in the right areas and artistcally done
yet subtle they can
> >look quite sexy on a woman... but that's just my
opinion.
> >
> >Funny how Caligula, in the Robe and Demitrius
started persecuting
> >the Christians when there sect was probably
unheard of and spread no
> >more than about 30 miles out of Bethlehem! There
was still Claudius'
> >reign to come before Nero.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >QLP
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
=== Message Truncated ===


S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36374 From: Marcus Audens Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: (to senate) Forming a new province
Gaia Iulia Felix;

In response to your question, normally a minimum of five citizens make up a number who can apply for the recognition of a Province. As Nova Roma grows it is understood that political and cultural conditions may apply in certain conditions and given localities.

For my part I would suggest that you take steps to get another four people into Nova Roma as Ciotizens if that has not alreadybeen done. Then between yourselves make a determination of geographical limits that you can live with , travel in, and work within. Then of the five citizens or more (as you have the interest) indicate which one will be nominated as the ProPraetor of the Province. Provide this information to the Consuls, telling them what your desres are, and why Nova Roma will benefit from your request.

The Consuls will review the proposal and if suitable and apparently doable, will submit the proposal to the Senate for a decision. The Senate will debate/discuss the proposal before the vote and it would be to your advantage to have a Senator able to answer the questions from the Senate as a group.

As top your question about what you could do, I would uggestany or all of the following:

--Face to Face Meeting with all Citizens to determine who will be on the Staff of the ProPraetor;

--Engage in events, such as a Roman Feast, looking into Roman Museum Displays, reviewing Archaelogical Digs, , and Cultural disussions of interest to you;

--Set up an event of your own;

--Do research on your own or join any one or more of the Sodalitas in Nova Roma:

For The Muses, Geographicae, Latin, Militarium, Virtues, Philosophy, Religio, and write or present aspects of these and other activities fromyour culture, which is very different from the Western World

--Submit articles to"Aquila" for pulcation;

--Start a Provincial Newsletter oline;

--Select people in your group of citizens as people who are responsioble for looking into any of the areas of interest in your Province, and get that informatio out to the world of Nova Roma.

I am sure that there are many other ideas in the minds of the many many Nova Romans who are willing to assist you in this.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
Senator and ProConsul
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36375 From: chaz72002 Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Salve!
Thanks once more to all that have greeted me!
Vale,
Marcus Octavius Roseaus
Not yet a citizen but glad to be part of ROME RISING... :)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "numerius2002" <numerius2002@y...>
wrote:
> Papinianus M. Hortensia salutem!
>
> Since you are an American lawyer (and have access to a good
library)
> maybe you can enlighten me on the legal status of NR. Apollonius
told
> me it is incorporated as a non-profit educational company in the
> U.S.A., in the state of Maine. What legal consequences does this
> have? I must confess I dont know the first thing about US law
> (Corporate or general), but maybe you can recommend a good book?
> Or better still, show me the ropes yourself?
>
> I will gladly accept any help I can get. Maybe we should not
discuss
> this latter on the Law list, but - if you like - in private, since
it
> doesnt concern NR matters.
>
> Vale.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > M. Hortensia C. Aemilio, Q. Hortensio, M. Octavio salutem dicit;
> > Please forgive the lateness of my reply as I've just
> > returned from a non-Roman buddhist retreat;-). But I do wish to
> > welcome the new cives- Nova Roma is a wonderful place. And a
> > special 'ave' to the new member of the gens Hortensia, naturally
a
> > place where I hope lawyers and oraters abound.
> > C. Aemili, as my good friend & law praeceptor Cordus has
> > pointed out, I also have an interest in Roman law. I graduated
from
> > American law school and once in NR naturally took the name of the
> > only female jurist in the Republic (for one all too brief moment)
> > and am happily going to read my way through some nice tomes now
> that
> > I have access to a first rate university library.
> > I don't know if market days are lively, but there is an NR
> > laws list still in effect, at least there was and we can have
happy
> > discussions there.
> > So welcome! It's wonderful to have you among us!
> > bene vale in pacem deorum
> > Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> > Caput Officina Censoris
> > Iuriis et Investigatio
> >
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> > <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > > A. Apollonius M. Octavio Q. Hortensio C. Aemilio
> > > omnibus sal.
> > >
> > > Welcome, three new citizens! I hope you all find your
> > > places here and stay with us for many years.
> > >
> > > M. Octavi, I'm glad you persevered to overcome the
> > > difficulties with your name. I hope you've got in
> > > touch with Cato - he's an excellent fellow and will
> > > make you feel very welcome.
> > >
> > > Q. Hortensi - ah, your namesake was a great man
> > > indeed. What a wonder it must have been to see him
> > > opposing Cicero in court. Indeed there's a story that
> > > they once swapped sides before a court-case so that
> > > Hortensius could go first and get away early to keep
> > > another appointment! If you're as successful and
> > > well-loved in our republic as he was in his, you'll be
> > > doing very well indeed.
> > >
> > > Salve C. Aemili. I'm an amateur historian with a
> > > particular interest in Roman law - particularly,
> > > though it may dismay you to hear it, republican Roman
> > > law. Our fellow-citizen C. Julius Scaurus is a
> > > professional epigrapher and very learned in Roman law
> > > and religion, but regrettably he has of late withdrawn
> > > from public life and is very rarely heard from. A
> > > relatively new citizen, A. Sempronius Regulus, has
> > > similar credentials, but he's been very quiet too
> > > lately, I don't know why. M. Hortensia Major takes an
> > > interest in such things, and there are several
> > > citizens who know more about Roman law than they knew
> > > in the spring, because I've been teaching it to them
> > > in a little course in our Academia. So we have more
> > > than enough for a collegium if you want one! There is
> > > already an e-mail list - NovaRomaLaws@yahoogroups.com
> > > - which plays host to discussions about both ancient
> > > and modern Roman law (by "modern Roman law" of course
> > > I mean that of our republic), though it has been quiet
> > > lately.
> > >
> > > So, welcome all of you. :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> > > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36376 From: dcdardanius Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Question...
How do I just stop being a citizen and get out? I'm not paying
$13.00
to be a citizen of this group. I joined to be among people who could
help me learn a little more Latin than I do now. Any help is
appreciated.

D
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36377 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Question...
Salvete, quirites, socii, peregrinique omnes, praesertim "D."

> How do I just stop being a citizen and get out? I'm not paying
> $13.00
> to be a citizen of this group. I joined to be among people who could
> help me learn a little more Latin than I do now. Any help is
> appreciated.

I have answered this person privately as this message was duplicated and
its twin intercepted before filling up the members' mailboxes. The tax is
voluntary, and Latin is best learned at the Academia and in the Sodalitas
Latinitatis, in case anyone else is interested.

There are procedures for resigning citizenship, but such extremities
seem unnecesarry in this case.
>
> D
>
>
Vale, et valete,

Flavia Tullia Scholastica
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36378 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Re: Salvete cives novi
Maior Papiano optimo suo spd;
Salve; well first let me say that I've lived in Hibernia a
number of years and turned from the law to writing novels and now
entering graduate school so my information is sadly out of date.
Usually non-profits in America have tax consequences,
meanining if I donate to NR in the U.S. I can write it off my taxes.
There are other things as well pertaining to running non-profits and
the current laws, if you like I can look through the law library
database if that is your interest or corporate law. But in the U.S
this is taught by the 'case method' where the books are just
compilations of legal cases and you must present them and tease out
the legal issues - actually very fascinating!
My good friend A. Apollonius Cordus just gave a course in Roman
Law over at Academia Thules which should be of some interest to you.
Are you based in Germania? I just left some good friends who
live there and I am trying to restore the German I learned as a
child,
anyway feel free to write to me offlist if you like, I'm more than
happy to help,
optime vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Caput Officina Censoris
Iuriis et Inuestigatio CFBQ


What legal consequences does this
> have? I must confess I dont know the first thing about US law
> (Corporate or general), but maybe you can recommend a good book?
> Or better still, show me the ropes yourself?
>
> I will gladly accept any help I can get. Maybe we should not
discuss
> this latter on the Law list, but - if you like - in private, since
it
> doesnt concern NR matters.
>
> Vale.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > M. Hortensia C. Aemilio, Q. Hortensio, M. Octavio salutem dicit;
> > Please forgive the lateness of my reply as I've just
> > returned from a non-Roman buddhist retreat;-). But I do wish to
> > welcome the new cives- Nova Roma is a wonderful place. And a
> > special 'ave' to the new member of the gens Hortensia, naturally
a
> > place where I hope lawyers and oraters abound.
> > C. Aemili, as my good friend & law praeceptor Cordus has
> > pointed out, I also have an interest in Roman law. I graduated
from
> > American law school and once in NR naturally took the name of
the
> > only female jurist in the Republic (for one all too brief
moment)
> > and am happily going to read my way through some nice tomes now
> that
> > I have access to a first rate university library.
> > I don't know if market days are lively, but there is an NR
> > laws list still in effect, at least there was and we can have
happy
> > discussions there.
> > So welcome! It's wonderful to have you among us!
> > bene vale in pacem deorum
> > Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> > Caput Officina Censoris
> > Iuriis et Investigatio
> >
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> > <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > > A. Apollonius M. Octavio Q. Hortensio C. Aemilio
> > > omnibus sal.
> > >
> > > Welcome, three new citizens! I hope you all find your
> > > places here and stay with us for many years.
> > >
> > > M. Octavi, I'm glad you persevered to overcome the
> > > difficulties with your name. I hope you've got in
> > > touch with Cato - he's an excellent fellow and will
> > > make you feel very welcome.
> > >
> > > Q. Hortensi - ah, your namesake was a great man
> > > indeed. What a wonder it must have been to see him
> > > opposing Cicero in court. Indeed there's a story that
> > > they once swapped sides before a court-case so that
> > > Hortensius could go first and get away early to keep
> > > another appointment! If you're as successful and
> > > well-loved in our republic as he was in his, you'll be
> > > doing very well indeed.
> > >
> > > Salve C. Aemili. I'm an amateur historian with a
> > > particular interest in Roman law - particularly,
> > > though it may dismay you to hear it, republican Roman
> > > law. Our fellow-citizen C. Julius Scaurus is a
> > > professional epigrapher and very learned in Roman law
> > > and religion, but regrettably he has of late withdrawn
> > > from public life and is very rarely heard from. A
> > > relatively new citizen, A. Sempronius Regulus, has
> > > similar credentials, but he's been very quiet too
> > > lately, I don't know why. M. Hortensia Major takes an
> > > interest in such things, and there are several
> > > citizens who know more about Roman law than they knew
> > > in the spring, because I've been teaching it to them
> > > in a little course in our Academia. So we have more
> > > than enough for a collegium if you want one! There is
> > > already an e-mail list - NovaRomaLaws@yahoogroups.com
> > > - which plays host to discussions about both ancient
> > > and modern Roman law (by "modern Roman law" of course
> > > I mean that of our republic), though it has been quiet
> > > lately.
> > >
> > > So, welcome all of you. :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> > > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36379 From: Legion XXIV Date: 2005-07-20
Subject: Legion XXIV Vicesima Quarta Newsletter July 2005
VICESIMA QUARTA
The Newsletter of
LEGION XXIV - MEDIA ATLANTIA

JULY 2005

Gallio Velius Marsallas / George Metz
Praefectus - Commander
13 Post Run - Newtown Square PA 19073-3014
610-353-4982
legionxxiv@... www.legionxxiv.org

Commilitones

ADVENAE - Newcomers
*** Christopher DiDomenico, Decimus Dexius Cicero greendevil321@... is from Levittown, PA. He has a great love for the Roman military and hopes to become an active legionary.
*** Amanda Prisk, Ausonius Juventia Priscia amandaprisk@... comes to us from Washington, NJ. She is an accomplished horse rider and is studying veterinary medicine at Cornell University in Ithica, NY. She has some reenactment experience and could be an asset to the Legion doing a mounted auxiliary impression?

FORT MEIGS - AFTER ACTION
The annual time-line event at the historic and restored 1812 era Fort Meigs in Perrysburg, Ohio, on June 18 & 19, turned out to be one of the best events the Legion has participated in. The weather was perfect, warm, dry and not humid! The venue was excellent, providing an authentic environment of palisade walls, gates, block houses and berms for picture backgrounds and a general feeling of being quartered within a Roman castra fort of long ago. Our Mid-West Vexillation Optio, Quintus Fabricius Varus (David Smith) had things well in hand and was the commander of record for the event. Other members present from the Mid-West Vexillation were John Shook, Steven Boiesmeister-Stephanus Parthius, pilum tosser extraordinaire,
Matthew Borowski?

Joe Perz, Marcus Germanicus Hadrianus, from Amherstburg, Ontario, was present in his centurion outfit and took pleasure in posing for pictures as our display centurion, as well as assisting in talking to the public.
Chris Goshey, one of our up and coming recruits, made the 8 hour drive to be with your Commander at "Meigs" and he took part with John Shook's auxiliaries.
Optio Varus put the troops through a daily Latin drill routine and marched the unit through the other encampments displaying the presence and glory of Rome. He also provided a Roman supper, as well as snacks for munching through the day. One of our troopers (ID withheld to protect the guilty one) was assigned KP punishment "pots and pans" duty when he defected to another unit after supper for an impromptu battle. Pila tossing practice, gladius drills and hard contact engagement exercises took place from time to time during the two day event, much to the public's enjoyment.

Our encampment was quite impressive with six tents and flies, two Aquila standards, two Vexillum banners, two Signum standards, an Amagio and numerous sudus stakes and other equipment.
The upgraded catapulta was field tested and proved quite capable of chucking SCA plastic bolts over 200 feet. Lack of a protected shooting range precluded the use of the more serious "live round" iron tipped arrow bolts. More distance may be possible, but this could place undue stress on the "engine's" components, so for now, 200+ feet will be the norm. A couple of posed picture opportunities were set-up in the camp and with the catapulta. Look for them on the Legion Site in the future.
Dan Peterson was to be present with his impressive display and collection of gear, but declined to come - a disappointment to say the least.

ROMAN MARKET DAYS - JULY 9 & 10 - AFTER ACTION
Roman Market Days 2005 was set for July 9th and 10th, 10AM - 4PM, in Wells, Maine. This year's event was in conjunction with the town's "Harborfest" event which has been run by the local chamber of commerce for the last six years. Since this was during the prime tourist season the event was expected to be well attended.
The Roman Market Days portion took up a large back area of the event. There was plenty of room for the gladiators, legion encampments and siege equipment.
Rebecca East, author of the novel "A. D. 62: Pompeii", was present to autograph copies of her novel "Pompeii 62 AD" (www.rebecca-east.com). Jason Klein: Glassblower had an impressive display of hand created vessels, plates and other decorative glass wear. LaWren's Nest and various other sutlers were looking for business from Rome as well as from more modern cultures.
The rain from the remains of tropical storm "Cindy" precluded setting up very much on Friday afternoon or evening.
Senator Auden's tent was put-up and the Legion XXIV camp site was defined with sudus stakes, after which we retired to the "Mainiac" Restaurant for dinner.

The event got off to a delayed start on Saturday after lingering drizzle finally moved away by 11AM and the weather steadily improved through the day. Several musters and marches were conducted around the quadrangle under direction of Legio III Cyrenaica Optio Patricius Attacottus Vallavantinius (Mike Heenan), who was elevated to Centurio status in a ceremony conducted by Senator Audens. Field maneuvers, pila tosses and a pila contest also took place. The Legion XXIV catapulta was in good form and thrilled the public with long shots of SCA play ammo, serious "live round" arrow bolts and small, but nasty Dura-Europos style arrow darts made from the mini-bats you can buy at baseball parks. See www.legionxxiv.org/catapulta The crowds were rather heavy on Saturday and during the afternoon field drills, a plane towing a banner proclaiming "Roman Market Days" appeared over the park.

On Saturday evening, a Toga/Tunic Party was held at the Villa Philippus, where everyone was greeted by a fierce little Chawawa with an attitude, who sounded as if he would tear your leg off. This feast is an annual event hosted by Marcus Cassius Philippus and his wife Kathy to honor all the re-enactors, some of which travel quite far to attend Market Days. Rich & Randi entertained everyone with their hilarious renditions of Monty Python's "Life of Bryan" and Mel Brook's "History of the World Part I". Many a hearty toast with unwatered wine was had for the wonderful future of Nova Roma, Nova Britannia and Re-enactment events like this one.

Sunday dawned mostly clear and hot, but with reduced humidity. The attendance was markedly less, probably because many who did not get to the beach on Saturday, went there on Sunday. The bugs however, were around in great numbers and your Commander, and probably others as well, were scratching and tending to bites and welts for several days after the event.
This was the second time this event was held at the Wells Harbor Park and next year's festival could be even better.
The Market Days event was organized by Nova Roma co-founder and Proconsul Marcus Cassius Julianus (Will Bradford) and his wife, Patricia Cassia. She is also a co-founder of Nova Roma and one of its Senators. Our thanks and a sincere "Well-Done" is extended to both of them for the great time had by all.
Rich Croteau narrowly beat Philippus at the Pilus throwing contest, winning a much coveted golden coronet.
Proconsul Auden's booming politician's voice was heard by all throughout the entire weekend. He answered all the barbarian/tourist questions diplomatically, no matter how silly they were, as well as introducing all the major presentations with great dignitas.

Also in attendance to best of my recollection were:
Proconsul and Senator Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens (James Mathews) and his wife Margaret,
Senator Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus, Legate of Vermont Regio, along with a couple of toga wearing patricians,
Nova Roma's official Latin Translator, Flavia Tullia (Nancy Bowles).
Legion XXIV was represented by legionnaire Marcus Quintius Clavus (Quinton Johanson ), Senator Marcus Audens (James Matthews) and of course your Commander.
The host Legion III Cyrenaica members were Centurio/Optio Patricius Attacottus Vallavantinius (Mike Heenan) and his wife,
Theodora (Marie), Miles Randi, Miles Marcus Cassius Philippus (Phil Perez), his wife Kathy and two daughters
Miles Andy Volpe - Higgins Armour Museum's own "Roman Dude", Auxiliary Rich Croteau and his huge barbarian auxiliary son,
as well as another large barbarian auxiliary.
Legio XXX was also represented by a member and we even had a token Celt, who the Legionnaires took turns abusing.

The Ludus Magnus Gladiatorial Group: Primus Pilus and Thracian / Murmillo, Maximus Mercurius Gladius (John Ebel - who beat the tar out of Phillipus in the sand arena), Greek Hoplomachus Gaius, Provocateur Lupus Britanicus (Mike Catellier), Secutor
Petronius and his net wielding father Retiarius Aulus Scipio Barbatus and the Ludus-Magnus's own gorgeous gladiatrixes who shall remain unnamed here to protect their modesty (for now :-), unfortunately there was no wardrobe malfunctions (this time). The Ludus Magnus's Games chilled everyone's blood, especially the death match between Maximus and the his Killer Retiarius Barbatus. The bloody mess they made of themselves caused many in the audience to gasp and some ladies to faint. Maximus was forced to deal with a drunken Legionnaire (Philippus) that continuously harassed and heckled his Ludus from the audience by a challenge match that ended in the coming together of all the gladiators and legionnaires in a seldom witnessed scene of comradery between the two.

Sutlers were: Lawrence and wench Heidi of LaWrens Nest, Pompeii AD 62 author Rebecca East and her husband, and Ceramicist Vegetia and her husband Dino, and Jason Klein of Historical Glassworks.Com .
The event was a long trip for some, but a great experience for All ! Roman Market Days 2006 will be July 8-9 - Can't Wait!


SPECIAL ROMAN EVENT IN OTTAWA - AUGUST 6 & 7
The Canadian Museum of Civilization, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada is organizing a huge exhibit on Pompeii at the time of the eruption of the "Vesuvius" Volcano in 79AD. They are asking to have Roman reenactors, both military and civilian, for the weekend of August 6 & 7. I do know that for many of you, including myself, that is right after the weekend at Fort Malden in Amherstburg Ontario. However, it has been worked out that a limited number participants, on a "first come" basis will be compensated.
Three meals a day will be provided, and not just hot dogs, including underaged participants.

Secondly, arrangements are being made to accommodate most if not all with a room to sleep in, children participating as reenactors included. A financial compensation will be provided for adult participants. Bring everything you can, as we will need to be showing as much equipment as possible for this two day event. The museum will supply bails of hay for pilum shooting range and encampment. The Museum wants demos on pilae throwing and two maneuver demos daily. One at 11:00am and one at 2:00pm both Saturday and Sunday. For those who do not really know Ottawa well, the Museum is one of the biggest in Eastern Canada. It attracts about 10 million visitors per year and this special event will be no exception. Usually they attract thousands of interested people for that weekend alone. Please contact Marcus Darius Firmitus / "Marc Sarault" at 613-859-8289 for more details and questions, and to book your place as an individual or as a cohort or even as a legion. In return for the much appreciated Canadian hospitality in the past, Legion XXIV is expecting and should have a major presence at this event.

TIME LINE at CHARLESTOWN, NH SEPT 24-25
Ed Jadaszewski would like to put out an invitation to a time line event at "The Fort at #4" this September 24-25, 2005.
The event is in Charlestown, New Hampshire on the New Hampshire/Vermont border. The site is beautiful and reenactment-friendly, and they hope to make this an annual event. Suttlers and any kinds of period demos are also welcomed, and of
course camping and campfires are permitted. For more information, the website is http://www.fortat4.com , and please contact Eric if you are interested, jrjada@....

CASTRA ROMANA NOV. 4 - 6
From Rusty Myers, Justus Rustius Longinus, 843-437-5587 justuslonginus@... of Legio VI Ferrata Fidelas Constans.


Knowing it is a bit of a drive for most, we are pulling out all the stops (including lots of new stuff!!) to make this an experience you will not want to miss, and will never forget!

While this event will be advertised and open to the public, our primary goal is to provide a unique experience to our participants. To this end we have a great number of events which will interest the Roman Reenactor, be they soldier or civilian! This will include a period smithy, Roman Vendors, potter, baker, Presentations, and more. If you have a unique impression you would like to bring and add, please contact us. There is no cost to our participants for any of the events they can participate in or for the encampment itself. The last years have been an outstanding success, and this year will be even better!

Soldiers will get the opportunity to drill and train with double weighted weapons, throw live pila on the pila range, practice live sword (against a post of course!), in addition to participating in Needlefelt mock combat both on the drill field for spectators Saturday, and in the woods on Sunday, you will see the Gladiators in the arena in daylight, and at a special torchlight nighttime match just before the Grand Convivia! We will also have Military Games, a 1.5 mile road march (there are Celts about... bring your Needlefelts), guard mount, pay issue (yes, you will get your 75 Denarii... minus a bit for the Centurion...), and more.

The highlight of the event will be the Centurios Convivium, a grande Roman Banquet prepared by our gourmet Roman Chef the Lady Helvia Elena Claudilla, and hosted by the Centurio. Ask anyone about our feast! The food alone is worth the drive!

Average Temperature in November in South Carolina is 65-75 degrees. In addition there are few if any events on the calendar for that period of time. Plus the mosquitoes are mostly dead! Legio VI will be onsite Thursday the 3rd to Monday the 7th, but you should try to arrive sometime Thursday or Friday unless you are setting up a special event or station. Re-enacting events start Friday night. Vendors are welcome to set up a display, but we ask that they remain in period as much as they are able, and you must contact us as soon as possible. We have limited room for vendors, but will endeavor to accommodate you in the period market, or vendor row. Remember this event is being planned for the participants, so we need you to attend! Please RSVP via EMAIL by October 1st with firm numbers if at all possible (this is so we can plan the feast).

It is our sincerest hope you will plan to attend. We will have an excellent time, and want you to be there to celebrate the growth of Roman Living Archeology, at the best Castra Romana EVER!










FOR SALE
Charles Pecquet of Legion XX is selling his kit as a set, with an asking price of $1500. Deepeeka Gallic H helmet (a good one, before they ruined the back!), Museum Replicas "Newstead" lorica, plus scutum, Pompeii gladius, tunic, caligae, belt with pugio, pilum, cloak with pin, pack pole and bag, and a canteen. Contact him for photos and more details, thepecquets@...
or 504-276-9001.


LOOKING FOR HISTORICAL DECORATIVE GLASS ?
Jason Klein may have what you are looking for. He was at Roman Days and Market Days and had an impressive display of hand blown and hand created glass, bowls and plates. Contact him at www.historicalglassworks.com 904-476-8680

AND PLEASE REMEMBER to keep me updated on your e-mail, phone and other address info. If your e-mail
goes bad and I don't have any other info, you become "MIA" "Missing in Action", or more likely "Inaction"
and I do have a number of those, way too many, already.
Please advise me of your status and continued interest in the Legion? legionxxiv@...
Thank you for your attention to this.

UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS for LEGION XXIV and OTHER EVENTS for 2005
*** July 30-31 Annual Fort Malden Military Days, Amherstburg, Ontario
*** August 6-7 Major Roman Event at Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa, Canada
Marc Sarault (Marcus Darius) 613-859-8289 or marcus_darius_firmitus@...
*** September 24-25 Time Line Event at Fort #4, Charlestown, NH contact Eric, jrjada@....
*** October 22-23 Possible Ren Faire appearance, Waterloo Village, Netcong, NJ, I-80-exit 25 11AM-5PM
*** November 4-6 Castra Romana of Legio VI Ferrata Fidelas Constans, Givhans State Park in South Carolina.
Rusty Myers, Justus Rustius Longinus, 843-437-5587 justuslonginus@...


Thanking you for your continued support of Legion XXIV, I remain;

Yours in the Bonds of Ancient Rome

Gallio / George



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36381 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
Salvete omnes,

I thought I would put this article here from Sodalista Coq et Coq,
where food, drink amd merriment are discussed:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/?yguid=115252440

We have got some great ancient recepie ideas over the last few
years. Everyone is welcome according to its owner!


I am afraid I cannot face the day without a coffee. Based on that, I
always wondered what the Romans would have drunk, especially those
living or stationed in colder Northern Europe. From what I read, the
legions of Caesar drank vinegar although I am not sure if they drank
it hot.

As I was on a healthier eating kick a while back I did eliminate
coffee foe a while and took some apple cider vinegar mixed with
honey and diluted with hot water. I must say that I felt a warm
sensation and a slight energy buzz before venturing out into the
cold but taking it straight without a snanck first gave me a gut
ache.

Here is an interesting article on vinegar written partially on a
medical point of view:

Vinegar

Vinegar, I would venture to say, is something found in everyone's
home. Most people use it for cooking purposes, and of course we all
know it is great for mixing with water and washing the windows. It
is amazing how little the average individual knows of this wondrous
product. This little treatise will inform you of everything you need
to know, from how it is derived to its many uses.

Vinegar is described in the dictionary as an acid liquid obtained
from an alcoholic liquid, as cider, by oxidation, as an acetous
fermentation: used as a condiment and as a preservative. It is the
product of two biochemical processes.

Alcoholic fermentation, which changes natural, sugars into alcohol.
Acid fermentation in which acetobacter, a group bacteria, converts
the alcohol portion into acid.
There are four basic types of vinegar;

Distilled vinegar made by the acid fermentation of distilled
alcohol. This is the white vinegar you can probably find in your
house now.
Malt vinegar fermented from barley malt or other grains that can be
converted to maltose (known as C12 H22 011 H20, the chemical
formula.
Vinegar made from sugar, a two-step fermentation of sugar or
molasses.
Vinegar that is made from juices in a two-step fermentation process.
Apple juice is the juice of choice and most commonly used. However,
other fruits such as peaches, grapes, and berries can be used as
well.
Extremely popular vinegar, most everyone knows and usually found in
restaurants, is Balsamic vinegar. The process of producing Balsamic
vinegar begins with crushing grapes and concentrating the juice over
an open flame. This produces what is called "must". The "must" is
then fermented with yeast to produce alcohol, and is again fermented
by the "madre" culture, producing the Balsamic vinegar we know so
well. The entire process occurs in wooden barrels and as the liquid
evaporates over time, it is then transferred to smaller barrels. It
is these wooden barrels that what will give the vinegar its unique
aromatic taste.

Some very interesting stories that are attributed to the use of
vinegar since it was discovered approximately 10,000 years ago. No
one knows who discovered it, but it probably occurred by accident.
Vinegar means sour wine, so what probably happened was that some
wine turned sour and vinegar was born. There are references to the
healing and soothing properties of vinegar in the Bible. Vinegar was
not permitted to be used by commoners, but was only permitted for
use by the nobility by decree.

Roman legionnaires used vinegar as a beverage. They must have had
strong stomachs. In Babylonian times it was used as an herb flavored
condiment. Cleopatra is attributed to making a wager that she could
consume a fortune in a single meal. She won her bet by dissolving
precious pearls in vinegar and consumed the liquid with her meal. It
was a dinner fit for a queen.

When Hannibal had to cross the Alps, there were boulders that
obstructed his path. He found an ingenious way to overcome that
obstacle. He had the boulders heated and then drenched with vinegar,
causing them to crack and crumble so that they were easily cleared
aside. One of the most interesting facts is that Hippocrates, the
father of medicine spoke very highly of using vinegar as a remedy
for many ills. The Egyptians used vinegar for medicinal purposes for
a great many ills.

The uses for vinegar are many, and some new use is always being
found. These are just some that can be used at home for our daily
chores.

Clean windows by using a mixture of water and vinegar.

Dampen a cloth with vinegar to remove stains from chrome and
stainless steel.

Wipe shower walls and door with vinegar-soaked cloth to remove and
prevent mildew and mold from growing.

Use water and vinegar to rinse glasses and dishes to remove film and
spots.

Add vinegar instead of water to the coffee maker and run the cycle.
Then add plain water and run through cycle again to rinse. Will
remove buildup of scale.

To remove scale from teakettle, add water and vinegar and let stand
overnight.

To clean a hardened paint brush, let it simmer in boiling water and
rinse in very hot soapy water.

Wipe your oven frequently with vinegar, that will help prevent a
buildup of grease, making cleaning much easier.

Adding a little vinegar to the water will make cleaning your car
easier and make it shine.

When seats in cane chairs start to sag use a solution of half water
and half vinegar. Heat solution until hot, then sponge the seats and
place outdoors in the sun to dry.

Add a little vinegar to the water when mopping tile floors. It will
make them shine and also act as a deodorant and prevent mold and
mildew.

In the kitchen and the preparing of foods, there are many uses as
well.

Rinse your fruits and vegetables in a solution of vinegar and water
before eating or preparing the food for cooking.

Make a better piecrust by adding 1 tablespoon of vinegar to recipe.
The crust will be flakier.

Add a little vinegar when boiling eggs. If there are cracks in the
egg, it will prevent the whites from leaking out.

Add a teaspoon of vinegar when poaching eggs to prevent separation.

When canning or preserving foods, wipe the jars with vinegar. That
will prevent the buildup of mold producing bacteria.

To improve the taste of fish when cooking, rinse in a solution of
vinegar and water. Much of the fishy taste and odor will be removed.

A spoon full of vinegar added to the water when cooking cauliflower
will make it whiter, and when cooking green vegetables, it will make
them greener.

Adding a tablespoon of vinegar to gelatin will make it firmer.

Add a 1/8 to ¼ cup of cider vinegar when soaking beans to remove the
gas from the beans.

Cabbage odor can be removed when cooking cabbage by adding some
vinegar to the water.

To prevent mold from the end of an uncooked ham, just rub some
vinegar on it.

To make a real fluffy meringue, add one teaspoon of vinegar to 3 egg
whites.

Adding vinegar to the water when boiling a ham will remove the salty
taste and improve the flavor.

New Englanders put vinegar on their French fries. It is also used
that way in the UK.

In health related issues, vinegar has many applications. Some such
uses are.

For skin burns apply ice-cold vinegar immediately. Use cold
compresses by soaking a cloth in vinegar. Using these compresses 3
or 4 times daily. Doing this can prevent blisters from forming.

Add 1/2 cup of vinegar to water in a plastic pan. Use to soak your
feet to soften calluses. Makes trimming toenails and cuticles much
easier.

Add 2 cups of cider vinegar to a hot tub. Makes an excellent soak
for muscle soreness. This reduces the soreness by adding potassium
to the muscles.

One of the best uses is making solution of half vinegar and half
water, this basically is a solution that could be bought
commercially, and was called "Burrow's Solution". It is an excellent
solution to reduce the swelling and inflammation of a sprained
ankle, by applying a cold compress. Use it also for any other injury
that causes pain, swelling, and inflammation.

The versatility of vinegar makes it practically mandatory that all
households have a bottle of white, and a bottle of apple cider
vinegar in the pantry. And you needn't worry about it becoming
outdated or spoiling. It doesn't spoil and can be kept
indefinitely.

Regards,

QLP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36382 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.

Salvete.

The Roman Legionnaires drank a mix of water and sour wine gone to
vinegar called Posca. I expect it was mostly water - though I haven't
found any record of the exact proportions. It is (allegedly)
refreshing, and the vinegar acts as a sort of disinfectant for water
obtained from potentially dubious sources.

Interestingly enough, if you go to the Perseus Digital Library
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) and do a keyword search "vinegar" in
Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia you get 529 hits (including the
famous Cleopatra and the pearls story)!

Valete bene,

Hadrianus

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

<snip>

>I am afraid I cannot face the day without a coffee. Based on that, I
>always wondered what the Romans would have drunk, especially those
>living or stationed in colder Northern Europe. From what I read, the
>legions of Caesar drank vinegar although I am not sure if they drank
>it hot.
>
>
<snip>

>
>
>Roman legionnaires used vinegar as a beverage. They must have had
>strong stomachs.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36383 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Thules Academy
Salvete omnes,

I just wanted to remind some citizens in our province about the Latin
course coming up. I cannot open the Thules Academy site on the NR main
webpage. Would someone check that out when you have a chance please?

Regards,

QLP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36384 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Thules Academy
SALVE QUINTE LANI !

Checked. It works.
The Latin course will start in September. They have to sign up for it at the Academia Thules website.

OPTIME VALE,
IVL SABINVS


"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> wrote:
Salvete omnes,

I just wanted to remind some citizens in our province about the Latin
course coming up. I cannot open the Thules Academy site on the NR main
webpage. Would someone check that out when you have a chance please?

Regards,

QLP




SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Fall of the roman empire The roman empire

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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






"Every individual is the arhitect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius





---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36385 From: Sensei Phil Perez Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Roman Beverage - Vinegar
Salvete,

One more use for Vinegar: A table spoon (or a hearty gulp) will kill any heart burn, indigestion or acid reflux instantly! I keep a bottle by my bed just in case ;-)

Vires et Honos
Marcus Cassius Philippus
----- Original Message -----
From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:05 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Roman Beverage - Vinegar


Salvete omnes,

I thought I would put this article here from Sodalista Coq et Coq,
where food, drink amd merriment are discussed:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/?yguid=115252440

We have got some great ancient recepie ideas over the last few
years. Everyone is welcome according to its owner!


I am afraid I cannot face the day without a coffee. Based on that, I
always wondered what the Romans would have drunk, especially those
living or stationed in colder Northern Europe. From what I read, the
legions of Caesar drank vinegar although I am not sure if they drank
it hot.

As I was on a healthier eating kick a while back I did eliminate
coffee foe a while and took some apple cider vinegar mixed with
honey and diluted with hot water. I must say that I felt a warm
sensation and a slight energy buzz before venturing out into the
cold but taking it straight without a snanck first gave me a gut
ache.

Here is an interesting article on vinegar written partially on a
medical point of view:

Vinegar

Vinegar, I would venture to say, is something found in everyone's
home. Most people use it for cooking purposes, and of course we all
know it is great for mixing with water and washing the windows. It
is amazing how little the average individual knows of this wondrous
product. This little treatise will inform you of everything you need
to know, from how it is derived to its many uses.

Vinegar is described in the dictionary as an acid liquid obtained
from an alcoholic liquid, as cider, by oxidation, as an acetous
fermentation: used as a condiment and as a preservative. It is the
product of two biochemical processes.

Alcoholic fermentation, which changes natural, sugars into alcohol.
Acid fermentation in which acetobacter, a group bacteria, converts
the alcohol portion into acid.
There are four basic types of vinegar;

Distilled vinegar made by the acid fermentation of distilled
alcohol. This is the white vinegar you can probably find in your
house now.
Malt vinegar fermented from barley malt or other grains that can be
converted to maltose (known as C12 H22 011 H20, the chemical
formula.
Vinegar made from sugar, a two-step fermentation of sugar or
molasses.
Vinegar that is made from juices in a two-step fermentation process.
Apple juice is the juice of choice and most commonly used. However,
other fruits such as peaches, grapes, and berries can be used as
well.
Extremely popular vinegar, most everyone knows and usually found in
restaurants, is Balsamic vinegar. The process of producing Balsamic
vinegar begins with crushing grapes and concentrating the juice over
an open flame. This produces what is called "must". The "must" is
then fermented with yeast to produce alcohol, and is again fermented
by the "madre" culture, producing the Balsamic vinegar we know so
well. The entire process occurs in wooden barrels and as the liquid
evaporates over time, it is then transferred to smaller barrels. It
is these wooden barrels that what will give the vinegar its unique
aromatic taste.

Some very interesting stories that are attributed to the use of
vinegar since it was discovered approximately 10,000 years ago. No
one knows who discovered it, but it probably occurred by accident.
Vinegar means sour wine, so what probably happened was that some
wine turned sour and vinegar was born. There are references to the
healing and soothing properties of vinegar in the Bible. Vinegar was
not permitted to be used by commoners, but was only permitted for
use by the nobility by decree.

Roman legionnaires used vinegar as a beverage. They must have had
strong stomachs. In Babylonian times it was used as an herb flavored
condiment. Cleopatra is attributed to making a wager that she could
consume a fortune in a single meal. She won her bet by dissolving
precious pearls in vinegar and consumed the liquid with her meal. It
was a dinner fit for a queen.

When Hannibal had to cross the Alps, there were boulders that
obstructed his path. He found an ingenious way to overcome that
obstacle. He had the boulders heated and then drenched with vinegar,
causing them to crack and crumble so that they were easily cleared
aside. One of the most interesting facts is that Hippocrates, the
father of medicine spoke very highly of using vinegar as a remedy
for many ills. The Egyptians used vinegar for medicinal purposes for
a great many ills.

The uses for vinegar are many, and some new use is always being
found. These are just some that can be used at home for our daily
chores.

Clean windows by using a mixture of water and vinegar.

Dampen a cloth with vinegar to remove stains from chrome and
stainless steel.

Wipe shower walls and door with vinegar-soaked cloth to remove and
prevent mildew and mold from growing.

Use water and vinegar to rinse glasses and dishes to remove film and
spots.

Add vinegar instead of water to the coffee maker and run the cycle.
Then add plain water and run through cycle again to rinse. Will
remove buildup of scale.

To remove scale from teakettle, add water and vinegar and let stand
overnight.

To clean a hardened paint brush, let it simmer in boiling water and
rinse in very hot soapy water.

Wipe your oven frequently with vinegar, that will help prevent a
buildup of grease, making cleaning much easier.

Adding a little vinegar to the water will make cleaning your car
easier and make it shine.

When seats in cane chairs start to sag use a solution of half water
and half vinegar. Heat solution until hot, then sponge the seats and
place outdoors in the sun to dry.

Add a little vinegar to the water when mopping tile floors. It will
make them shine and also act as a deodorant and prevent mold and
mildew.

In the kitchen and the preparing of foods, there are many uses as
well.

Rinse your fruits and vegetables in a solution of vinegar and water
before eating or preparing the food for cooking.

Make a better piecrust by adding 1 tablespoon of vinegar to recipe.
The crust will be flakier.

Add a little vinegar when boiling eggs. If there are cracks in the
egg, it will prevent the whites from leaking out.

Add a teaspoon of vinegar when poaching eggs to prevent separation.

When canning or preserving foods, wipe the jars with vinegar. That
will prevent the buildup of mold producing bacteria.

To improve the taste of fish when cooking, rinse in a solution of
vinegar and water. Much of the fishy taste and odor will be removed.

A spoon full of vinegar added to the water when cooking cauliflower
will make it whiter, and when cooking green vegetables, it will make
them greener.

Adding a tablespoon of vinegar to gelatin will make it firmer.

Add a 1/8 to ¼ cup of cider vinegar when soaking beans to remove the
gas from the beans.

Cabbage odor can be removed when cooking cabbage by adding some
vinegar to the water.

To prevent mold from the end of an uncooked ham, just rub some
vinegar on it.

To make a real fluffy meringue, add one teaspoon of vinegar to 3 egg
whites.

Adding vinegar to the water when boiling a ham will remove the salty
taste and improve the flavor.

New Englanders put vinegar on their French fries. It is also used
that way in the UK.

In health related issues, vinegar has many applications. Some such
uses are.

For skin burns apply ice-cold vinegar immediately. Use cold
compresses by soaking a cloth in vinegar. Using these compresses 3
or 4 times daily. Doing this can prevent blisters from forming.

Add 1/2 cup of vinegar to water in a plastic pan. Use to soak your
feet to soften calluses. Makes trimming toenails and cuticles much
easier.

Add 2 cups of cider vinegar to a hot tub. Makes an excellent soak
for muscle soreness. This reduces the soreness by adding potassium
to the muscles.

One of the best uses is making solution of half vinegar and half
water, this basically is a solution that could be bought
commercially, and was called "Burrow's Solution". It is an excellent
solution to reduce the swelling and inflammation of a sprained
ankle, by applying a cold compress. Use it also for any other injury
that causes pain, swelling, and inflammation.

The versatility of vinegar makes it practically mandatory that all
households have a bottle of white, and a bottle of apple cider
vinegar in the pantry. And you needn't worry about it becoming
outdated or spoiling. It doesn't spoil and can be kept
indefinitely.

Regards,

QLP




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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




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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/2005


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36386 From: dcdardanius Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
I don't think I was extreme. I think I was simply asking a question
and giving my thoughts. I don't know all the rules about the way
Nova Roma is maintained, so I came here to ask it. If you never ask,
then you'll never know.

Feel free to kick me out if I overstepped or didn't ask properly.

Ryan

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Flavia Scholastica <fororom@l...>
wrote:
> Salvete, quirites, socii, peregrinique omnes, praesertim "D."
>
> > How do I just stop being a citizen and get out? I'm not paying
> > $13.00
> > to be a citizen of this group. I joined to be among people who
could
> > help me learn a little more Latin than I do now. Any help is
> > appreciated.
>
> I have answered this person privately as this message was
duplicated and
> its twin intercepted before filling up the members' mailboxes. The
tax is
> voluntary, and Latin is best learned at the Academia and in the
Sodalitas
> Latinitatis, in case anyone else is interested.
>
> There are procedures for resigning citizenship, but such
extremities
> seem unnecesarry in this case.
> >
> > D
> >
> >
> Vale, et valete,
>
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36387 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
A. Apollonius Ryano omnibusque sal.

> I don't think I was extreme. I think I was simply
> asking a question
> and giving my thoughts. I don't know all the rules
> about the way
> Nova Roma is maintained, so I came here to ask it.
> If you never ask,
> then you'll never know.

Quite right. I think Scholastica just meant that
there's no need to go as far as resigning your
citizenship, since you can remain a citizen without
paying anything. But it was perfectly correct of you
to ask, and I hope you've got the answer you wanted.
If not, keep asking!



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36388 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Question...
Flavia Tullia Scholastica Dardanio quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque omnibus
S.P.D.

> I don't think I was extreme.

No, but abandoning citizenship because one doesn't want to pay a minimal
tax is rather extreme. The truth of the matter is that most NR citizens are
capite censi, that is, non taxpayers. They can't be magistrates,
magistrates' assistants, or sacerdotes, flamines, pontifices, etc., and
their vote is severely diluted by being in a century of some 1000 people
instead of one with 8 or fewer people, but that's their choice. (for the
uninitiated, I shall point out that centuries and tribes, not individuals,
are the voting units in Nova Roma. One votes in a century and a tribe; if
one is fortunate enough to be in the majority within those units, one's
choice is ratified, if not, well, too bad).

> I think I was simply asking a question
> and giving my thoughts. I don't know all the rules about the way
> Nova Roma is maintained, so I came here to ask it.

A good deal of this information is on the website, which one is supposed
to read before becoming a citizen. However, many noncitizens are on the ML;
it isn't necessary to be a citizen in order to participate in this forum.

> If you never ask,
> then you'll never know.

Very true. This is why we are here--to help.
>
> Feel free to kick me out if I overstepped or didn't ask properly.

Politeness and graciousness are appreciated, but it takes more than the
absence thereof--or asking questions, even on hot topics--to get 'kicked
out.'
>
> Ryan

Flavia Tullia Scholastica

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Flavia Scholastica <fororom@l...>
> wrote:
>> Salvete, quirites, socii, peregrinique omnes, praesertim "D."
>>
>>> How do I just stop being a citizen and get out? I'm not paying
>>> $13.00
>>> to be a citizen of this group. I joined to be among people who
> could
>>> help me learn a little more Latin than I do now. Any help is
>>> appreciated.
>>
>> I have answered this person privately as this message was
> duplicated and
>> its twin intercepted before filling up the members' mailboxes. The
> tax is
>> voluntary, and Latin is best learned at the Academia and in the
> Sodalitas
>> Latinitatis, in case anyone else is interested.
>>
>> There are procedures for resigning citizenship, but such
> extremities
>> seem unnecesarry in this case.
>>>
>>> D
>>>
>>>
>> Vale, et valete,
>>
>> Flavia Tullia Scholastica
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36389 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: ATTENTION: Parents of Nova Roman Minors
Salvete,

Parents of Nova Romans who are under the age of 18 are requested to
contact the Censors in order to ensure that your minor children are
counted during the ongoing Census.

