M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.

It seems a good time to repeat a message I have left here many times
before.

This, the "Main List" is not the same as "Nova Roma". It is just one
part. A very active part, sometimes a messy part, but just one part.
Many citizens do not participate here at all, but do participate in
other parts of Nova Roma, other lists, other groups that may meet in
person. Once you know your way around, there are plenty of things to
do besides read the Main List, which even I find bears on my nerves
from time to time.

An unofficial but useful group is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newroman/ "A moderated mailing list for
new citizens of Nova Roma, and citizens of longer experience who would
like to help make new citizens welcome."

Finally, nobody said that reconstructing an ancient culture and
religion would be easy. It is not surprising to me that it excites
extreme passion in those who feel passionately about it. Even when
unpleasant things happen, as they sometimes do, there are things to be
learned. I am surprised that at this juncture we have not yet seen a
discussion of "imperium".

optime valete in cura deorum Romanorum.




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "philippe cardon"
<philippe.cardon01@...> wrote:

>
> AS A NON6-CITIZEN I only WILL say
>
> 1 THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT HAPPEN ON MAIN LIST WHERE PEOPLE LIKE

ME AN FOLOW IT

>
> 2 THIS DISCUSSION GIVE NO GOOD IDEA OF nr AND GIVE NO JOY TO JOIN IT
>
> 3 ROME (the roman republic) was strong as long as citizens obeyed

the laws and the senate, became weak as soon as some began to do what
they will and thought they were upon the laws

> 4 if a yahoolist is a public list of NR, said as such by the senate,

th "owner", as yahoo ask a single personn to be nominate as such a
place, is not "owner of the list" in a true sense but as
representative for Nr and the senate, so he has the moral must to act
as representative and not "owner", if no he act as a robber

>
> philipposhelios
> (who wanted to become a citizen but now hesitates)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella" <annia@...>
wrote:

>
> Ludi - I love reading about the games. Perhaps one day I'll
> participate more, but I suck at writing, hehe. Who is participating in
> the horse race coming up?

Unfortunately, Marcella, we have only had three entries thus far for
all the events. Citizens obviously don't really find the Ludi
interesting anymore, which is a shame.

Vale optime,
Triarius

L. Vitellius Triarius Omnibus salutem plurimam dicit


Salvete omnes!

As we approach the Kalends of Martius, we come to a special
celebration, the Ludi Conditorum 2761 a.U.c. ~ the 2nd in a series of
special games called the Ludi Decennales in honor of our 10th year!

The following is a list of events for citizens to participate in by
enrollment. Participation is encouraged, especially with newer
Citizens!

If you have not already joined a racing factio, here is your
opportunity to enter and compete for the Championship Medals awarded
at the end of the year!

We look forward to seeing you at the Flavian Amphitheatre, the Circus
Maximus, and in the Forum for Awards Ceremonies throughout the year!

*************************************************

EQUIRRIA SPECIAL HORSE RACE

Enroll your horse/rider in the special Equirria Horse Race around the
streets of the Campus Martius! You may enter two horses/riders. This
will be a one-circuit race around the Campus Martius.

Entries must contain:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her rider;
C. The name of his/her horse;
D. The name of his/her "factio" or team:

Albata - the Whites
Praesina - the Greens
Russata - the Reds
Veneta - the Blues


DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN February
25th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...

*************************************************

MUNERA GLADIATORIA Gladiator Matches

Enroll your gladiators in the Munera Gladiatoria matches of the
Flavian Amphitheatre! You may enter one or two gladiators.

Entries must contain:

(a) Your Roman name
(b) Your entry's name
(c) Type of gladiator
(d) Description/history of your entry
(e) Type of tactics (1=Offensive, 2=Yourself, 3=Defensive)
(f) Your Ludus (Ludus Albatus, Ludus Praesinus, Ludus Russatus, or
Ludus Venetus).


DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN February
25th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...

*************************************************

LITERARY CONTEST I

Write an ESSAY: Concordia and politics in Nova Roma in the current
year 2761 a.u.c. (7 pages maxi, 4,000 ch. max./page). [results on
Idus Mart. : 15 ]


DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN February
28th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...


Additionally, 1st place winner will receive a contest medallion w/
neck ribbon for their efforts.

Points earned will accumulate from each Ludi, will be applied in the
Ludi Cultural Championship for the year. Overall points winner will
be awarded with the Corona Humanitas Novae Romae medallion w/ neck
ribbon (a larger version of the Corona Ludi Humanitas awarded for
some events).

*************************************************

LUDI CIRCENSES Chariot Races

Enroll your chariots/drivers in the Ludi Circenses at the Circus
Maximus! You may enter one or two chariots/drivers.

Entries must contain:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarters and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team:

Albata - the Whites
Praesina - the Greens
Russata - the Reds
Veneta - the Blues

G. Tactics: Six (6) race tactics are possible:

1. To hurry in the last laps
2. To pass the curves closely the "spina" of the circus.
3. To support a constant pace
4. To lash the rivals
5. To push the rivals to the wall of the circus
6. To hurry in the straight lines


DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN February
27th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...

*************************************************

VENATIONES

Enroll your animals/gladiators in the Venationes of the Flavian
Amphitheatre! Animal entries are limited to dogs, goats, sheep,
wolves. You may enter one animal and one gladiator, or two animals.

Entries must contain:

(a) Your Roman name
(b) Your entry's name
(c) Type of animal/gladiator
(d) Description/history of your entry
(e) Type of tactics (1=Offensive, 2=Yourself, 3=Defensive)
(f) Your Ludus (Ludus Albatus, Ludus Praesinus, Ludus Russatus, or
Ludus Venetus).

IF YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE VENATIONES OF THE LUDI LUPERCALE(NESE)
S...and your entry lived...You do not have to re-enroll that entry.
It will be carried over to the next Ludi, and so on.

DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN February
27th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...


There are six types of gladiators, inspired by the gladiators of the
imperial epoch. Inspired because nowadays we don´t know all the types
of gladiators who existed due to the lack of information and the
confusion about the armament and protections:

RETIARIUS: His weapon is the net, the trident and a dagger. His
defenses are a protection of arm (manica), that includes the
shoulder.

HOPLOMACHUS: His weapons are a lance and a dagger. His defenses are a
closed crest hull, circular small shield and metallic shin pads. His
defenses are protection of right arm and he can take a pectoral
plate.

MURMILLO: His weapon is a short sword (gladius). His defenses are a
closed great crest hull, rectangular big shield (scutum), protection
in right arm and shin pad in left leg.

THRAEX: His weapon is a curved sword (sicca). His defenses are a
closed hull, the crest of the hull has the shape of faucet, a
quadrangular small shield (parmula), long metallic shin pads up to
the thigh and protection in right arm.

SECUTOR: His weapon is a short sword (gladius). His defenses are
closed smooth hull, rectangular big shield (scutum), protection in
right arm and legs. Normally fight only against retiarii.

DIMACHAERUS: His weapons are two curved swords (siccae). His defenses
are protections in arms and legs.


They are six types of animals, as the gladiators:

LION: An african beast of very bad character. Always hungry. Its bite
is mortal and its claws are a very sharp threat.

LEOPARD: More skilful and beautiful than the lion. Nevertheless it
has the same character and is very agile.

WILD BOAR: Pure force of the forest. If it gets angry, nobody is
saved. It uses its fangs with lethal trickery.

BEAR: The bear fasts for months while they are hibernating. Then its
hunger is enormous and it is very likely that they like the sweaty
meat of the gladiators.

TIGER: It only thinks of eating people. It is stronger and hungrier
than the lion, but it is afraid to the wild boar.

HYENA: Is very artful , perfidious and dangerous when is hungry. It
use many tricks to attain.


Tactics:

1."Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.

2."Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of
defeat.

3."Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

*************************************************

LITERARY CONTEST II

Write a LETTER: you are a Roman soldier in Fabius Valens's marching
army, in the eve of 69 AD. You have, on Feb. 15 (Lupercalia) written
in Lugdunum a letter to your mother living in Rome, to give her news
and confirm that you will not be able to be by her side for the
Matronalia (2 pages maxi, 4,000 ch. max./page) [results on Idus
Mart. : 15 ]

DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN March
1st.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...


Additionally, 1st place winner will receive a contest medallion w/
neck ribbon for their efforts.

Points earned will accumulate from each Ludi, will be applied in the
Ludi Cultural Championship for the year. Overall points winner will
be awarded with the Corona Humanitas Novae Romae medallion w/ neck
ribbon (a larger version of the Corona Ludi Humanitas awarded for
some events).

*************************************************

LITERARY CONTEST III

Write a SHORT STORY/DIALOGUE: Cassius and Vedius are convoked by
Remus and Romulus who ask them to give them accounts on Nova Roma
creation and on the past first 10 years. Imagine their dialogue,
which may be written either in a serious or in a humoristic style.(7
pages maxi, 4,000 ch. max./page). [results on Idus Mart. : 15 ]


DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: Entries must be received NO LATER THAN March
4th.

Submit entries to: lucius_vitellius_triarius@...


Additionally, 1st place winner will receive a contest medallion w/
neck ribbon for their efforts.

Points earned will accumulate from each Ludi, will be applied in the
Ludi Cultural Championship for the year. Overall points winner will
be awarded with the Corona Humanitas Novae Romae medallion w/ neck
ribbon (a larger version of the Corona Ludi Humanitas awarded for
some events).

*************************************************

For a more complete listing of events for the Ludi Conditorum or
other events by the Curule Aediles, see the following pages. Check
back frequently, as this is a very busy year and we are continually
updating the pages with new information!

Ludi Conditorum:

http://tinyurl.com/33komv

Annual Ludi Events Schedule:

http://tinyurl.com/ywezkm


Di vos incolumes custodiant, and we will see you in Roma!


Valete optime,

Triarius


=================================================
L•VITELLIVS•TRIARIVS
CIVIS•ROMANVS•NOVƕROMÆ

CAMILLVS•PONTIFEX•ET•FLAMEN•FGA
QVÆSTOR•ÆDILITAS•CVRVLIS•PMA
PRÆFECTVS•REGIO•TANASIVM•PROV•AM•AVSTRORIENTALIS
DIENEKES•ARKHON•SODALITAS•GRÆCIÆ
=================================================

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella"
<annia@...> wrote:

>
> >
> And finally it's the 10th Anniversary of Nova Roma! We should be
> finding more way to celebrate this and honor Nova Roma, rather than
> fight about petty things. As for me, I will be donating money to the
> Magna Mater Project in honor of the 10th anniversary. -
> http://magnamaterproject.org/
>
>
> Salve Marcella

It is indeed to your credit that you should make a donation to the
Magna Mater project.

I must advise, however, that based on my own recent experience,a
better link for making sure the donation actually goes to the Magna
Mater Project and not to the Treasury in general is this one:

http://www.novaroma.org/donations.html

I have alerted Sabinus to the potential problem.

