Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Mar 1-5, 2009

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61868 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The Censorial Edict
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61869 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The Censorial Edict
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61870 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Concordialia Tomorrow - Ludi Novi Romani Begin!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61871 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The threat to Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61872 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61873 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61874 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Concordialia Now - and Happy (Roman) Mother's Day!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61875 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Today in Rome: March, 1st 2009.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61876 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61877 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61878 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordialia Now
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61879 From: Avv. Claudio Guzzo Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61880 From: Avv. Claudio Guzzo Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61882 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordalia!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61883 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61884 From: M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordalia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61885 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: KALENDAE MARTIAE: MATRONALIA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61886 From: M. Lucretius Agricola Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61887 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61888 From: Titus Iulius Sabinus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: The 11th Birthday of Nova Roma - Mercurius ritual.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61889 From: Appius Galerius Aurelianus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61890 From: C. Stricklin Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61891 From: James Hooper Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61892 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61893 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61894 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61895 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61896 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: CONCORDIALIA RITUAL for the 11th Birthday of the Nova Roman Republic
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61897 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61898 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61899 From: M Arminius Maior Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61900 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61901 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61902 From: M Arminius Maior Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61903 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61904 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61905 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61906 From: Gallagher Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61907 From: M. Cocceius Firmus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61908 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61909 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61910 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61911 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61912 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Concordia and Relighting the Fire Ritual
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61913 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: a. d. VI Nonas Martias: The First Augury at Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61914 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Results of the February session of the Collegium Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61915 From: M•IVL• SEVERVS Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61916 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Please update the Comitia Plebis Tributa group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61917 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61918 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61919 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61920 From: walkyr@aol.com Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61921 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61922 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61923 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61924 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61925 From: t.ovidius_aquila Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61926 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61927 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61928 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61929 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61930 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61931 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61932 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61933 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61934 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61935 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 2
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61936 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61937 From: A. Sempronius Regulus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61938 From: enodia2002 Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61939 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61940 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61941 From: t.ovidius_aquila Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61943 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61944 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61945 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61946 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61947 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61948 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61949 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61950 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61951 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61952 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61955 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61956 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 2
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61957 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61958 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61959 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61960 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: +AFs-Nova-Roma+AF0- Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61961 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61963 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61964 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61965 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61966 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61967 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61968 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61969 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Please do not feed the troll
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61970 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61971 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61972 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61973 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61974 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: a. d. V Nonas Martias: The Di Consentes of Agriculture; Lictores
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61975 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61976 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61977 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61978 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61979 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61980 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61981 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61982 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Consulting the Gods
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61983 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61984 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61985 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61986 From: Gallagher Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61987 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61988 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61989 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61990 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61991 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61992 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61993 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61994 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61995 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61996 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61997 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61998 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61999 From: deciusiunius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62000 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62001 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62002 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62003 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62004 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62005 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62006 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62007 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62008 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62009 From: Pompeia Minucia Strabo Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62010 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62011 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Rome - The Imperial Fora: Archaeolgical News, Excavations & Discover
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62012 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62013 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62014 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Boing! Resignations, Reinstatements, and The Law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62015 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62016 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62017 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Boing! Resignations, Reinstatements, and The Law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62018 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Bouncers and The Law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62019 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62020 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62021 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62022 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62023 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62024 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: We're Losing
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62025 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: a. d. IV Nonas Martias: Romulus and the Founding of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62026 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: a. d. IV Nonas Martias: Romulus and the Founding of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62027 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62028 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62029 From: Titus Flavius Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62030 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62031 From: Titus Flavius Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: AW: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62032 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62033 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 4
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62034 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing & Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62035 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62036 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Good opponents
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62037 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Good opponents
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62038 From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62039 From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62040 From: L Julia Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Results of the February session of the Collegium Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62041 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62042 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62043 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62044 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62045 From: M. Cocceius Firmus Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62046 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: a. d. III Nonas Martias: Isidis Navigum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62047 From: M. Lucretius Agricola Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62048 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 5



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61868 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The Censorial Edict
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
wrote:
>
> vallenporter <magewuffa@...> writes:
>
> > Nr was not following the "by laws of the corp NR inc"
>
> So you say. Others, who actually were elected by the populace and are
> charged with interpreting the law, say differently. Since I am a
> member of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc., and you're not,
> I'd very much appreciate if you'd respect the judgment of the Board
> and its officers, and not speculate about matters on which you are not
> fully informed.
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
Salve

sorry to tell you this but i got a lot of info from ,how to say this
all three sides on this.the Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc has
many many info outlet even some that you and no-one that is part of
the TPTB have a clue of. and on top of that I also had lawyers look at
this and they and sulla lawyer are thinking the same thing.
so you are not right as to the facts of law both NR and US on this.
I think I may have more info then you.
it was as i have said before the same kind of thing that made the
downfall of CAW in 2003 so bad.
I have said before the NR INC needs a outside lawyer who can give the
BOD the info that they need to follow there own bylaws .
and also stay within the law on the INC side.
you should go talk with people on the BOD of he SCA about getting sued
when they did not follow the rule set.
as I say the member of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc. NEEDS
some outside lawyer help get that tell us what they say etc.
and we are good.
but But show trails and all that other stuff you have done have been
seen and it is UNCOOL
I am a Sacerdos Templi Mercurius for long time. you do not think I
hear stuff.

vale Marcus Conrlius Felix
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61869 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The Censorial Edict
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Justin Brett <justin.brett@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> Julia Aquila dixit:
> >"The BA ... is reputed
> >to have opinions and discussions that are not necessarily based on
> >the facts related to NR or sanctioned by the Respublica and said
> >discussions are the opinions and perceptions of those members of BA
> >and often may be influenced to the poster's own end."
>
> From what I have seen so far, this is a fairly good description of
your main list...
>
what he said and i said and on LOL and the sad thing is with two or
three people outside of clues on the bA it is a whole lot nicer more
of the time then here.

vale marcus Cornelius Felix
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61870 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Concordialia Tomorrow - Ludi Novi Romani Begin!
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS"
<complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul omnibus S·P·D·
>
> Tomorrow Nova Roma will be a peaceful place.
>
> Tomorrow is a Nefastus Publicus day, and no public businees could be
> performed under religious law. The /nefastus publicus /is a day of
the
> great public festivals, on which none but the most necessary forms of
> work was allowed.
>
> NO bad words be pronunced! Tomorrow is the day of Concordia, the day of
> the harmony.
>
> Tomorrow I will perform in private a sacrifice on behalf of the res
publica.
>
> Curate ut valete
>
>
>


Salvete

I also think i will Tomorrow I will perform in private a sacrifice on
behalf of the res publica.
Marcus Cornelius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61871 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: The threat to Nova Roma
If the Consuls, Censors and Tribunes of Nova Roma wish to disclose the
entire episode, preferable unedited, to the public. I state here and
now that I have no objection with it.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus"
<asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
> Salve, et salvete omnes,
>  
> Perhaps there is no threat except in seeing the narcissistic
bravado-without-guts of some hysteria-mongering citizens as
something substantial rather than insubstantial.
>  
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus 
>
> --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Christer Edling <christer.edling@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The threat to Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 12:49 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete Quirites!
>
>
>
> Having our corporation situated in a litigation happy country will
always be a threat to Nova Roma. Still a majority of our citizens are
living in USA and withot US citizens there would never have been a Res
Publica. How do we solcve this?
>
>
> To me threatening to sue your organization is not a proof of
loyalty. The threat isn't coming from the Senate or even from
individual magistrates, instead my impression is thati t comes from
citizens that lack loyalty and do not share a vision of the Res Publica..
>
>
> Nova Roma in itself is sounder than it was when I joined as my
colleague Senator Gnaeus Marinus have said, but we still have some
basic problems to deal with.
>
>
>
>
>
> ************ *****
> Vale
>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Main_ Page
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae 
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae 
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61872 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
wrote:
>
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> writes:
>
> > Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Marino omnibusque s.p.d.
> >
> > Please, all; read this.
>
> Nope, I got to the part where you called me a coward and that did it.
>
> > Stop hiding in cowardice.
>
> I'll meet you, anywhere you want, to settle this once and for all.
> Either that, or you'll apologise right now and right here. Do you
> understand?
>
> I don't hide in cowardice.




Salve

so what we all are going to start the 3RD Civil War in NR in 12 less
then 10 years.
i may not always be with the side that TPTB are at this time.
But i think we should stop and wait a bit.
I think sulla was killed not as to how the law reads you guy that are
TPTB think it was ok.
I think you guys had a show trail last year you do not.
I will not talk on this again.
pax be with all.
Vale Marcus Conrlius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
membership # 290 ( I was here in year 2)
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61873 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.

As one of the students involved, I have to say that I found
Quintilianus' announcement not completely correct.

After the server went down in December, Tullia Scholastica's already
huge workload increased, because it's very different to hold courses
within an automated framework, like AT, and to hold them by email.

None of the students have received any information on when courses
were expected to resume, nor did we get any apologies or explanations.
Apparently Scholastica wasn't kept up to date either, because she
could never give us this information.

OK, the courses are free, so there's little ground for complaint (you
get what you pay for), but at least a periodical update on the
situation on this list would have been a nice gesture.

Optime valete,
Livia



>
> > A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae
voluntatis,
> > praesertim linguae Latinae foventibus studentibusve S.P.D.
> >
> > My comments are interleaved; this announcement was hardly
unexpected.
> >
> >
> > RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS IV ACADEMIAE THVLES
> >
> > ANNOUNCEMENT BY
> > the Praescriptor Academia Thules ad S.R.A. et N.
> >
> > By the power invested in me as the Praescriptor of the Academia
Thules and
> > after consultation with the Rector and the Board of directors I
hereby, with
> > immidiate execution, dimiss Aula Tullia Scholastica from the
Academia Staff
> > and as a praeceptor of the Academia Thules and do not prolong any
of her
> > assignments within the Academia Thules.
> >
> > ATS: All that this means is 1) the Academia Thules no longer
has a
> > classics faculty, in concert with the absence of course materials
for ANY
> > courses due to the extreme problems with the dead course server;
and 2) those
> > students currently enrolled in Latin courses for which they
registered at the
> > Academia may not receive credit for them. Inasmuch as I promised
them that I
> > would report their marks to the Academia so that they could
receive credit,
> > this is a violation of their trust in the Academia and its
administration. If
> > the Academia cared about the students, they would have waited
until the end of
> > the academic year for this nonsense; after all, one course will
complete its
> > instructional program in about two weeks, and the others will
likely end in a
> > couple of months. However, tempers flared, and as happens all
too often in
> > such cases, good sense got lost in the shuffle, to the detriment
of the
> > students, not me.
> >
> >
> > Although she at times have handle a huged work load, she has
shown no loyalty
> > towards the Academia and its leadership and no ability to work in
a team.
> >
> > ATS: Yes, I have a huge course load. I was loyal to the
Academia as long
> > as that was possible. Avitus and I are not subservient doormats
to be treated
> > as such, our suggestions ignored or shot down, our abilities
unappreciated,
> > etc., etc. I have been working as a team insofar as it was
possible amid the
> > lack of information about the mortally-wounded course server and
other issues.
> >
> >
> > She has further publicly talked about the grades of students and
the
> > performance of individual students,
> >
> > ATS: Translation: I publicly congratulated students who
completed the
> > intermediate Latin courses. They deserve public recognition for
this
> > accomplishment. It is not easy, especially for an adult, to
complete a course
> > anywhere near as demanding as our Latin courses are. Perhaps,
too, I urged
> > one to get her work in on time...dreadful crimes, those.
> >
> >
> > something that to most professional teachers in itself is a
disgrace and
> > motivates dismissal. Inshort our patience with this individual
has come to an
> > end after years of internal and (forced) public efforts to
correct her
> > behavior.
> >
> > After her latest outburst in the Senate against the Acadenia and
its Rector,
> > which was formost based on misunderstandings and guesses,
> >
> > ATS: There was no outburst, simply honest remarks about a
topic on the
> > agenda.
> >
> >
> > it is hard to remember all the good she has done, Still it is
true that people
> > are complicated, and as many of us Scholastica has good sides
too. She just
> > seems impossible to work with, at least in the Academia.
> >
> > ATS: Indeed, Avitus and I have found it quite difficult to
work with
> > Saturninus, who seems quite intransigent. There are, however,
other fish in
> > the sea; no prospective student should feel that Latin courses
will no longer
> > be offered by me and/or Avitus; we will see to it that they are,
by whatever
> > means necessary. No one else is authorized to use our course
materials. It
> > would be in the Academia¹s best interest, and that of the
students, to rescind
> > this announcement pending the completion of the academic year so
that the
> > students can receive credit for their courses. To do otherwise
is a violation
> > of student trust, and student rights. You may not like it that I
am
> > conducting the courses apart from your umbrella, but the failure
of the server
> > coupled with other matters forced that, and forced me to separate
myself from
> > you. You are too late to remove me; I removed myself after
winter break, and
> > continued with the academia only so that the students would
receive the credit
> > they will have earned at the successful completion of their
courses. A good
> > many probably do not care about that, but for those who do, you
should allow
> > them that opportunity. It is their right.
> >
> > Privatim: Caeca, amica, I received your note on this, but
your ISP is
> > currently treating posts from mine as spam, so my reply to you
about sodalitas
> > membership bounced. Perhaps you could inform them that my ISP is
better than
> > its reputation seems to be at times.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> > ************************************************
> > Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> > Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
> >
> >
> > ===============
> >
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61874 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Concordialia Now - and Happy (Roman) Mother's Day!
Salve Cato,
 
This post made me spit beer all over my monitor! Absolutely brilliant. It's sort of like Ovid meets Jerry Springer. Here's to hoping that all Nova Romans will raise their glass to toast the mothers of the Roman Republic that made the great nation we emulate the great nation we emulate, and to mothers in general, who are really great too!
 
Vale!
T. Annaeus Regulus

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Concordialia Now - and Happy (Roman) Mother's Day!

Cato omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete!

Happy Birthday to Nova Roma! A blessed Concordalia to one and all.

Also, all you mothers out there, rejoice! Today was also held as the
Matronalia, in honor of all mothers - sort of a Roman Mother's Day :)

"On the hill that now has the name of Esquiline,
A temple was founded, as I recall, on this day,
By the Roman women in honour of Iuno.
But why do I linger, and burden your thoughts with reasons?
The answer you seek is plainly before your eyes.
My mother, Iuno, loves brides: crowds of mothers worship me:
Such a virtuous reason above all befits her and me.'
Bring the goddess flowers: the goddess loves flowering plants:
Garland your heads with fresh flowers, and say:
`You, Lucina, have given us the light of life': and say:
`You hear the prayer of women in childbirth.'
But let her who is with child, free her hair in prayer,
So the goddess may gently free her womb." - Ovid, Fasti III

It was held on the first day of the (pre-Iulian calendar) year, which
was the kalends of Martias and special attention was paid to Iuno as
Iuno Lucina - "Iuno the Lightbringer" , who was held to watch over
childbirth and mothers. The epithet "Lucina" may refer to the light
("lux") of childbirth or to the grove ("lucus") where the temple of
Iuno was built in c. 375 BC on the Esquiline Hill.

In the Fasti, Ovid asks Mars why He would let a festival like this
occur on the kalends of His sacred month, Him being the god of war and
sort of a guys' god and all; Mars replies that it is in honor of the
Sabine women whom his son Romulus stole in order to give Roman men the
wives necessary to expand the population of the new city.

"Rome was little," Mars says, and then when Romulus wants to pray
about it, Mars tells him that prayers are nice but he'd be better off
arming himself and the men of Rome and taking what they needed - women
- by force. What other kind of advice would you expect from the god
of war? So Romulus and his army looked around and lo! there were a
bunch of extra Sabine women just hanging around doing nothing!

So Romulus invites all the neighbors over to take a look at his cool
new city, and in the middle of the party gives his men the signal and
they run off - where to, exactly, is never specified - with the extra
women.

After the "rape" - or abduction, more properly, the Latin word
"raptio" meaning "kidnapping" - of the Sabine women, Romulus goes
around to each of them and points out that being a Roman would really
be a pretty good gig so how's about it?

Some time later, an army of (justifiably) angry Sabines showed up to
rescue them. But apparently they'd waited just a little bit too long;
the women now had children, Roman children, and they stood between
their Roman husbands and the Sabine army, holding up and waving their
children around as proof that they weren't really that much in need of
rescuing, actually, but thanks and would you like a cup of coffee for
the march home?

The Sabines all took this in good spirits and they and the Romans
became BFF and everybody was happy.

So, Happy Matronalia!

Valete,

Cato

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61875 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Today in Rome: March, 1st 2009.
C. Petronius Dexter omnibus Quiritibus s.p.d.,
 
Today in Rome :
 
(Julian day : 2 454 892).
 
Kalendis Martiis
MMDCCLXII anno Vrbis conditae
Coss. M. Curiatio M. Iulio.
 
Day of the week : Solis dies (Sunday).
 
Lunaris dies: V.
Nundinal letter : D.
 
Hora ortus Solis : 06:44.
Hora occasus Solis : 17:59.
Temp. Min. : 9° C.
Temp. Max. : 12° C.
Wind on Rome : 36 Km/h.
Humidity: 81%.
Weather: Light rain. More clouds than sun. Cool.
 
Horae diei :
 
I: 06:44 - 07:36 Mercurii hora.
II: 07:36 - 08:29 Lunae hora.
III: 08:29 - 09:22 Saturni hora.
IV: 09:22 - 10:14 Iovis hora.
V: 10:14 - 11:07 Martis hora.
VI: 11:07 - 12:00 Solis hora.
VII: 12:00 - 12:59 Veneris hora.
VIII: 12:59 - 13:59 Mercurii hora.
IX: 13:59 - 14:59 Lunae hora.
X: 14:59 - 15:59 Saturni hora.
XI: 15:59 - 16:59 Iovis hora.
XII: 16:59 - 17:59 Martis hora.
 
Horae noctis :
 
I: 17:59 - 18:59 Solis hora.
II: 18:59 - 19:59 Veneris hora.
III: 19:59 - 20:59 Mercurii hora.
IV: 20:59 - 21:59 Lunae hora.
V: 21:59 - 22:59 Saturni hora.
VI: 22:59 - 00:00 Iovis hora.
VII: 00:00 - 01:07 Martis hora.
VIII: 01:07 - 02:14 Solis hora.
IX: 02:14 - 03:21 Veneris hora.
X: 03:21 - 04:28 Mercurii hora.
XI: 04:28 - 05:35 Lunae hora.
XII: 05:35 - 06:42 Saturni hora.
 

Valete.
 
C. Petronius Dexter.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61876 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Salve,
Thank you for following in the steps of the ancients.
I have been attempting to do the same.
In ancient Rome if something like this had happened we would be
consulting the priests, asking for auguries and haurispces.
May the Gods smiles and bless Nova Roma and all her citizens

Di vos incolumes custodiant.
G.I.N.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L Julia Aquila" <dis_pensible@...>
wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Grátiás tibi ago
>
> Vale
> Julia Aquila
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina
> <violetphearsen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus cn.caelius@>
> wrote:
> >  
> > Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Pontificibus omnibusque s.p.d.
> >
> > Let's step back from laws, lawsuits, character flaws, and the
like
> for a moment and ask a question:  Have the gods been consulted on
> this matter of Sulla and Cato? Have they been asked their opinions
> and wishes? Will they be consulted? Are they ever consulted?
> > Pontifices et Sacerdotes? Comments?>>
> >  
> > Well I am glad someone bothered to ask this question.
> > Makes it a little easier for me to post this.
> >  
> > As I read everyone's comments yesterday about Cato and Sulla, I
> felt an uneasiness. So this morning, I made special prayers to
> Vesta, the Heart of ancient Rome and so, too, of Nova Roma. I asked
> Her why She has stirred these uneasy feelings deep within me? My
> feelings of uneasiness did not stop; quite the opposite, they
> intensified.
> > I decided to burn sage in the fire I now keep lit 24/7 in my new
> hearth. Sage was sacred to the ancient Romans, so I thought it
would
> be a good choice.
> > When I thought on Cato and burned the sage, I was not uneasy.
> > When I thought on Sulla and burned the sage, I was very uneasy.
> > I ask Vesta why this was so. I then prayed and mediated
for almost
> an hour.
> > Now I will tell you that I did not read Sulla's post on his
> decision until after I had done this. He can make the most
convincing
> of arguments, but the Gods see beyond mere words.
> > It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses of
Rome
> are severely displeased that anyone should resort to the use of
legal
> force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It sets a dangerous
precedent.
> > I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
> > As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
> >  
> > So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova
Roma.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61877 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES

 A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.

As one of the students involved, I have to say that I found
Quintilianus' announcement not completely correct.

    ATS:  It isn’t correct in a number of respects, nor are some comments in curia and elsewhere by more than one party.  

After the server went down in December, Tullia Scholastica's already
huge workload increased, because it's very different to hold courses
within an automated framework, like AT, and to hold them by email.

    ATS:  Indeed it is, and even to hold them by Yahoo list is not easy, particularly since Yahoo evidently hates Spanish, and will not accept the text translations into Spanish.  Guess what that means?  

None of the students have received any information on when courses
were expected to resume, nor did we get any apologies or explanations.
Apparently Scholastica wasn't kept up to date either, because she
could never give us this information.

    ATS:  Of course not; I cannot give what I do not have.  Plauta, one has to understand the mindset at the AT:  in the eyes of the administration at least, it is a secret society, perhaps something like the Masons, where no one except for a chosen few is allowed to know what is going on.  Perhaps it is necessary to be a male Scandinavian RR practitioner; I was the only woman there, and that seems to have proven troublesome.  I didn’t know the secret handshake or have the decoder ring.  It has been almost impossible to extract any information about the health of the server (or anything else), and most recently the majority of that appeared in curia because I dared to mention this in the context of an agenda item, as is quite proper to do.   That, of course, brought about the usual reward.  

OK, the courses are free, so there's little ground for complaint (you
get what you pay for), but at least a periodical update on the
situation on this list would have been a nice gesture.

    ATS:  It certainly would be nice, now wouldn’t it?  The faculty and students are the last to know anything which concerns them, and now the latter apparently won’t even be allowed to obtain the credit they will have earned at the end of the course if they pass the exams.  No sensible institution dismisses a teacher in the middle of a course, but that is just a sample of the none-so-high regard with which faculty and students are held by certain parties.  Avitus should have been paid a couple of million bucks for the amount of work he did for them, and I wouldn’t have minded a good bit less for devoting four years of my life to the academia and its students...but we rarely got a good word from the administration, not even a word of thanks.  The students thanked me, not the administration.  

    Many and various are the places where no good deed goes unpunished.  We’ve just seen a fine example of this.  

    

Optime valete,
Livia

Optime vale, et valete.  


>
> >  A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae
voluntatis,
> > praesertim linguae Latinae foventibus studentibusve S.P.D.
> >
> >     My comments are interleaved; this announcement was hardly
unexpected.
> >  
> >
> > RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS IV ACADEMIAE THVLES
> >
> > ANNOUNCEMENT BY
> > the Praescriptor Academia Thules ad S.R.A. et N.
> >
> > By the power invested in me as the Praescriptor of the Academia
Thules and
> > after consultation with the Rector and the Board of directors I
hereby, with
> > immidiate execution, dimiss Aula Tullia Scholastica from the
Academia Staff
> > and as a praeceptor of the Academia Thules and do not prolong any
of her
> > assignments within the Academia Thules.
> >
> >     ATS:  All that this means is 1) the Academia Thules no longer
has a
> > classics faculty, in concert with the absence of course materials
for ANY
> > courses due to the extreme problems with the dead course server;
and 2) those
> > students currently enrolled in Latin courses for which they
registered at the
> > Academia may not receive credit for them.  Inasmuch as I promised
them that I
> > would report their marks to the Academia so that they could
receive credit,
> > this is a violation of their trust in the Academia and its
administration.  If
> > the Academia cared about the students, they would have waited
until the end of
> > the academic year for this nonsense; after all, one course will
complete its
> > instructional program in about two weeks, and the others will
likely end in a
> > couple of months.   However, tempers flared, and as happens all
too often in
> > such cases, good sense got lost in the shuffle, to the detriment
of the
> > students, not me.
> >     
> >
> > Although she at times have handle a huged work load, she has
shown no loyalty
> > towards the Academia and its leadership and no ability to work in
a team.
> >
> >     ATS:  Yes, I have a huge course load.  I was loyal to the
Academia as long
> > as that was possible.  Avitus and I are not subservient doormats
to be treated
> > as such, our suggestions ignored or shot down, our abilities
unappreciated,
> > etc., etc.  I have been working as a team insofar as it was
possible amid the
> > lack of information about the mortally-wounded course server and
other issues.
> >
> >
> > She has further publicly talked about the grades of students and
the
> > performance of individual students,
> >
> >     ATS:  Translation:  I publicly congratulated students who
completed the
> > intermediate Latin courses.  They deserve public recognition for
this
> > accomplishment.  It is not easy, especially for an adult, to
complete a course
> > anywhere near as demanding as our Latin courses are.  Perhaps,
too, I urged
> > one to get her work in on time...dreadful crimes, those.
> >
> >
> > something that to most professional teachers in itself is a
disgrace and
> > motivates dismissal. Inshort our patience with this individual
has come to an
> > end after years of internal and (forced) public efforts to
correct her
> > behavior.
> >
> > After her latest outburst in the Senate against the Acadenia and
its Rector,
> > which was formost based on misunderstandings and guesses,
> >
> >     ATS:  There was no outburst, simply honest remarks about a
topic on the
> > agenda.  
> >
> >
> > it is hard to remember all the good she has done, Still it is
true that people
> > are complicated, and as many of us Scholastica has good sides
too. She just
> > seems impossible to work with, at least in the Academia.
> >
> >     ATS:  Indeed, Avitus and I have found it quite difficult to
work with
> > Saturninus, who seems quite intransigent.  There are, however,
other fish in
> > the sea; no prospective student should feel that Latin courses
will no longer
> > be offered by me and/or Avitus; we will see to it that they are,
by whatever
> > means necessary.  No one else is authorized to use our course
materials.  It
> > would be in the Academia’s best interest, and that of the
students, to rescind
> > this announcement pending the completion of the academic year so
that the
> > students can receive credit for their courses.  To do otherwise
is a violation
> > of student trust, and student rights.  You may not like it that I
am
> > conducting the courses apart from your umbrella, but the failure
of the server
> > coupled with other matters forced that, and forced me to separate
myself from
> > you.  You are too late to remove me; I removed myself after
winter break, and
> > continued with the academia only so that the students would
receive the credit
> > they will have earned at the successful completion of their
courses.  A good
> > many probably do not care about that, but for those who do, you
should allow
> > them that opportunity.  It is their right.
> >
> >     Privatim:  Caeca, amica, I received your note on this, but
your ISP is
> > currently treating posts from mine as spam, so my reply to you
about sodalitas
> > membership bounced.  Perhaps you could inform them that my ISP is
better than
> > its reputation seems to be at times.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> > ************************************************
> > Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> > Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
> >
> >
> > ===============
> >
> >
> > Valete.  
> >
> >  
> >
> >   
> >
>

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61878 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordialia Now
Praetor Memmius omnibus s.d.

I add my voice to the message cast by my colleague Equitius Marinus.

Let us *all* respect our Concordalia day. Even if a topic has been
launched before this day and needs in your mind, especially because
you are/feel directly concerned, a reply, keep your answer in
the "pocket of your stola/toga" today. Life will go on tomorrow.

Keep away from the forum, think about yourself, your family, your
relatives and our republic, and our everyone of us involvement in
it. :-) Look at the sky, hear the first songs of the bird, the coming
of spring...

Our forum does not really need any of our individual opinions on this
special day. Concordalia is more important than our individual
satisfactions. ;-)

Valete bene omnes, et familia,


P. Memmius Albucius
praetor





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete quirites,
>
> It being after midnight in Rome, the Concordialia has begun.
Please
> remind yourself of the solemnety of the occasion by reading
Pontifex
> Lentulus' words below. In particular, note that:
>
> > Nova Roma has to be a peaceful place with noble emotions. The
day
> > is auspicious: no bad word is permitted to be pronounced.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
>
> "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> writes:
>
> > Cn. Lentulus pontifex, scriba aedilis curulis omnibus Quiritibus
s. p. d.
> >
> >
> > The celebration of the 11th birthday of Nova Roma will start
> > tomorrow, and the Nova Roman Games will last 11 days
commemorating
> > each year of our existence.
> >
> > Worship Goddess Concordia whom we need in our Republic and
prepare
> > yourselves to the celebration.
> >
> > Tomorrow Nova Roma has to be a peaceful place with noble
emotions.
> > The day is auspicious: no bad word is permitted to be pronounced.
> >
> > I ask the consuls and/or the praetors to perform sacrifices on
> > behalf of the republic, I ask the same thing from all of our
priests
> > and priestesses.
> >
> > No bad words be pronounced!
> >
> > Sacred day comes.
> >
> >
> > CVRATE VT VALEATIS NOVI QVIRITES!
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61879 From: Avv. Claudio Guzzo Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: templa
Salve.
I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
The price is E. 40.000.
Vale.
ACC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61880 From: Avv. Claudio Guzzo Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Novae Romae referendum
Salve.
Roma can't be a "modern" state.
To abolish the entire Nova Roma's "Constitution", please write
YES
Vale!
ACC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61882 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordalia!
Cato omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete!

Here's an interesting bit about a temple to Concordia:

"He [Gnaeus Flavius, a curule aedile] made public the legal forms and
processes which had been hidden away in the closets of the pontiffs;
he exhibited a calendar written on whitened boards in the Forum, on
which were marked the days on which legal proceedings were allowed; to
the intense disgust of the nobility he dedicated the temple of Concord
on the Vulcanal. At this function the Pontifex Maximus, Cornelius
Barbatus, was compelled by the unanimous voice of the people to recite
the usual form of devotion in spite of his insistence that in
accordance with ancestral usage none but a consul or a commander-in-
chief could dedicate a temple. It was in consequence of this that the
Senate authorised a measure to be submitted to the people providing
that no one should presume to dedicate a temple or an altar without
being ordered to do so by the Senate or by a majority of the tribunes
of the plebs." - Livy, History of Rome IX.46

There's all kinds of fascinating stuff in just this one paragraph.

First, Cn. Flavius was the first (in 304 BC) to publish the calendar
so that the People could see it, called the Ius Flavianum. This
calendar also described the legis actiones, or verbal formulas
required to maintain legal proceedings, and the dies fasti, or
specified days on which proceedings could be instituted. He had
learned all this as secretary to Appius Claudius Caecus, who served as
consul and censor (and who, by the way, built the "queen of highways",
the Appian Way). Previous to this, only the pontiffs an patricians
had access to the calendar; now, everyone could see what day it was
and what was allowed and not allowed, legally.

Second, we see that the "voice of the people" caused an change in the
way things were done - a change in the mos maiorum. The Pontifex
Maximus Cornelius Barbatus tried to refuse to dedicate Gn. Flavius'
temple to Concordia saying that it wasn't proper - that it went
against an ancient practice. The people said, "we don't care, we want
this temple", and the PM was obliged to obey them. The mos maiorum was
not a block of stone, a rigid, inflexible road-block, but was rather
bent and shaped according to the will of the people as circumstances
demanded.

Third, we see that, in order to change the law so that who could or
could not dedicate a temple was made clear, the Senate was obliged to
submit a new law "to the people".

Valete!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61883 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Cato "ACC" omnibusque in foro SPD

Salve et salvete.

ACC, would you mind writing out your name so we can address you
properly?

Anyways, I am all for it, BUT it needs to be done carefully and in a
certain way, to protect us as a corporation.

I explained earlier that the very first step must be a separation of
the Constitution of Nova Roma from the bylaws of the Corporation.