Propraetors/Proconsuls are strongly encouraged to repost this message
to their respective provincial mailing lists and translate as needed.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Magister Aranearius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36390 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.


You will find below my edict which receives the "appeal for
provocatio" presented last month by Hon. Quaestor Paulinus to our
Tribunate.

Even if, on the matter itself (the case of the resignation of Hon.
Saturninus), I have clearly endorsed at this moment the collective
position of the tribunate, it appears to me that nothing may
authorize me to refuse to Hon. Galerius the application of this
constitutional right, as it is currently provided by our laws.

If this edict is not vetoed, I would publish a second edict calling
for order the CT Populi in August with, in its agenda, 2 points : 1/
Examination of the appeal 2/ vote on a lex de provocatione. The
intent of this law would be to precise the scope of the "appeal for
provocatio".

Valete omnes,

Tribunus Albucius



TRIBUNE P.MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS EDICT (n° 58-14)
ON A APPEAL FOR PROVOCATIO AND ON THE CONVENING OF THE COMITIA
TRIBUTA POPULI


I, Publius Minius Albucius, Tribunes of the Plebs, by the authority
vested in us by the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma,

In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specially its articles II.
B. 5 and IV.A.7.d, specially d2 and d3 on one hand, III.C and IV.A.5
on another ;

In view of Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribuniciana issued on 15th
November 2756 a.u.c., specially its article III ;

In view of the message 32322 issued in Nova Roma main list on Jan.
12 th, 2758 a.u.c. 10:57 p.m. by Tribune Domitius Constantinus
Fuscus on « Saturninus' resignation withdrawal and his position in
the Tribunate » ;


Considering the « appeal to the tribunes to call the Comitia Populi
Tributa » made by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus on June 16th 2758
a.u.c. (joined below) ;

Considering the reminder sent by Hon. Galerius to the Tribunes of
the Plebs on July 13th ;

Considering the absence of answer, collective or individual, made on
July 20th by the Tribunes ;

Considering that Hon. Galerius, like every citizen has the right to
obtain an answer, whatever it is, to his request, specially to a
demand founded on the application of a constitutional right ;


Considering that Galerius's appeal thus refers to the « right of
provocatio i.e. the right to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
has a direct negative impact upon that citizen » ;

Considering that Hon. Galerius « believe(s) that (his) right to
stand as a candidate for office was denied (him) and other
plebeians when (the Tribunes) declared that there was not a vacancy
in the Tribuneship » and that he thus « (..) ask that you, the
Tribunes, convene the Comitia Populi Tributa so it can hear my
appeal of your decision » ;

Considering that, even if Hon. Galerius does not explicitly mention
the message 32322 issued in Nova Roma main list on Jan. 12 th, 2758
a.u.c., the contested tribunician act is necessarily this one, no
other official message having been issued on the subject by the
Tribunate ;


Considering that the Constitution of Nova Roma guarantees, in its
article II. B. 5, « the right of provocatio ; to appeal a decision
of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen
to the comitia populi tributa » ;

Considering that this article is reinforced by the article III of
Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribuniciana, which stated that in
spite of the affirmation of the tribunician « summa coercendi
potestas (..), the right of provocatio will be respected as Article
II.B.5 of the constitution states. »

Considering that, contrary to the laws or practices of ancient Rome,
neither the Constitution nor the laws of Nova Roma define precisely
the contents of this right and how it may be exercised ;

Considering that the article II. B. 5 of the Constitution of Nova
Roma and the article III of Lex Didia Gemina de potestate
tribuniciana are the sole legal norm that must be taken into account
to ground a decision on the application of the right of provocatio
(jus provocationis) ;

Considering that this article II. B. 5 does not limit, as the
ancient practice did, the jus provocationis to criminal affairs, or
to acts taken by consuls using their imperium ;

Considering that this article II. B. 5 does not prevent a
tribunician act, as the ancient practice did, to be contested by jus
provocationis ; that, furthermore, the article III of Lex Didia
Gemina, specially its paragraph B on sacrosanctity power (potestas
sacrosancta) does not prevent the application of the right of
provocatio ;

Considering that the sole magistrates who may, according the
Constitution of Nova Roma, convene the comitia populi tributa, are
the consuls, the praetors and the tribunes of the plebs ;

Considering that the fact that the magisterial decision contested by
Hon. Galerius is a tribunician act does not prevent him using his
right of provocatio either through the consuls, or the praetors or
the tribunes ;

Considering that the fact that the decision contested had been taken
by a majority of the tribunate is here irrelevant ;

Considering that Hon. Galerius was the sole citizen of Nova Roma to
express his will, on Jan. 12th, 2758 auc, 4 :29 am, to be candidate
to the office that he believed at this time as vacant ; that this
will has also been expressed before the tribunician statement on the
same day, at 10:57 p.m. ; that, thus, Hon. Galerius is the sole
citizen concerned by this tribunician statement ;

Considering that the fact of knowing whether the tribunician
decision reported by the message ML 32322 has had a « direct
negative impact » is outside the field of competencies of the
tribunes, as
it would be for any magistrate asked for the application of jus
provocationis ; that such magistrate has thus a bound competency,
and is not allowed to make such an examination ;

Considering thus that the comitia populi tributa are the sole
constitutional power authorized to state on an provocatio ; that
this is the only interpretation which guarantees to every citizen of
Nova Roma the respect of his rights granted by the Constitution of
Nova Roma and gives to this text its full effect ;

Considering that the fact that the current Salicia and Fabia laws do
not organise precisely the examination of a provocatio may not
obstruct the full application of a constitutional right ;

Edicts :


Article 1

The « appeal to the tribunes to call the Comitia Populi Tributa »
made by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus on June 16th 2758 a.u.c. and
contesting the tribunician decision that « declared that there was
not a vacancy in the Tribuneship » is received ;

Article 2

The comitia tributa populi are convened in August 2005 (Sextilis
2758 a.u.c.), on a schedule that a next edict will determine.

Article 3

The appropriate magistrates of Nova Roma and their offices are
responsible, as far as each one is concerned by the present edict,
and in due consideration of the constitution, for executing it. This
edict will be published in the Tabularium of Nova Roma.


Issued in Cadomago, Gallia, this twenty first day (21st) of July,
2005 C.E. (a.d. XII Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c.), during the consulate
of Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas


attached below-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Text of the appeal by Ti. Galerius Paulinus June 16th 2758 a.u.c. :

Salve Tribunes

According to the Constitution of Nova Roma a citizen has a right of
provocatio ie the right to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
has a direct negative impact upon that citizen. As I stated earlier
this year I believe that my right to stand as a candidate for office
was denied me ( and other plebeians ) when you declared that there
was not a vacancy in the Tribuneship.

I respectfully disagreed with you then and still do.

Now that some time has passed and the immediate passions have cooled
I respectful ask that you, the Tribunes, convene the Comitia Populi
Tributa so it can hear my appeal of your decision.

If you are disinclined to grant my request I would very much like
you to tell me how a citizen of Nova Roma can exercise their
constitutional right of provocatio if the magistrates charged with
conniving the Comitia Populi Tributa refuse to do so?
As a courtesy I have CC this to Caius Curius Saturninus as well.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


Text of the reminder by Ti. Galerius Paulinus July 13th 2758
a.u.c. :

From: Timothy P. Gallagher
To: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus ; Maior ; Publius Minius Albucius ;
Marcus Bianchius Antonius
Cc: Caius Curius Saturninus
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:36 PM

Salve Tribunes on June 16 I sent the following e-mail.

Can you please tell be the status of my request ?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36391 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
A. Apollonius P. Memmio tribuno plebis omnibusque sal.

I've read your edictum with great care, but I'm still
slightly unclear on one point: what exactly are going
to be asked to vote on?





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36392 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato quaestore Ti. Galerio Paulino quaestore P. Memmio
Albucio tribunus plebis quiritibusque salutem plurimam dicit.

Salvete omnes.

Quaestor Galerius Paulinus, I hereby offer you my services as
advocatus in this matter if you so desire. I do so because I too
expressed my deepest conviction that the decision made by the tribunes
was unConstitutional and that, in fact, according to the laws and
Constitution of the Republic, a vacancy did (and does) exist in the
tribunate.

As a Patrician, I have no vested personal interest in the tribunate,
and as an elected magistrate of the res publica I have a fundamental
interest in the accurate interpretation and application of our laws
and Constitution.

I ask the tribunes to uphold the calling of the Comitia Populi Tributa
to answer the question of whether or not they feel the tribunes'
decision to close the tribunate by re-admitting C. Curius Saturninus
was correct.

Valete,

Gaius Equitius Cato
Quaestor
Legate for Nova Eboracum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36393 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-21
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Marca Hortensia A. Apollinio spd;
yes, I'm wondering the same. I returned Friday and I've just posted
in the tribunes that I'm writing to Tiberius Paulinus to see if he
wishes to still go forward in this matter, for all we know it may be
dropped.
I hope we may all calm down and take a few moments to reflect on the
legal issues (if any) that are involved.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP



- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius P. Memmio tribuno plebis omnibusque sal.
>
> I've read your edictum with great care, but I'm still
> slightly unclear on one point: what exactly are going
> to be asked to vote on?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36394 From: Flavia Scholastica Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Thules Academy
Flavia Tullia Scholastica Quinto Lanio Paulino Iulio Sabino quiritibus,
sociis, peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.

> SALVE QUINTE LANI !
>
> Checked. It works.
> The Latin course will start in September. They have to sign up for it at the
> Academia Thules website.

Actually, the Wheelock Latin course will start in September (second
Monday, if the Academia agrees), but the Assimil course will start in
October, probably mid-October. These are two different methods of
introductory Latin studies aimed at different prospective students.
>
> OPTIME VALE,
> IVL SABINVS

Valete,

Flavia

>
>
> "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I just wanted to remind some citizens in our province about the Latin
> course coming up. I cannot open the Thules Academy site on the NR main
> webpage. Would someone check that out when you have a chance please?
>
> Regards,
>
> QLP
>
>
>
>
>
> "Every individual is the arhitect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36395 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Imperialism, Then and Now
In a message dated 7/11/2005 9:29:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lucius_vitellius_triarius@... writes:
Remember the Prime Directive of Star Fleet Command on Star Trek...

don't get involved in the inner political fights and civil wars of
other civilizations...or something like that.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36396 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
In a message dated 7/21/2005 4:23:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:
Quaestor Galerius Paulinus, I hereby offer you my services as
Advocates in this matter if you so desire. I do so because I too
expressed my deepest conviction that the decision made by the tribunes
was unconstitutional and that, in fact, according to the laws and
Constitution of the Republic, a vacancy did (and does) exist in the
Tribunate.
This was never resolved to any of our liking. I believe that Gallerias was
denied his rights as guaranteed by the constitution of Nova Roma, and the fact
that he was prevented from standing for a vacant office was crime against Nova
Roma. I am available as an witness.

Q. Fabius Maximus
Proconsul


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36399 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Salve Gaius Equitius Cato

I humbly except your gracious offer to act as advocatus in the matter that I hope will soon be before the Comitia Populi Tributa.
I also wish to thank our most noble Tribune Publius Minius Albucius for acting on my request and I also ask the remaining Tribunes to uphold the calling of the Comitia Populi Tributa and allow me, as it were "my day in court" ( Court of public opinion).


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:23 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)


G. Equitius Cato quaestore Ti. Galerio Paulino quaestore P. Memmio
Albucio tribunus plebis quiritibusque salutem plurimam dicit.

Salvete omnes.

Quaestor Galerius Paulinus, I hereby offer you my services as
advocatus in this matter if you so desire. I do so because I too
expressed my deepest conviction that the decision made by the tribunes
was unConstitutional and that, in fact, according to the laws and
Constitution of the Republic, a vacancy did (and does) exist in the
tribunate.

As a Patrician, I have no vested personal interest in the tribunate,
and as an elected magistrate of the res publica I have a fundamental
interest in the accurate interpretation and application of our laws
and Constitution.

I ask the tribunes to uphold the calling of the Comitia Populi Tributa
to answer the question of whether or not they feel the tribunes'
decision to close the tribunate by re-admitting C. Curius Saturninus
was correct.

Valete,

Gaius Equitius Cato
Quaestor
Legate for Nova Eboracum






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36404 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
Salvete;
Plebians and Patricians I wish to discuss this issue of Provocatio
in a clear and non-emotional way so that we may properly analyze
this subject. Since I am your representitive, I will present my
thinking on this subject and we may discuss it publically and fully.

1. Historical use of Provocatio: the Lex Valeria de Provocatione
gave Roman citizens a right of appeal against capital punishment
imposed by magistrates.

Since Tiberius Paulinus is not suffering criminal punishment, the
historical Roman provocatio does not apply in this case.

Now let us examine the Nova Roman Constitution:
B.
5. "The right to provocatio; to appeal a decision of a
magistrate that has a a direct negative impact upon the citizen to
the Comitia Populi Tributa"

Now this is a very broad use of provocatio, as my friend Cordus
rightly pointed out, anyone who loses in a Nova Roman election is
negatively affected and may use provocatio.

So if we permit Paulinus's provocatio we make a precedent that has
huge consequences for Nova Roma, opening the gates to appeal
anything.

Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we might
answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune of
the plebs'

But is this so? We had an election in November for Tribunes Plebis
and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an opportunity; no one was
denied.

But you may reply, 'this has to do with Saturninus's resignation.'

Now there are two point of view. My fellow tribunes say Saturninus
did not officially resign. If this is true then Paulinus suffered no
wrong! Provocatio is not called for.

Now I posited that Saturninus did resign. But does this mean
Paulinus suffered a negative effect?

Paulinus had no idea Saturninus would resign, the election for the
tribunes of the plebs was held in November, and then it was
finished. So how can Paulinus complain that he was wronged when it
was never forseeable that such an event - Saturninus would occur?

So I do not see that Paulinus has been negatively affected and
provocatio does not apply.


Cives, this is some of my analysis of this subject. Let all of us
discuss this complex manner in a calm, clear and passionless way.

So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
stated reasons.
bene valete in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Caput Officina Censoris
Iuriis CFB












In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius P. Memmio tribuno plebis omnibusque sal.
>
> I've read your edictum with great care, but I'm still
> slightly unclear on one point: what exactly are going
> to be asked to vote on?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36405 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Salve;

Does this mean you are issuing an intercession again your colleagues
decision?

Vale;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/22/2005 7:11:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rory12001@... writes:

So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
stated reasons.
bene valete in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Caput Officina Censoris
Iuriis CFB





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36406 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
Marca Hortensia G. Buteo spd;
Salve;
no, it means just what I said; these are my present thoughts on
the matter, but as always I may be wrong! So I wish to have an
intelligent thoughtful discussion of the matter. I represent the
quirites not myself.
di deasque te ament
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP


- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> Does this mean you are issuing an intercession again your
colleagues
> decision?
>
> Vale;
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> In a message dated 7/22/2005 7:11:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rory12001@y... writes:
>
> So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
> stated reasons.
> bene valete in pacem deorum
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> Caput Officina Censoris
> Iuriis CFB
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36407 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia et salvete omnes.

First, thank you for presenting your considerations of this question
so precisely and logically. You do your namesake proud :-)

I'd like to engage your comments with some views of my own:


B.5. "The right to provocatio; to appeal a decision of a
> magistrate that has a a direct negative impact upon the citizen to
> the Comitia Populi Tributa"
>
> Now this is a very broad use of provocatio, as my friend Cordus
> rightly pointed out, anyone who loses in a Nova Roman election is
> negatively affected and may use provocatio.
>
> So if we permit Paulinus's provocatio we make a precedent that has
> huge consequences for Nova Roma, opening the gates to appeal
> anything.

CATO: Not necessarily. Galerius Paulinus is arguing that a specific
act, or decision, (the re-admission of C. Curius Saturninus to the
tribunate) by a specific magistrate (D. Constantinus Fuscus, "on
behalf of the tribunes") has had a direct negative impact upon him. A
citizen who loses in a general election has not been the subject of a
specific act by a specific magistrate; he has been subject to a
general act by the People of the Republic. The two are very
different.



> Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we
might
> answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune of
> the plebs' But is this so? We had an election in November for
>Tribunes Plebis and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an
>opportunity; no one was denied.

CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as did
dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing to do
with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.

Now, the rest of your discussion focusses on the issue of Curius
Saturninus' resignation, and its impact. That is precisely the issue
that the provocatio is being issued to resolve: did or did not Curius
Saturninus resign his office, leaving it vacant? If so, did the
tribunes act Constitutionally in simply re-admitting him to the
tribunate?

Whether or not anyone knew that Curius Saturninus was going to resign
is of no consequence whatsoever; what is important, and central to
Galerius Paulinus' provocatio, is that once Curius Saturninus had
published that explicit resignation of his office, Galerius Paulinus
saw a vacancy in the tribunate and decided that he did indeed want to
run. According to the simplest exegesis of our Constitution, the
office was vacant; any Plebeian had the right to run for it.

That the tribunes in question should simply announce that they had
simply decided that Curius Saturninus had not resigned, contrary to
his own words, denied Galerius Paulinus the right guaranteed by the
Constitution to run for a vacant office for which he was qualified.
This is a specific act which created a direct negative impact on
Galerius Paulinus. Therefore, I argue that the right of provocatio
given to the citizens of the Republic by our Constitution is indeed
supported.



> So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
> stated reasons.

CATO: Are you invoking your intercessio? I only ask because you
signed off as "TRP", signifying that you are speaking as a tribunus
plebis.

Vale et valete bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36408 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
T. Galerius Paulinus was NOT able to run for Tribune in November because he
was already a currently serving Tribune at that time.

_http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-i.html_
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-i.html)

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/22/2005 8:04:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

> Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we
might
> answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune of
> the plebs' But is this so? We had an election in November for
>Tribunes Plebis and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an
>opportunity; no one was denied.

CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as did
dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing to do
with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36409 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
M.Hortensia Gaio Equitio spd.
>
> Salve Gai Equiti;
>
> Many thanks for the kind words and let us continue this
fascinating and amicable discussion:n:
>
>
> B> CATO: Not necessarily. Galerius Paulinus is arguing that a
specific
> act, or decision, (the re-admission of C. Curius Saturninus to the
> tribunate) by a specific magistrate (D. Constantinus Fuscus, "on
> behalf of the tribunes") has had a direct negative impact upon
him. A
> citizen who loses in a general election has not been the subject
of a
> specific act by a specific magistrate; he has been subject to a
> general act by the People of the Republic. The two are very
> different.

M>HORTENSIA: I would say that the loser in the general election
could very well challenge the rogators under this rule with no
problem whatsoever. On Paulinus's damage I will discuss this below
>
>
>>
> CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as did
> dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing to
do
> with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.
>
M.HORTENSIA: I would disagree, Paulinus argues he was denied an
opportunity. Which opportunity? To become Tribune, he actually had
this opportunity in November. He has not been denied 'an'
opportunity to become tribune, rather it is the opportunity anent
Saturninus's supposed vacancy. I say 'supposed' as my fellow
tribunes all agree that there was NO vacancy.

> the provocatio is being issued to resolve: did or did not Curius
> Saturninus resign his office, leaving it vacant?

M.HORTENSIA: again dear Cato I disagree, my fellow tribunes have
spoken to a man on this issue. There is no issue they accept that
Saturninus never resigned.

If so, did the
> tribunes act Constitutionally in simply re-admitting him to the
> tribunate?
>
M.HORTENSIA: you are enlarging the issue. Provocatio consists solely
of "Did Paulinus suffer a negative impact from a decision by a
magistrate" This is the circumscribed issue. How can Paulinus
suffer if Saturninus is still tribune just as he was in the November
election. A logical impossibility.

> Whether or not anyone knew that Curius Saturninus was going to
resign
> is of no consequence whatsoever;

M.HORTENSIA: this goes directly to the harm. How can Paulinus
suffer if there was no forseeable harm? The harm you wish to discuss
does not exist according to the other tribunes. Saturninus is
tribune. Paulinus has neither lost nor gained anything.

what is important, and central to
> Galerius Paulinus' provocatio, is that once Curius Saturninus had
> published that explicit resignation of his office

M.HORTENSIA: again you say 'explicit' but my fellow tribunes say
otherwise and they are in the majority. There was no resignation.



, >
> That the tribunes in question should simply announce that they had
> simply decided that Curius Saturninus had not resigned, contrary to
> his own words, denied Galerius Paulinus the right guaranteed by the
> Constitution to run for a vacant office for which he was
qualified.

M.HORTENSIA: the tribunes did not simply announce, they discussed
the laws that applied and the precedents in Nova Roma in detail.
Also both Scaurus and Consul Laenas have resigned 'in their own
words' and NR law said they had not resigned.

If Saturninus has not resigned how can Paulinus be wronged?

.
>
> CATO: Are you invoking your intercessio? I only ask because you
> signed off as "TRP", signifying that you are speaking as a tribunus
> plebis.
>

M.HORTENSIA: I am thinking about this, yes, as I have indicated for
the stated reasons, which is why I signed in my capacity. But my
mind is open to the best legal arguments in this matter. As I said I
represent the Quriites which is why I have placed my current
analysis on the ML.
always a pleasure to discuss these issues in
such a civilized and thoughtful way, dear Cato
optime vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

> Vale et valete bene,
>
> G. Equitius Cato
> Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36410 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
M.Hortensia G.Buteo optimo suo spd;
excellent! this is the historical issue of continuatio. It
was against Republican usage to have a tribune follow one term with
another.

For Paulinus to present himself as a candidate for tribune without a
year lapse is also against tradition and a way around the sound rule
of no prorogation.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

PS. Buteo Minor as a courtesy and an example of good style please
address all letters with G. Buteo M. Hortensiae spd. or
alternatively Gaius Buteo to Marca Hortensia.



In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> T. Galerius Paulinus was NOT able to run for Tribune in November
because he
> was already a currently serving Tribune at that time.
>
> _http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-i.html_
> (http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-i.html)
>
> Valete;
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> In a message dated 7/22/2005 8:04:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> > Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we
> might
> > answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune
of
> > the plebs' But is this so? We had an election in November for
> >Tribunes Plebis and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an
> >opportunity; no one was denied.
>
> CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as did
> dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing to
do
> with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36411 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Marca Hortensia, you wrote:

"M.HORTENSIA: I would disagree, Paulinus argues he was denied an
opportunity. Which opportunity? To become Tribune, he actually had
this opportunity in November."

CATO: As C. Modius Buteo has pointed out, the Lex Salicia de
prorogatione et cumulatione says:

"III. In this first round of candidacy presentation, no current holder
of a magistracy shall present his or her candidacy for that very same
position (prorogatio). No individual shall present his or her
candidacy to more than one magistracy (cumulatio)."

So apparently Galerius Paulinus could not have run for the tribunate
at that time. So it is a moot question.


You wrote:

"M.HORTENSIA: I would disagree, Paulinus argues he was denied an
opportunity. Which opportunity? To become Tribune, he actually had
this opportunity in November. He has not been denied 'an'
opportunity to become tribune, rather it is the opportunity anent
Saturninus's supposed vacancy. I say 'supposed' as my fellow
tribunes all agree that there was NO vacancy...again dear Cato I
disagree, my fellow tribunes have spoken to a man on this issue. There
is no issue they accept that Saturninus never resigned."

CATO: Once again, that is precisely the issue about which the
provocatio is being called: there are many citizens who believe that
the tribunes neither have the right nor the authority to simply
declare something which is contrary to what the Constitution says.
Even tribunician authority is subject to the authority of the
Constitution. The provocatio is being called so that the citizens of
the Republic can decide for themselves, rather than the tribunes. The
very essence of republican government is the authority of the will of
the People; this authority was abrogated by the tribunes' declaration.
And, unless I am mistaken, the tribunes did not speak unanimously
--- you disagreed with them :-)


you wrote:

"M.HORTENSIA: Provocatio consists solely of 'Did Paulinus suffer a
negative impact from a decision by a magistrate'. This is the
circumscribed issue. How can Paulinus suffer if Saturninus is still
tribune just as he was in the November election. A logical
impossibility...this goes directly to the harm. How can Paulinus
suffer if there was no forseeable harm? The harm you wish to discuss
does not exist according to the other tribunes. Saturninus is tribune.
Paulinus has neither lost nor gained anything...again you say
'explicit' but my fellow tribunes say otherwise and they are in the
majority. There was no resignation....He has not been denied 'an'
opportunity to become tribune, rather it is the opportunity anent
Saturninus's supposed vacancy. I say 'supposed' as my fellow
tribunes all agree that there was NO vacancy."


CATO: You are correct, the issue is whether or not Galerius Paulinus
was directly and negatively impacted by the tribunes' decision. But
unfortunately for all of us, the two issues are almost inextricably
bound together: Saturninus did, in fact, resign. He posted his
resignation. It can be produced as evidence. To pretend that he did
not is denial of fact. It does not matter if every single person on
earth decided that the laws of gravity no longer applied; they do and
no amount of pretending can make it otherwise. To use the argument
that because all the tribunes decided something then it is correct is
an egregious fallacy: the argumentum ad populum, where a proposition
is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to
be true by some sector of the population --- in this particular case
the tribunes.


you wrote:

"M.HORTENSIA: the tribunes did not simply announce, they discussed
the laws that applied and the precedents in Nova Roma in detail.
Also both Scaurus and Consul Laenas have resigned 'in their own
words' and NR law said they had not resigned."

CATO: As you know, the circumstances under which Gaius Scaurus and
Popillius Laenas resigned were different: they occurred before Section
3 of the Lex Maria et Cornelia was annulled. Even then, Nova Roman
law did not say they had not resigned; they were allowed to regain
their offices simply because no-one at the time objected. This is
another logical fallacy: that of the "complex question", where two
otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single
proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together,
when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex
question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator. You are saying
that Gaius Scaurus and Popillius Laenas resigned AND Saturninus
resigned, but since the first two were allowed to resume their
offices, we must allow Curius Saturninus to do so as well.

Yet another logical fallacy plays here: that of the false analogy,
where in an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be
similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must
have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are
different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Gaius Scaurus and Popillius Laenas resigned BEFORE Section 3 of the
lex Maria et Cornelia was annulled, and Curius Saturninus resigned
AFTER it was annulled. It cannot apply equally.

Now, we have two choices using your description: either Curius
Saturninus DID resign, and should be allowed to resume his offices
JUST AS Gaius Scaurus and Popillius Laenas were, OR Curius Saturninus
did NOT resign, and therefore the precedence of Gaius Scaurus and
Popillius Laenas no longer applies. It is a logical impossibility to
try to apply both. Yet he did resign, so the second choice is not
applicable, and the circumstances surrounding the first two
resignations and Curius Saturninus' are not equal, so the first cannot
apply either.

The tribunes may have indeed discussed the issue, in private, but I
believe that it is of such great import that the People, from whom the
government receives its authority, should have a voice in this
decision. Not one tribune presented a contrary argument based on Nova
Roman law or our Constitution which satisfactorily explained how they
could have reached that decision.

By failing to do so, they disregarded the right of Galerius Paulinus
to run for an office for which he was qualified --- and had a direct,
negative impact upon him. Allow him his day in the Comitia. Allow
the People to speak. It is their government. Vox populi vox dei.

Vale et valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36412 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M.Hortensia G.Buteo optimo suo spd;
> excellent! this is the historical issue of continuatio. It
> was against Republican usage to have a tribune follow one term with
> another.
>
> For Paulinus to present himself as a candidate for tribune without a
> year lapse is also against tradition and a way around the sound rule
> of no prorogation.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
> PS. Buteo Minor as a courtesy and an example of good style please
> address all letters with G. Buteo M. Hortensiae spd. or
> alternatively Gaius Buteo to Marca Hortensia.


CATO: Remember, the law of ancient Rome is only considered if and
when our own, Nova Roman law does not speak. The lex Salicia de
prorgatione et cumulatione also says:

"IV. If, after the kalendas of December, a certain magistracy has a
number of legal candidates that is lower than the number of offices to
be filled, the period of presentation of candidacies shall be extended
by an additional nundina for that magistracy only. During this
extended period, the provisions indicated in paragraph III of this lex
shall be considered temporarily withdrawn for candidacies to that
magistracy."

So, with a vacant tribuneship in January, Galerius Paulinus had the
right to run...

Vale et valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36413 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
C. Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

I would be interested in hearing the voice of the senate on this matter vs.
the voice of the people. The people are not always informed to make a
decision, and the threat of being in a "tyranny of the majority" is always there.
However, the senate is better prepared to debate the issue and make a
decision.

This, of course, is my opinion.

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/22/2005 10:22:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

By failing to do so, they disregarded the right of Galerius Paulinus
to run for an office for which he was qualified --- and had a direct,
negative impact upon him. Allow him his day in the Comitia. Allow
the People to speak. It is their government. Vox populi vox dei.

Vale et valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36415 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-22
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
In a message dated 7/22/2005 5:35:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:
M>HORTENSIA: I would say that the loser in the general election
could very well challenge the rogators under this rule with no
problem whatsoever. On Pauline's damage I will discuss this below
>
Salvete

Based on what, Tribune? Here we have a specific instance of citizen denied
of his rights,
and not by Fortune or by lot going against him. But a human agency.
Unless you believe human agencies are governed by lot or by Fortune :-).

Sinicus Drusus after he lost the election for Tribune, believed that the
voting was rigged, but except for a short speech to that effect, he never asked
for an investigation or demanded his
protection as a Nova Roman citizen. He eventually admitted that he did not
run a good campaign. So Fortuna denied him. You cannot appeal that.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36416 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus G. Equitio Cato et Quiritibus S. P. D.

The comments interjected by Equitius Cato have merit, but I do not
see where it necessarily follows that a negative impact has befallen
on a single civis, or how it can be construed that the call for
provocatio has any merit.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve Marca Hortensia et salvete omnes.
>
> First, thank you for presenting your considerations of this
question
> so precisely and logically. You do your namesake proud :-)
>
> I'd like to engage your comments with some views of my own:
>
>
> B.5. "The right to provocatio; to appeal a decision of a
> > magistrate that has a a direct negative impact upon the citizen
to
> > the Comitia Populi Tributa"
> >
> > Now this is a very broad use of provocatio, as my friend Cordus
> > rightly pointed out, anyone who loses in a Nova Roman election
is
> > negatively affected and may use provocatio.
> >
> > So if we permit Paulinus's provocatio we make a precedent that
has
> > huge consequences for Nova Roma, opening the gates to appeal
> > anything.
>
> CATO: Not necessarily. Galerius Paulinus is arguing that a
specific
> act, or decision, (the re-admission of C. Curius Saturninus to the
> tribunate) by a specific magistrate (D. Constantinus Fuscus, "on
> behalf of the tribunes") has had a direct negative impact upon
him. A
> citizen who loses in a general election has not been the subject
of a
> specific act by a specific magistrate; he has been subject to a
> general act by the People of the Republic. The two are very
> different.
>

Piscinus: Quite, the action of a specific magistrate and the
decision of a Comitia are very different in nature. In this case,
though, the "action" is a consensus of a majority of the Tribuni
Plebi that a withdrawn resignation was accepted as a resignation
that was never issued. It would seem to me then to be a third kind
of situation, the Tribuni Plebis exercising their authority
collectively to interpret how the law should be applied in a given
situation. I would grant that such an exercise of authority could
impact negatively on an individual civis, but is that really the
case here? Who was actually affected by this action of the Tribuni
Plebis? What you claim is that Galerius Paulinus lost the right to
seek an office he did not hold against the right of Saturninus to
retain an office to which he was legally elected and which the
Tribuni Plebis determined he still held.

>
>
> > Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we
> might
> > answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune
of
> > the plebs' But is this so? We had an election in November for
> >Tribunes Plebis and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an
> >opportunity; no one was denied.
>
> CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as did
> dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing to
do
> with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.
>

Piscinus: Quite true. The fact that Galerius Paulinus chose not to
stand as a candidate for the office to which Saturninus was elected
has nothing to do with his provocatio.


> Now, the rest of your discussion focusses on the issue of Curius
> Saturninus' resignation, and its impact. That is precisely the
issue
> that the provocatio is being issued to resolve: did or did not
Curius
> Saturninus resign his office, leaving it vacant? If so, did the
> tribunes act Constitutionally in simply re-admitting him to the
> tribunate?
>

Piscinus: If that is the question, then the matter is not one of an
action taken that impacts negatively on an individual civis. Rather,
you point to a question of constitutional law. Who are given the
greatest responsibility for determining the constitutionality of the
action of any magistrate, if not the Tribuni Plebis collectively?
Are you questioning their authority to make such a determination?


> Whether or not anyone knew that Curius Saturninus was going to
resign
> is of no consequence whatsoever; what is important, and central to
> Galerius Paulinus' provocatio, is that once Curius Saturninus had
> published that explicit resignation of his office, Galerius
Paulinus
> saw a vacancy in the tribunate and decided that he did indeed want
to
> run. According to the simplest exegesis of our Constitution, the
> office was vacant; any Plebeian had the right to run for it.
>

Piscinus: True, foreknowledge of Saturninus submitting a resignation
has nothing to do with the question at hand. But then Galerius
foreseeing that an election might be held has little to do with the
question either. Galerius Paulinus has a right to stand as a
candidate in any election held for an office for which he is
eligible to hold. But in this case there was no election held, so he
could not have been denied a right to be a candidate. Also his
right to stand as a candidate in the next election has not been
denied to him. The office of Tribunus Plebis is held for one year.
Thus he has a right to stand as a candidate once each year. He can
stand as a candidate in this year's coming elections, and thus his
basic right to seek an annual office has not been denied to him.

Now you can hold that an election for a Tribunus suffectus may have
been held. That presumes that a determination was made that a
vacancy existed. A determination was made as to whether or not a
vacancy did exist, and, really, it was for the Tribuni Plebis to
collectively make such a determination. This is exactly what they
did, answering in the negative when they held that Saturninus did
not resign by accepting the withdrawal of his posted resignation.
No vacancy, therefore no election to be held, thus Galerius Paulinus
could not have been a candidate, and therefore his right to stand as
a candidate could not have been violated.

You also state that any Plebian could stand as a candidate in this
election that was not held. That is true. Therefore how can it be
taken that Galerius Paulinus specifically was impacted negatively by
the determination of the Tribuni Plebis? From what you say, does it
not follow that all eligible Plebeians were affected by the
determination and not just Galerius Paulinus alone? Being that the
provocatio is an individual right, must separate convocations of the
Comitia Tributa be called to hear the case of each individual
Plebeian civis who wishes to be a candidate in a nonexistent
election?


> That the tribunes in question should simply announce that they had
> simply decided that Curius Saturninus had not resigned, contrary to
> his own words, denied Galerius Paulinus the right guaranteed by the
> Constitution to run for a vacant office for which he was
qualified.
> This is a specific act which created a direct negative impact on
> Galerius Paulinus. Therefore, I argue that the right of provocatio
> given to the citizens of the Republic by our Constitution is indeed
> supported.
>

Piscinus: Well, that is a matter yet to be determined by the
magistrates and I will not question that it could be interpreted as
you say. However, what you are really asking is that the Comitia
Tributa should decide whether Curius Saturninus is rightfully a
Tribunis Plebis. The Comitia Plebis Tributa elects the Tribuni
Plebis, not the Comitia Tributa, and the Comitia Tributa cannot
overrule a decision of the Comitia Plebis Tributa on its own
internal affairs. Further, the right of provocatio is meant to
protect the rights of an individual civis. I think it would be an
ill precedent to set if it were allowed to use the right of
provocatio against another individual civis, which in effect is what
this call for provocatio amounts to.

There is of course an historical precedent to consider. Tribunus
Plebis Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus once proposed before the Comitia
Plebis to deprive Marcus Octavius of his office as Tribunus Plebis.
It is highly questionable that such a proposal was legal in the
first place, and it has been a general consensus since that it was
an ill precedent to set. When we get down to the real issue here,
are you not asking Nova Roma to set the same sort of ill-boding
precedent? The Plebeians assembled in Comitia have already decided
that Curius Saturninus should hold the office of Tribunus Plebis for
this year, and the representatives of the Plebeians have determined
that Curius Satruninus did not in fact resign his office. A
provocatio before the Comitia Tributa cannot now depose Saturninus
from his office. Further it would be a dangerous precedent to set
that a call for recall of any magistrate should be made in a Comitia
other than the one which elected him or her. Thus even if Galerius
Paulinus takes his case before the Comitia Tributa and wins a
favorable decision, there will be no vacancy in the office of
Tribunus Plebis and therefore no election for a Tribunus suffectus
in which Galerius Paulinus could stand as a candidate. I therefore
fail to see the merit of this provocatio, since all that a favorable
decision by the Comitia Tributa can do is affirm that Galerius
Paulinus has a right to stand as a candidate when an election is
held, and no one by any action has denied that right to Galerius
Paulinus.

>
>
> > So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
> > stated reasons.
>
> CATO: Are you invoking your intercessio? I only ask because you
> signed off as "TRP", signifying that you are speaking as a tribunus
> plebis.
>

Piscinus: A mute point IMHO. If any single Tribunus Plebis or the
Tribuni Plebis collectively can issue intercessio against a
provocatio then there is no right to provocatio. An intercessio by
the Tribuni Plebis against the assembly of the Comitia Tributa to
hear a provocatio would be an ill-boding precedent to set, since
their first obligation is to protect the rights of individual
cives. But I still must question whether there is any real merit in
proclaiming a provocatio here. The basic right of Gelrius Paulinus
to stand as a candidate in a election has not been denied. His
right to stand in a specific election has not been denied either,
since no election was proclaimed. Nor can an election result from
his provocatio, since you cannot depose a magistrate from office
with a favorable decision to his provocatio. The only affirmative
result that can come of this is to recognize that Galerius Paulinus
will be allowed to stand as a candidate for office in the next
election. Why would we need to assemble the Comitia Tributa to
affirm what no one denies Galerius Paulinus?


> Vale et valete bene,
>
> G. Equitius Cato
> Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum


Iubeo bono animo esse.

M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36418 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
--- P. Minucia Tiberia Marco Horatio Piscino Omnibus Salutem:

A few comments, if I may.


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@s...>
wrote:
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus G. Equitio Cato et Quiritibus S. P.
D. (snip)
>
> I would grant that such an exercise of authority could
> impact negatively on an individual civis, but is that really the
> case here? Who was actually affected by this action of the
Tribuni
> Plebis? What you claim is that Galerius Paulinus lost the right
to
> seek an office he did not hold against the right of Saturninus to
> retain an office to which he was legally elected and which the
> Tribuni Plebis determined he still held.

PMTS respondeo: At best, one would be claiming, as I read it,
a 'theoretical' direct negative impact, assuming that Saturninus
was wrongfully affirmed as Tribune by his sacrosainct colleagues.
That is not how I understand the appropriate use of provocatio..
unless of course we are utilizing a rotely legalistic approach to
the linguistics of the constitution of Nova Roma.

To disgress a bit,we have pursuant laws to the constitution with
respect to resignations, which are ambiguous and offer the Tribunes
some elacrity in application, from a legal standpoint. There have
been amendments to leges which are interpreted differently. I am
sure they also provide the Tribs with equal measure of dilemna in
determination of what satisfies the letter 'and' spirit of the
constitution :) You folks do not have an easy job, granted.

In the last 'discussion' regarding the validity of Saturninus'
tribuneship a couple of months back, "provocatio" was not the focal
legal vehicle used to argue the situation. There was an elected
constitutional amendment which was absent from our highest legal
document at the time the tribunes were faced with this decision, but
it's application to this situation would require somewhat of a
bibliolatrous reading of the word 'resignation' by virtue of the
very presence of the word, it seems to me. It would also require a
complete disgregard for the language of the pursuant leges, and a
somewhat dogmatic assumption that these laws were written for
reasons they perhaps were not.

The lex containing these amendments was originally written for the
purpose of establishing exactly 'when' a magistracy could be
determined as 'vacant'. This was after we had a curule magistrate
leave without word. He didn't resign, he disappeared. An election
was attemted, but since we didn't have a legal definition
of 'absentia' or 'awol', the tribunes felt this needed to be better
defined, and the electoral process was vetoed. Clean call,by NR
constitution, as I see it. I clearly remember the reasoning for this
lex, as I was a declared candidate in this election. This year, this
lex has somehow been utilized, by one who claims coauthorship no
less, to justify an instant 'resignation', regardless of lack of
definition, in pursuit an agenda of claiming a 'nontribuneship' of
Saturninus, despite what the Tribunes say.

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-i.html. You may
look and decide for your own edification. Lex Equitia Galeria de
Ordinariis. (comitia centuria, ratified by the Senate) This lex
cowritten by the very individual appealing to the Tribunes for
provacatio when he held sacrosainct capacity as Tribunis Plebis.

The amendments this lex mandates to the constitution are still
absent by the way. I just checked. To find it, absent of the link
above, requires a tabularium search. I am not sure how the Tribunes
were to examine this constitutional amendment if it was absent,with
respect, but I think it has rather flimsy applicability to the
situation at hand...but it is nonetheless ordered by the Senate and
populace that the constitution be changed for other, quite valid
reasons...so I'll write one of the Consuls about this matter at my
earliest convenience.

Nonetheless, I am illthreatened by the decision of the tribunes
regarding Saturninus. I would advocate for revisions to the
resignation law, which has, and perhaps still is being discussed
carefully, before I would agree to the nullification of a Tribune
based on flimsy legalities, as I understand the office.

Quite often too little is said about the religous aspects of this
office of Tribune, and so, we must carefully consider our reasons
for wishing to declare a sacrosainct, comitia plebis tributa-
endowed, tribunus collegium- affirmed "nontribuneship" of the Roman
people....for the third time this year, using different rationale
each time. Saturninus was so affirmed, and we have no proviso for
appeal of the decision of the Tribunes. They have chosen not to
adopt anything other than what they feel is the appropriate legal
application of the situation, commensurate with both the 'letter'
and 'spirit' of the law. I would expect nothing less. I do not feel
that my access to respresentation of the Tribunes, should I need to
appeal to them, are in any way threatened by their majority decision
in this regard to date. And I am a Patrician, recognizing that I
may appeal to them, need be. Again, I am not ready to rubber stamp
this employment of the provocatio right as I understand it, both
from our constitution and from its use in antiqua, although I must
say it is an interesting twist.

(snip)
>
> >
> >
> > > Now, has Tiberius Paulinus suffered a negative impact? Well we
> > might
> > > answer 'yes, he was denied running in the election for tribune
> of
> > > the plebs' But is this so? We had an election in November for
> > >Tribunes Plebis and every single citizen in Nova Roma had an
> > >opportunity; no one was denied.
> >
> > CATO: And Galerius Paulinus chose not to run at that time, as
did
> > dozens, if not hundreds, of other Plebeians. This has nothing
to
> do
> > with Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.
> >
>
> Piscinus: Quite true. The fact that Galerius Paulinus chose not
to
> stand as a candidate for the office to which Saturninus was
elected
> has nothing to do with his provocatio.

PMTS: I also see no correlation here.
>
>
> > Now, the rest of your discussion focusses on the issue of Curius
> > Saturninus' resignation, and its impact. That is precisely the
> issue
> > that the provocatio is being issued to resolve: did or did not
> Curius
> > Saturninus resign his office, leaving it vacant? If so, did the
> > tribunes act Constitutionally in simply re-admitting him to the
> > tribunate?
> >
>
> Piscinus: If that is the question, then the matter is not one of
an
> action taken that impacts negatively on an individual civis.
Rather,
> you point to a question of constitutional law. Who are given the
> greatest responsibility for determining the constitutionality of
the
> action of any magistrate, if not the Tribuni Plebis collectively?
> Are you questioning their authority to make such a determination?

PMTS: This issue has been raised three times this year, by atleast
two persons in common, so from my humble perspective, the
decision/constitutional authority/competence of the Tribunes is
indeed being questioned....again....despite their collegia being
continent of three lawyers. And for those who rendered me such an
appraisal last time, when I critize anyones legal rationale in their
approach to this issue, I cannot rationally be accused of an 'ad
homimen' attack.

And I will not put up with anyone rearranging my sentences to
make "senselessness" to their advantage, by the way, as happened
in 'round two' of this saga, and further, I am taking care to
discuss this with careful attention to civility, as is my
constitutional right:) Anyway......
>
>
> > (snip)
> >
>
> Piscinus: True, foreknowledge of Saturninus submitting a
resignation
> has nothing to do with the question at hand. But then Galerius
> foreseeing that an election might be held has little to do with
the
> question either. Galerius Paulinus has a right to stand as a
> candidate in any election held for an office for which he is
> eligible to hold. But in this case there was no election held, so
he
> could not have been denied a right to be a candidate. Also his
> right to stand as a candidate in the next election has not been
> denied to him. The office of Tribunus Plebis is held for one
year.
> Thus he has a right to stand as a candidate once each year. He
can
> stand as a candidate in this year's coming elections, and thus his
> basic right to seek an annual office has not been denied to him.