Vale optime

Gaius Marcius Crispus

C. Popillius Laenas Q. Valerio Callido SPD.

>>Cives not protected? I believe most of us "cives" would laugh if we
> took the time out of our day to read the volumes of drivel produced

by

> this "issue". But I believe many of us work, have jobs, and

consider

> such a trivial matter to be unworthy of this institution, that it
> should have been resolved quickly, and quietly, and without all the
> hoopla more befitting a political smear campaign.<<

A person who was our 10th citizen and who has held every position of
honor in NR being thrown out illeaglly a "trival matter"? If you are
too busy with macronational matters to do your job Tribune - which
includes protecting citizens from just such abuse - perhaps you
should resign your office.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "os390account" <Velaki@...> wrote:
>
> You embarrass me. You make me feel ashamed to be part of NovaRoma.
> "The tribunes have failed miserably..." Casting stones thusly.
>
> Such arrogance! Such hubris! How dare you besmirch an entire group
> over the decision which might conflict with your own. Are the
> tribunes the pets of others? Must we jump on a bandwagon? If we
are
> not for you, are we against you?
>
> When you draw the lines in the sand, you should be sure you do not
> stand with your back to the incoming tides.
>
> Cives not protected? I believe most of us "cives" would laugh if we
> took the time out of our day to read the volumes of drivel produced
by
> this "issue". But I believe many of us work, have jobs, and
consider
> such a trivial matter to be unworthy of this institution, that it
> should have been resolved quickly, and quietly, and without all the
> hoopla more befitting a political smear campaign.
>
> You invite a mass exodus.
>
> Very disillusioned.
> Q. Valerius Callidus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> <gaiuspopillius@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > >>ultimately by your ianctivity, you and your colleagues to ram
> > this through.<<
> >
> > >>Who's next on the proscription list?<<
> >
> > Well said Caesar amice. The Tribunes have failed miserably here
in
> > their duty to ensure cives are protected under the letter and
spirit f
> > the law.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > C. Popillius Laenas
> >
>

Salve Gnae Caesar

The macronational laws have nothing to do with the issues involved.
The lists in question in the case of Cincinnatus are the
CollegiumPontificum and CollegiumAugurum lists. They were set up for
the use of those respective Collegia. They "belong" to the Collegia,
and not to just any one member.

On his own initiative Cincinnatus decided one day that Flamines did
not belong in the Collegium Pontificum. Thus he removed them from
the old CP list. Was he correct to do so? Does he, as one lone
Pontifex, have the power to overturn the Constitution? The
Constitution says who are to be members of the Collegium Pontificum
by virtue of the offices they hold. Virgines Vestales are members of
the Collegium Pontificum. What gives Cincinnatus the right to
exclude them? Flamines maiores and Flamines minores are members of
the Collegium Pontificum. What gives Cincinnatus the right to
exclude them? Since the Collegia met on those lists in an official
capacity with the understanding that these were the official lists of
the Collegium as a whole, thus did the lists hold archives of the
sessions of Nova Roma's Collegia. Who own's those archives?

These are matters internal to Nova Roma. Now, you and others wish to
claim that the Senate has imposed its ownership over what were
private lists. I say that this is not true. The understanding had
always been that the lists were lists of the Nova Roma Collegia.
Entrusted to an individual perhaps, but still an integral part of
Nova Roma. Membership on the lists therefore had to be determined by
Nova Roma law. And the consequences of violating those laws apply
only in Nova Roma.

Yahoo is merely contracted to provide a service. Under its rules,
the "list owner" has the authority of determining who may be
subscribed or unsubscribed from a list. But the question here,
inside Nova Roma, is who in fact were the "list owners"? Only after
the fact of removing those with whom he disagreed did Cincinnatus
begin, years later, to claim that the lists were his private lists.
If you went back to those years - assuming you could access the
archives - you would see that the case made by Cincinnatus was his
own narrow view on who ought to be members of the Collegium
Pontificum. He was not questioning that the lists in question in
fact belonged to the Collegia and that he was only maintianing them
for the Collegia.

We have gone through this time and time again. And now it has
happened once more with Marcus Cassius deciding on his own that the
NRCollegiumPontificum list was his personal possession, and that he
should delete it, depriving the Collegium of the place where it has
been meeting these past years, depriving the Collegium and thus all
of Nova Roma of the archives of the Collegium. Childish and petty.
By Yahoo he could. Should his misbehavior now be overlooked?

Tell me, Gnae, who do you consider as the owner of this list? Who do
you consider is the owner of the Senate list? Would it matter if one
person suddenly decided to delete these lists? Should he be allowed,
by his right as a list owner under Yahoo, to act in a manner contrary
to the interests of the Res Publica as a whole?

Ironic that in December Marcus Cassius was saying that the Collegium
Pontificum list should not be handed over to the Praetores as owners
because it posed that any one of them could delete the list at any
time. Well, he has just demonstrated why all these lists need to be
placed under Senate control, through Praetorial ownership, and that
consequences in Nova Roma itself will result when individuals violate
the trust that has been placed with them.

Do you think it is beneficial for Nova Roma to allow individuals to
attempt to hold over the heads of every Citizen their power to delete
lists that Nova Roma depends upon to store its own annales?

We will not have a civitas, we will not have a Res Publica, if we
continue in this way. What is the answer then, that the laws of Nova
Roma apply inside Nova Roma? or that we allow an anarchy of
individuals holding everything as little fiefdoms as though they were
in some virtual RPG that they quit anytime they get upset that rules
of the game should be applied to them like anyone else?


Understand. This was a decision of the Senate. And not a close
decision. 23 in favor, 4 opposed. Who oposed the measure? M Octavius
Gracchus, T. Galerius Paulinus, Quintus Fabius Maximus, and Flavius
Vedius Germanicus. Cincinnatus did not record a vote, so he was
counted as abstaining, although you might include him in opposing the
measure. Senator Iunius Palladius abstained from voting but lent a
comment that his reason was because he felt, "It seems at least some
of the lists listed were private lists that shouldn't have been
included. I agree with the idea in theory, however." So he agreed
with the majority on the authority of the Senate. He did not agree
on which lists should have been included. The third abstension, by
Senator P. Memmius Albucius was due to his belief that, "This consuls
do not need the preliminary authorization of the Senate to issue an
edictum which enters in the frame of their imperium." Well, he is
right that in some things the imperium of the Consules allow them to
act, but this does not mean they have a great deal of real power to
enforce their edicta or the policies set by the Senate. Add in the
abstentions, and we arrive at 25 to 5 in favor on principle, and at
least 24 to 6 on the question of the sacerdotal lists. Since then
both cConsules have agreed, both Praetores have aggreed, and the five
Tribuni Plebis have either openly or tacitly agreed that this is an
internal decision of the Senate, under the authoirty granted to the
Senate by the Constitution.

This is not a matter of the rights of one individual being trampled
on. if it were, then you would see the Tribunes line up against the
magistrates, you would the magistrates divide on the question. Why
is this not happening? Because it is one individual who is defying
the law, the decision of the Senate, and the interests of every
Citizen of Nova Roma. Unless Cincinnatus complies with the rule of
law set by the Res Publica, then he has placed himself outside the
civitas. And his decision has nothing to do with Yahoo TOS. These
matters are internal to Nova Roma alone.

Vale optime

M Moravius Piscinus
Consul et Senator Tribunarius
Pontifex, Augur, et Flamen Carmentalis

Salve,

Did you read it? You didn't quote the whole sentence: "As the
spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma
shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as
the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic."

We are all that--or trying. No one ever said we are the mid
republic. We are heirs to it all with a republican form of
government. Right now we are doing our best it seems to emulate the
late republican or imperial period.

Palladius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> gosh don't you read the Consitution? Here it is:
>
> "Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and
> acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic"
>
> That's in the Preamble and here is the link:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> That's why I joined Nova Roma; I have no desire to live under the
> whims of an Emperor or Empress.
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> >
> > Maior,
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Quiritibus spd:
> > > Nova Roma, its state cult and society is modelled on the
> Middle
> > > Republic.
> >
> > No, it is not, and never has been modelled on the Middle Republic
> and
> > was never meant to be such. Nova Roma is meant to be the heir of
> all
> > of pagan Rome, both the Republican period and Imperial periods,
> but
> > with a republican form of government. We span the period from 753
> BCE
> > to 394 CE.
> >
> > In essence, we are picking up the torch where it was dropped when
> the
> > Altar of Victory was removed from the Curia for the last time in
> 394.
> >
> > This wide period is indeed vague and messy but there is no good
> > alternative. Picking a specific time period, like the mid
> republic,
> > would be doing a disservice to the uncounted millions of Romans
> who
> > lived in many other centuries whose heirs we claim to be.
> >
> > Palladius
> >
>

Salvete cives,

I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this be
acted on.

Valete.

Palladius
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete Nova Romans
>
> I stand today in the forum as the advocate of a citizen who has

been

> wronged,
>
> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur.
>
> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has been a citizen of Nova Roma

since

> March 1st 1998.
> That is a week short of ten years of service to the res public.

Lucius

> Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has served as Pontifex, Augur, Flamen

Maior,

> Censor, Consul, Proconsul , Senator, Lictor, Scribe and Consular

Accensus.

>
> Because the Tribunes have failed to act and veto the Praetors

actions, that

> are contrary to Nova Roman law and the constitution,
>
> I invoke, on behalf of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur the right

of

> provocation.
>
> We appeal the actions of the Praetors of Nova Roma as one that has

had " a

> direct negative impact upon" him.
>
> We appeal first to the Praetors of Nova Roma to reconsider their

judgment

> and ask that they vacate their verdict. The law requires that the

Reus be

> acknowledged to be innocent until proven guilty as voted by the

Iudices who

> must render a verdict in order to establish guilt.. This was not

done.

>
> The alleged crime was removing someone from a Yahoo list two and a

half

> years ago
> long before the Senate made any comments on list membership which

has only

> recently
> occurred and was done so in a manner not in keeping with the

requirements

> of the law.
>
> We further appeal the Praetors imposing a fine for an alleged

offence to

> their dignity, that of not showing up to court, when that is not a

violation

> of law and is therefore ex post facto in nature
>
> Lex Equitia Galeria de legibus ex post factis an amendment to the
> constitution of Nova Roma states that:
>
> "No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject

to a

> penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to

a penalty

> when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any

penalty, no

> penalty shall be applied for that action"
>
> If the Praetors are unwilling to redress their arbitrarily action

we appeal

> to the people
> of Nova Roma
>
> We request that the Consuls convene the Comitia Populi Tributa so

that the

> people may hear the appeal of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur and

so that

> justice can be done.
>
> We further ask that the people as convened in the Comitia Populi

Tributa

> vacate any and all cases against Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur

and all

> other citizens as a violation of Concordia in this the tenth year

of Nova

> Roma.
>
> We ask the people to restore his good name.
>
> Valete
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Advocate
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete cives,
>
> I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this be
> acted on.
>
> Valete.
>
> Palladius

Salvete,

As do I.

