>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Maior wrote:
>
> > On another point how would you have gotten L. Equitius Cincinnatus
> > to act collegially?
>
> Modianus and Piscinus already *had* succeeded in taking over the

> Augurum. Picsinus was added as Augur, and they could have voted 2-

> with one abstention) for anything that needed to be done. They'd

> There was no need to go further.
>
> This was revenge.
>
> They weren't content to just render L. Cincinnatus Augur a minority

> in the Collegia; they've ruined him, completely. This Senator,

> Censorial, and Priest now has a status less than that of the newest
> applicant - for while the newcomer need pay only $15 to exercise

> rights of citizenship, it'll cost Cincinnatus at least $300 to

> a fraction of his former status.
>
> Compared to Cincinnatus Augur's "crime", this punishment is obscene.
>
> How many more people will be driven away by these wretched laws, and
> the people who abuse them?
>
> Pray that Nova Roma never does become a real country, never does
> get any real authority over people's lives.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Gracchus
> octavius@... * http://www.graveyards.com
>
> -"Apes don't read philosophy."
> -"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct
> you on a few things: Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message

> Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'. And the London Underground

> not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them

> -from "A Fish Called Wanda"
>

> It makes no mention in the
> rights, obligations and powers of the prateors of precedent, or of
> the inclusion of Roman law.

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > It makes no mention in the
> > rights, obligations and powers of the prateors of precedent, or

> > the inclusion of Roman law.
>
> LVT: Correct, but it also does not say they can't. "Inherent

> think they call it.
>
> Vale optime,
> Triarius
>

>
> No, they cannot do this because of Section I.B. Amending a law

> their right, and using Roman law (and what section or period pray
> tell?) strikes at the heart of Section I.B.
>
> You acnt just insert a fresh source of law into our chain of
> authorities, so I must disgree utterly. They CANNOT do this, and

> Constitution is clear on what is and isnt law, and Roman law and
> priciples are not law in Nova Roma.
>
> Ultra vires.
>
> Vale
> Caesar.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Vitellius Triarius"
> <lucius_vitellius_triarius@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> > <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > It makes no mention in the
> > > rights, obligations and powers of the prateors of precedent,

> of
> > > the inclusion of Roman law.
> >
> > LVT: Correct, but it also does not say they can't. "Inherent
> Powers" I
> > think they call it.
> >
> > Vale optime,
> > Triarius
> >
>

>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus L. Vitellio Triario salutem dicit
>
> In May of 2007 Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus accused me of

> the Collegium Pontificum, for something that I had written back in

> Cincinnatus further stated that I never "apologized" for my

> promptly acknowledged his accusation and issued the following

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/50214
>
> For those who do not desire to look it up, I wrote:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> I hereby issue a public apology to Senatores & Pontifices Quintus
> Fabius Maximus and Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur, and Citizen
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus for an inappropriate comment (message #2012)

> made on the Collegium Pontificum e-mail list on Tuesday, September
> 20th, 2005. I take responsibility for my actions and believe that
> senatores, pontifices, magistrates, and citizens should endeavor to
> show respect for one another even in times of heated deliberation.
> That being said, responsibility has to start with one's self and
> therefore I issue this public apology.
>
> Valete:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
> Censor, Consular, Proconsul, Pontifex, Flamen Pomonalis, Augur, &

>
> ---
>
> The situation is much deeper than "I want access to archives."

> this more than once, and feel no need to restate that position.

> willing to work with Cincinnatus as a pontifical and augurial

> was not willing to return the courtesy. When he was offended by my

> and asked for an apology I offered an apology, yet he felt it

> continue to issue insult whenever it was convenient to do so -- and

> for his strong supporters.
>
> You are correct. You can catch more flies with honey than you can

> vinegar. I like honey too, but neither Cincinnatus nor I are flies.
>
> Vale:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:25 AM, L. Vitellius Triarius <
> lucius_vitellius_triarius@...> wrote:
>
> > TO MODIANUS:
> >
> > Modianus, did your mother ever tell you that you can catch more

> > with honey than you can with vinegar? Or, never mix politics with
> > religion? Or, that patience is a cardinal virtue? Or, Life's a

> > and then you die? Calm down, my friend, if you don't get the
> > info...you don't get it. The Religio WILL NOT collapse without
> > it. "It is what it is!"
> >
> >
>

>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> You are correct, and this case is in direct conflict with section

> B., which the Praetors should have ruled on, and the verdict could

> overruled by the CP and reissued.
>
> This Constitution will be the eventual down fall of NR for one
> explicit reason...it does not allow for common sense when needed.
>
> Vale optime,
> Triarius

> From: M.CVRIATIVS COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:26:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
>
> Salve Crasse
>
> dixisti>........... nobody knew that the failing to present himself to
> the Tribunal would lead to the case being decided in favour of the other
> part..................
>
> Nobody?
>
> Please re-read:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1320
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1327
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1328
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/55145
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/55171
>
> et alia
>
>
> M•CVRIATIVS•COMPLVTENSIS
> PRÆTOR NOVÆ ROMÆ
> Senator
> Prætor Hispaniæ
> Scriba Censoris KFBM
> NOVA ROMA
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

> Although we have conflicting information if Lucius Equitius
> Cincinnatus is still a citizen of Nova Roma.

> Not turning up to court is NOT an offence

> and if the trial couldn't proceed, well it should have been
> dismissed.