This can only be done by using the method that is outlined in our
laws. It needs to be written up as legislation and submitted to the
praetors, consuls or tribunes for presentation to the proper comitia,
as detailed in the lex Moravia de suffragiis in comitiis plebis
tributis et ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum and the lex Fabia de
ratione comitiorum populi tributorum.

Vale et valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61884 From: M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Concordalia
M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul omnibus S·P·D·


In toga praetexta, cinto Gabino and ad capite velato on behalf of the
res publica of Nova Roma and joint with my collega Consul Severus and
both Praetores I began the prayers and sacrifice to dea Concordia


Praefatio


"Iane pater, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Father Ianus, by
offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be
willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma." I
placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Iuppiter
Best and Greatest, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of Nova Roma." I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Dea, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Goddess Iuno, by
offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be
willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma." I
placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Minerva Dea, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Goddess Minerva, by
offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be
willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma." I
placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Mars pater, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Father Mars, by
offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be
willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma.]" I
placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Quirine pater, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae [Father Quirinus,
by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be
willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma.]" I
placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iane pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Ianus, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus
of the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene
precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Iuppiter Best
and Greatest, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were
well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I
poured a libation on the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you
the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be
honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus of the
altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Minerva, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.

"Mars pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Mars, as by offering to
you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this
be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus of
the altar.

"Quirine pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Quirinus, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.

I washed my hands in preparation for the praecatio.

Precatio

"Dea Concordia Dea, fons felix pacis amicitiaeque nostrae, quae in mente
communi omnes Romanos consociat, quae post caedem tribunorum
sacrosanctorum Senatum ad templum exstruendum coegit ut concordia
ordinum redintegretur, tibi fieri oportet culignam vini dapi, eius rei
ergo hac illace dape pullucenda esto [Goddess Concordia, fortunate font
of our peace and friendship, who unites all Romans in a common purpose,
who after the murder of sacrosanct tribunes compelled the Senate to
erect a temple to restore the concord of the orders, to you it is proper
for a cup of wine to be given, for the sake of this thing may you be
honoured by this feast offering]." I poured a libation on the focus of
the altar.

Again I washed my hands in preparation for the redditio.

Redditio

"Concordia Dea, fons felix pacis amicitiaeque nostrae, macte istace dape
pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Concordia, fortunate
font of our peace and friendship, may you be honoured by this feast
offering, may you be honoured by the humble wine.]" I offered Concordia
cakes and wine on the focus of the altar.

"Quirine pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Quirinus, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.

"Mars pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Mars, as by offering to
you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this
be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus of
the altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Minerva, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you
the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be
honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus of the
altar.

"Iane pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Ianus, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the focus
of the altar.

"Vesta Dea, custos ignis sacri, macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Vesta,
guardian of the sacred fire, be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured
a libation on the focus of the altar.

"Illicet"

I profaned wine and cakes, and I partook of the epulum with Concordia,
praying as I ate and offering libations in my private devotions.

"Concordia Dea, si quidquam tibi in hac aut ulla caerimonia displicet,
hoc ture veniam peto et vitium meum expio [Goddess Concordia, if
anything in this or any ceremony is displeasing to you, with this
incense I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I offered incense on
the focus of the altar.

"Concordia Dea, si quidquam tibi in hac aut ulla caerimonia displicet,
his libis veniam peto et vitium meum expio [Goddess Concordia, if
anything in this or any ceremony is displeasing to you, with these cakes
I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I offered cakes on the focus
of the altar.

"Concordia Dea, si quidquam tibi in hac aut ulla caerimonia displicet,
hoc folio laureo veniam peto et vitium meum expio [Goddess Concordia, if
anything in this or any ceremony is displeasing to you, with this leaf
of laurel I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I offered a leaf of
laurel on the focus of the altar.

"Concordia Dea, si quidquam tibi in hac aut ulla caerimonia displicet,
his stirpibus croci veniam peto et vitium meum expio [Goddess Concordia,
if anything in this or any ceremony is displeasing to you, with these
shoots of saffron I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I offered
stalks of saffron on the focus of the altar.

"Concordia Dea, si quidquam tibi in hac aut ulla caerimonia displicet,
hoc vino inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio [Goddess Concordia, if
anything in this or any ceremony is displeasing to you, with this humble
wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61885 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: KALENDAE MARTIAE: MATRONALIA
M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum, gentilibus, Quiritibus, et
omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Dea Iuno vos porrigat opitula.

Undecimum Annum Anniversum Novae Romae bonum faustum felicem!

Hodie est Martias Kalendas; haec dies nefastus est: DIE QUINTI TE
KALO, IUNO COVELLA: matronae celebrabant, quod eo die Junonis Lucinae
aedes coli coepta erat.

This is the First Day of the New Year of the Roman Religious Calendar
as it was established by Rex Numa Pompilius. The laurels of the
Flamines are now replaced, having stood all year, fresh laurels are
fixed on the door of the Rex Sacrorum in the Regia and for the Curiae
Veteres, at the home of the Curio Magister and all of the shrines of
the Curiae, and we assume as well at the homes of all the curiones as
all the flamines Curiales are attested. The sacred laurel was used
to ward off evil from all those who entered the houses, including the
Great Houses of the Gods (Geoponica 11.2). In front of the sacrarium
of Mars, located at the Regia, there stood two laurel trees (Julius
Obsequens, Prodigiorum 19). These sacred trees were dedicated to Mars
and it is thought that they supplied the boughs of laurel that were
used on this day to protect the temples and homes of the sacerdotes.

On this day, too, laurel wreaths are affixed to the Aedes Vestae and
the Sacred Fire of Vesta is ritually extinguished. The hands of the
Vestales are then whipped by the Pontifex Maximus before they begin
to rekindle the flame, using.a fire drill and a block of wood made
from one of the felices arbores. (Macr. Sat. 1.12.6; Ovid, Fasti
3.137-144).


AUC 374 / 379 BCE: Dedication of the Temple of Juno Lucina on the
Esquiline Hill

Juno Lucina was said to have received Her name from the sacred grove
on the Esquiline where Her temple was eventually built. That is, that
Lucina was derived from 'locus'. In front of Her temple there
remained a lotus tree, the second oldest in the City. The oldest
lotus tree was called the Capillata, from the Vestales hanging locks
of their hair from its limbs as an offering [Pliny, N. H. 16.85
(235)]. New brides were brought to the sacred grove of Lucina where
they were purified in order to make them fertile. As at the
Lupercalia, this purification ritual involved whipping the bride

A grove below the Esquiline Hill, untouched
For many years, was sacred to great Juno.
When they had gathered there, husbands and wives
Bowed their knees, alike, in supplication,
And suddenly the tree tops moved and trembled,
And the goddess spoke strange words in her grove:
`Let the sacred he-goat pierce the Italian wives'.
The crowd stood, terrified, at the troubling words.
There was an augur (his name is lost with the years,
But he had lately arrived, an exile from Tuscany),
He killed a he-goat and, at his command, the wives
Offered their backs, to be beaten by thongs from its hide.
When the moon renewed her horns in her tenth orbit,
The husband became a father, and the wife a mother.
Thanks be to Lucina! Goddess you took that name
From the grove (lucus), or as yours is the source of light (lucis).
Gracious Lucina, spare women heavy with child, I beg you,
And bring the ripe burden tenderly from the womb.
~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 2.435-452

The cultus Iunonis Lucinae was said to have been introduced by Rex
Titus Tatius, with Her grove near the sixth shrine of the Argei
(Varro, LL v.49-50, 74; Dionys 4.1.5). Servius Tullius later ordered
that gifts for new-born children should be offered into the treasury
of Juno Lucina's templum, traditionally a coin, and it was here that
records were kept of all births in the City (Dionys 4.1.5).


: Matronalia :

The festival of Matronalia did not come from the dedication of
Lucina's temple. Rather it refers to the custom of husbands giving
gifts to their wives on this the first day of the New Year. Roman
men would also serve their female slaves on this day. With marriages
commonly taking place in the latter half of June, a new bride might
be expected to be in her tenth moon by 1 March, which could explain
the Matronalia. And if she was not, that might explain her visit to
Juno Lucina's grove on 1 March to ensure her fertility.


Since today is Matronalia and the dies natalis of the Temple of Juno
Lucina, as well as the first day of the month of Mars, a late
tradition perhaps celebrated today as the birthday of Mars. There
does not seem to be any knowledge of this among Classical authors.
Ovid instead places the birth of Mars on 2 May, which is when he
tells the story of how Juno became pregnant from a lily, assisted by
Flora. The only evidence of today being thought the birthday of Mars
is an annotation on the calendar of Philocratus, Mars natalis. But
this might easily have referred to the dedication date of some temple
of Mars.


AUC 538 / 215 BCE The sacred Grove of Juno at Croton

"Six miles away from this famous city (Croton), on a promontory there
was the temple dedicated to Juno Lacinia, a building more famous even
than the city itself and held in veneration to all the surrounding
communities. There was a grove here enclosed by dense forest and
lofty fir-trees, in the middle of which there was a glade affording
delightful pasture. In this glade cattle of every kind, sacred to the
Goddess, used to feed without any one to look after them, and at
nightfall the different herds separated each to their own stalls
without any beasts of prey lying in wait for them or any human hands
to steal them. These cattle were a source of great profit, and a
column of solid gold was made from the money thus gained and
dedicated to the Goddess. Thus the temple became celebrated for its
wealth as well as for its sanctity, and as generally happens in these
famous spots, some miracles also were attributed to it. It was
commonly reported that an altar stood in the porch of the temple, the
ashes on which were never stirred by any wind." ~ Titus Livius 24.3


Our thought for today is from Stobaeus, Ethical Sentences 47.

"It is not possible for a horse to be governed without bridle, nor
riches without prudence."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61886 From: M. Lucretius Agricola Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: RENVNTIATIO PRAESCRIPTORIS ACADEMIAE THVLES
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
<fororom@...> wrote:
>
> > A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae
voluntatis,
> > praesertim linguae Latinae foventibus studentibusve S.P.D.
> >
> > My comments are interleaved; this announcement was hardly
unexpected.
> >
> >

> > She has further publicly talked about the grades of students and the
> > performance of individual students,
> >
> > ATS: Translation: I publicly congratulated students who
completed the
> > intermediate Latin courses. They deserve public recognition for this
> > accomplishment. It is not easy, especially for an adult, to
complete a course
> > anywhere near as demanding as our Latin courses are. Perhaps,
too, I urged
> > one to get her work in on time...dreadful crimes, those.
> >



This is a lie. Quoting from this forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/49920



"...apparently you have misunderstood my Latin, which is not intended
for the elementary level at which you remain, and will remain so long
as you keep dropping Latin classes as soon as they get beyond what you
have already managed to learn. By now you must have started Avitus¹
class three or four times, and mine as well, plus Scaurus¹ one which
preceded mine and the so-called intensive one at your university, all
of which you dropped."



This is just one concrete example of many of the abuse of position
that Senator Quintilianus mentioned, but only one is needed to show
the lie.

MLA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61887 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 1
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Today is the first day of the eleven day celebration of Nova Roma's existence. Our respublica has had at times a turbulent past and it means many different things to each citizen. Given the various stresses and strains on such a relatively young structure people could be forgiven for marveling at the fact that Nova Roma still exists, but I happen to believe that it will endure for many a year to come, and whilst it might not always reflect what we imagined when we first assumed our citizenship, it still lives. Each day that the respublica endures is another day that we can move it forward towards our own individual perception of its ideal state, but that requires participation in the life of Nova Roma. I hope that this year will see an increase in the involvement of all of our citizens in the life and activities of Nova Roma, recognizing that only through such participation and engagement will those original hopes and expectations, which usually are far more idealistic than those we hold a few years into citizenship, be achieved. 
 
In recognition of that eleven year milestone as aedilis curulis I declare the opening of the Ludi Novi Romani. Each day for the next eleven days I will post two questions that relate to the history of Nova Roma. To that end I invite you all to participate in this quiz.
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 1
 
Q1. Name those citizens who were elected consul of Nova Roma more than once?
Q2. How many senators were in the original senate at the foundation of Nova Roma, and who were they?

Optime valete.
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61888 From: Titus Iulius Sabinus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: The 11th Birthday of Nova Roma - Mercurius ritual.
T. Iulius Sabinus, pontifex, sacerdos Mercuri, proconsul Daciae:
magistratibus, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, civibus Novae Romae,
quiritibus et peregrinibus: salutem plurimam dicit:

Undecimum Annum Anniversum Novae Romae bonum faustum felicem!

Today, the day of 11th Nova Roma anniversary, I performed a
sacrifice to Mercurius. I have worshiped Mercurius to obtain his
benevolence, praying Him to be willingly propitious with us and to
protect us against the negative effects of the current economical
crisis.
My thoughts were directed to all of us and my hope is as Mercurius
to receive well the prayers and the sacrifice and take care about
our jobs, businesses and investments, travels safety and bless us
with fortune in the time will come.

This was the ritual:

Favéte linguís!

(Beginning of the sacrifice)

PRAEFATIO:

Mercuri,
té hóc túre commovendó bonás precés precor,
uti sies volens propitius Populó Novó Rómánó Quirítibus,
mihi, domo, familiae!

(Incense was placed in the focus of the altar.)

Mercuri,
uti té túre commovendó bonás precés precátus sum,
eiusdem reí ergó macté vínó inferió estó!"

(Libation of wine was made.)

PRECATIO:

Mercuri,
hóc die anniversárió undecimo Novae Rómae conditae,
té precor, quaesóque:
uti Rem Publicam Populí Noví Rómání Quirítium
confirmés, augeás, adiúvés;
utíque divitiae, opes, fortunae Populí Noví Rómání Quirítium
hóc annó anniversárií undecimi Novae Rómae conditae
créscant et convaléscant;
utíque sies volens propitius
nóbis pontificibus, senatui populóque Novó Rómánó,
consulibus, praetóribus, cénsóribus, aedílibus,
quaestóribus, tribúnís plébis, omnibus cívibus,
mihi, domo, familiae!

SACRIFICIUM:

Quárum rérum ergó macté
hóc vínó libandó,
hóc túre ommovendó
estó fító volens propitius
hóc annó anniversárií undecimi Novae Rómae conditae
populó Novó Rómánó Quirítibus,
nóbis, domibus, familiís!

(Libation of wine was made and incense was sacrificed)

Ílicet!

(End of the sacrifice)

PIACULUM:
Iáne,
Mercuri,
Iuppiter, Iúnó, Minerva,
Concordia, Omnés Dí Immortálés:
sí quid vóbis in hác caerimóniá displicuit,
hóc vínó inferió veniam petó
et vitium meum expió.

(Libation of wine was made.)
----------------------------

I remind you the web address of the Aedes Mercuri, where you can
post your prayers:
http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/Temple-of-Mercurius.htm
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61889 From: Appius Galerius Aurelianus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Salve Claudio,

Kudos to you.Well done.I hope all will agree.Thank you for your work.

Vale,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus


--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Avv. Claudio Guzzo <claudio.guzzo@...> wrote:

> From: Avv. Claudio Guzzo <claudio.guzzo@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] templa
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 3:23 AM
> Salve.
> I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> The price is E. 40.000.
> Vale.
> ACC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61890 From: C. Stricklin Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Salvete,
 
 
I for one will never leave Nova Roma. Long Live the Senate.
 
 
 
 
T. Ovidius Aquila
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61891 From: James Hooper Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Me neither.. Im in till the wheels come off


On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:19:30 -0600
"C. Stricklin" <stricklin_c@...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
>
> I for one will never leave Nova Roma. Long Live the Senate.
>
>
>
>
> T. Ovidius Aquila

BB,
Warrior
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61892 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: What's going on? and why so many are leaving?
Hail yeah Caesar! I'm not only a pleased Roman here to stay, I started the Roman Empire on Guam. Reply for proof via the company's web site. Roman is a way.

Long Live Roma!

Robin Marquardt
Roma Construction Company 

 



From: James Hooper <warrior44_us@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 5:32:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:What's going on? and why so many are leaving?

Me neither.. Im in till the wheels come off

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:19:30 -0600
"C. Stricklin" <stricklin_c@ hotmail.com> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
>
> I for one will never leave Nova Roma. Long Live the Senate.
>
>
>
>
> T. Ovidius Aquila

BB,
Warrior


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61893 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
<claudio.guzzo@...> wrote:
>
> Salve.
> I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> The price is E. 40.000.
> Vale.
> ACC
>
so that somewhere about $51,000 USD
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61894 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
<claudio.guzzo@...> wrote:
>
> Salve.
> Roma can't be a "modern" state.
> To abolish the entire Nova Roma's "Constitution", please write
> YES
> Vale!
> ACC
>
?!?
Salve
the NR Constitution is not modern .
and till we have a Mos , we will need a "Constitution"
so again I ask you , what are you talking about.
vale
Marcus Cornelius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61895 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Cato Cornelio Felico sal.

Salve Felix.

We certainly don't need a "Constitution". I wrote a long post
detailing why a couple of days ago.

Vale,

Cato


> ?!?
> Salve
> the NR Constitution is not modern .
> and till we have a Mos , we will need a "Constitution"
> so again I ask you , what are you talking about.
> vale
> Marcus Cornelius Felix
> Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
> Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61896 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: CONCORDIALIA RITUAL for the 11th Birthday of the Nova Roman Republic
CN CORNELIUS LENTULUS : PONTIFEX : SACERDOS CONCORDIAE : QUIRITIBUS : S P D


Salvete et avete, Novi Romani Quirites!


Vivat Nova Roma!


This day is when everything was started - because of which we can be here: today, 11 years ago, Nova Roma was founded, a nation was born.

This nation wants a common goal: to restore Rome. But to this goal, we have to work efficiently, cooperatively, with united force, common spirit, with one will and one faith. Therefore we chose to worship Goddes Concordia, the Goddess of the Nova Roman People's Concord - She is whom we need first and foremost in this 11-years-old Republic.

Citizens of Nova Roma... I know we have many conflicts, frustrations, anger, pain. But we are still here: so we still want something with each other. We want Rome to revive. The way we have been walked and which caused these infinite flame wars isn't viable any more. It failed. From now, we must start thinking about each other as friends and comrades if we really want anything with this association. Our new way cannot be other than the way of cohesion and concordance. This day is here to remind you of that. This is the message of Concordialia: our new beginning.

Below you can find the texts of the ceremony and the rituals. The "Carmen Decennale" and the "Concordialia Hymn" by Ullerius Ventor, our dearest poet. Let's thank him again for these beautiful verses!



1. SACRIFICE TO CONCORDIA POPULI NOVI ROMANI QUIRITIUM


Favete linguis!

(Beginning of the sacrifice.)

PRAEFATIO

Dea Concordia,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia civium Novorum Romanorum,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
hisce Kalendis Martiis anni decimi Novae Romae conditae,
hoc die festivissimo et sanctissimo Novae Romae conditae,
te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor,
uti sies volens propitia Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus, Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, mihi, domo, familiae!

(Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)

Dea Concordia,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia civium Novorum Romanorum,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto!"

(Libation of wine is made.)

PRECATIO

Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
fortitudo et firmitas nostra,
hisce Kalendis Martiis anni undecimi Novae Romae conditae,
hoc die festivissimo et sanctissimo quo Nova Roma condita est,
te precor, veneror, quaesoque obtestorque:
uti pacem concordiamque constantem societati Novae Romae tribuas;
utique Rem Publicam Populi Novi Romani Quiritium confirmes, augeas, adiuves,
omnibusque discordiis liberes;
utique Res Publica Populi Novi Romani Quiritium semper floreat;
atque hoc anno anniversario undecimo Novae Romae conditae convalescat;
atque pax et concordia, salus et gloria Novae Romae omni tempore crescat, utique Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
mihi, domo, familiae
omnes in hoc anno decimo Novae Romae eventus bonos faustosque esse siris; utique sies volens propitia
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
magistratibus, consulibus, praetoribus Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
tribunis Plebis Novae Romanae,
Senatui Novo Romano,
omnibus civibus, viris et mulieribus, pueris et puellabus Novis Romanis,
mihi, domo, familiae!

SACRIFICIUM

Sicut verba nuncupavi,
quaeque ita faxis,
uti ego me sentio dicere:
harum rerum ergo macte
hoc libo libando,
hoc vino lacte melleque mixto libando,
hoc ture ommovendo
esto fito volens propitia
et hoc anno anniversario undecimo Novae Romae conditae et semper
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
magistratibus, consulibus, praetoribus Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
tribunis Plebis Novae Romanae,
Senatui Novo Romano,
omnibus civibus, viris et mulierbus, pueris et puellabus Novis Romanis,
mihi, domo, familiae!

(Libation of libum and wine is made and incense is sacrificed.)

REDDITIO

Dea Concordia,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia civium Novorum Romanorum,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
uti te ture commovendo et vino libando bonas preces bene precatus sum, earundem rerum ergo macte vino inferio esto!

(Libation of wine is made)

Ilicet!

(End of the sacrifice.)

PIACULUM

Iane,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Iuppiter Optime Maxmime,
Iuno, Minerva,
Omnes Di Immortales quocumque nomine:
si quidquam vobis in hac caerimonia displicet,
hoc vino inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio.

(Libation of wine is made.)



CARMEN DECENNALE
by St. Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus

"Rome To New Rome"

Rome
People
Of seven hills
Of river’s side and farmer’s field
Pastoral folk
Became
More

Men
Of clans
Did form their tribes
To secure land and folkways, too
Chose their leaders
Made laws
Thrived

Gods
Looked down
Upon this place
Gave Their notice and lent an ear
To voices raised
In praise
Clear

World
Became
Aware of Rome
Their wealth, their aims, their strength of arm
Some opposed them
Others
Not

Years
Did pass
And history
Saw rise of Rome and then a fall
When city slept
Paused for
Time

Dark
Was called
This dreaming time
As world wore on and learned again
To climb to light
Clearly
See

Fresh
Eyes looked
Upon the past
Felt in their hearts a call to build
Upon a base
Roman
Still

New
The thoughts
Set in motion
By stories old, traditions proud
Philosophies
Virtues
Too

Full
Ten years
Have passed by since
The work begun; build Rome anew
With high hopes and
Faithful
Words

In
This work
Are many hands
Widespread across this world of ours
All bound by one
Ideal
Grand

More
Than this
The People grew
By gens and class, they took their names
They gave their thoughts
And their
Skills

To
Rebuild
Rome as place to be
To live, to grow, to celebrate
To write, to sing
Holy
Words

Like
The old
Ageless city
New Rome’s forum did welcome all
To come and join
Speak their
Piece

Men
Women
Have come and gone
Some quietly, others quite loud
They all made mark
They all
Helped

For
All did
In their own way
Show Roman pride and spirit bold
Filled the Annals
City’s
Tales

Few
Have been
The fallow days
Unfilled by strife, both good and bad
Any effort
Will make
Such

Now
We pause
To look at this
Nova Roma, our city fair
She’s still quite young
Promise
Filled




VIVAT NOVA ROMA ANNORUM XI!
VIVAT NOVA ROMA FELICITER!
CONCORDIA NOS ADIUVET!

LONG LIVE THE 11-YEARS-OLD NOVA ROMA!
MAY NOVA ROMA HAVE A GLORIOUS FUTURE!
MAY CONCORDIA BLESS US!


VALETE IN CONCORDIA, QUIRITES!


Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus,
P O N T I F E X
SACERDOS CONCORDIAE
------------------------------------------
Legatus Pro Praetore Provinciae Pannoniae
Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae
Interpres Linguae Hungaricae
Accensus Consulum M. Curiatii Complutensis et M. Iulii Severi
Scriba Praetoris P. Memmii Albucii
Scriba Censorum Ti. Galerii Paulini et C. Popillii Laenatis
Scriba Aedilis Curulis Cn. Iulii Caesaris
Scriba Rogatricis A. Tulliae Scholasticae
Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae A. Tulliae Scholasticae
-------------------------------------------
Magister Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Dominus Factionis Russatae

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
http://mail.yahoo.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61897 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
That's certainly affordable. Thanks so much Claudio Guzzo.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
> <claudio.guzzo@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve.
> > I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> > The price is E. 40.000.
> > Vale.
> > ACC
> >
> so that somewhere about $51,000 USD
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61898 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
It may not be cheap but it be in our Gods given land.
How many of our members actualy live out there?


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
<catullus.poeta@...> wrote:
>
> That's certainly affordable. Thanks so much Claudio Guzzo.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
> > <claudio.guzzo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > > I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> > > The price is E. 40.000.
> > > Vale.
> > > ACC
> > >
> > so that somewhere about $51,000 USD
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61899 From: M Arminius Maior Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Good books about Roma
Salvete


I am interested in import some books this month, and i thought that perhaps my fellow novoromani could help me in selecting them. Do you have some these books? What is your opinion? Do you have suggestions to add to my list?

The books in my list about Rome are below (title,author):

1. Tiberius, Seager
2. Trajan, Bennett
3. Septimius Severus, Birley
4. Pompey (a biography, not the city), Seager
5. Scipio Africanus, Liddel Hart
6. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Luttwak
7. The Roman Triumph, Beard
8. Caesars Calendar, Feeney
9. Roman Empire, Rodgers
10. The Complete Roman Army, Goldsworthy
11. Cannae, Goldsworthy
12. The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla; Beesley
13. Rome's Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest, Murdoch
14. The Fires of Vesuvius: Pompeii Lost and Found, Beard
15. Cicero, Everitt
16. The Great Battles of Antiquity; Boose, Gabriel
17. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Brennan

Of those, the ones that are more appealing to me are the 4. (a modern and detailed biography), 5. (a somewhat rare republican biography, about someone that is famous and unknown to me), and 7. (seems to be deep in detail).


Valete
Marcus Arminius


Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61900 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Salvete omnes,
>
> It may not be cheap but it be in our Gods given land.
> How many of our members actualy live out there?
>
12 cives.

Valete,
Livia

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
> <catullus.poeta@> wrote:
> >
> > That's certainly affordable. Thanks so much Claudio Guzzo.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
> > > <claudio.guzzo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve.
> > > > I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> > > > The price is E. 40.000.
> > > > Vale.
> > > > ACC
> > > >
> > > so that somewhere about $51,000 USD
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61901 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
In a message dated 3/1/2009 4:09:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, marminius@... writes:
6. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Luttwak
This is really dated.  I wouldn't consider it a reference work any more.
 
Q. Fabius Maximus
 
 
 
 


A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61902 From: M Arminius Maior Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Salve

Hum, indeed, a closer look reveals that it is from the seventies. I am targeting for more recent books. Another suggestion for Strategy or Grand-Strategy? Or about great battles, campaigns?

Vale
M.Arminius

--- Em dom, 1/3/09, QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi@...> escreveu:
marminius@yahoo. com.br writes:
6. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Luttwak

This is really dated.  I wouldn't consider it a reference work any more.
 
Q. Fabius Maximus


Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61903 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> >
> > It may not be cheap but it be in our Gods given land.
> > How many of our members actualy live out there?
> >
> 12 cives.


Compared to how many in America?
Land in America would certainly be cheaper but it wouldnt be Roma


>
> Valete,
> Livia
>
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
> > <catullus.poeta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's certainly affordable. Thanks so much Claudio Guzzo.
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Avv. Claudio Guzzo"
> > > > <claudio.guzzo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve.
> > > > > I've found a land in Roma (Appia) mq. 9.750.
> > > > > The price is E. 40.000.
> > > > > Vale.
> > > > > ACC
> > > > >
> > > > so that somewhere about $51,000 USD
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61904 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus scriptori s.p.d.

>Land in America would certainly be cheaper but it wouldnt be Roma
 
    Nor was Rome until Romulus founded it. Is Rome a place, a people, an idea, or a culture? I'm of the belief that wherever we found physical communities of Romans, is Rome.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61905 From: Vaughn Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Yes and hile I beleiev the same we can't deny that the origional
seven hills that Romulus stood on should have some importance.




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus scriptori s.p.d.
>
> >Land in America would certainly be cheaper but it wouldnt be Roma
>
> Nor was Rome until Romulus founded it. Is Rome a place, a
people, an idea, or a culture? I'm of the belief that wherever we
found physical communities of Romans, is Rome.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61906 From: Gallagher Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: templa
Salve 
 
Well said
 
Vale
 
Paulinus
 

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: cn.caelius@...
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:52:34 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: templa

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus scriptori s.p.d.

>Land in America would certainly be cheaper but it wouldnt be Roma
 
    Nor was Rome until Romulus founded it. Is Rome a place, a people, an idea, or a culture? I'm of the belief that wherever we found physical communities of Romans, is Rome.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61907 From: M. Cocceius Firmus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Salvete Arminius

Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:09:34 AM, you wrote:

MAM> I am interested in import some books this month, and i thought
MAM> that perhaps my fellow novoromani could help me in selecting
MAM> them. Do you have some these books? What is your opinion? Do you
MAM> have suggestions to add to my list?
MAM>
MAM> The books in my list about Rome are below (title,author):

MAM> 2. Trajan, Bennett

I have this one, Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Its in the series Routledge
Imperial Biographies. I found it quite good (and the biography of Hadrian: the
Restless Emperor by Birley, even better).

MAM> 8. Caesars Calendar, Feeney

This one is on my 'to get' list.


--
M. Cocceius Firmus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61908 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Marino s.p.d.

    I wish to apologize to Gnaeus Equitius Marinus for my use of the term "cowardice" in my original message titled "Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead". I got caught up in the tide of emotions and did not wait to post that nor did I edit it before posting. "Cowardice" was definitely the wrong term to use; it did not convey my meaning. Something along the lines of "Do not hide behind unwritten custom when people request answers about important matters" would have been more appropriate.
    When people do not agree, they do not agree. They must still respect one another, and because of that respect itself they can do amazing things. Marinus is no coward; many vouch for him. I've never seen him act as a coward, either. My words were a mistake, and I apologize.
    Di te ament custodiantque, Marine! Et di Novam Romam ament custodiantque!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61909 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
Salve Ahenobarbe,

Thank you. That was graciously done. I accept fully and unreservedly.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> writes:

> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Marino s.p.d.
>
>
> I wish to apologize to Gnaeus Equitius Marinus for my use of the
> term "cowardice" in my original message titled "Maybe The Rubicon
> Is Ahead". I got caught up in the tide of emotions and did not wait
> to post that nor did I edit it before posting. "Cowardice" was
> definitely the wrong term to use; it did not convey my meaning.
> Something along the lines of "Do not hide behind unwritten custom
> when people request answers about important matters" would have been
> more appropriate.
> When people do not agree, they do not agree. They must still
> respect one another, and because of that respect itself they can do
> amazing things. Marinus is no coward; many vouch for him. I've never
> seen him act as a coward, either. My words were a mistake, and I
> apologize.
> Di te ament custodiantque, Marine! Et di Novam Romam ament custodiantque!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61910 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
In a message dated 3/1/2009 5:39:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, marminius@... writes:
Hum, indeed, a closer look reveals that it is from the seventies. I am targeting for more recent books. Another suggestion for Strategy or Grand-Strategy? Or about great battles, campaigns?
The reader of Classics from UoG in Athens Ga, Susan Mattern, wrote an excellent theory on Roman strategy of the first and second century  ad called "Rome and the Enemy."  isbn 0-520-21166-9
 
For the late Republic "War & Imperialism in Republican Rome" by William Harris is still the standard, while the Punic Wars are covered excently by Brian Caven's "Punic Wars," which is basically synthesis of Lazenby's two volume set about the Punic Wars, without having to read the Greek and Latin footnotes.  If you can read Greek & Latin, Lazenby is recommended. 
 
Q. Fabius Maximus  


Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61911 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-01
Subject: Re: Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus
A wonderful beginning to the suggestion made by Pontifex Lentulus in his post on Concordialia. May all our conflicts be solved as maturely and effectively. Here's to an even brighter tomorrow!
 