Valete,

C. Popillius Laenas

Salvete;
L. Equitius Cincinnatus can ask for provocatio, or his appointed
advocate can. Absolutely. Did Cincinnatus ask for Ti. Galerius
Paulinus to act for him?
Where is L. Equitius Cincinnatus? I haven't seen him once since he
told the Praetors they committed impiety (and was wrong)
vale

M. Hortensia Maior

>
>
> Salvete cives,
>
> I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this

be

> acted on.
>
> Valete.
>
> Palladius
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Nova Romans
> >
> > I stand today in the forum as the advocate of a citizen who has
> been
> > wronged,
> >
> > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur.
> >
> > Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has been a citizen of Nova

Roma

> since
> > March 1st 1998.
> > That is a week short of ten years of service to the res public.
> Lucius
> > Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has served as Pontifex, Augur,

Flamen

> Maior,
> > Censor, Consul, Proconsul , Senator, Lictor, Scribe and Consular
> Accensus.
> >
> > Because the Tribunes have failed to act and veto the Praetors
> actions, that
> > are contrary to Nova Roman law and the constitution,
> >
> > I invoke, on behalf of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur the

right

> of
> > provocation.
> >
> > We appeal the actions of the Praetors of Nova Roma as one that

has

> had " a
> > direct negative impact upon" him.
> >
> > We appeal first to the Praetors of Nova Roma to reconsider their
> judgment
> > and ask that they vacate their verdict. The law requires that

the

> Reus be
> > acknowledged to be innocent until proven guilty as voted by the
> Iudices who
> > must render a verdict in order to establish guilt.. This was not
> done.
> >
> > The alleged crime was removing someone from a Yahoo list two and

a

> half
> > years ago
> > long before the Senate made any comments on list membership

which

> has only
> > recently
> > occurred and was done so in a manner not in keeping with the
> requirements
> > of the law.
> >
> > We further appeal the Praetors imposing a fine for an alleged
> offence to
> > their dignity, that of not showing up to court, when that is not

a

> violation
> > of law and is therefore ex post facto in nature
> >
> > Lex Equitia Galeria de legibus ex post factis an amendment to

the

> > constitution of Nova Roma states that:
> >
> > "No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not

subject

> to a
> > penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject

to

> a penalty
> > when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any
> penalty, no
> > penalty shall be applied for that action"
> >
> > If the Praetors are unwilling to redress their arbitrarily

action

> we appeal
> > to the people
> > of Nova Roma
> >
> > We request that the Consuls convene the Comitia Populi Tributa

so

> that the
> > people may hear the appeal of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur

and

> so that
> > justice can be done.
> >
> > We further ask that the people as convened in the Comitia Populi
> Tributa
> > vacate any and all cases against Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus

Augur

> and all
> > other citizens as a violation of Concordia in this the tenth

year

> of Nova
> > Roma.
> >
> > We ask the people to restore his good name.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Advocate
> >
>

Maior Philippos spd;
salve Philippos, you know me from the Religio list. Why don't you
spend this contentious time over at the newroman list?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newroman/

There you can meet other cives and ask anything sheltered from NR
politics, the old faction, the Boni, are encouraging lawlessness to
save one of their own. Pure and simple. It will blow over.

Right now the Ludi are coming up, there will be a European Conventus
in Dacia, there are cives you can meet in Provincia Gallia, and our
wonderful nrwiki here is an article I wrote on Venus
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Venus from a great book in French, by
Schilling!
optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> AS A NON6-CITIZEN I only WILL say
>
> 1 THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT HAPPEN ON MAIN LIST WHERE PEOPLE LIKE

ME AN FOLOW IT

>
> 2 THIS DISCUSSION GIVE NO GOOD IDEA OF nr AND GIVE NO JOY TO JOIN

IT

>
> 3 ROME (the roman republic) was strong as long as citizens obeyed

the laws and the senate, became weak as soon as some began to do
what they will and thought they were upon the laws

> 4 if a yahoolist is a public list of NR, said as such by the

senate, th "owner", as yahoo ask a single personn to be nominate as
such a place, is not "owner of the list" in a true sense but as
representative for Nr and the senate, so he has the moral must to
act as representative and not "owner", if no he act as a robber

>
> philipposhelios
> (who wanted to become a citizen but now hesitates)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Correction
>
>
>
> Salve Consul.
>
> You said: "and macronational law has nothing to do with the

issues involved."

>
> Actually its not so cut and dried as that. The Constitution,

Section II.B.2 allows citizens to retain the rights they possess
under the laws of the countries they are citizens or resident in. US
law is quite clear on the appropriation of the rights of property.
The Senate through its SC appropriated to itself rights it does not
possess, under macronational US law, as well as the TOS of Yahoo, by
whose good graces our lists are hosted. These two sources are clear
that the victim possessed the rights to the list. Nova Roma Inc. is
a macronational entity subject to US macronational law. Therefore by
attempting to suborn to itself the right of entry to these lists,
the Senate has exposed Nova Roma Inc. to risk, for macronational
legal action could be taken against it to reverse that decision.
Should such action be taken, the Constitution of Nova Roma
recognises the right to do so, by virtue of Section II.B.2, in
effect sanctioning any action that could be taken against the BoD.

>
> Additionally the Senate has in all liklihood breached Section

II.B.6 of the Constitution which states that citizens have:

>
> "The right to privacy; security in one's home, person, and

property; and authority over one's home, person, and property. Homes
may not be searched, persons may not be detained, and property may
not be seized, except by judicial ruling or by a special provision
of law; The right to privacy; security in one's home, person, and
property; and authority over one's home, person, and property. Homes
may not be searched, persons may not be detained, and property may
not be seized, except by judicial ruling or by a special provision
of law;"

>
> Whilst the Constitution does not provide a definition of what "a

special provision of law" actually means, a US Court would feel
quite empowered to determine this. One of the questions it would ask
is what would be "special" under Nova Roma's legal system. Would
Senatus Consultum (SC) be considered such. It probably would look to
where SC rest in the legal chain, in this case the answer is to be
found under Section II.B - low down. They may consider that at the
very least law means leges, and not SC. It is a grey area and one
the Senate should have been mindful of. The expectation of course is
that the victim should just toddle off quietly out of the gates, not
creating a fuss. Well, don't be so sure of that.

>
> A Yahoo group is in the care and control of the owner, though

the property of Yahoo. The Senate had no power under macronational
law to try to seize control of the rights of the owners of these
groups, by compelling them to admit people. It either impinged on
the macronational rights of its citizens, rights the Constitution
recognises as per the above, or on the macronational rights of
Yahoo, who have through their TOS delegated such powers solely to
the owner of the group. Should a citizen exercise his macronational
rights as guaranteed and protected under the Constitution, and thus
protected from persecution or legal action within Nova Roma, a court
in all liklihood would take a very dim view of this assumption of
the rights of an owner and may find the Senate breached Section
II.B.6

>
> In addition the SC failed to conform to the requirments of Lex

Octavia de sermone. This lex specifically talks to "public fora
sponsored or owned by the central government of Nova Roma" as being
under the control of the praetors, with exceptions listed. The Yahoo
group in question was never sponsored or owned by the central
government of Nova Roma. This was always a private group. The Senate
failed to identify this as one of the "public fora", opting instead
for the amigious phrase that it was one of those "necessary in the
administration of Nova Roma". If the Senate failed to comply with
the terms of the Lex Octavia de sermone, as I contend it did, it is
hard to see how it cannot then clearly be considered private
property. If private property then the right to privacy under
Section II.B.6 of the Constitution clearly applies, and then Senate
has attempted to seize control of private property - a gross
violation of citizen rights.

>
> You said: "the illegal actions of Cincinnatus, and due to his

contempt of our judicial system, and due to the fact that by not
appearing, in effect tendering a plea of non contendere, Cincinnatus
made an admission of guilt, rendering a verdict upon himself that
required then that the Praetor hand down a sentence."

>
> With respect, that is utterly incorrect. Firstly the lex does

not contain any requirment compelling him to attend and secondly
there is no such allowance for "non contendere" under Nova Roma law,
as you know full well, because the praetors imported it illegally
from an unconstitutional legal source. Thirdly there was no
admission of guilt, because that presumption rests on an illegal and
unconstitutional source of law, Roman or not. Lastly as there was no
such provision in the lex, the prateors were not obliged to hand
down any sentence and in fact by acting illegally, ultra vires, they
failed to adminster the law as it stands (not as they wanted it to
be). The praetors failed in their oath to uphold the Constitution
and specifically failed in their mandate to administer the law. If
the law could not have been adminstered without recourse to
illegality then they could ahve discharged this requirment to
adminster the law by dimssing the action or holding it in abeyance.
They did neither. They made the law up.

>
> You said: "The Tribuni Plebis, who have not intervened because,

upon review, they did not find anything illegal in the actions taken
by the Praetores. And I shall remind you that there are five Tribuni
Plebis, not just one."

>
> The Constitution Section IV.A.7.a:
>
> "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"

>
> Inclusion of legal sources and principles not contained or

allowed for within the scope of Section II.B is a violation of the
letter of the Constitution. The Tribunes had a mandated duty to act
and colelctively failed to do so.

>
> Furthermore the specious argument that in effect this was an

edicta that the Praetors issued also does not stand the test of
legality.Since the lex did not contain a provision for non-
attendance and this is the definitive trial process, an edicta
introducing a foreign legal principle changes the nature of the lex.
A conflict exists between the definitive trial process and under
Section II.B the lower legal authority, the edicta, is superceded by
the higher, the lex. Section II.B is clear on what is a legal
authority and Roman law and legal priciples have no power or
authority in Nova Roma.

>
> Section IV.A.3.b of the Constitution defines the right of

praetors to issue edicta:

>
> "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); "

>
> This trial is a private matter. The mission and function of Nova

Roma are unconcerned by it. Since the constitution cannot be
interpreted, the use of the word administer must be taken at its
literal meaning. Therefore an edict that relates to the law, as it
exists, is permissible. An edict that creates law is not for the
purpose of its administration. Therefore the prateors abused their
right to issue edicta. Under the Constitution the comitia are the
bodies charged with enacting laws or plebiscites binding upon the
entire citizenry. Magistrates do not have any parallel rights under
the Constitution. The Comitia are the bodies charged with creating
law.

>
> As to your assertions over the Senate's right of access to

certain lists and the rights of the owner to delete them or not,
that is specious irrelvancy to the matter at hand. Indeed the
Senate's right to force its way into these lists is at best dubious
and at worst non-existent. If the latter, under your watch the BoD
and Nova Roma Inc. has placed itself contrary to the enshrined
rights of a citizen to preserve his property from the interference
of the state, as well as exposing Nova Roma Inc. and the BoD to
possible sanctioned macronational legal action. Exceptionally poor
judgement whichever way you cut the cake.

>
> Although you failed to mention it, the Constitution also

protected the victim from the application of an ex post facto
punishment, as per Section I.A.3.a. Even were it the case that the
Praetors had the power to create law, as opposed to administer it
(which they don't in Nova Roma), they could not impose a punishment
for not attending court and thus the fake charge of disrespect"
because no such offence existed when the victim was alleged to have
committed it.

>
> Vale
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
>
> marcushoratius <mhoratius@...> wrote:
> Salve mi Poplicola
>
> As long as you are correcting your errors of misunderstanding

then

> perhaps you should reexamine the accusations you made about:
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

> Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a été contrôlé par l'anti-

virus mail.

> Aucun virus connu à ce jour par nos services n'a été détecté.
>

Salve Consul.

Actually macronational laws do, for if a citizen has a macronational
right to consider a list his property, something he has care,
custody or control of, the Constitution of Nova Roma respects the
macronational rights of Citizens. So therefore, to make it simpler,

1. The Constitution recognises citizens have macronational rights
2. If the group was considered within the definition of property of
the citizen according to macronational law, the Constitution
therefore recgonises that right, by virtue of recognising the
existence of macronational rights
3. Therefore to disregard his rights under macronational law is
actually to defy that section of the Constitution that recognises
the existence of macronational rights and the right of the citizen
to have access to them.

Ultimately it would be for a macronational US court to determine
this, and since we both have a differing opinion on the application
of macronational law here, there isn't much point than saying
anything other than I would advise you were this matter to end up in
a US court (or a similar matter) to tell the judge that
macronational law didn't apply. Courts tend to get a bit sniffy
about that as they have this curious idea that macronational law
certainly applies to the operation of a legal corporate entitity
operating within the territorial area of the United States.

i can cut through your issues as to who had the right to do what to
this list to make the following points, without reference to
macronational rights which would nullify the whole claim of the
Senate (see above):

1. The Yahoo group in question was never established at the
direction of the Senate.
2. The Yahoo group in question was never sponsored by the Senate

So how did this Yahoo group come into being? Who directed its
existence? Certsinly not the Senate. It was soley the creation of
the victim. He created it the very day he was appointed as Augur,
that is a matter of public record. At no point historically did the
Senate ever establish a claim over this list, nor did they sponsor
it. It was created soley on the inititiave of a citizen, the victim,
on the occasion of his appointment as Augur.