>
> Titus Flavius Aquila Cn. Iuli Caesar salutem plurimam dicit
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> the tribunes are currently discussing this issue upon my request.
>
> Although we have conflicting information if Lucius Equitius

>
> My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor

>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
> Tribunus Plebis
> Nova Roma
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 07:14:24 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetoribus sal.
>
> "Therefore according the tradition and the Roman Lax, I, the Praetor
> ACTORI LITEM ADDICO and CODEMNO L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur for
> the charges explained by Actor in his Petitio Actinionis."
>
> Your use of Roman law is illegal under the terms of the one supreme
> Nova Roman legal document that governs us all, namely the
> Constitution. As long as the Constitution exists we are all mandated
> to follow it for good or ill, and frequently I have contended in the
> past that the net result is indeed ill, but none of us, least of all
> the Praetors charged with the administration of Nova Roman law, have
> the authority to supplement gaps in our legal code with the tenets
> of Roman law. Why? Because the Constitution as our fountainhead of
> legal authority does not permit it and indeed through the order of
> legal precedence actively prevents us using anything other than that
> defined within the body of the Constitution.
>
> As clearly you have either no read the Constitution or if so, you
> have done so in a cursory manner (for I cannot believe that you
> knowingly would flout it), let me explain.
>
> Section I.A establishes the Constitution as the:
>
> "basic authority for all decision-making within Nova Roma and shall
> limit the authority of all magistrates and bodies, and all leges
> (laws) passed by the comitia, decreta (decrees) of the priestly
> collegia, magisterial edicta (edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be
> subject to it..."
>
> It then provides the exceptions of dictatorial edict and
> constitutional amendment as being the only two mechanisms for
> overriding the current constitution, subject to a restriction that
> no "ex post facto" penalty maybe levied.
>
> Having established the framework of what follows as the fountainhead
> of Nova Roman law, the Constitution then in Section I.B establishes
> the order of legal precedence:
>
> "This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova
> Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It
> shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by
> consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly
> voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the
> collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum,
> Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending
> authority as described in section IV of this Constitution) , in that
> order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority,
> the higher authority shall take precedence. Should a law passed by
> one of the comitia contradict one passed by another or the same
> comitia without explicitly superseding that law, the most recent law
> shall take precedence."
>
> The Constitution is clear that this is the extent of Nova Roman law,
> nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution cannot be
> interpreted, and even if it could, there is nothing that exists in
> the Constitution to support your employment of Roman law, however
> venerable or applicable in the circumstances you might have deemed
> it. Until such time as the Constitution is revoked entirely or
> altered to allow this practice, Roman law is an interesting but
> within the terms of Nova Roman law, utterly irrelevant. Why
> irrelevant? Because the Constitution has failed to include it in
> Section I.B or make reference to your right to employ it.
>
> Now praetors, in case I have missed something here can you please
> explain under what Section of the Constitution you believe you have
> the right to extract such aspects of Roman law as you have seen fit
> to do so?
>
> If you cannot evidence a particular section that grants you this
> right, you have indeed acted unconstitutionally, rashly and
> unfairly. We are governed internally by the Constitution and laws we
> the people of Nova Roma deem fit to pass. We are not ruled by
> anything else, and if the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria was so ineptly
> drafted that it didn't allow for someone not submitting to its
> processes, then your duty is not to extract a principle foreign
> to "our" law (regardless of the fact that your import may come from
> Roman law) and force it illegally into that lex as a praetorian
> flash of brilliance to make a broken law work. If it is broken, then
> it cannot be used and a case may be made to the people to fix it
> according to due process. What should NOT have happened is an
> indecent rush to secure a "conviction" that flouted and broke the
> rule of the Constitution you both swore to uphold.
>
> Before anyone quotes Section 3.B, that sets one of the functions of
> the Praetors as being:
>
> "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
> which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma and to
> administer the law (such edicts being binding upon themselves as
> well as others)"
>
> take note that this section relates to the issuance of edicts, and
> the employment of the phrase "administer the law" does not encompass
> interpreting the legal of precedence as containing an implicit
> unspoken reference to Roman law.
>
> In conclusion your decision in this matter is, until someone
> demonstrates where in the Constitution you derive your power to do
> this, a gross and flagrant abuse of your powers, a usurpation of the
> rights of the people to determine law, and you have made your office
> party to an exercise in petty victimization.
>
> Our legal system is flawed all the way through and this sort of
> behavior can only bring it further into disrepute, especially when
> the two offenders in this matter are the very magistrates charged
> with the its administration.
>
> I join Octavius in demanding to know why this abuse of the
> Constitution has not been vetoed. Tribunes, you have a sworn duty to
> uphold the Constitution and if this is permitted to stand we have
> allowed magistrates to simply dredge up any aspect of Roman law and
> impose it on us.
>
> In fact what is to stop future Praetors if this gross abuse is
> permitted to continue unhindered, from simply inventing their own
> sub-sections or indeed entire laws to fill the gaps in our legal
> code?
>
> This is a horrendous and dangerous precedent being set here and must
> be squashed immediately, for not to do so places all of us in
> jeopardy. This sort of abuse is more suited to the principate or
> dominate, than the republic we claim to be. Tribunes, I say again,
> do your duty and rein these magistrates in.
>
> Valete
> Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <hucke@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Caligula Imperator,
> >
> > > ITEM PLUS,
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy.
> www.yahoo.de/go
>

>
> Salve Valerius,
>
> I did not know that there are preferred ways of offenses . An