Valete,
T. Annaeus Regulus

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Maybe The Rubicon Is Ahead - Apology to Marinus

Salve Ahenobarbe,

Thank you. That was graciously done. I accept fully and unreservedly.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@yahoo. com> writes:

> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Marino
s.p.d.
>
>
> I wish to apologize to Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
for my use of the
> term "cowardice" in my original message titled "Maybe
The Rubicon
> Is Ahead". I got caught up in the tide of emotions and did
not wait
> to post that nor did I edit it before posting. "Cowardice" was
> definitely the wrong term to use; it did not convey my meaning.
> Something along the lines of "Do not hide behind unwritten custom
> when people request answers about important matters" would have been
> more appropriate.
> When people do not agree, they do not agree.
They must still
> respect one another, and because of that respect itself
they can do
> amazing things. Marinus is no coward; many vouch for him.
I've never
> seen him act as a coward, either. My words were a mistake,
and I
> apologize.
> Di te ament custodiantque, Marine! Et di Novam
Romam ament custodiantque!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius
Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis
Curulis
>
href="http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com">http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61912 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Concordia and Relighting the Fire Ritual

Salvete,

 

On March 1st, the Sacred Fire was re-kindled in the Temple of Vesta.

The eternal flame in Her temple represented the Goddess, for She could not be portrayed by statues. The flame in the temple was rekindled every year in a special ritual by rubbing two sticks together. If the fire went out, it had to be rekindled in the same way. Some say it was re-lighted by the use of a special mirror, but as I have no such mirror, I use the first method mentioned.

The Ritual I used today is the same as I used last year and posted here: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Vestal_ceremony_-_Ludi_Conditorum_2761_AUC_%28Nova_Roma%29

This year, I included this prayer to the Goddess, Concordia, at the end of the ritual before I distributed the Mola Salsa to the two women who were present for this ritual. 

 

This day I invoke

Concordia, Lady of hope 

With leaves of bay laurel

To end all quarrels

Great Goddess so gentle

Remove what is detrimental

To our growth and life

And heal all strife

Despite promises broken 

And a future uncertain 

Within us increase

Your harmony and peace.

 

The ritual was begun at sunset at my outside hearth and the fire carried to the hearth inside my home. All day it had been partly cloudy and that gave us a very beautiful sunset. After the ritual, I had an Italian dinner in lieu of a Roman feast, which was attended by several friends who are pagans from various traditions. We had a very lively discussion about the Goddess, Concordia. The conversation was very congenial as well and I felt certain that pleased Her immensely.  

 

 

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

 

Maxima Valeria Messallina

Sacerdos Vestalis

 

"Nihil apud Romanos Templo Vestae sanctius habetur."
"Among the Romans nothing is held more holy than the Temple of Vesta."

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61913 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: a. d. VI Nonas Martias: The First Augury at Rome
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus: cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et
omnibus salute plurimam dicit: Hercules felicitatem in nos impertiat

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

Romulus, Augur and Law-Giver

"It is said also that Romulus first introduced the consecration of
fire, and appointed holy virgins to guard it, called Vestals. Others
attribute this institution to Numa, although admitting that Romulus
was in other ways eminently religious, and they say further that he
was a diviner, and carried for purposes of divination the so called
lituus, a crooked staff with which those who take auguries from the
flight of birds mark out the regions of the heavens. This staff,
which was carefully preserved on the Palatine, is said to have
disappeared when the city was taken at the time of the Gallic
invasion; afterwards, however, when the Barbarians had been expelled,
it was found under deep ashes unharmed by the fire, although
everything about it was completely destroyed. He also enacted
certain laws, and among them one of severity, which forbids a wife to
leave her husband, but permits a husband to put away his wife for
using poisons, for substituting children, and for adultery; but if a
man for any other reason sends his wife away, the law prescribes that
half his substance shall belong to his wife, and the other half be
consecrate to Ceres; and whosoever puts away his wife, shall make a
sacrifice to the Gods of the lower world. It is also a peculiar
thing that Romulus ordained no penalty for parricides, but called all
murder parricide, looking upon one as abominable, and upon the other
as impossible. And for many ages his judgement of such a crime seemed
to have been right, for no one did any such deed at Rome for almost
six hundred years; but after the war with Hannibal, Lucius Hostius is
reported to have been the first parricide. So much, then, may suffice
concerning these matters." ~ Plutarch, Life of Romulus 22


"Among our ancestors nothing was done either publicly or privately
without first consulting the auspices." ~ Valerius Maximus 2.1.1


The First Augury at Rome

"Remus is said to have been the first to receive an omen: six
vultures appeared to him. The augury had just been announced to
Romulus when double the number appeared to him. Each was saluted as
king by his own party. The one side based their claim on the priority
of the appearance, the other on the number of the birds. Then
followed an angry altercation; heated passions led to bloodshed; in
the tumult Remus was killed. The more common report is that Remus
contemptuously jumped over the newly raised walls and was forthwith
killed by the enraged Romulus, who exclaimed, "So shall it be
henceforth with every one who leaps over my walls." Romulus thus
became sole ruler, and the city was called after him, its founder." ~
Titus Livius 1.7

"Why do they make most use of vultures in augury? Is it because
twelve vultures appeared to Romulus at the time of the founding of
Rome? Or is it because this is the least frequent and familiar of
birds? For it is not easy to find a vulture's nest, but these birds
suddenly swoop down from afar; wherefore the sight of them is
portentous. Or did they learn this also from Hercules? If Herodorus
tells the truth, Hercules delighted in the appearance of vultures
beyond that of all other birds at the beginning of any undertaking,
since he believed that the vulture was the most righteous of all
flesh-eating creatures; for, in the first place, it touches no living
thing, nor does it kill any animate creature, as do eagles and hawks
and the birds that fly by night; but it lives upon that which has
been killed in some other way. Then again, even of these it leaves
its own kind untouched; for no one has ever seen a vulture feeding on
a bird, as eagles and hawks do, pursuing and striking their own kind
particularly. And yet, as Aeschylus says, `How can a bird that feeds
on birds be pure?' And we may say that it is the most harmless of
birds to men, since it neither destroys any fruit or plant nor
injures any domesticated animal. But if, as the Egyptians fable, the
whole species is female, and they conceive by receiving the breath of
the East Wind, even as the trees do by receiving the West Wind, then
it is credible that the signs from them are altogether unwavering and
certain. But in the case of the other birds, their excitements in the
mating season, as well as their abductions, retreats, and pursuits,
have much that is disturbing and unsteady." ~Plutarch, Roman
Questions 93


"Why of birds is the one called "left-hand" a bird of good omen? Is
this not really true, but is it the peculiarity of the language which
throws many off the track? For their word for 'left' is
sinistrum; 'to permit' is sinere; and they say sine when they urge
giving permission. Accordingly the bird which permits the augural
action to be taken, that is, the avis sinisteria, the vulgar are not
correct in assuming to be sinistra and in calling it so. Or is it, as
Dionysius says, that when Ascanius, son of Aeneas, was drawing up his
army against Mezentius, and his men were taking the auspices, a flash
of lightning, ewhich portended victory, appeared on the left, and
from that time on they observe this practice in divination? Or is it
true, as certain other authorities affirm, that this happened to
Aeneas? As a matter of fact, the Thebans, when they had routed and
overpowered their enemies on the left wing at Leuctra, continued
thereafter to assign to the left the chief command in all battles. Or
is it rather, as Juba declares, that as anyone looks eastward, the
north is on the left, and some make out the north to be the right, or
upper, side of the universe? But consider whether it be not that the
left is by nature the weaker side, and they that preside over
auguries try to strengthen fand prop its deficient powers by this
method of equalization. Or was it that they believed earthly and
mortal matters to be antithetical to things heavenly and divine, and
so thought that whatever was on the left for us the gods were sending
forth from the right?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 78


Today's thought from Epictetus, Discourse 3.22, concerns becoming the
ideal philosopher:

"Reflect more carefully, know thyself, consult the divinity, without
God attempt nothing; for if He shall advise you, be assured that He
intends you to become great or to receive many blows. For this very
amusing quality is conjoined to a Cynic: he must be flogged like an
ass, and when he is flogged, he must love those who flog him, as if
he were the father of all, and the brother of all."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61914 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Results of the February session of the Collegium Pontificum
M. Moravius Horatianus Pontifex Maximus: Consilibus, Tribunibus
Plebis, Senatoribus Patribus Mátribusque Conscriptís Pontificibus,
Maximae Valeriae Messallinae, Virgoni Vestalis Maximae, Flaminibus,
Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus: salutem plurimam dicit:
Iubeo bono animo esse.

Ex Domo Pontifici Maximi:

Audi, Juppiter; audite, Di Deaeque celesti, Di terrestri, et Di
inferi; audite, populus Novae Romae, Quirites, ut illa palam prima
postrema ex illis tabulis cerave recitata sunt sine dolo malo, utique
ea hic hodie rectissime intellecta sunt, illis decretis populus Novus
Romanus non deficiet.

HOC AGETE!

The Collegium Pontificum, having met in its deliberations, issues the
following decreta:

ITEM I:

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
QUIRITIBUS

Upon conducting the annual review prescribed by the Decretum
Pontificum on minimum requirements, all Pontifices are retained in
office.

_______________________


ITEM II:

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
QUIRITIBUS:

The Collegium Pontificum issues the following:

Decretum de Renuntiationibus annuibus Sacerdotum

In order to assess the joint progress of religio Romana for the Res
Publica Populi Novae Romae, All Sacerdotes are hereby instructed to
provide an Annual Report (renuntiatio) to their respective Collegium
by the Kalends of October of each year.

1. All Citizens who hold a sacerdotal office (i. e. Rex and Regina
Sacrorum, Pontifex, Augur, Flamen Maiores and Minores, Vestal,
Decemvir, Epulo, Salius, Lupercus, Frater Arvalis, Sacerdos, etc.)
shall be required to submit an Annual Report of their activities by
the Kalends of October, feriae Fidei, each year to the Collegium
underwhich they hold office. Augurs shall report to the Magister
Collegii Augurum. Epulones will report to the Collegium Epulonorum.
The Decemviri shall report to the Collegium Decemvirorum. All other
Sacerdotes shall submit their Annual Reports to the Collegium
Pontificum. A combined Annual Report shall be prepared by the
Collegium Pontificum from the Reports of all sacerdotal Collegia and
Sodalitates. The Pontifex Maximus shall then submit the combined
Annual Report to the Consuls for presentation to the full Senate.

2. The Annual Report shall be a brief statement of the activities of
a Sacerdos over the previous year. They should report on what sacra
pro populo they performed on behalf of Nova Roma, when they performed
the rites, and at which location. They are to include a financial
statement on any donations they may have received or donated
themselves, and on all expenses they incurred while performing sacra
pro populo.

3. Sacerdotes may report on other activities, such as local
communities they organize, continuing educational programs or
lectures they attend, classes or tours they offer to their community.
They should also include a brief statement on what they plan on
accomplishing in the coming year.


____________________


ITEM III:

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
QUIRITIBUS:

The Collegium Pontificum issues the following:

Decretum de Membris Collegiorum

It is the desire of the Collegium Pontificum to return the religio
Romana to a simpler form. We look to the original sacerdotal offices
as first established by Rex Numa Pompilius, to the Republican reform
of the sacerdotal collegia, and to the wording of the Nova Roma
Constitution.

I De Membris Collegii Pontificum

A. The Collegium Pontificum shall be limited to the following
members, in rank of dignity:

1. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum
2. The Flamen and Flamenica Dialis
3. The Flamen Martialis
4. The Flamen Quirinalis
5. The Pontifex Maximus
6. Eight Pontifices
7. The Virgo Vestalis Maxima
8. Five Vestales Virgines
9. The Flamines and/or Flamenicae Minores

B. Each of the individual members of the Collegium Pontificum shall
hold a single vote and not be given a vote for each office he or she
may hold in the Collegium Pontificum.

C. All members of the Collegium Pontificum shall be privy to its
discussions. All members shall be allowed to express their opinion
during sessions of the Collegium. All voting members of the
Collegium shall be allowed to vote on any decretum brought up during
a session. The Pontifices may provide their commentary (in the form
of a responsum or visum) on any matter brought before the Collegium
Pontificum. Flamines and Vestales may contribute their own commentary
when the issue of concern relates to their particular cultus Deorum.
All members of the Collegium shall be eligible to take part in those
rituals in which the Collegium Pontificum as a whole is involved.


II De Membris Collegii Augurum

A. The Collegium Augurum shall be formed by the following, in rank of
dignity:

1. The Magister Collegii
2. Eight Augures

B. The members of the Collegium Augurum may administer their own
internal affairs by issuing a decretum (pl. decreta) as per the
Constitution VI.B.2.a.2.

C. All members of the Collegium Augurum shall be privy to the
discussions of the Collegium Augurum. All members shall be allowed to
express their opinion during sessions of the Collegium. All members
of the Collegium Augurum shall be voting members and shall be given
the opportunity to vote on any decretum brought up during a session.
Each member of the Collegium Augurum shall be eligible to take
auspicia and to issue responsa on the ius augurale independently of
other members of the Collegium.


III De Membris Collegii Duovirum Sacris Faciudis

The Collegium Duovirum Sacris Faciundis, not being originally
organized by Rex Numa Pompilius, shall be disbanded until such time
as a suitable restoration or substitution for the Sibylline Oracles
may be found.


IV De Membris Collegii Septemvirorum Epulonum

The Collegium Septemvirorum Epulum, not being originally organized by
Rex Numa Pompilius, shall for the time being be disbanded and
reorganized at a future date.


V De Insignia

The traditional insigna to distinguish between members of the
Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum are noted for
informational purposes.

1. The Rex Sacroum shall be designated bya toga trabea of purple
trimmed with white or silver.

2. The Regina Sacrorum shall be designated by wearing her hair up off
of her neck and tied with purple fillets, and by wearing a long gown;
she may wear purple.

3. The Flamen Dialis shall be designated by a toga praetexta, laena
with purple stripe, and albogalerus.

4. The Flamen Martialis shall be designated by a toga pura, laena
with scarlet stripe, and apex.

5. The Flamen Quirinalis shall be designated by a toga pura, laena
pura, and apex.

6. The Pontifex Maximus shall be designated by a toga praetexta and
culullus.

7. The Pontifices shall be designated by a toga praetexta and
simpuvium.

8. The Vestales Virgines shall be designated by a tunica recta with
cingulum, flammeum, and by their hair tied with white woolen fillets
in the distinctive seni crines (six braids of a bride), and by the
culullus.

9. Flamines Minores shall be designated by donning a laena pura and
apex during official functions.

10. Augures shall be designated by a toga trabea of three scarlet
stripes and a hem of purple, by the lituus and by the capis, and
additionally shall wear a purple-hemmed laena at sacrifices.


______________________


ITEM IV:

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
QUIRITIBUS:

By unanimous decision of the Collegium Pontificum: Marcus Antonius
Gryllus Graecus shall be reinstated as a Pontifex upon confirmation
of his status as an Assiduus.

Congratulations to M. Gryllus Graecus and welcome back.


____________________


ITEM V:

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
QUIRITIBUS:

Iulia Aquila is accepted into the Camilla Program.

Congratulations to Julia Aquila

____________________


Di immortales faciant – tam felix quam pia.


Ite nunc felix. Ite numinibus votisque secundis


Datum sub manu mea ante diem VI Nonas Martias M. Curiatio Complutensi
M. Iulio Severo consilibus in anno AUC MMDCCLXII
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61915 From: M•IVL• SEVERVS Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Salvete Quirites,
 

After wide and extensive consultations, we the Consuls decided not to oppose to the reinstatement of L. Cornelius Sulla as Senator, even if we do not and can not agree to what we consider blackmail to Nova Roma.

We are quite grateful to the Censors for their efforts to achieve a consensus, which we endorse completely, because we look, in everything, for the best service of our Res publica.

 

Salvete,

M•CVR•COMPLVTENSIS
CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ

SENATOR
CONSVL•HISPANIÆ

 

M•IVL•SEVERVS
CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ

 

SENATOR
CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61916 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Please update the Comitia Plebis Tributa group
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

The moderators of the Comitia Plebis Tributa Yahoo group are still last year's plebeian magistrates. This is the fourth time this request has been made (see CPT list for the other three).
Please update this immediately, and transfer moderation to the new plebeian magistrates.

Maximas gratias vobis ago, et optime vale!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61917 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
<<<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@...> wrote: 
It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses of Rome are severely displeased that anyone should resort to the use of legal force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It sets a dangerous precedent.
I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
 
So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.>>>
 
 
<<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:

    Who hears these words? If we hear them, do we truly listen? If we listen, do we act upon their truths? 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis>>
 
 
A few have heard, but even if no one did, I would still say them, especially since after reading the email below, my deep feelings of uneasiness returned. I feel strongly that Vesta and all the Gods and Goddesses of Rome are greatly offended by Sulla's "blackmail" of Nova Roma. What has been done is completely dishonorable and a violation of trust that has deeply displeased our Gods. And if we do not listen to even Vesta, than what is Nova Roma?
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.  



<--- On Mon, 3/2/09, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...> wrote:
From: M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
To: "Nova Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Nova Roma Announce" <novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:01 PM

Salvete Quirites,
 

After wide and extensive consultations, we the Consuls decided not to oppose to the reinstatement of L. Cornelius Sulla as Senator, even if we do not and can not agree to what we consider blackmail to Nova Roma.

We are quite grateful to the Censors for their efforts to achieve a consensus, which we endorse completely, because we look, in everything, for the best service of our Res publica.

 

Salvete,

M•CVR•COMPLVTENSIS
CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ

SENATOR
CONSVL•HISPANIÆ

 

M•IVL•SEVERVS
CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ

 

SENATOR
CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61918 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gnaeo Caelio Ahenobarbo salutem dicit

I have heard her words and find them very auspicious.  I too have consulted the Gods, and confirm that the Gods and Goddesses of Rome are displeased.  What she has written is true.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Pontifex, Flamen Pomonalis, et Augur

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.


>It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses
>of Rome are severely displeased that anyone should resort to
>the use of legal force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It
>sets a dangerous precedent.
>I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
>As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
>
>So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.

    Who hears these words? If we hear them, do we truly listen? If we listen, do we act upon their truths?
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61919 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Caeso Fabio Buteoni Modiano s.p.d.

>I too have consulted the Gods, and confirm that the Gods and
>Goddesses of Rome are displeased. 

    Please share with us what rituals you performed, and/or any auspices you took (including signs received and your interpretation thereof). Any information you offer would be useful for all cives Novae Romae.

Optime vale!
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61920 From: walkyr@aol.com Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Conflict resolution in NR
At least he didn't turn up at the boundary with several legions behind him. 

Having come late to this situation I cannot comment, however as a new(ish) citizen I would like to read more about conflict resolution within NR.  Are the leges the correct place to start, or is there a better way to learn about this?

Gratias,

V Ritulia Enodiaria

Morte nunquam reget.


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61921 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus V. Rituliae Enodiariae s.p.d.

>At least he didn't turn up at the boundary with several legions behind him.

    No; just an attorney and a threat. But, in our day and circumstances, isn't that similar? At least with a legion you know that those soldiers support their leader to some degree. Here, we have one man and some words. Does anyone support him and his cause?
    As for conflict resolution, this has come up before. Hopefully, those will full knowledge of our law (Marinus?) will respond. The various comitia can act as courts (see the Constitution). Of course, we have things like vetos of superior magistrates, the intercessio tribunum plebis, the ability to bring suit before the praetores, etc. Frankly, I think there are many legal options, at least in theory. I hope, though, that the virtues come first and that people resolve their issues person-to-person. But, if that doesn't work, then yes, there are some remedies.

Optime vale!
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61922 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve Vibia Ritulia,

V Ritulia Enodiaria <walkyr@...> writes:

> I would like to read more about conflict resolution within NR.? Are
> the leges the correct place to start, or is there a better way to
> learn about this?

The leges are a very good place to start, though they only address our
formal processes of conflict resolution. I am currently working to
develop a less formal, but still binding, process that would be
overseen by the Praetors. It would provide an alternative to "taking
someone to court" in the Nova Roman courts, while still leaving that
option open if the arbitration process couldn't resolve the dispute.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61923 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
American legal jurisdiction. I would have been perfectly willing to
do that. I am that confident that I would prevail. It really is that
simple to the point that I was/am willing to invest 6-8k and more if
necessary to have this decided in US Court. If I did not think I
could win the lawsuit I wouldn't risk going down that road. However,
knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and Maine Law made the
the issue pretty cut and dry.

In the end the law must be followed. This includes Maine law and US
law. Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
and the board members will be liable. Do not disabuse yourself to
think that Nova Roma is it's own country. It is not. It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus V. Rituliae Enodiariae s.p.d.
>
> >At least he didn't turn up at the boundary with several legions
behind him.
>
> No; just an attorney and a threat. But, in our day and
circumstances, isn't that similar? At least with a legion you know
that those soldiers support their leader to some degree. Here, we have
one man and some words. Does anyone support him and his cause?
> As for conflict resolution, this has come up before. Hopefully,
those will full knowledge of our law (Marinus?) will respond. The
various comitia can act as courts (see the Constitution). Of course,
we have things like vetos of superior magistrates, the intercessio
tribunum plebis, the ability to bring suit before the praetores, etc.
Frankly, I think there are many legal options, at least in theory. I
hope, though, that the virtues come first and that people resolve
their issues person-to-person. But, if that doesn't work, then yes,
there are some remedies.
>
> Optime vale!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61924 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Maximae Valeriae Messallinae salutem dicit

We are in agreement, and I am baffled that more have not shown a similar disposition.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@...> wrote:

<<<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@...> wrote: 
It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses of Rome are severely displeased that anyone should resort to the use of legal force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It sets a dangerous precedent.
I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
 
So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.>>>




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61925 From: t.ovidius_aquila Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
<<<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@...>
wrote: 
> It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses of Rome
are severely displeased that anyone should resort to the use of legal
force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It sets a dangerous precedent.
> I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
> As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.



Salvete,

It has been a bad year in general for me and those around me. Look at
the worlds economy, etc... So I do believe the gods are unhappy. This
blackmail or whatever you want to call it probably doesn't help but it
is not the end of the world.


I think it is a despicable thing to do but I guess it is within their
legal right. I am not involved in it, I'm just a pleb.. which reminds
me I need to hurry and pay my taxes.


People should stay within the laws and rights of Nova Roma IMHO and
not go outside of it to deal with matters. Why would someone want to
undermine what everyone here has built?


Di vos incolumes custodiant,

T.Ovidius Aquila
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61926 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

Not only is he a extortionist but it would seem he is is an exploitationist.  There was a reason he disappeared from Nova Roma on more than one occasion.  He doesn't care about Nova Roma.  It is all about his feeble ego.

His presence in Nova Roma is a stain, an infection, and a poison.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus 

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
American legal jurisdiction. I would have been perfectly willing to
do that. I am that confident that I would prevail. It really is that
simple to the point that I was/am willing to invest 6-8k and more if
necessary to have this decided in US Court. If I did not think I
could win the lawsuit I wouldn't risk going down that road. However,
knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and Maine Law made the
the issue pretty cut and dry.

In the end the law must be followed. This includes Maine law and US
law. Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
and the board members will be liable. Do not disabuse yourself to
think that Nova Roma is it's own country. It is not. It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61927 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve Quirites!

********

3 mar 2009 kl. 00.11 Robert Woolwine wrote:

..........

..........

It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

**********
Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
everything else is just a stupid dream."

I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he says
so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to succeed,
especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.

In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a dream,
but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't need
to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.

It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't survive
in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!


*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61928 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

Precisely!

Sulla is a parasite feeding off the crumbs given to him by the censores.  He deserves nothing but our contempt.

Valete;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:

Salve Quirites!

********

3 mar 2009 kl. 00.11 Robert Woolwine wrote:

..........

..........



It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

**********
Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
everything else is just a stupid dream."

I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he says
so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to succeed,
especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.

In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a dream,
but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't need
to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.

It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't survive
in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!

*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61929 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Salve T.Ovidius Aquila!
3 mar 2009 kl. 00.54 skrev t.ovidius_aquila:

......
........
Why would someone want to
undermine what everyone here has built?

CFBQ: An extremely good question! And the answer is ... obvious!

Di vos incolumes custodiant,

T.Ovidius Aquila

*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61930 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus L. Cornelio Sullae s.p.d.

>The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
>services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
>American legal jurisdiction.

    I, for one, wish we had.

>I would have been perfectly willing to do that. I am that confident
>that I would prevail.

    You must have an airtight case, then. Would you share it with us?

>However,knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and
>Maine Law made the the issue pretty cut and dry.

    Absolutely, Nova Roma is accountable to those. Do you have a specific Maine or US law which was broken with regards to you? The Maine non-profit law isn't that long ( http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/13-B/title13-Bch0sec0.html ).

>In the end the law must be followed.

    In this, you and I agree.

>This includes Maine law and US law.

    It also includes Nova Roma law, which can be superseded by Maine and US, law. Nova Roma law is binding as long as it passes the muster of Maine nonprofit law. Remember: for better or worse, the Constitution are our bylaws. The applicability of Nova Roma's laws is questionable at times, but it is still binding unless struck down by the state of Maine, for example.

>Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
>and the board members will be liable.

    "Those laws" meaning Maine and the US.

>Do not disabuse yourself to think that Nova Roma is it's own
>country.

    I think no such thing. Nova Roma is a non-profit organization, chartered under Maine and US laws, that has specific educational and religious missions. It is not a role-playing game. It is not an online community. It is not a sovereign nation.

>It is not. It is ONLY a not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine.

    See above.

>It has aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
>corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

    Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper, Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61931 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbu!

3 mar 2009 kl. 01.20 skrev Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus:


    Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper, Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
 

*******

CFBQ: I think You are right, Nova Roma is more than a US corporation. You want us to "revive Roman culture, religion, and values"? 

 You ask "Isn't that why we are all here?"

I think You have the answer: At least one Nova Roma Senator doesn't want that and he has forced his way into the Senate. If You look into his history, not just the titles and other things, dig into the main list years back and You will find him in the center of controversy over and over again. At times he was part of Nova Roma's inner circle that now is more or less shattered, but not at all dead.

Nova Roma has changed a bit for the better, now there is free speech and opposition from more than one side. I understand it is hard to believe that it gaven't always been so. Just let me say we don't have Sulla to thank for any progress at all.

Just pay attention if any of my old opponents dare to show their faces. They once controlled Nova Roma totally, there was no hope for an opposition or independent thinkers to survive.



--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com




*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae 
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae 





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61932 From: Titus Annaeus Regulus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve,
 
I won't argue the fine points of the law, we have praetors for that but, judging by your rather poor opinion of what Nova Roma really is, why do you even want to be here? You can privately contact friends without being a citizen of Nova Roma. There must be another reason. Either you are attracted to Nova Roma or you are not. If you are not, why are you here? If you are, why do you threaten actions that could possibly destroy or damage it? Is it simply a matter of proving that you can return regardless of what the organization decided? I am not jumping to any conclusions, but it truly confuses me. Perhaps if you could expound a little on why you even want to be here, for the benefit of me and some other new citizens who are a little lost, I would better understand the situation. I don't ask you to defend yourself, simply to explain if you don't mind.
 
Vale,
 
T. Annaeus Regulus

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 7:41 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Conflict resolution in NR

The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
American legal jurisdiction. I would have been perfectly willing to
do that. I am that confident that I would prevail. It really is that
simple to the point that I was/am willing to invest 6-8k and more if
necessary to have this decided in US Court. If I did not think I
could win the lawsuit I wouldn't risk going down that road. However,
knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and Maine Law made the
the issue pretty cut and dry.

In the end the law must be followed. This includes Maine law and US
law. Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
and the board members will be liable. Do not disabuse yourself to
think that Nova Roma is it's own country. It is not. It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@ ...> wrote:

>
>
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus V. Rituliae Enodiariae s.p.d.
>
> >At
least he didn't turn up at the boundary with several legions
behind him.
>
> No; just an attorney and a threat. But, in our day
and
circumstances, isn't that similar? At least with a legion you know
that those soldiers support their leader to some degree. Here, we have
one man and some words. Does anyone support him and his cause?
>
As for conflict resolution, this has come up before. Hopefully,
those will full knowledge of our law (Marinus?) will respond. The
various comitia can act as courts (see the Constitution) . Of course,
we have things like vetos of superior magistrates, the intercessio
tribunum plebis, the ability to bring suit before the praetores, etc.
Frankly, I think there are many legal options, at least in theory. I
hope, though, that the virtues come first and that people resolve
their issues person-to-person. But, if that doesn't work, then yes,
there are some remedies.
>
> Optime
vale!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor
Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
>
href="http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com">http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
>

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61933 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
And maybe he should explain why during his term as censor he disappeared with no notice, coming back years later.  And why before that he disappeared for a year or more.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Titus Annaeus Regulus <t.annaevsregvlvs@...> wrote:

Salve,
 
I won't argue the fine points of the law, we have praetors for that but, judging by your rather poor opinion of what Nova Roma really is, why do you even want to be here? You can privately contact friends without being a citizen of Nova Roma. There must be another reason. Either you are attracted to Nova Roma or you are not. If you are not, why are you here? If you are, why do you threaten actions that could possibly destroy or damage it? Is it simply a matter of proving that you can return regardless of what the organization decided? I am not jumping to any conclusions, but it truly confuses me. Perhaps if you could expound a little on why you even want to be here, for the benefit of me and some other new citizens who are a little lost, I would better understand the situation. I don't ask you to defend yourself, simply to explain if you don't mind.
 
Vale,
 
T. Annaeus Regulus



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61934 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Caelius Modiano s.p.d.

>And maybe he should explain why during his term as censor
>he
disappeared with no notice

    To be fair, many magistrates and officials of Nova Roma leave their offices during their terms. I see it as a serious problem, hence my strong disapproval of recent actions.

>coming back years later. And why before
that he disappeared for a year or more.
 
    Sulla must answer this. But, according to the archives of this list from 2004, he was sick.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61935 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 2
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Below are the Questions for Day 2 of the Ludi Novi Romani. Good luck!
 
Optime valete
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris
 
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 2  (March 2nd)
 
Q3. Who is M. Antonius Gryllus Graecus?
Q4. Why was Fl. Vedius Germanicus appointed dictator of Nova Roma in 2752 AUC?
 
Note: Due to unavoidable delays in posting these questions - the deadline for submission of answers to questions 3 and 4 is extended to 12.00 pm MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs)  on Tuesday 3rd March.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61936 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salvete:
> I don't believe what Sullas says, below at all, I joined Nova Roma
for the vision. I've friends who share this vision as well.

Ironically Sulla is planning on moving to Israel, which was an insane
dream not too long ago. I am firmly with those who have vision, and I
agree with Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintillianus, that being in the U.S:
litigatation land makes us vulnerable 24/7.
I want to leave this kind of thing behind too and devote ourselves
to real events with real citizens and making Nova Roma a living
reality.
M. Hortensia Maior
>
> ..........
>
> It is ONLY a
> not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It
has
> aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is
a
> corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
>

>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> **********
> Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
> everything else is just a stupid dream."
>
> I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he
says
> so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to
succeed,
> especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.
>
> In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a
dream,
> but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't
need
> to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.
>
> It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't
survive
> in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61937 From: A. Sempronius Regulus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salvete omnes,
 
I have the highest respect for one I highly esteem -- G. Equitius Marinus.
I wonder. I think his advice is correct for an honest person playing an honest game.
 
In my years of experience, the political game is rarely fully honest. In fact one can with honor serve it, knowing its costs for the greater good, and still end up on a list for...
 
I used to teach a legal "dirty tricks" course in a well-respected law school. Given my past as a "spook", I was good. I was very good. 
 
So, what's the point?
 