PMTS: Truer words never spoken, as I view the issue.
>
> (snip)
>
> You also state that any Plebian could stand as a candidate in this
> election that was not held. That is true. Therefore how can it
be
> taken that Galerius Paulinus specifically was impacted negatively
by
> the determination of the Tribuni Plebis? From what you say, does
it
> not follow that all eligible Plebeians were affected by the
> determination and not just Galerius Paulinus alone? Being that
the
> provocatio is an individual right, must separate convocations of
the
> Comitia Tributa be called to hear the case of each individual
> Plebeian civis who wishes to be a candidate in a nonexistent
> election?

PMTS: Agreed. as I understand the appropriate and historical
application of provocatio, it was not designed to apply to
theoretically potential negative impact, especially not
theoretical 'class action' negative impact, and so it cannot
reasonably be applied to support claims of injury based on an event
(election) which did not happen from which harm could be claimed.
>
>
> > That the tribunes in question should simply announce that they
had
> > simply decided that Curius Saturninus had not resigned, contrary
to
> > his own words, denied Galerius Paulinus the right guaranteed by
the
> > Constitution to run for a vacant office for which he was
> qualified.
> > This is a specific act which created a direct negative impact on
> > Galerius Paulinus. Therefore, I argue that the right of
provocatio
> > given to the citizens of the Republic by our Constitution is
indeed
> > supported.

PMTS: Perhaps I am getting tired, but with respect, I do not follow
the above. Since Saturninus was determined to still be a Tribune by
the collegia of Tribunes, there was no election, in which Galerius
could be denied a candidacy. I know too well, Equitius Cato, that
you argue the Tribunes erred in their constitutional application,
but the Tribunes seem to have the longer sticks in having the final
decision over determining a Tribune's sacrosainct status, the
Tribunes being the elected voice of the plebs, those of the Comitia
Plebis Tributa who lawfully elect the Tribunes.

Tribune Lucius Arminius Faustus 2757 tried to have the tribs voted
by the CPT last year, but the language of the constitution
conflicted with this notion, despite the fact that Tribunes can make
laws binding on Pats and Plebs, by virtue of a lex 'pursuant' to the
constitution, and the lex was not adopted. The opposing argument
being, the constitution clearly states that nobody outside the
Comitia Plebis Tributa, electorially, does their own thing. So the
voice of the people to date is, we let the plebs and their elected
Tribunes sort out these affairs, and the CPT, constitutionally has
no business in it....so how is it that they can determine anything
the Comitia Plebis does regarding their elected reps, under the
guise of provocatio, or otherwise? The only person who can unravel
a Tribunate decision is an appropriately appointed dictator or
interrex. This provocatio approach is an ill-fitting glove, I fear.
> >
>
> Piscinus: Well, that is a matter yet to be determined by the
> magistrates and I will not question that it could be interpreted
as
> you say. However, what you are really asking is that the Comitia
> Tributa should decide whether Curius Saturninus is rightfully a
> Tribunis Plebis. The Comitia Plebis Tributa elects the Tribuni
> Plebis, not the Comitia Tributa, and the Comitia Tributa cannot
> overrule a decision of the Comitia Plebis Tributa on its own
> internal affairs. Further, the right of provocatio is meant to
> protect the rights of an individual civis. I think it would be an
> ill precedent to set if it were allowed to use the right of
> provocatio against another individual civis, which in effect is
what
> this call for provocatio amounts to.

PMTS: Agreed as stated above
>
> There is of course an historical precedent to consider. Tribunus
> Plebis Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus once proposed before the
Comitia
> Plebis to deprive Marcus Octavius of his office as Tribunus
Plebis.
> It is highly questionable that such a proposal was legal in the
> first place, and it has been a general consensus since that it was
> an ill precedent to set. When we get down to the real issue here,
> are you not asking Nova Roma to set the same sort of ill-boding
> precedent? The Plebeians assembled in Comitia have already decided
> that Curius Saturninus should hold the office of Tribunus Plebis
for
> this year, and the representatives of the Plebeians have
determined
> that Curius Satruninus did not in fact resign his office. A
> provocatio before the Comitia Tributa cannot now depose Saturninus
> from his office. Further it would be a dangerous precedent to set
> that a call for recall of any magistrate should be made in a
Comitia
> other than the one which elected him or her. Thus even if
Galerius
> Paulinus takes his case before the Comitia Tributa and wins a
> favorable decision, there will be no vacancy in the office of
> Tribunus Plebis and therefore no election for a Tribunus suffectus
> in which Galerius Paulinus could stand as a candidate. I
therefore
> fail to see the merit of this provocatio, since all that a
favorable
> decision by the Comitia Tributa can do is affirm that Galerius
> Paulinus has a right to stand as a candidate when an election is
> held, and no one by any action has denied that right to Galerius
> Paulinus.

PMTS: Yep. He already has that right as protected quite tightly by
the constitution, despite this documents dire need to be reviewed in
other areas(in my opinion). There was no election, so no direct
negative impact, and therefore no grounds, with respect to all with
good intentions, for pursuit of provocatio.


>
> >
> >
> > > So far, I would deny Tiberius Paulinus provcatio for the above
> > > stated reasons.

(snip)
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Vale et valete bene,
> >
> > G. Equitius Cato
> > Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
>
>
> Iubeo bono animo esse.
>
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus

Valete,
Pompeia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36420 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Silvanus & City Hall, Part I
G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana omnes SPD.

With your indulgences, I am going to turn the topic away from
legalisms for a time.

For the opening chapter in a tale of how the matter of a few big
trees makes for an interesting interface between micro and macro
worlds, read on. If you're busy,come back later, because this will
get a bit long.

This post fall into five parts:
1. Ritual at sunset: "micro" view of an issue
2. Personal background
3. Background to the macro-world issue
4. Strategies for dealing with the issue: macro
5. On Romans and some applications for us all

1. RITUAL AT SUNSET: "Micro" view of an issue

Shortly before sunset, I walked down to the waterfront where a scrap
of forest overlooks our harbor. I spend about two hours (twilight is
long here) among towering Douglas fir trees, old and young maples,
forgotten fruit trees and tangles of blackberry canes. I completed
two walks through the grove quite privately.

I have no formal background in Religio Romana, but am very
comfortable with our First Nations (Native Indian) traditions, which
regard spirit in everything, animate and inanimate. With all due
respect to the Pontificate, I adapted.

On the first walk, I scattered a few grains of salt at the base of
each and every tree, to symbolize purifying the land from harmful
intent. On the second walk, I poured a small libation of red wine
at the base of every major tree in the name of Silvanus, with words
wishing a long life. When I finished, the blackberry canes gave up
a few handfuls of ripe berries. And no scratches.

On the way home, I caught sight of a meteor low, near the eastern
horizon. This was not an illusion. I make no interpretation, as
I am not prone to augury. It was a pleasant surprise.

So why was the old sap (me) running (walking, actually) around the
trees?

2. PERSONAL BACKGROUND.

Domus Aurelia Falconis has five deities: Aurora, Horus, Arachne,
Nerthus and Silvanus. Part of the commitment of the domus toward
Silvanus is to engage in activities to defend wild spaces.

My NR agnomen, Silvana, reflects where I live: on Vancouver Island
in the province of British Columbia, Canada, in a region of west
coast Temperate Rain Forest. Some of the world's most magnificent
trees are (were) in the Pacific Northwest, a region including Oregon
and Washington states in the USA, and southwestern British Columbia.
Logging continues. Vancouver Island boasts both Cathedral Grove
Provincial Park and logged-off areas many call "the moon."

I have worked on eco-issues long before joining NR, both in Canada
and overseas, so the commitment to activism took root before it
branched into NR.

3. BACKGROUND TO THE MACRO ISSUE

City Hall has decided to sell 0.876 hectares of land oerlookig our
public waterfront and deep-sea docks. View and location make it
prime "development" land for condominiums or a hotel. The land is
park-like but not a park. to City Hall, it is only vacant land.

The land is presently occupied by some 60 Douglas fir trees, a number
of them roughly a metre through the trunk at the base, probably "old
growth" or original trees. There are about "senior" maple trees,
ranging up to a metre through the trunk; some are twinned, some
impressively forked. Young maples and other trees line the steep
slope facing the water. There are holly trees, a variety of fruit
trees including apples, pear, and plum from pioneer homes that once
stood on the bluff. Shrubs include blue huckleberry, snowberry,
ocean spray, and blackberry. This inventory is (very) incomplete.

The bluff is well used as a park, and those I spoke to today were
shocked to hear that the land was to be sold off. I wouldn't have
known anything about it either, but one of the neighborhood residents
brought a petition to my place of work today. We are trying not to
go gently into that good night . . . of single bottom lines, whre
money is the only object. Even economists are starting to talk about
the "triple bottom line" where development must take into account the
financial, social and environmental "bottom lines" (consequences).
We are working to preserve the bluff and its forest for our
community, and for the inernational visitors we are beginning to
attract through cruise ship visits to our deep-water port.

4. STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH THE ISSUE: MACRO

We are scrambling to produce petitions and gather signatures.
Our "provocatio" reminds me of the current debate over
actual/potential/theoretical (etc) negative impact. The citizen who
initiated the protest will attend tne next City Council meeting on
July 25 (with many others, we hope). We are looking at getting local
and provincial media involved.

Our citizens have a history of going head-to-head with City Hall.
(Does this sound Plebian?) Alternate proposals will be made.
Personally, I would keep the land in City hands, construct a new city
museum on the section where pioneer homes once stood, and keep all of
the forested section as a park and botanical garden to complement the
museum (which needs a new home anyway).

5. ON ROMANS AND SOM APPLICATIONS FOR US ALL
The Romans apparently had a love for flowers. Heroes and emperors
were crowned with the branches of the bay tree. Any domestic
peristyle aspired to include both water and vegetation. The wealthy
treasured their "country" villas. Agriculture, including the olive
and the vine, as a principal source of wealh. Attachment to the
green world, even if they didn't always manage it well, was part of
life for everyone, not only devotees of Silvanus.

In his book, HOW TO GROW FRESH AIR, Dr. B. C. Wolverton states that,
to replace the oxygen each of us consumes each day, we need to
produce 640 grams of new vegetation per person per day . . . DRY
WEIGHT. Pay attention to what is happening to green spaces in your
comunity--they are the lungs and air conditioners of your world. If
you own land, plant something, anything! If you have access to a
community garden, go for it! If you only have room for houseplants,
they're still important--you can grow some of the roman herbs that
supermarket chains don't carry.

"GROW" ROMAN!

Valete bene in pace Deorum

G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36421 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Silvanus & City Hall: references
G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana omnes SPD.

Here are the bibliographic references for my previous post:

Adkins, Leslie and Roy, INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMANS. Fairmont Books,
Ontario (Canada) 1997

Veyne, Paul (ed.), A HISTORY OF PRIVATE LIFE: From Pagan Rome to
Byzantium. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1987

Wolverton, B.C., HOW TO GROW FRESH AIR. Penguin Books, UK, 1997
* Wolverton was researcher and consultant to NASA, in particular
through John C. Stennis Space Centre, on botanical means to purify
air in closed environments (such as space stations).

Valete bene in pace Deorum.
G. Aurelia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36422 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
C. Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

In John Scheid's book, An Introduction to Roman Religion, he defines Sanctus
as:

"Sanctus ("holy") was a term applied to anything which it was a religious
offence to violate (Festus, De uerborum significatione, pp. 348, 420, ed.
Lindsay). This category included city boundaries, certain laws, treaties,
tribunes of the people, and official Roman ambassadors. Objects or persons who were
"holy" were neither sacred nor profane, but their integrity and security
were guaranteed and confirmed by a sanction, itself instituted by an oath or, in
particularly solemn circumstances, by a sacrifice that mimicked the
expiatory killing of whoever did violence to the object or person in question. The
sanction generally consisted in a sacratio, hence the expression sacrosanctus,
"sacrosanct, guaranteed by a sacratio." Sanctus was applied to anything
inviolable and therefore pure. It was a quality that could apply to tombs as
well as to sacred objects and, in certain cases, to the deities themselves."

The sacerdos known as Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta was condemned by the
Collegium Pontificum:

_http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/pontifices/2004-05-29-ii.html_
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/pontifices/2004-05-29-ii.html)

With the text, "We find that by gross disrespect to the Religio Publica
Romana, its most sacred rituals, and its institutions Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
has rendered herself unfit to perform any priestly function. We therefore
rescind and expunge her appointment as Sacerdos Matris Deorum Magnae and judge her
unfit to hold any position of religious responsibility in the Religio
Publica Romana in perpetuity."

This same Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta was elected tribune under the name of M.
Arminia Major Fabiana. She is now known as Marca Hortensia Maior.

I do not see anyone who has been judged Nefas as being sacrosanct.

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/23/2005 4:30:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@... writes:

PMTS respondeo: At best, one would be claiming, as I read it,
a 'theoretical' direct negative impact, assuming that Saturninus
was wrongfully affirmed as Tribune by his sacrosainct colleagues.
That is not how I understand the appropriate use of provocatio..
unless of course we are utilizing a rotely legalistic approach to
the linguistics of the constitution of Nova Roma.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36423 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Silvanus & City Hall, Part I
Salve;

I found your post most excellent, and your ritual a lovely expression of
your spiritual connections. I understand fully your environmental concerns. I
recently attended a workshop at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio on
what is called "Smart Growth." In the United States there is an environmental
problem known as "urban sprawl." It is the rapid expansion of cities and
towns in such a way that you need to travel everywhere you go in an automobile,
and public transportation is usually very lacking in most mid-western cities
and towns. Even in cities like my own, Springfield Ohio, were we are
suffering from a negative population growth we have urban sprawl -- as one cluster
of shops and stores opens up, another starts to suffer, eventually leaving an
abandoned strip mall.

Another aspect of "Smart Growth" is the utilization of green spaces. By
condensing population in tighter numbers in towns and cities you have less
"suburban" areas. These areas can be turn back into farmland, instead of high end
homes and apartments. Wetlands have been destroyed, natural run-off areas
have been destroyed, farms have been converted to homes, to make room for
urban sprawl and land development.

I belong to a local Pagan group and we make regular offerings (at our
monthly ritual) to the land, in hopes that we will help heal the Earth -- from all
the things that are done to Her by people everyday.

Your work has my support, good luck in your endeavors.

Vale;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/23/2005 6:31:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
silvanatextrix@... writes:

In his book, HOW TO GROW FRESH AIR, Dr. B. C. Wolverton states that,
to replace the oxygen each of us consumes each day, we need to
produce 640 grams of new vegetation per person per day . . . DRY
WEIGHT. Pay attention to what is happening to green spaces in your
comunity--they are the lungs and air conditioners of your world. If
you own land, plant something, anything! If you have access to a
community garden, go for it! If you only have room for houseplants,
they're still important--you can grow some of the roman herbs that
supermarket chains don't carry.

"GROW" ROMAN!

Valete bene in pace Deorum

G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36424 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano P. Minuciae-Tiberiae
Straboni M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Piscinus Horatianus, you wrote:

"It would seem to me then to be a third kind of situation, the Tribuni
Plebis exercising their authority collectively to interpret how the
law should be applied in a given situation. I would grant that such an
exercise of authority could impact negatively on an individual civis,
but is that really the case here? Who was actually affected by this
action of the Tribuni Plebis? What you claim is that Galerius Paulinus
lost the right to seek an office he did not hold against the right of
Saturninus to retain an office to which he was legally elected and
which the Tribuni Plebis determined he still held...If that is the
question, then the matter is not one of an action taken that impacts
negatively on an individual civis. Rather, you point to a question of
constitutional law. Who are given the greatest responsibility for
determining the constitutionality of the action of any magistrate, if
not the Tribuni Plebis collectively? Are you questioning their
authority to make such a determination?"


CATO: Yes. Exactly. And why do I feel that this is actionable?
First and foremost, because the tribunes, no matter what other
authority they have, do not have the right to interpret the law. They
are not a Constitutional court; they merely have the authority to
"apply" the law. Once resigned, his office returned (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. As Apollonius Cordus once wrote:

"Tribuni plebis, our fellow-plebeian Galerius Paulinus is clearly
becoming desperate, and it is quite apparent that he is not going to
accept Saturninus as tribune under the current circumstances. In my
view he is quite correct not to do so. Whether your legal analysis is
correct or not, the fact remains that it was not within your
competence to decide this matter. Only the concilium plebis can
confer tribunicia potestas, and therefore only the concilium plebis
can determine whether tribunicia potestas has been lost or retained.
Until you allow the plebs to make its own ruling, you are usurping the
authority of those from whom you derive your authority."


Senator Pompeia Strabo, the matter of precedent has no grounds here.
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?


Caius Curius Saturninus, in Post #32025, wrote:
"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."

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. His office became vacant.
Galerius Paulinus decided, upon seeing a vacancy, that he wished to
run for that office. The tribunes, usurping the authority of the
People, met in private and simply announced their decision in the
Forum --- that they thought Curius Saturninus never resigned, in
direct contradiction to Curius Saturninus'own words --- and so were
admitting him, with full tribunician potestas, into the tribunate.
Galerius Paulinus was therefore denied the right to run for office not
based on any Constitutional authority but on the decision of a
magistrate. His rights, as a citizen, were violated, and this in
itself causes a direct negative impact.


Marca Hortensia, you yourself wrote:

"So I agree. Fuscus seems to think since he and the other tribunes
said it is 'not so' that this is the end of the problem. Not so at
all, the illegality is still there, agreement or bad precedent does
not vitiate that fact. By returning the matter to the plebs, from
whom the power derives we are both historically correct and just....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?"

Titus Octavius Salvius wrote:

"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."



Piscinus Horatianus, you wrote:

"Galerius Paulinus has a right to stand as a candidate in any election
held for an office for which he is eligible to hold...From what you
say, does it not follow that all eligible Plebeians were affected by
the determination and not just Galerius Paulinus alone?"

CATO: Yes, but only Galerius Paulinus feels it is necessary to call
them to account for it. Just because he alone is standing up, does
not make his voice any less important, or the situation less grievous.
Your own words support the reason for the provocatio: Galerius
Paulinus does indeed have that right, and that right was taken away
from him by the decision made, unConstitutionally, by the tribunes.
I say allow the provocatio to go forth, let the People hear and
decide. It is their authority which gives imperium, potestas, and
sainctitas. It is their rights which are being abrogated by the
usurpation of unConstitutional authority on the part of the tribunes.

Valete bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36426 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: De provocatione
A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

It has already been said that the constitution's
definition of provocatio is far broader than the
historical definition. I hardly think this can be
denied. Historically, provocatio was available to
Roman citizens who were threatened with capital or
corporal punishment (a similar but different procedure
was available in cases involving large fines). Our
constitution allows provocatio to any citizen who has
been directly and adversely affected by any decision
of any magistrate. Quite a difference!

Well, the constitution overrules ancient practice, so
discussion of historical provocatio may seem
irrelevant and pointless. But humour me for a
paragraph or so and perhaps we'll see something else.

We've discussed the historical definition of
provocatio: what about the historical procedure? When
a Roman citizen invoked his right of provocatio, the
magistrate concerned was legally required immediately
to refrain from whatever punishment he had been
threatening. Then a judicial process began. The
magistrate who had intended to punish the citizen was
required to hold three contiones (public meetings), at
intervals of at least one day, to hear evidence.
Finally, the magistrate would specify the penalty he
intended to impose, and would call the assembly to
vote on whether to support his decision or not.

Now, although we have a constitutional rule which
overrides the historical definition of provocatio, but
we have no constitutional or legal document which sets
out a procedure to be followed when provocatio is
invoked. So we would normally look to the historical
procedure. I bet you're way ahead of me at this point,
but let's go through it just to make sure.

So, first thing, the magistrate who is doing whatever
Ti. Galerius is appealing against must immediately
stop doing it. What is he appealing against?
Apparently he's appealing against the decision of the
tribunes not to hold a by-election. So does that mean
that the tribunes must immediately stop not holding a
by-election? Well, let's ignore that thorny problem
for now. Next thing: the prosecuting magistrate must
hear the evidence against the defendant. Umm. Hands up
who knows who the prosecuting magistrate is? I guess
it must be one of the tribunes, since they made the
decision Paulinus is appealing against. So, the
tribunes, or at least one of them, has to hear the
evidence against the defendant. Who's that? It's the
person who invoked provocatio, i.e. Paulinus. So, we
need to hear some evidence to help us, the people,
decide whether Paulinus has or has not committed the
crime of which he's accused. Hang on, we've missed a
bit... the crime. What is Paulinus accused of again?
Oh, that's right, nothing.

Okay, the "let's do what the Romans did" line of
thinking isn't working out very well. Let's try Nova
Roma's more traditional "let's make it up as we go
along and then give it a dodgy Latin name". So, what
*do* we know? We know we've got to have some sort of
vote about something. About what, though? Well,
presumably about whether to uphold the decision of the
magistrate or not. So that means we're going to vote
on whether the tribunes' decision not to have a
by-election was lawful or not, I guess.

But wait, says M. Hortensia. Is provocatio applicable
here at all? The constitution, broad though it is,
still only allows provocatio when there has been a
direct negative impact on a citizen. Has Ti. Galerius
suffered a direct negative impact? Yes, says his
advocate, because he was denied the right to stand for
tribune in the by-election. No, says M. Hortensia,
because there was never a vacancy to be filled, so
there was never going to be a by-election, so Paulinus
couldn't possibly have stood in that by-election. But,
says C. Equitius (for it is he!), there was a vacancy,
so the tribunes' decision to refuse a by-election was
illegal. No, says M. Hortensia, because there was not
a vacancy, so the decision was not illegal. But it
was, says he; but it wasn't, say she.

Hold on, say I. What was it the assembly was supposed
to be voting on? Was it, perchance, the question of
whether the tribunes' decision was lawful or not? And
what is it that determines whether Paulinus is allowed
provocatio? Is it, perchance, the question of whether
the tribunes' decision was lawful or not? Oh dear.
What a pickle we're in.

Does this sort of situation sound familiar, yet
somehow not quite right? It sounds familiar because
it's the sort of problem we end up having quite often.
It seems not quite right because we know we're
supposed to be modelled on the Roman republic, and we
know the Roman republic never had this sort of
problem. They had plenty of political arguments, yes,
but they never went round and round chasing circular
legal arguments. What's gone wrong?

I think it's pretty clear what's gone wrong in this
case. Historical practice has been overruled without
due care and attention. "Let's widen provocatio",
someone said back in the day, "that seems like a good
idea". Oh dear. It wasn't a good idea, was it? It's
got us into a mess. With the historical definition,
it's easy to tell whether provocatio is applicable or
not: it's applicable when a citizen is accused of a
crime and is threatened with capital or corporal
punishment. It's not too hard to tell whether that's
the case or not. Under the modern expanded definition
provocatio is applicable when the decision of a
magistrate has had a direct negative impact on a
citizen, but we can't find out whether it has had a
direct negative impact without having the provocatio,
which may not be applicable because we don't know
whether there was a direct negative impact, which we
don't know because we haven't had the provocatio yet.

What other intractable circular problems like this
have we had recently? There was the one about C.
Curius' resignation. Cause of the intractable problem?
Disagreements over correct interpretation of law
concerning resignation. Law concerning resignation?
Unhistorical.

There was the thing about the leges Arminiae last year
and whether or not they were constitutional. Cause of
the intractable problem? Constitutional rule
preventing one assembly altering the procedures of
another. Constitutional rule? Unhistorical.

But one would think that problem could have been
settled by a definitive ruling on the
constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the
proposals in question. Reason it couldn't be settled?
Rigid, entrenched constitution without any adequate
interpretive body. Rigid, entrenched constitution?
Unhistorical.

Have you noticed that all these problems, and just
about every other similar problem one can think of in
the last few years, involves the tribunes? Me too.

Constitutional role of the tribunes? Unhistorical.
Collegial power of tribunician veto? Unhistorical.
System used to elect tribunes? Unhistorical.
Scope of tribunician veto? Unhistorical.

I'm not arguing that we must never depart from
historical practice. The Romans themselves departed
from historical practice. The difference is that they
knew what they were doing. The republican constitution
was an extremely complex and finely-tuned machine made
of many interlocking and mutually dependent parts.
Imagine a big old steam-driven machine, one of those
ones where you can see all the pistons and cogs doing
their separate things. Would you stop that machine,
take out a cog, slot in a bigger cog, and expect it to
keep working? Of course not. If you want to change one
part, you have to redesign the whole engine. You have
to study it, understand how it works, figure out how
the change you want to make will affect all the other
parts, and only then make the appropriate adjustments.
That's not to say you can't change the machine.
Sometimes machines need to be changed, improved. But
you don't do it without understanding how the old
machine worked and how the new one is going to work
differently.

Departure from historical practice is not the problem
here. The problem, to put it bluntly, is incompetent
departure from historical practice. We've had too much
of it around here. Well-intentioned, but done hastily
and under great pressure. Done by very clever people
but by people who lacked the time and resources to
fully understand what they were doing. They have
bequeathed us a constitutional system which keeps us
going, and for that we must be grateful. In the old
days the task at hand was to throw together a
constitution which would keep the state from total
collapse. That was done successfully: the state has
not totally collapsed, and is not likely to. We've now
have what they didn't have in the early days: the time
and the resources to sit down and think things out
properly. Let's do it. Until we do, we're going to
keep getting these bouts of constitutional paralysis
and dysfunction.

Corde, you say, enough of your manifesto. Okay, maybe
we shouldn't be in this mess in the first place, but
this is the mess we're in, what are we going to do
about it? Well, say I, to be frank I don't know. The
question of Saturninus' legitimacy is an unexploded
mine which makes it extremely difficult to traverse
the field of ordinary, constructive politics. I wish
it could be resolved. Provocatio is a totally
unsuitable tool for resolving it. Provocatio is for
trials. This is not a trial. No one is accused of a
crime. If we carry on without defusing this landmine,
sooner or later someone will step on it and that will
be the end of constructive politics for the rest of
the year. If we try to defuse it with provocatio it
will probably explode anyway, plus we'll end up with
no end of a godawful mess when we find out that we
have no idea how provocatio can actually be made to
work under its current definition.

So here's my suggestion. Let's wait and see what P.
Memmius comes up with. It's commendable that he has
issued this edict, but it doesn't actually say
anything. You may be surprised to hear it! It took me
ten minutes to read it, you say, how can it say
nothing? It took me ten minutes to read it, too, and
that's how I know what it says. It says this: "I have
taken note of Ti. Galerius' request for provocatio. I
am inclined to call the assembly to vote on it." Well,
it's nice to know what the tribune is thinking, but
there's no point in talking about whether his
colleagues should veto that edict. Which bit are they
going to veto, this bit which says Albucius has taken
note of the provocatio or the bit which says he's
thinking about calling the assembly? Let's wait and
see what he is actually going to *propose* to the
assembly.

In my heart I hope he will simply forget about
Paulinus' provocatio and Saturninus' legitimacy. We
know roughly where this landmine is. Let's put up lots
of red flags around it and hang a big sign saying
"DANGER - KEEP CLEAR". What I want to talk about is
Albucius' second idea, which no one seems to have
notice: his intention to bring forward a proposal to
narrow the scope of provocatio. That's where progress
is to be found. Whatever we do about Saturninus and
Paulinus, it's just going to cause a big row and
become totally irrelevant at the end of the year
anyway. Let's concentrate on getting it right next
time. Let's sort out the law on provocatio. Let's sort
out the law on resignations. Let's sort out the
tribunes, the constitution, and everything else. But
let's start with provocatio, and let's hear what the
tribune proposes. If he wants my assistance with that
proposal, I encourage him to get in touch.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36427 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
AVE CIVES NOVA ROMANI !



I , Titus Iulius Sabinus, sworn today in front of the Gods and those present here my oath of faithfulness towards the Roman Senate and the Novaromans.

This is a very important event which marks the beginning of an official administrative system of Dacia province within Nova Roma . I thank the Gods for this. I thank those who have given us their support and to those who honor us today with their presence:

- Iulia Caesaris

- Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

- Marcus Iulius Perusianus

- Lucius Iulius Sulla

- Marca Hortensia Maior

- Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus.

- Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella

- Manius Constantinus Serapio

To the honor of Iulia Gens, in these days of celebration, Ludi Victoriae Caesaris, I bring my modest tribute to our ancestors without whom all this would not be possible.

Because yesterday it was the Concordia festival, and the Godess is a part of our day by day life, I want to start with a invocatio :



Garbed in toga praetexta, cinctu Gabino, capite velito, I washed my hands for three times.



I, Iulius Sabinus, call upon you goddess Concordia,

To be the evenhanded witness of todayÂ’s celebration.



Goddess, I ask you to give me wisdom

And the power to serve the Roman Senate and people;

Please guide me as you have done until now

And favor provincia Dacia.

May you show upon us your smile and

Grant the provincia wealthy and unabashed days.

Concordia, listen to my prayers and accept the offerings!

May you enlighten all the decisions

And imprint the spirit of justice upon all matters.



I offer with the right hand to Concordia laurel incense.



I call upon you goddess today,

I invoke your everlasting sense of justice

And thank you for the favors

That you have shown to us!

May you watch over provincia Dacia!



I offer to Concordia milk mixed with honey.



Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege garbed in robe, capite velato.

Titus Iulius Sabinus garbed in toga praetexta, cinctu Gabino, capite velato.





PRAEFATIO :

Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege ordered silentium :



Those who know themselves to be impure are asked to leave.

Hoc agete!. “Give your attention to this!”

Procul, o procul, este profane!

“Far away, be gone, you who are profane, far from here.”



Before the altar is cleaned Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege and Titus Iulius Sabinus performing the ritual wash hands in new, fresh water 3 times and pray:

Haec aqua a corpore impuritates eluat, ut pluvial terra purgat

“May my body be purified by this water, as the earth is purified by rain.”

Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege begins cleaning and purifying the altar: The surface is cleaned with vervain and the area around the altar is aspersed with pure water. after that fresh water is spread over it. White and red wooden filets are set round the altar.



The fire is lit on the altar and Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege prays to Goddess Vesta:



“Goddess Vesta may you watch over this sacred fire.”

The Goddess is offered milk.



POMPA :

A pompa is ordered and the vessels are brought to the altar.





INVOCATIO :

Di Testores are called to witness the ritual:



Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege :

“Iuno, hail to you goddess! Thou art the empress of this world sitting above us all and watching over us. Godesss of the soft rains that make all things grow, without your caress nature wouldn’t be so rich. Oh, Iuno , come and watch over this ritual, bring your smile upon our provincia!”





The Goddess is offered milk and honey. The milk is poured from the patera onto the sacred fire.



Titus Iulius Sabinus :

“Mars, powerful god may you watch over Provincia Dacia and end all wrath that may come upon us. Withness this rite and may the strength of thy weapons protect our cities!”



The God is offered wine and honey.



Incense is offered for Iuno and Mars:



“Iuno and Mars, honour us and witness this rite !





SACRIFICATIO :



Titus Iulius Sabinus :

“Iupiter, father of this world we come in front of you with our hearts open and by this ritual we seek to honour you. Hear our prayer and honor this rite with your presence. As many times before accept the offerings and bless our provincia! Your lightening rules the firmament of this world and everything knows your great power and force. Accept our libations and send upon us your kind thoughts. May you grant our provincia a rich and peaceful life!”



Laurel incense is offered to Iupiter.



“Iupiter, father of this world we come in front of you with our hearts open and by this ritual we seek to honour you. Hear our prayer and honor this rite with your presence. As many times before accept the offerings and bless our provincia! Your lightening rules the firmament of this world and everything knows your great power and force. Accept our libations and send upon us your kind thoughts. May you grant our provincia a rich and peaceful life!”



Laurel incense and wine is offered to Iupiter.

The wine is poured with the right hand on the altar fire.



“ Iupiter, we called you today to ask for your blessings. Shining god of the Heawens let your most kind thoughts fall upon us. Show mercy for the souls of our ancestors and look favorably upon our provincia .”



Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege :

“ Hail ,Goddess, always smiling upon the mortal souls! Venus Genetrix listen to our call and accept these offerings. In the memory of our great ancestors accept this ritual and always show yourself to us beautiful and gentle. I pray to You for the spirits of the ancestors, may they be always honored”



Rose incense is offered to the goddess. Wine is poured onto the sacred fire .



“ Venus Victrix, we thank you for the care that you have shown to our ancestors and we pray that you will aid Provincia Dacia and Iulia Gens. We honour you with this rite. Grant us prosperity and a joyful life. May you look favorably upon us forever more!”



Wine and honey is offered to Venus.





LITATIO :

Iulia Iulia Caesaris Chytheris Aege :



“I offer this incense for Vesta, Iuno and Mars in thanks for attending this rite. May you always watch over Provincia Dacia and those attending today this rite!”



wine and honey is poured on the sacred fire.





Incense is offered once more for all the deities collectively.



Titus Iulius Sabinus :

“Iupiter we thank You for the kindness that You have shown . Accept our offerings and grant us a serene existence.”



Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege :

“Venus , bless us and give us chances in contests and always show yourself kind and understanding to our province!



Wine and honey is offered once more.





Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege and Titus Iulius Sabinus step away from the altar and end the rite :



Nil amplius vos hodie posco,superi,satis est.

“No more, Gods on High, do I ask of You today; it is enough.”







PERLITATIO :

Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege waits for a sign from the Gods in order to see if the offerings were accepted.


II. OATH OF OFFICE

Latin version :




Ego,Titus Iulius Sabinus ( Adrian Zavoianu ), hac re ipsa decus Novae Romae me defensurum, et semper pro populo senatuque Novae Romae acturum esse sollemniter IVRO.
Ego,Titus Iulius Sabinus ( Adrian Zavoianu ), officio Propraetoris Novae Romae accepto, deos deasque Romae in omnibus meae vitae publicae temporibus culturum, et virtutes Romanas publica privataque vita me persecuturum esse IVRO.
Ego,Titus Iulius Sabinus ( Adrian Zavoianu ), Religioni Romanae me fauturum et eam defensurum, et numquam contra eius statum publicum me acturum esse, ne quid detrimenti capiat IVRO.
Ego,Titus Iulius Sabinus ( Adrian Zavoianu ), officiis muneris Propraetoris me quam optime functurum esse praeterea IVRO.
Meo civis Novae Romae honore, coram deis deabusque populi Romani, et voluntate favoreque eorum, ego munus Propraetoris una cum iuribus, privilegiis, muneribus et officiis comitantibus ACCIPIO

English version :
I, Adrian Zavoianu, Titus Iulius Sabinus do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.
As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Titus Iulius Sabinus, swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.
I, Titus Iulius Sabinus, swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.
I, Titus Iulius Sabinus, swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.
I, Titus Iulius Sabinus, further swear to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Propraetor to the best of my abilities.
On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the position of Propraetor and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant there to.

III. EDICTUM I 2758 A.U.C.
EX OFFICIO PROPRAETORIS DACIA



EDICTUM PROPREATORICUM I. ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIA DACIA.

REGULA PROVINCIA DACIA

This edictum states the organization of Provincia Dacia Nova Roma. It can be modified by future edicts only in accordance to Nova Roma laws and Constitutions.



I. TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION

Provincia Dacia Nova Roma was founded by Senatus Consulta and it represents the continuity of roman spirituality on the nominated territory.

The capital of Dacia will remain Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa.



II. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION.

Curia Dacia is the form of governing within the provincia. Curia Dacia consists of:



- Trium Daciarum - Propraetor.

- Procurator.

- Provincial Sacerdos.

- Consilium Legati - Legatus Internis Rebus.

- Legatus Externis Rebus.

- Legatus Militum.

- Consilium Scribae - Scriba Propraetoris ( Curator Aranei ).

- Scriba Propraetoris ( Picoman ).



ATTRIBUTES AND DUTIES:



CURIA DACIA :

- the Curia gathers at the request of the Propraetor.

- assists the Propraetor in the actions of organizing and leading the province.

- is responsible for applying the roman laws, for respecting the Constitution and Religio Romana.

- the members will make an oath according to Lex Iunia de Iusiurando.



2.2 TRIUM DACIARUM :

- checks the activity of Consilium Legati, Consilium Scribae and Officina Provincia Dacia.

- approves or denies the decisions made by Legati, Consilium Scribae and Officinae Provincia Dacia.

- proposes and revokes Caput Officinae Provincia Dacia.

- makes decisions and participates in the organization and progress of current activities in the provincia.

- elaborates the official announcements and forwards them on the provincial mailing list.

- is responsible for applying the roman laws, for respecting the Constitution and Religio Romana.

- Caput Trium Daciarum is the Propraetor.



2.3 CONSILIUM LEGATI :

- checks the activity of Consilium Scribae and Officinae Provincia Dacia.

- participates in the organization and progress of current activities in the provincia.

- is responsible for applying the roman laws, for respecting the Constitution and Religio Romana.



2.4 CONSILIUM SCRIBAE :

- checks the activity of Officinae Provincia Dacia.

- participates in the organization and progress of current activities in the provincia



PROCURATOR PROVINCIA DACIA ( 1st rank oficial ) :

- respects the attributions stated in Trium Daciarum.

- reports directly to the Propraetor.

- has the role of a deputy.

- carries out specific activities requested by the Propraetor.

- checks the way in which taxes have been paid.

- participates in the provincial census activity.



2.6 PROVINCIAL SACERDOS :

- respects the attributions stated in Trium Daciarum.

- the main activity will consist in the study, analysis, and lecture of Religio Romana within the province.

- will develop a specific cult for Provincia Dacia.

- will present and perform rituals within the provincia.

- will obseve the way in which Religio Romana is practiced.

- approves for publishing all the articles concerning Religio Romana.



LEGATUS INTERNIS REBUS ( 2nd rank oficial ):

- respects the attributions stated in Consilium Legati.

- deals with the internal problems of the provincia.

- establishes ways of communication with all the citizens.

- promotes new topics and discussions on the forum ,having the status of a moderator.

- develops a calendar of the activities within the provincia.

- participates in the organization of the internal activities.

- participates in the provincial census activity.



2.8 LEGATUS EXTERNIS REBUS ( 2nd rank oficial) :

- respects the attributions stated in Consilium Legati.

- represents the provincia in the external activities.

- participates in the organization of the internal activities.

- maintains a relationship with the organizations interested in the roman history and culture.



2.9 LEGATUS MILITUM ( 2nd rank oficial)

- respects the attributions stated in Consilium Legati.

- deals with the research of the military history of Provincia Dacia

- deals with the renactment of the Legio XIII Gemina.

- sets up military games, real or virtual.



SCRIBA ( Curator Aranei ) PROPRAETORIS ( 3rd rank oficial ) :

- respects the attributions stated in Colegium Scribae.

- carries out specific activities requested by the Propraetor.

- keeps an evidence of the official documents.



SCRIBA ( Picoman ) PROPRAETORIS ( 4rd rank oficial ) :

- respects the attributions stated in Colegium Scribae.

- keeps an evidence of the tax payment.

- participates in the elaboration of the official documents.



The following officina will function in the provincia:

( trainee ranks,no century points )



Officina Civium Novum:

- consists of Caput Officina and Scribae.

- Caput Officina appoints and revokes Officina Scribae.

- keeps the evidence of the citizens.

- collaborates with the censorsÂ’ cohorts.

- provides council for the new citizens and guides them.

- participates in the provincial census activity.



Officina Interpreti

- consists of Caput Officina and Scribae.

- Caput Officina appoints and revokes Officina Scribae.

- translates the official documents.

- maintains a constant communication with the other Nova Roma provinces.



Officina Retiari

- consists of Caput Officina and Scribae

- Caput Officina appoints and revokes Officina Scribae.

- deals with the developing and maintenance of the web pages of Provincia Dacia.



3.4 Officina Ludorum:

- consists of Caput Officina and Scribae

- Caput Officina appoints and revokes Officina Scribae.

- organizes the games and festivities within the provincia.

- deals with the study and research of new techniques regarding the ludi.



3.5 Officina Investigatio:

- consists of Caput Officina and Scribae

- Caput Officina appoints and revokes Officina Scribae.

- deals with the research concerning roman history and Religio Romana.

- investigates the events that may occur in the detriment of the roman patrimony.

- writes reports about such events.

- maintains a good relationship between the provincial activities and the macro national laws of the state.



Nova Roma Constitution establishes the functions and the imperium of the Dacia Propraetor.This conditions being given the propraetor has veto right upon all the activities of the Trium Daciarum , Colegium Legati and Colegium Scribae , as well as Officinae Scribae. Any member of the above mentioned can be revoked if his/her activity does not respect the norms and desideratum of the Nova Roman Senate and of the nova roman people established by Constitution and by the laws.



The members of the Curia Dacia are obliged to present an activity report every year between 15 - 30 september. Each Caput Officina is obliged to fulfil the same task for the respective officina.



Comitia Dacia is represented by the totality of the citizens . The Comitia has the right to vote , though it has only a consultative value concerning the official decisions. The Propraetor has the right to summon the Comitia by announcing the meeting on the provincial mailing list. Comitia Dacia can be summoned only on specific days , dies comitiales, pre-established by the Nova Roma Pontificus Maximus and in accordance to the nova roman calendar.



All the edicts given by the propraetor will be published on:

- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DaciaNR/



All the announcements made by Curia Dacia will be published on:

- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DaciaNR/



The official web site of Provincia Dacia is to be found at the following address:

- http://www.dacia-novaroma.org

This site will represent Provincia Dacia and its purposes are:

- the promotion of Dacia Province

- the promotion of Nova Roma.

- the promotion of web pages concerning issues related to roman interests.

- recruitment of new citizens.

- a good cooperation between citizens and magistrates.



For Provincia Dacia Dies Natalis will be celebrated each year on the a.d. III Id. Sextilis, day which corresponds to the historical moment 11 of August 106 AC (date mentioned in the Military Diploma of Porolissum)

Dies Natalis will be celebrated with ludi and festivities approved by Curia Dacia.



This edict is effective immediately.
Hoc edictum statim valet.

Given under my hand this 23th day of July 2758 A.U.C ( 23 July 2005)
Datum sub manu mea ante diem X Kalendas Sextilis MMDCCLVIII ab urbe condita.
T. IVL SABINVS
Propraetor Dacia.

In the consulship of Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius Laenas.
Francisco Apulo Caesare Gaio Popillio Laenate consulibus.


IV. EDICTUM II 2758 A.U.C.


EX OFFICIO PROPRAETORIS DACIA

EDICTUM PROPRAETORICUM II ABOUT PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION APPOINTMENTS.


1. Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege is hereby appointed as Legatus Internis Rebus Provincia Dacia ( 2nd rank Official)

2. Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia is hereby appointed as Legatus Externis Rebus Provincia Dacia (a 2nd rank Official)

3. Quintus Iulius Probus is hereby appointed as Legatus Militum Provincia Dacia ( 2nd rank Official)

4. Iulia Iulia Caesaris Cytheris Aege is hereby appointed as Sacerdos Provincia Dacia with the Provincial responsibility for Religio Romana. (Provincial Sacerdos)

5. Aula Arria Carina is hereby appointed as Scriba ( Picoman ) Provincia Dacia ( 4th rank Official ).

This edict is effective immediately.
Hoc edictum statim valet.

Given under my hand this 23th day of July 2758 A.U.C ( 23 July 2005 )
Datum sub manu mea ante diem X Kal. Sextilis MMDCCLVIII ab urbe condita.
T. IVL SABINVS
Propraetor Dacia.

In the consulship of Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius
Laenas.
Francisco Apulo Caesare Gaio Popillio Laenate consulibus.


VALE OPTIME IN PACE DEORUM,
IVL SABINVS
Propraetor Dacia.


















"Every individual is the arhitect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius




__________________________________________________
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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36428 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
C. Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

This seems like the most reasonable thing anyone has said on the issue of
provocatio. I agree with Cordus on this completely. Redefine provocatio, and
leave the legitimacy of Saturinus behind. It opens up a huge can of worms.

There are several potential problems with the history of Nova Roma that
leave loop-holes of legitimacy. The status of a person after the rescind a
resignation is one such problem. I believe it is better to move on, than to
debate in circles.

What is done is done, we can only move forward. If we are going to "fix one
error" of the past, then we should fix them all. There are several
potential problems that would cause a great deal of instability if they were allowed
to be "solved."

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/23/2005 9:03:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

In my heart I hope he will simply forget about
Paulinus' provocatio and Saturninus' legitimacy. We
know roughly where this landmine is. Let's put up lots
of red flags around it and hang a big sign saying
"DANGER - KEEP CLEAR". What I want to talk about is
Albucius' second idea, which no one seems to have
notice: his intention to bring forward a proposal to
narrow the scope of provocatio. That's where progress
is to be found. Whatever we do about Saturninus and
Paulinus, it's just going to cause a big row and
become totally irrelevant at the end of the year
anyway. Let's concentrate on getting it right next
time. Let's sort out the law on provocatio. Let's sort
out the law on resignations. Let's sort out the
tribunes, the constitution, and everything else. But
let's start with provocatio, and let's hear what the
tribune proposes. If he wants my assistance with that
proposal, I encourage him to get in touch.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36429 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve, Apollonius Cordus et salvete omnes.