> if done against an high Magistrate performing his duty , is an

> This is my personal view.
>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: qvalerius <catullus.poeta@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 17:03:07 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Salve Falvi,
>
> It may be an offense, but is it an illegal offense?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
> <titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Titus Flavius Aquila Cn. Iuli Caesar salutem plurimam dicit
> >
> > Salve Caesar,
> >
> > the tribunes are currently discussing this issue upon my request.
> >
> > Although we have conflicting information if Lucius Equitius
> Cincinnatus is still a citizen of Nova Roma. We have not heard from
> him for a long time.
> >
> > My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor
> accepts a court case - if you personally do like or do not like the
> case is no issue here - both parties have to come forward to present
> their point of view to the court. Disregarding the call of the Praetor
> is an offense.
> >
> > Optime vale
> > Titus Flavius Aquila
> > Tribunus Plebis
> > Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> > Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...>
> > An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 07:14:24 Uhr
> > Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetoribus sal.
> >
> > "Therefore according the tradition and the Roman Lax, I, the Praetor
> > ACTORI LITEM ADDICO and CODEMNO L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur for
> > the charges explained by Actor in his Petitio Actinionis."
> >
> > Your use of Roman law is illegal under the terms of the one supreme
> > Nova Roman legal document that governs us all, namely the
> > Constitution. As long as the Constitution exists we are all mandated
> > to follow it for good or ill, and frequently I have contended in the
> > past that the net result is indeed ill, but none of us, least of all
> > the Praetors charged with the administration of Nova Roman law, have
> > the authority to supplement gaps in our legal code with the tenets
> > of Roman law. Why? Because the Constitution as our fountainhead of
> > legal authority does not permit it and indeed through the order of
> > legal precedence actively prevents us using anything other than that
> > defined within the body of the Constitution.
> >
> > As clearly you have either no read the Constitution or if so, you
> > have done so in a cursory manner (for I cannot believe that you
> > knowingly would flout it), let me explain.
> >
> > Section I.A establishes the Constitution as the:
> >
> > "basic authority for all decision-making within Nova Roma and shall
> > limit the authority of all magistrates and bodies, and all leges
> > (laws) passed by the comitia, decreta (decrees) of the priestly
> > collegia, magisterial edicta (edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be
> > subject to it..."
> >
> > It then provides the exceptions of dictatorial edict and
> > constitutional amendment as being the only two mechanisms for
> > overriding the current constitution, subject to a restriction that
> > no "ex post facto" penalty maybe levied.
> >
> > Having established the framework of what follows as the fountainhead
> > of Nova Roman law, the Constitution then in Section I.B establishes
> > the order of legal precedence:
> >
> > "This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova
> > Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It
> > shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by
> > consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly
> > voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the
> > collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum,
> > Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending
> > authority as described in section IV of this Constitution) , in that
> > order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority,
> > the higher authority shall take precedence. Should a law passed by
> > one of the comitia contradict one passed by another or the same
> > comitia without explicitly superseding that law, the most recent law
> > shall take precedence."
> >
> > The Constitution is clear that this is the extent of Nova Roman law,
> > nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution cannot be
> > interpreted, and even if it could, there is nothing that exists in
> > the Constitution to support your employment of Roman law, however
> > venerable or applicable in the circumstances you might have deemed
> > it. Until such time as the Constitution is revoked entirely or
> > altered to allow this practice, Roman law is an interesting but
> > within the terms of Nova Roman law, utterly irrelevant. Why
> > irrelevant? Because the Constitution has failed to include it in
> > Section I.B or make reference to your right to employ it.
> >
> > Now praetors, in case I have missed something here can you please
> > explain under what Section of the Constitution you believe you have
> > the right to extract such aspects of Roman law as you have seen fit
> > to do so?
> >
> > If you cannot evidence a particular section that grants you this
> > right, you have indeed acted unconstitutionally, rashly and
> > unfairly. We are governed internally by the Constitution and laws we
> > the people of Nova Roma deem fit to pass. We are not ruled by
> > anything else, and if the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria was so ineptly
> > drafted that it didn't allow for someone not submitting to its
> > processes, then your duty is not to extract a principle foreign
> > to "our" law (regardless of the fact that your import may come from
> > Roman law) and force it illegally into that lex as a praetorian
> > flash of brilliance to make a broken law work. If it is broken, then
> > it cannot be used and a case may be made to the people to fix it
> > according to due process. What should NOT have happened is an
> > indecent rush to secure a "conviction" that flouted and broke the
> > rule of the Constitution you both swore to uphold.
> >
> > Before anyone quotes Section 3.B, that sets one of the functions of
> > the Praetors as being:
> >
> > "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
> > which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma and to
> > administer the law (such edicts being binding upon themselves as
> > well as others)"
> >
> > take note that this section relates to the issuance of edicts, and
> > the employment of the phrase "administer the law" does not encompass
> > interpreting the legal of precedence as containing an implicit
> > unspoken reference to Roman law.
> >
> > In conclusion your decision in this matter is, until someone
> > demonstrates where in the Constitution you derive your power to do
> > this, a gross and flagrant abuse of your powers, a usurpation of the
> > rights of the people to determine law, and you have made your office
> > party to an exercise in petty victimization.
> >
> > Our legal system is flawed all the way through and this sort of
> > behavior can only bring it further into disrepute, especially when
> > the two offenders in this matter are the very magistrates charged
> > with the its administration.
> >
> > I join Octavius in demanding to know why this abuse of the
> > Constitution has not been vetoed. Tribunes, you have a sworn duty to
> > uphold the Constitution and if this is permitted to stand we have
> > allowed magistrates to simply dredge up any aspect of Roman law and
> > impose it on us.
> >
> > In fact what is to stop future Praetors if this gross abuse is
> > permitted to continue unhindered, from simply inventing their own
> > sub-sections or indeed entire laws to fill the gaps in our legal
> > code?
> >
> > This is a horrendous and dangerous precedent being set here and must
> > be squashed immediately, for not to do so places all of us in
> > jeopardy. This sort of abuse is more suited to the principate or
> > dominate, than the republic we claim to be. Tribunes, I say again,
> > do your duty and rein these magistrates in.
> >
> > Valete
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <hucke@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Caligula Imperator,
> > >
> > > > ITEM PLUS,
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy.
> > www.yahoo.de/ go
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's:
> http://de.yahoo.com/set
>

>> the tribunes are currently discussing this issue upon my request.<<

----- Original Message -----

From: os390account

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:24 AM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti

Salvete!

Look well, O ye citizens of NovaRoma. Are you civil out of brotherly
love, or out of fear of men with gladii enforcing their will at your
domus? Perhaps in the ancient times, people were compelled by
imperium out of both fear and duty.