One of the dirty tricks I used to teach was having more money to file motions and costly delaying tactics in order to out-spend an opponent; we taught how to drive them into bankruptcy __BEFORE__ they had their day in court or even their chance to hire a lawyer.
Of course, if you get caught, there are issues but a competent lawyer in the US has been trained in these dirty techniques in order to recognize them. The particular technique I mentioned is based upon the fact that our courts (US) require money. Those with less money, either do not ever enter the court system or are out-spent, lose. It is an unpleasant fact.
 
I wonder with no finger pointing (and with no need for a public reply): was Nova Roma the financially poorer party in the alleged "legal action" this thread speaks of?
 
Valete,
A. Sempronius Regulus

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:

From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Conflict resolution in NR
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 11:09 PM

Salve Vibia Ritulia,

V Ritulia Enodiaria <walkyr@...> writes:

> I would like to read more about conflict resolution within NR.? Are
> the leges the correct place to start, or is there a better way to
> learn about this?

The leges are a very good place to start, though they only address our
formal processes of conflict resolution. I am currently working to
develop a less formal, but still binding, process that would be
overseen by the Praetors. It would provide an alternative to "taking
someone to court" in the Nova Roman courts, while still leaving that
option open if the arbitration process couldn't resolve the dispute.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61938 From: enodia2002 Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
V Ritulia Enodiaria Cn Caeli Ahenobarbo s.p.d. (did I get that right?)

Person-to-person resolution is always the best option, but I will read
with interest the other methods here in NR.

As a personal observation, in what I now think of as my previous life
I was a trial paralegal working in medical malpractice & personal
injury (and bankruptcy, but that was later.) A lawsuit is at best a
blunt instrument, and a person has to be passionate enough about the
issue to invest heavily in time, money & stress. Over and over again
we heard from plaintiffs that "If only she/he had apologized or shown
some concern" they would not have felt the need to pursue the matter
through the courts. Especially in this "flat" medium the
opportunities for misunderstanding are plentiful, and the greater the
number of options for resolution the better.

V Ritulia Enodiaria

Morte nunquam reget





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
>
Frankly, I think there are many legal options, at least in theory. I
hope, though, that the virtues come first and that people resolve
their issues person-to-person. But, if that doesn't work, then yes,
there are some remedies.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61939 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Ritulia's question about salutations
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus V. Rituliae Enodiariae salutem plurimam dicit.

(A. Tullia Scholastica and others know a lot about Roman naming practices. If you need more details, ask them. This is what I know from my practice and my Latin study.)

>V Ritulia Enodiaria Cn Caeli Ahenobarbo s.p.d. (did I get that right?)

    Very close! It would be "V. Ritulia Enodiaria Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo s.p.d.". The first name---the writer---is as normal (technically in the nominative case); the recipient(s) is/are in the dative case. The sentence means, "[Writer] says many greetings to [recipient]." For most names (that end in "-ius"), you just replace the "-ius" with "-io". If it's a name that ends in "-a", you almost always change that to "-ae", like "Caelius Rituliae s.p.d.". If you're talking directly at me ("Caelius, calm down!" or "Hello, Caelius!"), you change my nomen's "-ius" ending to "-i" (a long "i"; "Caeli, calm down!", "Salve Caeli!"). Latin names change depending on their use in a sentence (subject, indirect object, object of a preposition, etc.), so that's why the endings change.
    If you wish to shorten the salutation, you can do as I just did with our nomina. Some people prefer their nomen be used (such as me; call me "Caelius" :-) ), but some prefer their cognomen. Sometimes, it's both ("Caelius Ahenobarbus"); there seems to be personal preference involved.

Optime vale!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61940 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Than you are not a real Nova Roman, nor a lover of the Roman way. You carry not in your heart the Nova Roma ideal nor the intense desire that burns in my heart, like the Sacred Flame I care for day and night, to see Rome reborn and her own nation again.
To you our dream is nothing more than a "corporation", but to all true Nova Romans it is the goal of our lives. 
Why are you here, Sulla? Because in the end, it is not US or Maine laws that must be followed, how ever well they might suit you, but the will of the Gods of Rome who call upon us to bring forth Nova Roma into the world. 
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis
 


--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Conflict resolution in NR
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 3:11 PM

The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
American legal jurisdiction. I would have been perfectly willing to
do that. I am that confident that I would prevail. It really is that
simple to the point that I was/am willing to invest 6-8k and more if
necessary to have this decided in US Court. If I did not think I
could win the lawsuit I wouldn't risk going down that road. However,
knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and Maine Law made the
the issue pretty cut and dry.

In the end the law must be followed. This includes Maine law and US
law. Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
and the board members will be liable. Do not disabuse yourself to
think that Nova Roma is it's own country. It is not. It is ONLY a
not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.

This is all I have left to say in the matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@ ...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus V. Rituliae Enodiariae s.p.d.
>
> >At least he didn't turn up at the boundary with several legions
behind him.
>
> No; just an attorney and a threat. But, in our day and
circumstances, isn't that similar? At least with a legion you know
that those soldiers support their leader to some degree. Here, we have
one man and some words. Does anyone support him and his cause?
> As for conflict resolution, this has come up before. Hopefully,
those will full knowledge of our law (Marinus?) will respond. The
various comitia can act as courts (see the Constitution) . Of course,
we have things like vetos of superior magistrates, the intercessio
tribunum plebis, the ability to bring suit before the praetores, etc.
Frankly, I think there are many legal options, at least in theory. I
hope, though, that the virtues come first and that people resolve
their issues person-to-person. But, if that doesn't work, then yes,
there are some remedies.
>
> Optime vale!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
>


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61941 From: t.ovidius_aquila Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
>
> I am interested in import some books this month, and i thought that
perhaps my fellow novoromani could help me in selecting them. Do you
have some these books? What is your opinion? Do you have suggestions
to add to my list?
>
> The books in my list about Rome are below (title,author):
>
> 1. Tiberius, Seager
> 2. Trajan, Bennett
> 3. Septimius Severus, Birley
> 4. Pompey (a biography, not the city), Seager
> 5. Scipio Africanus, Liddel Hart
> 6. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Luttwak
> 7. The Roman Triumph, Beard
> 8. Caesars Calendar, Feeney
> 9. Roman Empire, Rodgers
> 10. The Complete Roman Army, Goldsworthy
> 11. Cannae, Goldsworthy
> 12. The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla; Beesley
> 13. Rome's Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest, Murdoch
> 14. The Fires of Vesuvius: Pompeii Lost and Found, Beard
> 15. Cicero, Everitt
> 16. The Great Battles of Antiquity; Boose, Gabriel
> 17. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Brennan
>
> Of those, the ones that are more appealing to me are the 4. (a
modern and detailed biography), 5. (a somewhat rare republican
biography, about someone that is famous and unknown to me), and 7.
(seems to be deep in detail).
>
>
> Valete
> Marcus Arminius
>
>
> Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
>




Salve!


16 Looks the most interesting to me. I may order that one myself.
Thank you for listing it, I had never seen it before which is odd due
to my great interest in the subject.


Vale,

T.Ovidius Aquila
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61943 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo Rituliae Enodariae omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

Actually, it should be:

"V. Ritulia Enodaria Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo salutem dicit[or 'sal.']"

or "sends greetings", because you are greeting a specific person.

The "SPD" or "salutem plurimam dicit" means "sends (the) many
greetings" as in my greeting above:

"Cato, to Caelius Ahenobarbus, Ritulia Enodaria and everyone in the
forum, sends many greetings"

Unless I am very familiar or very angry with someone, I would
generally use at least two of their names (their nomen and cognomen).
Another case is my own, where I sign simply as "Cato" unless I am very
angry or making a statement in some kind of official capacity.

Only if I am very familiar with someone would I use the diminutive
form of one of their names, like "Caeli" or "Corde".

There are some odd declensions, too, like my own; when writing to me
you would say "C. Equitio Catoni", or Cornelius Felix, who would
addressed as "Cornelio Felico".

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61944 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Good books about Roma
Salve,

My main interest lies in the Roman Intelligence Services (i.e. the
Frumentarii, Agentes in Rebus, and the Curiosi). I plan on buying soon
Rose Mary Sheldon's book "Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome:
Trust in the God's, But Verify" from Amazon. It's 371 pages of info on
the Roman Intel services.

Vale,
Quintus Servilius Priscus

--
Deism: A Non-Prophet Religion
World Union of Deists
http://www.deism.com/index.html
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61945 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

This discussion has taken an unfortunate turn, and one that distracts
from a very real component of the issue.

For better or worse, *right now*, legally, Nova Roma is an
incorporated entity in the United States. No matter how fervently we
wish for more, no matter how dearly we hold up the dream of a legal
republic, when push comes to shove we are a corporation.

As such, the dreams an ideals and even the Roman virtues we all
delight in are wonderful and should be fostered and nourished and
built upon; yet at the same time the officers and Board of Directors
have legal and fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation that make
our legal macronational existence paramount over *every other*
concern.

If - and I cannot stress this strongly enough - we have any reason to
be brought into the United States' legal system, the dreams and hopes
and virtues mean absolutely nothing. A United States judge would have
no interest in the republic; they would care only about the
corporation and its legal existence in the US.

To dismiss the responsibilities necessary to protect the corporation
is to dismiss the foundations of the republic itself, and at great
peril. To ignore our legal existence as a corporation because it
seems tawdry or mundane is in itself a form of treason, because
negligence of that kind could very well destroy the corporation and by
extension the republic.

Those of our citizens - specifically officers and members of the Board
of Directors - who live outside the United States are absolutely *not*
immune to US judicial process, and they are very sadly mistaken if
they believe they are.

So please, be very careful when discussing the value of the republic
over the value of the corporation.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61946 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Catoni s.p.d.

(See above? "Cato" has an irregular dative, "Catoni".)
 
>Only if I am very familiar with someone would I use the diminutive
>form of one of their names, like "Caeli" or "Corde".

    Those aren't diminutives; those are the names in the vocative case, the case of direct address. My name, declined in the singular (there IS only one of me, thank the gods!), is as follows:

Nominative - Caelius
Genitive - Caeli (or even Caelii, I believe)
Dative - Caelio
Accusative - Caelium
Ablative - Caelio
Vocative - Caele (or even Caelii, I believe)

    You use the vocative any time you are calling the person directly. "Cato, hush!" ;-) or "John, pass me the salt." They are not diminutives, but just the name in that case. You may use them any time. If you want to be extra familiar, use just the praenomen (Gnaeus, in my case) with no nomen nor cognomen. That is how a wife may speak to her husband, or brothers speak to one another; in other words, VERY close and familiar.

    A web page that seems to have a LOT of info about declining names can be found at:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/declension/default.htm

    Scholastica, iuva nos! :-)

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61947 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

Salve.

LOL yeah, I remember having dozens of sheets of paper taped to my dorm
room walls with declensions and I *still* messed them up.

also, check here:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Using_Roman_names

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61948 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
M. Hortensia A. Sempronio Regulo quiritibusque spd;
you've made a fine point, but can't you see what would probably
happen if NR fought Sulla's lawsuit? Some other NR civis would then
sue NR for wasting the people's funds in an unecessary court
battle....ad infinitem. That's the big problem, the U.S. is a highly
litigious society and the laws encourage this kind of behavior.
may the gods favour Nova Roma
Maior
>
> Salvete.
>
> This discussion has taken an unfortunate turn, and one that
distracts
> from a very real component of the issue.
>
> For better or worse, *right now*, legally, Nova Roma is an
> incorporated entity in the United States. No matter how fervently
we
> wish for more, no matter how dearly we hold up the dream of a legal
> republic, when push comes to shove we are a corporation.
>
> As such, the dreams an ideals and even the Roman virtues we all
> delight in are wonderful and should be fostered and nourished and
> built upon; yet at the same time the officers and Board of
Directors
> have legal and fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation that
make
> our legal macronational existence paramount over *every other*
> concern.
>
> If - and I cannot stress this strongly enough - we have any reason
to
> be brought into the United States' legal system, the dreams and
hopes
> and virtues mean absolutely nothing. A United States judge would
have
> no interest in the republic; they would care only about the
> corporation and its legal existence in the US.
>
> To dismiss the responsibilities necessary to protect the
corporation
> is to dismiss the foundations of the republic itself, and at great
> peril. To ignore our legal existence as a corporation because it
> seems tawdry or mundane is in itself a form of treason, because
> negligence of that kind could very well destroy the corporation and
by
> extension the republic.
>
> Those of our citizens - specifically officers and members of the
Board
> of Directors - who live outside the United States are absolutely
*not*
> immune to US judicial process, and they are very sadly mistaken if
> they believe they are.
>
> So please, be very careful when discussing the value of the
republic
> over the value of the corporation.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61949 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
LOL Interesting perspective Caeso, but wrong! Good job in trying to
interpret my motives. Thank you try again.

Regardless if the US is a litigious society or not. If the law is
broken, it is BROKEN. Case closed end of story!

Nova Roma and in particular Modianus BROKE Maine law. It is really
that simple. By removing me from the Senate email list he removed me
from the Senate/board of directors. He violated Maine's law in
regards to the removal of board of directors. That was the entire
cause of action. End of story.

Modianus put Nova Roma in jeopardy and he put the board of directors
in jeopardy because if this had gone to court I would have put liens
in all of your property because I was absolutely committed to defend
my rights and win.

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling
<christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Quirites!
>
> ********
>
> 3 mar 2009 kl. 00.11 Robert Woolwine wrote:
>
> ..........
>
> ..........
>
> It is ONLY a
> not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
> aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
> corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
>
> This is all I have left to say in the matter.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> **********
> Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
> everything else is just a stupid dream."
>
> I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he says
> so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to succeed,
> especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.
>
> In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a dream,
> but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't need
> to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.
>
> It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't survive
> in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61950 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
I explained it.

Modianus as Censor illegally removed me from the Senate. He did not
issue a Nota or an Edict. He just abused his power by removing an
adversary from the Board of Directors. He violated Maine law - where
it states, in regards to the removal of board of directors. He did
not have the support of his colleague. He just did it because he
could. He is the one that broke Maine law. He created the cause of
action and he put the other board members in jeopardy because of his
actions.

This is why I wanted a recognition of wrong doing from Modianus. He
violated his oath of office, he violated his position and
responsibility, he jeopardized the corporation and he put the board
members in financial jeopardy for his actions. He should be on trial
by the state for Treason.

Instead for the sake of Concordia I dropped the matter after being
reinstated by the Censors.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus L. Cornelio Sullae s.p.d.
>
>
> >The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
> >services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
> >American legal jurisdiction.
>
> I, for one, wish we had.
>
> >I would have been perfectly willing to do that. I am that confident
> >that I would prevail.
>
> You must have an airtight case, then. Would you share it with us?
>
> >However,knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and
> >Maine Law made the the issue pretty cut and dry.
>
> Absolutely, Nova Roma is accountable to those. Do you have a
specific Maine or US law which was broken with regards to you? The
Maine non-profit law isn't that long (
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/13-B/title13-Bch0sec0.html
).
>
> >In the end the law must be followed.
>
> In this, you and I agree.
>
> >This includes Maine law and US law.
>
> It also includes Nova Roma law, which can be superseded by Maine
and US, law. Nova Roma law is binding as long as it passes the muster
of Maine nonprofit law. Remember: for better or worse, the
Constitution are our bylaws. The applicability of Nova Roma's laws is
questionable at times, but it is still binding unless struck down by
the state of Maine, for example.
>
> >Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
> >and the board members will be liable.
>
> "Those laws" meaning Maine and the US.
>
> >Do not disabuse yourself to think that Nova Roma is it's own
> >country.
>
> I think no such thing. Nova Roma is a non-profit organization,
chartered under Maine and US laws, that has specific educational and
religious missions. It is not a role-playing game. It is not an online
community. It is not a sovereign nation.
>
> >It is not. It is ONLY a not for profit corporation incorporated in
the State of Maine.
>
> See above.
>
> >It has aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple.
It is a
> >corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
> Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper,
Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is
more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman
culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There
are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and
must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman
culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61951 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Yet, you are the one who violated Maine law! How ironic!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> Precisely!
>
> Sulla is a parasite feeding off the crumbs given to him by the
censores. He
> deserves nothing but our contempt.
>
> Valete;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Christer Edling
> <christer.edling@...>wrote:
>
> > Salve Quirites!
> >
> > ********
> >
> > 3 mar 2009 kl. 00.11 Robert Woolwine wrote:
> >
> > ..........
> >
> > ..........
> >
> >
> > It is ONLY a
> > not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine. It has
> > aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It is a
> > corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
> >
> > This is all I have left to say in the matter.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > **********
> > Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
> > everything else is just a stupid dream."
> >
> > I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he says
> > so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to succeed,
> > especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.
> >
> > In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a dream,
> > but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't need
> > to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.
> >
> > It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't survive
> > in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!
> >
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61952 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2009-03-02
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Caeso the logic you use is flawed. By your rationale I should have
just gone forward suing and in doing so KILLING this very
organization. That is precisely what a lawsuit would have done.

Do you really believe the words you are typing? Seriously?

I spent 6 years helping to build this organization. I was here from
DAY 1 - unlike yourself. So, just stop making a fool out of yourself.
You bring disrespect to yourself when you spout this non-sense.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling
<christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbu!
>
> 3 mar 2009 kl. 01.20 skrev Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus:
>
>
> Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper,
> Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is
> more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman
> culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There
> are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and
> must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman
> culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
>
>
> *******
>
> CFBQ: I think You are right, Nova Roma is more than a US corporation.
> You want us to "revive Roman culture, religion, and values"?
>
> You ask "Isn't that why we are all here?"
>
> I think You have the answer: At least one Nova Roma Senator doesn't
> want that and he has forced his way into the Senate. If You look into
> his history, not just the titles and other things, dig into the main
> list years back and You will find him in the center of controversy
> over and over again. At times he was part of Nova Roma's inner circle
> that now is more or less shattered, but not at all dead.
>
> Nova Roma has changed a bit for the better, now there is free speech
> and opposition from more than one side. I understand it is hard to
> believe that it gaven't always been so. Just let me say we don't have
> Sulla to thank for any progress at all.
>
> Just pay attention if any of my old opponents dare to show their
> faces. They once controlled Nova Roma totally, there was no hope for
> an opposition or independent thinkers to survive.
>
>
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61955 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ritulia's question about salutations

 A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo Rituliae Enodariae omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

Actually, it should be:

"V. Ritulia Enodaria Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo salutem dicit[or 'sal.']"

    ATS:  Enodiaria, ut puto.  S.D., or S.P.D., or what you used to use, O.S.D.,  or sal.  I don’t believe I received her original message; maybe Yahoo is ailing again.

or "sends greetings", because you are greeting a specific person.  

The "SPD" or "saltuem plurimam dicit" means "sends (the) many
greetings" as in my greeting above:

"Cato, to Caelius Ahenobarbus, Ritulia Enodaria and everyone in the
forum, sends many greetings"

Unless I am very familiar or very angry with someone, I would
generally use at least two of their names (their nomen and cognomen).  
Another case is my own, where I sign simply as "Cato" unless I am very
angry or making a statement in some kind of official capacity.

Only if I am very familiar with someone would I use the diminutive
form of one of their names, like "Caeli" or "Corde".

    ATS:  Listen to magistra:  Caeli and Corde are the vocatives of these names.  They are NOT diminutives.  There is nothing insulting about them at all; they are correct with the simpler, less formal, salve greeting.  Latin diminutives tend to end in -ulus or -culus, with the feminine form using an -a instead of the -us ending.   BTW, did Corculum think his name was insulting?  It’s not only a diminutive, it’s neuter...

There are some odd declensions, too, like my own; when writing to me
you would say "C. Equitio Catoni", or Cornelius Felix, who would
addressed as "Cornelio Felico".  

    ATS:  That is no odd declension, amice; it is the third declension, which contains most Latin nouns.  The dative of Felix is Felici, not Felico...

Valete,

Cato

Vale, et valete.  Now back to exam corrections.  

  
    

   
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/61939
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61956 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 2
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Reposted as I have been informed it was accidentally deleted.
 
Optime valete.

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:59 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Ludi Novi Romani - Day 2

Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Below are the Questions for Day 2 of the Ludi Novi Romani. Good luck!
 
Optime valete
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris
 
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 2  (March 2nd)
 
Q3. Who is M. Antonius Gryllus Graecus?
Q4. Why was Fl. Vedius Germanicus appointed dictator of Nova Roma in 2752 AUC?
 
Note: Due to unavoidable delays in posting these questions - the deadline for submission of answers to questions 3 and 4 is extended to 12.00 pm MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs)  on Tuesday 3rd March.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61957 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.



I'm tired of the circumstances not being known because it leads
citizens to make very incorrect assumptions and declarations. So here
you go:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. On 17 October 2006, the censors Gn. Equitius Marinus and M.
Octavius Gracchus invoked the lex Popillia senatoria to remove Lucius
Cornelius Sulla Felix from the Senate on grounds of
"nonparticipation", this being the "public explanation" required by
that law. In that edict, a clause reads:

"IV. Future convening magistrates of the Senate of Nova Roma shall
understand that Lucius Cornelius Sulla is welcome to join the Senate
mailing list, participate in, and vote in meetings of the Senate of
Nova Roma by virtue of his Consular and Censorius status."

This clause accurately reflects the lex Popillia senatoria regarding
ex-magistrate's legal rights regarding the Senate List (lex Pop. sen.
IV.A).

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


2. On Sunday 21 December 2008 K. Fabius Buteo Modianus, acting alone,
removed L. Cornelius Sulla from the Senate List. He wrote (in part):

"I have removed Sulla from the senate and banned him from returning.
If anyone wishes to 'prosecute me' next month for magisterial abuse
please feel free, and I will happily resign from Nova Roma."

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


3. Over the course of the next 24 hours or so, various senators and
magistrates reacted by explaining that not only was such a removal
against the laws of Nova Roma in general, but that also any such
action must be taken collegially, not unilaterally.

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

4. On Monday 22 December T. Galerius Paulinus re-instated L. Cornelius
Sulla to the Senate List.

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

5. L. Cornelius Sulla, through a United States lawyer, threatened to
sue Nova Roma, Inc. and it Board of Directors for K. Fabius Buteo
Modianus' actions as violations of both Nova Roman law and the bylaws
of the corporation in accordance with Maine State Law, under which we
operate.

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

6. After a series of conversations between various officers and
members of the Board of Directors, it was seen as most responsible and
beneficial to the corporation to work out a settlement with L.
Cornelius Sulla, the results of which you have seen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Here are the problems faced by the officers and Board of Directors of
the corporation:

1. Modianus did, in fact, violate Nova Roman law. That he knew he
was doing so can be reasonably deduced from his statement regarding
possible prosecution for abuse of power after he stepped down from
office.

2. The validity of the original edict removing Sulla from the Senate
is itself questionable. The lex Popillia does not have a clause
regarding "nonparticipation"; the clause referring to required
participation was specifically erased with the repeal of the lex
Octavia de senatoribus. The lex Popillia only states that a senator
may be removed by the censors upon 1) death, 2) loss of citizenship,
or 3) proof of "serious and harmful damage". None of these was given
as grounds for removal by the edict.


Given these two extremely serious concerns, it was decided that the
best course of action - for both the republic and the corporation -
was to settle it in the manner in which it was settled.


Should Sulla have first tried to use Nova Roman law to proceed against
Modianus? I think so, absolutely yes. Was he *required* to do so
under our law? No.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61958 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.

Salve.

I didn't do very well in Latin in college, QED.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61959 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo S.P.D.

    She said she would finish the corrections, but heard her name called.  
 

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Catoni s.p.d.

(See above? "Cato" has an irregular dative, "Catoni".)

    ATS: Well, it’s pretty normal in the third declension.  Cicero, Ciceronis, Ciceroni...Cato, Catonis, Catoni, etc.  
 
>Only if I am very familiar with someone would I use the diminutive
>form of one of their names, like "Caeli" or "Corde".  

    Those aren't diminutives; those are the names in the vocative case, the case of direct address. My name, declined in the singular (there IS only one of me, thank the gods!), is as follows:

    ATS:  Yep, as I just said.  

Nominative - Caelius
Genitive - Caeli (or even Caelii, I believe)

    ATS:  Yes; Cicero said Caeli, and later folk, such as Augustus, said Caelii.  Wheelock prefers the latter.  We are republicans here...Tully is fine by me.    

Dative - Caelio
Accusative - Caelium
Ablative - Caelio
Vocative - Caele (or even Caelii, I believe)

    ATS:  Here it’s Caeli, period.  

    You use the vocative any time you are calling the person directly. "Cato, hush!" ;-) or "John, pass me the salt." They are not diminutives, but just the name in that case. You may use them any time. If you want to be extra familiar, use just the praenomen (Gnaeus, in my case) with no nomen nor cognomen. That is how a wife may speak to her husband, or brothers speak to one another; in other words, VERY close and familiar.

    A web page that seems to have a LOT of info about declining names can be found at:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/declension/default.htm

    Scholastica, iuva nos! :-)

    ATS:  Vos iuvi!  It’s the third declension where things get sticky, but at least there is no separate vocative.  


Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


 Vale, et valete.  
  
    

   
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/61939
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61960 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: +AFs-Nova-Roma+AF0- Re: Ritulia's question about salutations
Poplicola Ahenobarbo Catonique SPD

Scholastica is not the only one who knows Latin. But I'm not sure what help
you would need. Vocative is used for directly addressing someone. If it's a
masculine noun ending in -us in the 2nd declension (most, if not all,
cognomina, the third part of someone's name, will be this type), it becomes
an -e. Cordus -- Corde. If it instead ends in -ius, then it becomes merely
an -i. Caelius -- Caeli. The only other one I can think of off-hand is the
name Iesus, which in vocative is Iesu, but this is an adoption of a Greek
name from an Aramaic one, so it's highly irregular.

Luckily, my name contains all three elements, so if you were to address me
by my trinomina, you would say: Quinte Valeri Poplicola.

The address line in letters is actually not an address line at all. It's a
statement line, beginning with who is sending the statement (most often
comes first), the recipient (most often comes second), and the greeting
(usually, by default, last).

The sender is in the nominative (which means +ACI-subject+ACI-), and is what you
normally would see (Quintus Valerius Poplicola). The recipient is in the
dative (mostly the indirect object, usually +ACI-to/for+ACI- in English). So if you
were sending to me, you'd use Quinto Valerio Poplicolae. The greeting is
usually, as Cato said, a variant of salutem dicit in abbreviation.
Acceptable in level of formality are:

sal. (very informal)

s.d. (kind of informal, but acceptable)

s.p.d. (very standard, normal formal)

s.p.v.d. (very formal)

Also, Cato erred in Felix's name. Felix and all 3rd declension nouns have
an -i as an ending of the their stem for the dative. So felix -- felici. A
good Latin dictionary will usually have special cognomina for you, although
there are some basic patterns.

-a (1st decl.) -- -ae
-us, -ius (2nd decl.) -- o, -io
-er1 (2nd decl.) -- ero (puer, puero)
-er2 (2nd decl.) -- ro (ager, agro)

Third declension is irregular, but in stems, x -- -c/g-, -o becomes -on-,
us becomes +ACo-er-, -ns becomes -nt-.
3rd:

Felix - Felici
Lex - legi (but note Pontifex -- Pontifici)
Cato - Catoni, Naso - Nasoni
Onus - oneri
Parens - parenti

Also note Pater/mater/frater -- patri/matri/fratri, but soror -- sorori.

Some other common nouns do not change stems, as soror was noted above.

If you ever want to get it perfect, I suggest going to a free online
dictionary (typing +ACI-Latin+ACI- into Google should bring one up as the second
result, usually after the Wikipedia article which is first, although
sometimes I've seen the order turned around). Once you look up a word, it
should give you its genitive, either as its second word or merely the
ending.

Examples:

Pirata, -ae m - pirate
Servus, -i m - slave
Pater, patris m - father
canis, -is m/f - dog

The first word is the nominative, the second the genitive. The genitive
actually tells you everything you need to know. If the genitive is the whole
word, then there's obviously been a stem change (like pater to patr-+ADs- notice
the missing 'e'). If not, then you substitute the endings. The m/f/n stand
for masculine, feminine, or neuter, and indicate grammatical gender, which
is itself merely a way of classifying things (we call it masculine
because -us is often used with men and -a is often used with women, but this
is arbitrary, and the classification of nouns into gender actually predates
distinction between men and women+ADs- for example, in archaic Greek, Athena and
Zeus are both called theos).

For all genitives which end in -ae, the dative is -ae. For all genitive
which end in -i, the ending is -o. For all genitives which end in -is, the
genitive is -i. I hope this clears up some confusion.

Curate ut ualeatis (Take care that you be well, to more than one person, if
to only one, then say +ACI-cura ut ualeas+ACI-).
--------------------------------------------------
From: +ACI-Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus+ACI- cn.caelius+AEA-yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:13 PM
To: Nova-Roma+AEA-yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: +AFs-Nova-Roma+AF0- Re: Ritulia's question about salutations

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cn. Equitio Catoni s.p.d.

(See above? +ACI-Cato+ACI- has an irregular dative, +ACI-Catoni+ACI-.)


+AD4APg-Only if I am very familiar with someone would I use the diminutive
+AD4APg-form of one of their names, like +ACI-Caeli+ACI- or +ACI-Corde+ACI-.
Those aren't diminutives+ADs- those are the names in the vocative case, the
case of direct address. My name, declined in the singular (there IS only
one of me, thank the gods+ACE-), is as follows:

Nominative - Caelius
Genitive - Caeli (or even Caelii, I believe)
Dative - Caelio
Accusative - Caelium
Ablative - Caelio
Vocative - Caele (or even Caelii, I believe)

You use the vocative any time you are calling the person directly.
+ACI-Cato, hush+ACEAIg- +ADs--) or +ACI-John, pass me the salt.+ACI- They are not diminutives,
but just the name in that case. You may use them any time. If you want to
be extra familiar, use just the praenomen (Gnaeus, in my case) with no
nomen nor cognomen. That is how a wife may speak to her husband, or
brothers speak to one another+ADs- in other words, VERY close and familiar.

A web page that seems to have a LOT of info about declining names can
be found at:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/declension/default.htm

Scholastica, iuva nos+ACE- :-)

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61961 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve Sulla,

> Regardless if the US is a litigious society or not. If the law is
> broken, it is BROKEN. Case closed end of story!
>
Yes, but in any other country all you could expect for compensation
would be to get your membership fees back. Hardly worth suing about.

In the US do you think you would have been entitled to any other
compensation except the above mentioned one?

Just curious: I'm trying to understand the aliens.

Optime vale,
Livia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61963 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Poplicola Liviae:

Despite not being a fan of lawsuit-happy people (I am one of those who
think, despite her injuries, McDonald's coffee-lady should not have
gotten a dime; likewise with those who sue when the problem was caused
by them, like suing someone if you take a dive and injure yourself in
someone's yard while trespassing), time and effort are worth a lot
more than mere membership dues. If I were a judge, I would ask Sulla
to demonstrate that he has indeed spent a considerable amount of time
and effort into Nova Roma in order to achieve being and while he was
in the Senate. I would then, if Nova Roma were guilty, compensate
accordingly.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> > Regardless if the US is a litigious society or not. If the law is
> > broken, it is BROKEN. Case closed end of story!
> >
> Yes, but in any other country all you could expect for compensation
> would be to get your membership fees back. Hardly worth suing about.
>
> In the US do you think you would have been entitled to any other
> compensation except the above mentioned one?
>
> Just curious: I'm trying to understand the aliens.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61964 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salvete omnes,

Just trying to add some carefully omitted "details".

Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> 1. On 17 October 2006, the censors Gn. Equitius Marinus and M.
> Octavius Gracchus invoked the lex Popillia senatoria to remove Lucius
> Cornelius Sulla Felix from the Senate on grounds of
> "nonparticipation", this being the "public explanation" required by
> that law. In that edict, a clause reads:
>
> "IV. Future convening magistrates of the Senate of Nova Roma shall
> understand that Lucius Cornelius Sulla is welcome to join the Senate
> mailing list, participate in, and vote in meetings of the Senate of
> Nova Roma by virtue of his Consular and Censorius status."
>
> This clause accurately reflects the lex Popillia senatoria regarding
> ex-magistrate's legal rights regarding the Senate List (lex Pop. sen.
> IV.A).
>

This clause is also illegal, since former censors can't order the
current censors to do something, as I explained in the senate.

Your interpretation of lex Popillia senatoria is faulty, as I explained
in the senate. Ex-magistrates who have been removed from the senate does
NOT automatically have the right to sit and vote in the senate without
first having been re-admitted by the censors.

> 2. On Sunday 21 December 2008 K. Fabius Buteo Modianus, acting alone,
> removed L. Cornelius Sulla from the Senate List. He wrote (in part):
>
> "I have removed Sulla from the senate and banned him from returning.
> If anyone wishes to 'prosecute me' next month for magisterial abuse
> please feel free, and I will happily resign from Nova Roma."
>

You skipped the part where his colleague, acting alone, added
non-senator L. Cornelius Sulla to the Senate list.

> 3. Over the course of the next 24 hours or so, various senators and
> magistrates reacted by explaining that not only was such a removal
> against the laws of Nova Roma in general, but that also any such
> action must be taken collegially, not unilaterally.
>

...while some supported the action and reminded the other senators that
Sulla's re-entrance to the senate had been a unilateral decision on the
part of the other censor.

> 4. On Monday 22 December T. Galerius Paulinus re-instated L. Cornelius
> Sulla to the Senate List.
>

Quite illegally, once again.

> 5. L. Cornelius Sulla, through a United States lawyer, threatened to
> sue Nova Roma, Inc. and it Board of Directors for K. Fabius Buteo
> Modianus' actions as violations of both Nova Roman law and the bylaws
> of the corporation in accordance with Maine State Law, under which we
> operate.
>

Please note: This happened AFTER he was back on the senate list and
allowed to vote there. At this point in time, Sulla had two (former?)
allies as censors, one of which has paid his taxes for the last few
years (since he didn't even bother doing that much). They were waiting
for the next census, this fall, to make him an actual senator once again.

> 6. After a series of conversations between various officers and
> members of the Board of Directors, it was seen as most responsible and
> beneficial to the corporation to work out a settlement with L.
> Cornelius Sulla, the results of which you have seen.
>

The senate was not allowed to discuss this matter in any shape or form,
since Sulla was present there. Any conversations were private and the
two actions seen were, in order, the consuls dismissing Sulla's claims,
followed by the censors issuing the edict you have seen, followed by the
consuls accepting the "settlement", i.e. "how Nova Roma bent over and
took it".

> 1. Modianus did, in fact, violate Nova Roman law. That he knew he
> was doing so can be reasonably deduced from his statement regarding
> possible prosecution for abuse of power after he stepped down from
> office.
>

Until it has been settled in NOVAROMAN court, no, he did not violate our
laws. He tried to rectify a violation by his colleague.

> 2. The validity of the original edict removing Sulla from the Senate
> is itself questionable. The lex Popillia does not have a clause
> regarding "nonparticipation"; the clause referring to required
> participation was specifically erased with the repeal of the lex
> Octavia de senatoribus. The lex Popillia only states that a senator
> may be removed by the censors upon 1) death, 2) loss of citizenship,
> or 3) proof of "serious and harmful damage". None of these was given
> as grounds for removal by the edict.
>

The censors at the time removed him for inactivity. I'm not sure if the
lex Octavia de senatoribus was active at the time, but that was with
high probability the grounds they used - unless it was common sense, of
course. If people leave Nova Roma, why should they retain places of high
respect?

Besides, at the time, nobody questioned it, so the removal is a fact.
Feel free to prosecute the then-censors if you want.

> Given these two extremely serious concerns, it was decided that the
> best course of action - for both the republic and the corporation -
> was to settle it in the manner in which it was settled.
>

Decided by whom? Hmm, let me see...the current censors, ex-allies of
Sulla, acting unilaterally and contrary to the just-as-unilateral
decision by the consuls?

> Should Sulla have first tried to use Nova Roman law to proceed against
> Modianus? I think so, absolutely yes. Was he *required* to do so
> under our law? No.
>

Yes. We actually DO have such a requirement. Lex Salicia poenalis, 21§ 1
states:

"The definition of laesa patriae includes, but is not limited to, any
overt act by a citizen which a reasonable person would conclude to be
damaging or defamatory to the republic, its religio, or its
institutions, including acts which may expose the republic, its religio,
or its institutions to macronational legal action, if such act is not
legally authorised by the republic or its agents"

Was Sulla authorised by the republic or its agents to start a lawsuit
against Nova Roma? Well, guess. What does that mean? That he's guilty of
laesa patriae, or treason.

There is a traitor in the senate.

Valete, Pius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61965 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
You were not a senator.  You were advised as a former magistrate you could vote in the senate, but not spout off your crap at nauseum whenever you wished.  Additionally, you were allowed back into the senate by my colleague without my having been consulted.

You are a virus to Nova Roma, infecting us by your presence.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

I explained it.

Modianus as Censor illegally removed me from the Senate. He did not
issue a Nota or an Edict. He just abused his power by removing an
adversary from the Board of Directors. He violated Maine law - where
it states, in regards to the removal of board of directors. He did
not have the support of his colleague. He just did it because he
could. He is the one that broke Maine law. He created the cause of
action and he put the other board members in jeopardy because of his
actions.

This is why I wanted a recognition of wrong doing from Modianus. He
violated his oath of office, he violated his position and
responsibility, he jeopardized the corporation and he put the board
members in financial jeopardy for his actions. He should be on trial
by the state for Treason.

Instead for the sake of Concordia I dropped the matter after being
reinstated by the Censors.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61966 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

This was my interpretation.  My colleage (Tiberius Galerius Paulinus) sent an invite to Sulla back into the senate without having consulted with me.  Sulla was removed as a senator, and the statement of the censores at the time was no longer in force.  But Paulinus had been paying Sulla's taxes for years (if Sulla was so interested in Nova Roma why didn't he pay his own taxes?), and wanted him active again in Nova Roma.  He brought him back into the senate, and I didn't agree with his actions.  Many of us have worked hard to make Nova Roma a better place only to have Sulla work against progress.  So I removed him from the senate e-mail list.  My colleague added him without my knowlege, I removed him without my colleagues knowlege assuming he and the new censor could fight it out as to whether Sulla would be brought back.  Censores should act as a pair when bringing someone back into the senate (either as a full senator or those ex-magistrates who by our law have a right to it).

Sulla disappeared from Nova Roma for years.  Paulinus kept paying his taxes so he would appear as an assidui.  No Sulla wants to be treated as an "elder statesman" because he was active "in the beginning."  Two senatores have already resigned over Sulla being re-admitted to the senate.  Has this happened before?  Perhaps what I am saying about Sulla is true.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Kristoffer From <from@...> wrote:



Your interpretation of lex Popillia senatoria is faulty, as I explained
in the senate. Ex-magistrates who have been removed from the senate does
NOT automatically have the right to sit and vote in the senate without
first having been re-admitted by the censors.



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61967 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
For many years now Sulla didn't pay his taxes, they were paid by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus -- a friend of Sulla's -- who wanted him to be an assidui even though he (ie., Sulla) wasn't interested in Nova Roma anymore.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:45 AM, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

Salve Sulla,



> Regardless if the US is a litigious society or not. If the law is
> broken, it is BROKEN. Case closed end of story!
>
Yes, but in any other country all you could expect for compensation
would be to get your membership fees back. Hardly worth suing about.

In the US do you think you would have been entitled to any other
compensation except the above mentioned one?

Just curious: I'm trying to understand the aliens.

Optime vale,
Livia



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61968 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Then why use legal force if you thought a lawsuit would "kill this organization" you purport to have built up? Do you seriously believe the nonsense you are spouting? You have offended the Gods of Rome and it is by Their will that Nova Roma has been created, not yours. If it is Israel you want, then go there. Leave Nova Roma to the Nova Romans.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis  
 
 


--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Conflict resolution in NR
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 4:45 PM

Caeso the logic you use is flawed. By your rationale I should have
just gone forward suing and in doing so KILLING this very
organization. That is precisely what a lawsuit would have done.

Do you really believe the words you are typing? Seriously?

I spent 6 years helping to build this organization. I was here from
DAY 1 - unlike yourself. So, just stop making a fool out of yourself.
You bring disrespect to yourself when you spout this non-sense.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Christer Edling
<christer.edling@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbu!
>
> 3 mar 2009 kl. 01.20 skrev Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus:
>
>
> Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper,
> Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is
> more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman
> culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There
> are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and
> must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman
> culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
>
>
> *******
>
> CFBQ: I think You are right, Nova Roma is more than a US corporation.
> You want us to "revive Roman culture, religion, and values"?
>
> You ask "Isn't that why we are all here?"
>
> I think You have the answer: At least one Nova Roma Senator doesn't
> want that and he has forced his way into the Senate. If You look into
> his history, not just the titles and other things, dig into the main
> list years back and You will find him in the center of controversy
> over and over again. At times he was part of Nova Roma's inner circle
> that now is more or less shattered, but not at all dead.
>
> Nova Roma has changed a bit for the better, now there is free speech
> and opposition from more than one side. I understand it is hard to
> believe that it gaven't always been so. Just let me say we don't have
> Sulla to thank for any progress at all.
>
> Just pay attention if any of my old opponents dare to show their
> faces. They once controlled Nova Roma totally, there was no hope for
> an opposition or independent thinkers to survive.
>
>
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
>
>
>
>
> ************ *****
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Main_ Page
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61969 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Please do not feed the troll
Point well taken, my friend. Let us return our attention to where it rightly belongs - Nova Roma - and leave the troll to wither away.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis


--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Please do not feed the troll
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:51 PM

Salvete quirites,

The troll wants you to respond to it. Please do not do this. Just
ignore its posts, and by doing so help our forum to be a better place.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61970 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
Salve Maxima Valeria Messallina

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT

You are not the voice of Mercurius

before making with the "all the Gods"

you should ask each one or there Priests.

do not bring my temple in on your fight with

the person who started the Gens Cornelia.


vale

Marcus Cornelius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina
<violetphearsen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <<<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Maxima Valeria Messallina
<violetphearsen@...> wrote: 
> It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses of Rome
are severely displeased that anyone should resort to the use of legal
force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It sets a dangerous precedent.
> I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
> As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
>  
> So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.>>>
>  
>  
> <<--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...>
wrote:
>
>     Who hears these words? If we hear them, do we truly listen?
If we listen, do we act upon their truths? 
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis>>
>  
>  
> A few have heard, but even if no one did, I would still say them,
especially since after reading the email below, my deep feelings of
uneasiness returned. I feel strongly that Vesta and all the Gods and
Goddesses of Rome are greatly offended by Sulla's "blackmail" of
Nova Roma. What has been done is completely dishonorable and a
violation of trust that has deeply displeased our Gods. And if we do
not listen to even Vesta, than what is Nova Roma?
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.  
>
>
>
> <--- On Mon, 3/2/09, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...>
wrote:
>
> From: M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] ON L. CORNELIVS SVLLA
> To: "Nova Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Nova Roma Announce"
<novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:01 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>  
>
> After wide and extensive consultations, we the Consuls decided not
to oppose to the reinstatement of L. Cornelius Sulla as Senator, even
if we do not and can not agree to what we consider blackmail to Nova Roma.
> We are quite grateful to the Censors for their efforts to achieve a
consensus, which we endorse completely, because we look, in
everything, for the best service of our Res publica.
>
>  
> Salvete,
>
> M•CVR•COMPLVTENSIS
> CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•HISPANIÆ
>  
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ
>  
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61971 From: vallenporter Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
wrote:
>
Salve Cato

I know what we need is by laws for the corp to run on. and having said
that.
but a "Constitution" does not have to be titled a Constitution.
and just a group of things that run the corp. not NR as new rome.
down side is most people in the Usa have hang - ups over the word
"Constitution"

Vale Felix






> Cato Cornelio Felico sal.
>
> Salve Felix.
>
> We certainly don't need a "Constitution". I wrote a long post
> detailing why a couple of days ago.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> > ?!?
> > Salve
> > the NR Constitution is not modern .
> > and till we have a Mos , we will need a "Constitution"
> > so again I ask you , what are you talking about.
> > vale
> > Marcus Cornelius Felix
> > Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
> > Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61972 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Novae Romae referendum
Cato Coirnelio Felici sal.

Salve.

Yes, I agree; I wrote my two posts regarding the Constitution with
that in mind.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vallenporter" <magewuffa@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@>
> wrote:
> >
> Salve Cato
>
> I know what we need is by laws for the corp to run on. and having
said
> that.
> but a "Constitution" does not have to be titled a Constitution.
> and just a group of things that run the corp. not NR as new rome.
> down side is most people in the Usa have hang - ups over the word
> "Constitution"
>
> Vale Felix
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cato Cornelio Felico sal.
> >
> > Salve Felix.
> >
> > We certainly don't need a "Constitution". I wrote a long post
> > detailing why a couple of days ago.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > > ?!?
> > > Salve
> > > the NR Constitution is not modern .
> > > and till we have a Mos , we will need a "Constitution"
> > > so again I ask you , what are you talking about.
> > > vale
> > > Marcus Cornelius Felix
> > > Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
> > > Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61973 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Q. Valerius Flamen Falacer Messallinae Modiano omnibusque S.P.D.

This outburst itself is a rather un-Roman thing to do. Get over it, no
Roman is perfect.

But Sulla's actions have precedent. Romans themselves were probably
even more litigious than Americans are. Only by defiantly defending
illegal actions can Romans turn another good-hearted Roman to bring
about Rome's demise. Sulla and Caesar of antiquity, neither of whom
were perfect, both defended themselves from illegal action (Marius v.
Pompey). Both times Senatores decried their actions as "un-Roman", not
realizing that their excuses were the un-Roman thing, that by saying
"don't hurt us" they were not only denigrating the Populus but
tarnishing their own reputations and diminishing their dignitas as
well. Sulla and Caesar didn't kill the Republic, Marius and Pompey
did. Sulla and Caesar may have been on opposite sides, but the same
Romanitas underpinned both.

Now, I'm *not* saying that Modianus actually broke any laws, but *if*
he did, our Sulla would have been more than right and Roman to find
redress by going to the superior body. Romans were all about
correcting even the slightest of wrongs, evidenced by their wide
variety of courts. Heck, the first profession of a successful
politician was, after military, legal!

And furthermore, the appeal to the gods is an excuse for personal
antipathy, and the gods are no lovers of those who speak falsely of
them. Maxima Valeria Messallina has probably committed hubris by
thinking she can speak on behalf of all the gods. She most certainly
has rejected humilitas by rejecting what ancient Romans actually did.

And Modiane, you yourself have been vitriolically spewing hate towards
Sulla. I would have figured that, since time and time again has shown
us that those who wish for divisive states end up losing, you would
have shown the same mercy, forgiveness, and compassion extended to
you. I won't say that what you're doing is un-Roman (it's not Roman or
un-Roman, unless you consider all vices done by Romans to be "Roman"),
but it is wrong.

For the benefit of the Populus and for the sake of dea Concordia,
would anyone care to post relevant leges? Ahenobarbus tried, but
inserted too much emotion and what he was arguing for seemed to be
irrelevant, contradictory, or lost in the confusion. Otherwise all I
hear is "Modianus broke the law!" "No! Paulinus broke the law!". Well,
if Modianus had no right to remove him, then I cannot fathom how
Paulinus could be breaking the law by rightfully returning him.

Finally, if Sulla did in fact think that Modianus broke the law, then,
only if Modianus does not accept Sulla's hand extended in peace, he
should pursue the matter in Nova Roma courts as well, and, unlike the
last court fiasco, I pray that the Gods open the eyes of the jury to
the truth of the laws, and not the personality of the defendants or
the obstruction of justice by the praetores. And if Sulla wins, then
either the gods have spoken and the jury has seen the truth, or else
the jury, hating Modianus, will want to reject his case no matter
what. I pray for the former. And if Modianus wins, then either the
gods have spoken and the jury has seen the truth, or else the jury,
hating Sulla, will want to reject his case no matter what.

Either way, I do join with several others here and asking for the
anti-Nova Roman hate to cease, and Concordia, so ignored by last years
trivial pursuit, to allow a peaceful co-operation by all willing
parties (willing, of course, not defined by you or you or you or you
or me even). For I sense that those like Valeria Messallina want a
constructive Nova Roma, but spouting vitriol only hurts, drives away
citizens, creates rifts, destroys what we worked so hard for.

Tell me, Modiane, Messallina, Sulla, Ahenobarbe, Caesar...is that what
you want?

Di nos incolumes custodiant.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina
<violetphearsen@...> wrote:
>
> Then why use legal force if you thought a lawsuit would "kill this
organization" you purport to have built up? Do you seriously believe
the nonsense you are spouting? You have offended the Gods of Rome and
it is by Their will that Nova Roma has been created, not yours. If it
is Israel you want, then go there. Leave Nova Roma to the Nova Romans.
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis  
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Conflict resolution in NR
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 4:45 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Caeso the logic you use is flawed. By your rationale I should have
> just gone forward suing and in doing so KILLING this very
> organization. That is precisely what a lawsuit would have done.
>
> Do you really believe the words you are typing? Seriously?
>
> I spent 6 years helping to build this organization. I was here from
> DAY 1 - unlike yourself. So, just stop making a fool out of yourself.
> You bring disrespect to yourself when you spout this non-sense.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Christer Edling
> <christer.edling@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbu!
> >
> > 3 mar 2009 kl. 01.20 skrev Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus:
> >
> >
> > Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper,
> > Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts,
it is
> > more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman
> > culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There
> > are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and
> > must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman
> > culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
> >
> >
> > *******
> >
> > CFBQ: I think You are right, Nova Roma is more than a US corporation.
> > You want us to "revive Roman culture, religion, and values"?
> >
> > You ask "Isn't that why we are all here?"
> >
> > I think You have the answer: At least one Nova Roma Senator doesn't
> > want that and he has forced his way into the Senate. If You look into
> > his history, not just the titles and other things, dig into the main
> > list years back and You will find him in the center of controversy
> > over and over again. At times he was part of Nova Roma's inner circle
> > that now is more or less shattered, but not at all dead.
> >
> > Nova Roma has changed a bit for the better, now there is free speech
> > and opposition from more than one side. I understand it is hard to
> > believe that it gaven't always been so. Just let me say we don't have
> > Sulla to thank for any progress at all.
> >
> > Just pay attention if any of my old opponents dare to show their
> > faces. They once controlled Nova Roma totally, there was no hope for
> > an opposition or independent thinkers to survive.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> > http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ************ *****
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Main_ Page
> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *********
> > Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> > Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61974 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: a. d. V Nonas Martias: The Di Consentes of Agriculture; Lictores
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et
omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di Consentes vos annuant oro.

Hodie est ante diem V Nonas Martias; haec dies comitialis est:

"Now is the best of time for making ditches." ~ C. Plinius Secundus,
Historia Naturalis 18.65

"Ditches should now be dug in seed plots." ~ M. Porcius Cato De Agri
Cultura 40

The Di Consentes of Agriculture

"Seeing that, as they say, the Gods encourage things to happen, I
will invoke Them first, not, as did Homer or Ennius, to the Muses,
but as the twelve Gods, the Di Constentes, and yet not like Those
whose golden statues may be seen in the Forum, six Gods and six
Goddesses total, but those twelve Gods who are most involved in
agriculture. First among those who are most beneficial to agriculture
are sky and earth, Jove and Tellus: and so, who among our ancestors
were called great, Father they called Jupiter, and Tellus, Mother
Earth. Second are Sol and Luna, by whom they told time, when to sow
and when to harvest. Third are Ceres and Liber, who are most
necessary in that moment when the fruit is ripe; from Them, truly, I
secure what food and drink comes to me. Fourth are Robigo and Flora,
who are propitiated lest rust form on the fruits and the trees
whither, or bloom while out of season. Thus for Robigo was the public
festival called Robigalia instituted, and for Flora the Ludi
Floralia. Then I pray to Minerva and Venus for what is produce by the
vine and the olive, and for other things from the garden, for who
were instituted the Vinalia Rustica. I also pray to the Lymphs for
rain, and to Fortuna Bonum Eventum for good results, since without
water all is arid and farming poor, and thus our success and good
results frustrated, and there would be no cultivation. For this
reason therefore go with reverence towards the Gods when seeking
their council." ~ M. Terentius Varro, Rerum Rusticarum de Agricultura
1.1


Lictores

"After the claims of religion had been duly acknowledged, Romulus
called his people to a council. As nothing could unite them into one
political body but the observance of common laws and customs, he gave
them a body of laws, which he thought would only be respected by a
rude and uncivilised race of men if he inspired them with awe by
assuming the outward symbols of power. He surrounded himself with
greater state, and in particular he called into his service twelve
lictors. Some think that he fixed upon this number from the number of
the birds who foretold his sovereignty; but I am inclined to agree
with those who think that as this class of public officers was
borrowed from the same people from whom the 'sella curulis' and
the 'toga praetexta' were adopted - their neighbours, the Etruscans -
so the number itself also was taken from them. Its use amongst the
Etruscans is traced to the custom of the twelve sovereign cities of
Etruria, when jointly electing a king, furnishing him each with one
lictor." ~ Titus Livius 1.8

"Why do they call the rod-bearers 'lictors'? Is it because these
officers used both to bind unruly persons and also to follow in the
train of Romulus with straps in their bosoms? Most Romans
use 'alligare' for the verb 'to bind,' but purists, when they
converse, say ligare. Or is the 'c' but a recent insertion, and were
they formerly called litores, that is, a class of public servants?
The fact that even to this day the word 'public' is expressed
by 'leitos' in many of the Greek laws has escaped the attention of
hardly anyone. ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 67


Our thought for today is from Demophilus, Sentences 33:

"Labor, together with continence, precedes the acquisition of every
good."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61975 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato Octavio Pio omnibusque in foro SPD.

Salvete.

Pius, you wrote:

"Your interpretation of lex Popillia senatoria is faulty, as I
explained in the senate. Ex-magistrates who have been removed from the
senate does NOT automatically have the right to sit and vote in the
senate without first having been re-admitted by the censors."


Yes, in fact, they do. The law explicitly states so:

"Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection." (lex
Popillia senatoria IV.C)

Sulla fits that category in three levels (censor, consul, and
praetor); it doesn't really matter who paid his taxes or why. He is
an ex-magistrate of proper rank, and the law permits him to be present
in the Senate. There is no limit to the number of people who can be
allowed attend the Senate - the law is also quite clear that the
various ex-mgistrates are not counted in the numbers of the senators;
he was not made a senator nor was his name involved in a sublection
process.

Pius, you lost this argument in the Senate and for good reason; the
corporation is held responsible for applying the bylaws in a
"reasonable" way under US law. The Senate overwhelmingly concluded
that the most "reasonable" interpretation of this law was to simply
take it at its word.

This is quite evidently a very personal vendetta against Sulla on the
part of Modianus; one for which he was willing knowingly to break Nova
Roman law.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61976 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato Q. Valerio Poplicolo sal.

Salve.

Valerius Poplicola, the law being referred to is the lex Popillia
senatoria. It sets out the process by which the censors may create
new senators and by which names may be added (or removed) from the
Senate List.

The relevant bits are from sections II and IV of that law.

Section II gives the reasons someone may be removed:

"II. ((Removal of senatores))
The censores may remove senatores from the list.
A. They shall begin with the list [of senators] drawn up by the
previous censores.
B. They shall first strike from the list those who have died or lost
their citizenship since the last list was drawn up.
C. They may also strike from the list any existing senatores whose
past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the
senate. They shall make public explanation of their reason for doing
so.
D. An existing senator may only be removed from the list with the
agreement of both censores."

Section IV describes the presence of non-senators in the Senate House
(on the Senate List):

"IV. ((Ius sententiae dicendae))
Higher magistrates and ex-magistrates shall be entitled to attend
meetings of the senate.
A. Any flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, or praetor shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein; any
tribunus plebis shall be entitled to attend meetings of the senate but
not to vote therein.
B. No flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, praetor, or tribunus
plebis shall be counted toward the total number of senatores.
C. Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection.
D. No dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
counted toward the total number of senatores unless he or she has
already been sublected by the censores."


When Sulla re-appeared, he was put back on the Senate List in
accordance with section IV.C.

He was removed from the List by Fabius Modianus.

The law does not give Modianus the authority to remove him from that
List. The law specifically states who may be removed and why; only
the censors may collegially remove someone from the list on grounds of
1) death, 2) loss of citizenship, or 3) having caused "serious and
harmful damage to the...Senate".

The section of the law allowing ex-magistrates to be placed *on* the
List has no such restriction, so may be done by any magistrate with
the power to allow it.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61977 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve,

Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Yes, in fact, [ex-magistrates that have been removed from the senate] do [have the right to sit and vote in the senate]. The law explicitly states so:
>
> "Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
> entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
> one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection." (lex
> Popillia senatoria IV.C)
>

I went over this in the senate. Please note the "except one who has been
deliberately passed over for sublection", which covers Sulla's case.

> Sulla fits that category in three levels (censor, consul, and
> praetor); it doesn't really matter who paid his taxes or why. He is
> an ex-magistrate of proper rank, and the law permits him to be present
> in the Senate.

...unless explicitly removed by the censors, which covers Sulla's case.

> There is no limit to the number of people who can be
> allowed attend the Senate - the law is also quite clear that the
> various ex-mgistrates are not counted in the numbers of the senators;
> he was not made a senator nor was his name involved in a sublection
> process.
>

Yes, the law is quite clear. Former magistrates are allowed to sit and
vote in the senate until the next time the censors sublect new senators,
at which time the former magistrates are either made "real" senators or
passed over. At which point they are no longer allowed to sit and vote
in the senate. Which covers Sulla's case.

> Pius, you lost this argument in the Senate

Cato, your memory seems either failing or biased. The argument ended
when my opponent started arguing that we had no way of knowing the
former censors had followed the law. Blaming, without any evidence, the
censors of not adhering to our laws is NOT a proper argument, which was
my response and the final post in that thread.

> and for good reason; the
> corporation is held responsible for applying the bylaws in a
> "reasonable" way under US law. The Senate overwhelmingly concluded
> that the most "reasonable" interpretation of this law was to simply
> take it at its word.
>

I saw no vote. The senate made no decision on this matter, some
individual senators and magistrates did.

> This is quite evidently a very personal vendetta against Sulla on the
> part of Modianus; one for which he was willing knowingly to break Nova
> Roman law.
>

Perhaps he was, but he didn't. His colleague did. And Sulla did.

Vale, Pius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61978 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve male

Is that your claim? Then there is no basis to your suit. You were
removed from the list for your disruptive and clownish behavior - as
I understood it at the time. The Censors are moderators of the
Senate list and have every right to moderate those who break
protocol. Such an action does not constitute removing you from the
Board of Directors, assuming you had been. You were returned to the
list as a former Consul with the right to vote. But you had earlier
been removed as a Senator because of your years of inactivity during
your absence. That is within the perogative of the Censors, under the
Constitution, as you should well know, since you, while Censor,
illegally removed a Senator.

I am of course refering to your removal of Aemilius Ericius.
Disgusted with your actions in the Senate, he posted there, "I am
leaving," meaning only that he was take some time away from the
Senate. But you illegally removed him from the Senate, from his
offices as Pontifex and Augur, and revoked his citizenship, after
only four days, when, under the law of the time, even if he had
renounced his offices and citizenship, he would have had a nine day
grace period to reconsider. When he did return he discovered your
illegal action and that he was barred by you from regaining his
rights. You abused the authority of your office, and so precipitated
the resignation of a third of the Senate. You, Sulla impius, are a
bane on Nova Roma

I in cruce male

M. Moravius Piscinus

Pontifex Maximus
Magister Collegii Augurum
Flamen Carmentalis
Senator Consularius
Civis Novus Romanus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine"
<l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> LOL Interesting perspective Caeso, but wrong! Good job in trying to
> interpret my motives. Thank you try again.
>
> Regardless if the US is a litigious society or not. If the law is
> broken, it is BROKEN. Case closed end of story!
>
> Nova Roma and in particular Modianus BROKE Maine law. It is really
> that simple. By removing me from the Senate email list he removed
me
> from the Senate/board of directors. He violated Maine's law in
> regards to the removal of board of directors. That was the entire
> cause of action. End of story.
>
> Modianus put Nova Roma in jeopardy and he put the board of directors
> in jeopardy because if this had gone to court I would have put liens
> in all of your property because I was absolutely committed to defend
> my rights and win.
>
> Sulla
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling
> <christer.edling@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Quirites!
> >
> > ********
> >
> > 3 mar 2009 kl. 00.11 Robert Woolwine wrote:
> >
> > ..........
> >
> > ..........
> >
> > It is ONLY a
> > not for profit corporation incorporated in the State of Maine.
It has
> > aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple. It
is a
> > corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
> >
> > This is all I have left to say in the matter.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > **********
> > Maybe this is his message: "Nova Roma is just a US corporation,
> > everything else is just a stupid dream."
> >
> > I am not sure that he wants Nova Roma to succeed, not even if he
says
> > so, on the opposite, I don't believe he wants Nova Roma to
succeed,
> > especiallly if he says so. His actions speaks clearer than words.
> >
> > In many respects he is right, but not in all. Nova Roma is a
dream,
> > but a good one. Nova Roma is a corporation, but Nova Roma doesn't
need
> > to be situated in the litigation-happy USA.
> >
> > It is time to move on and leave his type behind. He wouldn't
survive
> > in another enviroment. But Nova Roma would thrive!
> >
> >
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> > ************************************************
> > Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> > Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61979 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato Octavio Pio sal.

Salve.

Pius, show me in the law where your phrase "until the next time the
censors sublect new senators" or its equivalent appears in the law.
Prove this to me by precedent and law.

Your case ended in the Senate with the discovery that you are the only
one who understands the law to say this. This does not mean you are
wrong; it means you have not made a case which can be made more
*reasonably* than the understanding which your colleagues in that
House understand it to be.

Your colleague had the legal power to interpret the law and act upon
his interpretation unilaterally. He did so. Modianus did not.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61980 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cato M. Moravio Piscino salutem dicit.

Salve, Horatius Piscinus.


Removal from the Senate does mean removal from the Board of Directors:

"The Board of Directors of the corporation shall be composed of the
Senate of Nova Roma (as described in Section V of this Constitution)"
(Constitution of Nova Roma I.C).


you also wrote:

"But you had earlier been removed as a Senator because of your years
of inactivity during your absence. That is within the perogative of
the Censors, under the Constitution..."

It certainly is not. The power to remove senators given by the
Constitution very clearly states that they may do so "according to
qualifications set by law" (op.cit. IV.A.1.d). The applicable law is
the lex Popillia senatoria, which does *not* include a requirement for
activity. The law which did specifically qualify "inactivity" (the
lex Octavia de senatoribus) was repealed, so that clause no longer
applies.


you also wrote:

"I am of course refering to your removal of Aemilius Ericius [etc.]".

Why did you not prosecute Sulla when he left office? Are you saying
that because he acted in a manner you considered illegal he should be
subject to illegal action himself?

Furthermore, the Senate itself rescinded the reprimand it had placed
on Sulla as of 22 July 2008. Any prior action it had deemed improper
was considered to have been expunged. You do yourself, the Senate,
and Sulla an injustice by picking this up again.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61981 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus C. Equitio Catoni omnibusque s.p.d.

>Either way, I do join with several others here and asking for the
>anti-Nova Roman hate to cease, and Concordia...to allow a peaceful
>co-operation by all willing parties (willing, of course, not defined
>by you or you or you or you or me even). For I sense that those like
>Valeria Messallina want a constructive Nova Roma, but spouting
>vitriol only hurts, drives away citizens, creates rifts, destroys what
>we worked so hard for.