Corde, you wrote:

"But wait, says M. Hortensia. Is provocatio applicable here at all?
The constitution, broad though it is, still only allows provocatio
when there has been a direct negative impact on a citizen. Has Ti.
Galerius suffered a direct negative impact? Yes, says his advocate,
because he was denied the right to stand for tribune in the
by-election. No, says M. Hortensia, because there was never a vacancy
to be filled, so there was never going to be a by-election, so
Paulinus couldn't possibly have stood in that by-election. But, says
C. Equitius (for it is he!), there was a vacancy, so the tribunes'
decision to refuse a by-election was illegal. No, says M. Hortensia,
because there was not a vacancy, so the decision was not illegal. But
it was, says he; but it wasn't, says she."

CATO: the difference being, of course, that I am right :-)

Now, I stepped in to offer Galerius Paulinus my services not only
because I think he is on the side of the angels (in this case at
least), but because I think that any discussion which causes us to
look more closely at our laws and Constitution is a good thing; and to
have civilized debate regarding such issues is an exemplary thing.

To be quite honest, I see the provocatio as a means to an end: the
drafting of a sensible, clear, unambiguous law regarding resignations.
I know that you abhor the very idea of resignation, Corde, but it is
an unpleasant fact of life in our res publica; as it exists, we should
take the time to make the circumstances surrounding it (and its
repercussions) absolutely clear.

I too will wait for Memmius Albucius to clarify the call for the
Comitia Populi Tributa, and we shall see what we shall see.

Vale et valete bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36430 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
A. Apollonius T. Julio Daciisque omnibusque sal.

Congratulations on your province's continuing
progress, and congratulations to the new appointees.
Long may Dacia flourish.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36431 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
G. Equitius Cato T. Iulio Sabino quirites Daciisque S.P.D.

Salvete!

CONGRATULATIONS on the opening of the Provincial government. You do
the res publica a great service, and I wish the blessings of the
Divine upon your endeavors. VIVAT DACIA!

Valete optimae,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36432 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Salvete Tite Sabine, cives et socii provinciae Daciae

Gratulor et optimam Fortunam vobis exopto. Di immortales faciant – tam
felix quam pia.

Congradulations on the founding of provincia Dacia and may the very
best fortune come upon you. May the Gods immortal make it so, as
fortunate for you as it is pius.

Di Deaeque vos omnes bene ament
M Moravius Horatius Piscinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36433 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus G Equitio Cato, Tribunis Plebibus, et
Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit.

I strongly support the right of every civis to declare for
provocatio. I do not deny that Galerius Paulinus or any other
eligible Plebeian has a right to declare for provocatio in this or
in any other matter. I question whether his specific provocatio has
much merit under the present circumstances.

I agree that there is not a Constitutional Court as such in Nova
Roma other than the Quirites when assembled in Comitia. However I
do not quite agree with your assertion that the Tribuni Plebis
collectively do not hold an authority for constitutional review of
any given action. The Constitution IV.A.7.a states

"Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs
shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term
lasting one year. They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall
have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions
of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the
interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta,
and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of
this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus
Consulta or leges are being violated thereby; once a pronouncement
of intercessio has been made, the other Tribunes may, at their
discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement
with that intercessio."


Technically an individual Tribunus Plebis, or the Tribuni
collectively, cannot exercise their power of intercessio without
making a constitutional review. Since each Tribunus Plebis has an
authority for constitutional review, they can be seen collectively
to form a de facto Constitutional Court. However such authority
resolves out of the Comitia Plebis, and thus the Comitia Plebis
would have to be regarded as a higher Constitutional Court than all
the Tribuni combined. That is, that the Comitia Plebis Tributa
becomes a Constitutional Court over certain matters under its
perview, as is the case here.

By declining to accept the resignation of Saturninus, were the
Tribuni acting in intercessio? Certainly not by a declared
intercessio, and to argue that it was a de facto intercessio would
be begging the question I think.

You, Equiti, and with Cordus and Octavius Salvius in what you
quoted, and I as well, agree that in the matter of whether
Saturninus now rightfully holds the office of Tribunus Plebis, it is
a decision that should be left to the Comitia Plebis itself. I am
troubled by the fact that a provocatio in the Comitia Populi Tributa
would be used as a means to in effect recall a magistrate who was
elected in another Comitia. Actually, I do not think that such a
question can be put to the Comitia Populi Tributa. Galerius
Paulinus and any others can ask the CPT to affirm his or her right
to stand as a candidate in any election. I do not see that anyone
denies him that right, and so I question whether his provocatio has
any real merit. But could the Comitia Populi Tributa also be asked
to recall censores, consules, and praetores? Doesn't this matter go
back to what you quoted from Cordus, "Only the concilium plebis can
confer tribunicia potestas, and therefore only the concilium plebis
can determine whether tribunicia potestas has been lost or
retained." If the matter were brought before the Comitia Plebis
Tributa, it would decide whether there is in fact a vacancy, and
therefore whether an election should be held. However the Comitia
Plebis Tributa would decide would also determine if Galerius
Paulinus could exercise his right to stand as a candidate, and thus
either way remove the basis for his declaring for provocatio. But
without the Comitia Plebis Tributa making such a determination, any
decision of the Comitia Populi Tributa in this matter has no real
bearing. Thus again I question whether the provocatio of Galerius
as it stands has any real merit.

In Roma Antiqua an "appeal to the people," which is a provocatio,
was not limited to any single Comitia, or indeed to any Comitia. A
civis could simply declare for his right to provocatio in the Forum,
and then it would be determined where such an appeal should be
heard. In such a case as this the provocatio would had to have been
heard before the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Of course the Constitution
of Nova Roma does not allow for this. Only if a Tribunus Plebis
called the Comitia Plebis Tributa to assemble on this question of
whether a vacancy exists, and a majority of the other Tribuni upheld
such a convocation of the Comitia, can we get a decision to end this
matter.

I would ask that the assembly of the Comitia Populi Tributa to hear
the provocatio of Galerius Paulinus be postponed for now. I would
also ask that Galerius Paulinus withdraw his declaration for
provocatio with the understanding, and at such time, that the
Comitia Plebis Tributa is convoked to hear this underlying question
of whether a vacancy exists in the office of Tribunus Plebis, or if
the Tribuni admit to having made an error and therefore hold the
necessary election of a Tribunus suffectus. As a Plebeian civis I
therefore appeal to the Tribuni Plebis to consider taking such
action, convoking the Comitia Plebia Tributa to hear the question,
where a decision should be rightfully made. In that way the Tribuni
Plebis uphold the right of an individual civis to provocatio, remove
the constitutional problem of one Comitia attempting to interfer in
the affairs of another Comitia, and removes the potential for a lot
of unnecessary argument on what could turn into a constitutional
dilemma. Let the Quirites decide who should be Tribunus Plebis, and
let that decision be made in the rightful place, in the Comitia
Plebis Tributa.


Valete optime
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano P. Minuciae-Tiberiae
> Straboni M. Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> Piscinus Horatianus, you wrote:
>
> "It would seem to me then to be a third kind of situation, the
Tribuni
> Plebis exercising their authority collectively to interpret how the
> law should be applied in a given situation. I would grant that
such an
> exercise of authority could impact negatively on an individual
civis,
> but is that really the case here? Who was actually affected by this
> action of the Tribuni Plebis? What you claim is that Galerius
Paulinus
> lost the right to seek an office he did not hold against the right
of
> Saturninus to retain an office to which he was legally elected and
> which the Tribuni Plebis determined he still held...If that is the
> question, then the matter is not one of an action taken that
impacts
> negatively on an individual civis. Rather, you point to a question
of
> constitutional law. Who are given the greatest responsibility for
> determining the constitutionality of the action of any magistrate,
if
> not the Tribuni Plebis collectively? Are you questioning their
> authority to make such a determination?"
>
>
> CATO: Yes. Exactly. And why do I feel that this is actionable?
> First and foremost, because the tribunes, no matter what other
> authority they have, do not have the right to interpret the law.
They
> are not a Constitutional court; they merely have the authority to
> "apply" the law. Once resigned, his office returned (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. As Apollonius Cordus once wrote:
>
> "Tribuni plebis, our fellow-plebeian Galerius Paulinus is clearly
> becoming desperate, and it is quite apparent that he is not going
to
> accept Saturninus as tribune under the current circumstances. In my
> view he is quite correct not to do so. Whether your legal analysis
is
> correct or not, the fact remains that it was not within your
> competence to decide this matter. Only the concilium plebis can
> confer tribunicia potestas, and therefore only the concilium plebis
> can determine whether tribunicia potestas has been lost or
retained.
> Until you allow the plebs to make its own ruling, you are usurping
the
> authority of those from whom you derive your authority."
>
>
> Senator Pompeia Strabo, the matter of precedent has no grounds
here.
> 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?
>
>
> Caius Curius Saturninus, in Post #32025, wrote:
> "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."
>
> 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. His office became vacant.
> Galerius Paulinus decided, upon seeing a vacancy, that he wished to
> run for that office. The tribunes, usurping the authority of the
> People, met in private and simply announced their decision in the
> Forum --- that they thought Curius Saturninus never resigned, in
> direct contradiction to Curius Saturninus'own words --- and so were
> admitting him, with full tribunician potestas, into the tribunate.
> Galerius Paulinus was therefore denied the right to run for office
not
> based on any Constitutional authority but on the decision of a
> magistrate. His rights, as a citizen, were violated, and this in
> itself causes a direct negative impact.
>
>
> Marca Hortensia, you yourself wrote:
>
> "So I agree. Fuscus seems to think since he and the other tribunes
> said it is 'not so' that this is the end of the problem. Not so at
> all, the illegality is still there, agreement or bad precedent does
> not vitiate that fact. By returning the matter to the plebs, from
> whom the power derives we are both historically correct and
just....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?"
>
> Titus Octavius Salvius wrote:
>
> "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."
>
>
>
> Piscinus Horatianus, you wrote:
>
> "Galerius Paulinus has a right to stand as a candidate in any
election
> held for an office for which he is eligible to hold...From what you
> say, does it not follow that all eligible Plebeians were affected
by
> the determination and not just Galerius Paulinus alone?"
>
> CATO: Yes, but only Galerius Paulinus feels it is necessary to call
> them to account for it. Just because he alone is standing up, does
> not make his voice any less important, or the situation less
grievous.
> Your own words support the reason for the provocatio: Galerius
> Paulinus does indeed have that right, and that right was taken away
> from him by the decision made, unConstitutionally, by the tribunes.
> I say allow the provocatio to go forth, let the People hear and
> decide. It is their authority which gives imperium, potestas, and
> sainctitas. It is their rights which are being abrogated by the
> usurpation of unConstitutional authority on the part of the
tribunes.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36434 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano S.P.D.

Salve Moravius Horatianus.

> Technically an individual Tribunus Plebis, or the Tribuni
> collectively, cannot exercise their power of intercessio without
> making a constitutional review. Since each Tribunus Plebis has an
> authority for constitutional review, they can be seen collectively
> to form a de facto Constitutional Court. However such authority
> resolves out of the Comitia Plebis, and thus the Comitia Plebis
> would have to be regarded as a higher Constitutional Court than all
> the Tribuni combined. That is, that the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> becomes a Constitutional Court over certain matters under its
> perview, as is the case here.

CATO: This is a particularly fascinating area of our law which must
be investigated. I have long been a champion of doing away with the
rigid, written Constitution; it is entirely unhistoric and trying to
work within its framework is nearly impossible sometimes since we base
our government and laws on a system which would not have recognized or
understood the need or desire for such a written constitution. As we
see (and as Apollonius Cordus has pointed out), it causes severe
difficulties and endless, usually circular, discussions.

> You, Equiti, and with Cordus and Octavius Salvius in what you
> quoted, and I as well, agree that in the matter of whether
> Saturninus now rightfully holds the office of Tribunus Plebis, it is
> a decision that should be left to the Comitia Plebis itself. I am
> troubled by the fact that a provocatio in the Comitia Populi Tributa
> would be used as a means to in effect recall a magistrate who was
> elected in another Comitia. Actually, I do not think that such a
> question can be put to the Comitia Populi Tributa.

CATO: I would say that any Comitia called in accordance with the law
could deal with any question put before it. The voice of the People
is the highest possible authority in the Republic. In a case such as
this, I think that the Comitia Populi Tributa might actually be more
appropriate, because this deals with an incident upon which a crucial
question of law and government is hanging, and therefore affects the
government of the Republic as a whole.

We wait now for Memmius Albucius to put forth a call for the Comitia
Populi Tributa; if it is upheld and Galerius Paulinus is heard in the
Comitia, my strategy (legal adversaries, please skip to the part below
where I say "Valete bene") would be to have the Comitia Populi Tributa
vote to have the Comitia Plebis called to decide the issue of the
vacancy. I know it seems petty to some, as there are really only four
months or so left to the term, but the matter is broader than just
Curius Saturninus (and should be, as this has absolutely nothing to do
with his personal character as a citizen) and needs to be addressed.
There was some talk after the first heated arguments about the vacancy
about adopting a new lex regarding resignations, but after several
sugestions ( I had many, naturally, as I find it difficult to keep my
yap shut) it died out. It needs to be taken up (as was promised) and
addressed.

Valete bene!

Cato

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36435 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
M. Hortensia T. Iulio Dacibusque spd;
Many congratulations on the founding of your province!
May Magna Mater preserve your province and the gods
bless you for your pious act in bringing about
their return.
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36436 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Marca Hortensia A. Apollonio Quiritibus spd;

Salvete: I have snipped the very cogent remarks of A.
Apollonius in this matter. In my opinion the productive way forward
is to enact legislation, not drag Nova Roma through a lawsuit that
none of us are prepared for.

In this spirit I appeal to Ti. Galerius Paulinus to withdraw his
petition.
Tiberius Galerius, it will only increase your dignitas to spare
Nova Roma a lawsuit that involves only your interest, and, instead ,
help draw up a new historically-based law for provocatio.

Let us agree that at the time of the November election your
expectation was that a year would pass before you could become
tribune again. So in this respect you have suffered no harm. 4
months will swiftly pass and you can again stand for tribune.

Additionally, this is unfair to Caius Curius Saturninus. At
the time of his resignation, his expectation was that he could
easily withdraw it. He was mistaken, but I do not see the purpose of
a year long battle. Frankly it is cruel.

Quirites, let us do something positive rather than negative, I
ask that we remove ourselves to the NR Laws list and work on writing
historical legislation and pass it. Let us work together rather than
against one another.

Tiberius Galerius, I am waiting for you.
bene valete in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

> I think it's pretty clear what's gone wrong in this
> case. Historical practice has been overruled without
> due care and attention. It's
> got us into a mess. With the historical definition,
> it's easy to tell whether provocatio is applicable or
> not:>
>
>
his intention to bring forward a proposal to
> narrow the scope of provocatio. That's where progress
> is to be found.>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36437 From: Sextus Apollonius Scipio Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Dacia : Festival, Oath of Office, Edictum I, II.
Salvete,

I wish you all the best and congratulations. Forming a new Provincia (or beginning from
scratch as in Gallia) is a very unique experience as you feel overwhelmed, excited and
humbled by the task to be done. And so, there is not a doubt in my mind that our
Provinciae have much in common and much to share. Our Legate Publius Memmius Albucius
will be at the Conventus representing Gallia. If I well understood some of your citizens
will be there too. It will be a wonderful time (and location) to meet and share. (and
with others too)

Valete,

> I , Titus Iulius Sabinus, sworn today in front of the Gods and those present here my
> oath of faithfulness towards the Roman Senate and the Novaromans.


Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36438 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (re...
M.Hortensia Maior G. Fabio Bueto spd;
Salve;
I suggest you pick up your history book Buteo Minor. During the
time of the battle between the plebians and the patricians in Rome
there were tribunes of the plebs who were declared 'nefas'.
I asked about and researched this issue before I declared my
candidacy.
As for being 'nefas' you as pontifex, augur, and flamen voted for
this. Just undo your handiwork or not. It is up to you.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior
Caput Officina Censoris
Iuriis et Inuestigatio CFB


She is now known as Marca Hortensia Maior.
>
> I do not see anyone who has been judged Nefas as being sacrosanct.
>
> Valete;
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36439 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Salvete omnes.

Regardless of what the decision of Memmius Albucius is we need to
consider a few salient lessons from this situation.

Firstly, and to me most importantly, we have once again been landed
in a very convoluted situation thanks to a well meaning but
ultimately poorly written, ill-considered and leaky constitution.
Worse still it is a constitution that starts from the premise of
being the definitive authority for Nova Roma. In order to achieve
this it has subverted the rights of the people to decide their own
fate, and yet falls short – woefully short – of being in any sense a
source of "authority".

The possibility that at some point we may decide to construct
a "constitutional court", whether a formal standing one or an ad-hoc
one created de-facto from one of the assemblies, is a ghastly one.
This will only compound bad law with inevitably bad or second-rate
decisions. Such a court could not overturn sections; just interpret
the more mystifying ones. The interpretative decisions that it could
make would be constrained by the inherent existing language and
constructs in the constitution. The choice will be to interpret an
offending section in such a way that it becomes:

a) More practical yet even more historically deviant

b) More historic but even more confusing due to so many "missing
parts" of the process (as per Cordus's classic example of how much
we lack a defined administrative process for applying provocatio)

c) Totally impractical and totally un-historic.

Some laws, just as some court orders in the macronational world,
cannot be successfully interpreted. Sometimes you need to completely
re-write sections of laws or orders, but in our case given the
existing paucity of process and definitions we cannot even
successfully re-write the wretched thing in part. We would have to
start completely again.

I concur with Cordus, Cato and others that the time is right, most
definitely in the light of this latest example, to start moving
towards life without a constitution. At some point we have to trust
the people and the reason we are all here. We can live without a
constitution, Nova Roma is no more likely to collapse into mush
without it, but as long as we keep it the people will never enjoy
the sovereignty that their ancient Roman counterparts did, and, on a
less philosophical note, the more likely we are to be locked into
these sorts of hair pulling and totally avoidable (providing we
return to rule by law from the people rather than the dictates of a
flawed document) hair-pulling and frustrating messes.

Secondly, regardless of whether we have the gumption to free
ourselves from the shackles of this rigid constitution, in the short
term we need to decide how to deal with all these inconsistencies
that crop up. Do we simply, as has been suggested, say "Ooops
another blooper. Ok let's validate everything that has been done to
date and fix it so no more bloopers occur"? That is indeed the
simplest, yet it perpetuates what are perceived to be iniquities or
at the very least inconsistencies. Does a citizen like Paulinus have
to be told, "Thanks (we think) for identifying an issue, but no
redress for you only prevention of future problems"? The
constitution cannot be ignored – oh that it could – but it can't. We
have this millstone around our necks, but as long as it is there we
have to follow the meandering and overgrown paths it lays out for
us. We cannot simply gloss over someone's rights.

Does Paulinus have the right to claim provocatio? Frankly who knows.
Again – a total utter mess. Why not instead employ the dictum of
protection of the rights of the individual citizen? The Tribunes
historically existed to prevent coercion and oppression – a
simplistic summary and not all-inclusive – but for our purposes here
a sufficient definition. Paulinus is actually in my view being
oppressed by the constitution, due to its lack of clarity.

This document has supremacy even above the people. Yes, yes, it can
be changed, but until it is practically the people are subordinate
to it. Magistrates are subordinate to it. The constitution is the
cause of the current confusion. Since we cannot say for sure, as
Cordus has demonstrated, whether provocatio can even be claimed here
thanks to the constitution's failings, we should move to ensure that
the rights of an individual citizen are not trampled as a result of
the failings of the supreme authority in Nova Roma.

Dictator Constitution is the oppressor here, due to its inherent
weakness and lack of clarity. Laws, and by definition constitutions,
should be written for the benefit of people. That such constitutions
become masters of the people, that individuals can find their rights
actually non-existent under a constitution so poorly defined,
clearly demonstrates to me the need to ensure that in such
situations as this that the individual is elevated and protected.
Cordus asks who the defendant is. To me it should be the
constitution. We should be trying the constitution – not Paulinus or
any other citizen that in the future finds himself or herself in
this invidious position. Not even Curius Saturninus should be "on-
trial" in any sense in any proceedings that may follow.

Allow the provocatio and protect the individual. Allow one of the
people, if only for a moment, to be supreme over this flawed and
annoying thing. If we are to interpret, as we must until we rid
ourselves of this turbulent document, let us simply interpret that
the right of a citizen to be free from oppression is the only
meaning that provocatio can have in Nova Roma.

Historically it was protection from death or corporal punishment.
This was coercion – in its ultimate and limited form. The power of
the state exercised through magistrates upon the neck or back of a
citizen. Today the coercion and oppression is that of the
constitution when due to its flawed and imprecise nature a citizen
cannot even determine what his rights are or are not.

This failure of the constitution is the coercion that provactio
should defend the individual from. So we do not need, I say, to
decide if Paulinus's right to provocatio is based on deprivation of
his right to stand as a candidate. Let us interpret it that his
right to provocatio exists solely due to the inability of the
constitution to effectively determine that. The constitution has
failed him and us, again. Let us return sovereignty to the people,
where it should rightfully and permanently sit, if only for the
moment of deciding this matter.

Thirdly and lastly, and yes I feel it has to be said, let us
consider how this could have been prevented. Cordus has said that it
would be better to move around this issue. Well I suppose it would
cause a lot less ruffled feathers and potential hurt feelings, but
that is why precisely this issue has come to the point that it has.
A resignation of one Tribune led to this situation. Once it became
clear that this mess was unfolding I suggest that Curius Saturninus
should have declined to sit as a Tribune and submitted himself to
the plebs for ratification. That was the time to think of the good
of Nova Roma, not of who was right or wrong. Seek the confirmation
and affirmation of the plebs and continue with one's office, if
successfully endorsed, with this matter put firmly to bed, but oh
no – that would have been too simple and dare I say it too selfless.

Did anyone here think for a moment this was just going to go away?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense should have known this would
plague us from the point the controversy started. Since we cannot
even determine, clearly and to the satisfaction of all, if he is
legally a Tribune (I for one don't believe for a moment he is, but I
am but one voice only and a patrician to boot), and since this has
without a shadow of a doubt dogged his entire term in office and
will continue to do so to the moment he surrenders it, he should
have submitted himself to the will of the plebs to determine the
matter once and for all. That course of action was raised before and
the counter to that was that there was no need, no right, no
authority etc. etc. for such a thing. Well the price that we have
paid for such dogmatic and personal partisanship is that we are
still discussing this and Saturninus has, to me, been rendered a
lame duck Tribune. Is he one – isn't he one? Can he interpose a
veto – can he not? This has diminished the effectiveness of
Saturninus, of the Tribunes as a whole body and reduced our focus on
more pressing issues – such as the size of our population and the
state of our Treasury.

Can all those that consider elected office take a moment to think
whether they can commit the hours? Can they consider whether they
have the resolve and the will to continue and not, as is apparently
an established custom, either vanish, fade from view into total
inaction? Can they avoid running screaming from our forum with
undergarments draped over one's head yelling and wailing in petulant
outrage at some issue or another, out of the gates resigning
everything only to come knocking on the door a few days later or to
be coaxed back by one's friends? It really is demeaning to the
individual and to Nova Roma as a whole.

If these situations arise, does Nova Roman citizenship mean so
little that one cannot take a deep breath, take the counsel of
friends and colleagues, recall that oath of office, and try to deal
with personal upsets and yet remain true and faithful to all the
fine words about the Republic that are spoken at election times and
then it seems at times of crisis, promptly forgotten?

Why cannot people be true to themselves and their word? There are
times to pursue ones "political career" in Nova Roma with gusto and
determination and there are times to put the Republic above personal
self-interest or beliefs in right and wrong. This was one of those
times, but it didn't happen. It should have. If others face similar
tests of resolve, be true to your oath, to your promises and do what
is best for Nova Roma.

How can we build anything worthwhile if ones word and deeds and
actions are at times of obvious crisis worth nothing?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36440 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: My request for Provocatio
Salve Romans

I have been reading the debate today and yesterday on my request for Provocatio and it has occurred to me that we have all put the cart before the horse.

It is rather simple.

Ruling on the merits of my appeal rests SOLELY with the Comitia Populi Tributa. No other body and no individual can pass judgment on the merit or lack of merit of my appeal. Anybody can have an opinion but only the Comitia Populi Tributa can RULE on the merits of my Provocatio.

The historical use of Provocatio is not at issue here, what is at issue is the application or to my mind the misapplication of Nova Roman law and a blatant disregard for the plain language of the Nova Roman Constitution.

The LEX EQUITIA GALERIA DE ORIDNARIIS and the Senate ratification of it amended the constitution, before any of this years magistrates took office, to read:

Article IV "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." ....

This is a complete and independent clause that is now enshrined in the Constitution of Nova Roma. It is superior to any lex and is a CLEAR statement of when an office becomes vacant. There is not one Lex in Nova Roma that states that once resigned a magistrate has a grace period to reconsider. None. The Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda, as amended last year deals with the resignation of and ONLY the resignation of citizenship. Even if there was a lex that dealt with a magistrates resignation it could not supercede the CLEAR language of the constitution as amended.

The Tribunes have taken an action that I believe has had a negative impact on me and for that matter on all Plebeians who may have wanted to stand for election to a vacancy that I believe did and does in fact still exist.

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.

Valete,
Caius Curius Saturninus...



It does not matter at this stage in the process if I am the ONLY person on the planet who believes this. The Constitution of Nova Roma states in Article II section B paragraph 5 "The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi tributa;".

The are no attendant causes that states that this right can be exercised only if this or that magistrate agrees and calls the Comitia Populi Tributa.

I believe that the actions of the Tribunes have had a direct negative impact on me and I have a right to appeal their decision. I have done so.

Now this is an absolute right guaranteed by the Constitution of Nova Roma. Nowhere in the Nova Roman Constitution is the power given to any body or individual to prevent my appeal being heard . The only thing the magistrates empowered to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa can do at this stage is to CALL the Comitia Populi Tributa to hear my appeal.

No magistrate in Nova Roma, and this would include the Tribunes have the authority to prevent an appeal being heard.

Ruling on the merits of my appeal rests SOLELY with the Comitia Populi Tributa. No other body and no individual can pass judgment on the merits or lack of merit of my appeal.

I respectfully request that one of the Tribunes, Consuls or Praetors who are empower to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa do so so that my appeal can be heard.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36441 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia!

you wrote:

"Quirites, let us do something positive rather than negative, I
ask that we remove ourselves to the NR Laws list and work on writing
historical legislation and pass it. Let us work together rather than
against one another."

CATO: With all due respect, we struggled with creating a lex
regarding resignations, were promised some kind of action, and yet
nothing has come of it. I distinctly remember posting version after
version, proposal after proposal, of a lex regarding resignations, and
yet nothing came of it. I have already tried what you refer to as
"positive action", but there was no response. If this issue is taken
over into the Laws List, I fear that once more it will be forgotten.
Better to act in the Forum, with the whole Republic watching. If the
People get tired of hearing this stuff being thrown around constantly,
then maybe the presence of the People watching it unfold will
encourage some kind of action. This is another reason why I support
the use of the provocatio: whether or not you might think it
embarrassing, or the equivalent of airing dirty laundry, or whatever,
obviously other attempts to solve the problem have had no response.
Perhaps if the People speak, the magistrates will listen?

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36442 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Salve Tribune Marca Hortensia Maior

MHM: "not drag Nova Roma through a lawsuit that none of us are prepared for"

TGP I am appealing the actions of a magistrate and all I seek is justice.

Nova Roma should always be prepared for justice.

MHM "Tiberius Galerius, it will only increase your dignitas to spare
Nova Roma a lawsuit that involves only your interest, and, instead ,
help draw up a new historically-based law for provocatio."


TGP: This is not about the need for a more "historically-based law for provocatio"
It is simply the application of current law and the rights of a citizen that are
enshrined in the Nova Roman constitution.

My dignitas would suffer even more if I simply when along to get along.

The Tribunes have made a decision that is wrong as to law, the constitution and just plain common sense.
The cannot also pass judgment on how or when or if their decision is appealed. If they can then justice in NR is at an end!

MHM "Let us agree that at the time of the November election your
expectation was that a year would pass before you could become
tribune again. So in this respect you have suffered no harm. 4
months will swiftly pass and you can again stand for tribune."

TGP: I try and abide by Nova Roman law. No magistrate can stand for reelection for the office they currently hold but once the term is up and a vacancy in any office comes up in the following year they are absolutely free to stand for election.

I was prevented from doing this along with every other Plebian.

This has never been about my election as Tribune it is about the rule or even the miss-rule of law!


MHM: "Additionally, this is unfair to Caius Curius Saturninus. At
the time of his resignation, his expectation was that he could
easily withdraw it. He was mistaken, but I do not see the purpose of
a year long battle. Frankly it is cruel.

TGP: What is truly cruel is that I am being made out to be the villain in this case when in fact there are no villains.

All I want is for a body SUPERIOR to the Tribunes, and yes that would be the CPT or the CPT to state they were right in their application of the law or not.


MHM: "Quirites, let us do something positive rather than negative, I ask that we remove ourselves to the NR Laws list and work on writing
historical legislation and pass it. Let us work together rather than against one another."

TGP: How is asking for my day in court negative???? How is fighting for the rule of law BAD???

Pax

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36443 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.

As regards legislation, I promise to call and submit to the
Comitia for a vote, legislation that redefines an historical
provocatio, as well as one for magistrate resignations. If there are
more issues I will submit them as well in one bundle.

At the very latest let us call for a date in October to give
us enough time to do a proper job. Gai Equiti look to the calendar
and choose the date.

Let us now begin constructive work either here on the ML or
the Laws list.
bene valete
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36444 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.

Salve, Marca Hortensia.

You wrote:

"Additionally, this is unfair to Caius Curius Saturninus. At
the time of his resignation, his expectation was that he could
easily withdraw it. He was mistaken, but I do not see the purpose of
a year long battle. Frankly it is cruel."

CATO: Marca Hortensia, I love debating with you :-) It is a
delightful exercize. You are using another fallacious argument: the
"appeal to pity", or "argumentum ad misercordiam". It is incorrect to
use the idea of "empathy" to counter an action that would simply make
it absolutely clear that resigning a magistracy carries with it the
fact that the magistracy from which the citizen resigned cannot simply
be picked up again if they happen to change their mind. We are not
talking about a situation in which emotional appeal should be
rendered; this is the government of the res publica, and the future
and health of the res publica are more important than any single
individual. In turn, you cannot dismiss the idea that magistrates are
indeed held to a higher standard, because they *should* be; that's why
the People have entrusted the care and governance of the res publica
to them.

An appeal to emotion is ... well, appealing, but I think misdirected
when discussing a situation such as the resignation of a magistracy.
I think you have the emotional well-being of your fellow-citizens at
heart, and your concerns are both understandable and commendable, but
a larger picture is being drawn here, and the res publica must come
first. I agree that there may come a time in *anyone's* life where
they must take a step back and concentrate on other facets of their
life; they should not be "punished" for that. However, we must also
accept the responsibility of a magistracy and realize that it *should*
be removed if a citizen resigns --- and removed immediately. Anything
that is serious enough that it makes a citizen feel compelled to
renounce their citizenship can only be assumed to be serious enough to
distract them from their magisterial duties, to the detriment of the
res publica. Anyone who accepts a magistracy must know this going in.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36445 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: My request for Provocatio
G. Equitius Cato Consules et Praetores Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salvete illustri.

WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:

"II.Citizens and Gentes

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

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

WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
impact" whatsoever, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
definitions on their own, and

WHEREAS, as there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
deny the right of provocatio, and

WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,

THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.

No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
Constitution guarantees it.

Valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36446 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.

Salve tribunus plebis.

You do not have the authority to issue an intercessio against the
action of a citizen.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
> Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
> provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36447 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Salve Maior.

I don't think you can interpose a veto legally. of course once again
we are faced with a section of the constitution that doesn't
specifically in my view cover this situation. S.IV.A.7.a grants a
Tribune the right to veto, amongst other things laws that offend
either the letter or spirit of the consitution or other laws. Yet in
S.II.B.5 the right of provactio is enshrined. Equally in this section
provactio is related to the actions of a Magistrate. In S.IV.A.7 a
Tribune is defined as a Magistrate.

As - no surprise - we have t interpret these sections as to meaning,
it is to me clear that the primary reason for being abale to veto a
law is where it conflicts with another law or the constitituion
itself. That much I think we can all agree on. However the you don't
have the power to veto one section of the constitution in favour of
another. Since S.II.B.5 is the earlier section of the constitution we
could argue under interpretative principle that it takes precedence (
ye Gods we are back at the question of the principles of
interpretation again!). Simplistic but a view point. In any case I
don't believe you can use S.IV.A.7.a to eradicate the right granted
under S.II.B.5. That right is established in the constitution itself.
The purpose, I feel, of S.IV.A.7.a is to prevent conflicts under
future laws. It doesn't even address satisfactorily whether one
section of the constitution can be unconstitutional.

In short you are trying to use a section of the constitution designed
to impose a block on conflicts between higher and lower authorities
(as defined under S.I.B. to defeat a right granted under the
constitution itself. That is, I contend, unconstitutional.

Finally even if you don't accept that, Paulinus could claim provocatio
against your veto under S.II.B.5. You are a magistrate. You have made
a decision to interpose a veto, or if you prefer a decision that his
original call to provacatio was unconstitutional. Either way it all
adds up to the same thing, a (I contend) second negative impact on
Paulinus in that his first call to provacatio by being denied created
in itself a negative impact. My firendly advice to Paulinus and his
advocate Cato is to consider the fact that the consitution appears to
allow for another call to provocatio to callenge the decision of the
Tribune.

Oh dear. This wrecthed, yet supreme, document appears to have created
a never ending circle. Provocatio leads to veto which leads to
provocatio which leads to veto which leads to provocatio - off into
the realms of infinity. So how do we now decide what section of the
constitution takes prccedence?

As I have said the answer lies in your interpretation of the right to
employ a veto against a constitutionally enshrined right of an
individual citizen. I don't believe you have the right enshrined in
the constitution to interpret whether Paulinus has a case originally
for provocatio. It simply states, as he himself has said, that there
has to be a negative imapct. It doesn't define what that is - so I
feel he is quite justified in saying in effect "I say its negative
therefore it is". You might have had a stronger case in my view had
S.IV.A.7.a included private citizens against whom the veto could be
used or an interpretation of the constitution (in other words set up
the Tribunes as validators of interpretation) - but it doesn't.

I really feel that your veto is unconstitutional.

Vale
Caesar




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
> Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
> provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.
>
> As regards legislation, I promise to call and submit to the
> Comitia for a vote, legislation that redefines an historical
> provocatio, as well as one for magistrate resignations. If there are
> more issues I will submit them as well in one bundle.
>
> At the very latest let us call for a date in October to give
> us enough time to do a proper job. Gai Equiti look to the calendar
> and choose the date.
>
> Let us now begin constructive work either here on the ML or
> the Laws list.
> bene valete
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36448 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio G. Equitioque spd;
Salvete, excuse the inelegance & confusion that veto is meant
to be for A. Memmius, tribune if he calls the Comitia.
I agree with you Gnaee Iuli and hope to see the Constitution
abolished too, but on the way, an historical turn would mean that all
cives, American, European, Australian, South American would have a
common reference in understanding and analyzing the law: the laws and
practice of Republican Rome.

bene valete
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36449 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Cato to Caesar
G. Equitius Cato Gn. Iulio Caesari S.P.D.

Salve, Gnaeus Caesar.

The right to issue a tribunician intercessio applies as follows:

"Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs
shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting
one year. They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall have the
following honors, powers, and obligations:

1. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the
actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator
and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious
decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter
of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus
Consulta or leges are being violated thereby; once a pronouncement of
intercessio has been made, the other Tribunes may, at their
discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement with
that intercessio." - Constitution of Nova Roma, IV.B.7.1

Note: there is no provision for an intercessio against the action of a
private citizen. Not even the wildest eisegesis of the Constitution
supports such an intercessio. Galerius Paulinus has brought the
provocatio as a private citizen; indeed, he has been very careful to
sign himself "citizen".

This being so, there simply is no intercessio against which to call
for another provocatio.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36450 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.

Salve, Marca Hortensia.

Again with all due respect, you cannot pronounce an intercessio
against an action which has not taken place.

I wholeheartedly stand for the abolition of the written Constitution,
but it would be replaced by the laws of NOVA Roma, not the ancient
Republic --- a very important distinction :-)

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio G. Equitioque spd;
> Salvete, excuse the inelegance & confusion that veto is meant
> to be for A. Memmius, tribune if he calls the Comitia.
> I agree with you Gnaee Iuli and hope to see the Constitution
> abolished too, but on the way, an historical turn would mean that all
> cives, American, European, Australian, South American would have a
> common reference in understanding and analyzing the law: the laws and
> practice of Republican Rome.
>
> bene valete
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36451 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Salve Maior.

Thank you for the clarification. I fear that we are still in a bit of
a pickle. You have interposed a veto against a Tribune, with the
indirect consequence of negating Paulinus's constitutional right to
provocatio by blocking your colleague from putting the matter before
the people.

I think the earlier section and the one that protects the rights of an
individual citizen takes precedence here. Surely you agree that if
there is an inherent conflict in the constitution itself, we should
always protect the rights of an individual?

Vale
Caesar



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio G. Equitioque spd;
> Salvete, excuse the inelegance & confusion that veto is
meant
> to be for A. Memmius, tribune if he calls the Comitia.
> I agree with you Gnaee Iuli and hope to see the Constitution
> abolished too, but on the way, an historical turn would mean that
all
> cives, American, European, Australian, South American would have a
> common reference in understanding and analyzing the law: the laws
and
> practice of Republican Rome.
>
> bene valete
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36452 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
M. Hortensia G. Equitio spd;
dear Gai Equiti, you confuse my argument with a rhetorical
device. I am balancing justice with fairness.

You are Paulinus's advocate and you see this case as an opportunity
to make your legal name and secure a win for your client. You are
acting jin a proper Roman manner just as an ambitious young Cicero
would

But my situation is different. As tribune I have a duty to the
Quirites. I am not a judge who must stick only to the law, I am also
a politician and I must look to the welfare of the res publica.

You also mention a 'resignation of a magistracy' as Cordus has
pointed out we are both engaged in vain circular arguments. I see no
legal resignation; you do.

I see the future and that is it is for the benefit of all cives to
have explicit, historical and sensible laws than for us to engage in
months of legal wrangling over an issue which even Cordus says is
not clear.

So please G. Equiti, choose a date in October for me to present
the laws to the Comitia.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP





. However, we must also
> accept the responsibility of a magistracy and realize that it
*should*
> be removed if a citizen resigns --- and removed immediately.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36453 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
Salve Tribune


The Constitution of Nova Roma gives me a citizen acting in my capacity as a citizen the RIGHT of Provocatio. It is the act of a PRIVATE CITIZEN AND NOT THE ACTION OF A MAGISTRATE.

YOU CAN NOT VETO THE ACTIONS OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De provocatione


M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.

As regards legislation, I promise to call and submit to the
Comitia for a vote, legislation that redefines an historical
provocatio, as well as one for magistrate resignations. If there are
more issues I will submit them as well in one bundle.

At the very latest let us call for a date in October to give
us enough time to do a proper job. Gai Equiti look to the calendar
and choose the date.

Let us now begin constructive work either here on the ML or
the Laws list.
bene valete
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP









SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA>
The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=05P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36454 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
M. Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
Salve Tiberi Galeri,
at this point you are no longer making sense by just saying 'give
me justice'. I suggest you read the words below of your praeceptor
in the Roman Law Course and have the humility to follow them. I
certainly will.
vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

> CORDUS: In my heart I hope he will simply forget about
> Paulinus' provocatio and Saturninus' legitimacy. We
> know roughly where this landmine is. Let's put up lots
> of red flags around it and hang a big sign saying
> "DANGER - KEEP CLEAR".

What I want to talk about is
> Albucius' second idea, which no one seems to have
> notice: his intention to bring forward a proposal to
> narrow the scope of provocatio. That's where progress
> is to be found.

Whatever we do about Saturninus and
> Paulinus, it's just going to cause a big row and
> become totally irrelevant at the end of the year
> anyway. Let's concentrate on getting it right next
> time. Let's sort out the law on provocatio.

Let's sort
> out the law on resignations. Let's sort out the
> tribunes, the constitution, and everything else. But
> let's start with provocatio, and let's hear what the
> tribune proposes. If he wants my assistance with that
> proposal, I encourage him to get in touch.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36455 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-23
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia!

To whom are you being fair? For whom are the scales of Justice being
weilded?

Galerius Paulinus? You are trying to prevent a private citizen from
exercizing a right guaranteed by the Constitution, without any
reasonable argument against his doing so.

Memmius Albucius? He hasn't even placed an "official" call to the
comitia populi tributa, which, by the way, he cannot do: he can only
call the comitia plebis tributa to order in accordance with our
Constitution (see IV.A.7.d.2); this is why I published my official
call to the Consuls and Praetors, as they are the only magistrates
empowered to call the comitia populi tributa to order (see IV.A.2.c
and IV.A.3.c).

The People? By not allowing them a voice in a decision that affects
the government of the Republic?

This is Justice? This is fairness?

An announcement that:

"Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus."

Means exactly what it says, and it is unconstitutional and therefore
null and void. You say:

"As tribune I have a duty to the Quirites. I am not a judge who must
stick only to the law, I am also a politician and I must look to the
welfare of the res publica."

This is entirely wrong. According to our Constitution, your duty as a
tribune is *precisely* to stick to the law "when the spirit and/or
letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta,
Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" (Const. N.R.,
IV.A.7.a) and "[t]o administer the law" (op.cit. IV.A.7.d.iii) for the
express purpose of protecting the People from abuse.

You say:

"I see the future and that is it is for the benefit of all cives to
have explicit, historical and sensible laws than for us to engage in
months of legal wrangling over an issue which even Cordus says is
not clear."

I say that it is for the benefit of the People that we create an
atmosphere in which private citizens are protected by the laws and
Constitution that exist *now* until we have a viable alternative. If
it takes months of "legal wrangling" then so be it. The future of the
Republic is dependent upon the will of the People; the protection of
the People by vigorous adherence to the laws and Constitution is the
highest task entrusted to a government, and I cannot stand and watch
this trust abused, even unintentionally.

You know that I have sent proposals to the Consuls regarding a new,
"explicit, historical, and sensible" law regarding the resignation of
magistracies --- yet nothing has come of it. You know that I have
argued vehemently in favor of adopting a more Republican model of
government --- without a written Constitution. In turn, I know that
you respect the law to an awesome degree, and you have declared your
absolute dedication to the overarching authority vested in the will of
the People.

But we are both caught in the tangled web that this written
Constitution has woven about us; as long as it exists, it is the
highest legal authority we have, by the will of the People. And on
this the Constitution is clear: the right of provocatio is
"guaranteed" --- not subject to the whim of any magistrate or other
authority in the Republic.

So let the People listen. Let the People decide. Let the People
speak. Vox populi vox dei.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.

P.S. - you know I'll use every rhetorical device possible to get my
point across; but I'm too old to be a "young Cicero" --- I'll stick to
being a cranky Cato :-) GEC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36456 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus G. Equitio Cato salutem plurimam
dicit. Deos ego omnis ut fortunas sint precor.

As these things usually go, trying to go around the law only leads
into greater complications and raises more difficult issues. Some of
the issues raised thus far do seem clear cut.

Galerius Paulinus clearly has "The right of provocatio; to appeal a
decision of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon that
citizen to the comitia populi tributa" under II.B.5. He has
exercised his right, and whether by an action of a magistrate or by
inaction, clearly he is now being denied his rights under the
Constitution.

IV.A.7.a does not give a Tribunus Plebis the authority to veto a
civis' call for provocatio. Also an intercessio cannot be issued
against an action that has not yet taken place, so M Hortensia Maior
Tr. Pl. cannot yet issue an intercessio on P. Memmius Albucius Tr.
Pl. in an attempt to prevent him for convoking the Comitia Plebis
Tributa, nor can she yet issue an intercessio against the consules
or praetores before they call for the Comitia Populi Tributa to
assemble.

The idea of writing new laws to better address the current situation
may be a political solution, but really it has no bearing on the
matter as it stands now. Galerius is being denied his rights as a
citizen, and I consider that to be a grave matter. I have not
offered to be his advocatus as you have. I cannot be said to have
any personal interest in the outcome of his provocatio. I am only a
simple civis, and the way I look at it is that the denial of
Galerius' rights is a denial of my rights. Also I agree with
Galerius that the merit of his provocatio cannot be judged by any
individual, magistrate or otherwise, certainly not by me alone
although I have questioned it, but only by the Comitia Populi
Tributa. So where are the consules or praetores, and where are the
other tribuni plebis, on this matter of assembling the Comitia
Populi Tributa?


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
<snippet>
> We wait now for Memmius Albucius to put forth a call for the
Comitia
> Populi Tributa; if it is upheld and Galerius Paulinus is heard in
the
> Comitia, my strategy (legal adversaries, please skip to the part
below
> where I say "Valete bene") would be to have the Comitia Populi
Tributa
> vote to have the Comitia Plebis called to decide the issue of the
> vacancy.