Now does the use of the list for Augural matters mean that it is no
longer a private list? If the Senate wanted to establish ownership
it should have specifically declared that this list was a public
fora, which they failed to do. At no time by word of the Senate nor
deed of the list creator/owner has this been the case. Indeed the
victim has clearly established a pattern of ownership by his usage
of the list and his admament refusal to admit members he did not
approve of. Clearly the victim has continiously treated this list as
though it were his own, through pattern of usage, and the Senate did
nothing to counter that usage. It is too late in the game Consul,
way too late, to try and establish a right to this list now, even
notwithstanding macronational rights as above.

Additionally since the Constitution forbids ex post facto actions
both your claim and that of Modianus rest on proving that past
actions of the victim were offences. Since they relate to denying
you and he access to a list, the praetors should have had the wit to
require proof that at the time these alleged offences were
committed, there was actually an offence to apply. Clearly unless it
can be clearly demonstrated through word and deed of the Senate that
at the time of the alleged offences the list was the property of the
State - a public fora - then both of your cases should have been
rejected. Since the list was never appropriated by the Senate (I say
they have no right in any case, but lets assume they did) prior to
the alleged offences, they remain the property by usage of the list
owner, the victim, and neither you nor Modianus had any legal right
of entry to this property.

One of the problems with this and other cases, regardless of whether
one of the actors in this drama is a macronational lawyer (I have
met lawyers who even other lawyers wonder how they achieved their
degree), there has been an incredible amount of sloppy analysis.
This doesn't surprise me because I have no doubt this was all
planned in advance, and no one was in the least bit concerned it
seems about due process and establishing if an offence actually had
been committed. No, the praetors just accepted this at face value,
which was another dismal breach of their duty to the Constitution
and the people of Nova Roma. Regardless of how "august" the
plaintiff is, the case against an accused should be scrutised with
care, in order to establish the legality of the claim. This case was
marked by a disgustingly indecent series of blunders, illegallity
and failure to discharge the core functions of the office of pretor.

Simply put, neither you nor Modianus have a legitimate case because
the ex post facto clause in the Constitution prevents something
being subsequently treated as an offence, when at the time of its
commission it was not. You can't demosntrate a claim or right of
ownership prior to the "offences" then the case fails and should
have been tossed out. Then of course there is the whole issue of
made up offences, breaches of the Constitution etc. by the Praetors -
another ball of wax.

I appreciate you as Consul are one of the plaintiffs, but it is time
for you to take that hat off, and put back on your consular one.
This entire debacle is riddled with illegality, inappropriate
linkage between the praetors and the plaintiffs, and a total failure
to weigh and assess the evidence, and of course to apply the law as
it stands (not as you all wanted to massage it to read).

It is time Consul for you and Modianus to end this farce, this utter
abuse of rights and due process. Will either of you? Of course not
because this is all about settling old scores and this has caused
you to lose the rational and impartial approach necessary to the
effective discharge of your office. You consider it more important
to secure a conviction and see the victim exiled from Nova Roma for
life, than to objectively look at this mess and conclude the case
was built on sand and the application of the law by the praetors was
seriously flawed.

End it.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve Gnae Caesar
>

> There you can meet other cives and ask anything sheltered from NR
> politics, the old faction, the Boni, are encouraging lawlessness to
> save one of their own. Pure and simple. It will blow over.

The "Boni" again? Am I, one of Cincinnatus Augur's defenders, now
to be considered one of the Boni? Funny, I always thought my portrait
adorned the dartboard in the Boni clubhouse...

No, Maior, this won't blow over. Nova Roma has been deprived of one
of its most dedicated citizens, and it will likely be deprived of others
as well before the pogrom ends.

It will also be deprived of the contributions of those who are
disheartened by these events. For my part, I will no longer work
on the website; there will never again be an update to the software
while this intolerable situation continues. Volunteer labour is
something that an organization must earn, not take for granted.

You say "lawlessness" like it is a bad thing.

Some of us came here to practise the Roman religion. Others came
here to practise Roman cookery and brewing, or to discuss history, or
to share their Latin poetry, or to write community-empowering software,
or to create a podcast, or to find contacts for historical reenactments.

And some came here to write, enact, and use laws. Their hobby has
a body count.

Someone who practises Roman cookery doesn't force other people to
be involved with it. One can avoid reading Latin poetry if one has
an aversion to it. No one is forced to worship the Roman Gods. No
one is forced to use the interactive features of the website, or
listen to a podcast, or read the newsletter. No one is forced to
march in formation in replica armour, carrying gladii.

But you lawyers *force* your hobby on the rest of us. And that is
destroying what was once a viable and thriving community.

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur is a pious man. He is a priest,
who serves the Gods of Rome, and continues to do so even though his
titles have been falsely taken from him. He treated your "law" with
the contempt that it deserved, just like one might decline a
badly-cooked meal or an awful Latin oration or a badly organized
reenactment.

And we are all the poorer for it, because the play-acting lawyers
force their fetish for bureaucracy and obedience and punishments
on the rest of us.


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

"This inhuman place makes human monsters." -- Stephen King, _The_Shining_

Salve Marce Octavi,

>>The "Boni" again? Am I, one of Cincinnatus Augur's defenders, now

to be considered one of the Boni? Funny, I always thought my portrait
adorned the dartboard in the Boni clubhouse...<<

I have to admit that even in the midst of this tragedy, that thought is
pretty amusing. Although...how did you find out about the dartboard?

Obviously, one does not have to have been a Boni to see the worth of
Cincinnatus Augur and what a sad loss for NR his leaving is.

As for Maior, she see the dreaded Boni behind evey tree.

BOO!!!

Vale,

C. Popillius Laenas

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

I was elected Plebeian Aedile on the strength of write-ins by two
tribes or centuries. I did not announce my candidacy for this office
nor seek election in any other way. When I was elected, I took
auspices to determine if I should accept it. The auspices were mixed
so I did it a second time. The auspices were again mixed. I asked
for assistance from members of the Collegium Pontificum and the
general population. The interpretations ran the gamut from neutral
to the expectation that as aedile I could expect both a good and bad
year.

However, due to recent events in Nova Roma, I have come to the
conclusion that while the year might be good for me personally with
my elevation to the Senate, to Pontifex, and to plebeian aedile, it
did not mean that it would be a good year for Nova Roma, the Plebeian
Ordo, or the Pax Deorum if I should remain Plebeian Aedile.

As such, I announce my resignation as Plebeian Aedile effective
immediately and call the CPT to elect someone to fulfill this
office. I am taking a sabbatical from Nova Roma to reflect and
contemplate my future with this organization. I will occupy myself
with the business of my province, the CP, and the Senate as necessary
but will not be taking part in most discussions on the ML. I expect
to return well before the ludi Cerialia in April to assist the
aediles with that event.

I will transfer ownership of the Tribunes list to my successor on his
or her election and oath of office.

Valete.

Ex officio praetorum:

The Nova-Roma mailing list is the principal forum for Nova Roma.
Citizens of Nova Roma and interested non-citizens alike are welcome. All users, citizen and non-citizen alike, shall abide by these rules when posting to the Nova Roma mailing list. Violations of these rules will result in corrective action, which may include banning from the list for non-citizens and restriction of posting privileges for citizens.


---

I. Language

Nova Roma's official business language is English, and its official ceremonial language is Latin. There are other non-official languages that must be considered as common use languages, due to the international nature of the Nova Roman community. To insure timely posting, write your posts in English, Latin, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese or Hungarian. If you write your posts in languages other than the above mentioned, they may be delayed for some time until the moderators can obtain a translation.


All official government documents must appear in English/Latin as well as whatever vernacular languages are relevant.



---


II. Topics of discussion

Nova Roman business, community, governmental, religious, and other state activities

The culture, religion, sociology, politics, history, archaeology, and philosophy of Roma Antiqua, ancient Greece, the ancient Near East, and other cultures with which the ancient Romans interacted.

Discussions may sometimes go into subjects beyond these topics, but such digressions should be brief and related to the listed topics. Messages of this kind must be clearly marked as �off topic�.



---

III. Civil Discourse

All on-list exchanges between users of the Nova-Roma mailing list will follow these rules of civil discourse:

Show respect for others.

Recognize a person�s right to advocate ideas that are different from your own.

Discuss policies and ideas without attacking people.

Use helpful, not hurtful language.

Write as you would like to be written to.

Restate ideas when asked.

Write in good faith.

Treat what others have to say as written in good faith.

Respectfully read and consider differing points of view.

When unsure, clarify what you think you have read.

Realize that what you wrote and what people understand you to have written may be different.

Recognize that people can agree to disagree.

Speak and write for yourself, not others.



---

IV. Forbidden

The following are forbidden:

Unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE or spam)

References or discussions to material of a sexual nature that are not strictly within the context of a historical discussion, with citations given, unless the material is a matter of common knowledge

Links to external websites or files which contain material that might reasonably be deemed obscene or pornographic.



Insulting the religious beliefs of others, and the historical basis for those beliefs, is off limits.



This edict takes effect immediately.



Given under our hands this 20th day of January 2761 from the founding of Roma



M. Curiatius Complutensis

M.Iulius Severus



Praetores Novae Romae

Maior Quiritibus sal;
I wish to post my support of the tribunes, whether you
agree or disagree with them, they were elected by the people and we
must respect them! They are sacrosanct.

If we suddenly hate them because they don't do what we like, then
law collapses and it is just a matter of whims..

Look at magistrates & cives behavior on the dies nefastus publicus,
ignoring the Terminalia.

Look at the behavior of Julianus who deleted the entire group of the
CP.

There would be no law, only anarchy. In 2004 Modianus was tribune
and I was angry with him, but did not insult his office. Today he is
a good friend.

Let us respect our tribunes, in agreement and especially in
disagreement.
bene valete in pacem deorum
M. Hortensia Maior

Salve Maior.

You are incorrect. Their persons are sacrosanct. Their reputations,
their motives, their failures are not. It is completely legitimate,
indeed vital to hold Tribunes and Magistrates to public scrutiny. Te
law will not collapse because Tribunes and Praetors are held to
account.

It would be quite incorrect to leave new citizens thinking no one
can ever call a Tribune to account to justify their actions. They
may refuse to answer, but that ultimately says more about the
weakness of their position that the questions themselves.

You are correct in one point though, when the law collapses it is a
matter of whims, in this case the whims of the praetors in inventing
laws and punishments. When the law is prostituted and broken there
is no law, just despotism.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Quiritibus sal;
> I wish to post my support of the tribunes, whether you
> agree or disagree with them, they were elected by the people and
we
> must respect them! They are sacrosanct.

Salvete;
of course their persons are sacrosanct. I said you could disagree
with them but respect them, their office.

Iulius Caesar, let me explain. For years now in Nova Roma we have
agreed, where the law is silent the mos of the Republic control. So
Complutensis was quite correct. The laws of Nova Roma were silent
and he looked to the 12 tables.

Now of course L. Equitius Cincinnatus didn't have to show up or
answer the complaint, he is a free person not a slave. But as a free
person he has to accept the consequences of his actions.

If L. Equitius Cincinnatus wants provocatio, he just has to ask for
it. vale

M. Hortensia Maior

>
> Salve Maior.
>
> You are incorrect. Their persons are sacrosanct. Their

reputations,

> their motives, their failures are not. It is completely

legitimate,

> indeed vital to hold Tribunes and Magistrates to public scrutiny.