If out of duty and brotherly love, then these issues should be moot.

If out of fear, then simply laugh, since no one with a sword and spear
is coming to your door to enforce the will of the republic.

If you wish to change things, do so.

But please, stop the bickering, and tell me one thing:

Am I trying to teach the pig to sing?

Valete,
Q. Valerius Callidus (Disaffectus)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
<titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Valerius,
>
> I did not know that there are preferred ways of offenses . An
offense, especially
> if done against an high Magistrate performing his duty , is an
offense against the Republic.
> This is my personal view.
>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: qvalerius <catullus.poeta@ ...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 17:03:07 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Salve Falvi,
>
> It may be an offense, but is it an illegal offense?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
> <titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Titus Flavius Aquila Cn. Iuli Caesar salutem plurimam dicit
> >
> > Salve Caesar,
> >
> > the tribunes are currently discussing this issue upon my request.
> >
> > Although we have conflicting information if Lucius Equitius
> Cincinnatus is still a citizen of Nova Roma. We have not heard from
> him for a long time.
> >
> > My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor
> accepts a court case - if you personally do like or do not like the
> case is no issue here - both parties have to come forward to present
> their point of view to the court. Disregarding the call of the Praetor
> is an offense.
> >
> > Optime vale
> > Titus Flavius Aquila
> > Tribunus Plebis
> > Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> > Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...>
> > An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 07:14:24 Uhr
> > Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetoribus sal.
> >
> > "Therefore according the tradition and the Roman Lax, I, the Praetor
> > ACTORI LITEM ADDICO and CODEMNO L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur for
> > the charges explained by Actor in his Petitio Actinionis."
> >
> > Your use of Roman law is illegal under the terms of the one supreme
> > Nova Roman legal document that governs us all, namely the
> > Constitution. As long as the Constitution exists we are all mandated
> > to follow it for good or ill, and frequently I have contended in the
> > past that the net result is indeed ill, but none of us, least of all
> > the Praetors charged with the administration of Nova Roman law, have
> > the authority to supplement gaps in our legal code with the tenets
> > of Roman law. Why? Because the Constitution as our fountainhead of
> > legal authority does not permit it and indeed through the order of
> > legal precedence actively prevents us using anything other than that
> > defined within the body of the Constitution.
> >
> > As clearly you have either no read the Constitution or if so, you
> > have done so in a cursory manner (for I cannot believe that you
> > knowingly would flout it), let me explain.
> >
> > Section I.A establishes the Constitution as the:
> >
> > "basic authority for all decision-making within Nova Roma and shall
> > limit the authority of all magistrates and bodies, and all leges
> > (laws) passed by the comitia, decreta (decrees) of the priestly
> > collegia, magisterial edicta (edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be
> > subject to it..."
> >
> > It then provides the exceptions of dictatorial edict and
> > constitutional amendment as being the only two mechanisms for
> > overriding the current constitution, subject to a restriction that
> > no "ex post facto" penalty maybe levied.
> >
> > Having established the framework of what follows as the fountainhead
> > of Nova Roman law, the Constitution then in Section I.B establishes
> > the order of legal precedence:
> >
> > "This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova
> > Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It
> > shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by
> > consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly
> > voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the
> > collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum,
> > Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending
> > authority as described in section IV of this Constitution) , in that
> > order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority,
> > the higher authority shall take precedence. Should a law passed by
> > one of the comitia contradict one passed by another or the same
> > comitia without explicitly superseding that law, the most recent law
> > shall take precedence."
> >
> > The Constitution is clear that this is the extent of Nova Roman law,
> > nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution cannot be
> > interpreted, and even if it could, there is nothing that exists in
> > the Constitution to support your employment of Roman law, however
> > venerable or applicable in the circumstances you might have deemed
> > it. Until such time as the Constitution is revoked entirely or
> > altered to allow this practice, Roman law is an interesting but
> > within the terms of Nova Roman law, utterly irrelevant. Why
> > irrelevant? Because the Constitution has failed to include it in
> > Section I.B or make reference to your right to employ it.
> >
> > Now praetors, in case I have missed something here can you please
> > explain under what Section of the Constitution you believe you have
> > the right to extract such aspects of Roman law as you have seen fit
> > to do so?
> >
> > If you cannot evidence a particular section that grants you this
> > right, you have indeed acted unconstitutionally, rashly and
> > unfairly. We are governed internally by the Constitution and laws we
> > the people of Nova Roma deem fit to pass. We are not ruled by
> > anything else, and if the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria was so ineptly
> > drafted that it didn't allow for someone not submitting to its
> > processes, then your duty is not to extract a principle foreign
> > to "our" law (regardless of the fact that your import may come from
> > Roman law) and force it illegally into that lex as a praetorian
> > flash of brilliance to make a broken law work. If it is broken, then
> > it cannot be used and a case may be made to the people to fix it
> > according to due process. What should NOT have happened is an
> > indecent rush to secure a "conviction" that flouted and broke the
> > rule of the Constitution you both swore to uphold.
> >
> > Before anyone quotes Section 3.B, that sets one of the functions of
> > the Praetors as being:
> >
> > "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
> > which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma and to
> > administer the law (such edicts being binding upon themselves as
> > well as others)"
> >
> > take note that this section relates to the issuance of edicts, and
> > the employment of the phrase "administer the law" does not encompass
> > interpreting the legal of precedence as containing an implicit
> > unspoken reference to Roman law.
> >
> > In conclusion your decision in this matter is, until someone
> > demonstrates where in the Constitution you derive your power to do
> > this, a gross and flagrant abuse of your powers, a usurpation of the
> > rights of the people to determine law, and you have made your office
> > party to an exercise in petty victimization.
> >
> > Our legal system is flawed all the way through and this sort of
> > behavior can only bring it further into disrepute, especially when
> > the two offenders in this matter are the very magistrates charged
> > with the its administration.
> >
> > I join Octavius in demanding to know why this abuse of the
> > Constitution has not been vetoed. Tribunes, you have a sworn duty to
> > uphold the Constitution and if this is permitted to stand we have
> > allowed magistrates to simply dredge up any aspect of Roman law and
> > impose it on us.
> >
> > In fact what is to stop future Praetors if this gross abuse is
> > permitted to continue unhindered, from simply inventing their own
> > sub-sections or indeed entire laws to fill the gaps in our legal
> > code?
> >
> > This is a horrendous and dangerous precedent being set here and must
> > be squashed immediately, for not to do so places all of us in
> > jeopardy. This sort of abuse is more suited to the principate or
> > dominate, than the republic we claim to be. Tribunes, I say again,
> > do your duty and rein these magistrates in.
> >
> > Valete
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <hucke@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Caligula Imperator,
> > >
> > > > ITEM PLUS,
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy.
> > www.yahoo.de/ go
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's:
> http://de.yahoo. com/set
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
> > Not turning up to court is NOT an offence
>
> Perhaps not clearly and explicitly defined as such in novaroman
law, no,
> but seriously...
>