Well, advocate Cato, how the question is put to the Comitia Populi
Tributa is going to be especially important to the outcome. Each
Comitia is independent of the others. I have already stated my
concern with any attempt to use the Comitia Populi Tributa to
encroach upon the Comitia Plebis Tributa regarding its own internal
affairs. From your statement above it appears that we once again
agree that the separate matter of the vacancy is one that must be
addressed by the Comitia Plebis Tributa, since it does pertain to
its own internal affairs. However, if you word your question in
this fashion to compel the Comitia Plebis Tributa to consider the
separate matter of a vacancy, then I for one could not support it.

I am inclined to agree with Galerius Paulinus on what he has stated
on his own behalf, but that hinges on the Comitia Plebis Tributa
making a determination on whether a vacancy exists. If the question
is put to the Comitia Populi Tributa to make a determination of the
vacancy, then I do not think I could support such a motion as it too
IMHO attempts to infringe upon the internal affairs of the Comitia
Plebis Tributa.

Galerius Paulinus has stated that the decision of the Tribuni Plebis
to disallow the existence of a vacancy was illegal and thereby
negatively impacted on his right to pose himself as a candidate for
the vacated office. On that question I still reserve judgement. I
do not think though that a favorable outcome on this question in the
Comitia Populi Tributa resolves anything. The question still hinges
on the Comitia Plebis Tributa making a determination, and thus it
comes down to a majority of the Tribuni Plebis agreeing to put that
question before the CPT.

As these things usually go, I fear there will be no resolution of
the matter at hand, and all that is being done presently is to raise
strife in preparation for the next election of Tribuni Plebis. That
is why I appealled to the Tribuni Plebis to consider bringing before
the Comitia Plebis Tributa the matter of the vacancy, as that would
be one way to resolve the issues presently before us. Another way
could be as Marca Hortensia has proposed, for the interested parties
to meet together and compromise on a resolution. I don't know that
that is possible, but both sides need to consider the offer.

Bonam habe Fortunam, advocate Cato. I shall be interested to hear
the propositio and argumenta of your deliberativum.

Valete optime
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus


"Invenietis omnia prospera evenisse sequentibus Deos, adversa
spernentibus." (Livy V.51.5-6)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36457 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Moravius Horatianus et salvete omnes.

In the event that Galerius Paulinus is given his chance to be heard in
the comitia populi tributa, the issue at hand would not be the vacancy
in the tribunate itself; the issue is whether or not the People
believe that the tribunes have the authority to interpret the laws and
Constitution and to use that alleged authority to make standing
judgements in questions of Constitutionality and/or legality. In other
words, are the tribunes of the plebs to be considered the equivalent
of a Constitutional/Supreme Court in Nova Roma?

I have no intention of trying to "force" either the comitia populi
tributa or the comitia plebis tributa into making a specific
judgement; I only want to convcince them in turn that the question
should be raised and decided by the People. And I will use whatever
oratorical power, rhetorical skill, and historical and legal knowledge
I can muster to try to convince them that my position is the sound
one.

"Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo", as Horace said: not
by force but by persistence does a drop of water wear down a stone.

Now, I would make one thing clear to all the quirites. It is not the
intent of the provocatio or any subsequent legal action to try to
insinuate that the tribunes acted with malicious intent. I am
certainly willing to believe that they acted in good faith, to the
best of their knowledge and understanding of our Constitution and
laws. But I will try to show that their action was flawed,
unconstitutional, and as a result Galerius Paulinus has felt that the
action taken, that decision, had a direct and negative impact on him;
that he was denied a right that is afforded any qualified citizen: to
stand for an elected office.

So, even before any action moves forward, I wish to utterly reject,
publicly, any thought that this is an attack on the tribunes
individually or personally in any way. This is a matter of pure law,
not emotion; a matter of tribunician authority, not tribunician
personality. Marca Hortensia and I have thus far carried out a debate
in very Roman fashion, I believe: while I may be florid and bombastic,
I know that she understands that it is a function of legal adversaries
that has had a long and glorious history in ancient Rome and beyond.
I intend to remain on that level, and I know she will as well. Even
though she is wrong :-)

Be forwarned: I intend, quirites, to issue my call to the consuls and
praetors once every day until I hear from them acknowledging Galerius
Paulinus' right, under our Constitution, to be heard in the comitia
populi tributa.

Vale et valete bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36458 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
---P. Minucia Tiberia M. Moravio Horatio Piscinato Marca Hortensia
Maior Tribuna Omnibus S.P.D.

First off, I think I rather juxtaposed your name last night in a
post, Piscine, and I apologize. I couldn't sleep and I got up and
was still in a somewhat hypnotic state when I began to type...well,
that's my excuse :)

I am forced to agree with Horatius Piscinus in that it would be
inappropriate to pronounce intercessio per se against the rights of
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus to provocatio. They are constitutionally
mandated, as has been established via many posts.

I, personally have some difficulty perceiving any major 'direct
negative impact' but this does not nullify his rights.

However, to Marca Hortensia Maior (well, all Tribunes), I would
suggest, with respect, that you *do*, in my view, have the right to
pronounce intercessio against the *promulgation* of this particular
appeal by the Tribunes and refer it to the Consuls (I know they have
alot to do, but I think it is appropriate, truly).

The constitution grants Galerius Paulinus his right to provacatio to
the CPT, it does not specifically state it 'has' to be promulgated
by the Tribs. But it should be recognized by them.

For them to process such an appeal, it could be argued, with I
believe justification, that it places the Tribunes in a conflict of
interest situation, to wit, they would have to call the CPT to
render a judgement of magistrates who are voted in by the Comitia
Plebis Tributa, as was discussed last night. It is this assembly
*only* who should have such a judgement. This exclusivity of the
Plebian Assembly is protected by the constitution. Alternate
language was presented last year by a Tribunis Plebis, L. Arminius
Faustus giving the CPT electorial powers of the Tribunes, but it was
not adopted. So, it is the will of the people that the Comitia
Plebis Tributa elect the Tribunes, and remain exclusive of their own
governance.

The Tribunes, in pursuit of their duties, have the obligation to
protect and defend the constitution, act in the best interest of the
Roman people, and are so constitutionally endowed with powers of
legal administration, intercessio and hearing appeals. This is the
oath they swore to the people and Senate of Nova Roma....This is, as
with other magistrates, their 'yardstick' in reconciling linguistic
legalities with justice, as I envision things.

When all necessary and applicable factors are considered by the
Tribunes...defending the constitutional rights of the exclusive
nature of the plebian assembly....., protecting the very recently
affirmed wishes of the people that this constitutional protection be
maintained... taking care not to deny Tiberius Galerius' appeal to
his right of Provacatio...I feel that you, Hortensia Tribuna, or any
other Tribune, has the option of deeming this case a situation best
handled by the Consuls.

This is an option which I think might satisfy the role of the
Tribunes in this matter. Some will call it a 'pass the buck', but I
think it is a necessary exchange of money in this case (laugh, that
was a good one). Seriously, I see alot of mishmash in these
repeated episodes, and many valid points are made... but I think a
major root problem is plain old conflict of interest: An appeal of
provacatio to the Tribunes, on the action of Tribunes, to call the
CPT, to meddle into Plebian assembly business, which is not
constitutional, although Provacatio *is*. We ask amuch of the
Tribunes to attempt to wrestle with this successfully. They don't
need to promulgate it....this I am confident they can veto.

And in so doing, they have protected the interest of everyone and
everything pretty much, they are sworn to serve...atleast they have
not jeopardized constitutional rights of the Plebs, nor Galerius
Paulinus' constitutional rights to Provacatio..

I hope this is helpful.

Valete bene





In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@s...>
wrote:
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus G. Equitio Cato salutem plurimam
> dicit. Deos ego omnis ut fortunas sint precor.
>
> As these things usually go, trying to go around the law only leads
> into greater complications and raises more difficult issues. Some
of
> the issues raised thus far do seem clear cut.
>
> Galerius Paulinus clearly has "The right of provocatio; to appeal
a
> decision of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon
that
> citizen to the comitia populi tributa" under II.B.5. He has
> exercised his right, and whether by an action of a magistrate or
by
> inaction, clearly he is now being denied his rights under the
> Constitution.
>
> IV.A.7.a does not give a Tribunus Plebis the authority to veto a
> civis' call for provocatio. Also an intercessio cannot be issued
> against an action that has not yet taken place, so M Hortensia
Maior
> Tr. Pl. cannot yet issue an intercessio on P. Memmius Albucius Tr.
> Pl. in an attempt to prevent him for convoking the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa, nor can she yet issue an intercessio against the consules
> or praetores before they call for the Comitia Populi Tributa to
> assemble.
>
> The idea of writing new laws to better address the current
situation
> may be a political solution, but really it has no bearing on the
> matter as it stands now. Galerius is being denied his rights as a
> citizen, and I consider that to be a grave matter. I have not
> offered to be his advocatus as you have. I cannot be said to have
> any personal interest in the outcome of his provocatio. I am only
a
> simple civis, and the way I look at it is that the denial of
> Galerius' rights is a denial of my rights. Also I agree with
> Galerius that the merit of his provocatio cannot be judged by any
> individual, magistrate or otherwise, certainly not by me alone
> although I have questioned it, but only by the Comitia Populi
> Tributa. So where are the consules or praetores, and where are
the
> other tribuni plebis, on this matter of assembling the Comitia
> Populi Tributa?
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
> <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> <snippet>
> > We wait now for Memmius Albucius to put forth a call for the
> Comitia
> > Populi Tributa; if it is upheld and Galerius Paulinus is heard
in
> the
> > Comitia, my strategy (legal adversaries, please skip to the part
> below
> > where I say "Valete bene") would be to have the Comitia Populi
> Tributa
> > vote to have the Comitia Plebis called to decide the issue of the
> > vacancy.
>
> Well, advocate Cato, how the question is put to the Comitia Populi
> Tributa is going to be especially important to the outcome. Each
> Comitia is independent of the others. I have already stated my
> concern with any attempt to use the Comitia Populi Tributa to
> encroach upon the Comitia Plebis Tributa regarding its own
internal
> affairs. From your statement above it appears that we once again
> agree that the separate matter of the vacancy is one that must be
> addressed by the Comitia Plebis Tributa, since it does pertain to
> its own internal affairs. However, if you word your question in
> this fashion to compel the Comitia Plebis Tributa to consider the
> separate matter of a vacancy, then I for one could not support it.
>
> I am inclined to agree with Galerius Paulinus on what he has
stated
> on his own behalf, but that hinges on the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> making a determination on whether a vacancy exists. If the
question
> is put to the Comitia Populi Tributa to make a determination of
the
> vacancy, then I do not think I could support such a motion as it
too
> IMHO attempts to infringe upon the internal affairs of the Comitia
> Plebis Tributa.
>
> Galerius Paulinus has stated that the decision of the Tribuni
Plebis
> to disallow the existence of a vacancy was illegal and thereby
> negatively impacted on his right to pose himself as a candidate
for
> the vacated office. On that question I still reserve judgement.
I
> do not think though that a favorable outcome on this question in
the
> Comitia Populi Tributa resolves anything. The question still
hinges
> on the Comitia Plebis Tributa making a determination, and thus it
> comes down to a majority of the Tribuni Plebis agreeing to put
that
> question before the CPT.
>
> As these things usually go, I fear there will be no resolution of
> the matter at hand, and all that is being done presently is to
raise
> strife in preparation for the next election of Tribuni Plebis.
That
> is why I appealled to the Tribuni Plebis to consider bringing
before
> the Comitia Plebis Tributa the matter of the vacancy, as that
would
> be one way to resolve the issues presently before us. Another way
> could be as Marca Hortensia has proposed, for the interested
parties
> to meet together and compromise on a resolution. I don't know
that
> that is possible, but both sides need to consider the offer.
>
> Bonam habe Fortunam, advocate Cato. I shall be interested to hear
> the propositio and argumenta of your deliberativum.
>
> Valete optime
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
>
>
> "Invenietis omnia prospera evenisse sequentibus Deos, adversa
> spernentibus." (Livy V.51.5-6)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36459 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De provocatione
---P. Minucia Tiberia G. Equitio Catoni Salutem:


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maori S.P.D.
>
> Salve Marca Hortensia!
>
> To whom are you being fair? For whom are the scales of Justice
being
> weilded?
>
> Galerius Paulinus? You are trying to prevent a private citizen
from
> exercizing a right guaranteed by the Constitution, without any
> reasonable argument against his doing so.
>
> Memmius Albucius? He hasn't even placed an "official" call to the
> comitia populi tributa, which, by the way, he cannot do: he can
only
> call the comitia plebis tributa to order in accordance with our
> Constitution (see IV.A.7.d.2); this is why I published my official
> call to the Consuls and Praetors, as they are the only magistrates
> empowered to call the comitia populi tributa to order (see IV.A.2.c
> and IV.A.3.c).

PMTS: Well, we are in serious trouble then, because we have had
Tribunes promulgate amuch through the CPT:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-26-ii.html
Lex Salicia de Tribunicia Comitorum Convocatione...promulgated
through the CPT .

Don't like the fact that it should reflect a constitutional
amendment? Well, that is insufficient to just up and invalidate it
as law. Lobby for an amendment...and better bookkeeping...that is
the available recourse. I know a censor who was elected by the CPT,
and not the Comitia Centuriata, which went unnoticed by the
Tribunes, but he was still a Censor...because the people said so. It
is not their fault the wrong comitia was called.... So, if we
advocate the say of the people as integral to what is law in our
pursuit of justice....we cannot suddenly assume that their elected
wishes should be invalidated. You cannot suddenly claim them 'null
and void' Equitius Cato, by virtue of promulgation errors.


We have already established, collectively, I think, through this
many-splendored discussion, that some housekeeping is in order with
regard to our constitution and its pursuant laws, but not all laws
are going to reflect a constitutional amendment. If they are
defining or pursuing something in the constitution, and voted in by
the CPT or CP, this is fine. An amendment to the constitution does
require promulgation through the Comitia centuriata and 2/3
ratification by the Senate.




>
> The People? By not allowing them a voice in a decision that
affects
> the government of the Republic?
>
> This is Justice? This is fairness?

PMTS: Is it 'justice' for a Quaestor to up and declare laws of the
CPT (an assembly of pats and plebs and therefore the entire
populace) nullified, gone, capput, because they are not in the
constitution? They don't necessarily have to be, to make a long
story short, and since you never had, nor do you, have powers of
intercessio or promulgation, you are stuck with lobbying for
appropriate amendments, be it in your capacity as Quaestor, citizen
or advocate for any given client....unless you can show me legal
means allowing you such authority.

I don't know. You've never struck me as anything but fairly sharp,
Equitius Cato, and for all I know, you might be keenly aware of
these things, and are just perhaps exercizing your rhetorical
muscles, something like that :).... but for the benefit of those who
are new to the republic and might actually believe you are endowed
with these powers, I feel obligated to render clarification that
there truly are some severe limits to your authority in this regard.
>
> An announcement that:
>
> "Eheu, let this be on the record that as tribune I veto the
> provocatio of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus."
>
> Means exactly what it says, and it is unconstitutional and
therefore
> null and void.

PMTS: I agree that she shouldn't obviously veto a citizens'
constitutional right...just the promulgation of this proceeding by
the Tribs. Why? Because she 'can't' call the CPT???...she
certainly can; I just do not believe it is in the best interests of
all concerned for the Tribs to do so, as I explained in my post
prior to this one.

You say:
>
> "As tribune I have a duty to the Quirites. I am not a judge who
must
> stick only to the law, I am also a politician and I must look to
the
> welfare of the res publica."
>
> This is entirely wrong. According to our Constitution, your duty
as a
> tribune is *precisely* to stick to the law "when the spirit and/or
> letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta,
> Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" (Const. N.R.,
> IV.A.7.a) and "[t]o administer the law" (op.cit. IV.A.7.d.iii) for
the
> express purpose of protecting the People from abuse.

PMTS: Including the abuse of repealing laws expressing their wishes
without legal grounds? :)
>
> (snip) The future of the
> Republic is dependent upon the will of the People; the protection
of
> the People by vigorous adherence to the laws and Constitution

is the
> highest task entrusted to a government, and I cannot stand and
watch
> this trust abused, even unintentionally.

PMTS: If you hadn't noticed, neither can I.
>
> You know that I have sent proposals to the Consuls regarding a new,
> "explicit, historical, and sensible" law regarding the resignation
of
> magistracies --- yet nothing has come of it.

PMTS: How do you know this? Have they specifically stated that
they do not intend to address this issue? Even if they have not
made you privy to any plans in this regard, an assumption on this
basis that they are doing nothing about it, or that 'nothing has
come of it' is just that....an assumption, not a fact. So be
careful please, that you do not inadvertently render falsehoods of
the Consuls to the viewers of this forum.


You know that I have
> argued vehemently in favor of adopting a more Republican model of
> government --- without a written Constitution. In turn, I know
that
> you respect the law to an awesome degree, and you have declared
your
> absolute dedication to the overarching authority vested in the
will of
> the People.
>
> But we are both caught in the tangled web that this written
> Constitution has woven about us; as long as it exists, it is the
> highest legal authority we have, by the will of the People. And on
> this the Constitution is clear: the right of provocatio is
> "guaranteed" --- not subject to the whim of any magistrate or other
> authority in the Republic.

PMTS: Not a question with me...it is a right, pretty clear...I
question personally the utilization of it from your client's
perspective, but I don't rotely deny his right to access. Not why
I'm even bothering with this post. I am more interested in why you
feel at legal liberty to make declarations that laws expressing the
wishes of the people are to be considered somehow 'null and void' by
virtue of being absent from the constitution, especially, that the
Tribunes are not empowered to call the CPT. I am also interested in
seeing the constitutional language or supportive lex providing you
with this authority.... And I am interested in clarification of the
statement you made regarding the Consuls...did they tell you
specifically they were not entertaining your
requests/suggestions/amendments? If not, you have made a rather
suggestive assumption regarding their actions, which I think merits
a more specific statement from you.
>
> So let the People listen. Let the People decide. Let the People
> speak. Vox populi vox dei.

PMTS: As I understand the position of G Equitius Cato, apparently
this is so only if the peoples' elected wishes appear in the
constitution :) (They don't always have to be, again). Otherwise
the leges, the expressed wishes of the people, apparently, may be
tossed out the window by a Quaestor/citizen/advocate... thus
rendered null and void. Yet, and I couldn't agree with Cato more
here, we want to protect the people from abuse. I just think his
methodologies are out of wack. Hortensia, or any other Tribune, may
not convene the CPT, because from now on, I guess, legislation
promulgated through the CPT must always be in the constitution.

Po shakes head vigorously....
>
> Vale bene,
>
> G. Equitius Cato
> Advocatus &c.
>
> P.S. - you know I'll use every rhetorical device possible to get my
> point across; but I'm too old to be a "young Cicero" --- I'll
stick to
> being a cranky Cato :-) GEC

PMTS: As long as you stick within the confines of your authorities
as Quaestor and your authority/rights as a citizen, thus not
jettisoning the legal wishes of the SPQNR,.... as the saying
goes "knock yourself out"!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36460 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Salvete omnes.

I beg to differ with the Senator on the assertion that only the
Comitia Plebis Tributa can deal with this matter due to
constitutional protection afforded to that body.

The constitution only gives the Comitia Plebis Tributa the right to
be the only body that shall "pass laws governing the rules by which
it shall operate internally". It gives both the Comitia Populi
Tributa and the Comitia Plebis Tributa the right to pass
laws "binding upon the entire citizenry".

Clearly the Comitia Populi Tributa can hear a case of provocatio
involving the issue of the election of a tribune, so long as any law
it passes does not attempt to establish a procedural change in the
workings of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

The Comitia Populi Tributa could pass a law deeming Curius
Saturninus no longer a Tribune. It has the right to pass legislation
binding upon the "entire citizenry" and therefore logically on any
smaller segment of the citizenry up to and including the entire
citizen body.

There is a subtle but important difference created by the
constitution, it seems to me at least, between the broader sweep of
proceedural change which is the perogative of the Comitia Plebis
Tributa, and a law that just deals with one or more (or all
citizens) or an individual circumstance. You can leave a process
intact and just address a specific situation. That would be
constitutional.

I see no contitutional impediment to the Comitia Populi Tributa
dealing with Paulinus's claim of provoctio.

Valete
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> ---P. Minucia Tiberia M. Moravio Horatio Piscinato Marca Hortensia
> Maior Tribuna Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> First off, I think I rather juxtaposed your name last night in a
> post, Piscine, and I apologize. I couldn't sleep and I got up and
> was still in a somewhat hypnotic state when I began to
type...well,
> that's my excuse :)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36461 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
---Salve Caesar:

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes.
>
> I beg to differ with the Senator on the assertion that only the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa can deal with this matter due to
> constitutional protection afforded to that body.

PMTS: I did *not* say that. The Comitia Plebis Tribuna cannot be
convened in this matter. The Comitia Popli Tributa (CPT) have to be
convened for provocatio, according to the constitution. Which body
of magistrates promulgates it though, is not stated in the
constitution, but both Tribunes and Consuls may do so. Unless you
believe that Quaestors can arbitrarily repeal laws which are not in
the constitution, even when they dont have to be :) Please reread
my post on this. There is often confusion and visual trickery in
reading comitia popli tributa and comitia plebis tributa. I usually
refer to the former as the CPT, and spell the latter out.
>
> The constitution only gives the Comitia Plebis Tributa the right
to
> be the only body that shall "pass laws governing the rules by
which
> it shall operate internally". It gives both the Comitia Populi
> Tributa and the Comitia Plebis Tributa the right to pass
> laws "binding upon the entire citizenry".
>
> Clearly the Comitia Populi Tributa can hear a case of provocatio
> involving the issue of the election of a tribune, so long as any
law
> it passes does not attempt to establish a procedural change in the
> workings of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

PMTS: Yes, the CPT must hear a provocatio, but the fly in the
ointment in the Tribunes in processing this frictionrubs the
language regarding the protective exclusiveness of Comitia Plebis
Tributa , also in the constitution. If they elect their own
magistrates, and conduct their own affairs, it is a conflict of
interest for a Tribune to consult the CPT regarding a judgment of a
magistrate elected only by the Comitia Plebis Tribuna.

With respect Caesar, I thought the prime notion was Galerius'
provacatio, not necessarily from which venue it was promulgated. You
do not see the harm in just their going through the CPT...I beg to
differ with you...they should pass this on to the consuls. It is an
option available to them,if they feel it both protects the people's
interests, constitutional protections, and this way Galerius' rights
are being honoured, as the law so insists.

In either case, it was a sincerely delivered recommendation, which I
feel has legal merit. Again, I said nothing about the Comitius
Plebis Tributa hearing the case, and nor did I state that the CPT
couldn't or shouldn't be called. They have to be. It just doesn't
have to be done by the Tribs. But such is their call.

Vale,
Po





It is not necessary for the Tribunes to convene these proceedings,
and given their responsibilities of uphold the constitutional
protection of the exclusivity of the Comitia Plebis Tributa, it
would be somewhat of a constitutional conflict of interest.
They 'can' but I don't recommend it. So, to protect the rights of
provacatio for G. Tiberius Paulinus, which I don't object to per se,
and are plainly in our constitution without dispute, the Consuls are
the best choice to preside over this case.

The tribunes may not veto provacatio, but in the interests of the
constitutional language regarding the Plebian assembly minding its
own affairs, it would be better if the Tribs did not...they are
guardians of the constitution, letter and spirit, and by virtue of
this, hold an obligation to the plebian assembly, which calling the
CPT could be counterproductive to their role, in consideration of
their protection of plebian assembly, as mandated by law.
>
> The Comitia Populi Tributa could pass a law deeming Curius
> Saturninus no longer a Tribune. It has the right to pass
legislation
> binding upon the "entire citizenry" and therefore logically on any
> smaller segment of the citizenry up to and including the entire
> citizen body.

PMTS: I am keenly aware of this, and I cited the link to the lex
giving these powers to the Tribunes, but the Consuls are usually the
other ones available to do it. But it lawfully doesn't *have* to be
promulgated through the plebs, and if the Tribs feel the Consuls
should do it, citing a conflict of interest in trying members in the
CPT who are elected by the Plebian assembly, then they may do so,
and perhaps issue an edictum referring the matter to the Consuls.
You need to read the constitutional language regarding their rights
to handle their own governmental affairs. The same CPT last year
rejected a lex giving powers of the CPT to elect Tribunes...so the
comitia plebis tributa is one who elects their magistrates, does
their own thing, so the same constitutional stance is maintained.
How can you reasonably ask the Tribs to appropach the CPT to judge
actions of the Tribs...magistrates elected by the Comitia Plebis
Tributa alone? They are torn between protection of the plebian
assembly and protecting Galerius' rights. If there is no obligatory
need to handle this, and they feel it is constitutionally a conflict
of duties, then for the benefit of all, they may veto their
involvement, and perhaps issue an edictum to the consuls deferring
the affair to their keeping.

There is a case for provacatio through the CPT. I just think that
it is justifiable to veto the proceedings being done by the Plebs.
>
> There is a subtle but important difference created by the
> constitution, it seems to me at least, between the broader sweep
of
> proceedural change which is the perogative of the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa, and a law that just deals with one or more (or all
> citizens) or an individual circumstance. You can leave a process
> intact and just address a specific situation. That would be
> constitutional.
>
> I see no contitutional impediment to the Comitia Populi Tributa
> dealing with Paulinus's claim of provoctio.
PMTS: We are not in sync here. Neither do I. It 'has', by
constitutional mandate, to go through the CPT...for reasons I have
stated, it just does not have to be handled by the Tribunes...it can
be handled by the Consuls who may call the CPT, with much less
conflict of interest than the Tribunes would entertain. I just think
the Tribunes could and perhaps 'should' pronounce intercessio on
their handling it, and that the consuls should handle things. This
would alleviate much awkwardness for the Tribunes and Plebs and
justice would be granted G. Tiberius Paulinus in his pursuit of
provocatio. with likely less awkwardness.

I do not agree with his perception of 'direct negative impact' in
his application of this right of appeal,but I recognize that he is
entitled to it.

I know you are strongly advocating for his already protected right
to provocatio , although it is an interesting approach to this
appeal, im my view. But why is it a problem Caesar if I suggest
that the tribunes not veto 'provacatio' but rather veto their action
in handling it....and defer it to the Consuls with perhaps less of a
conflict of interest to wrestle with.

It is a pleasure to talk with you,, but I dont' think you read my
post very well.
>
> Valete
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> > ---P. Minucia Tiberia M. Moravio Horatio Piscinato Marca
Hortensia
> > Maior Tribuna Omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> > First off, I think I rather juxtaposed your name last night in a
> > post, Piscine, and I apologize. I couldn't sleep and I got up
and
> > was still in a somewhat hypnotic state when I began to
> type...well,
> > that's my excuse :)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36462 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De provocatione
G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni S.P.D.

Salve, senatrix.

I agree with you entirely, Pompeia Strabo. It would be a difficult
endeavor to try to go back through the tabularium and pronounce laws
void because the wrong comitia was called.

We can, however, take pains to make sure that from now on, the correct
comitia is called. It is not my decision, senatrix, it is the law.

Your letter to Marca Hortensia regarding the consuls taking on this is
also correct, although it is not the place of the tribunes to call the
comitia populi tributa to begin with --- which, as I explain in the
call to the consuls and praetors, why I have in fact called upon the
consuls and praetors.

It is not, I repeat NOT, a matter of my own like or dislike for any
particular law; it is not a personal event. It is an attempt to
protect those rights guaranteed us as citizens *under the laws which
exist* that moves this forward.

Vale optime,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36463 From: Cnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Messages before november 2002
Salve, Marce Armini,

I have tried to join to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/
but I couldn't. It writes that my membership is pending: however this
ML is dead from years and I 'm strongly afraid that my membership
will be never accepted...


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M Arminius Maior <marminius@y...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
>
> The older messages of the former mainlist are
> available here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/
> .. covering the period from jul/98 to may/02. It is
> controlled by Flavius Germanicus, Pater Patriae.
>
> The messages from jun/02 to mid-nov/02 are lost,
> because the new mainlist, in the beginning, had very
> limited storage, later extended. Of the ~5000
> messages, i have ~150, for administrative purposes
> (edicts etc).
>
> There are rumours that the first senatores preserved
> something of the oldest records (march/98) in form of
> paper, perhaps early versions of the Album Civium,
> perhaps the first Senatus Consulta.
>
>
> Vale
> Marcus Arminius
>
> --- "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> escreveu:
>
> > A. Apollonius K. Buteoni amico omnibusque sal.
> >
> > > I asked the former Curator Araneum (web-master)
> > > Marcus Octavius
> > > Germanicus about this problem and this was his
> > > answer:
> > ...
> > > >At times when I don't receive mail, reading the
> > > messages on the
> > > >website (or not at all) there is no archiving. I
> > > stopped that
> > > >project completely a few years ago, and since
> > then
> > > the only archives
> > > >I'm aware of are those maintained automatically
> > by
> > > yahoo.
> >
> > This is a bit worrying. Is somebody else preserving
> > the archives of this list on behalf of the republic?
> >
> > The archives currently kept on the website only go
> > up
> > to the 28th of June 2003. Yahoo is steadily deleting
> > its archives, and will sooner or later reach June
> > 2003. If someone isn't preserving the messages since
> > that date, they'll simply be lost.
> >
> > If there is not yet someone officially responsible
> > for
> > archiving these messages, I urge that some
> > magistrate
> > (perhapsd the aediles would be appropriate) be made
> > responsible for doing so. We don't want these
> > important public records to be lost. If necessary
> > I'll
> > volunteer to help whichever magistrate has this
> > task.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
> Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36464 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Call to the Consuls and Praetors Day II
G. Equitius Cato Consules et Praetores Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salvete illustri.

WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:

"II.Citizens and Gentes

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

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

WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
impact" whatsoever, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
definitions on their own, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
deny the right of provocatio, and

WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,

THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.

No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
Constitution guarantees it.

Valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36465 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Cato to Senatrix Minucia-Tiberia Strabo
G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni senatrix S.P.D.

Salve senatrix.

You wrote:

"Is it 'justice' for a Quaestor to up and declare laws of the
CPT (an assembly of pats and plebs and therefore the entire
populace) nullified, gone, capput, because they are not in the
constitution? They don't necessarily have to be, to make a long
story short, and since you never had, nor do you, have powers of
intercessio or promulgation, you are stuck with lobbying for
appropriate amendments, be it in your capacity as Quaestor, citizen
or advocate for any given client....unless you can show me legal
means allowing you such authority.

I don't know. You've never struck me as anything but fairly sharp,
Equitius Cato, and for all I know, you might be keenly aware of
these things, and are just perhaps exercizing your rhetorical
muscles, something like that :).... but for the benefit of those who
are new to the republic and might actually believe you are endowed
with these powers, I feel obligated to render clarification that
there truly are some severe limits to your authority in this regard."

CATO: For the "benefit of those who are new to the republic" let me
point out that not once have I signed myself as "Quaestor", because my
quaestorship has nothing to do with my acts as advocatus for Galerius
Paulinus, nor have I ever claimed so.

I also point out that I have not claimed that *any* laws are
"nullified, gone ... &c." --- quite the opposite, and I am very
confused as to where you got this imaginative take on the presentation
I have made thus far. I am attempting to make sure that a citizen is
protected by our laws and Constitution. Please approach my
presentation with more care before putting words in my mouth.

I am endowed with same the "powers" of any citizen of this Republic to
call for obedience to the laws and Constitution, senatrix. No title
or office or authority is higher than the law --- except the will of
the People.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36467 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Comitia populi tributa vs. comitia plebis tributa - Call to the Tri
G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori tr. pl. P. Memmio Albucio tr.
pl. P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Although as I stated earlier the tribunes of the plebs are only
authorized to call the comitia plebis tributa to order under our
Constitution (see IV.7.d.ii), that same item in the Constitution
allows for the tribunes to call the comitia populi tributa if the
patrician class constitutes more than ten percent (10%) of the total
population of the Republic.

According to Q. Cassius Calvus, the Magister Aranearius, in answer to
a query by Galerius Paulinus, currently the patrician class
constitutes thirty-five percent (35%) of the total population; this
being the case, the tribunes can indeed call to order the comitia
populi tributa to hear Galerius Paulinus' provocatio.

I therefore open my call to the consuls and praetors to include the
tribunes:


G. Equitius Cato Consules Praetores Tribunes Plebibusque Novae Romae
S.P.D.

Salvete illustri.

WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:

"II.Citizens and Gentes

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

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

WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
impact" whatsoever, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
definitions on their own, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
deny the right of provocatio, and

WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,

THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.

No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
Constitution guarantees it.

Valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36468 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
Vale

As of today, 24 Jly 2005, I announce my intercessio against the
following reported edict by my collegue P. Memmius Albucius.

There are simply no legal basis for a provocatio in this case, there
has not be any direct, specific, damage towards the appellant and that
alone should close teh case.

Valete,

DCF

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum


On 7/22/05, publiusalbucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
> P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.
>
>
> You will find below my edict which receives the "appeal for
> provocatio" presented last month by Hon. Quaestor Paulinus to our
> Tribunate.
>
> Even if, on the matter itself (the case of the resignation of Hon.
> Saturninus), I have clearly endorsed at this moment the collective
> position of the tribunate, it appears to me that nothing may
> authorize me to refuse to Hon. Galerius the application of this
> constitutional right, as it is currently provided by our laws.
>
> If this edict is not vetoed, I would publish a second edict calling
> for order the CT Populi in August with, in its agenda, 2 points : 1/
> Examination of the appeal 2/ vote on a lex de provocatione. The
> intent of this law would be to precise the scope of the "appeal for
> provocatio".
>
> Valete omnes,
>
> Tribunus Albucius
>
>
>
> TRIBUNE P.MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS EDICT (n° 58-14)
> ON A APPEAL FOR PROVOCATIO AND ON THE CONVENING OF THE COMITIA
> TRIBUTA POPULI
>
>
> I, Publius Minius Albucius, Tribunes of the Plebs, by the authority
> vested in us by the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma,
>
> In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specially its articles II.
> B. 5 and IV.A.7.d, specially d2 and d3 on one hand, III.C and IV.A.5
> on another ;
>
> In view of Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribuniciana issued on 15th
> November 2756 a.u.c., specially its article III ;
>
> In view of the message 32322 issued in Nova Roma main list on Jan.
> 12 th, 2758 a.u.c. 10:57 p.m. by Tribune Domitius Constantinus
> Fuscus on « Saturninus' resignation withdrawal and his position in
> the Tribunate » ;
>
>
> Considering the « appeal to the tribunes to call the Comitia Populi
> Tributa » made by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus on June 16th 2758
> a.u.c. (joined below) ;
>
> Considering the reminder sent by Hon. Galerius to the Tribunes of
> the Plebs on July 13th ;
>
> Considering the absence of answer, collective or individual, made on
> July 20th by the Tribunes ;
>
> Considering that Hon. Galerius, like every citizen has the right to
> obtain an answer, whatever it is, to his request, specially to a
> demand founded on the application of a constitutional right ;
>
>
> Considering that Galerius's appeal thus refers to the « right of
> provocatio i.e. the right to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
> has a direct negative impact upon that citizen » ;
>
> Considering that Hon. Galerius « believe(s) that (his) right to
> stand as a candidate for office was denied (him) and other
> plebeians when (the Tribunes) declared that there was not a vacancy
> in the Tribuneship » and that he thus « (..) ask that you, the
> Tribunes, convene the Comitia Populi Tributa so it can hear my
> appeal of your decision » ;
>
> Considering that, even if Hon. Galerius does not explicitly mention
> the message 32322 issued in Nova Roma main list on Jan. 12 th, 2758
> a.u.c., the contested tribunician act is necessarily this one, no
> other official message having been issued on the subject by the
> Tribunate ;
>
>
> Considering that the Constitution of Nova Roma guarantees, in its
> article II. B. 5, « the right of provocatio ; to appeal a decision
> of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen
> to the comitia populi tributa » ;
>
> Considering that this article is reinforced by the article III of
> Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribuniciana, which stated that in
> spite of the affirmation of the tribunician « summa coercendi
> potestas (..), the right of provocatio will be respected as Article
> II.B.5 of the constitution states. »
>
> Considering that, contrary to the laws or practices of ancient Rome,
> neither the Constitution nor the laws of Nova Roma define precisely
> the contents of this right and how it may be exercised ;
>
> Considering that the article II. B. 5 of the Constitution of Nova
> Roma and the article III of Lex Didia Gemina de potestate
> tribuniciana are the sole legal norm that must be taken into account
> to ground a decision on the application of the right of provocatio
> (jus provocationis) ;
>
> Considering that this article II. B. 5 does not limit, as the
> ancient practice did, the jus provocationis to criminal affairs, or
> to acts taken by consuls using their imperium ;
>
> Considering that this article II. B. 5 does not prevent a
> tribunician act, as the ancient practice did, to be contested by jus
> provocationis ; that, furthermore, the article III of Lex Didia
> Gemina, specially its paragraph B on sacrosanctity power (potestas
> sacrosancta) does not prevent the application of the right of
> provocatio ;
>
> Considering that the sole magistrates who may, according the
> Constitution of Nova Roma, convene the comitia populi tributa, are
> the consuls, the praetors and the tribunes of the plebs ;
>
> Considering that the fact that the magisterial decision contested by
> Hon. Galerius is a tribunician act does not prevent him using his
> right of provocatio either through the consuls, or the praetors or
> the tribunes ;
>
> Considering that the fact that the decision contested had been taken
> by a majority of the tribunate is here irrelevant ;
>
> Considering that Hon. Galerius was the sole citizen of Nova Roma to
> express his will, on Jan. 12th, 2758 auc, 4 :29 am, to be candidate
> to the office that he believed at this time as vacant ; that this
> will has also been expressed before the tribunician statement on the
> same day, at 10:57 p.m. ; that, thus, Hon. Galerius is the sole
> citizen concerned by this tribunician statement ;
>
> Considering that the fact of knowing whether the tribunician
> decision reported by the message ML 32322 has had a « direct
> negative impact » is outside the field of competencies of the
> tribunes, as
> it would be for any magistrate asked for the application of jus
> provocationis ; that such magistrate has thus a bound competency,
> and is not allowed to make such an examination ;
>
> Considering thus that the comitia populi tributa are the sole
> constitutional power authorized to state on an provocatio ; that
> this is the only interpretation which guarantees to every citizen of
> Nova Roma the respect of his rights granted by the Constitution of
> Nova Roma and gives to this text its full effect ;
>
> Considering that the fact that the current Salicia and Fabia laws do
> not organise precisely the examination of a provocatio may not
> obstruct the full application of a constitutional right ;
>
> Edicts :
>
>
> Article 1
>
> The « appeal to the tribunes to call the Comitia Populi Tributa »
> made by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus on June 16th 2758 a.u.c. and
> contesting the tribunician decision that « declared that there was
> not a vacancy in the Tribuneship » is received ;
>
> Article 2
>
> The comitia tributa populi are convened in August 2005 (Sextilis
> 2758 a.u.c.), on a schedule that a next edict will determine.
>
> Article 3
>
> The appropriate magistrates of Nova Roma and their offices are
> responsible, as far as each one is concerned by the present edict,
> and in due consideration of the constitution, for executing it. This
> edict will be published in the Tabularium of Nova Roma.
>
>
> Issued in Cadomago, Gallia, this twenty first day (21st) of July,
> 2005 C.E. (a.d. XII Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c.), during the consulate
> of Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas
>
>
> attached below-------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Text of the appeal by Ti. Galerius Paulinus June 16th 2758 a.u.c. :
>
> Salve Tribunes
>
> According to the Constitution of Nova Roma a citizen has a right of
> provocatio ie the right to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
> has a direct negative impact upon that citizen. As I stated earlier
> this year I believe that my right to stand as a candidate for office
> was denied me ( and other plebeians ) when you declared that there
> was not a vacancy in the Tribuneship.
>
> I respectfully disagreed with you then and still do.
>
> Now that some time has passed and the immediate passions have cooled
> I respectful ask that you, the Tribunes, convene the Comitia Populi
> Tributa so it can hear my appeal of your decision.
>
> If you are disinclined to grant my request I would very much like
> you to tell me how a citizen of Nova Roma can exercise their
> constitutional right of provocatio if the magistrates charged with
> conniving the Comitia Populi Tributa refuse to do so?
> As a courtesy I have CC this to Caius Curius Saturninus as well.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> Text of the reminder by Ti. Galerius Paulinus July 13th 2758
> a.u.c. :
>
> From: Timothy P. Gallagher
> To: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus ; Maior ; Publius Minius Albucius ;
> Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> Cc: Caius Curius Saturninus
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:36 PM
>
> Salve Tribunes on June 16 I sent the following e-mail.
>
> Can you please tell be the status of my request ?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36469 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Intercessio, extended
Re-Salve

Just for being sure it doesn't go unnoticed, given I didn't change
subject of the mail originally. And to expand a bit on the matter.

As of today, 24 Jly 2005, I announce my intercessio against the
following reported edict by my collegue P. Memmius Albucius regarding
Paulinus' request of intercessio. I also call the other tribunes,
Saturninus, Hortensia and Bianchius, to confirm this act of mine.

There are simply no legal basis for a provocatio in this case, there
has not been any direct, specific, damage towards the appellant and
that alone should close the case. There has not been a decision
specifically against Paulinus and th ebasis of a provocati is,
therefore, lacking.

To the self named advocates, I'd like also to point out that there has
not been a decision on mine on the case, there has actually not been a
decision at all, but a collective recognition by three of the other 4
tribunes that, following the NR laws, there was indeed not a vacation
among the tribunician ranks. Among the many whereas that was among
various other mistakes, but touching me personally, I thought it was
wise to clear it out right away.


Valete,

DCF

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36470 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. S.P.D.

Salve tribunus plebis.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:
> Vale
>
> As of today, 24 Jly 2005, I announce my intercessio against the
> following reported edict by my collegue P. Memmius Albucius.
>
> There are simply no legal basis for a provocatio in this case, there
> has not be any direct, specific, damage towards the appellant and that
> alone should close teh case.
>
> Valete,
>
> DCF

CATO: First, tribune, you cannot announce an intercessio against an
action that has not taken place.

Second, you are not in a position to decide whether or not my client
feels there has been a direct negative impact on him due to the
decision you made "on behalf of the tribunes". The Constitution of
the Republic does not afford you that authority; as I have pointed out
in my call for the comitia populi tributa to be brought to order, the
Constitution does not grant any magistrate the authority to either
define "direct negative impact" or interfere with a citizen's right of
provocatio.

Perhaps rather than brush aside the right of a citizen for whom you
have sworn to uphold the Constitution with a single sentence, you
might want to explain, under our Constitution and laws, why you feel
that he should be denied a fundamental right guaranteed by that
Constitution.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36471 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Intercessio, extended
G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. S.P.D.

Salve tribune.

You wrote:

"To the self named advocates, I'd like also to point out that there
has not been a decision on mine on the case, there has actually not
been a decision at all, but a collective recognition by three of the
other 4 tribunes that, following the NR laws, there was indeed not a
vacation among the tribunician ranks. Among the many whereas that was
among various other mistakes, but touching me personally, I thought it
was wise to clear it out right away."


CATO: On 12 January 2005, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus, writing in
his official capacity as a tribune of the plebs, wrote:

"Having looked at the relevant Nova Roman legislation and the
precedents regarding the case, having in the process contacted the
Censores in order to gain some relevant informations needed to reach
their conclusions, the four Tribunes found themselves of the opinion,
with one dissenting voice, that Caius Curius Saturninus has to be
considered as having never resigned his office.

We have thus proceeded to enrol him on the tribunician mailing list
and he has taken his place among us with full capacity, powers and
potestas."

If this is not a decision, tribune, please let me know what you would
consider it. You "reached [a] conclusion[s]" and "found [yourselves]
of the opinion" and "thus proceeded" to act upon that conclusion. I
would understand this process to be the exact equivalent of making a
decision.

As to being a "self-named advocate[s]", I would remind you that I
offered my services to Galerius Paulinus and he accepted.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36472 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Intercessio, extended
M.Hortensia Quiritibus spd;

> I also confirm Tribune Fuscus's intercessio.
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
> As of today, 24 Jly 2005, I announce my intercessio against the
> following reported edict by my collegue P. Memmius Albucius
regarding
> Paulinus' request of intercessio. I also call the other tribunes,
> Saturninus, Hortensia and Bianchius, to confirm this act of mine.
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36473 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Salve Romans

The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
I respectfully ask if any of these Senior Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa to hear my Provocatio?


Vale


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36474 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.

Salve, amice. Scripsisti:

> The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People
> are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi
> Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
> I respectfully ask if any of these Senior
> Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi
> Tributa to hear my Provocatio?

I very much doubt there's any point, since presumably
the tribunes will veto them if they do.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36475 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
Salve Cordus

The Tribunes are NOT empowered to prevent my hearing before the CPT. If any magistrate can veto the convening of the CPT to prevent the hearing of Provocatio then the right does not in fact exist under Nova Roman law.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen





----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus<mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes


A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.