    The report of an impression received by our highest priestess is vitriol?

>Tell me,...Ahenobarbe,...is that what
>you want?

    I want a successful Nova Roma. I want us to follow our mission. Remember our mission? Yes, as a nonprofit organization, we have a mission, we have goals, and we have a purpose in existing. The Preamble to our Constitution states:

"We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma,...hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.

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. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome."


    It sounds to me as if we are what some would call "a pagan nonprofit organization" which promotes culture, politics (boy, we work on that TOO DAMN MUCH!), art, literature, language, and philosophy. In other words, we are primarily a religious organization. Our main goal is "the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization". The Declaration even says that we'll build a real, honest-to-gods city with a Forum. It sounds like we have at least one mission and at least one purpose.
    So, what do I want? I want this mailing list to go away, to be replaced by a Forum in which we can interact with each other face-to-face. I've found in my own experience that interacting with someone as a human being as opposed to "words on a screen" is infinitely more rewarding, understandable, and useful than writing, writing, writing all the time.
    As for the legalities, IANAP (I am not a praetor), but here's my view, for what it's worth:

1) Let's consult the gods. Because of conflict of interest, Modianus can't be augur for something like this, but others can be. Let's train some, if needed (we need them anyway). Let's consult the gods and see what they say. The Collegium Pontificum should proclaim an edict to make all pontifices and sacerdotes perform rites and report the results. It's already been done, twice, in this case. Were those consultations valid? Are they valid guidance in this case? I don't know; are they? I would say that we should look at them extremely closely.
2) Magistrates can't bind future magistrates to a decision, yet that seems to be the basis for Sulla's claim. Haven't we dealt with this before? Isn't there a Latin legal term for trying to bind a future magistrate? What did the ancient Romans say?
3) Sulla (and many others, past and present) has caused harm to Nova Roma, making him, I believe, eligible to be charged with treason.
4) People acted unilaterally, but I wonder if #1 above absolves them of wrongdoing. It might; it might not.
5) As of this moment, Nova Roma, Inc., could be sued anyway. I'm sure there are a lot of us who believe that it's not fulfilling its mission, and that the officers and board of directors are at least partially at-fault. With a vote of 2/3rds of the membership, the board of directors---in part or as a whole---could be removed and replaced. If you want legal remedies, they exist.
6) Our laws are convoluted at best and a farce at worst. This needs to be fixed. The tiny amount of research I did showed laws which seem to conflict, along with laws which have massive holes. The Constitution could be much better, and we need one as our bylaws. Of course, then, Maine state nonprofit law seems to allow our interal rules to function, interfaced to "the outside" through the bylaws/Constitution. This can be done, I believe. Other nonprofits do it; why can't we?

    The first and last things I say above are the most important: we are a religious body, and why aren't we a decent nonprofit org like everyone else? Why do we act like a bunch of children fighting on a playground all the time? Is anyone here serious about Nova Roma and its mission and purpose? Stop before you answer. Think. Then answer only for yourself. Why aren't we pursuing our mission? After 11 years, we (still) have some mailing lists. By any logical measure applied to nonprofit organizations, we are an abject failure. I don't want failure; I want success.

Optime valete.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61982 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Consulting the Gods
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus et Magister Collegii
Augurum Censoribus, Quiritibus et omnibus s. p. d.

"Your ancestors made the Gods their starting point in every important
matter, and likewise resorted to Them at the conclusion." ~ Titus
Livius 45.39.10

On such an important matter that potentially could have so impacted
on the Res Publica Populi Novi Romani and upon the culti Deorum, I am
a surprised that the Gods were not consulted first.

As our Virgo Vestalis Maxima has reported her feeling of an
uneasiness among the Gods, this should concern all of us.

During my morning prayers I am in the habit of consulting the sortes
Vergiliane as a way to provide me with a thought to meditate upon.
This morning the oracle replied:

"(Not) since Rome was with Sabine shared,
Spread wide through Latium,
Wherefore so heinous if my crime's offense,
Fling me piecemeal into the waves,
Or drown in the vast ocean."

I did not understand the meaning of the oracle at first. I have been
busy with other matters, while a little ill, and thus not reading all
the lists of late. But now I come upon a sacerdos of Mercurius
challenging the sacerdos Vestae, invoking the Gods to one side or the
other in a dispute, when the Gods were not consulted in the first
place.

This is an error, contrary to the mos maiorum, that the Censores need
to correct by consulting the auspices on whether their action is
approved by the Gods.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61983 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salve,

Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Pius, show me in the law where your phrase "until the next time the
> censors sublect new senators" or its equivalent appears in the law.
> Prove this to me by precedent and law.
>

In the lex Popillia senatoria. IV.C says:

"Any /dictatorius/, /censorius/, /consularis/, or /praetorius/ shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection."

Note, again, "except one who has been deliberately passed over for
sublection".

III.B, C, D and E says (written together for brevity):

"They shall {first,next} sublect any
/{dictatorii,censorii,consulares,praetorii}/ (citizens who have
completed terms as /{dictator,censor,consul,praetor}/) who have not
already been sublected, removed, or passed over for sublection."

Note that these are the four positions named in IV.C. Note also that
these paragraphs say "shall", not "may". Any of these shall be added.

III.G says:

"They may pass over for sublection any citizen qualified under III.B, C,
D, or E whose past conduct they consider would be seriously harmful to
the dignity of the senate. They shall make public explanation of their
reason for doing so. "

Note the "may". This means that a citizen belonging to one of the four
classes specified in III.B, C, D and E will either be sublected or
passed over. There is no other alternative. This means that after the
next time the censors sublect new senators, there will be no
"non-senators" that have not been passed over for sublection. They were
either sublected or they weren't. And again, back to the beginning.

IV.C says:

"Any /dictatorius/, /censorius/, /consularis/, or /praetorius/ shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection."

Again, note "except one who has been deliberately passed over for
sublection", which according to the fully logical and complete chain
above means all non-senator dictatorius, censorius, consularis or
praetorius.

Q.E.D.

By the way, this does NOT cover why Sulla wasn't allowed to sit in the
senate until the censors sublected him by edict. This is covered in
another paragraph.

III.F says:

"They shall next sublect citizens at their discretion, giving due weight
to their past tenure of public office, to their seniority, and to their
good character. These may include citizens who were passed over or
removed from the senate by previous /censores/."

This is another "shall"-point in the sublection iteration. The censors
don't have an option not to perform this point fully if they are
sublecting new senators. This has happened since Sulla was removed from
the senate. This is where Sulla would have been sublected along with
other senators after his removal, if he hadn't been passed over. Back again.

IV.C says:

"Any /dictatorius/, /censorius/, /consularis/, or /praetorius/ shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein, except
one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection."

Again, note "except one who has been deliberately passed over for
sublection", which Sulla was, several times.

Q.E.D.

> Your case ended in the Senate with the discovery that you are the only
> one who understands the law to say this. This does not mean you are
> wrong; it means you have not made a case which can be made more
> *reasonably* than the understanding which your colleagues in that
> House understand it to be.
>

I am NOT the only one. At least one senator spoke up to support my
position - that is one more than supported the other side of the
argument openly. Since that means all but three of the senate have yet
to make their opinions on the legal particulars known, please don't
claim anything else.

> Your colleague had the legal power to interpret the law and act upon
> his interpretation unilaterally. He did so. Modianus did not.
>

My colleague? Who are you talking about? I would have to guess Censor
Paulinus, from the context, but it is unclear.

If it is him you're talking about, I believe my explanation of the
legalities should suffice to enlighten you as to why there is no need to
interpret the law as it is perfectly clear in this case.

Moreover, if you recognise his legal power to interpret the law and act
upon his interpretation unilaterally, why don't you recognise Modianus'?

Vale, Pius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61984 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
M. Moravius Catoni s. p. d

You are apparently ill-informed. The pardon, which I presented to the
Senate for approval, was for an old reprimand against Sulla for when
he hacked into the Senate list well before he ever became a Senator.
It had nothing to do with his activities while he was Censor.

While I was still only a candidate for Tribunus Plebis, I received a
number of complaints, allegations made by others, on some things
Sulla was supposedly doing. As I did not hold office yet, I turned
the allegations over to a Consul to investigate. The name of one
witness was leaked to Sulla, who then hounded her from Nova Roma.
That is what so disgusted Senator Ericius. There was much more
involved than you are aware, and it was long ago.

As to your interpretation of the matter, there is a difference
between removal from the list for misconduct and removal from the
Senate itself. Sulla's removal from the Senate was not by Modianus,
but was made by earlier Censors. That occurred with Censores
Quintilianus and Marinus, the same year that the Lex Popilia would
have been passed. We would have to go back to the actual date and
check when the lex Popilia came into effect. Normally it should not
have until 1 January. So the Censores were still obliged to follow
the earlier law, if that was the case with the dates. None the less,
removal from a list is not the same as removal from the Senate, or
from the Board itself. His claim is spurious.

Vale
M. Moravius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato"
<mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato M. Moravio Piscino salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Horatius Piscinus.
>
>
> Removal from the Senate does mean removal from the Board of
Directors:
>
> "The Board of Directors of the corporation shall be composed of the
> Senate of Nova Roma (as described in Section V of this
Constitution)"
> (Constitution of Nova Roma I.C).
>
>
> you also wrote:
>
> "But you had earlier been removed as a Senator because of your
years
> of inactivity during your absence. That is within the perogative of
> the Censors, under the Constitution..."
>
> It certainly is not. The power to remove senators given by the
> Constitution very clearly states that they may do so "according to
> qualifications set by law" (op.cit. IV.A.1.d). The applicable law
is
> the lex Popillia senatoria, which does *not* include a requirement
for
> activity. The law which did specifically qualify "inactivity" (the
> lex Octavia de senatoribus) was repealed, so that clause no longer
> applies.
>
>
> you also wrote:
>
> "I am of course refering to your removal of Aemilius Ericius
[etc.]".
>
> Why did you not prosecute Sulla when he left office? Are you
saying
> that because he acted in a manner you considered illegal he should
be
> subject to illegal action himself?
>
> Furthermore, the Senate itself rescinded the reprimand it had
placed
> on Sulla as of 22 July 2008. Any prior action it had deemed
improper
> was considered to have been expunged. You do yourself, the Senate,
> and Sulla an injustice by picking this up again.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61985 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 3
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Below are the Questions for Day 3 of the Ludi Novi Romani. Good luck!
 
Optime valete
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris
 
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 3  (March 3rd)
 
Q5. Which individual enacted the largest number of laws in the history of Nova Roma?

Q6. What's the Carmen Decennale of Nova Roma? Who wrote it and what's its English title?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61986 From: Gallagher Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
 
Ex Officio
 
Censores Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Gaius Popillius Laenas salutem plurimam quiritibus dicunt.
 
The EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS that we issued to take effect on pr. Kal. Mar. M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. MMDCCLXII A.V.C. at 0700 CET
is hereby repealed due to misapplication of the law. 

According to Paragraph IV. A. 1. d. of the Constitution of Nova Roma and Lex Popillia Senatoria, the censores have the powers of maintaining the Album Senatorium.
 
Gaius Equitius Cato resigned his citizenship and all his offices including his seat
in the Nova Roman Senate. Gaius Equitius Cato has rescinded his resignation of Citizenship. Under the terms of the Lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda a former citizen must wait ninety days before they can be reinstated, unless the Senate waves the ninety day period. The law does not recognize a nine day grace period as the former lex did.
 
It is the intent of the Censors to return Gaius Equitius Cato to the Nova Roman Senate
But the ninety day waiting period needs to be waved by the Nova Roman Senate first.
We formally ask the Consuls to introduce a Senatus Consultum to wave the ninety day period for a retuning citizen given Gaius Equitius Cato past service to the republic.
 
Upon adoption of a Senatus Consultum or the passage of ninety days Gaius Equitius Cato is returned to the Album Senatorium.
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is returned to the Album Senatorium. He is a Senator of Nova Roma and a member of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma, Inc.
This edict takes effect on a.d. V Non. Mar. M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos.
MMDCCLXII a.u.c. at 1700 CET
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Gaius Popillius Laenas Censores, Novae Romae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61987 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
M. Moravius C. Catoni s. p. d.

I checked the dates. The Lex Popilia went into effect on the
Kalendae Ianuariae AUC 2758, when Modianus happened to be Consul. The
Censores then were Marinus and Octavius Gracchus. The Edictum stated:

"III. Section II c of the Lex Popillia Senatoria stipulates that the
Censors shall provide a public explanation when we strike existing
senators from the Senate list. Therefore the following public
explanation is provided: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is stricken
from the Senate list for nonparticipation in the Senate since October
of 2757 auc."

The Lex Popilia states:

"C. They may also strike from the list any existing senatores whose
past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the
senate. They shall make public explanation of their reason for doing
so.

"D. An existing senator may only be removed from the list with the
agreement of both censores."

Well, both agreed. They gave a public explanation as required. The
previous governing law, Lex Octaqvia, stipulated that a Senator
remain active. The Lex Popilia did not, but instead gave the Censors
much more lee way in making their determination. Obviously the
Censores that year thought it "seriously harmful to the dignity of
the senate" to retain a Senator who had been absent and inactive for
so long. You, and any others, might not agree with their opinion,
but the law allowed them to make the determination.

In that same Edictum, in accordance with the Lex Popilia, the Censors
also stated that should he return,

"IV. Future convening magistrates of the Senate of Nova Roma shall
understand that Lucius Cornelius Sulla is welcome to join the Senate
mailing list, participate in, and vote in meetings of the Senate of
Nova Roma by virtue of his Consular and Censorius status."

It says "Senate mailing list," not the Senate itself, and therefore
he was not a member of the Board. He was properly removed under our
laws, under our by-laws, and that places his claim on very shakey
grounds.

Vale
M. Moravius Piscinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...>
wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Catoni s. p. d
>
> You are apparently ill-informed. The pardon, which I presented to
the
> Senate for approval, was for an old reprimand against Sulla for
when
> he hacked into the Senate list well before he ever became a
Senator.
> It had nothing to do with his activities while he was Censor.
>
> While I was still only a candidate for Tribunus Plebis, I received
a
> number of complaints, allegations made by others, on some things
> Sulla was supposedly doing. As I did not hold office yet, I turned
> the allegations over to a Consul to investigate. The name of one
> witness was leaked to Sulla, who then hounded her from Nova Roma.
> That is what so disgusted Senator Ericius. There was much more
> involved than you are aware, and it was long ago.
>
> As to your interpretation of the matter, there is a difference
> between removal from the list for misconduct and removal from the
> Senate itself. Sulla's removal from the Senate was not by Modianus,
> but was made by earlier Censors. That occurred with Censores
> Quintilianus and Marinus, the same year that the Lex Popilia would
> have been passed. We would have to go back to the actual date and
> check when the lex Popilia came into effect. Normally it should
not
> have until 1 January. So the Censores were still obliged to follow
> the earlier law, if that was the case with the dates. None the
less,
> removal from a list is not the same as removal from the Senate, or
> from the Board itself. His claim is spurious.
>
> Vale
> M. Moravius
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato"
> <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato M. Moravio Piscino salutem dicit.
> >
> > Salve, Horatius Piscinus.
> >
> >
> > Removal from the Senate does mean removal from the Board of
> Directors:
> >
> > "The Board of Directors of the corporation shall be composed of
the
> > Senate of Nova Roma (as described in Section V of this
> Constitution)"
> > (Constitution of Nova Roma I.C).
> >
> >
> > you also wrote:
> >
> > "But you had earlier been removed as a Senator because of your
> years
> > of inactivity during your absence. That is within the perogative
of
> > the Censors, under the Constitution..."
> >
> > It certainly is not. The power to remove senators given by the
> > Constitution very clearly states that they may do so "according
to
> > qualifications set by law" (op.cit. IV.A.1.d). The applicable
law
> is
> > the lex Popillia senatoria, which does *not* include a
requirement
> for
> > activity. The law which did specifically qualify "inactivity"
(the
> > lex Octavia de senatoribus) was repealed, so that clause no
longer
> > applies.
> >
> >
> > you also wrote:
> >
> > "I am of course refering to your removal of Aemilius Ericius
> [etc.]".
> >
> > Why did you not prosecute Sulla when he left office? Are you
> saying
> > that because he acted in a manner you considered illegal he
should
> be
> > subject to illegal action himself?
> >
> > Furthermore, the Senate itself rescinded the reprimand it had
> placed
> > on Sulla as of 22 July 2008. Any prior action it had deemed
> improper
> > was considered to have been expunged. You do yourself, the
Senate,
> > and Sulla an injustice by picking this up again.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61988 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
M. Moravius Piscinus Consulibus, Censoribus, Senatoribus Patribus
Mátribusque Conscriptís, Quiritibus s. p. d.

As a Senator Consularius I shall support a waver requested for former
Senator Cato.

On the matter of Senator Sulla, while I believe that past Censores
were within their right and authority to remove him from the Senate,
and later to moderate and remove him from the Senate list for
misconduct, by the same token I support the right of the current
Censores to make their decision to restore him to the Senate.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
>
> Ex Officio
>
> Censores Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Gaius Popillius Laenas salutem
plurimam quiritibus dicunt.
>
> The EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS that we issued to
take effect on pr. Kal. Mar. M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. MMDCCLXII
A.V.C. at 0700 CET
> is hereby repealed due to misapplication of the law.
>
> According to Paragraph IV. A. 1. d. of the Constitution of Nova
Roma and Lex Popillia Senatoria, the censores have the powers of
maintaining the Album Senatorium.
>
> Gaius Equitius Cato resigned his citizenship and all his offices
including his seat
> in the Nova Roman Senate. Gaius Equitius Cato has rescinded his
resignation of Citizenship. Under the terms of the Lex Minucia
Moravia de civitate eiuranda a former citizen must wait ninety days
before they can be reinstated, unless the Senate waves the ninety day
period. The law does not recognize a nine day grace period as the
former lex did.
>
> It is the intent of the Censors to return Gaius Equitius Cato to
the Nova Roman Senate
> But the ninety day waiting period needs to be waved by the Nova
Roman Senate first.
> We formally ask the Consuls to introduce a Senatus Consultum to
wave the ninety day period for a retuning citizen given Gaius
Equitius Cato past service to the republic.
>
> Upon adoption of a Senatus Consultum or the passage of ninety days
Gaius Equitius Cato is returned to the Album Senatorium.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is returned to the Album Senatorium.
He is a Senator of Nova Roma and a member of the Board of Directors
of Nova Roma, Inc.
> This edict takes effect on a.d. V Non. Mar. M. Curiatio M. Iulio
cos. MMDCCLXII a.u.c. at 1700 CET
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Gaius Popillius Laenas Censores, Novae
Romae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61989 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Cato Moravio Piscino salutem dicit.

Salve Horatio Piscinus.

you wrote:

"Obviously the Censores that year thought it "seriously harmful to the
dignity of the senate" to retain a Senator who had been absent and
inactive for so long."

Perhaps, but that is not what they wrote in the edict, and the law
does not recognize something as "obvious" or allow us to define the
intent of the writers, especially given the nature of the act and its
consequences. The edict states specifically "nonparticipation",
without explaining that they considered that to be "serious and
harmful damage". Coupled with the specific repeal of the clause
regarding an activity requirement, this does not constitute proper
cause.

you also wrote:

"Sulla's removal from the Senate was not by Modianus, but was made by
earlier Censors."

yes, agreed - although we disagree on the validity of that censorial
edict. But Modianus took it upon himself to remove Sulla from the
Senate List, which was a violation of the lex Popillia. It was
recognized as such by all but one member of the Senate, and he was
restored within 24 hours.

So I agree that Modianus removing Sulla from the List did not remove
him from the Senate or BoD, because as I've said he was not a senator
at the time. What I am saying is that his removal from the List was
unlawful. Does it not say something that even Modianus himself
recognized the illegality of his act in the very statement by which he
announced that removal?

Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)

Vale,

Michael
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61990 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
>

Salve,

I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not your
citizenship.

Vale, Pius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61991 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Salvete:

It is his citizenship that is in question.  The censores have control over his senatorial status, but the 90 day citizenship waiting period needs senate approval to reinstate his citizenship before the 90 day waiting period.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Kristoffer From <from@...> wrote:

Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
>

Salve,

I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not your
citizenship.

Vale, Pius.




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61992 From: Kristoffer From Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Kristoffer From wrote:
> Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
>
>> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
>> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
>>
>>
> I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not your
> citizenship.
>

Salve,

Nope, me ineptus. Citizenship 'twas.

Vale, Pius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61993 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Michael Octavio Pio sal.

Salve.

Can we still discuss the law though? I may look odd in jeans and a t-
shirt amongst all you togate persons, but...

Vale,

Michael


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@...> wrote:
>
> Kristoffer From wrote:
> > Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
> >> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
> >>
> >>
> > I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not your
> > citizenship.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Nope, me ineptus. Citizenship 'twas.
>
> Vale, Pius.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61994 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
On 3/3/09, Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

Gaius Equitius Cato resigned his citizenship and all his offices including his seat
in the Nova Roman Senate. Gaius Equitius Cato has rescinded his resignation of Citizenship.

I wasn't aware that Gaius Equitius Cato had formally informed the Censors that he was resigning. I thought he had simply stated this in the main list.  If he didn't officially resign. how can he be reinstated or not.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61995 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Michael Lucillae Merullae sal.

Salve.

Apparently the feeling is that due to the wording of the Constitution
(it says "by notification of the censors or by public statement before
three or more witnesses" - Constitution of Nova Roma, II.A.4) my
statement constituted an official resignation.

Although the lex Minuciae Moravia de civitate eiuranda does state that
written notice to the censors is required:

"Citizenship from Nova Roma may be voluntarily relinquished by
notification of the Censors. Submission to the Censors of an intention
to resign citizenship should be made in writing with the intention
clearly stated..." - (lex Min. Mor. de civ. eiur. II.A)

the censors have in this case decided that the Constitutional clause
outweighs the clause in the lex.

I do not necessarily agree, as I do not believe a conflict exists (a
conflict would require that the higher authority - the Constitution -
prevail) or that the necessity of applying the Constitutional clause
over the lex is required, but that is the way it has rolled. My only
comment would be that if the Constitutional clause will be applied so
easily, the whole purpose of the lex becomes somewhat more puzzling.

In the interests of harmony, I have voluntarily removed myself from
the Senate House until such time as I may re-enter lawfully.

Vale,

Michael
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61996 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus C. Equitio Catoni s.p.d.

    The law is fuzzy. Many of our laws are fuzzy. That needs to be resolved. Maybe the lex should be changed to be more specific, such as saying "the one resigning should e-mail the censores at censors@..." or some such thing. I'm in agreement that posting it here on the Nova-Roma list, while not perfect, seems acceptable according to both the Constitution and the lex. I say we change/replace the law to make resignation and reinstatement more clear. We don't need another issue like this; it happens too often. Of course, I'm also a proponent of removing all offices, current century points, and other benefits immediately upon someone's resignation, with a delay before they could acquire them again if they return.

>In the interests of harmony, I have voluntarily removed myself from
>the Senate House until such time as I may re-enter lawfully.
 
    I hope that you do it also in the interests of the Republic. And, in your case, I believe that you probably do. I applaud you for trying to work within the Nova Roma legal system, imperfect as it is.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61997 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gnaeo Caelio Ahenobarbo salutem dicit

If it the main list and NR Announce are sufficient to promulgate an edict, then it seems that the main list would also be sufficient for resignations.  If a censor is too busy to read every message on the main list looking for resignations then he or she should appoint a scriba whose only purpose is to look for resignations.

If an edict is sent to the main list but no one notices it does that mean it isn't in force?  If the tribunes don't see it within their intercessio window does that make it any less valid?

The main list is a sufficient means of issuing a resignation.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus C. Equitio Catoni s.p.d.

    The law is fuzzy. Many of our laws are fuzzy. That needs to be resolved. Maybe the lex should be changed to be more specific, such as saying "the one resigning should e-mail the censores at censors@..." or some such thing. I'm in agreement that posting it here on the Nova-Roma list, while not perfect, seems acceptable according to both the Constitution and the lex. I say we change/replace the law to make resignation and reinstatement more clear. We don't need another issue like this; it happens too often. Of course, I'm also a proponent of removing all offices, current century points, and other benefits immediately upon someone's resignation, with a delay before they could acquire them again if they return.


>In the interests of harmony, I have voluntarily removed myself from
>the Senate House until such time as I may re-enter lawfully.
 
    I hope that you do it also in the interests of the Republic. And, in your case, I believe that you probably do. I applaud you for trying to work within the Nova Roma legal system, imperfect as it is.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61998 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Michael Fabio Modiano Caelio Ahenobarbo SPD

Salvete.

Modianus, you seem to have missed the point I was making. If
resigning here in the Forum is sufficient, why bother having a law
explaining the process of resignation? Why would there be a "process"
at all? And, just to clarify, I said nothing on the NR Announce List,
so the comparison is moot in any case.

Caelius Ahenobarbus, an argument could be made for a law regarding the
*effects* of resignation; they are in fact included in the lex Minucia
Moravia. But the process itself is either unnecessary or should stand
on its own merits. My case has shown that it is unnecessary,
apparently.

This is another reason for repealing the Constitution and replacing it
with specific laws.

Valete,

Michael
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 61999 From: deciusiunius Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Salve Michael, (or do you prefer Mike?)

Pius isn't togate either, he resigned too, so you fit right in.
Continue your discussion.

Vale,

Palladius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
wrote:
>
> Michael Octavio Pio sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Can we still discuss the law though? I may look odd in jeans and a t-
> shirt amongst all you togate persons, but...
>
> Vale,
>
> Michael
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@> wrote:
> >
> > Kristoffer From wrote:
> > > Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> > >
> > >> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet again a
> > >> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not your
> > > citizenship.
> > >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Nope, me ineptus. Citizenship 'twas.
> >
> > Vale, Pius.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62000 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Michael:
 
Let me try to be clear.  I consider a resignation on the main list sufficient.  That is my opinion.
 
In regard to your particular resignation, it was a censor who pointed out TO ME that you had resigned.  So the censores were well aware of your resignation because they read the main list and at the time I did not. 
 
If you want to keep arguing the point then argue with yourself.  So you didn't send a resignation to the censores directly.  At the time your intention was to resign.  You regretted that decision, but your decision you freely made.
 
Vale;
 
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Michael Fabio Modiano Caelio Ahenobarbo SPD

Salvete.

Modianus, you seem to have missed the point I was making. If
resigning here in the Forum is sufficient, why bother having a law
explaining the process of resignation? Why would there be a "process"
at all? And, just to clarify, I said nothing on the NR Announce List,
so the comparison is moot in any case.

.


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62001 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Mike Palladio sal.

Salve.

I just figured that my more formal Christian name might fit in with
the surroundings. Mike is good :)

Vale!

Mike

N.B. - use of the phrase "Christian name" is not meant to imply
inherent value of said name above names inspired by, or relevant to,
any other system of religious belief or any organization, society, or
group recognized under US applicable law or the laws of any other
country, territory, or possession. Void where prohibited by law.
Keep out of reach of children. Finished product may vary in
appearance from depiction on box.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Salve Michael, (or do you prefer Mike?)
>
> Pius isn't togate either, he resigned too, so you fit right in.
> Continue your discussion.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Octavio Pio sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Can we still discuss the law though? I may look odd in jeans and
a t-
> > shirt amongst all you togate persons, but...
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kristoffer From <from@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kristoffer From wrote:
> > > > Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Oh, I guess you can call me "Michael" now as I am not yet
again a
> > > >> citizen. Thanks for the support, though :)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > I believe the situation concerns your senate membership, not
your
> > > > citizenship.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > Nope, me ineptus. Citizenship 'twas.
> > >
> > > Vale, Pius.
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62002 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Mike Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

Modianus, a word here: this is not any kind of attack against you,
personally. I want to make that crystal clear. This discussion has
much farther-reaching implications than just you and I.

It doesn't matter whether or not it was "clear TO [YOU]". The law
doesn't care about your personal understanding or clarity. It cares
about process. The law doesn't care about your opinion. It cares
about process.

So either there is a process or there is not. Either that process is
sufficiently stated in the Constitution or it is not. If it is
sufficiently stated in the Constitution, then another process is
useless - in fact, obstructive - as the Constitution always has higher
authority.

Vale,

Mike

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>
wrote:
>
> Michael:
>
> Let me try to be clear. I consider a resignation on the main list
> sufficient. That is my opinion.
>
> In regard to your particular resignation, it was a censor who
pointed out TO
> ME that you had resigned. So the censores were well aware of your
> resignation because they read the main list and at the time I did
not.
>
> If you want to keep arguing the point then argue with yourself. So
you
> didn't send a resignation to the censores directly. At the time
your
> intention was to resign. You regretted that decision, but your
decision you
> freely made.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62003 From: David Kling Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Mike:

The process is that the censores find out about a resignation.  In your case, they knew about it.

We can argue over the finer points of law, but I don't see the point.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Mike Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

Modianus, a word here: this is not any kind of attack against you,
personally. I want to make that crystal clear. This discussion has
much farther-reaching implications than just you and I.

It doesn't matter whether or not it was "clear TO [YOU]". The law
doesn't care about your personal understanding or clarity. It cares
about process. The law doesn't care about your opinion. It cares
about process.

So either there is a process or there is not. Either that process is
sufficiently stated in the Constitution or it is not. If it is
sufficiently stated in the Constitution, then another process is
useless - in fact, obstructive - as the Constitution always has higher
authority.

Vale,

Mike




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62004 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
<<--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
 
This outburst itself is a rather un-Roman thing to do.>>
 
A Vestal was sworn to always tell the truth no matter how unpopular that made her. I have done so. That is a Roman thing to do.


<<And furthermore, the appeal to the gods is an excuse for personal
antipathy, and the gods are no lovers of those who speak falsely of
them. Maxima Valeria Messallina has probably committed hubris by
thinking she can speak on behalf of all the gods. She most certainly
has rejected humilitas by rejecting what ancient Romans actually did.>>
 
When I became a Vestal, my life changed in many ways. One of those ways was to swear to Vesta to always speak the truth 24/7 (or I say nothing at all). I have spoken the truth as it has been made known to me. When I read about what Sulla had done, an uneasiness came over me. When I have these gut-level feelings, I always turn to prayer. I retreated to my hearth where I maintain the Sacred Flame for Vesta and I prayed, first to Vesta, and then to all the Gods of Rome. I do not think being a Vestal bars me from praying to all the Gods and Goddesses of Rome. I do so every day and such was my custom even before I became a Vestal. I have never felt them to be displeased by this.
And the ancient Romans consulted the Gods for everything, or at least, that is my understanding.



<<Either way, I do join with several others here and asking for the
anti-Nova Roman hate to cease, and Concordia, so ignored by last years
trivial pursuit, to allow a peaceful co-operation by all willing
parties (willing, of course, not defined by you or you or you or you
or me even). For I sense that those like Valeria Messallina want a
constructive Nova Roma, but spouting vitriol only hurts, drives away
citizens, creates rifts, destroys what we worked so hard for.>>
 
I do not hate Sulla. I do not hate anyone. Hatred has no place in my life. On March 1st, I prayed to Concordia for Her peace and harmony. I am well aware how citizens and prospective citizens are driven away. When I was a very new citizen, less than a month old, I was the target of a flame war, and much hatred, for speaking up about the rights of animals. (I still do.) Only my newfound love for Nova Roma kept me from joining the ranks of those who have left. I, too, work every day to bring forth Nova Roma into the world like so many others do; but when I am impelled to speak up, I will do so and as I have sworn by Vesta, it will always be the truth as it is made known to me.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62005 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS 3 March 2762
Mike Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>
wrote:

>
> The process is that the censores find out about a resignation.