Te

> law will not collapse because Tribunes and Praetors are held to
> account.
>
> It would be quite incorrect to leave new citizens thinking no one
> can ever call a Tribune to account to justify their actions. They
> may refuse to answer, but that ultimately says more about the
> weakness of their position that the questions themselves.
>
> You are correct in one point though, when the law collapses it is

a

> matter of whims, in this case the whims of the praetors in

inventing

> laws and punishments. When the law is prostituted and broken there
> is no law, just despotism.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Quiritibus sal;
> > I wish to post my support of the tribunes, whether you
> > agree or disagree with them, they were elected by the people

and

> we
> > must respect them! They are sacrosanct.
>

Salve Maior.

You are again incorrect. We have had various moments where our Nova
Roman Constitutions and law was silent and/or confused. Then as now
debates errupted about what to do. There is no clear pattern of
usage of the mos, not least because no one has ever been clear which
period of the mos to use, nor the extent of it, nor its effect
(binding or advisory).

Use of any form of legal authority or principle other than that
enshrined in Section I.B of the Constitution is illegal. The chain
of legal authority is the chain, is the chain.

At some point we need to work out if and then how to incoperate
aspects or actual extant text of Roman laws, but we have no
mechansim to do that yet other than the due process of converting it
inot a Nova Roman lex.

I utterly disagree with your assertion that the praetor was correct.
He was not. He extended the scope of Section I.B which he has no
power to do. Wrong doing repeated is still wrong doing. Two wrongs
or more do not convert under our legal code to a right act.

There were no legal consequuences for the victim showing up, not
under the true laws of Nova Roma. The consequences he ahs endured
are illegal and unconstitutional. They are invented. If a Nova Roman
law does not speak to a consequence then unless there is a higher
authority in force that does, that law is broken and the case should
have been dismissed for that reason alone. Was it? No. In the rush
to convict the Constitution was violated and foreign legal
principles introduced.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> of course their persons are sacrosanct. I said you could disagree
> with them but respect them, their office.
>
> Iulius Caesar, let me explain. For years now in Nova Roma we have
> agreed, where the law is silent the mos of the Republic control.

Salvete,

As do I.

Valete,
Triarius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete cives,
> >
> > I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this

be

> > acted on.
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> > Palladius
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> As do I.
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Popillius Laenas
>

Salvete,

Same here.

Valete,

Annia Minucia Marcella


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Vitellius Triarius"
<lucius_vitellius_triarius@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete,
>
> As do I.
>
> Valete,
> Triarius
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> <gaiuspopillius@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete cives,
> > >
> > > I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this
> be
> > > acted on.
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > >
> > > Palladius
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > As do I.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > C. Popillius Laenas
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:

> Nova Roma is a relgious corporation, Cincinnatus was made an augur,
> a religious official by the corp. He then made a list, called
> Collegium Augurium.
>
> In the law; he is acting on behalf of the corporation. If Nova Roma
> corp made widgets, it would sue and own the list, he made it doing
> the job of the organization.

If this really is the case, then Nova Roma Inc. should really sue
Cincinnatus and Yahoo and try and get possesion of the list. It won't
because we don't have a case macronationally and the case violates
our own laws. The Senatus Consultum had zero authority to try and
claim the list. The consul knows it, Modianus knows it, you know it.

> Cincinnatus is a member of the Board, he has to appear at internal
> review procedures. Otherwise, there would be chaos. He may not like
> the procedure, he may very well think it wrong. But he must appear.

This is really the only fact on the side of those who approve of what
has happened. Even if you don't agree the praetors acted illeglally,
you must agree their punishment was excessive.

> If you do not respect the law; then all that is left is Favoritism.

Exactly. That is all this is about. Favoritism. You don't like
Cincinnatus, therefore you approve of what happened to him. The same
for the other actors in this farce. There is a longstanding tradition
in Nova Roma to ignore injustice against those we don't like, no
matter their political stripe (as in your case you mention). The
tradition continues. It should not.

I wish that for a few moments you would act like the lawyer you say
you are, pretend you don't know the people involved and analyze the
Constiution, the Senatus Consultum which attempted to usurp
Cincinnatus' property and the actions of the praetors.

Vale,

Palladius

Triarius Callide s.d.
Salve!

I'm not sure about the pig thing, BUT...

I have this golden cow, called Mooius Bovinus, and over the last
several days, I have repeatedly tried and tried to get him to
understand a few bars of Dean Martin's "An Evening in Roma," but he
just sits there. Maybe, its the Italian verses that throw him off,
then again, maybe he's deaf. I don't know. He must be kin to the
pig....really...

Vale optime,
Triarius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "os390account" <Velaki@...> wrote:
>
> Am I trying to teach the pig to sing?
>
> Valete,
> Q. Valerius Callidus (Disaffectus)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Vitellius Triarius"
<lucius_vitellius_triarius@...> wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella" <annia@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ludi - I love reading about the games. Perhaps one day I'll
> > participate more, but I suck at writing, hehe. Who is participating in
> > the horse race coming up?
>
> Unfortunately, Marcella, we have only had three entries thus far for
> all the events. Citizens obviously don't really find the Ludi
> interesting anymore, which is a shame.
>
> Vale optime,
> Triarius
>

Salve Triari,

In my opinion it is a problem with these games coming so soon after
the new year. You didn't have enough time to promote them. Everything
takes longer than one thinks, especially for online things.

Don't feel discouraged!

Agricola

Salvete

AS I ALSO.

Valete

Marcus Cornelius Felix



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella" <annia@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete,
>
> Same here.
>
> Valete,
>
> Annia Minucia Marcella
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Vitellius Triarius"
> <lucius_vitellius_triarius@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > As do I.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Triarius
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> > <gaiuspopillius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salvete cives,
> > > >
> > > > I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this
> > be
> > > > acted on.
> > > >
> > > > Valete.
> > > >
> > > > Palladius
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > As do I.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > C. Popillius Laenas
> > >
> >
>

Salvete.

Of course myself also.

Cn. Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> AS I ALSO.
>
> Valete
>
> Marcus Cornelius Felix

---

E-Mails jetzt auf Ihrem Handy..

What a stupid thing to say. Does this mean I have joined the Boni as
well because I agree with these fellas?

Ya know, everyone that talks about this mysterious boni group act as
if they were the illuminati or something. "oh he agrees with something
that I don't agree with, that means he's a part of the BONI" "oh no
the BONI!!!!"

Y'all can shut up about the boni. It makes you look like an idiot as
soon as you mention it. And I won't hesitate to call you out on it.



-Annia Minucia Marcella


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
<titus.aquila@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Triarius,
>
> so you have finally joined the boni. Interessting.
>
> Vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>

---

Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail.

The boni do not exist. They're the Emmanuel Goldstein of Nova Roma.
They existed long ago, that much is true, but today, believe you me
you dishonorable tribune, they do not exist.

Oh how I love it when the tribune of the plebs who tried to veto the
acceptance of a lawsuit illegally now tries to defend the illegal
actions. This tribune is a joke, he who knows not the law at all.

How can anyone take you serious? I entered Nova Roma and joined the
consul Marcus Moravius Horatianus Piscinus. I still respect the
consul, although on this issue I disagree with him sharply, enough to
be vocal about it. Such is rare from me, you un-Roman tribune. I wish
the consul would wish for peace and abandon the illegalities. Perhaps
I cannot persuade him. Alas, alack. But if you dare try to label me a
boni, I will not only laugh in your face, but I'll laugh loud enough
so that the entire list knows just how much you don't know. Me? Part
of the boni? As Laenas, who was a bonus, said...BOO!

I wonder which shades of the incompetent tribunes of the plebs have
been haunting you, temple builder?

Poplicola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
<titus.aquila@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Triarius,
>
> so you have finally joined the boni. Interessting.
>
> Vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> Von: L. Vitellius Triarius <lucius_vitellius_triarius@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Montag, den 25. Februar 2008, 03:18:45 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: Provocation
>
> Salvete,
>
> As do I.
>
> Valete,
> Triarius
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaen as"
> <gaiuspopillius@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete cives,
> > >
> > > I salute Paulinus for action in the name of justice and ask this
> be
> > > acted on.
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > >
> > > Palladius
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > As do I.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > C. Popillius Laenas
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy.
> www.yahoo.de/go
>

I have seen you post, Maior, but here you are woefully ignorant of the
Roman religion and politics. The office of the tribune was sanctus -
they could not be touched physically in performing their office under
penalty of being labeled sacer. However, this has nothing to do with
respect. That's a pure invention on your part. Respect is for
magistracies with imperium, for upstanding members who follow the mos
maiorum. Neither the praetores nor the tribunes nor the consuls in
this matter have been upstanding so far. And it's sad. I had high
hopes for a Nova Roma without demagoguery, without petty vindication,
for leaders who could rid their opponents with reason and laws instead
of shady trials, illegal proceedings, and despotic delusions.

I do not in any way advocate anyone harming the tribunes when they
perform their duties. Even though they haven't performed their duties
- they've not issued an intercessio when praetores broke the law - I
still do not recommend in any way violating their office. But respect
them? Aquila lost my respect when he rambled on about "reforming the
religio" without reason. He was just words. Then he failed miserably
when he tried to pronounce and intercessio for Scholastica accepting
the lawsuit concerning you. Plauta was smart. Aquila wasn't. I looked
over Aquila's plans for rebuilding a temple, and perhaps what he sent
me wasn't complete, but it was a joke. The man's a disgrace to Rome,
to the Roman religion. And now, what tribune has defended the actions?
Not Aquila. More words. Nothing real. No substance behind it. While
the office of the tribune is sacrosanct, the man behind it is a
disgrace to the plebs, to Rome, to anything holy.

Poplicola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Quiritibus sal;
> I wish to post my support of the tribunes, whether you
> agree or disagree with them, they were elected by the people and we
> must respect them! They are sacrosanct.
>
> If we suddenly hate them because they don't do what we like, then
> law collapses and it is just a matter of whims..
>
> Look at magistrates & cives behavior on the dies nefastus publicus,
> ignoring the Terminalia.
>
> Look at the behavior of Julianus who deleted the entire group of the
> CP.
>
> There would be no law, only anarchy. In 2004 Modianus was tribune
> and I was angry with him, but did not insult his office. Today he is
> a good friend.
>
> Let us respect our tribunes, in agreement and especially in
> disagreement.
> bene valete in pacem deorum
> M. Hortensia Maior
>

This man Aquila is confused! Triarius agreed with Laenas, Octavius
(who is against the boni, and this much I was told before I joined
Nova Roma and well before this incident). Years prior, Octavius was
hated by the boni, and apparently within the group by some the feeling
was mutual. But you've been quick to label anyone who disagrees with
the illegal actions as part of the boni. You apparently are too dense
to get this. That was the point of Annia Marcella. Of course she is
not part of the boni. She never was. Your logic is flawed. No wait -
you have no logic at all. And your posts show that completely.

Poplicola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila
<titus.aquila@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Marcella,
>
> Does this mean I have joined the Boni as well because I agree with

these fellas?

>
> I did not state that, did I ?
>
> Vale bene
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
> Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails jetzt einfach von unterwegs.
> www.yahoo.de/go
>

---

Beginnen Sie den Tag mit den neuesten Nachrichten. Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite!

Salve Marcella.

As one who was a member of the Boni, I am constantly surprised by
all those people who according to some bright spark or another were
also, or subsequently have become so. I certainly never knew we had
so many members!