Salve, amice. Scripsisti:

> The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People
> are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi
> Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
> I respectfully ask if any of these Senior
> Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi
> Tributa to hear my Provocatio?

I very much doubt there's any point, since presumably
the tribunes will veto them if they do.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36476 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Contra Caesarem, leviter (WAS: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti.
A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti, amice:

> Cordus asks who the defendant is. To me it should be
> the
> constitution. We should be trying the constitution –
> not Paulinus or
> any other citizen that in the future finds himself
> or herself in
> this invidious position. Not even Curius Saturninus
> should be "on-
> trial" in any sense in any proceedings that may
> follow.

A nice idea! The problem is that, by the inevitable
and invariable nature of provocatio, it is the one who
appeals who is put on trial. That's one of the many
reasons why the current debate is so absurd. Ti.
Galerius is not accused of anything, nor is he
threatened with punishment, yet if his appeal is
granted *he* will be put on trial. The only way for
the constitution to be put on trial (and I would
eagerly volunteer to prosecute!) is for the
constitution itself to appeal. But of course it can't,
because it's not a Roman citizen...

But you're right, this problem isn't going to go away.
When I suggest we should avoid it like the plague,
it's precisely because I know it's not going to go
away. There is simply no way to resolve the problem
under current law. No possible solution will be
legally or politically definitive. I'll bet you a
considerable sum of money that for any solution anyone
can think of I can put tell you why it is either
illegal or politically unviable.

So we have two options: waste the rest of the year
trying to solve an insoluble problem, or get on with
fixing the causes of the problem.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36477 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Resigfantion Lex
Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.

It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity regarding
the resignation of a magistracy.

I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice and
input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we are
working on a comprise.

I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the other,
will be put to the voters this year.

Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36478 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Taxpayers List IV
Salve Romans

Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have paid your taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and that your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not please drop me a note and I will make the necessary changes.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor


Roman Name

A. Ulleria Machinatrix
Aelius Solaris Marullinus
Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
Alia Equitia Marina
Annia Octavia Indagatrix
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
Aula Arria Carina
Aulus Apollonius Cordus
Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
Aulus Iulius Caesar
Aulus Minicius Aelianus
Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
C.Minucius Hadrianus
Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
Caius Arminius Reccanellus
Caius Curius Saturninus
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Caius Ianus Flaminius
Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
Claudia Iulia
Clovius Ullerius Ursus
Cynthia Cassia Justicia
Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
Decimus Gladius Lupus
Decimus Iulius Caesar
Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Drusilla Cassia Titiana
Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
Emilia Curia Finnica
Ennia Durmia Gemina
Equestria Iunia Laeca
Fabiana Arminia Metella
Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
Flavia Lucilla Merula
Flavia Tullia Scholastica
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
G. Iulius Scaurus
Gaia Fabia Livia
Gaia Flavia Aureliana
Gaia Iulia Caesaris
Gaius Adrianus Sergius
Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
Gaius Claudius Nero
Gaius Cordius Symmachus
Gaius Equitius Cato
Gaius Equitius Renatus
Gaius Galerius Lupus
Gaius Geminius Germanus
Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
Gaius Iulius Iulianus
Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
Gaius Marius Aquilius
Gaius Marius Merullus
Gaius Minicius Paullus
Gaius Modius Athanasius
Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Gaius Popillius Laenas
Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Gallio Velius Marsallas
Gallus Minucius Iovinus
Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
Gnaeus Salvius Astur
Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
Gratia Equitia Marina
Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
Ianus Minicius Sparsus
Iohannes Moravius Meridius
Irene Afrania Lentula
Iulia Caesaris
Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
Iusta Sempronia Iustina
Julilla Sempronia Magna
Kaeso Arminius Cato
L. Iulia Sabina Severa
Livia Cornelia Serena
Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
Lucia Cassia Silvana
Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
Lucianus Octavius Romulus
Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
Lucius Arminius Cotta
Lucius Arminius Faustus
Lucius Arminius Metellus
Lucius Cassius Pontonius
Lucius Claudius Romulus
Lucius Cornelius Cicero
Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
Lucius Fidelius Graecus
Lucius Iulius Sulla
Lucius Minicius Laietanus
Lucius Octavius Severus
Lucius Porticus Brutus
Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Lucius Sergius Australicus
M. Gladius Agricola
M. Octavius Germanicus
M. Prometheus Decius Golia
M.Ambrosius Falco
Magia Ovidia Pythia
Manius Arminius Corbulo
Manius Constantinus Serapio
Manius Iulius Caesar
Marca Hortensia Maior
Marcia Colombia Rex
Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
Marcus Arminius Maior
Marcus Bianchius Antonius
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Marcus Cassius Philippus
Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
Marcus Cornelius Crassus
Marcus Curius Modius
Marcus Darius Firmitus
Marcus Durmius Sisena
Marcus Flavius Fides
Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
Marcus Iulius Caesar
Marcus Iulius Perusianus
Marcus Iunius Iulianus
Marcus Marcius Rex
Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
Marcus Minicius Lupus
Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Marcus Quintius Clavus
Marcus Quirinus Sulla
Marcus Vitellius Ligus
Marianus Adrianus Sarus
Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
Octavianus Titinius
Patricia Cassia
Paulina Gratidia Equitia
Paulla Corva Gaudialis
Petrus Silvius Naso
Philippus Arminius Remus
Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
Prima Fabia Drusila
Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
Primus Minicius Octavianus
Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
Publius Arminius Maior
Publius Constantinus Placidus
Publius Flavius Caesar
Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
Publius Memmius Albucius
Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
Q. Iulius Probus
Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
Quintus Cassius Calvus
Quintus Equitius Palladius
Quintus Fabius Allectus
Quintus Fabius Maximus
Quintus Iunius Dominicus
Quintus Lanius Paulinus
Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
Quintus Valerius Callidus
Quintus Valerius Callidus
Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
S. Ullerius Venator
S.E.M. Troianus
Salvia Sempronia Graccha
Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
Servia Adriana Marcella
Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
Servius Labienus Cicero
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Sextus Arminius Remus
Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
Sextus Lucilius Tutor
Sextus Lucilius Tutor
Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
Spurius Arminius Carus
T. Iulius Sabinus
T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
Tiberius Atilius Bellator
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
Tiberius Minicius Catulus
Titus Horatius Atticus
Titus Labienus Fortunatus
Titus Licinius Crassus
Titus Marcius Felix
Titus Minicius Paullus
Titus Octavius Decula
Titus Octavius Marcellus
Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
Titus Octavius Salvius
Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
Vibius Arminius Corbulus
Vibius Minucius Falco









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36479 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
---Salve Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:

A question:

If you were experiencing such a 'direct negative impact' over a
Tribunes' decision (to declare Saturninus a tribune still) which you
feel resultantly shortchanged you an opportunity to run for Tribune
this year, expecting such an opportunity, I guess...why on earth
did you run for Quaestor in the initial stages of all this burr rra
rahh, earlier in the year? Had you planned somehow on being able to
hold 'both' Tribune potestas and the Quaestorship? How many
magistracies would you like? :)

You are the one to define 'direct negative impact' from your
perspective, granted. But I think the claim has to have some
substantiation in probability too. It seems to me, that you couldn't
have been that confident, nor that worried at the time about a
chance to run for Tribune if you were campaigning for Quaestor.

Yeah, this makes your already weak claim, in my view, of 'direct
negative impact' look almost nonexistent, in my humble
perspective....

Ahh, things one thinks about as one putters in the garden...



Vale,
Pompeia





In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Cordus
>
> The Tribunes are NOT empowered to prevent my hearing before the
CPT. If any magistrate can veto the convening of the CPT to prevent
the hearing of Provocatio then the right does not in fact exist
under Nova Roman law.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus<mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@y...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
>
>
> A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.
>
> Salve, amice. Scripsisti:
>
> > The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People
> > are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi
> > Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
> > I respectfully ask if any of these Senior
> > Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi
> > Tributa to hear my Provocatio?
>
> I very much doubt there's any point, since presumably
> the tribunes will veto them if they do.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-
Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.
>
> 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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36480 From: Quintus Hortensius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Digest Number 2016
Salvete Omnes,

I would like to thank you for welcoming me so warmly to the Republic -
I could not have arrived at a more exciting moment from a legal
standpoint. I only hope I can live up to a tiny fraction of my
namesake's reputation as an advocate, politician, statesman, gourmand
and aesthete. I have been engrossed in the ongoing dialogue of Cato,
Hortensia and many others and from the perspective of a new citizen it
is exciting to see that Nova Roma is alve with the kind of debate that
Roma Antiqua also echoed with, full of rancor, bombast, pathos, logic,
rhetoric and style. Marca Hortensia Maior, I salute you for upholding
the fine tradition of our name and Cato, you may choose to liken
yourself to your historical namesake, but his power came from being
obstinate, not from rhetorical cleverness like yours.

I admit I was surprised to hear complaints about this argument and the
lack of smoothly functioning procedures. To my mind, this more closely
approximates the style of the old republic, where the laws of the day
went through constant perigrinations at the hands of the Gracchii,
Sulla, Marius, Pompei, Crassus, Caesar, Cicero, Clodius, and many many
others. Where the mos maiorum was always under attack from one
direction or another and which ultimately proved too difficult a place
to live for those who didn't enjoy a good handful of dirty politics
with their lawmaking. At least here we don't tend to mix organized mob
violence with our commitial meetings (at least not that I've heard)
and there are, as yet, no proscription lists. So, cives, let us bask
in the glow of this controversy and applaud our leaders for their
healthy debate, for defending the rights of the trebunis plebis, the
rights of the individual citizen and for fundimentally agreeing to
make needed changes in the structure of the laws.

Vale Bene!

Q. Hortensius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36481 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Contra Caesarem, leviter (WAS: Appeal for provocatio from Hon.
Salve amice.

Well this is indeed an interesting pot of treacle we are in. I knew
of course that we couldn't try the wretched document, but was
pointing out that of all the actors in this mess the constitution
deserves to be.

Now we have the use of the veto to impede a right granted under the
constitution. Never mind that the right is too "wide" and ill-
defined; it is there in black and white. How can we ignore it? Of
course if no one does anything that is HOW we can ignore it, but on
what grounds can we do this? Who gives us collectively the right to
ignore Paulinus's stated right to provocatio?

I don't think this can just be ignored - much though many want to do
so - for varied reasons.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari omnibusque sal.
>
> Scripsisti, amice:
>
> > Cordus asks who the defendant is. To me it should be
> > the
> > constitution. We should be trying the constitution –
> > not Paulinus or
> > any other citizen that in the future finds himself
> > or herself in
> > this invidious position. Not even Curius Saturninus
> > should be "on-
> > trial" in any sense in any proceedings that may
> > follow.
>
> A nice idea! The problem is that, by the inevitable
> and invariable nature of provocatio, it is the one who
> appeals who is put on trial. That's one of the many
> reasons why the current debate is so absurd. Ti.
> Galerius is not accused of anything, nor is he
> threatened with punishment, yet if his appeal is
> granted *he* will be put on trial. The only way for
> the constitution to be put on trial (and I would
> eagerly volunteer to prosecute!) is for the
> constitution itself to appeal. But of course it can't,
> because it's not a Roman citizen...
>
> But you're right, this problem isn't going to go away.
> When I suggest we should avoid it like the plague,
> it's precisely because I know it's not going to go
> away. There is simply no way to resolve the problem
> under current law. No possible solution will be
> legally or politically definitive. I'll bet you a
> considerable sum of money that for any solution anyone
> can think of I can put tell you why it is either
> illegal or politically unviable.
>
> So we have two options: waste the rest of the year
> trying to solve an insoluble problem, or get on with
> fixing the causes of the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36482 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
---Minucia Tiberia Popillio Laeno Consul Salutem::

Oh no. I'm afraid you are with respect, mistaken. Cato was wondering
about the "resignation" lex amendment. No mention that I see atleast
on any resigfantion lex.

Just teasing you and bein a silly:)

Po




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
>
> It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity regarding
> the resignation of a magistracy.
>
> I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice and
> input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
> colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we are
> working on a comprise.
>
> I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the other,
> will be put to the voters this year.
>
> Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36483 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Pompeia.

It maybe weak. It may not. You may think it, others may think so too
and others may not. Ultimately it is irrelevant since the
constitution does not empower anyone to make a value judgement on
the substance or strength of his claim that he has incurred
a 'direct negative impact', at least PRIOR to his actual hearing
before the assembly.

Vale
Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> ---Salve Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:
>
> A question:
>
> If you were experiencing such a 'direct negative impact' over a
> Tribunes' decision (to declare Saturninus a tribune still) which
you
> feel resultantly shortchanged you an opportunity to run for
Tribune
> this year, expecting such an opportunity, I guess...why on earth
> did you run for Quaestor in the initial stages of all this burr
rra
> rahh, earlier in the year? Had you planned somehow on being able
to
> hold 'both' Tribune potestas and the Quaestorship? How many
> magistracies would you like? :)
>
> You are the one to define 'direct negative impact' from your
> perspective, granted. But I think the claim has to have some
> substantiation in probability too. It seems to me, that you
couldn't
> have been that confident, nor that worried at the time about a
> chance to run for Tribune if you were campaigning for Quaestor.
>
> Yeah, this makes your already weak claim, in my view, of 'direct
> negative impact' look almost nonexistent, in my humble
> perspective....
>
> Ahh, things one thinks about as one putters in the garden...
>
>
>
> Vale,
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m...>
> wrote:
> > Salve Cordus
> >
> > The Tribunes are NOT empowered to prevent my hearing before the
> CPT. If any magistrate can veto the convening of the CPT to
prevent
> the hearing of Provocatio then the right does not in fact exist
> under Nova Roman law.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: A. Apollonius Cordus<mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@y...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-
Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
> >
> >
> > A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.
> >
> > Salve, amice. Scripsisti:
> >
> > > The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People
> > > are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi
> > > Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
> > > I respectfully ask if any of these Senior
> > > Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi
> > > Tributa to hear my Provocatio?
> >
> > I very much doubt there's any point, since presumably
> > the tribunes will veto them if they do.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling
worldwide
> with voicemail
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/>
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "Nova-
> Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.
> >
> > 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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36484 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve

You are partially wrong, Caesar.

The law gives the power to the Tribunes to judge the action of a
magitrate to call the comitia to hear such claim to be compliant to
the law, that says there must be a dirct negative impact of a
magistrate decision to have provocatio, or not.

Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.

Vale,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum


On 7/24/05, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> Salve Pompeia.
>
> It maybe weak. It may not. You may think it, others may think so too
> and others may not. Ultimately it is irrelevant since the
> constitution does not empower anyone to make a value judgement on
> the substance or strength of his claim that he has incurred
> a 'direct negative impact', at least PRIOR to his actual hearing
> before the assembly.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36485 From: Caius Curius Saturninus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: about the recent issue
Salvete,

I wish to be made known that I support my colleague Fuscus in his
intercessio. It is unfortunate indeed that this issue has been
surfaced. I haven't read nearly all of the messages sent in recent days
as I have been busy with regional meeting and some other provincial
duties, but from those I have read I think Cordus' rather long message
put it all together very nicely: let's work for the future.

Valete,

Caius Curius Saturninus

Tribunus Plebis
Propraetor Provinciae Thules
Procurator Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36486 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Fusce.

I undertsand that you imply that as a logical consequence of this
poorly written section, but I still say that nowhere in the
constitution does it give you the right as a Tribune, or indeed
anyone else, to make a value judgement on the basis of a claim to
provocatio PRIOR to the actual hearing. It vests all the power with
the appellant simply by not including any such power to judge the
validity of a claim.

Obviously I know that you consider it spurious and this a dead
issue, but the constitution does not allow you, I contend, that
freedom of action. It simply says one who has suffered a negative
impact is entitled to claim provocatio.

You may THINK that it is logical that someone should have the right
prior to a hearing before the assembly to judge the validity of the
claim, but if this were the case that "someone" would be potentially
usurping the right of a citizen ever to appeal.

He or she could only appeal as long as everyone else agreed it was a
valid claim, or at least the Tribunes for they are the ones that
could in theory veto the action of a magistrate attempting to deny
the right to provocatio. That defeats the whole purpose of this
section, poorly written or not. The Tribunes cannot become judge and
jury prior to such a right of appeal.

This is a grossly unfair extension of your powers, unconstitutional
and blatantly biased since in this specific case you who are on
record as saying that Paulinus had no case to claim that there was a
vacancy, now have usurped this man's right of appeal. That will be
seen Tribune as a clear cut case of your defending your original
decision at the cost of this man's rights.

Yes - this section "stinks" but why pile extra odure onto an alreay
rotten section? Allow the man his day, even if you think his case is
rotten and the matter best left to die. Allow him a right granted
under the constitution and don't in an effort to remove this blot
undermine an alreay shaky document. Let him have his appeal and let
the matter be done. You will end up doing more damage trying to
squash this matter than just letting it run.

Vale
Caesar



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:
> Salve
>
> You are partially wrong, Caesar.
>
> The law gives the power to the Tribunes to judge the action of a
> magitrate to call the comitia to hear such claim to be compliant to
> the law, that says there must be a dirct negative impact of a
> magistrate decision to have provocatio, or not.
>
> Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
> tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.
>
> Vale,
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
> Founder of Gens Constantinia
> Tribunus Plebis
> Aedilis Urbis Iterum
>
>
> On 7/24/05, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Pompeia.
> >
> > It maybe weak. It may not. You may think it, others may think so
too
> > and others may not. Ultimately it is irrelevant since the
> > constitution does not empower anyone to make a value judgement
on
> > the substance or strength of his claim that he has incurred
> > a 'direct negative impact', at least PRIOR to his actual hearing
> > before the assembly.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36487 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
Ooops! How in the world did I type that? It's too early to be in
the cups, so I'll just have to plead fat fingers.

Laenas


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> ---Minucia Tiberia Popillio Laeno Consul Salutem::
>
> Oh no. I'm afraid you are with respect, mistaken. Cato was
wondering
> about the "resignation" lex amendment. No mention that I see
atleast
> on any resigfantion lex.
>
> Just teasing you and bein a silly:)
>
> Po
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> <gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> > Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
> >
> > It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity
regarding
> > the resignation of a magistracy.
> >
> > I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice
and
> > input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
> > colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we
are
> > working on a comprise.
> >
> > I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the
other,
> > will be put to the voters this year.
> >
> > Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36488 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
---M. Hortensia Maior G. Laenati spd;

Wonderful Consul, when you are ready submit it to me and I will
call the Comitia as promised!
This is the way out of our problems, by thoughtful action. You
have my admiration and respect.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
>
> It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity regarding
> the resignation of a magistracy.
>
> I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice and
> input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
> colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we are
> working on a comprise.
>
> I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the other,
> will be put to the voters this year.
>
> Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36489 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Pompeia

While we all have an opinion on just about everything only the CPT can decide if my case has merit.

We had an ongoing debate on how many Tribunes were legally in office. The debate continues.

I had placed a case for maladministration before the Praetors who ruled that it would have
to wait until after the Tribunes left office.

The fact that I believed then and still do that I had suffered a 'direct negative impact'
did not diminish my desire to serve the republic so I announce my candidacy for Quaestor.
It was a magistracy I had already served in and was willing to do again.

I hope I have been doing it to the satisfaction of our Consuls.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus







----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia<mailto:pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)


---Salve Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:

A question:

If you were experiencing such a 'direct negative impact' over a
Tribunes' decision (to declare Saturninus a tribune still) which you
feel resultantly shortchanged you an opportunity to run for Tribune
this year, expecting such an opportunity, I guess...why on earth
did you run for Quaestor in the initial stages of all this burr rra
rahh, earlier in the year? Had you planned somehow on being able to
hold 'both' Tribune potestas and the Quaestorship? How many
magistracies would you like? :)

You are the one to define 'direct negative impact' from your
perspective, granted. But I think the claim has to have some
substantiation in probability too. It seems to me, that you couldn't
have been that confident, nor that worried at the time about a
chance to run for Tribune if you were campaigning for Quaestor.

Yeah, this makes your already weak claim, in my view, of 'direct
negative impact' look almost nonexistent, in my humble
perspective....

Ahh, things one thinks about as one putters in the garden...



Vale,
Pompeia





In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Cordus
>
> The Tribunes are NOT empowered to prevent my hearing before the
CPT. If any magistrate can veto the convening of the CPT to prevent
the hearing of Provocatio then the right does not in fact exist
under Nova Roman law.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus<mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@y...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
>
>
> A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.
>
> Salve, amice. Scripsisti:
>
> > The Consuls, Praetors and the Tribunes of the People
> > are each entitled to convene the Comitia Populi
> > Tributa to hear my Provocatio.
> > I respectfully ask if any of these Senior
> > Magistrates are going to convene the Comitia Populi
> > Tributa to hear my Provocatio?
>
> I very much doubt there's any point, since presumably
> the tribunes will veto them if they do.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/><http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-
Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>>" on the web.
>
> 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/<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>>.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA>
The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=05P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36490 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. S.P.D.

> The law gives the power to the Tribunes to judge the action of a
> magitrate to call the comitia to hear such claim to be compliant to
> the law, that says there must be a dirct negative impact of a
> magistrate decision to have provocatio, or not.
>
> Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
> tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.

CATO: Where on earth do you find this supposed authority, tribune?
Certainly not in the Constitution of Nova Roma, nor in her laws. The
Constitution says that the right of provocatio is "guaranteed"; there
are no conditionals, no exceptions, no discussion of who may or may
not decide if a citizen can invoke that right. There is no definition
of "direct negative impact", nor any authority given to any magistrate
to define those terms. If my client claims that he has suffered a
"direct negative impact", it must be assumed to be so. The
Constitution guarantees the citizens of the Republic the right of
provocatio.

It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has, and
which you have sworn to uphold.

It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has,
which all the tribunes have sworn to uphold.

It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has,
which the consuls and praetors have sworn to uphold.

"V.Commission by action or inaction:

1. Crimes may be committed either by actively causing an illegal
event or state of affairs or by allowing an illegal event or state of
affairs to occur through inaction." - lex Salicia Poenalis, Pars
Prima: Principia Generalia, V.A.1

I call upon you to abide by your oaths.


By the way, I would suggest we also take a further look at the lex
Salicia Poenalis, Prima Pars: Principia Generalia, Section III.A.f.:

"III. Rights of Citizenship:
...
f. Provocatio, the right of appeal to the Comitia;"

So, here again, enshrined in our laws, is the right of provocatio,
without even addressing any specific necessary circumstances
surrounding that right.

Why are we so afraid of turning to the People to decide a question so
intrinsically important to the running of their own government? What
do we fear from the People? Why refuse a citizen one of our most
basic rights?

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36491 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
G. Equitius Cato G. Popillio Laeno consule S.P.D.

Salve consul.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
>
> It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity regarding
> the resignation of a magistracy.
>
> I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice and
> input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
> colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we are
> working on a comprise.
>
> I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the other,
> will be put to the voters this year.
>
> Valete.

CATO: Thank you, consul. I appreciate you ongoing concern and the
fact that you have kept your word. I look forward to seeing the
proposal when it is introduced.

With great respect I would remind you that the issue dealt with in the
provocatio is not the question of the resignation law per se; it is a
question of tribunician authority. As a consul, I have addressed my
call to you and your colleague in the consulship as well. I continue
to hope that you will uphold the rights of citizens guaranteed by our
Constitution.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36492 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes
A. Apollonius Ti. Galerio omnibusque sal.

> The Tribunes are NOT empowered to prevent my hearing
> before the CPT. If any magistrate can veto the
> convening of the CPT to prevent the hearing of
> Provocatio then the right does not in fact exist
> under Nova Roman law.

This argument may or may not be correct. It's based on
a question of how to interpret the constitution, and,
as we've found many times before, there is no way to
ever definitively settle questions of constitutional
interpretation in our current system.

But if your argument is correct, it applies equally to
the tribunes themselves. If it's true that a tribune
can't veto a praetor if the praetor tries to call the
assembly to hear a provocatio, then it's equally true
that a tribune can't veto another tribune if the
tribune tries to call the assembly for that purpose.
Do you see what I mean?

One tribune has declared his intention to call the
assembly. Two others have declared that they will veto
it. Either those two vetoes are legal or they're not.
If they are valid, then there's no point in any other
magistrate trying to call the assembly on the same
point. If they're not valid, then the tribune who has
already stated his intention to call the assembly can
go ahead and call it without the help of any other
magistrate. Either way, there's no earthly point in
any other magistrate doing anything as far as I can see.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36493 From: Timothy P. Gallagher Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: about the recent issue
Salve Caius Curius Saturninus

Yes lets just forget about the law, the constitution and my appeal and
lets allow the Tribunes or any magistrate to "invent" procedures that suit them best.

You were elected Tribune, in the fall, by will of the Plebeians of Nova Roma and
it is only through them that you can reclaim this office that you resigned from and do not hold.

If an election had been held in January to fill the vacancy I have no doubt you would have been a leading candidate to do just that.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Curius Saturninus<mailto:c.curius@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] about the recent issue


Salvete,

I wish to be made known that I support my colleague Fuscus in his
intercessio. It is unfortunate indeed that this issue has been
surfaced. I haven't read nearly all of the messages sent in recent days
as I have been busy with regional meeting and some other provincial
duties, but from those I have read I think Cordus' rather long message
put it all together very nicely: let's work for the future.

Valete,

Caius Curius Saturninus

Tribunus Plebis
Propraetor Provinciae Thules
Procurator Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751



SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA>
The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=05P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36494 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Cato.

I think by now everyone knows what this is all about. A decision was
taken by the Tribunes to recognise that a Tribune who had resigned,
had not in fact resigned and could continue blithly on.

If they do not prevent the appeal to the assembly at this stage
there is a risk (however slight - apparently too great) that the end
result could see their original decision effectively reversed. So in
order to prevent that your client will have his constitutional
rights eradicated through the, I contend, illegal use of the veto
and deafning silence.

It will be a sad day indeed for Nova Roma if the people are not
allowed to render a decision on a matter put before them under a
constitutional right.

Vale
Caesar



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. S.P.D.
>
> > The law gives the power to the Tribunes to judge the action of a
> > magitrate to call the comitia to hear such claim to be compliant
to
> > the law, that says there must be a dirct negative impact of a
> > magistrate decision to have provocatio, or not.
> >
> > Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
> > tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.
>
> CATO: Where on earth do you find this supposed authority,
tribune?
> Certainly not in the Constitution of Nova Roma, nor in her laws.
The
> Constitution says that the right of provocatio is "guaranteed";
there
> are no conditionals, no exceptions, no discussion of who may or may
> not decide if a citizen can invoke that right. There is no
definition
> of "direct negative impact", nor any authority given to any
magistrate
> to define those terms. If my client claims that he has suffered a
> "direct negative impact", it must be assumed to be so. The
> Constitution guarantees the citizens of the Republic the right of
> provocatio.
>
> It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has,
and
> which you have sworn to uphold.
>
> It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has,
> which all the tribunes have sworn to uphold.
>
> It is guaranteed by the highest legal authority the Republic has,
> which the consuls and praetors have sworn to uphold.
>
> "V.Commission by action or inaction:
>
> 1. Crimes may be committed either by actively causing an illegal
> event or state of affairs or by allowing an illegal event or state
of
> affairs to occur through inaction." - lex Salicia Poenalis, Pars
> Prima: Principia Generalia, V.A.1
>
> I call upon you to abide by your oaths.
>
>
> By the way, I would suggest we also take a further look at the lex
> Salicia Poenalis, Prima Pars: Principia Generalia, Section
III.A.f.:
>
> "III. Rights of Citizenship:
> ...
> f. Provocatio, the right of appeal to the Comitia;"
>
> So, here again, enshrined in our laws, is the right of provocatio,
> without even addressing any specific necessary circumstances
> surrounding that right.
>
> Why are we so afraid of turning to the People to decide a question
so
> intrinsically important to the running of their own government?
What
> do we fear from the People? Why refuse a citizen one of our most
> basic rights?
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36495 From: rustyatrpg@aol.com Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Castra Romana Invitation
Salvete Romani!
On behalf of the ISPA and The Legionaries and Supporters of Legio VI Ferrata
Fidelas Constans would like to formally invite you to our Third annual
Castra Romana, November 4-6, 2005. This event will be held at Givhans State Park
in South Carolina. Knowing it is a bit of a drive for most, we are pulling
out all the stops (including lots of new stuff!!) to make this an experience
you will not want to miss, and will never forget!
While this event will be advertised and open to the public, our primary goal
is to provide a unique experience to our participants. To this end we have a
great number of events which will interest the Roman Reenactor, be they
soldier or civilian! This will include a period smithy, Roman Vendors, potter,
baker, Presentations, and more. If you have a unique impression you would
like to bring and add, please contact us. There is no cost to our participants
for any of the events they can participate in or for the encampment itself.
The last years have been an outstanding success, and this year will be even
better!
Soldiers will get the opportunity to drill and train with double weighted
weapons, throw live pila on the pila range, practice live sword (against a post
of course!), in addition to participating in Needlefelt mock combat both on
the drill field for spectators Saturday, and in the woods on Sunday, you will
see the Gladiators in the arena in daylight, and at a special torchlight
nightime match just before the Grand Convivia! We will also have Military
Games, a 1.5 mile road march (there are Celts about... bring your Needlefelts),
guard mount, pay issue (yes, you will get your 75 Denarii... minus a bit for
the Centurion...), and more.
The highlight of the event will be the Centurios Convivium, a grande Roman
Banquet prepared by our gourmet Roman Chef the Lady Helvia Elena Claudilla,
and hosted by the Centurio. Ask anyone about our feast! The food alone is
worth the drive!
Average Temperature in November in South Carolina is 65-75 degrees. In
addition there are few if any events on the calendar for that period of time.
Plus the mosquitos are mostly dead! Legio VI will be onsite Thursday the 3rd to
Monday the 7th, but you should try to arrive sometime Thursday or Friday
unless you are setting up a special event or station. Re-enacting events start
Friday night. Vendors are welcome to set up a display, but we ask that they
remain in period as much as they are able, and you must contact us as soon as
possible. We have limited room for vendors, but will endeavor to accommodate
you in the period market, or vendor row. Remember this event is being
planned for the participants, so we need you to attend! Please RSVP via EMAIL
by October 1st with firm numbers if at all possible (this is so we can plan
the feast).
It is our sincerest hope you will plan to attend. We will have an excellent
time, and want you to be there to celebrate the growth of Roman Living
Archeology, at the best Castra Romana EVER!
Ave!
Justus Rustius Longinus
Centurio, Cohrs I
Legio VI FFC
ISPA





Legio VI
FerrataFidelas Constans_www.LEGVI.com_ (http://www.legvi.com/)


104 Hunters Wood Drive, Summerville, South Carolina 29485 USA
(843) 437-5587 Email: _JustusLonginus@..._
(mailto:JustusLonginus@...)

Bringing the Armies of Rome to Life
Visit our other pages!_ www.LEGVI.com_ (http://www.legvi.com/) Home of the
Sixth Imperial Roman Legion_ http://legvi.tripod.com/ispa/_
(http://legvi.ttripod.com/ispa/) Home of Imperial Southern Provisional Army_
www.CastraRomana.com_ (http://www.castraromana.com/) The Roman Event in the Southeast_
www.SouloftheWarrior.com_ (http://www.soulofthewarrior.com/) New RPG and Legion
Armoury Store Front_ www.RustysPaintballGear.com_
(http://www.rustyspaintballgear.com/) Our original site! Now SOTW


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36496 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
>> "V.Commission by action or inaction:
>
> 1. Crimes may be committed either by actively causing an illegal
> event or state of affairs or by allowing an illegal event or state
of
> affairs to occur through inaction." - lex Salicia Poenalis, Pars
> Prima: Principia Generalia, V.A.1
>
> I call upon you to abide by your oaths.
>

Salve,

Interesting to bring up the Lex Salicia Poenalis.

XVIII. ABVSVS POTESTATIS (Magisterial Abuse):
A. Whenever it is proven that a magistrate of Nova Roma has used his
magisterial powers to act against the lawful rights of a person as
defined by the laws and Constitution of Nova Roma, or to gain
illegal advantages for himself or for others, the illegal action
shall be voided. Any damage created by this illegal action shall be
repaired, if possible, by the reus. The praetor may include in his
formula instructions to other magistrates and provisions to repair
that damage within the limits established by the laws of Nova Roma.

B. The praetor's formula may include any or all of the following
poenae:
1. DECLARATIO PVBLICA, including an apology to the actor, the victim
(if different from the actor), and the Republic of Nova Roma.
2. MVLTA PECVNIARIA, compelling the reus to pay an amount to the sum
of the loss of the victim to that victim (even if different from the
actor), and, if deemed necessary by the praetor, up to the sum of
the loss of the victim to the Aerarium Publicum.
3. INHABILITATIO from some or all rights of suffragium and honores
for life;
4. EXACTIO for life.

I could certainly see where it could be applied that the use of an
intercessio to prevent a person from exercising their Consitutional
and legal right of provocatio would fall under the heading of ABVSVS
POTESTATIS.

Too bad that portion of the Lex Salacia Poenalis is so difficult to
enforce. You can't prosecute a sitting magistrate so all a person
has to do to avoid this is keep getting elected and run the clock on
the statute of limitations. Would have been a good idea at the time
to include wording that a sitting magistrate could be charged with
ABVSVS POTESTATIS while in office, such a charge preventing the
seeking of another elected office, and any trial would occur after
the expiration of the term of office.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36497 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Fusce.

I would invite you to address the style of interpretation that you
are employing in this matter.

You are using a style of deductive reasoning that detracts from the
actual literal right of provocatio. This runs, or seems to me
anyway, contrary to a position you took on constitutional
interpretation last year.

I invite you to read message 24101 on this list, where in a debate
with Scaurus over the order of precedence of a law and a decretum
you stated:

"That comes from the litteral and logic interpretation of the
Constitution and also the only interpretation that doesn't deprive
of meaning (aka, conservative interpretation, translating ad
litteram from italian, but maybe in english that has another name)
the presence of the decreta pontificia in the list of hierarchy of
the legal acts and its standing behind the laws."

In this debate you appear to have adopted an approach that preserved
the literal meaning of this section of the constitution. You
followed a "conservative" approach in this situation.

Today you adopt a style of interpretation that strips the very
meaning from the right of provocatio. It exists to protect a
citizen. If that citizen has to justify his claim, in effect
be "tried" prior to an appeal to the assembly, then the section
becomes totally meaningless.

If a citizen has suffered a negative impact to imply that you as a
Tribune (or anyone else) has the right to pre-judge the validity of
that negative impact completely renders a right of appeal to the
assembly meaningless, if it can be intercepted by persons who in
this case Paulinus would no doubt claim are the cause of the
negative impact.

It is as ridiculous as a plaintiff in a libel case having to submit
to the judgement of the person who allegedly libelled him, before he
can actually get to court to have his case heard.

How can you follow a literal and conservative style of
interpretation last year (in a matter that suited you to do so is
the obvious implication), yet now completely stand that approach on
its head and argue for a more liberal and deductive style of
interpretation (in a matter that obviously suits you to do so is the
obvious implication)?

Not only is the approach that you have taken I contend illegal, it
also destroys the whole point of provocatio and I might add appears
to contradict your earlier principle of interpretation.

Vale
Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:
> Salve
>
> You are partially wrong, Caesar.
>
> The law gives the power to the Tribunes to judge the action of a
> magitrate to call the comitia to hear such claim to be compliant to
> the law, that says there must be a dirct negative impact of a
> magistrate decision to have provocatio, or not.
>
> Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
> tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.
>
> Vale,
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
> Founder of Gens Constantinia
> Tribunus Plebis
> Aedilis Urbis Iterum
>
>
> On 7/24/05, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Pompeia.
> >
> > It maybe weak. It may not. You may think it, others may think so
too
> > and others may not. Ultimately it is irrelevant since the
> > constitution does not empower anyone to make a value judgement
on
> > the substance or strength of his claim that he has incurred
> > a 'direct negative impact', at least PRIOR to his actual hearing
> > before the assembly.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36498 From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Vale Caesar

I personally and the others tribunes personally and collectively have
expressed their interpretation on both Saturninus' position, Paulinus
attempt at running for a position that was not vacant at that time and
is not now and, now, about his provocatio. I'm simply not going to
repeat myself once again. Anyone can, as you did, go and look at the
archives (and I'd actually invite them to, as they'd get a broader an
more genuine vision than a truncated part of a mail o fmine can give).

In that regard, I actually disagree with your reading of my words, and
by the fact that my pesonal interpretation of the case in point would
"destroys the whole point of provocatio". I actually think it's pretty
evident otherwise, and I shall not not waste anyone's time with a
lenghty explaination. The net is already full of spam enough for me to
add to it by repeating the same things over and over again, I'll let
others, if so they wish, do it ad nauseam.

The fact is, we have a half dozen people who just can't settle with
the fact they can't have their own way no matter the tribunes have
told them they can't and apparently the conslues and the praetores
think so too, I'v yet to see any of them voicing their opinions in
favor of your intrpretations of the situation, but in any case I'd
invite them to, just to know where everyone stand.

regardless of that. I'll tell you one thing, and hopefully for the
last time: even if I'd be alone in this, I still would think that

a) Saturninus is rightfully a Tribunus
b) Paulinus, like ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF NOVA ROMA, had no right
whatsoever for running for tribunus, being thre were already 5 at that
time
c) Paulinus, not having been the only and direct target of any
magistrate decision, has no right whatsoever to put the matter by
provocatio in font of the comitia
d) the comitia would have no right to give Paulinus a chance of
running for Tribunus, as that would arrogat them the right to
effeivally recall a magistrate during his year of servic, a power they
simply don't have

Given those 4 points, that I hold not for personal grudge, personal
pride or personal gain, but because I think that those four points to
be the most correct ones within the NR system, I shall keep my line no
matter the amount of screams, growls, yapping, spam and assorted noise
a bunch of unhappy people can, in the hope of winning by destroying
the nerves of the people involved, create in this forum.

That said, you, Cato and Paulinus may keep writing whatever you want,
Quintus may suggest I, with or without the other tribunes, may be
indicted for abuse of power and Cordus may keep writing his long,
stilish mails (that are always a pleasure to read and also make the
only good, reasonable, point I've seen so far, id est "let's work
change the things for the future"), but I think I've seriously said
the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, because nothing will
make me change from what I, in good coscience, believe to be my DUTY
as a Tribunus and I don't care a bit if this position is unpopular, as
long as I in good coscience think, and the whole half dozen of you
hasn't so far managed to make me believe otherwise, that is the most
correct.

Of course, would be nice if Cato would be less enphatic and more
precise about the facts and someone else would quit this nonsese about
the fact that I (or we tribunes) would be doing this for personal
reasons, but I understand fairness and correctness are not something
that can be hoped for in this situation.

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum



On 7/24/05, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> Salve Fusce.
>
> I would invite you to address the style of interpretation that you
> are employing in this matter.
>
> You are using a style of deductive reasoning that detracts from the
> actual literal right of provocatio. This runs, or seems to me
> anyway, contrary to a position you took on constitutional
> interpretation last year.
>
> I invite you to read message 24101 on this list, where in a debate
> with Scaurus over the order of precedence of a law and a decretum
> you stated:
>
> "That comes from the litteral and logic interpretation of the
> Constitution and also the only interpretation that doesn't deprive
> of meaning (aka, conservative interpretation, translating ad
> litteram from italian, but maybe in english that has another name)
> the presence of the decreta pontificia in the list of hierarchy of
> the legal acts and its standing behind the laws."
>
> In this debate you appear to have adopted an approach that preserved
> the literal meaning of this section of the constitution. You
> followed a "conservative" approach in this situation.
>
> Today you adopt a style of interpretation that strips the very
> meaning from the right of provocatio. It exists to protect a
> citizen. If that citizen has to justify his claim, in effect
> be "tried" prior to an appeal to the assembly, then the section
> becomes totally meaningless.
>
> If a citizen has suffered a negative impact to imply that you as a
> Tribune (or anyone else) has the right to pre-judge the validity of
> that negative impact completely renders a right of appeal to the
> assembly meaningless, if it can be intercepted by persons who in
> this case Paulinus would no doubt claim are the cause of the
> negative impact.
>
> It is as ridiculous as a plaintiff in a libel case having to submit
> to the judgement of the person who allegedly libelled him, before he
> can actually get to court to have his case heard.
>
> How can you follow a literal and conservative style of
> interpretation last year (in a matter that suited you to do so is
> the obvious implication), yet now completely stand that approach on
> its head and argue for a more liberal and deductive style of
> interpretation (in a matter that obviously suits you to do so is the
> obvious implication)?
>
> Not only is the approach that you have taken I contend illegal, it
> also destroys the whole point of provocatio and I might add appears
> to contradict your earlier principle of interpretation.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36499 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salvete omnes,

I am following this debate regarding Paulini appeal with interest
but I haven't spent enough time studying and working with our laws
and constitution in oder to render an intelligent or helpful
decision for both sides of this issue.

The only thing I would like to comment about is the first post on
this matter by Gnae Iuli Caesar whose comments and suggestions I
value greatly. On face to face meetings we discussed our
constitution before and wondered how necessary it was at this point
in time, given the fact that our population is not that great. I
know there are only two or three hundred active members though the
total population including socii is 2000 +. I think the on going
census to be completed by October shall give us all a better sense
of reality. Also, being registered as a non-profit a corporation as
such, each assidui citizen should be privately mailed a quarterly or
at least a yearly statement regarding the finances of NR. We have to
do this with our Mexican and Irish societies here and I am sure that
is required by American regulations also. Since my 3 years in NR I
haven't seen such statements produced so I have no idea if we are in
the black, red or how much is available for future events.

When all is said and done in a few months and we know the reality of
our "dedicated" population and finances perhaps we can all reacess
the
position NR is in and decide whether or not our population size and
finances warrants the detailed constitution which draws a lot of
energy, time and talent or do we think that our time, energy and
talents might be better used in other directions from festivities to
promotions, education and all.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36500 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
Salve Fusce et salvete omnes.

I am not Paulinus's advocate, Cato is but I, like every other
citizen, have a vested interest in holding the Tribunes to their
duty of defending the constitution, which we heard much about in the
past.

I am sorry Fuscus that you gloss over the total inconsistency in
interpretative standards, and that this obvious disparity deserves
in your mind no explanation. I leave the citizens to judge how
convincing this apparent flip-flop of principle is.

I have no doubt that you won't budge. That doesn't make what you are
doing one whit more legal. You have now set the precedent for
completely ignoring a black and white section of the constitution.
Yes it is flawed, yes it doesn't think ahead to process, but no you
have no right whatever to interpret away Paulinus's right to an
appeal to the assembly.

So citizen we have reached an impasse. The Tribunes it appears will
continue to block the obvious right of appeal that Paulinus has.
This is dogmatic and intransigent obstruction of the constitutional
rights of a citizen. In Nova Roma the tribunes are supposed to
defend the constitution and historically of course plebeian
citizens. Today they have failed miserably on both counts, and
Tribune Fuscus refuses to address the obvious inconsistency of
interpretative methodology that he has used and is now using.

The fact that the consuls and praetors may or may not agree that
there is no case to answer is utterly irrelevant and does not
strengthen this illegal position adopted by the Tribunes. The
constitution does not require the approval, blessing or validation
of anyone in this matter and no exercise of imperium to attempt to
do so would be legal.

If people are left with the impression that the Tribunes have
illegally stripped a citizen of his constitutional rights in order
to prevent his attempt to prove that their original decision (that
one of their number had not resigned) was in itself illegal, then
who is to blame but the Tribunes themselves? Standards of
interpretation tossed out of the window, an obvious right totally
ignored and for what? It appears in order to ensure the preservation
of their original decision, which many citizens believe was itself
wrong and illegal.

What faith can anyone now have in the fairness, impartiality and
professionalism of the Tribunes to execute their office? Just saying
that one believes one is doing ones duty is not a reasonable
explanation for such blatant illegality.

It is also sad that Tribune Fuscus equates attempting to demonstrate
that what he and other Tribunes are doing is illegal to "screams,
growls, yapping, spam and assorted noise a bunch of unhappy people
can, in the hope of winning by destroying the nerves of the people
involved, create in this forum." That I think clearly demonstrates
the contempt that he holds certain citizens in and bodes ill for
anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

I imagine the plebeians thought that when they elected this year's
Tribunes they were electing people who would uphold the
constitution, not trample it underfoot along with individual rights.

Well Tribune Fuscus, much as you say you won't budge I for one will
not withdraw and allow you to ride roughshod over a citizen. If you
are so insecure in your position that you see opposition to you as
engaging in an attempt to destroy "the nerves of the people
involved" then I suggest you shouldn't hold the position you do.

You may be inviolate, but you are certainly not infallible, and in
this case I contend you are utterly and totally wrong, and I think
in your heart of hearts you know that but just don't care.