LOL

No, it is not. But you don't seem to be able to move past that. So
rather than think this through logically we'll leave it until it
happens again. That's certainly a responsible attitude.

Vale,

Mike
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62006 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus "Mike" s.p.d.

>N.B. - use of the phrase "Christian name" is not meant to imply
>inherent value of said name above names inspired by, or relevant to,
>any other system of religious belief or any organization, society, or
>group recognized under US applicable law or the laws of any other
>country, territory, or possession. Void where prohibited by law.
>Keep out of reach of children. Finished product may vary in
>appearance from depiction on box.
 
    Contents are measured by volume, not by weight. ;-)

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62007 From: Maior Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
M. Hortensia Maior Cn Caelio Ahenobarbo spd;
this is part of our ongoing struggle to make sure Rome's
polytheistic culture prevails, Cato has an english praenomen, Mike, he
is using it. Let him use the word.

At the same time, I see a lack of respect for the Virgo Maxima,
Vestals were accorded the highest respect in republican Rome, As a
figure worthy of our high respect, I call upon all cives to act as
true Romans and accord Maxima Valeria the deference due her great
position.
cura ut valeas
M.Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis
Senatrix

>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus "Mike" s.p.d.
>
> >N.B. - use of the phrase "Christian name" is not meant to imply
> >inherent value of said name above names inspired by, or relevant to,
> >any other system of religious belief or any organization, society, or
> >group recognized under US applicable law or the laws of any other
> >country, territory, or possession. Void where prohibited by law.
> >Keep out of reach of children. Finished product may vary in
> >appearance from depiction on box.
>
> Contents are measured by volume, not by weight. ;-)
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62008 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Correction [was Conflict resolution in NR]
Mike Maiori Caelio Ahenobarbusque SPD

Salvete.

Maior! How gracious of you to allow me to use my own name :)

At least Caelius got the point I was making; not everything is a life-or-death struggle. Sometimes humor can be put to good use!

Vale,

Mike

P.S. - Put your money where your mouth is, and let's see how deeply *you* trust the Vestal Virgin, Maior. She said the gods did not make her uneasy about me. Will you oppose Them?

P.P.S. - Caelius: may cause nausea, dizziness, or drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while using this product.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Maior Cn Caelio Ahenobarbo spd;
> this is part of our ongoing struggle to make sure Rome's
> polytheistic culture prevails, Cato has an english praenomen, Mike, he
> is using it. Let him use the word.
>
> At the same time, I see a lack of respect for the Virgo Maxima,
> Vestals were accorded the highest respect in republican Rome, As a
> figure worthy of our high respect, I call upon all cives to act as
> true Romans and accord Maxima Valeria the deference due her great
> position.
> cura ut valeas
> M.Hortensia Maior
> Flaminica Carmentalis
> Senatrix
>
> >
> > Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus "Mike" s.p.d.
> >
> > >N.B. - use of the phrase "Christian name" is not meant to imply
> > >inherent value of said name above names inspired by, or relevant to,
> > >any other system of religious belief or any organization, society, or
> > >group recognized under US applicable law or the laws of any other
> > >country, territory, or possession. Void where prohibited by law.
> > >Keep out of reach of children. Finished product may vary in
> > >appearance from depiction on box.
> >
> > Contents are measured by volume, not by weight. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> > http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62009 From: Pompeia Minucia Strabo Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Pompeia Minucia Strabo Consularis Quiritibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

I co promulgated this law with Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, then Tribunis Plebis in 2006.  I'd like to (hopefully) clarify perceived ambiguities, discuss the law's  relationship to the constitution, and expand on the two main purposes of this lex.

We're having some fun now, aren't we? :>)

Seriously,

 It is true that leges cannot override the constitution's language, and if there is a question in anyone's mind, the constitution's language prevails over a comitia law (it's supposed to, atleast!) 

However, the Lex Minucia Moravia Civitate Eiuranda law doesn't *contradict* the constitution...it is just that the constitution's language is more detailed on the matter of voluntary citizenship resignations.( There was another purpose of this lex, which I'll touch on in a  sec.)

Let's have a look at the texts:

First off:

Here's what the constitution says on the matter of Mike's/Cato's, Ahenobarbus/Kris' resignations (or anyone else's)  resignation of citizenship:

"Citizenship may be involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established by law  or may be voluntarily relinquished by notification of the censors OR by public statement before three or more witnesses. "

This pretty  much removes any doubt that our highest ruling document recognizes a resignation publicly delivered before three or more witnesses....pretty much a given in if you're using the ML... the constitution doesn't say it has to be an official list.  Unless someone wanted to argue that this must be done in person :>)..but the constitution doesn't say that either. Public statements can be written or orated.

Secondly,

Here's the opening clause of the Lex Minucia Moravia Civitate Eiuranda:


Citizenship in Nova Roma may be voluntarily relinquished or involuntarily revoked as per the Constitution of Nova Roma, paragraph II.A.4, or may be temporarily suspended under the Lex Fabia de Censu, paragraph VI. 


You will note that the above law pursues the constitution by citing it and honouring it's text.


  It also states a couple of clauses down (the link is provided)  that any letter written to the Censors informing them of one's intention to resign should have this intention clearly stated ...but it does not override the constitution where it says that you can resign by public statement in the presence of three or four witnesses.

 Simply this law can't override that, or any other clause in the constitution. It's not trying to.

  And,.. the text of this law * clearly* defers to the relevant aspects of the constitution, making it legally unnecessary to re write the entire clause of the constitution. I suppose one could argue that we should have and it would have 'read better', but some people don't like long laws with a lot of redundant language.

You can't win sometimes :>). but when it comes to being legal vs being prose pretty, being legal is the only way to go.


The bottom line is...all hairsplitting aside, Mike/Cato  and Ahenobarbus/Kris are legally not citizens until the Senate approves a waiver (last clause of the lex), or 90 days have passed from their respective resignations) and they are not Senators until they can be  recognized as citizens once again, and they are readmitted to the Senate by the Censors.  I don't see any *legal* ambiguity on which we can blame our laws or constitution in this case. If someone needs a clarification I hope I have provided this, by using the legal language to make things clearer.

Remember, if someone throws muck on something...it's going to appear muddy :>)

*******

The other purpose of this lex, which I referred to above, and it is a matter of citizenship the constitution is silent on, which needed to be addressed, and that being the ever growing  number of socci citizens who were not answering the censorial census.  This lex states that after a citizen fails to answer the census twice in a row, the censors may remove them from the Album Civium, in keeping with the procedures of the Lex Fabia de Censu.

I realize are other ways of involuntarily losing citizenship according to the constitution and prevailing law but they are out of the scope of the leges discussed above.

Here's the link to the entire law.


Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda

****



There are also other Minucia Moravia laws for processes regarding resignation of magistracies as opposed to magistracy *and* citizenship...but this is another story..  This resignation of magistracy was the cause of much argument in 2004 and 2005 as the prevailing laws were ambiguous:.allowing you to walk away and come back with your offices intact after a waiting period of 9 days, yet silent on a citizen who resigned his magistracy and stayed on as a citizen, and changed his mind in a day or two.  Could they resume their office?   Basically it was up to the magistrates of that comitia and/or the Censors. The bottom line is there was a potential that not everyone would be treated equally/ fairly.


For a time we had constitutional language stating that your magisterial office was vacant if you resigned or died.  This was in 2004.  The constitution was rewritten to reflect easier to read language, better grammar I think, with intent on keeping it contextually the same.  The language on the magistrates was somehow omitted, and alas, the changes were ratified by the Senate . It wasn't noticed until sometime after.  Ahh well.........


Anyway, the current laws on resignations were asked for. People were tired of the fighting.  Citizens wanted a process by which everyone would be treated equally and fairly....even benefitting those who've staunchly advocated a *no mercy* policy for others in the past.


I hope this clarifies a few things....or has lulled you to a good round of zzzzzzzzzzzzzz's



valete omnes













Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62010 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
Salvete omnes,
thank you, Octavi Pi and Moravi Piscine, for telling the whole story.
This way finally everybody on the main list can form their own opinion.

Optime valete,
Livia

>
> M. Moravius Catoni s. p. d
>
> You are apparently ill-informed. The pardon, which I presented to the
> Senate for approval, was for an old reprimand against Sulla for when
> he hacked into the Senate list well before he ever became a Senator.
> It had nothing to do with his activities while he was Censor.
>
> While I was still only a candidate for Tribunus Plebis, I received a
> number of complaints, allegations made by others, on some things
> Sulla was supposedly doing. As I did not hold office yet, I turned
> the allegations over to a Consul to investigate. The name of one
> witness was leaked to Sulla, who then hounded her from Nova Roma.
> That is what so disgusted Senator Ericius. There was much more
> involved than you are aware, and it was long ago.
>
> As to your interpretation of the matter, there is a difference
> between removal from the list for misconduct and removal from the
> Senate itself. Sulla's removal from the Senate was not by Modianus,
> but was made by earlier Censors. That occurred with Censores
> Quintilianus and Marinus, the same year that the Lex Popilia would
> have been passed. We would have to go back to the actual date and
> check when the lex Popilia came into effect. Normally it should not
> have until 1 January. So the Censores were still obliged to follow
> the earlier law, if that was the case with the dates. None the less,
> removal from a list is not the same as removal from the Senate, or
> from the Board itself. His claim is spurious.
>
> Vale
> M. Moravius
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato"
> <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato M. Moravio Piscino salutem dicit.
> >
> > Salve, Horatius Piscinus.
> >
> >
> > Removal from the Senate does mean removal from the Board of
> Directors:
> >
> > "The Board of Directors of the corporation shall be composed of the
> > Senate of Nova Roma (as described in Section V of this
> Constitution)"
> > (Constitution of Nova Roma I.C).
> >
> >
> > you also wrote:
> >
> > "But you had earlier been removed as a Senator because of your
> years
> > of inactivity during your absence. That is within the perogative of
> > the Censors, under the Constitution..."
> >
> > It certainly is not. The power to remove senators given by the
> > Constitution very clearly states that they may do so "according to
> > qualifications set by law" (op.cit. IV.A.1.d). The applicable law
> is
> > the lex Popillia senatoria, which does *not* include a requirement
> for
> > activity. The law which did specifically qualify "inactivity" (the
> > lex Octavia de senatoribus) was repealed, so that clause no longer
> > applies.
> >
> >
> > you also wrote:
> >
> > "I am of course refering to your removal of Aemilius Ericius
> [etc.]".
> >
> > Why did you not prosecute Sulla when he left office? Are you
> saying
> > that because he acted in a manner you considered illegal he should
> be
> > subject to illegal action himself?
> >
> > Furthermore, the Senate itself rescinded the reprimand it had
> placed
> > on Sulla as of 22 July 2008. Any prior action it had deemed
> improper
> > was considered to have been expunged. You do yourself, the Senate,
> > and Sulla an injustice by picking this up again.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62011 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Rome - The Imperial Fora: Archaeolgical News, Excavations & Discover
L. Livia Plauta omnibus in foro S.P.D.

http://imperialfora.blogspot.com/

This is the link to a very useful blog by Martin G. Conde, that gathers all news about the imperial fora from early times (the twenties) until now, with scans of the actual newspaper articles, the text transcription, and big, good-quality photos.

This used to be in the form of separate Flickr albums, but the author just organized all the contents so that they can be accessed with this much better format.

Definitely one bookmark to keep!

Optime valete,
Livia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62012 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Mike P. Minuciae Straboni sal.

Salve!

Po!

Now, I agree that the law doesn't contradict or conflict with the Constitution per se; I've said that earlier. What I am aiming at is the necessity of a law which clarifies the process of resignation when the Constitution already provides a simple one. What is the point of having two ways of doing the same thing if one way (the Constitution) will always trump the other (the lex)?

I remember very clearly the circumstances around the promulgation of the lex Minucia Moravia; there was a lot of consternation about the citizenship/magistracy thing. The lex was intended to clarify the effects of resignation; in the event, however, it creates a dueling-procedures effect regarding resignation itself. Kind of like dueling banjos, but one of the banjos has its strings taken out by the other one, making it less than effective.

So if the clause regarding the writing to the censors were removed, the rest of the lex acts quite nicely as a definitive statement on what happens *after* a resignation. Something to think about.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62013 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Pompeiae Minuciae Straboni s.p.d.

    Thank you for all this information!

Optime vale!
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62014 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Boing! Resignations, Reinstatements, and The Law
(Re-posted. I think using a specific word in the subject of my first post caused Yahoo to eat it.)


Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

In Nova Roma, we often see people resigning. There are many reasons for a citizen to resign from an office or to resign their citizenship altogether; some are personal, some are political, some are philosophical, some are involuntary. Pompeia Minucia Strabo just gave us a lot of information about previous
and existing laws from the point-of-view of their authors. Yet, based on recent events, we do not seem to have a watertight system in place for someone to resign an office or their citizenship, nor for them to be reinstated.
The lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda seems incomplete and not detailed enough, as shown by the recent arguments regarding posting a resignation notice on this mailing list. I'm in agreement that the language in a law should be as short as needed, but should be no shorter. Should that lex be amended, changed, repealed, or replaced? Does it interface well with Maine state nonprofit law (Nova Roma articles of incorporation, bylaws, and Maine 13-B S402.1)? These are all important questions, and they must be answered.
To be honest, I'm on the stricter side of this issue. I believe that, once someone has resigned, they should lose a lot. There are two things that can be resigned: citizenship and elected office. Here are my vague ideas, for what they are worth:
If a civis resigns their citizenship, they should lose century points, any appointed offices, and are prevented from running for elected office for, say, a calendar year. If it's their second resignation, they should also be charged a monetary penalty, maybe equal to their tax payment for the year, before they could be reinstated that second time. A third resignation has no chance for reinstatement.
If an elected officer resigns an elected office but not their citizenship, they cannot run for office for 2 calendar years, and they must pay a monetary penalty equal to their tax payment in the year that they resign. That means that if an elected officer, living in the US, resigned their office today, they would pay a USD$16 fine before being able to be reinstated as a simple civis, and then they couldn't run for office for 2 calendar years. If they resign their citizenship at the same time, the penalties are cumulative.
If a senator resigns...well, then we're dealing with---according to Maine law and our bylaws---the Board of Directors. Whatever we do has to mesh with external laws (basically Maine chapter 13-B). But, if we can, penalties could be similar or equal to that of an elected officer as stated above.

All my thoughts aside, I believe that we should make resignation easier than reinstatement, and that resignation---especially from elected offices---should carry reasonably serious penalties, including possible monetary fines. Basically, it should be hard to come to the decision to resign, but easy to actually resign once one has made that decision. I, personally, don't want people bouncing in and out of Nova Roma, offices, and the like. Having more serious penalties for resignations will also increase the seriousness of candidates for elected offices; they'd want to be even more sure that they could serve their entire term before they ran for office.
Oh, but there are even larger fish to fry. We need to keep this in the back of our minds, though. It is vitally important for the health of our Republic, our non-profit organization, and ourselves.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62015 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
---Po Minucia Catoni S.P.D.
(and you may use the name Cato or whatever other name you wish to use, the last time I checked)


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Mike P. Minuciae Straboni sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> Po!
>
> Now, I agree that the law doesn't contradict or conflict with the Constitution per se; I've said that earlier. What I am aiming at is the necessity of a law which clarifies the process of resignation when the Constitution already provides a simple one. What is the point of having two ways of doing the same thing if one way (the Constitution) will always trump the other (the lex)?

Pompeia: This is why: The constitution does not provide a *simple* solution of dealing with the (atleast then) multitude of socci who were still on the books as members at large of NR. With this law, after two census are unanswered, they may be removed. This is the *other* purpose of this law I was discussing.

Remember, we were writing the law to satisfy two purposes. The issue of the voluntary resignation, pertaining to you, contains one extraneous line in the Lex Minucia Moravia, and that is the clause which expands on how one should write to the Censors. Yes,we could well have not put that in, or we could have recanted the entire language of the constitution instead, or we could have just alluded to the specific number and article of the constitution. I already touched on that aspect. And we were aiming for 'legal' as opposed to 'pretty'.

Atleast the law doesn't attempt to override the constitution. And we are not left in thin air regarding the status of your citizenship by it's language, which is the most important thing. It may not have a lawyer's touch, but it is legally serviceable.

It was Piscinus' idea to blend the resignation lex with the issue of the socci, and tie it into the constitution. Credit where credit is due. It is too bad that we don't have more continuity between laws, and all laws should pursue the constitution.




>
> I remember very clearly the circumstances around the promulgation of the lex Minucia Moravia; there was a lot of consternation about the citizenship/magistracy thing. The lex was intended to clarify the effects of resignation; in the event, however, it creates a dueling-procedures effect regarding resignation itself. Kind of like dueling banjos, but one of the banjos has its strings taken out by the other one, making it less than effective.

Pompeia: Hardly. Most experienced magistrates are aware that when there are differences in language, the constitutional language prevails. By the time you get to be a Censor, you've been around for a bit. There is no dualing banjos about that...the constitution prevails. And the Lex Minucia Moravia was clear that it was pursuing the constitution...another element to remove doubt.
>
> So if the clause regarding the writing to the censors were removed, the rest of the lex acts quite nicely as a definitive statement on what happens *after* a resignation. Something to think about.

Pompeia: So, overall, save one extraneous clause, I'm reading that the lex is pretty good...? Nice to get a compliment, even if it's extrapolated.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62016 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
---Salve Gnae Caeli Ahenobarbe:

You are quite welcome.

Vale
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Pompeiae Minuciae Straboni s.p.d.
>
> Thank you for all this information!
>
>
> Optime vale!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62017 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Boing! Resignations, Reinstatements, and The Law
---

Pompeia Minucia Strabo Gn Caelio Ahenobarbo S.P.D.

For sure.

You are quite right in that the Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda doesn't address the issue of magistrates resigning, just citizens, as was intended. Here's the law which specifically deals with these circumstances.





http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Minucia_eiuratione_magistratum_%28Nova_Roma%29


Problem: Each comitia, according to the constitution, runs it's own internal procedures. Consequently, we had to promulgate for each comitia separately. The Comitia Centuriata stuff did not pass. It, or something similar, really should be repromulgated. It only lost by one century.

But the lex below applies to magistrates elected of the Comitia Populi Tributa and the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If anyone resigns from the Comitia Centuriata magistrature, we will be in the same scrap we've experienced in other years.

Vale
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
>
> (Re-posted. I think using a specific word in the subject of my first post caused Yahoo to eat it.)
>
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> In Nova Roma, we often see people resigning. There are many reasons for a citizen to resign from an office or to resign their citizenship altogether; some are personal, some are political, some are philosophical, some are involuntary. Pompeia Minucia Strabo just gave us a lot of information about previous
> and existing laws from the point-of-view of their authors. Yet, based on recent events, we do not seem to have a watertight system in place for someone to resign an office or their citizenship, nor for them to be reinstated.
> The lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda seems incomplete and not detailed enough, as shown by the recent arguments regarding posting a resignation notice on this mailing list. I'm in agreement that the language in a law should be as short as needed, but should be no shorter. Should that lex be amended, changed, repealed, or replaced? Does it interface well with Maine state nonprofit law (Nova Roma articles of incorporation, bylaws, and Maine 13-B S402.1)? These are all important questions, and they must be answered.
> To be honest, I'm on the stricter side of this issue. I believe that, once someone has resigned, they should lose a lot. There are two things that can be resigned: citizenship and elected office. Here are my vague ideas, for what they are worth:
> If a civis resigns their citizenship, they should lose century points, any appointed offices, and are prevented from running for elected office for, say, a calendar year. If it's their second resignation, they should also be charged a monetary penalty, maybe equal to their tax payment for the year, before they could be reinstated that second time. A third resignation has no chance for reinstatement.
> If an elected officer resigns an elected office but not their citizenship, they cannot run for office for 2 calendar years, and they must pay a monetary penalty equal to their tax payment in the year that they resign. That means that if an elected officer, living in the US, resigned their office today, they would pay a USD$16 fine before being able to be reinstated as a simple civis, and then they couldn't run for office for 2 calendar years. If they resign their citizenship at the same time, the penalties are cumulative.
> If a senator resigns...well, then we're dealing with---according to Maine law and our bylaws---the Board of Directors. Whatever we do has to mesh with external laws (basically Maine chapter 13-B). But, if we can, penalties could be similar or equal to that of an elected officer as stated above.
>
> All my thoughts aside, I believe that we should make resignation easier than reinstatement, and that resignation---especially from elected offices---should carry reasonably serious penalties, including possible monetary fines. Basically, it should be hard to come to the decision to resign, but easy to actually resign once one has made that decision. I, personally, don't want people bouncing in and out of Nova Roma, offices, and the like. Having more serious penalties for resignations will also increase the seriousness of candidates for elected offices; they'd want to be even more sure that they could serve their entire term before they ran for office.
> Oh, but there are even larger fish to fry. We need to keep this in the back of our minds, though. It is vitally important for the health of our Republic, our non-profit organization, and ourselves.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62018 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Bouncers and The Law
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

In Nova Roma, we often see people resigning. There are many reasons for a citizen to resign from an office or to resign their citizenship altogether; some are personal, some are political, some are philosophical, some are involuntary. Pompeia Minucia Strabo just gave us a lot of information about previous
and existing laws from the point-of-view of their authors. Yet, based on recent events, we do not seem to have a watertight system in place for someone to resign an office or their citizenship, nor for them to be reinstated.
The lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda seems incomplete and not detailed enough, as shown by the recent arguments regarding posting a resignation notice on this mailing list. I'm in agreement that the language in a law should be as short as needed, but should be no shorter. Should that lex be amended, changed, repealed, or replaced? Does it interface well with Maine state nonprofit law (Nova Roma articles of incorporation, bylaws, and Maine 13-B S402.1)? These are all important questions, and they must be answered.
To be honest, I'm on the stricter side of this issue. I believe that, once someone has resigned, they should lose a lot. There are two things that can be resigned. Here are my vague ideas, for what they are worth:
If a civis resigns their citizenship, they should lose century points, any appointed offices, and are prevented from running for elected office for, say, a calendar year. If it's their second resignation, they should also be charged a monetary penalty, maybe equal to their tax payment for the year, before they could be reinstated that second time. A third resignation has no chance for reinstatement.
If an elected officer resigns an elected office but not their citizenship, they cannot run for office for 2 calendar years, and they must pay a monetary penalty equal to their tax payment in the year that they resign. That means that if an elected officer, living in the US, resigned their office today, they would pay a USD$16 fine before being able to be reinstated as a simple civis, and then they couldn't run for office for 2 calendar years.
If a senator resigns...well, then we're dealing with---according to Maine law and our bylaws---the Board of Directors. Whatever we do has to mesh with external laws (basically Maine chapter 13-B). But, if we can, penalties could be similar or equal to that of an elected officer as stated above.

All my thoughts aside, I believe that we should make resignation easier than reinstatement, and that resignation---especially from elected offices---should carry reasonably serious penalties, including possible monetary fines. Basically, it should be hard to come to the decision to resign, but easy to actually resign once one has made that decision. I, personally, don't want people bouncing in and out of Nova Roma, offices, and the like. Having more serious penalties for resignations will also increase the seriousness of candidates for elected offices; they'd want to be even more sure that they could serve their entire term before they ran for office.
Oh, but there are even larger fish to fry. We need to keep this in the back of our minds, though. It is vitally important for the health of our Republic, our non-profit organization, and ourselves.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62019 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
ach it just doesn't seem natural to use my "other" name here

Cato Minuciae Straboni sal.

Salve.

Yes, I think the law is quite effective regarding the effects of resignation, no need to extrapolate :)

Yet I also think that the lex simply tries to do too much all at once and makes the resignation section basically non-useful. The Constitution is mentioned at the beginning, but then the lex goes on to state that it *is* the process. I refer to this statement:

"Outlined in this lex are the procedures by which a Citizen may voluntarily relinquish his or her citizenship by a process of resignation from Nova Roma..."

So within the lex you have two conflicting claims: first that citizenship may be resigned "as per the Constitution", second that contained in the lex are "the" procedures by which a citizen can resign. After the statement copied above, there is no further mention of the Constitution. If that sentence had been placed first, before the mention of the Constitution, it would change the meaning dramatically.

Even calling the process given in the lex "one of" or "a more formal" or "an additional" or something along those lines would make this discussion unnecessary. Yes, it seems a little nitpicky, but we all know that the law is meant to be read at face value rather than have assumptions made that "everyone knows" this or that so it does not need to be said.

Laws should either be extremely precise or extremely vague. Combining the two is simply fertile soil for confusion, as we see in so many of our laws. I think that often we could condense a page-long law into one or two sentences that would be equally effective.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62020 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
---Salve Mike
(as you wish)

You wrote from below:

"but we all know that the law is
meant to be read at face value rather than have assumptions made that "everyone
knows" this or that so it does not need to be said."

Pompeia: Ahh, unless you have an extremely short term memory,you know I didn't say that with respect to the actual wording of the law...I certainly did not.

I said that if there is ever a question, the constitution prevails...that directive is right in the constitution and is common knowledge to experienced magistrates. And every magistrate administrating the law *should* know that to be competent. I was not defending an ambiguity in the law.

That is what I said.

You can have an air-tight law, written beautifully, but if it conflicts with the constitution, it's garbage.

Point well taken. We should have left that sentence out. I admitted to that two posts ago. Still, the clause doesn't make the law a dangerously ambiguous pile of rubbish. It is just extraneous to our already cited reference to constitutional law. It's easy to determine that you are not a citizen, and how we shall proceed Mission accomplished.

If you don't like the law, then perhaps you can ask the Censores to can the Senate session regarding a waiver of your 90 days :>)


I forgot how you like to argue and argue and you will twist words at lib to win an argument. What are you 'winning'?

I already conceded that perhaps that clause didn't have to be in the law. What more do you want?

I can't repromulgate it for you. I am sure Rome will not crumble because of it...and the Consuls are welcome to redo it as they wish.

Pompeia









In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> ach it just doesn't seem natural to use my "other" name here
>
> Cato Minuciae Straboni sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Yes, I think the law is quite effective regarding the effects of resignation, no need to extrapolate :)
>
> Yet I also think that the lex simply tries to do too much all at once and makes the resignation section basically non-useful. The Constitution is mentioned at the beginning, but then the lex goes on to state that it *is* the process. I refer to this statement:
>
> "Outlined in this lex are the procedures by which a Citizen may voluntarily relinquish his or her citizenship by a process of resignation from Nova Roma..."
>
> So within the lex you have two conflicting claims: first that citizenship may be resigned "as per the Constitution", second that contained in the lex are "the" procedures by which a citizen can resign. After the statement copied above, there is no further mention of the Constitution. If that sentence had been placed first, before the mention of the Constitution, it would change the meaning dramatically.
>
> Even calling the process given in the lex "one of" or "a more formal" or "an additional" or something along those lines would make this discussion unnecessary. Yes, it seems a little nitpicky, but we all know that the law is meant to be read at face value rather than have assumptions made that "everyone knows" this or that so it does not need to be said.
>
> Laws should either be extremely precise or extremely vague. Combining the two is simply fertile soil for confusion, as we see in so many of our laws. I think that often we could condense a page-long law into one or two sentences that would be equally effective.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62021 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Cato Minuciae Straboni sal.

Salve!

woah woah woah there Nelly! That certainly went from normal to nasty fast.

Where did that come from? I thought we were having a simple straightforward discussion here. When I quote someone directly, I always preface it with "you wrote", etc. There is nothing personal in this on my end. Just a polite, normal conversation about how to make our laws more rational.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62022 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
---Pompeia Catoni sal

I see you want to be called Cato after all.

Fine, because in typical Cato fashion you delete *all* of the previous text and start afresh so that nobody knows what the heck I had said. Naturally, someone just logging on might assume that I had a raging fit or something,or treated you harshly. All I fed you were facts.

Nasty? No. I just pointed out that you are dwelling on that which has already been noted and logged. And you do silly things to *win* arguments,like misinterpret people and cut *all* texts to red herring discussions. You rub out the blackboard, Cato. You've been doing it for years.

But why are you dwelling I wonder?

Are you trying to take the focus off yourself and your predicament and put it on the law?

This law hasn't been high on your complaint list in the past couple of years. Perhaps because, naturally, it didn't affect you. You are now in the hot seat, having resigned. I don't think anything of it...I read back and you were getting clubbed pretty harshly. You need to learn to press the delete key when you see certain names beside posts. Or shut the computer off for a while.

There are times when I can see where you cheese people off though.

With respect to resignations,I always thought people deserved a second chance. I don't subscribe to a *no mercy* policy, with citizens, magistrates, senators, or CP members. People deserve another chance, especially longstanding, hardworking citizens/magistrates, etc. A balance of leniency vs accountability.

You and I clashed heavily on this issue in 2005 as I recall.

Cato, as long as we have different people, from all walks of life, from all over the world holding magistracies in NR and writing our laws we will struggle with likes/dislikes/misunderstandings and good old fashioned ambiguities. This will always be a struggle, and so we have to remember the rules of hierarchy of legislation to bail us out of legal jams. No quick fix.

We could hire legal experts. But several of our laws have been written by *legal experts* and this has not made the glass any clearer.

And my name is not Nellie.

Good night

Pompeia






In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Minuciae Straboni sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> woah woah woah there Nelly! That certainly went from normal to nasty fast.
>
> Where did that come from? I thought we were having a simple straightforward discussion here. When I quote someone directly, I always preface it with "you wrote", etc.

Pompeia: you did not quote me; you gave an interpretation of what I said without quoting me.


There is nothing personal in this on my end. Just a polite, normal conversation about how to make our laws more rational.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62023 From: Gaius Equitius Cato Date: 2009-03-03
Subject: Re: Notes on Resignations/Lex Minucia Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda
Cato Minuciae Straboni sal.

Salve.

LOL Of course it concerns me when it affects me! Why on earth would it not? But as you yourself have repeatedly noted, it also concerned me years ago when it did *not* affect me personally.

And it's really not a hot seat; if you read carefully over the series of posts regarding this, you'll see that I voiced my opinion regarding my own situation once, in the mildest of tones; I removed myself voluntarily from the Senate List before it was even hinted that I should do so, and am simply thinking bout how this kind of thing may affect *future* citizens.

Ah well. It's clear you have a very old personal axe to grind so I shall leave you to it.

Vale,

Cato (and yes, *as I wrote several posts ago*, it seemed unnatural to sign any other than my Roman name here)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62024 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: We're Losing
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.

I would like to quote a portion of the Census Report for 2858/2005. Any emphasis, as noted by asterisks (*) is mine.

"What the census figures above reveal is that ***Nova Roma has had serious
problems in the past with the retention of members*** and this has
affected Nova Roma in developing in other areas as well. This has been
supported by anecdotal information received from former members during
the course of conducting the census. The former members indicated that
***the main cause for their departure was the confrontational atmosphere
on Nova Roma lists***. That cause may directly account for as many as 300
members leaving, but does not fully explain the loss of over three
thousand members over the past five years. From the limited available
information what was found is that ***42% of those who left due directly
to confrontations with other members were educators (university
professors and secondary school teachers)***. The inability to retain
educators greatly inhibits Nova Roma from fulfilling its role of being
an educational organization, and this may better explain why so many
members have left."

O di immortales! What are we doing? Where are we going? Does this not shock, scare, and disgust anyone besides me? We must remedy this.