>
> Titus Flavius Aquila Cn. Iuli Caesar salutem plurimam dicit
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> the tribunes are currently discussing this issue upon my request.
>
> Although we have conflicting information if Lucius Equitius

>
> My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor

>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
> Tribunus Plebis
> Nova Roma
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 07:14:24 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetoribus sal.
>
> "Therefore according the tradition and the Roman Lax, I, the Praetor
> ACTORI LITEM ADDICO and CODEMNO L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur for
> the charges explained by Actor in his Petitio Actinionis."
>
> Your use of Roman law is illegal under the terms of the one supreme
> Nova Roman legal document that governs us all, namely the
> Constitution. As long as the Constitution exists we are all mandated
> to follow it for good or ill, and frequently I have contended in the
> past that the net result is indeed ill, but none of us, least of all
> the Praetors charged with the administration of Nova Roman law, have
> the authority to supplement gaps in our legal code with the tenets
> of Roman law. Why? Because the Constitution as our fountainhead of
> legal authority does not permit it and indeed through the order of
> legal precedence actively prevents us using anything other than that
> defined within the body of the Constitution.
>
> As clearly you have either no read the Constitution or if so, you
> have done so in a cursory manner (for I cannot believe that you
> knowingly would flout it), let me explain.
>
> Section I.A establishes the Constitution as the:
>
> "basic authority for all decision-making within Nova Roma and shall
> limit the authority of all magistrates and bodies, and all leges
> (laws) passed by the comitia, decreta (decrees) of the priestly
> collegia, magisterial edicta (edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be
> subject to it..."
>
> It then provides the exceptions of dictatorial edict and
> constitutional amendment as being the only two mechanisms for
> overriding the current constitution, subject to a restriction that
> no "ex post facto" penalty maybe levied.
>
> Having established the framework of what follows as the fountainhead
> of Nova Roman law, the Constitution then in Section I.B establishes
> the order of legal precedence:
>
> "This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova
> Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It
> shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by
> consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly
> voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the
> collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum,
> Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending
> authority as described in section IV of this Constitution) , in that
> order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority,
> the higher authority shall take precedence. Should a law passed by
> one of the comitia contradict one passed by another or the same
> comitia without explicitly superseding that law, the most recent law
> shall take precedence."
>
> The Constitution is clear that this is the extent of Nova Roman law,
> nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution cannot be
> interpreted, and even if it could, there is nothing that exists in
> the Constitution to support your employment of Roman law, however
> venerable or applicable in the circumstances you might have deemed
> it. Until such time as the Constitution is revoked entirely or
> altered to allow this practice, Roman law is an interesting but
> within the terms of Nova Roman law, utterly irrelevant. Why
> irrelevant? Because the Constitution has failed to include it in
> Section I.B or make reference to your right to employ it.
>
> Now praetors, in case I have missed something here can you please
> explain under what Section of the Constitution you believe you have
> the right to extract such aspects of Roman law as you have seen fit
> to do so?
>
> If you cannot evidence a particular section that grants you this
> right, you have indeed acted unconstitutionally, rashly and
> unfairly. We are governed internally by the Constitution and laws we
> the people of Nova Roma deem fit to pass. We are not ruled by
> anything else, and if the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria was so ineptly
> drafted that it didn't allow for someone not submitting to its
> processes, then your duty is not to extract a principle foreign
> to "our" law (regardless of the fact that your import may come from
> Roman law) and force it illegally into that lex as a praetorian
> flash of brilliance to make a broken law work. If it is broken, then
> it cannot be used and a case may be made to the people to fix it
> according to due process. What should NOT have happened is an
> indecent rush to secure a "conviction" that flouted and broke the
> rule of the Constitution you both swore to uphold.
>
> Before anyone quotes Section 3.B, that sets one of the functions of
> the Praetors as being:
>
> "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
> which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma and to
> administer the law (such edicts being binding upon themselves as
> well as others)"
>
> take note that this section relates to the issuance of edicts, and
> the employment of the phrase "administer the law" does not encompass
> interpreting the legal of precedence as containing an implicit
> unspoken reference to Roman law.
>
> In conclusion your decision in this matter is, until someone
> demonstrates where in the Constitution you derive your power to do
> this, a gross and flagrant abuse of your powers, a usurpation of the
> rights of the people to determine law, and you have made your office
> party to an exercise in petty victimization.
>
> Our legal system is flawed all the way through and this sort of
> behavior can only bring it further into disrepute, especially when
> the two offenders in this matter are the very magistrates charged
> with the its administration.
>
> I join Octavius in demanding to know why this abuse of the
> Constitution has not been vetoed. Tribunes, you have a sworn duty to
> uphold the Constitution and if this is permitted to stand we have
> allowed magistrates to simply dredge up any aspect of Roman law and
> impose it on us.
>
> In fact what is to stop future Praetors if this gross abuse is
> permitted to continue unhindered, from simply inventing their own
> sub-sections or indeed entire laws to fill the gaps in our legal
> code?
>
> This is a horrendous and dangerous precedent being set here and must
> be squashed immediately, for not to do so places all of us in
> jeopardy. This sort of abuse is more suited to the principate or
> dominate, than the republic we claim to be. Tribunes, I say again,
> do your duty and rein these magistrates in.
>
> Valete
> Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <hucke@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Caligula Imperator,
> >
> > > ITEM PLUS,
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy.
> www.yahoo.de/go
>