Valete
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:
> Vale Caesar
>
> I personally and the others tribunes personally and collectively
have
> expressed their interpretation on both Saturninus' position,
Paulinus
> attempt at running for a position that was not vacant at that time
and
> is not now and, now, about his provocatio. I'm simply not going to
> repeat myself once again. Anyone can, as you did, go and look at
the
> archives (and I'd actually invite them to, as they'd get a broader
an
> more genuine vision than a truncated part of a mail o fmine can
give).
>
> In that regard, I actually disagree with your reading of my words,
and
> by the fact that my pesonal interpretation of the case in point
would
> "destroys the whole point of provocatio". I actually think it's
pretty
> evident otherwise, and I shall not not waste anyone's time with a
> lenghty explaination. The net is already full of spam enough for
me to
> add to it by repeating the same things over and over again, I'll
let
> others, if so they wish, do it ad nauseam.
>
> The fact is, we have a half dozen people who just can't settle with
> the fact they can't have their own way no matter the tribunes have
> told them they can't and apparently the conslues and the praetores
> think so too, I'v yet to see any of them voicing their opinions in
> favor of your intrpretations of the situation, but in any case I'd
> invite them to, just to know where everyone stand.
>
> regardless of that. I'll tell you one thing, and hopefully for the
> last time: even if I'd be alone in this, I still would think that
>
> a) Saturninus is rightfully a Tribunus
> b) Paulinus, like ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF NOVA ROMA, had no right
> whatsoever for running for tribunus, being thre were already 5 at
that
> time
> c) Paulinus, not having been the only and direct target of any
> magistrate decision, has no right whatsoever to put the matter by
> provocatio in font of the comitia
> d) the comitia would have no right to give Paulinus a chance of
> running for Tribunus, as that would arrogat them the right to
> effeivally recall a magistrate during his year of servic, a power
they
> simply don't have
>
> Given those 4 points, that I hold not for personal grudge,
personal
> pride or personal gain, but because I think that those four points
to
> be the most correct ones within the NR system, I shall keep my
line no
> matter the amount of screams, growls, yapping, spam and assorted
noise
> a bunch of unhappy people can, in the hope of winning by destroying
> the nerves of the people involved, create in this forum.
>
> That said, you, Cato and Paulinus may keep writing whatever you
want,
> Quintus may suggest I, with or without the other tribunes, may be
> indicted for abuse of power and Cordus may keep writing his long,
> stilish mails (that are always a pleasure to read and also make the
> only good, reasonable, point I've seen so far, id est "let's work
> change the things for the future"), but I think I've seriously said
> the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, because nothing will
> make me change from what I, in good coscience, believe to be my
DUTY
> as a Tribunus and I don't care a bit if this position is
unpopular, as
> long as I in good coscience think, and the whole half dozen of you
> hasn't so far managed to make me believe otherwise, that is the
most
> correct.
>
> Of course, would be nice if Cato would be less enphatic and more
> precise about the facts and someone else would quit this nonsese
about
> the fact that I (or we tribunes) would be doing this for personal
> reasons, but I understand fairness and correctness are not
something
> that can be hoped for in this situation.
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
> Founder of Gens Constantinia
> Tribunus Plebis
> Aedilis Urbis Iterum
>
>
>
> On 7/24/05, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Fusce.
> >
> > I would invite you to address the style of interpretation that
you
> > are employing in this matter.
> >
> > You are using a style of deductive reasoning that detracts from
the
> > actual literal right of provocatio. This runs, or seems to me
> > anyway, contrary to a position you took on constitutional
> > interpretation last year.
> >
> > I invite you to read message 24101 on this list, where in a
debate
> > with Scaurus over the order of precedence of a law and a
decretum
> > you stated:
> >
> > "That comes from the litteral and logic interpretation of the
> > Constitution and also the only interpretation that doesn't
deprive
> > of meaning (aka, conservative interpretation, translating ad
> > litteram from italian, but maybe in english that has another
name)
> > the presence of the decreta pontificia in the list of hierarchy
of
> > the legal acts and its standing behind the laws."
> >
> > In this debate you appear to have adopted an approach that
preserved
> > the literal meaning of this section of the constitution. You
> > followed a "conservative" approach in this situation.
> >
> > Today you adopt a style of interpretation that strips the very
> > meaning from the right of provocatio. It exists to protect a
> > citizen. If that citizen has to justify his claim, in effect
> > be "tried" prior to an appeal to the assembly, then the section
> > becomes totally meaningless.
> >
> > If a citizen has suffered a negative impact to imply that you as
a
> > Tribune (or anyone else) has the right to pre-judge the validity
of
> > that negative impact completely renders a right of appeal to the
> > assembly meaningless, if it can be intercepted by persons who in
> > this case Paulinus would no doubt claim are the cause of the
> > negative impact.
> >
> > It is as ridiculous as a plaintiff in a libel case having to
submit
> > to the judgement of the person who allegedly libelled him,
before he
> > can actually get to court to have his case heard.
> >
> > How can you follow a literal and conservative style of
> > interpretation last year (in a matter that suited you to do so
is
> > the obvious implication), yet now completely stand that approach
on
> > its head and argue for a more liberal and deductive style of
> > interpretation (in a matter that obviously suits you to do so is
the
> > obvious implication)?
> >
> > Not only is the approach that you have taken I contend illegal,
it
> > also destroys the whole point of provocatio and I might add
appears
> > to contradict your earlier principle of interpretation.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> >
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36501 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve tribune et salvete omnes.

Tribune, you wrote earlier:

"To the self named advocates, I'd like also to point out that there
has not been a decision on mine on the case, there has actually not
been a decision at all..."

now you write:

"The fact is, we have a half dozen people who just can't settle with
the fact they can't have their own way no matter the tribunes have
told them they can't and apparently the conslues and the praetores
think so too..."

I will leave you to connect the dots here.


As you dislike my emphatic tone, I will state very precisely why my
client is calling on his right to provocatio:

1. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen over the age of 18, believes that the
tribunes (magistrates) made a decision (written co-incidentally by
your hand) that had a "direct negative impact" upon him. The point of
the provocatio is that the tribunes do not have the authority to make
the decision they made, and Galerius Paulinus is appealing that decision.

2. The Constitution guarantees any citizen over the age of 18 the
right to appeal a decision made by a magistrate that has had a "direct
negative impact" upon him. (see N.R. Constitution, II.B.5)

The rest of the "whereas" parts of my call, which you don't like,
simply point out that:

1. The Constitution does not define the terms "direct", "negative",
or "impact", or any combination thereof,
2. The Constitution does not give any magistrate the authority to
define these terms, and
3. The Constitution does not give any magistrate the authority to
deny the right to provocatio in any way, shape or form.

Let me say that I sympathize with those who, like Apollonius Cordus,
would prefer that we simply allow this particular matter to fade and
instead exert ours energies towards the goal of adopting "clear,
sensible, and historical" laws, as Marca Hortensia put it. I am
absolutelt and vehemently in favor of the latter, but that does not
automatically justify the former. We cannot ignore a (bad) law we
have today in hopes of a (better) law tomorrow.

To those who wish to correct the Constitution in regards to
provocatio, I say well done and have at it. Let's fix this as soon as
possible. But we must obey the Constitution as it stands now for the
government of the Republic to have any validity; for if our government
can pick and choose which rights, enshrined in its Constitution and
laws, it decides to obey, how far are we from despotism? Are we a
Republic in which the People are denied exercizing a right because
"the tribunes have told them they can't" ?

Vale et valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus &c.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36502 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and Tribu
A. Apollonius Q. Cassio omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti:

> Interesting to bring up the Lex Salicia Poenalis.

...

> I could certainly see where it could be applied that
> the use of an
> intercessio to prevent a person from exercising
> their Consitutional
> and legal right of provocatio would fall under the
> heading of ABVSVS
> POTESTATIS.
>
> Too bad that portion of the Lex Salacia Poenalis is
> so difficult to
> enforce. You can't prosecute a sitting magistrate
> so all a person
> has to do to avoid this is keep getting elected and
> run the clock on
> the statute of limitations. Would have been a good
> idea at the time
> to include wording that a sitting magistrate could
> be charged with
> ABVSVS POTESTATIS while in office, such a charge
> preventing the
> seeking of another elected office, and any trial
> would occur after
> the expiration of the term of office.

Yes, there is room for improvement in the lex, but of
course there are ways to deal with this even under the
current law.

For one thing, the praetores are themselves free to
interpret the lex with some discretion. If I were
praetor, I would be inclined to rule that time spent
in office does not count toward the prescribed period.
A prescription is, after all, supposed to define a
period of time within which it would be reasonable for
an injured party to sue; beyond that time it is
considered unreasonable to sue. If another legal rule
prevents the injured party from suing for some or all
of that period, then the party cannot be held to be
unreasonable in suing after the end of the period.

This doesn't solve the problem that, with the will of
the populus, a magistrate could in theory go on
evading a lawsuit forever. This is to be solved
ultimately by reestablishing the custom (and perhaps
even making it explicit in law) that a magistrate must
take a year off between offices. But in the short term
someone who wishes to sue a magistrate can always
declare his intention to sue and call upon the
magistrate concerned to take a year off in order to
answer the charges. This would place considerable
pressure on the magistrate to do so lest he be thought
to be trying to evade justice, for if he appears to be
doing this he's likely to lose not a few votes.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36503 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Against ad hominem
G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco tr. pl. S.P.D.

Salve, tribune.

"I shall keep my line no matter the amount of screams, growls,
yapping, spam and assorted noise a bunch of unhappy people can, in the
hope of winning by destroying the nerves of the people involved,
create in this forum...but I understand fairness and correctness are
not something
that can be hoped for in this situation."

THE SERIOUS PART:

Tribune, until you began your remarks, there had not been any
screaming or yapping or growling, and I think we should keep it that
way. There are ways to express emotion that do not necessarily need
to rely on insulting either the specific actions or the motives of
those involved.

THE NOT-SO-SERIOUS, but nonetheless true PART:

I'd also like to point out that I am, after a beautiful day of basking
in the sun and reading in Central Park, rollerblading along the Upper
East Side, and preparing to feast on Chinese take-out while watching a
movie, a distinctly happy person. Even your awesome tribunician
powers cannot deny me that.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36504 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Salve Tiberi Pauline,

That's about 222 citizens... I see the 10% guestimate of really
active interested citizens previously mentioned by some of our
prominent citizens is not far off the mark afterall.

I guess that is why a few here have wondered if we put the cart
before the horse with regards to whether the constitution is really
a pratical thing for this number of people.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m...> wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have paid your
taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and that
your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not please drop
me a note and I will make the necessary changes.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Consular Quaestor
>
>
> Roman Name
>
> A. Ulleria Machinatrix
> Aelius Solaris Marullinus
> Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
> Alia Equitia Marina
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
> Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
> Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
> Aula Arria Carina
> Aulus Apollonius Cordus
> Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
> Aulus Iulius Caesar
> Aulus Minicius Aelianus
> Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
> C.Minucius Hadrianus
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> Caius Arminius Reccanellus
> Caius Curius Saturninus
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> Caius Ianus Flaminius
> Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
> Claudia Iulia
> Clovius Ullerius Ursus
> Cynthia Cassia Justicia
> Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
> Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
> Decimus Gladius Lupus
> Decimus Iulius Caesar
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> Drusilla Cassia Titiana
> Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
> Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
> Emilia Curia Finnica
> Ennia Durmia Gemina
> Equestria Iunia Laeca
> Fabiana Arminia Metella
> Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
> Flavia Tullia Scholastica
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
> G. Iulius Scaurus
> Gaia Fabia Livia
> Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> Gaia Iulia Caesaris
> Gaius Adrianus Sergius
> Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
> Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
> Gaius Claudius Nero
> Gaius Cordius Symmachus
> Gaius Equitius Cato
> Gaius Equitius Renatus
> Gaius Galerius Lupus
> Gaius Geminius Germanus
> Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
> Gaius Iulius Iulianus
> Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
> Gaius Marius Aquilius
> Gaius Marius Merullus
> Gaius Minicius Paullus
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
> Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> Gaius Popillius Laenas
> Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
> Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Gallio Velius Marsallas
> Gallus Minucius Iovinus
> Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
> Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
> Gnaeus Salvius Astur
> Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
> Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
> Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
> Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
> Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
> Gratia Equitia Marina
> Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
> Ianus Minicius Sparsus
> Iohannes Moravius Meridius
> Irene Afrania Lentula
> Iulia Caesaris
> Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
> Iusta Sempronia Iustina
> Julilla Sempronia Magna
> Kaeso Arminius Cato
> L. Iulia Sabina Severa
> Livia Cornelia Serena
> Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
> Lucia Cassia Silvana
> Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
> Lucianus Octavius Romulus
> Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
> Lucius Arminius Cotta
> Lucius Arminius Faustus
> Lucius Arminius Metellus
> Lucius Cassius Pontonius
> Lucius Claudius Romulus
> Lucius Cornelius Cicero
> Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
> Lucius Fidelius Graecus
> Lucius Iulius Sulla
> Lucius Minicius Laietanus
> Lucius Octavius Severus
> Lucius Porticus Brutus
> Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> Lucius Sergius Australicus
> M. Gladius Agricola
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> M. Prometheus Decius Golia
> M.Ambrosius Falco
> Magia Ovidia Pythia
> Manius Arminius Corbulo
> Manius Constantinus Serapio
> Manius Iulius Caesar
> Marca Hortensia Maior
> Marcia Colombia Rex
> Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
> Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
> Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
> Marcus Arminius Maior
> Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Marcus Cassius Philippus
> Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
> Marcus Cornelius Crassus
> Marcus Curius Modius
> Marcus Darius Firmitus
> Marcus Durmius Sisena
> Marcus Flavius Fides
> Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> Marcus Iulius Caesar
> Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> Marcus Iunius Iulianus
> Marcus Marcius Rex
> Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
> Marcus Minicius Lupus
> Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
> Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> Marcus Quintius Clavus
> Marcus Quirinus Sulla
> Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> Marianus Adrianus Sarus
> Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
> Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
> Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
> Octavianus Titinius
> Patricia Cassia
> Paulina Gratidia Equitia
> Paulla Corva Gaudialis
> Petrus Silvius Naso
> Philippus Arminius Remus
> Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
> Prima Fabia Drusila
> Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
> Primus Minicius Octavianus
> Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
> Publius Arminius Maior
> Publius Constantinus Placidus
> Publius Flavius Caesar
> Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
> Publius Memmius Albucius
> Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
> Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
> Q. Iulius Probus
> Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
> Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
> Quintus Cassius Calvus
> Quintus Equitius Palladius
> Quintus Fabius Allectus
> Quintus Fabius Maximus
> Quintus Iunius Dominicus
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
> Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
> Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
> Quintus Valerius Callidus
> Quintus Valerius Callidus
> Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> S. Ullerius Venator
> S.E.M. Troianus
> Salvia Sempronia Graccha
> Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
> Servia Adriana Marcella
> Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
> Servius Labienus Cicero
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> Sextus Arminius Remus
> Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
> Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
> Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
> Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
> Spurius Arminius Carus
> T. Iulius Sabinus
> T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
> Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
> Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
> Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
> Tiberius Atilius Bellator
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> Tiberius Minicius Catulus
> Titus Horatius Atticus
> Titus Labienus Fortunatus
> Titus Licinius Crassus
> Titus Marcius Felix
> Titus Minicius Paullus
> Titus Octavius Decula
> Titus Octavius Marcellus
> Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
> Titus Octavius Salvius
> Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
> Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> Vibius Arminius Corbulus
> Vibius Minucius Falco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36505 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and T
>A. Apollonius Q. Cassio omnibusque sal.

<snipped>

> declare his intention to sue and call upon the
> magistrate concerned to take a year off in order to
> answer the charges. This would place considerable
> pressure on the magistrate to do so lest he be thought
> to be trying to evade justice, for if he appears to be
> doing this he's likely to lose not a few votes.

Salve Corde,

One would hope that a person, or persons attempting to evade a
lawsuit that had merit would not be electable. However
realistically it would not be that hard to do. With eight positions
for quaestor and historically in Nova Roma we're very lucky to get
even eight people to run at the same time all it would take is one
vote in one tribe to secure the eighth position and of course anyone
using such a tactic is going to vote for themselves thus securing
that one vote in one tribe. One could theoretically bounce from
quaestorship to tribunate over and over as those two offices are the
easiest to be elected into just by the sheer number of positions
available.

Vale,

Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36506 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Salve Quinte Pauline

Currently there are only 566 cives registered with the Officina
Census. That figure should change before the census is complete.
For the moment your 222 assudui compose 39% of Nova Roma.

Vale optime

M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Scriba Censoris Census Primus
Officina Census



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> Salve Tiberi Pauline,
>
> That's about 222 citizens... I see the 10% guestimate of really
> active interested citizens previously mentioned by some of our
> prominent citizens is not far off the mark afterall.
>
> I guess that is why a few here have wondered if we put the cart
> before the horse with regards to whether the constitution is
really
> a pratical thing for this number of people.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have paid
your
> taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and that
> your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not please
drop
> me a note and I will make the necessary changes.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Consular Quaestor
> >
> >
> > Roman Name
> >
> > A. Ulleria Machinatrix
> > Aelius Solaris Marullinus
> > Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
> > Alia Equitia Marina
> > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> > Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> > Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
> > Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
> > Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
> > Aula Arria Carina
> > Aulus Apollonius Cordus
> > Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
> > Aulus Iulius Caesar
> > Aulus Minicius Aelianus
> > Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> > Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
> > C.Minucius Hadrianus
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> > Caius Arminius Reccanellus
> > Caius Curius Saturninus
> > Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> > Caius Ianus Flaminius
> > Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
> > Claudia Iulia
> > Clovius Ullerius Ursus
> > Cynthia Cassia Justicia
> > Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
> > Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
> > Decimus Gladius Lupus
> > Decimus Iulius Caesar
> > Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
> > Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> > Drusilla Cassia Titiana
> > Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
> > Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
> > Emilia Curia Finnica
> > Ennia Durmia Gemina
> > Equestria Iunia Laeca
> > Fabiana Arminia Metella
> > Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > Flavia Tullia Scholastica
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> > Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
> > G. Iulius Scaurus
> > Gaia Fabia Livia
> > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> > Gaia Iulia Caesaris
> > Gaius Adrianus Sergius
> > Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
> > Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
> > Gaius Claudius Nero
> > Gaius Cordius Symmachus
> > Gaius Equitius Cato
> > Gaius Equitius Renatus
> > Gaius Galerius Lupus
> > Gaius Geminius Germanus
> > Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
> > Gaius Iulius Iulianus
> > Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
> > Gaius Marius Aquilius
> > Gaius Marius Merullus
> > Gaius Minicius Paullus
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> > Gaius Popillius Laenas
> > Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
> > Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
> > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > Gallio Velius Marsallas
> > Gallus Minucius Iovinus
> > Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
> > Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
> > Gnaeus Salvius Astur
> > Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
> > Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
> > Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> > Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
> > Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
> > Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
> > Gratia Equitia Marina
> > Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > Ianus Minicius Sparsus
> > Iohannes Moravius Meridius
> > Irene Afrania Lentula
> > Iulia Caesaris
> > Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
> > Iusta Sempronia Iustina
> > Julilla Sempronia Magna
> > Kaeso Arminius Cato
> > L. Iulia Sabina Severa
> > Livia Cornelia Serena
> > Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
> > Lucia Cassia Silvana
> > Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
> > Lucianus Octavius Romulus
> > Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
> > Lucius Arminius Cotta
> > Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > Lucius Arminius Metellus
> > Lucius Cassius Pontonius
> > Lucius Claudius Romulus
> > Lucius Cornelius Cicero
> > Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
> > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
> > Lucius Fidelius Graecus
> > Lucius Iulius Sulla
> > Lucius Minicius Laietanus
> > Lucius Octavius Severus
> > Lucius Porticus Brutus
> > Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> > Lucius Sergius Australicus
> > M. Gladius Agricola
> > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > M. Prometheus Decius Golia
> > M.Ambrosius Falco
> > Magia Ovidia Pythia
> > Manius Arminius Corbulo
> > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > Manius Iulius Caesar
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> > Marcia Colombia Rex
> > Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
> > Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
> > Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
> > Marcus Arminius Maior
> > Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Marcus Cassius Philippus
> > Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
> > Marcus Cornelius Crassus
> > Marcus Curius Modius
> > Marcus Darius Firmitus
> > Marcus Durmius Sisena
> > Marcus Flavius Fides
> > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> > Marcus Iulius Caesar
> > Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> > Marcus Iunius Iulianus
> > Marcus Marcius Rex
> > Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
> > Marcus Minicius Lupus
> > Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
> > Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > Marcus Quintius Clavus
> > Marcus Quirinus Sulla
> > Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> > Marianus Adrianus Sarus
> > Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
> > Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
> > Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
> > Octavianus Titinius
> > Patricia Cassia
> > Paulina Gratidia Equitia
> > Paulla Corva Gaudialis
> > Petrus Silvius Naso
> > Philippus Arminius Remus
> > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> > Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
> > Prima Fabia Drusila
> > Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
> > Primus Minicius Octavianus
> > Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
> > Publius Arminius Maior
> > Publius Constantinus Placidus
> > Publius Flavius Caesar
> > Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
> > Publius Memmius Albucius
> > Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
> > Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
> > Q. Iulius Probus
> > Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
> > Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
> > Quintus Cassius Calvus
> > Quintus Equitius Palladius
> > Quintus Fabius Allectus
> > Quintus Fabius Maximus
> > Quintus Iunius Dominicus
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
> > Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
> > Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
> > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > S. Ullerius Venator
> > S.E.M. Troianus
> > Salvia Sempronia Graccha
> > Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
> > Servia Adriana Marcella
> > Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
> > Servius Labienus Cicero
> > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > Sextus Arminius Remus
> > Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
> > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
> > Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
> > Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
> > Spurius Arminius Carus
> > T. Iulius Sabinus
> > T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
> > Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
> > Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
> > Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
> > Tiberius Atilius Bellator
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > Tiberius Minicius Catulus
> > Titus Horatius Atticus
> > Titus Labienus Fortunatus
> > Titus Licinius Crassus
> > Titus Marcius Felix
> > Titus Minicius Paullus
> > Titus Octavius Decula
> > Titus Octavius Marcellus
> > Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
> > Titus Octavius Salvius
> > Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
> > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> > Vibius Arminius Corbulus
> > Vibius Minucius Falco
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36507 From: Maior Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Resigfantion Lex
M.Hortensia Maior Laenati Quiritibusque spd;
Salvete; sorry for that gross error of course the Consul may
submit legislation, I am just suffering culture shock having just
returned from ascetic practices & meditation (silent) to plunging
into NR politics, legal analysis and all this brouhaha , I will rest
my grey cells until they can recoup;-
bene valete
Marca Hortensia Maior
a
> Wonderful Consul, when you are ready submit it to me and I
will
> call the Comitia as promised!
> This is the way out of our problems, by thoughtful action.
You
> have my admiration and respect.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> <gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> > Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
> >
> > It was I who promised action on a lex to remove ambiguity
regarding
> > the resignation of a magistracy.
> >
> > I have done quite a bit of work specifically seeking the advice
and
> > input of the Senate and looking for any historical evidence. My
> > colleague disagrees with the first draft of my proposal and we
are
> > working on a comprise.
> >
> > I have not forgotten my promise and a measure, one way or the
other,
> > will be put to the voters this year.
> >
> > Valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36508 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: Re: Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes (And to Galerius Paulinus)
In a message dated 7/24/2005 11:35:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dom.con.fus@... writes:
Implicitly and indirctly, of course, it gives the power to the
tribunes to judge the legal ground of the original request.
Q. Fabius Maximus SPD

Salvete

Really, based on what? Not the Vedian Constitution. Are you reading the
right Constitution? Permit me an observation. You do not want to admit you are
wrong.
Because you are involved in law. Lawyers never admit they are wrong even
when they are. I don't think anybody is going to nail you for malpractice here.
In fact I think they would all
cheer if you would dismiss Caius Curius Saturninus since he is in office
illegally. He resigned publicly, then changed his mind. Sorry no do-overs.
What's done is done. The Tribunate is not a Roman citizenship. It is an elected
office.
Instead of you and your gang of three are trying to contravene the Nova Roman
Constitution, which is the supreme power of this land. Never mind if its
flawed. Never mind if its rigid. Never mind if its not Roman enough (sorry
Corde). It is the law. The Tribunate was supposed to protect the law from abusing
citizens. Not use their interpretation of the law to mis treat others.
Stop being so stubborn, admit you are wrong, and let the assembly decide.
Or are you afraid you'll lose?

Valete


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36509 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-24
Subject: CENSUS BY PROVINCIAE
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, Scriba Censoris Census Primus,
propraetoribus, Quiritibus Novae Romanae salutem plurinam dicit.

The figures below show the number of cives who have registered thus
far with the Office of the Census compared to the total number of
provincial members currently listed for each provincia. Not
surprisingly, those provinciae with the lowest rate of responses so
far are those without propraetores, with one notable exception being
Asia Orientalis.

Propraetores, you may compare the figure for your respective
provincia against that of the other provinciae. From time to time
the Officina Census will post the figures again so that you can keep
track of how the census is going in each provincia.

Britannia: 35/132 27%
Dacia: 14/21 67%
Gallia: 14/71 20%
Germania: 16/86 19%
Hibernia: 3/4/2 33%
Hispania: 61/198 31%
Italia: 39/269 14%
Pannonia: 7/37 19%
Samartia 0/6 0%
Thules: 16/58 28%
Venedia: 2/27 7%
Total 23% 207/914

Canada Occidentalis: 9/41 22%
Canada Orientalis: 7/63 11%
Total 15% 16/104

Austroccidentalis: 33/182 18%
Austrorientalis: 47/197 24%
Boreoccidentalis 73: 16/73 22%
California: 29/160 18%
Lacus Magni: 34/146 23%
Mediatlantica: 62/288 22%
Medioccidentalis Superior: 11/79 14%
Nova Britannia: 31/107 29%

Total 23% 263/1125

Argentina: 9/43 21%
Brasilia: 34/99 34%
Mexico: 5/29 17%
Total 28% 48/171

Asia Occidentalis: 2/23 9%
Asia Orientalis: 5/21 24%
Australia: 8/65 12%

Unorganized: 17/83 20%

______________________________________________

Total 566/2506 = 22,6%
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36510 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Taxpayers List IV
Salve M Moravi Piscini Hotatiane,

Thanks for the info. That 39% is correct based on the 566 but I was
thinking in the terms of the 2200 + we have had. Well we have until
October to finalize everything and I will be very happy to be proved
entirely wrong.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@s...>
wrote:
> Salve Quinte Pauline
>
> Currently there are only 566 cives registered with the Officina
> Census. That figure should change before the census is complete.
> For the moment your 222 assudui compose 39% of Nova Roma.
>
> Vale optime
>
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> Scriba Censoris Census Primus
> Officina Census
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
(Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > Salve Tiberi Pauline,
> >
> > That's about 222 citizens... I see the 10% guestimate of really
> > active interested citizens previously mentioned by some of our
> > prominent citizens is not far off the mark afterall.
> >
> > I guess that is why a few here have wondered if we put the cart
> > before the horse with regards to whether the constitution is
> really
> > a pratical thing for this number of people.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> > -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> > <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > Salve Romans
> > >
> > > Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have paid
> your
> > taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and
that
> > your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not please
> drop
> > me a note and I will make the necessary changes.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Consular Quaestor
> > >
> > >
> > > Roman Name
> > >
> > > A. Ulleria Machinatrix
> > > Aelius Solaris Marullinus
> > > Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
> > > Alia Equitia Marina
> > > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> > > Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> > > Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
> > > Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
> > > Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
> > > Aula Arria Carina
> > > Aulus Apollonius Cordus
> > > Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
> > > Aulus Iulius Caesar
> > > Aulus Minicius Aelianus
> > > Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> > > Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
> > > C.Minucius Hadrianus
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> > > Caius Arminius Reccanellus
> > > Caius Curius Saturninus
> > > Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> > > Caius Ianus Flaminius
> > > Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
> > > Claudia Iulia
> > > Clovius Ullerius Ursus
> > > Cynthia Cassia Justicia
> > > Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
> > > Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
> > > Decimus Gladius Lupus
> > > Decimus Iulius Caesar
> > > Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
> > > Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> > > Drusilla Cassia Titiana
> > > Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
> > > Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
> > > Emilia Curia Finnica
> > > Ennia Durmia Gemina
> > > Equestria Iunia Laeca
> > > Fabiana Arminia Metella
> > > Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
> > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > > Flavia Tullia Scholastica
> > > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> > > Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > > G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
> > > G. Iulius Scaurus
> > > Gaia Fabia Livia
> > > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> > > Gaia Iulia Caesaris
> > > Gaius Adrianus Sergius
> > > Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
> > > Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
> > > Gaius Claudius Nero
> > > Gaius Cordius Symmachus
> > > Gaius Equitius Cato
> > > Gaius Equitius Renatus
> > > Gaius Galerius Lupus
> > > Gaius Geminius Germanus
> > > Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
> > > Gaius Iulius Iulianus
> > > Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
> > > Gaius Marius Aquilius
> > > Gaius Marius Merullus
> > > Gaius Minicius Paullus
> > > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> > > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> > > Gaius Popillius Laenas
> > > Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
> > > Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
> > > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > > Gallio Velius Marsallas
> > > Gallus Minucius Iovinus
> > > Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
> > > Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
> > > Gnaeus Salvius Astur
> > > Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
> > > Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
> > > Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
> > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
> > > Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
> > > Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
> > > Gratia Equitia Marina
> > > Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > Ianus Minicius Sparsus
> > > Iohannes Moravius Meridius
> > > Irene Afrania Lentula
> > > Iulia Caesaris
> > > Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
> > > Iusta Sempronia Iustina
> > > Julilla Sempronia Magna
> > > Kaeso Arminius Cato
> > > L. Iulia Sabina Severa
> > > Livia Cornelia Serena
> > > Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
> > > Lucia Cassia Silvana
> > > Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
> > > Lucianus Octavius Romulus
> > > Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
> > > Lucius Arminius Cotta
> > > Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > > Lucius Arminius Metellus
> > > Lucius Cassius Pontonius
> > > Lucius Claudius Romulus
> > > Lucius Cornelius Cicero
> > > Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
> > > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > > Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
> > > Lucius Fidelius Graecus
> > > Lucius Iulius Sulla
> > > Lucius Minicius Laietanus
> > > Lucius Octavius Severus
> > > Lucius Porticus Brutus
> > > Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> > > Lucius Sergius Australicus
> > > M. Gladius Agricola
> > > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > > M. Prometheus Decius Golia
> > > M.Ambrosius Falco
> > > Magia Ovidia Pythia
> > > Manius Arminius Corbulo
> > > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > > Manius Iulius Caesar
> > > Marca Hortensia Maior
> > > Marcia Colombia Rex
> > > Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
> > > Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
> > > Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
> > > Marcus Arminius Maior
> > > Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > Marcus Cassius Philippus
> > > Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
> > > Marcus Cornelius Crassus
> > > Marcus Curius Modius
> > > Marcus Darius Firmitus
> > > Marcus Durmius Sisena
> > > Marcus Flavius Fides
> > > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> > > Marcus Iulius Caesar
> > > Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> > > Marcus Iunius Iulianus
> > > Marcus Marcius Rex
> > > Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
> > > Marcus Minicius Lupus
> > > Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
> > > Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > > Marcus Quintius Clavus
> > > Marcus Quirinus Sulla
> > > Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus
> > > Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
> > > Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
> > > Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
> > > Octavianus Titinius
> > > Patricia Cassia
> > > Paulina Gratidia Equitia
> > > Paulla Corva Gaudialis
> > > Petrus Silvius Naso
> > > Philippus Arminius Remus
> > > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> > > Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
> > > Prima Fabia Drusila
> > > Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
> > > Primus Minicius Octavianus
> > > Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
> > > Publius Arminius Maior
> > > Publius Constantinus Placidus
> > > Publius Flavius Caesar
> > > Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
> > > Publius Memmius Albucius
> > > Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
> > > Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
> > > Q. Iulius Probus
> > > Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
> > > Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
> > > Quintus Cassius Calvus
> > > Quintus Equitius Palladius
> > > Quintus Fabius Allectus
> > > Quintus Fabius Maximus
> > > Quintus Iunius Dominicus
> > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > > Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
> > > Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
> > > Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
> > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > S. Ullerius Venator
> > > S.E.M. Troianus
> > > Salvia Sempronia Graccha
> > > Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
> > > Servia Adriana Marcella
> > > Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
> > > Servius Labienus Cicero
> > > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > > Sextus Arminius Remus
> > > Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
> > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
> > > Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
> > > Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
> > > Spurius Arminius Carus
> > > T. Iulius Sabinus
> > > T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
> > > Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
> > > Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
> > > Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > Tiberius Atilius Bellator
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > Tiberius Minicius Catulus
> > > Titus Horatius Atticus
> > > Titus Labienus Fortunatus
> > > Titus Licinius Crassus
> > > Titus Marcius Felix
> > > Titus Minicius Paullus
> > > Titus Octavius Decula
> > > Titus Octavius Marcellus
> > > Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
> > > Titus Octavius Salvius
> > > Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
> > > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> > > Vibius Arminius Corbulus
> > > Vibius Minucius Falco
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36512 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
G. Equitius Cato Consules Praetores Tribunes Plebibusque Novae Romae
S.P.D.

Salvete illustri.

WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:

"II.Citizens and Gentes

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

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

WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
impact" whatsoever, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
definitions on their own, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
deny the right of provocatio, and

WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,

THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.

No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
Constitution guarantees it.

Valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36513 From: marcushoratius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Census projections [was Taxpayers List IV]
Salve Quinte Pauline

A purpose of the census is of course to determine how many cives
Nova Roma has. Excluding those on file who have officially resigned
in the past, potentially Nova Roma has 2506 cives. We have however
lost contact with 533 people. We are trying to reestablish contact
with them, but for now that leaves us with 1973 cives and socii.

Among the 533 some are still with us, they have only changed their
email addresses and we need to update their files. Reestablishing
contact will increase our baseline, but what I think we should
expect is to still fall short of 2000 cives and socii.

I think that a reasonable expectation of the level of participation
is about 30% of a web-based community. Essentially we are already
at that level: 566/1973 = 29% Nova Roma should be able to do much
better than that since it also sponsors real world events and has
other means of bringing people into it. Conditions will vary from
provincia to porvincia, but all propraetores should work towards
attaining 30% of their respective provincia as cives by the end of
August. The Officina Census is working in provinciae without
propraetores, trying to attain the same, but perhaps 25% is what we
are more likely to achieve. 30% of 2000 is only 600 cives, a goal
that we should easily reach, but far short of the number of members
that Nova Roma has assumed it has.

Some provinciae are near or over the 30% level already. Some
propraetores will struggle to achieve 30%, while all propraetores
need to work towards 40% of their provincia registering as cives.
Really it would take an effort on the part of all cives encouraging
others to register with the census.

Five years ago Nova Roma set itself a goal of attaining 1000
members. It has been assumed for some time now that that goal was
far exceeded, when in fact we are in danger of falling short of 1000
cives even with a diligent effort. If everyone does their part,
bringing us up to 40% cives on average in all provinciae, we are
still looking at a projection of only 800 cives by the time the
census is completed.


Di Deaeque vos bene ament



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> Salve M Moravi Piscini Hotatiane,
>
> Thanks for the info. That 39% is correct based on the 566 but I
was
> thinking in the terms of the 2200 + we have had. Well we have
until
> October to finalize everything and I will be very happy to be
proved
> entirely wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius"
<mhoratius@s...>
> wrote:
> > Salve Quinte Pauline
> >
> > Currently there are only 566 cives registered with the Officina
> > Census. That figure should change before the census is
complete.
> > For the moment your 222 assudui compose 39% of Nova Roma.
> >
> > Vale optime
> >
> > M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > Scriba Censoris Census Primus
> > Officina Census
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> (Michael
> > Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > > Salve Tiberi Pauline,
> > >
> > > That's about 222 citizens... I see the 10% guestimate of
really
> > > active interested citizens previously mentioned by some of our
> > > prominent citizens is not far off the mark afterall.
> > >
> > > I guess that is why a few here have wondered if we put the
cart
> > > before the horse with regards to whether the constitution is
> > really
> > > a pratical thing for this number of people.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > >
> > > -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> > > <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > > Salve Romans
> > > >
> > > > Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have paid
> > your
> > > taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and
> that
> > > your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not please
> > drop
> > > me a note and I will make the necessary changes.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > >
> > > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > > Consular Quaestor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Roman Name
> > > >
> > > > A. Ulleria Machinatrix
> > > > Aelius Solaris Marullinus
> > > > Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
> > > > Alia Equitia Marina
> > > > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> > > > Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> > > > Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
> > > > Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
> > > > Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
> > > > Aula Arria Carina
> > > > Aulus Apollonius Cordus
> > > > Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
> > > > Aulus Iulius Caesar
> > > > Aulus Minicius Aelianus
> > > > Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> > > > Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
> > > > C.Minucius Hadrianus
> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> > > > Caius Arminius Reccanellus
> > > > Caius Curius Saturninus
> > > > Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> > > > Caius Ianus Flaminius
> > > > Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
> > > > Claudia Iulia
> > > > Clovius Ullerius Ursus
> > > > Cynthia Cassia Justicia
> > > > Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
> > > > Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
> > > > Decimus Gladius Lupus
> > > > Decimus Iulius Caesar
> > > > Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
> > > > Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> > > > Drusilla Cassia Titiana
> > > > Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
> > > > Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
> > > > Emilia Curia Finnica
> > > > Ennia Durmia Gemina
> > > > Equestria Iunia Laeca
> > > > Fabiana Arminia Metella
> > > > Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
> > > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > > > Flavia Tullia Scholastica
> > > > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> > > > Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > > > G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
> > > > G. Iulius Scaurus
> > > > Gaia Fabia Livia
> > > > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> > > > Gaia Iulia Caesaris
> > > > Gaius Adrianus Sergius
> > > > Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
> > > > Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
> > > > Gaius Claudius Nero
> > > > Gaius Cordius Symmachus
> > > > Gaius Equitius Cato
> > > > Gaius Equitius Renatus
> > > > Gaius Galerius Lupus
> > > > Gaius Geminius Germanus
> > > > Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
> > > > Gaius Iulius Iulianus
> > > > Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
> > > > Gaius Marius Aquilius
> > > > Gaius Marius Merullus
> > > > Gaius Minicius Paullus
> > > > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> > > > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> > > > Gaius Popillius Laenas
> > > > Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
> > > > Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
> > > > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > > > Gallio Velius Marsallas
> > > > Gallus Minucius Iovinus
> > > > Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
> > > > Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
> > > > Gnaeus Salvius Astur
> > > > Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
> > > > Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
> > > > Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> > > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
> > > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> > > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
> > > > Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
> > > > Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
> > > > Gratia Equitia Marina
> > > > Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > Ianus Minicius Sparsus
> > > > Iohannes Moravius Meridius
> > > > Irene Afrania Lentula
> > > > Iulia Caesaris
> > > > Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
> > > > Iusta Sempronia Iustina
> > > > Julilla Sempronia Magna
> > > > Kaeso Arminius Cato
> > > > L. Iulia Sabina Severa
> > > > Livia Cornelia Serena
> > > > Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
> > > > Lucia Cassia Silvana
> > > > Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
> > > > Lucianus Octavius Romulus
> > > > Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
> > > > Lucius Arminius Cotta
> > > > Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > > > Lucius Arminius Metellus
> > > > Lucius Cassius Pontonius
> > > > Lucius Claudius Romulus
> > > > Lucius Cornelius Cicero
> > > > Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
> > > > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > > > Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
> > > > Lucius Fidelius Graecus
> > > > Lucius Iulius Sulla
> > > > Lucius Minicius Laietanus
> > > > Lucius Octavius Severus
> > > > Lucius Porticus Brutus
> > > > Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> > > > Lucius Sergius Australicus
> > > > M. Gladius Agricola
> > > > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > > > M. Prometheus Decius Golia
> > > > M.Ambrosius Falco
> > > > Magia Ovidia Pythia
> > > > Manius Arminius Corbulo
> > > > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > > > Manius Iulius Caesar
> > > > Marca Hortensia Maior
> > > > Marcia Colombia Rex
> > > > Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
> > > > Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
> > > > Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
> > > > Marcus Arminius Maior
> > > > Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> > > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > > Marcus Cassius Philippus
> > > > Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
> > > > Marcus Cornelius Crassus
> > > > Marcus Curius Modius
> > > > Marcus Darius Firmitus
> > > > Marcus Durmius Sisena
> > > > Marcus Flavius Fides
> > > > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> > > > Marcus Iulius Caesar
> > > > Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> > > > Marcus Iunius Iulianus
> > > > Marcus Marcius Rex
> > > > Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
> > > > Marcus Minicius Lupus
> > > > Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
> > > > Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > > > Marcus Quintius Clavus
> > > > Marcus Quirinus Sulla
> > > > Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus
> > > > Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
> > > > Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
> > > > Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
> > > > Octavianus Titinius
> > > > Patricia Cassia
> > > > Paulina Gratidia Equitia
> > > > Paulla Corva Gaudialis
> > > > Petrus Silvius Naso
> > > > Philippus Arminius Remus
> > > > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> > > > Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
> > > > Prima Fabia Drusila
> > > > Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
> > > > Primus Minicius Octavianus
> > > > Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
> > > > Publius Arminius Maior
> > > > Publius Constantinus Placidus
> > > > Publius Flavius Caesar
> > > > Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
> > > > Publius Memmius Albucius
> > > > Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
> > > > Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
> > > > Q. Iulius Probus
> > > > Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
> > > > Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
> > > > Quintus Cassius Calvus
> > > > Quintus Equitius Palladius
> > > > Quintus Fabius Allectus
> > > > Quintus Fabius Maximus
> > > > Quintus Iunius Dominicus
> > > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > > > Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
> > > > Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
> > > > Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
> > > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > > S. Ullerius Venator
> > > > S.E.M. Troianus
> > > > Salvia Sempronia Graccha
> > > > Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
> > > > Servia Adriana Marcella
> > > > Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
> > > > Servius Labienus Cicero
> > > > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > > > Sextus Arminius Remus
> > > > Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
> > > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > > Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
> > > > Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
> > > > Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
> > > > Spurius Arminius Carus
> > > > T. Iulius Sabinus
> > > > T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
> > > > Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
> > > > Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
> > > > Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > Tiberius Atilius Bellator
> > > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > > Tiberius Minicius Catulus
> > > > Titus Horatius Atticus
> > > > Titus Labienus Fortunatus
> > > > Titus Licinius Crassus
> > > > Titus Marcius Felix
> > > > Titus Minicius Paullus
> > > > Titus Octavius Decula
> > > > Titus Octavius Marcellus
> > > > Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
> > > > Titus Octavius Salvius
> > > > Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
> > > > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> > > > Vibius Arminius Corbulus
> > > > Vibius Minucius Falco
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36514 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribune Vetoing a Tribune?
Salvete omnes,

Well this debate will certainly get many NR's more aware of the
constitution and politics. On my end I noticed a point being made on
one of the posts questioning a if Tribunes can veto one another.
From what I read around the web, they could do so, at least in
Ancient Rome. Here is an exerpt, short and sweet from the Columbia
Universiry press:

Roman magistratures and civilian offices

Tribune of the People
The magistrature of tribune of the people (tribunus plebis) was
established in 494 BC, about 15 years after the foundation of the
Roman Republic in 509. The plebeians of Rome seceded as a group --
that is, they left the city entirely -- until the patricians agreed
to the establishment of an office that would have sacrosanctity
(sacrosanctitas) -- that is, the right to be legally protected from
any physical harm -- and the right of help (ius auxiliandi) -- that
is, the right to rescue any plebeian from the hands of a patrician
magistrate. (NB -Later, the tribunes acquired a far more formidable
power, the right of intercession (ius intercessio) -- that is, the
right to veto any act or proposal of any magistrate, including
another tribune of the people ("veto" is Latin for "I forbid").) The
tribune also had the power to exercise capital punishment against
any person who interfered in the performance of his duties (the
favourite threat of the tribune was therefore to have someone thrown
from the Tarpeian Rock). The tribune's sacrosanctity was enforced by
a solemn pledge of the plebeians to kill any person who harmed a
tribune during his term of office. In about 450 the number of
tribunes was raised to ten.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36515 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Ave Cato,

I'm just wondering if you have written to the recipents privately as
well. It should be simpler to reach them instead of making public
announcements ;-)

vale
M IVL PERVSIANVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato Consules Praetores Tribunes Plebibusque Novae Romae
> S.P.D.
>
> Salvete illustri.
>
> WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
> provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:
>
> "II.Citizens and Gentes
>
> B. The following rights of the Citizens who have reached the age of
> 18 shall be guaranteed, but this enumeration shall not be taken to
> exclude other rights that citizens may possess:
>
> 5. The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
> has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi
> tributa.", and
>
> WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
> description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
> impact" whatsoever, and
>
> WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
> Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
> definitions on their own, and
>
> WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
> Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
> deny the right of provocatio, and
>
> WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
> believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
> tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
> in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,
>
> THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
> power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
> citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
> Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
> Constitution guarantees it.
>
> Valete,
>
> G. Equitius Cato
> Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36516 From: Michael Kelly Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes For Newcomers
Salvete omnes,

I know these constitutional debates can be trying for newcomers to NR as well as vistors or members of the ML. Lately the powers of the tribunes are being discussed. I found this article regarding the office of tribune which just scratches the surface but should make things clearer. Wikpedia is the source:

Tribune
This article deals with the ancient Roman offices and ranks of tribune.
Topics in Roman Government
Roman Kingdom
Roman Republic
Roman Empire
Principate Dominate
Western Empire Eastern Empire
Ordinary Magistrates:
a.. Consul
b.. Praetor
c.. Quaestor
d.. Promagistrate
a.. Aedile
b.. Tribune
c.. Censor

Extraordinary Magistates:
a.. Dictator
b.. Magister equitum
a.. Triumviri
b.. Decemviri

Mandatory officials / Miscellaneous Offices:
a.. Pontifex Maximus
b.. Legatus
c.. Officium
d.. Praefectus
e.. Vicarius
f.. Vigintisexviri
a.. Imperator
b.. Princeps senatus
c.. Emperor
d.. Augustus
e.. Caesar
f.. Tetrarch

Politics and Law:
a.. Roman assemblies
b.. Roman Senate
c.. Imperium
a.. Roman law
b.. Cursus honorum
c.. Collegiality


Tribune (from the Latin: tribunus; Greek form tribounos) was a title shared by several elected magistracies and other governmental and/or (para)military offices of the Roman Republic and Empire. It derived originally from the representatives of the tribes (tribi) into which the Roman people were divided for military and voting purposes.