At this rate of admission only Maior, Aquila, Modianus and a few
others will be left outside the meeting room. Better let me reserve
you a seat or you may have to stand at this rate.

For something that died ages ago some people do an excellent job of
digging it up out of its grave and parading it around. Grave robbing
isn't an offence in Nova Roma, but then again since apparently it
doesn't matter what the law says, perhaps they will get the Senate
to pass an SC giving them rights of ownership over the body.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Annia Minucia Marcella"
<annia@...> wrote:

>
> What a stupid thing to say. Does this mean I have joined the Boni

as

> well because I agree with these fellas?
>

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

C. Aemilius Crassus Consulibus omnibusque SPD,

Consuls I’m here to prove to you that the Sententia issued by the Praetor is illegal and unconstitutional.

Basic principles:

1- The case of Actor Modianus against the Reus Cincinnatus was brought under Nova Roman law and not under the U.S.A constitution or law, not under the Spanish law, not under the Portuguese law, not under the XII tables. So only Nova Roman legal system can be called to conduct the case.

2- The standing in Nova Roma of the Reus before the court it is totally irrelevant to case, since every citizen is equal under the law.

3- The rightness (that are yet to be proven) of the claims of the Actor are also irrelevant since it isn’t that causing the illegality of the Sententia.

Unconstitutionality and illegality of the Sententia:

1- The Sententia is unconstitutional because sets a punishment to the Reus since he didn’t appear in court. Since there was no penalty to that offense when it was made, it violates the section I.A.3.a of the constitution:

“No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action.”

The arguments of the Praetor and others in defense of that part of the Sententia are not valid.
a) In most countries a person can be fined/imprisoned if he failed to answer the call of the court.
A fine legal argument, I would love to see the face of any Judge when presented with this argument. The polite answer would be: “It may be true dear Curiatius but would you be so kind to point me where in the laws of our nation that it is stated?”
The court was conducted under Nova Roman law and not under the laws of most countries.

b) No one is above the law.
This is the favorite argument of our beloved Tribune Titus Flavius Aquila. Which it is very ironic since he haven proven time after time that it is above his dignity to read the constitution or the laws. To this I answer very true no one is above the law! Please show me the law in force in the moment of the offence that stipulates that the lack of appearance in court was illegal and would led to a penalty. There wasn’t.

c) The Praetor has several degrees in Spanish and in Roman law.
Another fine legal argument! Well probably this is the source of the problem and the Praetor is applying is knowledge of Roman law, forgetting that he was conducting a Nova Roman court.

The bottom line is no penalty was predict under no article of the constitution Nova Roma, no law passed by any comitia of Nova Roma and none magistrate edictum of Nova Roma! Blame the legislators, blame the Praetor that didn’t predict that situation, blame anyone you would like but there wasn’t!
Being so that part of the Sententia is unconstitutional and void of legal force!

2- The Sententia decided in favor of the Actor because the Reus didn’t appear before midday.
The Praetor has the powers to set the rules how his courts are to be conducted, limited by the Nova Roma law and constitution. The Praetor decided, only the Gods know why, to write the instruction that sets the case being decided against one of the parts if that part didn’t answer his call till midday in LATIN.
By “Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis”:

“II. Latin is hereby adopted as the official ceremonial language of Nova Roma. As such, it shall be used in rites conducted by the curule magistrates and appointed priests of Nova Roma on behalf of the entire nation, as well as other circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate.
III. English is hereby adopted as the business language of Nova Roma's central government. As such, it shall be used in official communications from and day-to-day business conducted by the central government (defined for purposes of this proviso as the Senate and non-provincial magistrates). Other languages may be used in such communications where deemed appropriate, but an English translation most accompany such communications. “

The Latin parts of any official communications can only be treated as “Ceremonial” and can’t have the force of law! I applaud the use of laws and costumes of Roma Antiqua if they are in agreement with our constitution and laws. Had the Praetor written his instructions in English and I couldn’t point any illegality, since he hasn’t the Sententia is illegal since doesn’t respects the rules set by the Praetor.

The only argument of the Praetor is:
“Re read the Iudicio”.
I have time after time and can’t find the English instructions setting these consequences, because they aren’t there!
The insistence of the Praetor to consider his Latin instructions as valid in defiance of the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis amounts to he considering his Edicta with more force of law then a Law voted by the comitia. That also is unconstitutional since it violates the section I.B:

Consuls, must I remember you your oath of office? The oath you have taken not two months ago in front of the Senate and People of Nova Roma! Here it is the part of it from our Consul Maior:

“I, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (John Reali), swear to protect
and defend the constitution of Nova Roma.”

You both have sworn to defend the Constitution of Nova Roma, it doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of the charges brought against him. It doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of contempt against the Res Publica. You have the sworn duty to pronounce an intercessio against the Sententia to defend the constitution of being violated.

Di Novam Romam incolumem custodiant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. AEMILIVS CRASSVS
DIRIBITOR NOVAE ROMAE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit:
Diis bene iuvantibus simus.

Hodie est ante diem VI Kalendas Martias; haec dies comitialis est:

A conjunction of Mercurius and Venus occurs today.

For Leap Year the Romans incerted a second a. d. VI Kalenas Martias,
but since they counted days backward towards the Kalends of the
succeeding month in this last half of a month the a. d. bis VI Kal.
Mart. fell on 24th Feb.

While it is well known that the religio of the family held special
rites at the Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, these days once
representing the phases of the moon, what is not generally known is
that the last quarter also had its ceremonies. The Kalends are
sacred to Janus and Juno; the Nones are thought to have been sacred
for Faunus; the Ides are sacred to Jupiter. The last portion of the
month is devoted to the Lares, this is especially important in the
month of February as the final days sees the completion of the
purification of home and City.


Plutarch, Roman Question 38:

"Why did Quintus Metellus, when he became pontfex maximus, with his
reputation for good sense in all other matters as well as in his
statesmanship, prevent divination from birds after the month of
Sextilis, which is now called Augustus? Is it that, even as we
attend to such matters in the middle of the day or at dawn, or in the
beginning of the month when the moon is waxing, and avoid the
declining days and hours as unsuitable for business, so likewise did
Metellus regard the period of time after the first eight months as
the evening or late afternoon, so to speak, of the year, since then
it is declining and waning? Or is it because we should observe birds
when they are in their prime and in perfect condition? And this they
are before the summer-time; but towards autumn some are weak and
sickly, other but nestlings and not full-grown, and still others have
vanished completely, migrating because of the time of the years."


AUC 680-682 / 73-71 BCE: Sparticus

"Seventy-four gladiators escaped from the school of Lentulus at
Capua, gathered a large number of slaves and workhouse prisoners,
began a war under command of Crixus and Spartacus, and defeated the
army of praetor Publius Varenus and his deputy Claudius Pulcher.
Praetor Quintus Arrius crushed Crixus, the leader of the runaway
slaves, and 20,000 men. Consul Gnaeus Lentulus, however,
unsuccessfully fought against Spartacus. Consul Lucius Gellius and
praetor Quintus Arrius were defeated by the same leader. Praetor
Marcus Crassus first fought victoriously with a part of the runaways,
mainly Gauls and Germans, and killed 35,000 of them, including their
leaders Castus and Gannicus. Then he completely defeated Spartacus,
who was killed with 60,000 people." ~ Titus Livius, Perioche Bk.
95.2; 96.1; 97.1


Today thought is from Marcus Aurelius Meditations 2.5:

"Think steadily at every moment as a Roman and as a man of virtue to
do what you have in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and with a
feeling of affection, and with freedom and justice, and relieve
yourself of any other thoughts."

Case? What case?

Yesterday L. Equitius did make nothing wrong because macronational laws.....today one cives says that our internal rules are valid: please come to an agreement.

Sorry but this discussion is not serious: why are omitted  Constitution (par. IV ), Lex Salicia Poenalis et Lex Salicia Iudiciaria?

Please nota bene that the offence of contempt is included in our leges. Ergo if our leges included the offence of contempt the Reus should have gone to court.

M•CVRIATIVS•COMPLVTENSIS
PRÆTOR NOVÆ ROMÆ
Senator
Prætor Hispaniæ
Scriba Censoris  KFBM
NOVA ROMA
 
-------------------------------------------
 
ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima 

Gaius Aemilius Crassus escribió:

C. Aemilius Crassus Consulibus omnibusque SPD,

Consuls I’m here to prove to you that the Sententia issued by the Praetor is illegal and unconstitutional.

Basic principles:

1- The case of Actor Modianus against the Reus Cincinnatus was brought under Nova Roman law and not under the U.S.A constitution or law, not under the Spanish law, not under the Portuguese law, not under the XII tables. So only Nova Roman legal system can be called to conduct the case.

2- The standing in Nova Roma of the Reus before the court it is totally irrelevant to case, since every citizen is equal under the law.

3- The rightness (that are yet to be proven) of the claims of the Actor are also irrelevant since it isn’t that causing the illegality of the Sententia.

Unconstitutionality and illegality of the Sententia:

1- The Sententia is unconstitutional because sets a punishment to the Reus since he didn’t appear in court. Since there was no penalty to that offense when it was made, it violates the section I.A.3.a of the constitution:

“No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action.”

The arguments of the Praetor and others in defense of that part of the Sententia are not valid.
a) In most countries a person can be fined/imprisoned if he failed to answer the call of the court.
A fine legal argument, I would love to see the face of any Judge when presented with this argument. The polite answer would be: “It may be true dear Curiatius but would you be so kind to point me where in the laws of our nation that it is stated?”
The court was conducted under Nova Roman law and not under the laws of most countries.

b) No one is above the law.
This is the favorite argument of our beloved Tribune Titus Flavius Aquila. Which it is very ironic since he haven proven time after time that it is above his dignity to read the constitution or the laws. To this I answer very true no one is above the law! Please show me the law in force in the moment of the offence that stipulates that the lack of appearance in court was illegal and would led to a penalty. There wasn’t.

c) The Praetor has several degrees in Spanish and in Roman law.
Another fine legal argument! Well probably this is the source of the problem and the Praetor is applying is knowledge of Roman law, forgetting that he was conducting a Nova Roman court.

The bottom line is no penalty was predict under no article of the constitution Nova Roma, no law passed by any comitia of Nova Roma and none magistrate edictum of Nova Roma! Blame the legislators, blame the Praetor that didn’t predict that situation, blame anyone you would like but there wasn’t!
Being so that part of the Sententia is unconstitutional and void of legal force!

2- The Sententia decided in favor of the Actor because the Reus didn’t appear before midday.
The Praetor has the powers to set the rules how his courts are to be conducted, limited by the Nova Roma law and constitution. The Praetor decided, only the Gods know why, to write the instruction that sets the case being decided against one of the parts if that part didn’t answer his call till midday in LATIN.
By “Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis”:

“II. Latin is hereby adopted as the official ceremonial language of Nova Roma. As such, it shall be used in rites conducted by the curule magistrates and appointed priests of Nova Roma on behalf of the entire nation, as well as other circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate.
III. English is hereby adopted as the business language of Nova Roma's central government. As such, it shall be used in official communications from and day-to-day business conducted by the central government (defined for purposes of this proviso as the Senate and non-provincial magistrates) . Other languages may be used in such communications where deemed appropriate, but an English translation most accompany such communications. “

The Latin parts of any official communications can only be treated as “Ceremonial” and can’t have the force of law! I applaud the use of laws and costumes of Roma Antiqua if they are in agreement with our constitution and laws. Had the Praetor written his instructions in English and I couldn’t point any illegality, since he hasn’t the Sententia is illegal since doesn’t respects the rules set by the Praetor.