Optime valete.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62025 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: a. d. IV Nonas Martias: Romulus and the Founding of Rome
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Gnriles, cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et omnibus salute plurimam dicit: Di vos inculumes custodiant

Hodie est ante diem IIII Nonas Martias; haec dies comitialis est:

Ab Urbe condita: Romulus Founds Rome

Romulus buried Remus, together with his foster-fathers, in theRemonia, and then set himself to building his city, after summoning from Tuscany men who prescribed all the details in accordance with certain sacred ordinances and writings, and taught them to him as in religious rite. A circular trench was dug around what is now the Comitium, and in this were deposited the first-fruits of all things the use of which was sanctioned by custom as good and by nature as necessary; and finally, every man brought a small portion of the soil of his native land, and these were cast in among the first-fruits and mingled with them. They call this trench, as they do the heavens, by the name of 'mundus.' Then, taking this as a centre, they marked out the city in a circle round it. And the founder, having shod a plough with a brazen ploughshare, and having yoked to it a bull and a cow, himself drove a deep furrow round the boundary lines, while those who followed after him had to turn the clods, which the plough threw up, inwards towards the city, and suffer no clod to lie turned outwards. With this line they mark out the course of the wall, and it is called, by contraction, 'pomerium,' that is, 'post murum,' behind or next the wall. And where they purposed to put in a gate, there they took the share out of the ground, lifted the plough over, and left a vacant space. And this is the reason why they regard all the wall as sacred except the gates; but if they held the gates sacred, it would not be possible, without religious scruples, to bring into and send out of the city things which are necessary, and yet unclean." ~ Plutarch, Life of Romulus 11


Romulus and Rome's first constitution.

"After the claims of religion had been duly acknowledged, Romulus called his people to a council. As nothing could unite them into one political body but the observance of common laws and customs, he gave
them a body of laws, which he thought would only be respected by a rude and uncivilised race of men if he inspired them with awe by assuming the outward symbols of power. He surrounded himself with greater state, and in particular he called into his service twelve lictors. Some think that he fixed upon this number from the number of the birds who foretold his sovereignty; but I am inclined to agree with those who think that as this class of public officers was borrowed from the same people from whom the `sella curulis' and the `toga praetexta' were adopted--their neighbours, the Etruscans—so the number itself also was taken from them. Its use amongst the Etruscans is traced to the custom of the twelve sovereign cities of Etruria, when jointly electing a king furnishing him each with one lictor.

"Meantime the City was growing by the extension of its walls in various directions an increase due rather to the anticipation of its future population than to any present overcrowding. His next care was to secure an addition to the population that the size of the City might not be a source of weakness. It had been the ancient policy of the founders of cities to get together a multitude of people of obscure and low origin and then to spread the fiction that they were the children of the soil. In accordance with this policy, Romulus
opened a place of refuge on the spot where, as you go down from the Capitol, you find an enclosed space between two groves. A promiscuous crowd of freemen and slaves, eager for change, fled thither from the neighbouring states. This was the first accession of strength to the nascent greatness of the city.

"When he was satisfied as to its strength, his next step was to provide for that strength being wisely directed. He created a hundred senators; either, because that number was adequate, or because there were only a hundred heads of houses who could be created. In any case they were called the 'Patres' in virtue of their rank, and their descendants were called 'Patricians.'" ~ Titus Livius 1.8


Our thought for today is from Epicurius, Vatican Saying 67:

"Since the attainment of great wealth can scarcely be accomplished without slavery to crowds or to politicians, a free life cannot obtain much wealth; but such a life already possesses everything in unfailing supply. Should such a life happen to achieve great wealth, this too it can share so as to gain the good will of one's neighbors."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62026 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: a. d. IV Nonas Martias: Romulus and the Founding of Rome
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus M. Moraviae Piscino Horatiano omnibusque s.p.d

    I felt my heart shiver when I read the account of Romulus and the definition of the pomerium. Amici mei, think of Roma always. It is our heart.

    Roma vivit!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62027 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
In a message dated 3/3/2009 9:17:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cn.caelius@... writes:
The former members indicated that
***the main cause for their departure was the confrontational atmosphere
on Nova Roma lists***. That cause may directly account for as many as 300
members leaving, but does not fully explain the loss of over three
thousand members over the past five years. From the limited available
information what was found is that ***42% of those who left due directly
to confrontations with other members were educators (university
professors and secondary school teachers)*** . The inability to retain
educators greatly inhibits Nova Roma from fulfilling its role of being
an educational organization, and this may better explain why so many
members have left."
 
 
I think you have take these numbers in context.
 
When I was provincial Praetor of California I noticed that we would get a strong influx of NR joinees after I'd lecture at a university, or speak at a gaming convention etc about NR especially after Scott's "Gladiator."  However they all wouldn't stick.
 
Usually macro national interests would pose problems.  Or school work or a religious beliefs clash would eliminate some.  A lot of Christians like things Roman, but are wary of the Theocracy that is NR.
 
My point is Cn. Caelius is just because you join NR, does not automatically make you a Romanphile that sticks it out through good times and bad.    Many people cut and run at the first sign of adversary.  And that is to be expected. 
 
Q. Fabius Maximus
 


Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62028 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Salve,

Well, I am not surprised. I'm one of those who disappeared long ago and returned recently, and I see the same kind of bickering, but with new faces. This time, now that I'm a classics grad student, I've decided to carve out my own little academic space in the Sodalitas Graeciae and begin posting serious work. Others should do the same.

-M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.
>
> I would like to quote a portion of the Census Report for 2858/2005. Any emphasis, as noted by asterisks (*) is mine.
>
> "What the census figures above reveal is that ***Nova Roma has had serious
> problems in the past with the retention of members*** and this has
> affected Nova Roma in developing in other areas as well. This has been
> supported by anecdotal information received from former members during
> the course of conducting the census. The former members indicated that
> ***the main cause for their departure was the confrontational atmosphere
> on Nova Roma lists***. That cause may directly account for as many as 300
> members leaving, but does not fully explain the loss of over three
> thousand members over the past five years. From the limited available
> information what was found is that ***42% of those who left due directly
> to confrontations with other members were educators (university
> professors and secondary school teachers)***. The inability to retain
> educators greatly inhibits Nova Roma from fulfilling its role of being
> an educational organization, and this may better explain why so many
> members have left."
>
> O di immortales! What are we doing? Where are we going? Does this not shock, scare, and disgust anyone besides me? We must remedy this.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62029 From: Titus Flavius Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution


T.Flavius Aquila Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbo salutem plurimam dicit

 

we are not an educational organization per se.

 

Part of our aims might go in this direction , but our major aim is to reconstruct the republican Rome as an independent,sovereign nation, to be the homestead of the Religio Romana as stated in the preamble of our precious constitution. To make it very clear as well, I support our constitution as it safegauards our Republic and the

Religio Romana as the state religion of Nova Roma.

 

 Whenever I speak to citizens of my provincia who unfortunately decided to leave Nova Roma, I always here the comment : " where are we after 11 years of Nova Roma, where have we reached our goals of becoming a truly sovereign republic ?" I never heard any comments asking to fulfill our role as an educational organization, although I see the tendency by some people to push us down this road.

 

Organisations and states hardly ever where build up by educators but by people working hard in a practical sense to get things done.

 

I agree though , that we are losing more people then we are able to retain, but growing on the academic front alone will not help us. We have to attract and retain citizens off all kinds by projects, involve them in building up our republic, provide them with a vision and not always start to re-event the wheel in endless discussions to no avail. If we carry on like this, I am afraid Nova Roma will not be successful and will probably not celebrate its 15th birthday.

 

Optime vale

Titus Flavius Aquila

 

 

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.

 

I would like to quote a portion of the Census Report for 2858/2005. Any emphasis, as noted by asterisks (*) is mine.

 

"What the census figures above reveal is that ***Nova Roma has had serious

problems in the past with the retention of members*** and this has

affected Nova Roma in developing in other areas as well. This has been

supported by anecdotal information received from former members during

the course of conducting the census. The former members indicated that

***the main cause for their departure was the confrontational atmosphere

on Nova Roma lists***. That cause may directly account for as many as 300

members leaving, but does not fully explain the loss of over three

thousand members over the past five years. From the limited available

information what was found is that ***42% of those who left due directly

to confrontations with other members were educators (university

professors and secondary school teachers)***. The inability to retain

educators greatly inhibits Nova Roma from fulfilling its role of being

an educational organization, and this may better explain why so many

members have left."

 

O di immortales! What are we doing? Where are we going? Does this not shock, scare, and disgust anyone besides me? We must remedy this.

 

Optime valete.

 

--

Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus

Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62030 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
C. Petronius T. Flavio s.p.d.,

> I agree though , that we are losing more people then we are able to retain,

I read that thousands people join and left Nova Roma each year.
Who can give us the number of citizens from the beginning untill today during 11 years (year by year)?

2751 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2752 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2753 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2754 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2755 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2756 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2757 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2758 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2759 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2760 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2761 : number of assidui - number of capite censi

Prospere vale.
C. Petronius Dexter
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62031 From: Titus Flavius Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: AW: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
T.Flavius C.Petronio s.p.d.
 
This information should come out of the Census. The Censors should possess this information. Although the census is not performed on a
yearly basis though.
 
The current information I have available:
Active 962 Citizens
Problem 14 Citizens
Provisional Approval 151 Citizens
Prospective (New) 9 Citizens
Prospective (Holding) 28 Citizens
Awaiting Parental Permission 90 Citizens
Resignation Nundinium 3 Citizens
Renounced citizenship 260 Citizens
Rejected by Paterfamilias 108 Citizens
Rejected by Censores 1380 Citizens
Disappeared 1619 Citizens
Deceased 10 Citizens
 
 
Concerning the citizens with assidui status, about 260.
 
 
Optime vale
Titus Flavius Aquila



Von: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 4. März 2009, 13:26:12 Uhr
Betreff: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution

C. Petronius T. Flavio s.p.d.,

> I agree though , that we are losing more people then we are able to retain,

I read that thousands people join and left Nova Roma each year.
Who can give us the number of citizens from the beginning untill today during 11 years (year by year)?

2751 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2752 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2753 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2754 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2755 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2756 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2757 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2758 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2759 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2760 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2761 : number of assidui - number of capite censi

Prospere vale.
C. Petronius Dexter


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62032 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution
Hi,
I've been an outlying onlooker since at least July 3, 2004. I want to join but I am not in agreement to paying taxes. What I would agree to is donating, and on occasion offerings when there is a financial goal to be met. The other point of contention is the Nova part of NR is questionable because for me Roma IS the ETERNAL city, it isn't time bound, is more than just a place, and is the 2nd best WAY, second only to Gesu Cristo (just ask Emperor Constantine 313 AD).

With that said, I commend you all who know and accept the Roman way as Heaven on Earth, commissioned by God to guide the world. I often say, of all the peoples of the earth God chose to allow to lead, He chose the Romans... how powerful is that!? By the way, the offerings of this online community has been enriching, entertaining, and a joy.
Quietly, contently watching,
Robin Marquardt
 

 




From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:26:12 PM
Subject: Re: WG: [Nova-Roma] We're Losing & Constitution

C. Petronius T. Flavio s.p.d.,

> I agree though , that we are losing more people then we are able to retain,

I read that thousands people join and left Nova Roma each year.
Who can give us the number of citizens from the beginning untill today during 11 years (year by year)?

2751 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2752 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2753 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2754 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2755 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2756 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2757 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2758 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2759 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2760 : number of assidui - number of capite censi
2761 : number of assidui - number of capite censi

Prospere vale.
C. Petronius Dexter


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62033 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 4
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Below are the Questions for Day 4 of the Ludi Novi Romani. Good luck!
 
Optime valete
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris
 
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
4. Refer to here for past questions in this Ludi: http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 4  (March 4th)
 
Q7. Who was the first governor of Nova Roman Italia?

Q8. When was abolished the title "province" from the name of Nova Roman Italia, and in what legal document?
 
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62034 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing & Constitution
Salve Dexter,

Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> writes:

> Who can give us the number of citizens from the beginning until
> today during 11 years (year by year)?

Nobody. I can tell you we've processed about 13,000 applications in
the past 11 years. Something over 3000 of those people held
citizenship for some amount of time. The rest were rejected for
various reasons. I can also point out that we didn't have a
distinction between assidui and capite censi for the first five years.

You can find the published census results in the archives of the
Nova-Roma list and the archives of the NovaRoma-Announce list. That's
the extent of the public information.

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62035 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Salve Ahenobarbe,

Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> writes:

[quoted material from the last census report snipped]

> O di immortales! What are we doing? Where are we going? Does this
> not shock, scare, and disgust anyone besides me?

I'm not exactly pleased by it, and I've been working for years to
correct the situation as much as I can. But we do have to work within
the framework of laws created by those who've come before us. That
takes time. It takes a lot of time when it involves getting old laws
overturned.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62036 From: Christer Edling Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Good opponents
Salvete Quirites!

I earlier wrote "Just pay attention if any of my old opponents dare to show their faces." It is easy to forget important nuances when one is upset as I am about the former/present litigation situation.

Let me just clarify that ot many of the old opponents are still active in Nova Roma and among them there are some that always have been possible to talk to and reach agreements with, among those I count Senatores Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus and Gaius Popillius Laenas, they are always reasonable. We still differ in our opinions, but will always look for a peaceful solution that benefits the Res Publica. Still we may disagree to the fullest, but never stoop to unpolite wordings and always keep the best of the Res Publica to their mind. We also often find ourselves at the same side, which is vewry good. If all opponents were as they are Nova Roma would be a better place.

Still there are opponents that I don't respect, especially those who take the Res Publica hostage using the worst sides of a litigation happy system.

*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae 
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae 





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62037 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Good opponents
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Cae. Fabio Buteoni Quintiliano omnibusque s.p.d

I hope that Quintilianus won't mind if I add a comment.

My goal with regards to interactions with other Novi Romani is this: do they have a sincere desire to see Nova Roma succeed, grow, perform its missions, and attain its goals? I have that desire. No one is perfect, but I hope we share this desire. I may disagree with the details---sometimes vehemently!---but, if I know the desire is within them, I trust in them and in the gods for a good outcome.
Now, if for some reason I do not believe they have the best interest of Nova Roma at heart, I will fight to have any power they may wield neutralized, and have any penalties imposed upon them which may be legal and appropriate (whether under internal or external laws, or both). I think there are few reasons to remove someone completely from Nova Roma ("to revoke their citizenship"), but I hold elected magistrates and senators to a higher standard, as does our law, Maine law, and as should we all.
I am a fair, balanced, and open-minded man. I do not know everything; on the contrary, I often feel as if I know little. And I have opinions, sometimes very strong ones. But I can be convinced by someone's passion, desire, and logic. Show me your desire and passion for Nova Roma and its success, and I will stand beside you, even if we disagree on the methods. But show me extreme levels of selfishness, egotism, or a hunger for power or titles, and you can expect me to stand in front of you, my face to yours, in staunch opposition.

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62038 From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?
Fl. Galerius Aurelianus s.p.d.

I do not know the will of Vesta Mater and cannot speak to Her displeasure.  I do not know if the Censores took the auspices to determine if their edictum found favor, neutrality, or disfavor with Iuppiter.  However, I trust the integrity and character of the Censores so I do not question that their edictum was issued after due deliberation. 

I can only speak to the character of Maxima Valeria Messallina; so if she reports that The Goddess in the Fire is displeased, I believe it.  Of all the members of the Sacred Colleges, only the Pontifex Maximus has the paternal authority to gainsay a Vestal.

I post this message as a single individual member of Nova Roma & not as a member of the Collegium Pontificum  I do say that Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus is my Brother and I will vindicate his opinion.

Valete.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Quid di dicunt? What Do The Gods Say?

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gnaeo Caelio Ahenobarbo salutem dicit

I have heard her words and find them very auspicious.  I too have consulted the Gods, and confirm that the Gods and Goddesses of Rome are displeased.  What she has written is true.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Pontifex, Flamen Pomonalis, et Augur

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@yahoo. com> wrote:
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.


>It is my belief that Vesta and the other Gods and Goddesses
>of Rome are severely displeased that anyone should resort to
>the use of legal force to press his will upon Nova Roma. It
>sets a dangerous precedent.
>I beg all those involved in this decision to reconsider.
>As for Sulla, his words are tarnished by his actions.
>
>So say I, Maxima Valeria Messallina, Sacerdos Vestalis of Nova Roma.

    Who hears these words? If we hear them, do we truly listen? If we listen, do we act upon their truths?
 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62039 From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Conflict resolution in NR
However, you fail to mention and I will refrain from details (as it might be violating the Senate Seal), a lot of your posts were asinine, aggravating, and annoying.  I personally found most of them to be much like shredded wheat - bland but abrasive.

Aureliane


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 6:31 pm
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Conflict resolution in NR

I explained it.

Modianus as Censor illegally removed me from the Senate. He did not
issue a Nota or an Edict. He just abused his power by removing an
adversary from the Board of Directors. He violated Maine law - where
it states, in regards to the removal of board of directors. He did
not have the support of his colleague. He just did it because he
could. He is the one that broke Maine law. He created the cause of
action and he put the other board members in jeopardy because of his
actions.

This is why I wanted a recognition of wrong doing from Modianus. He
violated his oath of office, he violated his position and
responsibility, he jeopardized the corporation and he put the board
members in financial jeopardy for his actions. He should be on trial
by the state for Treason.

Instead for the sake of Concordia I dropped the matter after being
reinstated by the Censors.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@ ...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus L. Cornelio Sullae s.p.d.
>
>
> >The Executives could have said no. NR could have retained the
> >services of an attorney; and we could have fought it out in the
> >American legal jurisdiction.
>
> I, for one, wish we had.
>
> >I would have been perfectly willing to do that. I am that confident
> >that I would prevail.
>
> You must have an airtight case, then. Would you share it with us?
>
> >However,knowing that Nova Roma is accountable to US Law and
> >Maine Law made the the issue pretty cut and dry.
>
> Absolutely, Nova Roma is accountable to those. Do you have a
specific Maine or US law which was broken with regards to you? The
Maine non-profit law isn't that long (
http://www.maineleg islature. org/legis/ statutes/ 13-B/title13- Bch0sec0. html
).
>
> >In the end the law must be followed.
>
> In this, you and I agree.
>
> >This includes Maine law and US law.
>
> It also includes Nova Roma law, which can be superseded by Maine
and US, law. Nova Roma law is binding as long as it passes the muster
of Maine nonprofit law. Remember: for better or worse, the
Constitution are our bylaws. The applicability of Nova Roma's laws is
questionable at times, but it is still binding unless struck down by
the state of Maine, for example.
>
> >Violate those laws, contradict those laws and the organization
> >and the board members will be liable.
>
> "Those laws" meaning Maine and the US.
>
> >Do not disabuse yourself to think that Nova Roma is it's own
> >country.
>
> I think no such thing. Nova Roma is a non-profit organization,
chartered under Maine and US laws, that has specific educational and
religious missions. It is not a role-playing game. It is not an online
community. It is not a sovereign nation.
>
> >It is not. It is ONLY a not for profit corporation incorporated in
the State of Maine.
>
> See above.
>
> >It has aspirations to be more than that, but the reality is simple.
It is a
> >corporation. To view it otherwise is not to accept reality.
> Now, here's the rub: I believe it is more than that. On paper,
Nova Roma is a legal organization. Yet, in our minds and hearts, it is
more, I believe. It is the reconstruction and application of Roman
culture, religion, and values, as far as can be accomplished. There
are rules---both internal and external---which have a hierarchy and
must be followed. So, let us follow them, and let us revive Roman
culture, religion, and values. Isn't that why we are all here?
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
>

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62040 From: L Julia Aquila Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Results of the February session of the Collegium Pontificum
Salvete,



>QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO
>QUIRITIBUS:

>Iulia Aquila is accepted into the Camilla Program.

>Congratulations to Julia Aquila

Thank you, I am truly honored.

Valete,

L. Julia Aquila
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62041 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

I did a quick search of this list's archive, but didn't find a reference to this. Has anyone read Suzanne Dixon's book, "Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi"? It was published in 2007. On page 64, Nova Roma is mentioned. Here is a link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ho-6vWmlAnAC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22nova+roma%22+-site:novaroma.org+-constantinople+-taint+-hotel+-motel&source=bl&ots=eRhvwlBcvE&sig=OmfA2idOVZ3FhfBV30UsnYRa6PQ&hl=en&ei=_lKvSb-eGpWksAOurPF7&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA64,M1

If Yahoo mangles that (ugh, I hate Yahoo), you can search for the book on Google Books, then search in the book for "Nova Roma", or just scroll to page 64. Or, better yet, buy her book on Amazon (THROUGH OUR LINK ON THE NOVAROMA.ORG WEBSITE, SEE http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Reading_list_for_Roman_history ) to thank her for mentioning us!
Step by step...

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62042 From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Date: 2009-03-04
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

    Et aliud! "Modern Paganism in World Cultures" by Michael Strmiska.

http://books.google.com/books?id=qx7Tvd99xVAC&pg=PA335&dq=%22nova+roma%22+-constantinople#PPA335,M1


 
--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62043 From: Q. Valerius Poplicola Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
I wonder if that was C. Minucius Felix whom they intereviewed...?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus" <cn.caelius@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:42 PM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma mentioned in a book

> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> Et aliud! "Modern Paganism in World Cultures" by Michael Strmiska.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=qx7Tvd99xVAC&pg=PA335&dq=%22nova+roma%22+-constantinople#PPA335,M1
>
>
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62044 From: livia_plauta Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
L. Livia Plauta Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

>
> I did a quick search of this list's archive, but didn't find a reference to this. Has anyone read Suzanne Dixon's book, "Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi"? It was published in 2007. On page 64, Nova Roma is mentioned. Here is a link:
>
And a very positive mention too!! We should invite her into NR.

If anyone cares to put these references into the Wikipedia article about NR, this might be the action that saves it from deletion.

Optime vale,
Livia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62045 From: M. Cocceius Firmus Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roma mentioned in a book
Salvete omnes

Thursday, March 5, 2009, 8:40:12 AM, Livia Platua wrote:

l> If anyone cares to put these references into the Wikipedia
l> article about NR, this might be the action that saves it from deletion.

Done.


--
Best regards,
M. Cocceius Firmus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62046 From: marcushoratius Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: a. d. III Nonas Martias: Isidis Navigum
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus et omnibus salute plurimam dicit: Di vos salvam et servatam volunt.

Hodie est ante diem III Nonas Martias; haec dies comitialis est: Isidis Navigium

"While searching for Lyra he will notice Leo's back suddenly sunk in limped water." ~ Ovidius Naso, Fasti 2.77-78

Ovid placed the evening setting of Leo's back on 2 February, probably after some more ancient source and not by observation. In his day it should have been a morning setting, not evening, and Leo's back would have been setting on 6 February rather than 2 February. Today, due to differences between calendars and the progression of the stars, it sets just as dawn begins, an hour before sunrise, around March fifth. For today Columella has "the Setting of Bootes and the Vindemitor." This year, instead, Arcturus in Bootes, the Vindemitor, should set just before dawn some time in late April.


Isidis Navigium

"Isis, once stalled in Phoroneus' caves, now queen of Pharos and a deity of the breathless East, welcome with the sound of many sistrums the Mareotic bark, and gently with your own hand lead the peerless youth." ~ Statius, Silvae III.2.101-4


The Navigium Isidis

The opening of the sailing season began with the Navigium Isidis. The festival recalls how Isis had set off in search of Her murdered
husband Osiris. Flower wreaths were thrown on the water as an image of Isis was brought down to the sea, as a blessing of boats and
sailors, just as today in Italy images of the Virgin Maria are brought from her temples down into boats, with garlands tossed into the Mediterranean at the beginning of sailing season. The ancient celebration occasioned a procession described for us by Apuleius in
the Metamorphosis 11 and by Clement at Alexandria in 'Stromateis' 6.4.37.1.

The procession was led by mimes, pantomimes, and dancers as might be expected in a pompa, but for this festival it seems that the
pantomimes satirized Greek myths. In Apuleius' account there was a man dressed as woman, probably recalling when Hercules served the Queen of the Amazons. Others were dressed in various professions as hunters, fishermen, soldiers, fowlers, philosophers, magistrates, and gladiators. They were not really part of the procession so much as they were members of the crowd joining in the celebration as at Carnival. Along with them others carried a bear, dressed as a matron, in a litter; a monkey was dressed as Ganymede; Pegasus was represented by a donkey fitted with false wings, beside whom walked an aged Bellerophon. Tertullianus gives a list of popular mimes of his day, which would seem related to the costumed revelers that Apuleius tells us preceded his fictional procession of Isis. "Anubis Adulterer, Mr. Moon, Diana Flogged, Jove's Last Testament, and as a comedy, Three Hungry Hercules (Ad. Nat. 15)." Such descriptions do not tell us anything about the Isiac cultus. Instead they represent popular entertainments as might be seen in conjunction with any festival. Even Tertullianus' mention of a skit portraying Anubis does not relate specifically to a Isiac festival but might be presented at the festival of any deity.

The procession proper followed with maidens dressed in white, crowned with flowers, "moved with symbolic gestures of delight," some strew flowers from their aprons, others, carrying mirrors and combs, mimicked dressing Isis' hair, and still others sprinkled the streets with perfumes. Then hosts of men and women followed in groups, those of each group carrying lanterns, or torches, candles, or lamps "in honor of Her who was begotten of the Stars of Heaven." Musicians and choirs followed. Heralds called out, "Make way for the Goddess!" These in turn were followed by those newly initiated into the Mysteries of Isis. All were dressed in white and each bore sistra of bronze, gold, or silver; the women with their hair loosened down, anointed, and covered in silk hoods, the men with the bare heads clean shaven in the fashion of Egyptian priests.

The ministers followed next, each carrying a symbolic attribute. First came the Lychnophoros, who held a golden lamp made in the shape of a boat. This lamp he held high to represent Serapis-Helios. Second came the Cantor, a priest bearing in his hands models of
altars and who recited the first two books of Thoth concerning the hymns to the Gods and Goddesses and the rules of the Royal Life.
Third then was the Astrologer holding a golden palm leaf, an hourglass, and caduceus, reciting the next four books of Thoth that
dealt with the fixed stars, the movement of the planets, conjunctions of the sun and moon, and finally one on the risings of the sun and
moon. Fourth came the Stolist bearing the Hand of Justice and a small golden bowl shaped like a breast from which he poured libations of milk. The Scribe, found in Clement's description but not with Apuleius, wore plumes, carried a ruler across a book along with a palette, ink and reed. He recited the books on hieroglyphs, cosmology, geography, course of the sun and moon, phases of the
planets, charts of the Nile River and on sacred measurements. A fifth priest held a golden winnowing fan, representing the basket in
which Isis placed the mutilated limbs of Osiris. This priest probably rectired the six remaining books of Thoth on the structure of the body, its diseases, and remedies. Lastly came a priest bearing the amphora, or the hydria of the Prophet. Images of the Egyptian Gods, or men dressed in masks, came next, representing Anubis, Hathor, a cistophorus carrying a basket or chest "that contained the Secret Things of Her unutterable Mysteries," and then the one who bore "a symbol inexpressible of the true religion that should be veiled in Deep Silence." This representation of Isis Apuleius described as a golden urn with rounded bottom, having a spout on one side, a handle on the other crested by the asp. The empty vessel, or the vessel from which sprout flowers, has long been the symbol of Goddesses, such as Juno, and is still seen in the symbolism of Christian art. Bringing up the rear, just as in Catholic ritual, was the high priest of Isis who, according to Apuleius, bore a sistrum and a crown of roses.

The procession came down to the docks, where a brand-new boat waited. The high priest purified the boat with sulfur, a torch, and
an egg, while reciting solemn prayers. Its keel was made of citron wood, its prow, curved in the form of a goose-neck was covered in
gold plates, its mat was made of a tall pine, on which white silk sails were embroidered in gold thread with hymns in praise of Isis.
The boat was laden with offerings, fuming incense, libations of milk, cinnamon, myrrh, cassia, and other herbs and spices of the orient. The mooring ropes were then cut, the boat sent off adrift, the crowds sending offerings of flowers after it, "winnowing fans piled with aromatic scents and other such offerings, and threw libations of milk mixed with crumbs of bread into the sea, until the ship, cargoed with plentiful gifts and auspicious devotions, Â… sailed out of sight into the distance of her course."

Returning then to the temple, the high priest and his servers replaced all of the sacred articles to their places. The Scribe, or
Hierogrammatos, crowned by two plumes, called the pastophori to him and read from a sacred book the vows annually made to Isis on behalf of the Emperor, the Senate, the Equestrians and Roman people, "and sailors and ships which come under the jurisdiction of Rome." Then, in Greek, rather than Egyptian, as the cultus of Isis and Serapis was Greek, the Scribe announced the opening of the sailing season (Ploiaphesia) with the words "Laois aphesis." He turned, climbing the steps to the sanctuary where he adorned the silver image of Isis with flowers and green fronds, and kissed Her feet before dismissing the gathered multitude. These returned to their homes carrying boughs of olive leaves and other wreaths, crowned in garlands of flowers, and as they filed pass, they too would kiss the feet of the silver image of Isis.


Today's thought is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.32

"You must compose your life act by every single act; and be satisfied if every action does its duty, achieves its own end, as far as is
possible; and no one can prevent thee from that achievement. "But something external will stand in the way." Nothing will stand in the
way of thy acting justly and soberly and considerately. "But perhaps some other active power will be hindered." Well, gladly accept the obstruction as it is, by acquiescing in the hindrance and by being content to a judicious transfer of thy efforts to that which is
allowed, another opportunity of action is immediately put before thee in place of that which was hindered, and one which will adapt itself to the composition of your life as discussed."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62047 From: M. Lucretius Agricola Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Re: We're Losing
Good for you! We are getting some serious people doing important work on our website, and I hope you'll be one of them.

Everyone should keep in mind that the Main List is not Nova Roma and that a lot of people are doing good work on different projects while keeping a low profile.

M. Lucr. Agricola


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Well, I am not surprised. I'm one of those who disappeared long ago and returned recently, and I see the same kind of bickering, but with new faces. This time, now that I'm a classics grad student, I've decided to carve out my own little academic space in the Sodalitas Graeciae and begin posting serious work. Others should do the same.
>
> -M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.
> >
> > I would like to quote a portion of the Census Report for 2858/2005. Any emphasis, as noted by asterisks (*) is mine.
> >
> > "What the census figures above reveal is that ***Nova Roma has had serious
> > problems in the past with the retention of members*** and this has
> > affected Nova Roma in developing in other areas as well. This has been
> > supported by anecdotal information received from former members during
> > the course of conducting the census. The former members indicated that
> > ***the main cause for their departure was the confrontational atmosphere
> > on Nova Roma lists***. That cause may directly account for as many as 300
> > members leaving, but does not fully explain the loss of over three
> > thousand members over the past five years. From the limited available
> > information what was found is that ***42% of those who left due directly
> > to confrontations with other members were educators (university
> > professors and secondary school teachers)***. The inability to retain
> > educators greatly inhibits Nova Roma from fulfilling its role of being
> > an educational organization, and this may better explain why so many
> > members have left."
> >
> > O di immortales! What are we doing? Where are we going? Does this not shock, scare, and disgust anyone besides me? We must remedy this.
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> > http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 62048 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2009-03-05
Subject: Ludi Novi Romani - Day 5
Cn. Iulius Caesar aedilis curulis, omnibus Quiritibus sal.
 
Below are the Questions for Day 5 of the Ludi Novi Romani. Good luck!
 
Optime valete
 
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Aedilis Curulis
Senator
Legatus pro praetore Canada Ulterioris
 
 
RULES:
 
1. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. An extra point may be awarded for an especially detailed and excellent answer.
2. Answers are to be sent to my e-mail address ( 
gn_iulius_caesar@... ) before 6.00 am MT - Mountain Time (GMT -7hrs / CET -8hrs) the day following the posting of the questions.
3. My decision is final in interpreting what is and what isn't a correct answer.
4. Refer to here for past questions in this Ludi: http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani
 
QUESTIONS - DAY 5  (March 5th)
 
Q9.  What were the original FULL names of A. Tullia Scholastica and M. Hortensia Maior?

Q10. What was the so called "Gens Reform" in Nova Roma that resulted in significant changes?