> My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor accepts a court case -
> if you personally do like or do not like the case is no issue here -
> both parties have to come forward to present their point of
> view to the court. Disregarding the call of the Praetor is an offense.

>
>
> Salve Tribune,
>
> > My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor

> > if you personally do like or do not like the case is no issue here -
> > both parties have to come forward to present their point of
> > view to the court. Disregarding the call of the Praetor is an offense.
>
> Then let him be charged with that "offence", and a *reasonable*

>
> That's not what happened. The Praetor took it upon himself to make

> find Cincinnatus guilty of it without trial, and impose an obscenely

> equivalent to twenty years of membership fees - with no authority to

>
> Moreover, for the original offence, I believe the Iudices were never

> allowed to make a decision; by not showing up, he was automatically

> guilty. One wonders what would have happened had the original

> murder... in no civilized society is a person automatically judged

> without any consideration of the evidence.
>
> Cincinnatus has been put in a position where he cannot possibly

> citizenship without paying far more than its worth, all because of

> of an evil and ill-conceived law.
>
> How many more citizens are we going to lose because of this

> draconian system? Last time there was a trial, it resulted in the

> both parties involved (Fuscus and Scaevola). Now, Cincinnatus

> our first citizens and most dedicated citizens, has been deprived of

> he had here - even his name.
>
> How much longer will this go on?
>
> Will we ever have a consul with the courage to do what's right, to

> that a social club does not need a court system, and to call the comitia
> to strike down this foul law?
>
> I have put thousands of hours of work into building a society, yet have
> seen more than one friend chased away because some people cannot resist
> the urge to play lawyer. I quit the Senate two weeks ago because I

> believe Nova Roma has a future, and the actions of a Censor and a

> in the days after have only proven that suspicion correct.
>
> What will the law-wankers do when only they remain? Will they

> "Concordia" has been achieved (as there is no one left to disagree with
> them?)
>
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Gracchus
> octavius@... * http://www.graveyards.com
>
> -"Apes don't read philosophy."
> -"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct
> you on a few things: Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of
> Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'. And the London Underground is
> not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up."
> -from "A Fish Called Wanda"
>

> Salve Gracchus,
> how can you have respect for our res publica if you disregard the magistrates with imperium elected by
> the people of Nova Roma ?

> We are no social club, we are the Republic of Nova Roma ! We are a sovereign nation !

>
> Titus Flavius Aquila M. Octavi Graccho salutem plurimam dicit
>
> Salve Gracchus,
>
> how can you have respect for our res publica if you disregard the

> the people of Nova Roma ?

>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> with the greatest respect, you are wrong.
>
> The preamble of our constitution clearly states:
>
> Preamble
> We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and

>
>
> I will do my utmost to defend our Republic and Nation against any

>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
> Tribunus Plebis
> Legatus Pro Preatore Provincia Germania
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 20:23:05 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Salve Tribune.
>
> With the greatest of respect, this is incorrect.
>
> We are NOT sovereign in any respect. We have no independent
> territory outside of the borders of any macronational state, we are
> not recognised as sovereign, the republic uses a legal entity in a
> macronational state subject to its lawa, our constitution speaks to
> the need to follow macronational law, and our "citizens" remain
> bound by the laws of the nations they reside and are
> citizens/residents in.
>
> It is precisely this sort of fantasy that leads magistrates from the
> path of sanity into the path of arrogance and a flagrant disregard
> for not only our laws but also potentially for the very
> macronational laws and legal principles the highest legal authority
> in Nova Roma requires us to obey.
>
> Soverign status was a goal, and is probably a hopelessly futile one
> in our lifetime, and at this rate of decline probably a furile one
> in the lives of our grandchildren.
>
> It has NOT been achieved and some people need to take a damn good
> sniff of the reality smelling salts and stop parading around as
> though there can be no outside sanctions leveied against Nova Roma,
> for there can and there would be not one thing Nova Roma could do to
> prevent a macronational court in any of the nations where it
> soliticts members and has provincial organizations in place, from
> passing judgment on, and indeed enforcing its will through contempt
> orders against NR citizens and/or fines levied on individuals or
> Nova Roma itself.
>
> You may think we are soveriegn, but we are not. These are dangerous
> delusions of grandeur and quite silly.
>
> Vale
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
> <titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Titus Flavius Aquila M. Octavi Graccho salutem plurimam dicit
> >
> > Salve Gracchus,
> >
> > how can you have respect for our res publica if you disregard the
> magistrates with imperium elected by
> > the people of Nova Roma ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails jetzt einfach von unterwegs.
> www.yahoo.de/go
>

>
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> We are not a sovereign nation, I also don't think we're merely a

>
> Valete,
>
> Annia Minucia Marcella
> http://www.myspace.com/novabritannia
> http://novabritannia.org/
> http://ciarin.com/governor
>
> Esquiline Hill, Vicus Sabuci
>

> I will do my utmost to defend our Republic and Nation against any aims to demote them to a social club !