The only argument of the Praetor is:
“Re read the Iudicio”.
I have time after time and can’t find the English instructions setting these consequences, because they aren’t there!
The insistence of the Praetor to consider his Latin instructions as valid in defiance of the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis amounts to he considering his Edicta with more force of law then a Law voted by the comitia. That also is unconstitutional since it violates the section I.B:

Consuls, must I remember you your oath of office? The oath you have taken not two months ago in front of the Senate and People of Nova Roma! Here it is the part of it from our Consul Maior:

“I, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (John Reali), swear to protect
and defend the constitution of Nova Roma.”

You both have sworn to defend the Constitution of Nova Roma, it doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of the charges brought against him. It doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of contempt against the Res Publica. You have the sworn duty to pronounce an intercessio against the Sententia to defend the constitution of being violated.

Di Novam Romam incolumem custodiant.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
C. AEMILIVS CRASSVS
DIRIBITOR NOVAE ROMAE
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

---

---

L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail

-- 
M•CVRIATIVS•COMPLVTENSIS
PRÆTOR NOVÆ ROMÆ
Senator
Prætor Hispaniæ
Scriba Censoris  KFBM
NOVA ROMA
 
-------------------------------------------
 
ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima 

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Palladius Modiano sal.

>>"Nova Roma is meant to be the heir of all of pagan Rome, both the
>>Republican period and Imperial periods, but with a republican form of
>>government."

>One thing that Nova Roma does not have, from a sacra publica point of
>view, are the priesthoods of the Imperial Cult. If we truly represent
>Pagan Rome from the Republic to the Empire (not sure why we didn't
>include the regal period since much can be obtained from Numa) then it
>seems logical to reinstitute the Imperial Cult. I know there are
>several citizens who are devoted to Divus Iulius and Augustus.

Are you proposing this? I for one would support this in some form, though
realize it would be a
delicate balancing act between Republic and Empire. I've always thought
there should be some
kind of recognition of some of the imperial cults, though not of the same
status as the republican
(since we are ostensibly a republic). As for Numa, he fits in the overall
period of 753 BCE to 394 CE.

This probably is a conversation for another day, if the republic survives
the current crisis. I've seen
Nova Roma weather many a storm but this one is much different (and was so
aviodable).

Vale,

Palladius

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Decio Iunio Palladio Invicto salutem dicit

For several years I was opposed to the concept of having the Imperial
Cults active within Nova Roma, preferring a more Republican model.
However, in the last six months or so I had thought about the Imperial
Cults and think that they certainly must be linked with the pax
deorum, at least in part. If we, that is Nova Roma, represent an era
in the history of Rome then including the Imperial Cults seems
appropriate -- even if they are not liked by some within the
priesthood.

I think it does make sense to evaluate the Imperial Cults and look
into how we can effectively implement them.

Regarding the storm... yes it certainly was avoidable. It is always
good for colleagues to communicate, even if they do not like one
another.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM, bcatfd@...
<bcatfd@...> wrote:

>
> Palladius Modiano sal.
>
> >>"Nova Roma is meant to be the heir of all of pagan Rome, both the
> >>Republican period and Imperial periods, but with a republican form of
> >>government."
>
> >One thing that Nova Roma does not have, from a sacra publica point of
> >view, are the priesthoods of the Imperial Cult. If we truly represent
> >Pagan Rome from the Republic to the Empire (not sure why we didn't
> >include the regal period since much can be obtained from Numa) then it
> >seems logical to reinstitute the Imperial Cult. I know there are
> >several citizens who are devoted to Divus Iulius and Augustus.
>
> Are you proposing this? I for one would support this in some form, though
> realize it would be a
> delicate balancing act between Republic and Empire. I've always thought
> there should be some
> kind of recognition of some of the imperial cults, though not of the same
> status as the republican
> (since we are ostensibly a republic). As for Numa, he fits in the overall
> period of 753 BCE to 394 CE.
>
> This probably is a conversation for another day, if the republic survives
> the current crisis. I've seen
> Nova Roma weather many a storm but this one is much different (and was so
> aviodable).
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com - Microsoft(R) Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
>
>

Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordiae Quiritibus sal.

 

 

Some questions, before I write a longer message:

 

 

Can you still beleive that we can make great things together?

Are we comrades?

Do we want to restore Rome?

Is this 10th Anniversary important for you?

 

 

 

 

May Peace of Concordia be with us!

 

 

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus,
Q U A E S T O R
SACERDOS CONCORDIAE
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---
Legatus Pro Praetore Provinciae Pannoniae
Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae
Interpres Linguae Hungaricae
Accensus Consulum T. Iulii Sabini et M. Moravii Piscini
Scriba Praetorum M. Curiatii Complutensis et M. Iulii Severi
Scriba Aedilium Curulium P. Memmii Albucii et Sex. Lucilii Tutoris
Scriba Rogatoris Cn. Equitii Marini
Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae A. Tulliae Scholasticae
------------ --------- --------- --------- ----
Decurio I. Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Dominus Factionis Russatae
Latinista, Classicus Philologus

---

---

L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail

---

¡Capacidad ilimitada de almacenamiento en tu correo!
No te preocupes más por el espacio de tu cuenta con Correo Yahoo!:
http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

Salve Crasse


Cura ut valeas

M. Curiatius Complutensis


Gaius Aemilius Crassus escribió:

C. Aemilius Crassus Praetor M. Curiatio Complutensi omnibusque SPD,

 

You wrote:

“Yesterday L. Equitius did make nothing wrong because macronational laws.....today one cives says that our internal rules are valid: please come to an agreement.”

 

Please show me where I ever said that? I don’t have to agree with everything it has been said, and the fact the others defend different positions doesn’t make my points invalid.

 

You wrote:

“Sorry but this discussion is not serious: why are omitted  Constitution (par. IV ), Lex Salicia Poenalis et Lex Salicia Iudiciaria?”

 

Because they weren’t need to prove the unconstitutionally of your Sententia. But let’s see what they say. Since you are very vague and refuse to point the exact points of the section IV of the constitution and of those laws you think validate your Sententia I start the discussion on the powers and duties of the Praetor, section IV.A.3 of the constitution.

 

“Praetor. Two praetors shall be elected by the Comitia Centuriata to serve a term lasting one year. They shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:

a. To hold Imperium and have the honor of being preceded by six lictors;

b. 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);

c. To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order when the Consuls are unavailable;

d. To pronounce intercessio against another praetor or magistrate of lesser authority;

e. To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other tasks, as they shall see fit. “

 

Well Praetor please informs us where this leads to the fact that you can issue a Sententia with a penalty for an offense that was not subject to a penalty when it was committed? If you would have issued an Edictum stating the penalty for the lack of appearance in court before that had happen then you would be right in light of section IV.A.3.b of the constitution. As much I have said before. The fact it is you have not.

 

Lex Salicia Iudiciaria,

 

Once more you point to the whole law and refuse say exactly where it validates your Sententia. But let’s see some points of this law:

 

“XV. Once the praetor has called for a sententia, the iudices shall have seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate; within those seventy-two (72) hours, the iudices shall individually issue one of the following sentences:

A. ABSOLVO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "absolvo", the reus shall be acquitted.

B. CONDEMNO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "condemno", the reus shall be condemned according to the formula previously established by the praetor.

C. Should there be a draw in the tribunal's votes, the reus shall be acquitted.

XVI. Once all the iudices have issued their sententiae, the praetor shall immediately inform the parties of the sententia, and shall enforce any penalties through his imperium. “

 

So in light of this section of the law the Praetor can only enforce any penalties after the iudices have issued their Sententiae. Did they issued any Sententiae? So you didn’t have any power to try to force any penalties. This is a small problem compared with the violation of Section I.A.3.a of the constitution so I didn’t brought it before.

 

Now let’s look to the Lex Salicia Poenalis:

1.2-

“All crimes and their associated penalties shall be defined by the laws that are in force at the time of the commission of the crime. “

 

Was there any law in force at the time of the commission of the so called crime that stated it was a crime and associated any penalties? No, there was any. Once more your Sententia violates another law.

 

13.1-

“Article XVII of the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria is amended, to wit:

"XVII. In those cases where the laws of the Republic of Nova Roma deem it necessary, the praetor's formula shall include one or several of the following penalties to be inflicted upon a convicted reus:

A. MVLTA PECVNIARIA: restitution payable to a victim and/or a fine payable to the treasury of Nova Roma by a reus . “

 

Do you notice that amends the Lex Salicia Iudciaria, and it is no longer “In those cases where the laws of Nova Roma or the Praetor’s sense deem it necessary.” You can only set the penalty of Multa Pecuniaria when the laws of the Republic of Nova Roma deem it necessary. Was there any law that deems it necessary a fine for not answering the call to court? No there was! Also it would have to be in the Formula you have issued. Was it? No!

 

You wrote:

“Please nota bene that the offence of contempt is included in our leges. Ergo if our leges included the offence of contempt the Reus should have gone to court.”

 

There only two instances where the offense of contempt are stated.

In “Lex Cornelia et Maria de Civitate eiuranda” and in “Lex Salicia Iudiciaria”. I’m guessing you are refering to the last one, so let’s see what it does say:

IX.B-

 

“A citizen thus appointed to a court shall be able to ask for an exemption from that judicial work if there are factors that do not allow him to serve in that position. The praetor must be asked for that exemption within thirty-six (36) hours of the official announcement of that appointment; the praetor shall grant that exemption at his own discretion, or he shall deny it, thus forcing the appointed iudex to serve or face an accusation of contempt.”

 

Do you notice that the citizen that refuses to serve as Iudex can face an accusation of contempt? An accusation, not to be judge and sentence by the sole decision of the Praetor. Secondly since there are not any penalty defined to the offense of contempt none can be applied (remember the section I.A.3.a of the constitution? )

 

So Praetor I do have case against your Sententia, it is unconstitutional and illegal and I will keep saying it and demonstrating it till you show us where there was a penalty defined for not appearing in court.

 

Also you still didn’t shown us where in your Iudicio was stated the case would be decided in favour of one of the parts if the other part failed to appear in court. Remember Praetor the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis, it must be in English.

 

Di Novam Romam incolumem custodiant.
 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
C. AEMILIVS CRASSVS
DIRIBITOR NOVAE ROMAE
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

----- Original Message ----
From: M.CVRIATIVS COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@ gmail.com>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:59:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Case against the Sententia issued by the Praetor M. Curiatius Complutensis.

Case? What case?

Yesterday L. Equitius did make nothing wrong because macronational laws.....today one cives says that our internal rules are valid: please come to an agreement.

Sorry but this discussion is not serious: why are omitted  Constitution (par. IV ), Lex Salicia Poenalis et Lex Salicia Iudiciaria?

Please nota bene that the offence of contempt is included in our leges. Ergo if our leges included the offence of contempt the Reus should have gone to court.

M•CVRIATIVS•COMPLVTEN SIS
PRÆTOR NOVÆ ROMÆ
Senator
Prætor Hispaniæ
Scriba Censoris  KFBM
NOVA ROMA
 
------------ --------- --------- --------- ----
 
ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima 

Gaius Aemilius Crassus escribió:

C. Aemilius Crassus Consulibus omnibusque SPD,

Consuls I’m here to prove to you that the Sententia issued by the Praetor is illegal and unconstitutional.

Basic principles:

1- The case of Actor Modianus against the Reus Cincinnatus was brought under Nova Roman law and not under the U.S.A constitution or law, not under the Spanish law, not under the Portuguese law, not under the XII tables. So only Nova Roman legal system can be called to conduct the case.