Roman magistratures and civilian offices

Tribune of the People
The magistrature of tribune of the people (tribunus plebis) was established in 494 BC, about 15 years after the foundation of the Roman Republic in 509. The plebeians of Rome seceded as a group -- that is, they left the city entirely -- until the patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have sacrosanctity (sacrosanctitas) -- that is, the right to be legally protected from any physical harm -- and the right of help (ius auxiliandi) -- that is, the right to rescue any plebeian from the hands of a patrician magistrate. Later, the tribunes acquired a far more formidable power, the right of intercession (ius intercessio) -- that is, the right to veto any act or proposal of any magistrate, including another tribune of the people ("veto" is Latin for "I forbid"). The tribune also had the power to exercise capital punishment against any person who interfered in the performance of his duties (the favourite threat of the tribune was therefore to have someone thrown from the Tarpeian Rock). The tribune's sacrosanctity was enforced by a solemn pledge of the plebeians to kill any person who harmed a tribune during his term of office. In about 450 the number of tribunes was raised to ten.

Tribunes were required to be plebeians, and until 421 this was the only office open to them. In the late Republic the patrician politician Clodius arranged for his adoption by a plebeian branch of his family, and successfully ran for the tribunate.

By extension from the technical Roman governmental usage, some modern politicians have been identified as "Tribunes of the People."

Throughout the Republic and its fall, certain powerful individuals used the tribunes for their personal glory and gain. Clodius and Milo were both tribunes who used violence in the courts and government in order to achieve the needs and requests of Pompey and Caesar. Further more, when the Senate refused to grant Caesar all his requests he turned to the tribunes to grant him all he wanted -- ie. Pompey's veterans lands and him a further governship of Gaul. Again violence was used against those tribunes that prevented their quest for glory.

Because it was legally impossible for a patrician to be a tribune of the people, the first Roman "emperor", Caesar Augustus, was offered instead all of the powers of the tribunate without actually holding the office (tribunicia potestas or 'Tribunician Power'). This formed one of the two main constitutional basis of Augustus' authority (the other was imperium proconsulare maius). It gave him the absolute right of veto and the authority to convene the Senate. Also, he was sacrosanct, had ius intercessio, and could exercise capital punishment in the course of the performance of his duties.

Most emperors' reigns were dated by their assumption of tribunicia potestas, though some emperors, such as Tiberius, Titus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, etc, had already received it during their predecessor's reign. Also, Marcus Agrippa and Drusus II, though never emperors, received tribunicia potestas.











minor Roman civilian offices

Roman military officers

Tribune of the Soldiers
Each year the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the Whole People) elected 24 young men in their late twenties with senatorial ambitions to serve as tribunes of the soldiers (tribuni militum). These 24 were distributed six to each of the consuls' four legions as the legions' commanding officers.

All middle-ranking officers of the legions were also titled tribunes, though they were unelected and junior to the tribuni militum. Messala, the villain in the 1880 novel Ben-Hur by Lew Wallace and its 1959 film, was a military tribune.


cohort commander
a.. Tribunus cohortis : commander of military auxiliary unit.

b.. Tribunus cohortis urbanae : urban cohort commander.


Tribune of the Treasury
The duties of the tribunes of the treasury (tribuni aerarii) are somewhat shrouded in mystery. Originally they seem to have been the legions' paymasters, though this was hardly an onerous job considering that the legionaries of the Early and Middle Republic were paid through booty from their conquests. By the Late Republic, though, even this task had been taken over by the quaestors.


various commands
Tribunal : raised platform in front of the HQ used for addressing the troops or administring justice.
Tribunus : senior officer.
Tribunus angusticlavius : 'narrow striped officer'; equestrian legionary officer.
Tribunus comitiatus : officer elected as tribunus militum (LA) by the comitia (LA).
Tribunus laticlavius : 'broadstriped officer'; senatorial legionary officer.
Tribunus militum : senior legionary officer.
Tribunus militum a populo : senior legionary officer appointed by popular assembly.
Tribunus Rufulus : officer picked by the commander.
Tribunus sexmestris : tribune serving a tour of duty of only six months; note that there is absolutely no evidence at all to identify this officer as commander of the legionary cavalry as sometimes stated in modern literature. Tribunus vacans (LA): Late Roman unassigned tribune; staff officer.



External link

Regards,

QLP

PS - I first heard the word, Tribune in Ben Hur which I saw as a child. I took me quite a while before I figured out the differences between a military tribune like Massala and the elected tribune of the plebs. One thing about NR, you learn a lot of details about Rome, unknown to the masses.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36517 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Census projections [was Taxpayers List IV]
Salve Marce Horati,

Thank you for the information and time on this posting. Very helpful.


Regards,

QLP




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@s...>
wrote:
> Salve Quinte Pauline
>
> A purpose of the census is of course to determine how many cives
> Nova Roma has. Excluding those on file who have officially
resigned
> in the past, potentially Nova Roma has 2506 cives. We have
however
> lost contact with 533 people. We are trying to reestablish
contact
> with them, but for now that leaves us with 1973 cives and socii.
>
> Among the 533 some are still with us, they have only changed their
> email addresses and we need to update their files. Reestablishing
> contact will increase our baseline, but what I think we should
> expect is to still fall short of 2000 cives and socii.
>
> I think that a reasonable expectation of the level of
participation
> is about 30% of a web-based community. Essentially we are already
> at that level: 566/1973 = 29% Nova Roma should be able to do much
> better than that since it also sponsors real world events and has
> other means of bringing people into it. Conditions will vary from
> provincia to porvincia, but all propraetores should work towards
> attaining 30% of their respective provincia as cives by the end of
> August. The Officina Census is working in provinciae without
> propraetores, trying to attain the same, but perhaps 25% is what
we
> are more likely to achieve. 30% of 2000 is only 600 cives, a goal
> that we should easily reach, but far short of the number of
members
> that Nova Roma has assumed it has.
>
> Some provinciae are near or over the 30% level already. Some
> propraetores will struggle to achieve 30%, while all propraetores
> need to work towards 40% of their provincia registering as cives.
> Really it would take an effort on the part of all cives
encouraging
> others to register with the census.
>
> Five years ago Nova Roma set itself a goal of attaining 1000
> members. It has been assumed for some time now that that goal was
> far exceeded, when in fact we are in danger of falling short of
1000
> cives even with a diligent effort. If everyone does their part,
> bringing us up to 40% cives on average in all provinciae, we are
> still looking at a projection of only 800 cives by the time the
> census is completed.
>
>
> Di Deaeque vos bene ament
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
(Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > Salve M Moravi Piscini Hotatiane,
> >
> > Thanks for the info. That 39% is correct based on the 566 but I
> was
> > thinking in the terms of the 2200 + we have had. Well we have
> until
> > October to finalize everything and I will be very happy to be
> proved
> > entirely wrong.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius"
> <mhoratius@s...>
> > wrote:
> > > Salve Quinte Pauline
> > >
> > > Currently there are only 566 cives registered with the
Officina
> > > Census. That figure should change before the census is
> complete.
> > > For the moment your 222 assudui compose 39% of Nova Roma.
> > >
> > > Vale optime
> > >
> > > M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > > Scriba Censoris Census Primus
> > > Officina Census
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > (Michael
> > > Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > > > Salve Tiberi Pauline,
> > > >
> > > > That's about 222 citizens... I see the 10% guestimate of
> really
> > > > active interested citizens previously mentioned by some of
our
> > > > prominent citizens is not far off the mark afterall.
> > > >
> > > > I guess that is why a few here have wondered if we put the
> cart
> > > > before the horse with regards to whether the constitution is
> > > really
> > > > a pratical thing for this number of people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > > >
> > > > -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> > > > <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > > > Salve Romans
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the most recent list of taxpayers. If you have
paid
> > > your
> > > > taxes this year please check to make sure you are listed and
> > that
> > > > your status in the Album Civium has been update. If not
please
> > > drop
> > > > me a note and I will make the necessary changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale
> > > > >
> > > > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > > > Consular Quaestor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Roman Name
> > > > >
> > > > > A. Ulleria Machinatrix
> > > > > Aelius Solaris Marullinus
> > > > > Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
> > > > > Alia Equitia Marina
> > > > > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> > > > > Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> > > > > Appia Claudia Labieni Ursa
> > > > > Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
> > > > > Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
> > > > > Aula Arria Carina
> > > > > Aulus Apollonius Cordus
> > > > > Aulus Gratius Garseius Avitus
> > > > > Aulus Iulius Caesar
> > > > > Aulus Minicius Aelianus
> > > > > Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> > > > > Aurelia Iulia Pulchra
> > > > > C.Minucius Hadrianus
> > > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> > > > > Caius Arminius Reccanellus
> > > > > Caius Curius Saturninus
> > > > > Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> > > > > Caius Ianus Flaminius
> > > > > Caius Minucius-Tiberius Scaevola
> > > > > Claudia Iulia
> > > > > Clovius Ullerius Ursus
> > > > > Cynthia Cassia Justicia
> > > > > Cyrene Gladia Corva Apollinaris
> > > > > Decimus Antoninius Aquilius
> > > > > Decimus Gladius Lupus
> > > > > Decimus Iulius Caesar
> > > > > Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
> > > > > Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> > > > > Drusilla Cassia Titiana
> > > > > Drusilla Ulleria Germanica
> > > > > Drusus Maxentius Silvanus
> > > > > Emilia Curia Finnica
> > > > > Ennia Durmia Gemina
> > > > > Equestria Iunia Laeca
> > > > > Fabiana Arminia Metella
> > > > > Fausta Martiana Gangalia Minervalis
> > > > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > > > > Flavia Tullia Scholastica
> > > > > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> > > > > Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > > > > G. Cornelius Ahenobarbus
> > > > > G. Iulius Scaurus
> > > > > Gaia Fabia Livia
> > > > > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> > > > > Gaia Iulia Caesaris
> > > > > Gaius Adrianus Sergius
> > > > > Gaius Ambrosius Artorius Iustinus
> > > > > Gaius Annaeus Marcellus Regiensis
> > > > > Gaius Claudius Nero
> > > > > Gaius Cordius Symmachus
> > > > > Gaius Equitius Cato
> > > > > Gaius Equitius Renatus
> > > > > Gaius Galerius Lupus
> > > > > Gaius Geminius Germanus
> > > > > Gaius Iulius Caesar Iulianus Octavianus
> > > > > Gaius Iulius Iulianus
> > > > > Gaius Julius Verus Tranquillus
> > > > > Gaius Marius Aquilius
> > > > > Gaius Marius Merullus
> > > > > Gaius Minicius Paullus
> > > > > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> > > > > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> > > > > Gaius Popillius Laenas
> > > > > Gaius Prometheus Paulinus
> > > > > Gaius Silvanius Agrippa
> > > > > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > > > > Gallio Velius Marsallas
> > > > > Gallus Minucius Iovinus
> > > > > Gift From PCGAUDIALIS
> > > > > Gn. Scribonius Scriptor
> > > > > Gnaeus Salvius Astur
> > > > > Gnaeus Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis
> > > > > Gnaeus Arminius Saturninus
> > > > > Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> > > > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinius
> > > > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> > > > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Silvanus
> > > > > Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus
> > > > > Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
> > > > > Gratia Equitia Marina
> > > > > Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > > Ianus Minicius Sparsus
> > > > > Iohannes Moravius Meridius
> > > > > Irene Afrania Lentula
> > > > > Iulia Caesaris
> > > > > Iulius Aemilius Felsinus
> > > > > Iusta Sempronia Iustina
> > > > > Julilla Sempronia Magna
> > > > > Kaeso Arminius Cato
> > > > > L. Iulia Sabina Severa
> > > > > Livia Cornelia Serena
> > > > > Lucia Ambrosia Apollinaris
> > > > > Lucia Cassia Silvana
> > > > > Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
> > > > > Lucianus Octavius Romulus
> > > > > Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
> > > > > Lucius Arminius Cotta
> > > > > Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > > > > Lucius Arminius Metellus
> > > > > Lucius Cassius Pontonius
> > > > > Lucius Claudius Romulus
> > > > > Lucius Cornelius Cicero
> > > > > Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius
> > > > > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > > > > Lucius Fabius Verus Pompaelianus
> > > > > Lucius Fidelius Graecus
> > > > > Lucius Iulius Sulla
> > > > > Lucius Minicius Laietanus
> > > > > Lucius Octavius Severus
> > > > > Lucius Porticus Brutus
> > > > > Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> > > > > Lucius Sergius Australicus
> > > > > M. Gladius Agricola
> > > > > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > > > > M. Prometheus Decius Golia
> > > > > M.Ambrosius Falco
> > > > > Magia Ovidia Pythia
> > > > > Manius Arminius Corbulo
> > > > > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > > > > Manius Iulius Caesar
> > > > > Marca Hortensia Maior
> > > > > Marcia Colombia Rex
> > > > > Marcia Martiana Gangalia Marcella
> > > > > Marcus Adrianus Complutensis
> > > > > Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus
> > > > > Marcus Arminius Maior
> > > > > Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> > > > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > > > Marcus Cassius Philippus
> > > > > Marcus Cornelius Chilensis
> > > > > Marcus Cornelius Crassus
> > > > > Marcus Curius Modius
> > > > > Marcus Darius Firmitus
> > > > > Marcus Durmius Sisena
> > > > > Marcus Flavius Fides
> > > > > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> > > > > Marcus Iulius Caesar
> > > > > Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> > > > > Marcus Iunius Iulianus
> > > > > Marcus Marcius Rex
> > > > > Marcus Marius Dumnonicus
> > > > > Marcus Minicius Lupus
> > > > > Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
> > > > > Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> > > > > Marcus Quintius Clavus
> > > > > Marcus Quirinus Sulla
> > > > > Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus
> > > > > Mariniara Octavia Pomptina
> > > > > Merlinia Ambrosia Artori
> > > > > Numeria Iulia Caesaris Eugenia
> > > > > Octavianus Titinius
> > > > > Patricia Cassia
> > > > > Paulina Gratidia Equitia
> > > > > Paulla Corva Gaudialis
> > > > > Petrus Silvius Naso
> > > > > Philippus Arminius Remus
> > > > > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> > > > > Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia
> > > > > Prima Fabia Drusila
> > > > > Prima Ulleria Gladiatrix
> > > > > Primus Minicius Octavianus
> > > > > Publius Aelius Baeticus Pertinax
> > > > > Publius Arminius Maior
> > > > > Publius Constantinus Placidus
> > > > > Publius Flavius Caesar
> > > > > Publius Iulius Caesar Hibernianus
> > > > > Publius Memmius Albucius
> > > > > Publius Rutilius Bardulus Hadrianus
> > > > > Publius Valerius Secundus Festus
> > > > > Q. Iulius Probus
> > > > > Q. Iulius Sabinus Fortunatus
> > > > > Quintus Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius
> > > > > Quintus Cassius Calvus
> > > > > Quintus Equitius Palladius
> > > > > Quintus Fabius Allectus
> > > > > Quintus Fabius Maximus
> > > > > Quintus Iunius Dominicus
> > > > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> > > > > Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
> > > > > Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
> > > > > Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
> > > > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > > > Quintus Valerius Callidus
> > > > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > > > Rufus Metellus Ahenobarbus
> > > > > S. Ullerius Venator
> > > > > S.E.M. Troianus
> > > > > Salvia Sempronia Graccha
> > > > > Secundus Iulius Caesar Africanus
> > > > > Servia Adriana Marcella
> > > > > Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana
> > > > > Servius Labienus Cicero
> > > > > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > > > > Sextus Arminius Remus
> > > > > Sextus Iulius Caesar Gallicus
> > > > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > > > Sextus Lucilius Tutor
> > > > > Sextus Minucius-Tiberius Gallus
> > > > > Sextus Pilatus Barbatus
> > > > > Sibylla Ambrosia Fulvia
> > > > > Spurius Arminius Carus
> > > > > T. Iulius Sabinus
> > > > > T. Iulius Sabinus Crassus
> > > > > Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus
> > > > > Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
> > > > > Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
> > > > > Tiberius Atilius Bellator
> > > > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > > > Tiberius Iulius Caesar Caelestis
> > > > > Tiberius Minicius Catulus
> > > > > Titus Horatius Atticus
> > > > > Titus Labienus Fortunatus
> > > > > Titus Licinius Crassus
> > > > > Titus Marcius Felix
> > > > > Titus Minicius Paullus
> > > > > Titus Octavius Decula
> > > > > Titus Octavius Marcellus
> > > > > Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
> > > > > Titus Octavius Salvius
> > > > > Vibia Ritulia Enodiaria
> > > > > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> > > > > Vibius Arminius Corbulus
> > > > > Vibius Minucius Falco
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36518 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
G. Equitius Cato M. Iulio Perusiano S.P.D.

Salve Marcus Perusianus.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Iulius Perusianus"
<m_iulius@y...> wrote:
> Ave Cato,
>
> I'm just wondering if you have written to the recipents privately as
> well. It should be simpler to reach them instead of making public
> announcements ;-)
>
> vale
> M IVL PERVSIANVS

CATO: I have not. I do not think it is incumbent upon me to try to
hunt down our magistrates in private; it is incumbent upon them to act
in public.

But be not afraid: as soon as a magistrate answers, or after a
nundinum, the call will no longer be published. So it won't go on
forever. I apologize if it's irritating.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36519 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
Ave G Equiti Cato

not that I was writing because your request is irritating, no way. It
was just because you simply can reach the magistrates (and in this
case myself) quicker writing privately :-) I'm overwhelmed by emails
lately... I know I know, it's my duty to check the ML, but I'm looking
for "insults" quite than the political debates ;-)

For the rest, please don't take this personally (and correct if I am
wrong): a magistrate is not obliged to give a public answer just
because it is requested in the Forum.

if you wish, we'll continue this privately, so I'm going to write my
position on the matter.

M IVL PERVSIANVS
Praetor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato M. Iulio Perusiano S.P.D.
>
> Salve Marcus Perusianus.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Iulius Perusianus"
> <m_iulius@y...> wrote:
> > Ave Cato,
> >
> > I'm just wondering if you have written to the recipents privately as
> > well. It should be simpler to reach them instead of making public
> > announcements ;-)
> >
> > vale
> > M IVL PERVSIANVS
>
> CATO: I have not. I do not think it is incumbent upon me to try to
> hunt down our magistrates in private; it is incumbent upon them to act
> in public.
>
> But be not afraid: as soon as a magistrate answers, or after a
> nundinum, the call will no longer be published. So it won't go on
> forever. I apologize if it's irritating.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36520 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Call to the Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes Day 3
OSD G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes.

This has been taken out of the Forum to continue.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Iulius Perusianus"
<m_iulius@y...> wrote:
> Ave G Equiti Cato
>
> not that I was writing because your request is irritating, no way. It
> was just because you simply can reach the magistrates (and in this
> case myself) quicker writing privately :-) I'm overwhelmed by emails
> lately... I know I know, it's my duty to check the ML, but I'm looking
> for "insults" quite than the political debates ;-)
>
> For the rest, please don't take this personally (and correct if I am
> wrong): a magistrate is not obliged to give a public answer just
> because it is requested in the Forum.
>
> if you wish, we'll continue this privately, so I'm going to write my
> position on the matter.
>
> M IVL PERVSIANVS
> Praetor
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36521 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: De nominum magistratuum delatione (WAS: Consuls, Praetors and T
A. Apollonius Q. Cassio omnibusque sal.

> One would hope that a person, or persons attempting
> to evade a
> lawsuit that had merit would not be electable.
> However
> realistically it would not be that hard to do. With
> eight positions
> for quaestor and historically in Nova Roma we're
> very lucky to get
> even eight people to run at the same time all it
> would take is one
> vote in one tribe to secure the eighth position and
> of course anyone
> using such a tactic is going to vote for themselves
> thus securing
> that one vote in one tribe. One could theoretically
> bounce from
> quaestorship to tribunate over and over as those two
> offices are the
> easiest to be elected into just by the sheer number
> of positions
> available.

True, but even then there are recourses. The presiding
magistrate can refuse to put the person's name on the
ballot, or the tribunes can veto his candidacy and
prevent him running. Not ideal, I know: at some point
it needs to be addressed in law, perhaps in
conjunction with cursus-reform. But until then there
are ways of dealing with it. Anyone with a case
against a sitting magistrate should go ahead and
declare his intent to prosecute, and see what happens.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36522 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes For Newcomers
Salve,

There were also Consular Tribune's. The original Quintus Servilius
Fidenas was Consular
Tribune six times(in 402, 398, 395 390, 388 and 386). Between 444 and
392, Consuls were
often replaced by three, four or six Military Tribunes with Consular
power(Consular Tribunes)
and in all years between 391 and 367 six Consular Tribunes. According
to Livy, Plebeians as
well as Patricians were eligible for election to this office.

Vale,

Quintus Servilius Priscus Fidenas
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36523 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes For Newcomers
In a message dated 7/25/2005 5:18:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjk@... writes:

Tribune
This article deals with the ancient Roman offices and ranks of tribune.





Salvete

The problem is our Tribunes are not Roman. We made some tweaks to them when
Nova Roma was designed. So it would be better to read the Vedian
Constitution of Nova Roma
and then the historical reference to examine the differences.

Our Tribunes at first were two, and it was their job to protect the
Constitution from Magistrates' abuses. This is in direct opposition to the Roman
Tribune.
Later NR Tribunes numbers, powers and scope was increased. But not by that
much.

The powers of the Tribune's here were never that of ancient Rome. They are
set purposely
less so no megalomaniac can seize power the way historical Saturninus
attempted to do.

So anyone who quotes historic Roman tribunes' powers and honors, does so
with wishful thinking since the primacy of the Constitution does not allow for
it.

Valete

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36524 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
P. Memmius Albucius omnibus civibus s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

Sorry first for having contributed to such a discussion on our main
list when I decided to receive the appeal for provocatio from Hon.
Quaestor Paulinus !

Since my edict July 22nd, my colleague D. Constantinus Fuscus has
issued an intercession that Hon. Maior and Saturninus have backed
up.

I take good notice of this collective intercessio and, as I had
first written it to my colleagues, will not contest it : as a
collective decision was not possible, each one, in this case, did
act according her/his conscience and reading of our law, and inside
the frame of our democratic system.

I still consider that our texts, even if they are not satisfying, do
oblige any tribune to receive, without controlling it, the appeal of
any citizen, and that our comitia tributa populi are the sole power
authorized to examine such an appeal for provocatio made by any of
us.

Sure, we might say that the texts are bad ; anyway, they are our
*current law*.

« Curiously », as some of you know it, and Hon. Paulinus too, I have
endorsed the collective position of the tribunate in January. But
there is no contradiction in my receiving the appeal by Paulinus :
as long he did not use this process, there was no reason to come
again on an act become applicable. Once Paulinus appealed for
provocatio, and because the current constitutional text does not
precise any condition of time since the attacked act, any tribune
*was* (in my view) to receive his appeal.

I had, at the same time, suggested my fellow tribunes that a session
of our comitia tributa populi - which Tribunes mays currently
convene, as Hon. Cato has well analyzed it - would have been a
wonderful democratic possibility to debate, freely, and for some
tribunes to argue with our claimer Paulinus. Nova Roma would have
been learn from this test, I think.

We lost opportunity to apply the law in the benefit of the citizen
and of all of NR magistrates.

Anyway, let us go forward !

I have written, and my previous message, that I would convene a
comitia tributa populi session on two items : first on the
question : « has the tribunician decision has had a direct and
negative impact on Hon. Citizen Paulinus ? » ; second on a lex de
provocatione.

For I still consider that our constitutional text on provocatio
needs to be completed, in the way many constitutional provisions
have been completed : by law texts. Even if I have received, because
it seemed to me that it was of my duty to do it, the appeal formed
by our Paulinus, I think that our rules must be precised in order to
avoid such misunderstandings.

I have thus just sent to our consuls, praetors and tribunes offices
a draft law « de provocatione ». This draft will be published
tomorrow in the Main and Laws lists to let everybody bring its
contribution. The comitia tributa populi will thus be convened.

Do not hesitate then to send me a copy of your observations at
albucius_aoe@... .


Valete omnes.

scr. Cadomago, civ. Viducassium, Gallia, a.d. VIII Kal. Sextiles
MMDCCLVIII a.u.c.

Publius Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36525 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
P. Minucia Tiberia Senatrix Omnibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

(This will contain a bit about the recent situation as it applies to
the actions of the Tribunes relative to their lawful authority)

Without discounting the richness in reading the histories of the
Tribunes, and this is quite a long history, said tribunes having
varying degrees of powers with the passage of legislation throughout
the centuries we speak of, here are the pertinent legislations
regarding their lawful powers in Nova Roma, and the procedures they
must utilize to pass an intercessio:

Recognizing, by natural course of events in NR that a collegium of
tribunes was needed,ie their acting in a cooperative framework,
instead of acting as independents as they did in antiqua, this lex
was passed in 2002 by Tribunis Plebis T. Labienus Fortunatus, and
remains in place today.

Lex Labiena de Intercessione
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-02-26-i.html


While we examine the issues/claims of the recent claimant of
provocatio, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Quaestor, and those of his
advocate, G. Equitius Cato, Quaestor, we ask ourselves...what powers
do the tribunes have to deny a citizens rights, and has this been
done through the recent intercessio?

I think that we can all agree that, although it is inappropriate to
deny rights per se, the tribunes, it would seem, have the right to
interpret the law, and from this interpretation, extrapolate whether
or not there has been what could be legally defined as a violation
of rights, or any action causing a direct negative impact in the
first place.

Such does not mean that those who were hoping for a different
answer/outcome cannot be unhappy with it, but have they been legally
wronged as the result of the actions of a magistrate?

Please see the following lex passed last year, as promulgated by
another Tribune, L. Arminius Faustus, and the Honourable Gnaeus
Equitius Marinus then Consul now Censor:

The Lex Arminia Equitia de Imperio

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-iv.html

This lex defines the terms "imperium" and 'potestas', and what
particular powers each of these designations contain. Imperium is
that of a curule magistrate ex Praetor, Consul, Censor, and to a
more limited extent, a governor, and 'potestas' is relative to the
powers of the Tribunes

Tribunes in section I of this lex under the heading Potestas:

I. Partial iurisdictio: the power to interpret the law within the
duties of the magistrate to hold potestas .

Why partial? Because there is five of them, and the lex Labienia
mandates that they are one of five, they are not acting alone,
irrespective of the veto of one another. They are subject to the
agreement or disagreement and hence veto/abstention of their
colleagues.

So, they have interpreted the law and by process of law rendered
their decision, which is legally and unquestionably within their
purview by this lex.

And may I remind the reader that this lex was passed by both
patricians and plebians....in other words, adopted by all the people
of Nova Roma, not just Plebians.

One other interesting passage of this lex describing those with
potestas (the Tribunes) "the power to compel obedience in the name
of the state within the duties of a magistrate", the constitution
defining them as magistrates.

The Tribunes can issue an edictum stating that they will no longer
discuss the legitimacy of Saturninus' tribuneship, or one of them
can, and unless it is vetoed, it stands. So, if you write and ask
them to reconsider it, they can lawfully chose and refuse not to,
imo. Same as the claims of Galerius Paulinus Quaestor...you do not
compel the Tribunes....its the other way around with respect to
their decisions.

Do you wave placards around a macronational courthouse if you have
not been granted an award in a legal case, or feel a judge has
illsentenced a convicted defendent? You can. It's good exercize.

Since they each have partial jurisdiction and have arrived at a
majority decision in keeping with this lex and the lex Labienia
above, I do not think it is an open discussion any longer, unless
another avenue appears pursuable to the claimant, or his advocate,
and I certainly shall not do anyone's thinking for them as to what
that could or wouldn't be.

But it seems plain to me that the Tribunes have acted legally in
both their interpretation and application of the law to the claimant.

I looked into this today as I too, disliked the manner in which
provacatio was approached, but was wrestling with the citizens'
rights issue, as NR saw a similar situation last year.

The tribunes have the constitutional authority to "administer the
law", but apparently this, according to the pursuant lex above,
includes the right to interpret the constitution and other laws.

Otherwise, we can all get in line to complain....there are lots of
people who could say they disagree with particular intercessios of
Tribunes, decisions, lack of concensus in appeals....etc.

Uncanny, I can think of one case from last year in which a visit to
comitia to appeal was not supported by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
himself when Tribune.

Yes, a day in court was not going to be supported by a tribune, a
claim to exercize appeal to comitia through Provocatio and also
Apelo. I know this precedent does not always have to be followed,
but the law was so interpreted and that was that.

There are people unhappy with outcomes of this case and that
one..... but as long as they are doing it collegially and legally,
the Tribunes are the ones wearing the long curly wigs, the robes and
bang the mallots. And the examination of this lex hopefully will
remove any lingering doubts of the legality of the Tribune ruling of
the claims Galerius Paulinus Quaestor





I hope this is helpful.

Vale bene
Po
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36526 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
G. Equitius Cato P. Memmio Albucio tr. pl. S.P.D.

Salve Memmius Albucius.

Just so we are clear, are you calling to order the comitia populi
tributa?

If so, may I suggest that in your official capacity you change the
question to: "Did the tribunes of the plebeians have the authority to
interpret the Constitution and make a decision on a Constitutional
question?" - as that is the direct issue here.

Galerius Paulinus has already stated that their decision DID have a
direct negative impact upon him, and no magistrate has the authority
to declare otherwise.

The question at hand is whether or not the tribunes had the authority
to decide the issue amongst themselves in the first place.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36527 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. S.P.D.

Salve senatrix.

An admirable and intelligent legal construct, and one which I hope
will be issued by those people who believe that the tribunes have the
authority to act as they did.

I am not one of those people. I believe, and am willing to show, why
I think your interpretation is flawed.

Now, I'd like a chance to put your interpretation to the test --- and
put my interpretation to the test as well --- before the whole People
of Nova Roma, and let them decide. Is that such a fearful and
terrible thing?

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36528 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
---Salve C. Equitius Cato Quaestor:

Well, if you think you can by some authority that I am not aware of,
call the comitia to reach a decision which is legal and binding....
as the saying goes 'knock yourself out'!

I know I don't have that authority, so I won't be bothered. If I
thought I had, I would have called it last year over a case with
what a think was a teeny tiny bit more of a direct negative
impact...but I couldn't....and I won't this year, for the same
reasons I didn't last year, because of the same authority I didn't
have last year....

Ahh, did you 'read' of the legislation I just presented? Not that I
wrote them, but they have some pretty specific details regarding who
can do what and how can they do it. And I am not being catty.
If we want to be lawful, well, here's some law's is all.

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. S.P.D.
>
> Salve senatrix.
>
> An admirable and intelligent legal construct, and one which I hope
> will be issued by those people who believe that the tribunes have
the
> authority to act as they did.
>
> I am not one of those people. I believe, and am willing to show,
why
> I think your interpretation is flawed.
>
> Now, I'd like a chance to put your interpretation to the test ---
and
> put my interpretation to the test as well --- before the whole
People
> of Nova Roma, and let them decide. Is that such a fearful and
> terrible thing?
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36529 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. S.P.D.

Salve senatrix.

This is why I support so strongly my client's right to call the
comitia --- to show that I'm correct, or to knock myself out trying :-)

I have never claimed to have the authority to call the comitia, which
is why I am calling upon the magistrates who CAN to do so.

Yes, I read the laws you quoted --- the entire laws you quoted from,
and I still think it's the wrong interpretation.

And I don't think it's "catty" at all to show legal reasoning behind a
statement you make. I appreciate it. As I've said before, this is
not an emotional arena. I can be convinced by sound reasoning; I'm
not so proud I can't change my mind if shown logically, reasonably,
and (in this instance) legally why I should. I hope you feel the same
way.

So get behind the call for the comitia and let's get to it! Let's
present our cases to the People. Let them decide. Vox populi vox dei.

Vale bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36530 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio from Hon. Ti. Galerius Paulinus (received)
--- P. Minucia Tiberia G. Equitio Catoni Omnibus Salutem:

You had asked me a question a couple of days ago Equitius Cato and I
realized that I didn't answer you, although I had intended to:

(snip)

You asked
>
> when you resigned your praetura and your seat
> in the senate, you were not allowed back into the senate. Which
was
> right?

PMTS: The answer is simple, from a legal standpoint. There was
legislation in place back then which is no longer in force. It
never got passed the level of an edictum, and it is not even in the
tabularium as far as I know. I resigned my magistracy only and not
my magistracy and citizenship, so the lex Cornelia Maria did not
apply to me. And, being that I was in the Senate by virtue of my
being elected Praetor, the Censores were under no obligation to
readmit me to the Senate.

Do I relish the memories of some extralegal circumstances
surrounding this series of events? Of course not. But I have
grieved them.

But there was no 'legal' obligation in this regard to act in my
favour in this regard.

Valete
>
>
>Valete omnes
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36531 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
C. Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

With this level of reasoning any citizen could request, or demand,
provocatio whenever a magistrate appoints a scribe. Or whenever a censor appoints a
new senator. With this line of reasoning ANY action of a magistrate could be
taken as a "negative impact" and any citizen could demand provocatio.

Simply stating that you have been negatively impacted by a decision does not
make it so. I could state that the sky is red, but that doesn't mean that
it is red. Paulinus could state that he was wronged, but that doesn't mean
that he was.

Negative impact? There are several things that are done in Nova Roma that I
do not like. But, like most people, I get deal with it, and I eventually
get over it. Paulinus seems to have served admirably as a Quastor. However,
if he ever wants to get elected to public office again he might consider
showing some humility and allowing our Republic to move on.

As it stands, I'm not sure I would vote for someone for Praetor who is going
to perpetuate a provocatio of this nature. It seems an opportunity to
exploit our legal system -- and instead of continuing to perpetuate the exploit
why not work for positive change?

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/25/2005 5:00:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

Galerius Paulinus has already stated that their decision DID have a
direct negative impact upon him, and no magistrate has the authority
to declare otherwise.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36532 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Appeal for provocatio, intercessiones and... next
Tribunus Albucius G. Equitio Catoni s.d.

Salve Cato !

You have just written :

> Just so we are clear, are you calling to order the comitia populi
> tributa?

Yes.

> If so, may I suggest that in your official capacity you change the
> question to: "Did the tribunes of the plebeians have the
>authority to interpret the Constitution and make a decision on a
>Constitutional question?" - as that is the direct issue here.

I will not, if you do not mind :-) , for the following reasons :

1. I prefer improve, with you all, the provocatio question : once
the - currently - confused field of provocatio is precised, this
kind of problem will not exist any more ;

2. If we want to modify the rule on "who may interpret the
constitution", the relevant comitia would be the centuriata, for we
could talk about modifying the constitution. And I have not the
power convening it ;

3. When elected, I have committed myself in upholding the
constitution. Though I fully understand the logic of some citizens
who, like Hon. Cordus, prefer a historical/no-constitution system, I
think that trying modifying the constitution is possible just if all
the constitutional powers agree on a wise text. This situation is
not reached today (to say it more quickly, it is like a Pandora box).

4. Every constitutional power (must) have some capacity of
interpretation of the relevant texts. In our system, because we have
no constitutional court, as our roman fathers, each power must, when
concerned, make its part of this work, being known that this work
must be subtile enough not to infringe the others's competencies.
Otherwise, any democratic system, ancient or modern, is jammed.

In our January case, the tribunes issue a collective decision which
told roughly : "*as far as we are concerned*, we consider that X
must be considered, according the law Y, as having not resigned, so
being still citizen and in office". The tribunes never pretended
that their interpretation was *the* good one. It is interesting to
note that any other constitutional power have then expressed a
different opinion. So the different constitutional powers considered
that the tribunician analysis, for lack of a precise law rule, was a
not-so-bad one. If the question has occurred inside consulate,
praetorian office, the situation would have been similar.

> Galerius Paulinus has already stated that their decision DID have a
> direct negative impact upon him, and no magistrate has the
authority
> to declare otherwise.

That was my point of view, and I have freely taken my
responsabilities. My edict has been vetoed, and I have decided to
take notice of this intercessio.


> The question at hand is whether or not the tribunes had the
>authority to decide the issue amongst themselves in the first place.

See above please : this question is relevant for each collegial
magistracy.

I remain at your disposal, dear Cato.

Vale,

P. Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36533 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. ~
Men gladly believe that which they wish for. ... Caesar

In a message dated 7/25/2005 5:38:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

So get behind the call for the comitia and let's get to it! Let's
present our cases to the People. Let them decide. Vox populi vox dei.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36534 From: G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana Fabio Buteoni Modiano omnibusque SPD.


Second that emotion.


Valete omnes
G. Aurelia Falconis Silvan

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. ~
> Men gladly believe that which they wish for. ... Caesar
>
> In a message dated 7/25/2005 5:38:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> So get behind the call for the comitia and let's get to it! Let's
> present our cases to the People. Let them decide. Vox populi
vox dei.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36535 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes For Newcomers
A. Apollonius Q. Maximo omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti:

> So anyone who quotes historic Roman tribunes'
> powers and honors, does so
> with wishful thinking since the primacy of the
> Constitution does not allow for
> it.

Shame. ;)

But seriously, I don't think Q. Lanius was trying to
explain the powers of our tribunes; he was giving some
useful historical background so that people can
appreciate the enormity of the difference between our
tribunate and the ancient version.

Incidentally, you remarked that the changes that
previous legislators made to the historical powers of
the tribunes were intended to make those powers more
limited than those of antiquity. I don't doubt that
this was the intention, but I think the evidence of
our own experience shows that the outcome they sought
has not come about. In fact our tribunes have, in
practice, far more power than their ancient
counterparts had. The ancient tribunes, for instance,
could not veto leges after the comitia had voted on
them. Our tribunes claim that they can do so. The
ancient tribunes could not veto a legislative proposal
unless it was outside the competence of the comitia.
Our tribunes can and do. The ancient tribunes could
not veto the censores' decisions regarding the lectio
senatus. Our tribunes claim that they can do this. The
ancient tribunes could not co-opt their own
colleagues. Our tribunes, or at least one of them,
consider that they can do so. The ancient tribunes
could only veto actions, not inaction. Our tribunes
have at various times in the past attempted to veto
inaction.

I guess the legislators who made these changes,
intended, as you say, to limit the powers of the
tribunes, did so under a misapprehension. I guess they
probably accepted the common fallacy that the fall of
the republic was caused by the excessive powers of the
tribunes. The problem with this theory is that the
tribunes had the same powers for about four hundred
years before the republic entered chronic collapse.
Their powers were limited in the ways I've mentioned
above, among others. What happened in the late
republic was simply that the tribunes began to break
down those restrictions. All that is necessary to
restore the powers of the tribunate to the limits it
observed for the first three hundred and fifty years
of its existence is to restore the historical
restrictions which existed in those years. There's no
need to make them into a quasi-constitutional court, a
role for which they are totally unsuited. There's no
need to make them into a committee whose decisions
must be made by majority voting, which merely tends to
paralyze them whenever a remotely contentious issue
comes up. Once again, the Romans knew what they were
doing, we didn't. Time to eat the proverbial crustum
humilitatis and do it the way they did it.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36536 From: gaiusequitiuscato Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
G. Equitius Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano S.P.D.

Salve Gaius Buteo.

"Ex iniuria ius non oritur." (Right cannot grow out of injustice.)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. ~
> Men gladly believe that which they wish for. ... Caesar
>
> In a message dated 7/25/2005 5:38:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> So get behind the call for the comitia and let's get to it! Let's
> present our cases to the People. Let them decide. Vox populi vox
dei.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36537 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
Salvete omnes.

The Senator has constructed a nice theory, but one that appears to
fail to take into account Section I.B of the Constitution. This
establishes the order of legal precedence and a law cannot affect in
any way the constitution, which of course is above it in the
heirarchy of authority.

Therefore any law that attempts to grant the tribunes the power to
interpret the "law" means just that - laws or leges as distinct from
the constitution. A lower authority cannot grant the right to affect
or have power over a higher authority or in this case interpret the
constitution. The Tribunes can interpret laws and of course any law
that specifically or by strong implication passed after they were
granted this very limited right which denied them this, would itself
take precedence - again according to S.I.B of the constitution.

All the constitution allows a Tribune to do is to adminster the law.
As usual key words are not defined in the constitution so you could
justifiably turn to any standard English dictionary for a definition
of "administer".

Chambers (online) 21st Century Dictionary:

administer verb (administered, administering) 1 to manage, govern or
direct (one's affairs, an organization, etc). 2 to give out something
formally • administer justice. 3 to supervise a person taking (an
oath). 4 to apply or provide (medicine). 5 to give • administer a
rebuke. 6 intrans to act as an administrator.

From Law.com Legal Dictionary:

administer
v. 1) to conduct the duties of a job or position. 2) particularly, to
manage the affairs of the estate of a person who has died under
supervision of the local court. 3) to give an oath, as in "administer
the oath."

I don't see ANY reference to interpretation here in either
definition. I see quite a few meanings that directly relate to what
the Tribunes unquestionably are meant to do - but NOTHING about
interpretation.

If the Tribunes were meant to interpret the constitution then the
only place to clearly state that would be the constitution. Any law
(lower on the scale of authority) that attempts to do so is invalid
and can be ignored and certainly cannot be relied on.

So it seems to me based on the constitution that the Tribunes are NOT
empowered to interpret the constitution, and thus cannot decide on
the merits of whether there exists a case for provocatio. In one
could argue that they should have ADMINSTERED the appeal and
facilitated it - not obstructed it.

Valete
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> P. Minucia Tiberia Senatrix Omnibus Novae Romae S.P.D.
>
> (This will contain a bit about the recent situation as it applies
to
> the actions of the Tribunes relative to their lawful authority)
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36538 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Pompejae Minuciae, de jurisdictione (WAS: Tribunes of Nova Roma for
A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae Straboni omnibusque
sal.

I hope you'll forgive me if I comment on only a tiny
bit of your analysis; I don't want to suggest that the
rest is correct or incorrect, because I said
everything I have to say about this issue last time it
came up.

You wrote:

> The Lex Arminia Equitia de Imperio
>
>
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-iv.html
>
> This lex defines the terms "imperium" and
> 'potestas', and what
> particular powers each of these designations
> contain. Imperium is
> that of a curule magistrate ex Praetor, Consul,
> Censor, and to a
> more limited extent, a governor, and 'potestas' is
> relative to the
> powers of the Tribunes
>
> Tribunes in section I of this lex under the heading
> Potestas:
>
> I. Partial iurisdictio: the power to interpret the
> law within the
> duties of the magistrate to hold potestas .
>
> Why partial? Because there is five of them, and the
> lex Labienia
> mandates that they are one of five, they are not
> acting alone,
> irrespective of the veto of one another. They are
> subject to the
> agreement or disagreement and hence veto/abstention
> of their
> colleagues.

It's true that there are five tribuni, but that's not
the reason why their jurisdictio is partial. The
aediles plebis, for example, also have partial
jurisdictio, but there are only two of them. The
consules, on the other hand, have full jurisdictio,
and there are two of them also.

What makes it partial is that it is limited to the
magistrate's particular are of responsibility, whereas
magistrates with full jurisdictio have the power to
interpret and apply all parts of the law.

In fact the power of jurisdictio, both full and
partial, is primarily concerned with court-cases. It's
the power of giving judgement in legal cases. It's
what allows the aediles curules, for instance, to
exercise judicial functions in commercial disputes
(their jurisdictio is partial - they can only try
commercial cases), and what allows praetores and
consules (though in practice it's usually praetores)
to try legal cases of all kinds.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 36539 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2005-07-25
Subject: Re: Tribunes of Nova Roma for Newcomers
A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti amice:

> Therefore any law that attempts to grant the
> tribunes the power to
> interpret the "law" means just that - laws or leges
> as distinct from
> the constitution.

This is an interesting problem, because an ambiguity
here arises which is specific to the English language.
In English "law" can mean the entire legal system in
abstract, including customs, conventions, decisions
given in court, the writings of jurists, statutes, and
written constitutions... or it can mean a statute.

Latin has no such problem, of course. A statute is a
lex, whereas law in the general sense if jus. If there
were an authoritative Latin text of the relevant legal
documents we could easily check whether they give, or
seek to give, the tribunes the power to interpret
leges only or the whole jus. Heu, there is no such
translation that I know of.

Your wider point - that it is logically inconsistent
for a lex, which is subordinate to the constitution,
to give a magistrate the power to interpret the
constitution - has some merit, but of course on this
logic the only person with legal authority to
interpret the constitution is a person explicitly
granted that power by the constitution itself. And
what do we find? Of course we find that no such
explicit grant exists in the constitution, meaning
that, if your argument is correct, then the
constitution cannot be authoritatively interpreted by
anyone, ever. Which is, in fact, a conclusion we've
come to several times before by quite different lines
of reasoning. So once again we are in an insoluble
deadlock on account of the inadequacies of the
constitution.

I suspect you and I, and other supporters of a
flexible constitution, are beginning to get rather
tired of being proved right so depressingly often...





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com