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, M^UIVL^USEVERVS wrote:

Salve Marce Iuli,

> Could you explain to the People of Nova Roma, where do you find within the
> Constitution, anything that prevents the Praetores from using their imperium to
> establish a judicial system, fullfilling article IV A.3.b. of the Constitution?

And can you explain what authorizes the praetores to invent arbitrary offences,
declare a person guilty of such an invented offence without trial, impose a
fine equivalent to twenty years of membership fees? And does anything in the
Constitution authorize a Praetor to remove a Priest from office? You have
committed a gross impiety by doing so, and surely we can never prosper after
such an abominable act.


--
Marcus Octavius Gracchus
octavius@... * http://www.graveyards.com

-"Apes don't read philosophy."
-"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct
you on a few things: Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of
Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'. And the London Underground is
not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up."
-from "A Fish Called Wanda"

----- Original Message -----

From: Q. Valerius Poplicola

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:48 PM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti

More specifically, Nova Roma is a non-profit religious education
company. We're officially incorporated in Maine, USA. We have no
sovereignty. If anyone thinks that we have sovereignty, I dare that
person to try to imprison anyone, and we'll see how fast the American
government will freeze Nova Roman's assets and how quickly INTERPOL
will come to arrest the kidnappers.

Poplicola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella" <annia@...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> We are not a sovereign nation, I also don't think we're merely a
social club(especially since we rarely socialize). I happen to think
we are an international organization with the goal of bringing back
the Roman way of life.
>
> Valete,
>
> Annia Minucia Marcella
> http://www.myspace. com/novabritanni a
> http://novabritanni a.org/
> http://ciarin. com/governor
>
> Esquiline Hill, Vicus Sabuci
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Q. Valerius Poplicola

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:45 PM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti

The Preamble is clearly false under international law. The Preamble
could also claim that the sky is green and you are a squirrel, but it
still would be false. Our aim is to eventually become a sovereign
nation, but we have not by any definition achieved that level.

Poplicola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
<titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> with the greatest respect, you are wrong.
>
> The preamble of our constitution clearly states:
>
> Preamble
> We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and
sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the
foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common
society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma
shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio
Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the
study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period
from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such
fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and
philosophy.
>
>
> I will do my utmost to defend our Republic and Nation against any
aims to demote them to a social club !
>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
> Tribunus Plebis
> Legatus Pro Preatore Provincia Germania
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 20:23:05 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs. L. Equiti
>
> Salve Tribune.
>
> With the greatest of respect, this is incorrect.
>
> We are NOT sovereign in any respect. We have no independent
> territory outside of the borders of any macronational state, we are
> not recognised as sovereign, the republic uses a legal entity in a
> macronational state subject to its lawa, our constitution speaks to
> the need to follow macronational law, and our "citizens" remain
> bound by the laws of the nations they reside and are
> citizens/residents in.
>
> It is precisely this sort of fantasy that leads magistrates from the
> path of sanity into the path of arrogance and a flagrant disregard
> for not only our laws but also potentially for the very
> macronational laws and legal principles the highest legal authority
> in Nova Roma requires us to obey.
>
> Soverign status was a goal, and is probably a hopelessly futile one
> in our lifetime, and at this rate of decline probably a furile one
> in the lives of our grandchildren.
>
> It has NOT been achieved and some people need to take a damn good
> sniff of the reality smelling salts and stop parading around as
> though there can be no outside sanctions leveied against Nova Roma,
> for there can and there would be not one thing Nova Roma could do to
> prevent a macronational court in any of the nations where it
> soliticts members and has provincial organizations in place, from
> passing judgment on, and indeed enforcing its will through contempt
> orders against NR citizens and/or fines levied on individuals or
> Nova Roma itself.
>
> You may think we are soveriegn, but we are not. These are dangerous
> delusions of grandeur and quite silly.
>
> Vale
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
> <titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Titus Flavius Aquila M. Octavi Graccho salutem plurimam dicit
> >
> > Salve Gracchus,
> >
> > how can you have respect for our res publica if you disregard the
> magistrates with imperium elected by
> > the people of Nova Roma ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails jetzt einfach von unterwegs.
> www.yahoo.de/ go
>

>
> Salve Gnaeus Iulius Caesar,
>
> Could you explain to the People of Nova Roma, where do you find

>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> with the greatest respect, you are wrong.
>
> The preamble of our constitution clearly states:
>

> I say again the correct course of action when faced
> with a law that is incomplete due to a serious ommission such as
> this is to simply put it on the shelf, and not to try and fix it
> yourselves.

>
> Salve Gnaeus Iulius Caesar,
>
> What you don't seem to understand, is that a legal chain is just

>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> one last word, if you do not believe in the future of our Republic

> let young, fresh people with vision for our future to join the

>
> I quit the Senate two weeks ago because I do not believe Nova Roma

> in the days after have only proven that suspicion correct.
>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: M. Octavius Gracchus <hucke@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 21. Februar 2008, 18:11:55 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sententia Iudici K. Fabi vs.

>
>
> Salve Tribune,
>
> > My single opinion as a Tribunus Plebis is, that if the praetor

> > if you personally do like or do not like the case is no issue

> > both parties have to come forward to present their point of
> > view to the court. Disregarding the call of the Praetor is an

>
> Then let him be charged with that "offence", and a *reasonable*

>
> That's not what happened. The Praetor took it upon himself to make

> find Cincinnatus guilty of it without trial, and impose an

> equivalent to twenty years of membership fees - with no authority

>
> Moreover, for the original offence, I believe the Iudices were

> allowed to make a decision; by not showing up, he was

> guilty. One wonders what would have happened had the original

> murder... in no civilized society is a person automatically judged

> without any consideration of the evidence.
>
> Cincinnatus has been put in a position where he cannot possibly

> citizenship without paying far more than its worth, all because of

> of an evil and ill-conceived law.
>
> How many more citizens are we going to lose because of this