2- The standing in Nova Roma of the Reus before the court it is totally irrelevant to case, since every citizen is equal under the law.

3- The rightness (that are yet to be proven) of the claims of the Actor are also irrelevant since it isn’t that causing the illegality of the Sententia.

Unconstitutionality and illegality of the Sententia:

1- The Sententia is unconstitutional because sets a punishment to the Reus since he didn’t appear in court. Since there was no penalty to that offense when it was made, it violates the section I.A.3.a of the constitution:

“No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action.”

The arguments of the Praetor and others in defense of that part of the Sententia are not valid.
a) In most countries a person can be fined/imprisoned if he failed to answer the call of the court.
A fine legal argument, I would love to see the face of any Judge when presented with this argument. The polite answer would be: “It may be true dear Curiatius but would you be so kind to point me where in the laws of our nation that it is stated?”
The court was conducted under Nova Roman law and not under the laws of most countries.

b) No one is above the law.
This is the favorite argument of our beloved Tribune Titus Flavius Aquila. Which it is very ironic since he haven proven time after time that it is above his dignity to read the constitution or the laws. To this I answer very true no one is above the law! Please show me the law in force in the moment of the offence that stipulates that the lack of appearance in court was illegal and would led to a penalty. There wasn’t.

c) The Praetor has several degrees in Spanish and in Roman law.
Another fine legal argument! Well probably this is the source of the problem and the Praetor is applying is knowledge of Roman law, forgetting that he was conducting a Nova Roman court.

The bottom line is no penalty was predict under no article of the constitution Nova Roma, no law passed by any comitia of Nova Roma and none magistrate edictum of Nova Roma! Blame the legislators, blame the Praetor that didn’t predict that situation, blame anyone you would like but there wasn’t!
Being so that part of the Sententia is unconstitutional and void of legal force!

2- The Sententia decided in favor of the Actor because the Reus didn’t appear before midday.
The Praetor has the powers to set the rules how his courts are to be conducted, limited by the Nova Roma law and constitution. The Praetor decided, only the Gods know why, to write the instruction that sets the case being decided against one of the parts if that part didn’t answer his call till midday in LATIN.
By “Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis”:

“II. Latin is hereby adopted as the official ceremonial language of Nova Roma. As such, it shall be used in rites conducted by the curule magistrates and appointed priests of Nova Roma on behalf of the entire nation, as well as other circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate.
III. English is hereby adopted as the business language of Nova Roma's central government. As such, it shall be used in official communications from and day-to-day business conducted by the central government (defined for purposes of this proviso as the Senate and non-provincial magistrates) . Other languages may be used in such communications where deemed appropriate, but an English translation most accompany such communications. “

The Latin parts of any official communications can only be treated as “Ceremonial” and can’t have the force of law! I applaud the use of laws and costumes of Roma Antiqua if they are in agreement with our constitution and laws. Had the Praetor written his instructions in English and I couldn’t point any illegality, since he hasn’t the Sententia is illegal since doesn’t respects the rules set by the Praetor.

The only argument of the Praetor is:
“Re read the Iudicio”.
I have time after time and can’t find the English instructions setting these consequences, because they aren’t there!
The insistence of the Praetor to consider his Latin instructions as valid in defiance of the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis amounts to he considering his Edicta with more force of law then a Law voted by the comitia. That also is unconstitutional since it violates the section I.B:

Consuls, must I remember you your oath of office? The oath you have taken not two months ago in front of the Senate and People of Nova Roma! Here it is the part of it from our Consul Maior:

“I, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (John Reali), swear to protect
and defend the constitution of Nova Roma.”

You both have sworn to defend the Constitution of Nova Roma, it doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of the charges brought against him. It doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of contempt against the Res Publica. You have the sworn duty to pronounce an intercessio against the Sententia to defend the constitution of being violated.

Di Novam Romam incolumem custodiant.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
C. AEMILIVS CRASSVS
DIRIBITOR NOVAE ROMAE
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Salve Praetor.

Surely you are aware that a case such as this has many facets and
strands to it? Of course macronational law is a potential issue and
equally we have our own laws and Constitution to consider. In some
areas the two cross over.

If you are expecting some legal equiavelent of a fast food approach to
this question, them you are sadly mistaken. The case against this
outrageous decision of yours is not complex, but it certainly doesn't
come packaged in one little box containing just one item.

This response of yours is in fact indicative of part of the problem.
The approach we take to these matters in general and this case
specifically requires perception and an open minded attitude to
thinking laterally rather than a one directional linear approach.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar

M•IVL•SEVERVS
PRÆTOR•NOVƕROMÆ

SENATOR
PRÆTOR•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
SCRIBA•CENSORIS•K•F•B•M
INTERPRETER
MVSÆVS•COLLEGII•ERATOVS•SODALITATIS•MVSARVM
SOCIVS•CHORI•MVSARVM

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Q. Poplicola Lentulo SPD:

Quantum opus mihi est et quanto amore elaboro et forensi et domestico
Romae reconstitutione in primis pro nostra consuetudine tu existimare
potes.

Above all, Rome is most important to me. This I hold dear.

Cura, amice, ut ualeas.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
<cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>
> Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordiae Quiritibus sal.
>
>
> Some questions, before I write a longer message:
>
>
> Can you still beleive that we can make great things together?
> Are we comrades?
> Do we want to restore Rome?
> Is this 10th Anniversary important for you?
>
>
>
>
> May Peace of Concordia be with us!
>
>
>
>
> Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus,
> Q U A E S T O R
> SACERDOS CONCORDIAE
> ------------------------------------------
> Legatus Pro Praetore Provinciae Pannoniae
> Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae
> Interpres Linguae Hungaricae
> Accensus Consulum T. Iulii Sabini et M. Moravii Piscini
> Scriba Praetorum M. Curiatii Complutensis et M. Iulii Severi
> Scriba Aedilium Curulium P. Memmii Albucii et Sex. Lucilii Tutoris
> Scriba Rogatoris Cn. Equitii Marini
> Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae A. Tulliae Scholasticae
> -------------------------------------------
> Decurio I. Sodalitatis Latinitatis
> Dominus Factionis Russatae
> Latinista, Classicus Philologus
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------
> L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail
>

SALVE AEMILI CRASSE!

With the hope you allow me to take in consideration and to respect
the "imperium" of others magistrates of Republic this is only to
announce you that the course of action has more steps. Another one
is ready to start and I consider it very important.

VALE BENE,
IVL SABINVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Aemilius Crassus
<septemtrionis@...> wrote:

>
> C. Aemilius Crassus Consulibus omnibusque SPD,
>
> Consuls I’m here to prove to you that the Sententia issued by

the Praetor is illegal and unconstitutional.

>
> Basic principles:
>
> 1- The case of Actor Modianus against the Reus Cincinnatus was

brought under Nova Roman law and not under the U.S.A constitution or
law, not under the Spanish law, not under the Portuguese law, not
under the XII tables. So only Nova Roman legal system can be called
to conduct the case.

>
> 2- The standing in Nova Roma of the Reus before the court it is

totally irrelevant to case, since every citizen is equal under the
law.

>
> 3- The rightness (that are yet to be proven) of the claims of the

Actor are also irrelevant since it isn’t that causing the
illegality of the Sententia.

>
> Unconstitutionality and illegality of the Sententia:
>
> 1- The Sententia is unconstitutional because sets a punishment to

the Reus since he didn’t appear in court. Since there was no
penalty to that offense when it was made, it violates the section
I.A.3.a of the constitution:

>
> “No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not

subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was
subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer
subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that
action.”

>
> The arguments of the Praetor and others in defense of that part of

the Sententia are not valid.

> a) In most countries a person can be fined/imprisoned if he failed

to answer the call of the court.

> A fine legal argument, I would love to see the face of any Judge

when presented with this argument. The polite answer would be: “It
may be true dear Curiatius but would you be so kind to point me
where in the laws of our nation that it is stated?”

> The court was conducted under Nova Roman law and not under the

laws of most countries.

>
> b) No one is above the law.
> This is the favorite argument of our beloved Tribune Titus Flavius

Aquila. Which it is very ironic since he haven proven time after
time that it is above his dignity to read the constitution or the
laws. To this I answer very true no one is above the law! Please
show me the law in force in the moment of the offence that
stipulates that the lack of appearance in court was illegal and
would led to a penalty. There wasn’t.

>
> c) The Praetor has several degrees in Spanish and in Roman law.
> Another fine legal argument! Well probably this is the source of

the problem and the Praetor is applying is knowledge of Roman law,
forgetting that he was conducting a Nova Roman court.

>
> The bottom line is no penalty was predict under no article of the

constitution Nova Roma, no law passed by any comitia of Nova Roma
and none magistrate edictum of Nova Roma! Blame the legislators,
blame the Praetor that didn’t predict that situation, blame anyone
you would like but there wasn’t!

> Being so that part of the Sententia is unconstitutional and void

of legal force!

>
> 2- The Sententia decided in favor of the Actor because the Reus

didn’t appear before midday.

> The Praetor has the powers to set the rules how his courts are to

be conducted, limited by the Nova Roma law and constitution. The
Praetor decided, only the Gods know why, to write the instruction
that sets the case being decided against one of the parts if that
part didn’t answer his call till midday in LATIN.

> By “Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis”:
>
> “II. Latin is hereby adopted as the official ceremonial language

of Nova Roma. As such, it shall be used in rites conducted by the
curule magistrates and appointed priests of Nova Roma on behalf of
the entire nation, as well as other circumstances where it may be
deemed appropriate.

> III. English is hereby adopted as the business language of Nova

Roma's central government. As such, it shall be used in official
communications from and day-to-day business conducted by the central
government (defined for purposes of this proviso as the Senate and
non-provincial magistrates). Other languages may be used in such
communications where deemed appropriate, but an English translation
most accompany such communications. “

>
> The Latin parts of any official communications can only be treated

as “Ceremonial” and can’t have the force of law! I applaud the
use of laws and costumes of Roma Antiqua if they are in agreement
with our constitution and laws. Had the Praetor written his
instructions in English and I couldn’t point any illegality, since
he hasn’t the Sententia is illegal since doesn’t respects the
rules set by the Praetor.

>
> The only argument of the Praetor is:
> “Re read the Iudicio”.
> I have time after time and can’t find the English instructions

setting these consequences, because they aren’t there!

> The insistence of the Praetor to consider his Latin instructions

as valid in defiance of the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis amounts
to he considering his Edicta with more force of law then a Law voted
by the comitia. That also is unconstitutional since it violates the
section I.B:

>
> Consuls, must I remember you your oath of office? The oath you

have taken not two months ago in front of the Senate and People of
Nova Roma! Here it is the part of it from our Consul Maior:

>
> “I, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (John Reali), swear to

protect

> and defend the constitution of Nova Roma.”
>
> You both have sworn to defend the Constitution of Nova Roma, it

doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is guilty of the charges
brought against him. It doesn’t matter if you think the Reus is
guilty of contempt against the Res Publica. You have the sworn duty
to pronounce an intercessio against the Sententia to defend the
constitution of being violated.

>
> Di Novam Romam incolumem custodiant.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> C. AEMILIVS CRASSVS
> DIRIBITOR NOVAE ROMAE
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

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

>
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
_______________

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

Salve Laenas,

> Those who met him in person sometimes remarked that he was much more
> personable and relaxed compared to his demeanor on the lists.

Smart, funny, a great father and good looking too! Mrs. Cincinnatus is a
lucky gal!
Vale,
Diana

Salve Diana amice,

>>and good looking too!<<

HA! I'll leave those observations and judgements to you ;-).

Laenas