> draconian system? Last time there was a trial, it resulted in the

> both parties involved (Fuscus and Scaevola). Now, Cincinnatus

> our first citizens and most dedicated citizens, has been deprived

> he had here - even his name.
>
> How much longer will this go on?
>
> Will we ever have a consul with the courage to do what's right, to

> that a social club does not need a court system, and to call the

> to strike down this foul law?
>
> I have put thousands of hours of work into building a society, yet

> seen more than one friend chased away because some people cannot

> the urge to play lawyer. I quit the Senate two weeks ago because I

> believe Nova Roma has a future, and the actions of a Censor and a

> in the days after have only proven that suspicion correct.
>
> What will the law-wankers do when only they remain? Will they

> "Concordia" has been achieved (as there is no one left to disagree

> them?)
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Gracchus
> octavius@novaroma. org * http://www.graveyar ds.com
>
> -"Apes don't read philosophy."
> -"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct
> you on a few things: Aristotle was not Belgian. The central

> Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'. And the London

> not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them

> -from "A Fish Called Wanda"
>
>
>
>
> Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen?

>

> What you don't seem to understand, is that a legal chain is just that: a legal
> chain. We haven't broken it, on the contrary: by implementing legal tools, by
> means of our imperium, we are strenghtening that chain.

> A sentence establishing iurisprudentia, according to the priovisions of the Lex Salicia
> iudiciaria, is a magisterial edictum, within the same legal chain.
> Yes, we are servants of the law. Yes, we have to administer the law, according to the will and the mandate of the People of Nova Roma. And the People of Nova Roma, via the Comitia populi tributa, gave us imperium to fullfill article IV A.3.b. of the Constitution.
> We didn't abrogate ourselves any rights besides those that we do have under tjhe Constitution.

> Salve Caesar,
>
> one last word, if you do not believe in the future of our Republic and you are exhausted ,
> it was the right thing for you to quit the senate and
> let young, fresh people with vision for our future to join the Senate.

> Salve Marce Octavi,
>
> I have had, and I still have, a great respect for you. Therefore, I invite you to exhibit real and sound evidences of your accusations:

> How did we invent arbitrary offenses?

> When did we declare a person guilty without a trial? Do you forget that the Reus
> decided to ignore the Court, and the law orders us in such cases, to judge in
> favor of the other party?

> Anyway, where in the Constitution do you find anything that would prevent the
> Praetores from removing a Priest from office, when found guilty of religious offenses in the Court?

>
> Praetor,
>
> > What you don't seem to understand, is that a legal chain is

> > chain. We haven't broken it, on the contrary: by implementing

> > means of our imperium, we are strenghtening that chain.

>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> You don't want to discuss, or to debate, or to understand. You

> I won't play your game.
>
> Vale,
>
>
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> PRÆTOR•NOVƕROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> PRÆTOR•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
> SCRIBA•CENSORIS•K•F•B•M
> INTERPRETER
> MVSÆVS•COLLEGII•ERATOVS•SODALITATIS•MVSARVM
> SOCIVS•CHORI•MVSARVM
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>

> Salve Gracchus,
>
> ridiculous fines ? 68 USD which converts to 46 Euros, a ridiculous fine ?

> After all it is money which is to be paid to the state treasury.

> The 300 USD are the fine for the disrespect and diregard shown to the Praetors of Nova Roma !

>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Titus Flavius Aquila wrote:
>
> > Salve Gracchus,
> >
> > ridiculous fines ? 68 USD which converts to 46 Euros, a

>
> $300 USD is a ridiculous fine, especially for an "offence" that was

> up out of whole cloth by the Praetores, who charged him with it in

> found him guilty of it without any jury, and made up a

> amount. No one will pay $300 to remain a member of such a

> vindictive organization as NR has become.
>
> > After all it is money which is to be paid to the state treasury.
>
> That makes it all right, then? Why not fine him a million

> could certainly use it!
>
> > The 300 USD are the fine for the disrespect and diregard shown to

>
> I also have disrespect and disregard for the Praetores of Nova

> have shamed their office, they have committed abusus potestasis,

> an unconstitutional and illegal ex post facto punishment.
>
> Am I going to be find twenty times the value of a NR membership

>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Gracchus
> octavius@... * http://www.graveyards.com
>
> -"Apes don't read philosophy."
> -"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct
> you on a few things: Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message

> Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'. And the London Underground

> not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them

> -from "A Fish Called Wanda"
>

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Let's please assume that people have acted in good faith. Also,

> would be a very good idea to show some respect for the people who

> put an enormous amount of their time and money into Nova Roma.
>
> In particular, I think that Consularis and Censorius M. Octavius
> Gracchus deserves far greater respect than I've seen this

> But the problem neither begins nor ends with him. Everyone needs

> consider how their public posts are affecting our community.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS-CENSORIVS
>

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Let's please assume that people have acted in good faith. Also,

> would be a very good idea to show some respect for the people who

> put an enormous amount of their time and money into Nova Roma.
>
> In particular, I think that Consularis and Censorius M. Octavius
> Gracchus deserves far greater respect than I've seen this

> But the problem neither begins nor ends with him. Everyone needs

> consider how their public posts are affecting our community.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS-CENSORIVS
>

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Let's please assume that people have acted in good faith. Also,

> would be a very good idea to show some respect for the people who

> put an enormous amount of their time and money into Nova Roma.
>
> In particular, I think that Consularis and Censorius M. Octavius
> Gracchus deserves far greater respect than I've seen this

> But the problem neither begins nor ends with him. Everyone needs

> consider how their public posts are affecting our community.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS-CENSORIVS
>

> Salve Gracchus,
>
> speaks for itself, no further comments necessary.
> Oh maybe one....
> don't let the door hit you on the way out

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Let's please assume that people have acted in good faith. Also,

> would be a very good idea to show some respect for the people who